Loading...
10-07-14 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, October 7, 2014 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber CITY COUNCIL 3:00 PM STUDY SESSION - Special Meeting 3:00 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber ROLL CALL 1.Subject: Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report and comments on the Final EIR. This is a study session and no action is required at this time. Description: Application No(s): GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01, MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-03); Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide Discussion of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment, Housing Element update and associated rezoning; General Plan Amendment to establish Citywide development allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential uses and development parameters for key study areas (including the Vallco Shopping District); General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Housing Element as required by State Law; Rezoning of certain parcels in conjunction with the Citywide General Plan Amendment; Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to maximum residential yield calculations and an updated map to conform to the General Plan; Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law and the Housing Element of the General Plan and other zoning code amendments for clean-up and consistency Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 1 October 7, 2014City Council AGENDA Staff Report A - Link to Draft EIR B - Link to Responses to Comments C - Errata #1, Supplemental Text Revisions, 10-1-2014 D - Planning Commission Staff Report 9-9-2014 E - Transportation Effects of BRT 3-29-2014 F - Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications G - Late Comments Memo from PlaceWorks 9-3-2014 H - Late Comments memo updated from PlaceWorks 9-30-2014 CLOSED SESSION - Special Meeting 5:00 PM 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A ROLL CALL 2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: One Case 3.Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957): City Manager PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Regular Meeting 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 4.Subject: Present Proclamation to Diana Khoury, owner of The Original Pancake House Recommended Action: Present Proclamation 5.Subject: Present Proclamation to the Cupertino Library Foundation for #LoveYourLibrary Month and #GivingTuesday Recommended Action: Present Proclamation POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2 October 7, 2014City Council AGENDA on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 6.Subject: Approve the September 2 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes 7.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 29, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-195 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 29, 2014. A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 8.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 5, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-196 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending September 5, 2014 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 9.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 12, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-197 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending September 12, 2014 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 10.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 19, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-198 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending September 19, 2014 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 11.Subject: Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J and K (November 4, 2014) Recommended Action: Accept Legislative Committee recommendation to support the FUHSD Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J, and New Bond, Measure K for the November 4, 2014 General Election Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 3 October 7, 2014City Council AGENDA Staff Report A - Summary FUHSD Measure J B - Summary FUHSD Measure K C - FUHSD Fact Sheet 12.Subject: Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney Recommended Action: Approve the Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney Staff Report A1 - Redlined - Second Amendment to Contract A2 - Clean - Second Amendment to Contract 13.Subject: Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015 Recommended Action: Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015 Staff Report 14.Subject: Fee waiver request from the League of Women Voters of Cupertino - Sunnyvale for $180 facility use fee for the Community Hall on October 13, 2014 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the Cupertino Union School District Board of Trustees and on October 16, 2014 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the City of Cupertino City Council. Recommended Action: Approve the fee waiver request for both events in Community Hall. Staff Report A - LOWV Letter 15.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Viva Thai Bistro, 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Recommend approval of application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Viva Thai Bistro, 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard Staff Report A - Application 16.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Bob's Discount Liquor Store, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F Recommended Action: Recommend approval for Alcoholic Beverage License for Bob's Discount Liquor Store, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F Staff Report A - Application 17.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Elephant Bar Restaurant, 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO 4 October 7, 2014City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Alcoholic Beverage License for Elephant Bar Restaurant, 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard Staff Report A - Application 18.Subject: Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Project, No. 2014-06 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Valentine Corporation in the amount of $188,369; and approve a construction contingency of $20,000 for a total of $208,369. Staff Report A - Draft Contract SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 19.Subject: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags. Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 14-2122: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to the regulation of single-use carryout bags,” to cap the required minimum charge for recycled paper bags at ten cents and eliminate a future increase to twenty-five cents per bag. Staff Report A - Redline Ordinance B - Amended Ordinance C - Addendum to Final Program EIR PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 20.Subject: Conversion of interim Associate Civil Engineer position to a permanent position and a three-and-a-half-year extension to interim Associate Planner position. Recommended Action: Authorize 1) the conversion of the two-year limited-term Associate Civil Engineer in the Public Works Development Services Division to a permanent position, and 2) the extension of the current interim planner position to an additional three-and-a-half-year term. Staff Report 21.Subject: Set application deadline and interview dates for commissions with terms expiring January 30, 2015. Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO 5 October 7, 2014City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: Approve an application deadline of Friday, January 16 and interview dates of Monday, January 26 and Tuesday, January 27 beginning at 5:00 p.m. on both days. Staff Report A - Appointments List 22.Subject: Approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing Councilmember call for review Recommended Action: Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2123: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 to include Section 2.08.145 relating to call for review" Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 23.Subject: Present Construction Project Update Report Recommended Action: Receive Project Update Report ADJOURNMENT Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO 6 October 7, 2014City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0332 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Approved File created:In control:7/14/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Link to Draft EIR B - Link to Responses to Comments C - Errata #1, Supplemental Text Revisions, 10-1-2014 D - Planning Commission Staff Report 9-9-2014 E - Transportation Effects of BRT 3-29-2014 F - Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications G - Late Comments Memo from PlaceWorks 9-3-2014 H - Late Comments memo updated from PlaceWorks 9-30-2014 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilreceivethisreportandcommentsontheFinalEIR. This is a study session and no action is required at this time. Description: Application No(s): GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01, MCA -2014-01 (EA-2013-03); Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide Discussion of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment, Housing Element update and associated rezoning; General Plan Amendment to establish Citywide development allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential uses and development parameters for key study areas (including the Vallco Shopping District); General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Housing Element as required by State Law; Rezoningof certain parcels in conjunction with the Citywide General Plan Amendment; Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to maximum residential yield calculations and an updated map to conform to the General Plan; Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law and the Housing Element of the General Plan and other zoning code amendments for clean-up and consistency CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Application: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01, Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013- 03); Applicant: City of Cupertino; Property Location: City-wide Subject Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report and comments on the Final EIR. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR published in June 2014 (Attachment A), the Response to Comments (RTC) Document, published in August 2014 (Attachment B), and the Errata memo No. 1 (Attachment C). This is a study session and no action is required at this time. Background On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate replenishing citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocation. During the same time frame, several property owners, including some owners within the Vallco Shopping District, approached the City about potential General Plan amendments to allow future development of their properties. In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, in early 2013, the City Council directed staff to combine these individual requests into one comprehensive General Plan Amendment. In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan, identifies appropriate locations and policies for future housing in Cupertino. The City Council decided to combine the Housing Element Update process with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss mobility, urban design, economic development, and housing options in one comprehensive outreach and planning process. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 9 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014 Page 2 The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussions and input provided during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions, and through online comment forms and surveys. The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000- 2020 General Plan. Environmental Impact Report The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have discretionary authority. A Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision‐making process. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the environmental effects, along with other factors. The Planning Commission had a study session on September 9, 2014. The attached staff report (Attachment D) provides additional details on the EIR and the land use alternatives studied. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the General Plan goals, policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005. Discussion Planning Commission Study Session At the Planning Commission Study Session, commissioners and members of the public asked questions and requested clarification as follows: Planning Commission  Number of alternatives studied in the EIR and which alternative was the Environmentally Superior Alternative: It was clarified that the EIR provided an analysis of four alternatives; 1) Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C, which was the proposed Project under CEQA, and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The EIR identified the No Project Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative; however, as required by CEQA when the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, another alternative must be selected. Accordingly, Alternative A, which would consume the fewest resources and result in the least amount of development when compared to Alternatives B and C, was chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.  Alternative C vs. “Preferred Project”: Clarification was requested on the difference between Alternative C and “Preferred Project.” It was clarified that Alternative C was not to be the “preferred project” of the City, but rather it was the alternative that was selected to be studied in the EIR as the proposed Project because it represented the most intensive development. It was clarified that the term “preferred project” is a term-of-art when preparing program-level EIR’s and only means it is the project studied in the EIR; it does not mean it has been pre-determined to be the approved plan. When the Commission and 10 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014 Page 3 the Council consider which alternative to select, the EIR only represents one factor to consider. Other potential factors that may determine which alternative to select include economic impacts, social and community benefits, jobs and housing etc.  RHNA vs. recommended housing units: Clarification was requested on the number of housing units required by the RHNA (i.e. 1,064 units) versus the number of housing units recommended for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element. It was clarified that the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) typically recommends 40 percent over the required RHNA for the current planning period. Since there have been entitlements for 62 units in this planning period, the City’s remaining RHNA is 1002. Therefore, it is being recommended that the City select sites with a total capacity of approximately 1,400 units.  Mitigation: Staff clarified the term “mitigation” meaning that the impact would be reduced to the acceptable threshold for that particular impact. Where the impact is not brought below the acceptable threshold, the term “significant and unavoidable” is used to show the impact will remain even when mitigation is applied.  Plan Bay Area: Clarification requested on whether Plan Bay Area is a controlling document. The Plan Bay Area is the long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Staff clarified that the RHNA is the only regulatory portion of the Plan Bay Area.  Number of Housing Units by Alternative: Clarification on the number of housing units considered in each of the alternatives was requested. Staff clarified that both the No Project Alternative and Alternative A represent no change to the existing housing units development allocation in the current 2020 General Plan. Alternatives B and C respond to the Plan Bay Area. The selection of housing sites in each alternative represent gradations of what is ultimately required by 2040, which spans a time-period comprised of three Housing Element cycles. Alternative B represents 75 percent (or a total of 3,601 units) and Alternative C represents 100 percent (or a total of 4,421 units) of the Housing Element sites required through 2040,  Traffic Analysis: Clarification on the traffic study prepared for the EIR, what would happen if there are errors in the traffic study, whether the TIA considered the longer commute patterns from regionally generated traffic volumes and whether the VTA model extends to 2040. Staff clarified that the traffic study has been prepared to forecast traffic impacts accurately using the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines for how to prepare traffic studies. Staff clarified that the traffic model applied is the VTA standard model that includes regional traffic in the communities that contribute to traffic in Cupertino and extends to 2040. The VTA approved methodology is the standard for all projects in Cupertino and the surrounding communities, which ensures consistency in assessing traffic impacts in the region. 11 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014 Page 4  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): A questions regarding the status of the BRT project was posed. Staff clarified the BRT project is not considered in the EIR and when proposed by the VTA, any changes to the City’s right-of-way would need the City’s approval. At this time, no proposal has been brought to the City to consider. However, a separate memo has been prepared reviewing the impacts of a dedicated bus lane for BRT (see Attachment E).  Sewer Capacity: Information was requested on the sewer capacity. It was clarified that sewer capacity is not a physical impact, but the contractual limit on what has been purchased from the San Jose/Santa Clara Treatment Plant. The contractual limit could be reached many years into the buildout of the proposed Project and in the meantime it is quite possible that ongoing measures, including water conservation and green building practices would continue reducing the sewer generation rates studied in the EIR.  Air Quality: Clarification was requested on whether the long-term horizon analyzed in the traffic impact analysis (TIA) considered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) trends and mandates with regard to fuel economy is factored into the TIA. Staff clarified the EPA standards are factored into the air quality model and not the traffic model. Assumptions regarding cleaner fuel-burning cars and more cars are considered in the long-term air quality emissions projections.  HCD Review Timelines: Clarification on the deadlines and timelines for the Project regarding HCD review was requested. The deadline for the Housing Element is January 31, 2015 and there is a 120-day grace period; therefore, the City must have an adopted Housing Element by May 31, 2015. HCD is allowed a 60-day review period to review the Housing Element. For the City to have adequate time, the draft Housing Element must be sent to HCD by November.  Adequate Sites for the Housing Element: Clarification was requested on what would happen if HCD determines that the sites selected do not meet HCD criteria. It was explained that the list of potential housing element sites has been selected using both HCD and City criteria. The importance of submitting the draft Housing Element to HCD early was stressed, since the dialogue regarding adequate housing sites will commence between the City and HCD during the 60-day review period. More sites than necessary to accommodate the RHNA have been identified, which will help facilitate the dialogue with HCD.  Schools: Clarification on why the EIR concludes that overcrowding in schools can be alleviated through the construction of additional floors (building up), and how impact fees can be used by the school. It was also noted the schools are currently at capacity and the student generation is based on high-density housing. Staff clarified that the school districts are going to prepare a facilities plan for ongoing long-range planning. Schools constantly work on plans to alleviate overcrowding such as moving students between schools and consolidating programs as short term solutions and to avoid redistricting. The school impact fees, which are set by the schools and the state, can be applied to new facilities, but not to operations. Staff clarified that the data used to prepare the school impact analysis is from the school’s demographer and the housing sites and unit types are in synch with the district’s projections. However, the City cannot dictate how the impact fees are used or 12 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014 Page 5 make land use decisions based on impacts to schools since the impact fee is intended to mitigate school impacts (See Attachment F).  Public Comment: The role of public comment in the decision making process for the project was discussed. Staff clarified that the study session was about the EIR. All comments on the environmental impacts have been addressed in the Response to Comments document and late comments memo dated 3 September, 2014 (Attachment G) and late comments memo update dated 30 September, 2014 (Attachment H). Comments on the merits of proposed Project will be addressed separately prior to public hearings on the project.  Baseline: Clarification on the baseline for the buildout numbers described in the proposed Project with respect to development that is currently underway was sought. It was clarified that the development that is currently underway is part of what has already been analyzed in the 2020 General Plan and the buildout projections of the proposed Project are set at the time the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Project was issued (i.e. March 5, 2014). Staff maintains a current list of development allocation which tracks what is approved and what has been developed.  Impact Analysis: It was noted that all of the environmental impact conclusions are the same, but the impacts vary by degrees based on the level of development analyzed in each alternative. Staff confirmed this is correct.  Errors and Omissions: A missing footnote was identified. This has been included in the Supplemental Text Revisions of the Final EIR memo (see Attachment C).  Buildout Projections: Clarification on the differing build out numbers in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR was sought. Staff clarified that persons per household rate used in ABAG projections varies in 5 year increments, which is different than the single 2040 rate used in the EIR. Members of the Public  Traffic – Concerns were expressed by a speaker about existing traffic and increased traffic anticipated as part of the Alternatives studied in the EIR. The speaker expressed a preference for the No Project alternative or Alternative A.  Heart of the City – One speaker requested that the Heart of the City be maintained and respected. Another speaker expressed concerns about development on the eastern part of the city and recommended that there should be a citywide distribution to reduce impacts. Staff clarified that sites brought forward by applicants and during the community process were all reviewed; however, the sites on the western side of the city alone either did not meet the criteria or would not be able to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) required by the State.  Schools - There was also a comment made that school sites should be identified. Staff clarified that developments will be required to pay a school impact fee set by each school district. However, sites would have to be acquired by school districts through their facility planning process. 13 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014 Page 6  North Vallco - A representative from Apple Inc., requested that future development adjacent to Apple Campus be considerate of their needs related to security, privacy, and traffic. He clarified that they are working closely with the Irvine Company regarding the adjacent Hamptons site. A representative from the Irvine Company stated they are cooperating with Apple on the redevelopment of the Hamptons site and would not be opposed to reduced heights directly adjacent to the Apple campus. She clarified students generated from any potential project on their site would be in the Santa Clara Unified School District and they are working with the District on possible mitigations.  Regional Plans – concerns were expressed about the Plan Bay Area, the regional Bay Area document prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). A resident felt that it was not a good fit for Cupertino and that the document looked too far into the future. In addition, a resident noted that she did not support the Bus Rapid Transit dedicated lanes because they would cause more delays in traffic. Staff would like to note that the General Plan and Housing Element updates do not include dedicated Bus Rapid Transit lanes since the project has not been approved. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is working on this as a potential future project but has not presented any plans to the City. The project is not being reviewed at this time by the City and would require the participation and consent of the City. Response to Comments and Text Revisions Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period on August 1, 2014. While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the public review period, staff will continue to provide responses to these comments. As of September 30, 2014, eleven comment letters were received. The comment letters received after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft EIR (see Attachments G & H.) Supplemental Text Revisions Following the publication of the RTC document on August 28, 2014, supplemental text revisions to clarify text in the Draft EIR have been made. These supplemental revisions are provided in the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report Errata No. 1. (See Attachment C) These revisions do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. The Draft EIR, the RTC document and Errata No. 1 together are considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project. Because no new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project were identified after circulation of the Draft EIR, recirculation of the EIR is not required. 14 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning October 7, 2014 Page 7 Next Steps The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) will review and make a recommendation for the EIR for the project on October 2, 2014. The ERC recommendation will be provided to the City Council at the October 7, 2014 EIR Study Session, and to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing on October 14, 2014. The Final EIR and General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project including zoning text amendments and Specific Plan Amendments will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on October 14, 2014. The City Council’s review on the certification of the EIR, General Plan Amendment, 2014-2022 Housing Element, and associated rezoning is expected to be on November 3, 2014, and the second reading related to the rezoning is expected to be on November 18, 2014. _______________________________ Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Attachments: A – General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 18, 2014 B – General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document, August 29, 2014 C – Errata No. 1: Supplemental Text Revisions, October 1, 2014 D – Planning Commission Staff Report, September 9, 2014 E – Transportation Effects of BRT, March 29, 2014 F – Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications G – Late Comments Memo from PlaceWorks, September 3, 2014 H – Late Comments Memo Updated from PlaceWorks, September 30, 2014 15 Please use this link to view the Draft Environmental Impact Report Draft EIR Please use this link to view the Responses to Comments Responses to Comments MEMORANDUM DATE October 1, 2014  TO Piu Ghosh  FROM Steve Noack and Terri McCracken  SUBJECT Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update  and Assoicated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)  This memorandum describes changes made to the text of the General Plan Amendment, Housing  Element Update and Associated Rezoning Project Final EIR.  The Final EIR is comprised of the June 18,  2014 Draft EIR and the August 28, 2014 Response to Comments document.   As shown in Table 1, Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR, the revisions include These text  revisions include typographical corrections, insignificant modification, amplifications and clarifications  of the EIR.  These changes do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute  new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Final EIR as  defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.  Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been  deleted from the EIR.  18   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 2  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e Ch a p t e r  1:  In t r o d u c t i o n   1‐1  Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t   Th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  is  cu r r e n t l y  un d e r t a k i n g  a co m m u n i t y ‐ba s e d  pl a n n i n g  pr o c e s s  to  re v i e w  la n d  us e  al t e r n a t i v e s  as part of a focused  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  Am e n d m e n t .  Pr o p o s e d  al t e r n a t i v e s  in c l u d e  op t i o n s  fo r  ci t y ‐wi d e  de v e l o p m e n t  al l o c a t i o n s  (o f f i c e ,  commercial, hotel, and  re s i d e n t i a l ) ,  as  we l l  as  bu i l d i n g  he i g h t s  an d  de n s i t i e s  fo r  fi v e  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s  al o n g  ma jo r  tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  co r r i d o r s ,  where Gateways and  No d e s  ha v e  be e n  id e n t i f i e d ,  se v e n  St u d y  Ar e a s ,  an d  Ot h e r  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s  in c l u d i n g  Ne i g h b o r h o o d s  an d  No n ‐re s i d e n t i a l / M i x e d  Use Special  Ar e a s .  Th e s e  Pr o j e c t  Co m p o n e n t  lo c a t i o n s  ar e  sh o w n  in  Ch a p t e r  3,  Pr o j e c t  De s c r i p t i o n ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R  on  Fi g u r e s  3‐43‐5, 3‐103‐11, and  3‐19 ,  re s p e c t i v e l y .   Ch a p t e r  2:  Ex e c u t i v e  Su m m a r y   2‐3 an d    2‐4  Su m m a r y  of   Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t   Th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  ha s  un d e r t a k e n  a co m m u n i t y ‐ba s e d  pl a n n i n g  pr o c e s s  to  re v i e w  la n d  us e  al t e r n a t i v e s  as  pa r t  of a focused General  Pl a n  Am e n d m e n t .  Pr o p o s e d  al t e r n a t i v e s  in c l u d e  op t i o n s  fo r  ci t y ‐wi d e  de v e l o p m e n t  al l o c a t i o n s  (o f f i c e ,  co m m e r c i a l ,  hotel, and residential),  as  we l l  as  bu i l d i n g  he i g h t s  an d  de n s i t i e s  fo r  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s  al o n g  ma jo r  tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  co r r i d o r s ,  wh e r e  Ga t e w a y s / N o d e s  have been  id e n t i f i e d ,  se v e n  St u d y  Ar e a s ,  an d  Ot h e r  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s  in c l u d i n g  Re s i d e n t i a l  an d  No n ‐Re s i d e n t i a l / M i x e d ‐Us e  Sp e c i a l  Areas. These Project  Co m p o n e n t  lo c a t i o n s  ar e  sh o w n  in  Ch a p t e r  3,  Pr o j e c t  De s c r i p t i o n ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R  on  Fi g u r e s  3‐43 ‐5,  3‐10 3 ‐11  and 3‐19, respectively. The  pr o p o s e d  la n d  us e  al t e r n a t i v e s  an d  ch a n g e s  to  th e  go a l s ,  po l i c i e s  an d  st r a t e g i e s  wo u l d  re q u i r e  am e n d m e n t s  to  the City of Cupertino 2000‐ 20 2 0  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  ad o p t e d  by  th e  Ci t y  Co u n c i l  on  No v e m b e r  15 ,  20 0 5 .   2‐5  Al t e r n a t i v e s  to  th e   Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t    TAB L E  2‐1  ALT E R N A T I V E S  DEV E L O P M E N T  ALL O C A T I O N S  COM P A R I S O N  SUM M A R Y   Ca t e g o r y   Pr o p o s e d    Pr o j e c t a  No    Pr o j e c t b  La n d  Us e    Al t e r n a t i v e  A  Land Use  Alternative B  Of f i c e   4, 0 4 0 , 2 3 1  sf   54 0 , 2 3 1  sf   1, 0 4 0 , 2 3 1  sf   2,540,231 sf  Co m m e r c i a l c  1, 3 4 3 , 6 7 9  sf   70 1 , 4 1 3  sf   70 1 , 4 1 3  sf   1,343,679 sf  Ho t e l   1, 3 3 9  ro o m s   33 9  ro o m s   60 0  ro o m s   839 rooms  Re s i d e n t i a l   4, 4 2 1  un i t s   1, 8 9 5  un i t s   1, 8 9 5  un i t s   3,316 units  No t e :  sf  = sq u a r e  fe e t   a.  Th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  re p r e s e n t s  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  C.   19   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 3  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e b.  No  Pr o j e c t  re p r e s e n t s  re m a i n i n g  de v e l o p m e n t  al l o c a t i o n  un d e r  th e  ex i s t i n g  20 0 5  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n .   c.  Re f l e c t s  th e  re d e v e l o p m e n t  of  Va l l c o  Ma l l  (1 , 2 6 7 , 6 0 1  sf )  wi t h  62 5 , 3 3 5  sf  re s e r v e d  fo r  th e  Va l l c o  Ma l l  an d  th e  re m a i n i n g  64 2 , 2 6 6  sf  re a l l o c a t e d  to other areas in  th e  Ci t y .    So u r c e :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o .   Ch a p t e r  3:  Pr o j e c t  De s c r i p t i o n  of  th e  Dr a f t  EI R   3‐61   Mo n t a  Vi s t a  Vi l l a g e   Ne i g h b o r h o o d   Th e  Mo n t a  Vi s t a  Vi l l a g e  Ne i g h b o r h o o d  wa s  a fa r m i n g  an d  se c o n d  ho m e  co m m u n i t y  si n c e  th e  la t e r  18 0 0 s  an d  is  now a residential,  co m m e r c i a l ,  an d  in d u s t r i a l  ne i g h b o r h o o d .  As  sh o w n  on  Fi g u r e  3‐19 ,  th i s  ne i g h b o r h o o d  is  ce n t r a l l y  lo c a t e d  in  Cu p e r t i n o .  As shown in Table  3‐17 ,  th e r e  is  no  re m a i n i n g  de v e l o p m e n t  al l o c a t i o n  fo r  of f i c e  sp a c e or  ho t e l  ro o m s ;  ho w e v e r ,  th e r e  is  co m m e r c i a l  allocation of 5,784  sq u a r e  fe e t  an d  re s i d e n t i a l  al l o c a t i o n  fo r  up  to  94 7 4  un i t s  at  12  du / a c .  Th e  ma x i m u m  he i g h t  in  th i s  ne i g h b o r h o o d  is 30 feet.  3‐80   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  5 (G l e n b r o o k   Ap a r t m e n t s )   Un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  th e r e  wo u l d  be  no  ch a n g e s  to  th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  la n d  us e  de s i g n a t i o n ,  zo n i n g ,  or  de n s i t y .  As shown in Table 3‐ 21 ,  fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  re s u l t  in  up  to  93  ne w  re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s  ad d e d  to  th e  existing 517 units, for a  to t a l  of  61 0  un i t s .   3‐82   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  6 (T h e  Vi l l a g e s   Ap a r t m e n t s )   Un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  th e r e  wo u l d  be  no  ch a n g e s  to  th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  la n d  us e  de s i g n a t i o n ,  zo n i n g ,  or  de n s i t y .  As shown in Table 3‐ 21 ,  fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  re s u l t  in  up  to  62  ne t  re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s  ad d e d  to  th e  ex i s t ing 468 units, for a total  of  53 0  un i t s .   3‐90   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  6 (T h e  Vi l l a g e s   Ap a r t m e n t s )   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  3‐21 ,  fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  re s u l t  in  up  to  82 0  ne t  re s i d e n t i a l  units added to the  ex i s t i n g  34 2  un i t s ,  fo r  a to t a l  of  1, 1 6 2  un i t s .   Ch a p t e r  4. 1 :  Ae s t h e t i c s   4. 1 ‐8  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s    al o n g  Ma j o r   Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n   Co r r i d o r s  In c l u d i n g   Ga t e w a y s  an d   No d e s   Th e  fi v e  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s ,  in c l u d i n g  th e  Ga t e w a y s /  No d e s  re p r e s e n t  ke y  lo c a t i o n s  in  th e  ci t y  wh e r e  in t e n s i f i e d  de v e l o p m e n t  could occur under  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t .  Th e  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s  ar e  sh o w n  on  Fi g u r e  3‐43 ‐5,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R .  Th e  Sp e c i a l  Ar ea s  in c l u d e  major arterials in the city,  ne a r  fr e e w a y s ,  ca p t u r i n g  th e  Cu p e r t i n o ’ s  mo s t  cu l t u r a l  an d  ec o n o m i c  co r e s .  Th e  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a s  al s o  in c l u d e s  a va r i e t y  of uses, including  of f i c e ,  co m m e r c i a l ,  in d u s t r i a l ,  an d  re s i d e n t i a l .   20   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 4  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e Ch a p t e r  4. 2 :  Ai r  Qu a l i t y   4. 2 ‐16   Ex i s t i n g  Am b i e n t  Ai r   Qu a l i t y   Ex i s t i n g  le v e l s  of  am b i e n t  ai r  qu a l i t y  an d  hi s t o r i c a l  tr e n d s  an d  pr o j e c t i o n s  in  th e  vi c i n i t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  ha v e  be e n  documented by  me a s u r e m e n t s  ma d e  by  th e  BA A Q M D .  In  ad d i t i o n  to  24  pe r m a n e n t  mo n i t o r i n g  st a t i o n s  lo c a t e d  ar o u n d  th e  Ba y  Area, BAAQMD has a  sp e c i a l  mo n i t o r i n g  st a t i o n  lo c a t e d  in  Cu p e r t i n o  at  th e  Mo n t a  Vi s t a  Pa r k  on  Fo o t h i l l  Bo u l e v a r d .  Th i s  Sp e c i a l  Pu r p o s e  Monitoring Station  st a r t e d  op e r a t i n g  in  Se p t e m b e r  20 1 0 .  Th e r e f o r e ,  fo r  ye a r s  pr i o r  to  20 1 0 ,  da t a  fr o m  th e  Sa n  Jo s e  Ja c k s o n  St r e e t  Monitoring Station was  us e d  in  th i s  an a l y s i s .  Da t a  fr o m  th e s e  st a t i o n s  ar e  su m m a r i z e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐4.  Th e  da t a  sh o w  oc c a s i on a l  vi o l a t i o n s  of the State and federal  O3 st a n d a r d s .  Th e  fe d e r a l  PM 2 . 5  st a n d a r d s  ha v e  be e n  ex c e e d e d  on  fi v e  da y s ,  an d  st a t e  PM 10  st a n d a r d s  ha v e  be e n  exceeded once on one  da y ,  wi t h i n  th e  la s t  fi v e  ye a r s .  Th e  St a t e  an d  fe d e r a l  CO  an d  NO 2  st a n d a r d s  ha v e  no t  be e n  ex c e e d e d  in  th e  la s t  fi v e  years in the vicinity of  th e  ci t y .   4. 2 ‐65   Si t i n g  Ne w  Od o r   So u r c e s   Bu i l d o u t  pe r m i t t e d  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  in c l u d e  ne w  so u r c e s  of  od o r s ,  su c h  as  co m p o s t i n g ,  gr e e n w a s t e ,  and recycling  op e r a t i o n s ;  fo o d  pr o c e s s i n g ;  ch e m i c a l  ma n u f a c t u r i n g ;  an d  pa i n t i n g / c o a t i n g  op e r a t i o n s ,  be c a u s e  th e s e  ar e  pe r m i t t e d  uses in the  co m m e r c i a l  an d / o r  in d u s t r i a l  ar e a s  in  th e  ci t y .  Fu t u r e  en v i r o n m e n t a l  re v i e w  co u l d  be  re q u i r e d  fo r  in du s t r i a l  pr o j e c t s  listed in Table 4.2‐ 84 . 2 ‐9,  ab o v e ,  to  en s u r e  th a t  se n s i t i v e  la n d  us e s  ar e  no t  ex p o s e d  to  ob j e c t i o n a b l e  od o r s .  BA A Q M D  Re g u l a t i o n  7, Odorous Substances,  re q u i r e s  ab a t e m e n t  of  an y  nu i s a n c e  ge n e r a t i n g  an  od o r  co m p l a i n t .  Ty p i c a l  ab a t e m e n t  in c l u d e s  pa s s i n g  ai r  th r o u g h  a drying agent followed  by  tw o  su c c e s s i v e  be d s  of  ac t i v a t e d  ca r b o n  to  ge n e r a t e  od o r ‐fr e e  ai r .  Fa c i l i t i e s  li s t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐10  wo u l d  ne e d  to consider measures to  re d u c e  od o r s  as  pa r t  of  th e i r  CE Q A  re v i e w .   Ch a p t e r  4. 3 :  Bi o l o g i c a l  Re s o u r c e s   4. 3 ‐13   Im p a c t  BI O ‐3  De v e l o p m e n t  an d  la n d  us e  ac t i v i t i e s  co n s i s t e n t  wi t h  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  Co m p o n e n t s  wo u l d  oc c u r  in  ur b a n i z e d  areas where  ju r i s d i c t i o n a l  wa t e r s  ar e  ab s e n t .  In d i r e c t  im p a c t s  to  we t l a n d s  an d  ju r i s d i c t i o n a l  ot h e r  wa t e r s  in c l u d e :  1)  an  in c r e a s e  in the potential for  se d i m e n t a t i o n  du e  to  co n s t r u c t i o n  gr a d i n g  an d  gr o u n d  di s t u r b a n c e ,  2)  an  in c r e a s e in  th e  po t e n t i a l  fo r  er o s i o n  du e  to increased runoff  vo l u m e s  ge n e r a t e d  by  im p e r v i o u s  su r f a c e s ,  an d  3)  an  in c r e a s e  in  th e  po t e n t i a l  fo r  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  de g r a d a t i o n  du e  to increased levels in  no n ‐po i n t  po l l u t a n t s .  Ho w e v e r ,  in d i r e c t  im p a c t s  co u l d  be  la r g e l y  av o i d e d  th r o u g h  ef f e c t i v e  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  Be s t  Management Practices  (B M P )  du r i n g  co n s t r u c t i o n  an d  co m p l i a n c e  wi t h  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  co nt r o l s .  As  di s c u s s e d  in  Se c t i o n  4. 8 . 1 . 1 ,  Re g u l a t o r y  Framework, of Chapter  4. 9 4 . 8 ,  Hy d r o l o g y  an d  Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  in  st o r m w a t e r  ru n o f f  is  re g u l a t e d  lo c a l l y  by  the Santa Clara Valley  Ur b a n  Ru n o f f  Po l l u t i o n  Pr e v e n t i o n  Pr o g r a m ,  wh i c h  in c l u d e s  pr o v i s i o n  C. 3  of  th e  Mu n i c i p a l  Re g i o n a l  St o r m  Wa t e r  National Pollutant  Di s c h a r g e  El i m i n a t i o n  Sy s t e m  (N P D E S )  Pe r m i t  (M R P )  ad o p t e d  by  th e  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o  Ba y  RW Q C B .    21   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 5  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e Ch a p t e r  4. 6 :  Gr e e n h o u s e  Ga s  Em i s s i o n s   4. 6 ‐30   Im p a c t  GH G ‐1  Th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  es t a b l i s h e s  th e  fr a m e w o r k  fo r  fu t u r e  gr o w t h  an d  de v e l o p m e n t  in  Cu p e r t i n o .  A Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  do e s  not directly result in  de v e l o p m e n t  wi t h o u t  ad d i t i o n a l  ap p r o v a l s .  Be f o r e  an y  de v e l o p m e n t  ca n  oc c u r  in  th e  Ci t y ,  it  is  re q u i r e d  to  be  an a l y z e d  for consistency with  th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n ,  zo n i n g  re q u i r e m e n t s ,  an d  ot h e r  ap p l i c a b l e  lo c a l  an d  st a t e  re q u i r em e n t s ;  co m p l y  wi t h  th e  re q u i r e m e n t s  of CEQA; and  ob t a i n  al l  ne c e s s a r y  cl e a r a n c e s  an d  pe r m i t s .    As  id e n t i f i e d  in  Ta b l e s  4. 5 ‐54 . 6 ‐5 an d  4. 5 ‐64 . 6 ‐6,  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  would achieve the  20 2 0  an d  20 3 5  pe r f o r m a n c e  cr i t e r i a ,  re s p e c t i v e l y ,  wh i c h  wo u l d  en s u r e  th a t  th e  Ci t y  is  on  a tr a j e c t o r y  th a t  is  co n s i s t e n t  with the statewide  GH G  re d u c t i o n  go a l s .  Co n s e q u e n t l y ,  sh o r t ‐te r m  an d  lo n g ‐te r m  GH G  em i s s i o n s  im p a c t s  of  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  are less than significant.  Ch a p t e r  4. 7 :  Ha z a r d s  an d  Ha z a r d o u s  Ma t e r i a l s   4. 7 ‐15   Wi l d l a n d  Fi r e   Ha z a r d   CA L  FI R E  ev a l u a t e s  fi r e  ha z a r d  se v e r i t y  ri s k s  ac c o r d i n g  to  ar e a s  of  re s p o n s i b i l i t y  (i . e .  fe d e r a l ,  st a t e ,  an d  lo c a l ) .  Ac c o r d i n g  to CAL FIRE, and as  de p i c t e d  on  Fi g u r e  4. 7 ‐2,  th e r e  ar e  no  ve r y  hi g h  fi r e  ha z a r d  se v e r i t y  zo n e s  wi t h i n  th e  Lo c a l  Re s p o n s i b i l i t y  Ar e a s  of Cupertino with the  ex c e p t i o n  of  a sm a l l  ar e a ne a r  th e  Ci t y ’ s  so u t h  ce n t e r  bo u n d a r y .    Al s o  as  de p i c t e d  on  Fi g u r e  4. 7 ‐3,  th e r e  ar e  no  moderate,  or high, and  ve r y  hi g h  fi r e  ha z a r d  se v e r i t y  zo n e s  in  th e  St a t e  Re s p o n s i b i l i t y  Ar e a s  in  th e  vi c i n i t y  of  th e  Pr o j e c t  co m p o n e n t s .    Furthermore, as discussed  ab o v e  in  Se c t i o n  4. 7 . 1 . 1 ,  Re g u l a t o r y  Se t t i n g ,  th e  Ci t y ’ s  Wi l d l a n d  Ur b a n  In t e r f a c e  Fi r e  Ar e a  ma p ,  as  sh o w n  on  Fi g u r e  4.7‐4 also identifies  th a t  th e r e  ar e  no  hi g h  or  ve r y  hi g h  fi r e  ri s k  ar e a s  in  th e  im m e d i a t e  vi c i n i t y  of  th e  Pr o j e c t  Co m p o n e n t s .   4. 7 ‐21   Im p a c t  HA Z ‐2  Th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  fa c i l i t a t e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t ,  in c l u d i n g  re s i d e n t i a l ,  mi x e d ‐us e ,  an d  co m m e r c i a l  us e s ,  within Cupertino. Some of  th e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t  co u l d  oc c u r  on  pr o p e r t i e s  th a t  po s s i b l y  ar e  co n t a m i n a t e d  an d  in a c t i v e ,  un d e r g o i n g  ev a l u a t i o n ,  and/or undergoing  co r r e c t i v e  ac t i o n ,  as  in d i c a t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 7 . 1 4 . 7 ‐2.   Ch a p t e r  4. 9 :  La n d  Us e    an d  Pl a n n i n g   4. 9 ‐13   St u d y  Ar e a  4  (M i r a p a t h )   St u d y  Ar e a  4 (M i r a p a t h )  is  wi t h i n  th e  Ho m e s t e a d  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a .  As  sh o w n  on  Fi g u r e  3‐14 3 ‐15 ,  th i s  St u d y  Ar e a  is  on one small parcel  co m p r i s i n g  th e  Mi r a p a t h  of f i c e  bu i l d i n g  an d  su r f a c e  pa r k i n g  fr o n t i n g  No r t h  Bl a n e y  Av e n u e .   4. 9 ‐14   Ot h e r  Sp e c i a l    Ar e a s  in c l u d i n g   Ne i g h b o r h o o d s  an d   No n ‐Re s i d e n t i a l /   Mi x e d ‐Us e  Sp e c i a l   Th e  Ge n e r a l  Pl a n  in c l u d e s  re s i d e n t i a l  an d  no n ‐re s i d e n t i a l  Sp e c i a l  Ce n t e r s  (s e e  Fi g u r e  3‐18 3 ‐4) . 22   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 6  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e Ar e a s   4. 9 ‐21   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  14  (M a r i n a   Pl a z a )   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e  14  (M a r i n a  Pl a z a )  is  lo c a t e d  in  th e  No r t h  Cr o s s r o a d s  No d e ,  wh i c h  is  wi t h i n  th e  He a r t  of  th e  City Special Area (see  Fi g u r e  3‐73 ‐8) .   4. 9 ‐23   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  18  (T h e  Oa k s   Sh o p p i n g  Ce n t e r )   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e  18  (T h e  Oa k s  Sh o p p i n g  Ce n t e r )  is  lo c a t e d  in  th e  Oa k s  Ga t e w a y ,  wh i c h  is  pa r t  of  th e  He a r t  of the City Special Area (see  Fi g u r e  3‐73 ‐8) .   4. 9 ‐23   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  19  (C y p r e s s   Bu i l d i n g   As s o c i a t i o n /   Ha l l  Pr o p e r t y )   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e  19  (C y p r e s s  Bu i l d i n g  As s o c i a t i o n / H a l l  Pr o p e r t y )  is  lo c a t e d  in  th e  Ea s t  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  Node, which is part of  th e  He a r t  of  th e  Ci t y  Sp e c i a l  Ar e a  (s e e  Fi g u r e  3‐73 ‐8) .   Ch a p t e r  4. 1 0 :  No i s e   4. 1 0 ‐29   th r o u g h   4. 1 0 ‐30   St u d y  Ar e a s   St u d y  Ar e a s  ma y  be  lo o s e l y  gr o u p e d  in t o  tw o  no n ‐ex c l u s i v e  ca t e g o r i e s :  St u d y  Ar e a s  al o n g  or  ne a r  ma j o r  ar t e r i a l s  and study areas along or  ne a r  ma j o r  fr e e w a y s .  As  sh o w n  in  Fi g u r e  3‐23 ‐11 ,  St u d y  Ar e a s  7 (S t e v e n s  Cr e e k  Of f i c e  Ce n t e r )  an d  2 (C i t y  Ce n t e r )  fall into the first  ca t e g o r y ,  an d  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  no i s e  en v i r o n m e n t s  do m i n a t e d  by  no i s e  al o n g  ma j o r  ar t e r i a l s .  St u d y  Ar e a s  1 (C u p e r t i n o  Inn and Goodyear  Ti r e ) ,  3 (P G & E ) ,  4 (M i r a p a t h )  an d  5 (C u p e r t i n o  Vi l l a g e )  ar e  in  th e  se c o n d  ca t e g o r y  wh e r e  no i s e  fr o m  ne a r b y  fr e e w a y s  is likely to dominate  th e  no i s e  en v i r o n m e n t .  St u d y  Ar e a  6 (V a l l c o  Sh o p p i n g  Di s t r i c t )  wo u l d  fa l l  in t o  bo t h  of  th e s e  ca t e g o r i e s ,  as  th e r e  are portions of the Study  Ar e a  th a t  ma y  be  mo r e  do m i n a t e d  by  fr e e w a y  no i s e  an d  po r t i o n s  th a t  ma y  be  mo r e  do m i n a t e d  by  no i s e  fr o m  major arterials.  Ch a p t e r  4. 1 1 :  Po p u l a t i o n  an d  Ho u s i n g   4. 1 1 ‐5  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s  ‐   Po p u l a t i o n   Th e  to t a l  po p u l a t i o n  of  Cu p e r t i n o  gr e w  fr o m  52 , 9 7 0  in  20 0 0  to  58 , 3 0 2 5 8 , 7 3 9  in  20 1 0 . 8, 9  Th i s  re p r e s e n t s  an  ap p r o x i m a t e  910 percent  in c r e a s e  fr o m  20 0 0  to  20 1 0 .  In  co n t r a s t ,  th e  co u n t y  gr e w  fr o m  1, 6 8 2 , 5 8 5  in  20 0 0  to  1, 7 8 1 , 6 4 2  in  20 1 0 ,  wh i c h  re p r e s e n t s  a slower rate of  gr o w t h  (5  pe r c e n t  co m p a r e d  to  91 0  pe r c e n t )  fo r  th e  co u n t y  as  a wh o l e  du r i n g  th e  sa m e  pe r i o d . 10 , 1 1  In  20 1 0 ,  Cu p e r t i n o  had a much smaller  po p u l a t i o n  th a n  th e  ne i g h b o r i n g  ci t i e s  of  Su n n y v a l e  (1 4 0 , 0 8 5 ) ,  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  (1 1 6 , 4 6 8 )  an d  Sa n  Jo s e  (9 8 5 , 6 9 1 ) .   23   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 7  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 8 As s o c i a t i o n  of  Ba y  Ar e a  Go v e r n m e n t s ,  Pr o j e c t i o n s  20 0 9 , Cu p e r t i n o  Su b r e g i o n a l  St u d y  Ar e a  Ta b l e ,  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  County. 9 As s o c i a t i o n  of  Ba y  Ar e a  Go v e r n m e n t s ,  Pl a n   B a y   A r e a ,   P r o j e c t i o n s   2 0 1 3 ,   Su b r e g i o n a l  St u d y  Ar e a  Ta b l e ,  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  County.  10 As s o c i a t i o n  of  Ba y  Ar e a  Go v e r n m e n t s ,  Pr o j e c t i o n s   2 0 0 9 , Cu p e r t i n o  Su b r e g i o n a l  St u d y  Ar e a  Ta b l e ,  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  County.  11  As s o c i a t i o n  of  Ba y  Ar e a  Go v e r n m e n t s ,  Pl a n   B a y   A r e a ,   P r o j e c t i o n s   2 0 1 3 ,   Su b r e g i o n a l  St u d y  Ar e a  Ta b l e ,  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  County  4. 1 1 ‐6  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s  –  Fu t u r e  Ho u s i n g   Ne e d s   Ta b l e  4. 1 1 ‐1 in c l u d e s  th e  AB A G ’ s  20 1 3  Pr o j e c t i o n s  fo r  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Co u n t y .  Th e  pr o j e c t i o n s  estimate that by 2040  th e  po p u l a t i o n  in  Cu p e r t i n o  is  ex p e c t e d  to  gr o w  to  71 , 7 0 0  pe o p l e  an d  th e  nu m b e r  of  ho u s e h o l d s  wo u l d  gr o w  to  24,180, an increase of  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  22  pe r c e n t  an d  19  pe r c e n t  fr o m  20 1 0 ,  re s p e c t i v e l y .  Th e s e  ra t e s  ar e  lo w e r  th a n  th e  AB A G ’ s  pr o j e c t e d  population and  ho u s e h o l d  gr o w t h  of  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  36  an d  35  pe r c e n t ,  re s p e c t i v e l y ,  fo r  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Co u n t y  as  a wh o l e  du r i n g  th e  same period.    4. 1 1 ‐13   Im p a c t  PO P ‐1 –  Re g i o n a l  Pl a n n i n g   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  4. 1 1 ‐3,  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  re s u l t  in  a to t a l  of  4, 4 2 1  ne w  ho u s e h o l d s  in the city for a total of  25 , 8 2 0  ho u s e h o l d s  fo r  th e  bu i l d o u t  ho r i z o n  ye a r  20 4 0 .  As s u m i n g  th e  ne w  dw e l l i n g  un i t s  pe r m i t t e d  un d e r  th e  pr o posed Project would have  th e  av e r a g e  2. 9 4  pe r s o n s  pe r  ho u s e h o l d  si z e  as  ap p l i e d  in  AB A G  Pr o j e c t i o n s  20 1 3 ,  po p u l a t i o n  in  th e  ci t y  co u l d  in c r e a s e  by 12,998 residents  fo r  a to t a l  of  71 , 3 0 0  re s i d e n t s  by  20 4 0 .  By  co m p a r i s o n ,  as  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  4. 1 1 ‐1 4. 1 1 ‐2,  AB A G  an t i c i p a t e s  3, 8 6 1  new households and  12 , 9 6 1  ne w  re s i d e n t s  in  Cu p e r t i n o ,  fo r  a to t a l  of  24 , 1 8 0  ho u s e h o l d s  an d  71 , 7 0 0  re s i d e n t s  by  20 4 0 .    Wh i l e  th e  pr o p o s e d  Project would  re s u l t  in  40 0  fe w e r  re s i d e n t s  an d  1,  64 0  mo r e  un i t s ,  th e  ra t e  of  gr o w t h  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  an d  es t i m a t e d  by ABAG would be the  sa m e  fo r  po p u l a t i o n  gr o w t h  (i . e .  22  pe r c e n t )  an d  in c r e a s e  by  2 pe rc e n t  (2 1  co m p a r e d  to  19  pe r c e n t )  fo r  ho u s e h o l d  growth. Consequently,  th e  ad d i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g  un i t s  re s u l t i n g  fr o m  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  no t  su b s t a n t i a l l y  ex c e e d  regional projections.    4. 1 1 ‐13   Im p a c t  PO P ‐1 –  Re g i o n a l  Pl a n n i n g   Wi t h  re s p e c t  to  jo b s ,  AB A G  pr o j e c t s  an  in c r e a s e  of  7, 0 4 0  jo b s  fo r  a to t a l  of  33 , 3 6 0  jo b s  in  20 4 0 ,  as  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  4.11‐1. As shown in  Ta b l e  4. 1 1 ‐3 4. 1 1 ‐4,  wh e n  ap p l y i n g  th e  Ci t y ’ s  jo b  ge n e r a t i o n  ra t e s  fo r  of f i c e ,  co m m e r c i a l  an d  ho t e l  de v e l o p m e n t ,  buildout of the proposed  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  re s u l t  in  as  ma n y  as  16 , 8 5 5  ad d i t i o n a l  jo b s  fo r  a to t a l  of  44 , 2 4 2  jo b s  in  20 4 0 ,  wh i c h  wo u l d  ex c e e d  the regional job projections  by  10 , 9 8 2  jo b s ,  wh i c h  re p r e s e n t s  a 35  pe r c e n t  ra t e  in c r e a s e  (6 2  co m p a r e d  to  27  pe r c e n t ) .   4. 1 1 ‐17   Im p a c t  PO P ‐3  As  de s c r i b e d  un d e r  Im p a c t  PO P ‐2 ab o v e ,  po t e n t i a l  fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  at  po t e n t i a l  Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t s  Si t e  5 (G l e n b r o o k  Apartments), and  Si t e  6 (T h e  Vi l l a g e s  Ap a r t m e n t s ) ,  wo u l d  be  in f i l l  an d  no  re m o v a l  of  ex i s t i n g  ho u s i n g  wo u l d  oc c u r ;  ho w e v e r ,  Ho u s i n g  Site 10 (The Hamptons)  co u l d  in v o l v e  th e  de m o l i t i o n  an d  re p l a c e m e n t  of  ex i s t i n g  ho u s i n g  un i t s ,  wh i c h  co u l d  re s u l t  in  th e  te m p o r a r y  di s p l a c e m e n t  of some  re s i d e n t s ,  bu t  th i s  wo u l d  no t  re s u l t  in  di s p l a c e m e n t  of  su b s t a n t i a l  nu m b e r s  of  pe o p l e  an d  ho u s i n g  ne c e s s i t a t i n g  more replacement  ho u s i n g  th a n  is  al r e a d y  pl a n n e d .  Fo r  th e  re m a i n d e r  of  th e  Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e s  1 th r o u g h  9 4,  7 th r o u g h  9,  an d  11 through 19 listed in  Ch a p t e r  3,  Pr o j e c t  De s c r i p t i o n ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  no  di s p l a c e m e n t  wo u l d  oc c u r  be c a u s e  th e  in c r e a s e  in  ho u s i n g  would be accomplished by  24   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 8  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e co n s t r u c t i n g  in f i l l  un i t s  on  po r t i o n s  of  th e  Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e s  th a t  ar e  no t  cu r r e n t l y  de v e l o p e d  wi t h  ho u s i n g .  For Housing Element Sites  10 ,  re d e v e l o p m e n t  of  th e  si t e  at  it s  pr o p o s e d  ma x i m u m  ca p a c i t y  wo u l d  re q u i r e  de m o l i s h i n g  ex i s t i n g  un i t s  an d  would require the  oc c u p a n t s  to  mo v e  wh i l e  th e  ne w  re s i d e n t i a l  pr o j e c t  is  un d e r  co n s t r u c t i o n ;  ho w e v e r ,  th e r e  wo u l d  be  a ne t  in c r e a s e  in the number of  ho u s i n g  un i t s  in  Cu p e r t i n o  (4 ,  42 1  un i t s  co m p a r e d to  1, 8 9 5  un i t s ) .  Ad d i t i o n a l l y ,  ba s e d  on  an  av e r a g e  ho u s e h o l d  size of 2.94 persons per  ho u s e h o l d ,  th e  pr o p o s e d  ne t  in c r e a s e  of  82 0  ho u s i n g  un i t s  fr o m  re d e v e l o p m e n t  on  th e s e  Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e  10 would accommodate  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  2, 4 1 1  ne w  re s i d e n t s  in  th e  ci t y .    Ch a p t e r  4. 1 2 :  Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e s  an d  Re c r e a t i o n   Th e  Dr a f t  EI R  co n s e r v a t i v e l y  es t i m a t e d  th a t  th e  to t a l  of  4, 4 2 1  ho u s i n g  un i t s  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  be  as s i g n e d  to  th e  St u d y  Ar e a  as  a wh o l e .   The following revisions  pr o v i d e  a br e a k ‐do w n  of  th e  to t a l  ho u s i n g  un i t s  by  sc h o o l  di s t r i c t  to  mo r e  pr e c i s e l y  il l u s t r a t e  th e  po t e n t i a l  st u d e n t  ge n e r a t i o n  by  di s t r i c t .            4. 1 2 ‐13   Sc h o o l s   Th i s  se c t i o n  de s c r i b e s  th e  ex i s t i n g  co n d i t i o n s  re g a r d  to  sc h o o l s  se r v i n g  Cu p e r t i n o ,  ba s e d  on  th e  Sc h o o l  En r o l l m e n t  and Fiscal Impact  An a l y s i s  pr e p a r e d  by  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s 1 in  Ap p e n d i x  F,  Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e s ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R .   4. 1 2 ‐15   Cu p e r t i n o  Un i o n   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  4. 1 2 ‐3,  th e  CU S D  sc h o o l s  ar e  al r e a d y  we l l  ov e r  th e i r  ca p a c i t i e s ,  ex c e p t  fo r  th e  Ea t o n  El e m e n t a r y  School, which is also  ne a r  it s  ca p a c i t y .  Wi t h  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  th e  CU S D  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  an  ad d i t i o n a l  in c r e a s e  in  th e i r  at t e n d a n c e  of 1,10590124 students  in  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s  an d  30 9 2 5 3 25  st u d e n t s  in  mi d d l e  sc h o o l s .  Th e  pr o j e c t i o n ,  as  we l l  as  th e  cu r r e n t  en r o l l m e n t ,  indicates that the CUSD  wo u l d  no t  ha v e  su f f i c i e n t  ca p a c i t y  to  ac c o m m o d a t e  th e  ex p e c t e d  in c r e a s e  in  en r o l l m e n t  by  20 4 0 .   24  Th e  in c r e a s e d  in  th e  CU S D  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l  is  ca l c u l a t e d  wi t h  th e  st u d e n t  ge n e r a t i o n  ra t e  of  0. 2 5  fr o m  th e  school report, and the  ad d i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g  un i t s  ex p e c t e d  at  20 4 0  bu i l d o u t ,  4, 4 2 1  3, 6 0 1  un i t s  (4 , 4 2 1  to t a l  un i t s  – 82 0  un i t s  in  th e  SC U S D  = 3,601 units).  25  Th e  in c r e a s e d  in  th e  CU S D  el e m e n t a r y  mi d d l e  sc h o o l  is  ca l c u l a t e d  wi t h  th e  st u d e n t  ge n e r a t i o n  ra t e  of  0. 0 7  fr o m  the school report, and  th e  ad d i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g  un i t s  ex p e c t e d  at  20 4 0  bu i l d o u t ,  4, 4 2 1  3, 6 0 1  un i t s  (4 , 4 2 1  to t a l  un i t s  – 82 0  un i t s  in  th e  SC U S D  = 3,601 units).  4. 1 2 ‐16   Fr e m o n t  Un i f i e d   As  sh o w n  in  th e  Ta b l e  4. 1 2 ‐4,  FU H S D  sc h o o l s  ar e  wi t h i n  5 pe r c e n t  of  th e  ca p a c i t y  es t a b l i s h e d  ba s e d  on  th e  FU H S D ’ s  standards. For the  di s t r i c t  as  a wh o l e ,  th e  cu r r e n t  en r o l l m e n t  is  al m o s t  ex a c t l y  eq u a l  to  ca p a c i t y .  Al m o s t  al l  of  th e  fi v e  hi g h  sc h o o l s  show a capacity deficit                                                                                                                           1 No t e  th a t  th i s  re p o r t  ha s  be e n  re v i s e d  to  in c l u d e  mi n o r  re v i s i o n s  th a t  do  no t  af f e c t  th e  an a l y s i s .    Th e  re v i s i o n s  ar e  sh o w n  in this table  un d e r  th e  he a d i n g  “A p p e n d i x  F”  be l o w .   25   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 9  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e Hi g h  Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   wi t h  Cu p e r t i n o  Hi g h  Sc h o o l  wi t h  th e  la r g e s t  de f i c i t ,  an d  Mo n t a  Vi s t a  Hi g h  Sc h o o l  wi t h  a sl i g h t  su r p l u s  in  ca p a c i t y .  With the proposed  Pr o j e c t ,  th e  FU H S D  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  an  ad d i t i o n a l  in c r e a s e  in  th e i r  at t e n d a n c e  by  30 9 2 5 3 29  st u d e n t s  by  20 4 0 .  The increased student  en r o l l m e n t ,  an d  th e  ca p a c i t y  de f i c i t  fo r  th e  FU H S D  wo u l d  in c r e a s e  an d  sc h o o l s  wi l l  be  ov e r c r o w d e d .   29  Th e  in c r e a s e d  in  th e  CF U H S D  el e m e n t a r y  hi g h  sc h o o l  is  ca l c u l a t e d  wi t h  th e  st u d e n t  ge n e r a t i o n  ra t e  of  0. 0 7  fr o m  the school report, and  th e  ad d i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g  un i t s  ex p e c t e d  at  20 4 0  bu i l d o u t ,  4, 4 2 1  3, 6 0 1  un i t s  (4 , 4 2 1  to t a l  un i t s  – 82 0  un i t s  in  th e  SC U S D  = 3,601 units).  4. 1 2 ‐18   Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Un i f i e d   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Th e  SC U S D  ha s  be e n  gr o w i n g  ov e r  th e  pa s t  de c a d e ,  wi t h  en r o l l m e n t  in c r e a s i n g  fr o m  13 , 9 7 6  in  20 0 3  to  15 , 3 9 4  in  2013. For the next  de c a d e ,  10 , 5 0 0  ne w  un i t s  ar e  es t i m a t e d  to  be  ad d e d  in  th e  SC U S D ,  of  wh i c h  90  pe r c e n t  of  th e m  wo u l d  be  ap a r t m e n t s .  Since high density  ap a r t m e n t s  ge n e r a t e  ve r y  fe w  st u d e n t s ,  th e  st u d e n t  ge n e r a t i o n  ra t e  av e r a g e s  on l y  ab o u t  0. 0 2 3  st u d e n t s  pe r  un i t  based on, 0.034 for  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s  an d  0. 0 1 2  fo r  mi d d l e  an d  hi g h  sc h o o l s .  Th e  in c r e a s e  in  th e  SC U S D  is  ca l c u l a t e d  us i n g  th e  st u d e n t  generation rates from  th e  sc h o o l  re p o r t ,  an d  th e  ad d i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g  un i t s  ex p e c t e d  at  20 4 0  bu i l d o u t ,  82 0  un i t s  (4 , 4 2 1  to t a l  un i t s  – 3, 6 0 1 u n i t s  in the CUSD and  FU H S D  = 82 0  un i t s ) .   4. 1 2 ‐18   Im p a c t  Di s c u s s i o n   Th i s  se c t i o n  an a l y z e s  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ’ s  po t e n t i a l  im p a c t s  an d  cu m u l a t i v e  im p a c t s  to  sc h o o l  se r v i c e s ,  ba s e d  on the School Enrollment  an d  Fi s c a l  Im p a c t  An a l y s i s  pr e p a r e d  by  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s 2 in  Ap p e n d i x  F,  Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e s ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R .   4. 1 2 ‐19   Im p a c t  PS ‐5 –  Cu p e r t i n o  Un i o n   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  ge n e r a t e  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  4, 4 2 1  ho u s i n g  un i t s  in  Cu p e r t i n o .  As  de s c r i b e d  ab o v e ,  af t e r  subtracting the 820 units  ex p e c t e d  to  be  lo c a t e d  in  th e  SC U S D ,  th e  CU S D  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  an  ad d i t i o n a l  1, 1 0 5 9 0 1  st u d e n t s  in  el e m e n t a r y  schools and 309253  st u d e n t s  in  mi d d l e  sc h o o l .  Wi t h  st u d e n t  en r o l l m e n t  al r e a d y  ex c e e d i n g  CU S D ’ s  ca p a c i t y ,  th e  ad d i t i o n a l  st u d e n t s  would exacerbate the  CU S D ’ s  ca p a c i t y .  In  or d e r  to  ac c o m m o d a t e  ne w  st u d e n t s ,  th e  CU S D  ne e d s  to  ei t h e r  ex p a n d  ex i s t i n g  fa c i l i t i e s  or  construct new schools.  Ho w e v e r ,  Cu p e r t i n o  do e s  no t  ha v e  su f f i c i e n t  lo c a t i o n s  fo r  ne w  sc h o o l  fa c i l i t i e s  to  ac c o m m o d a t e  th e  in c r e a s e d  enrollment expected.  Th e r e f o r e ,  mo s t  of  th e  im p r o v e m e n t s  ar e  ex p e c t e d  to  oc c u r  on  ex i s t i n g  si t e s  wi t h  tw o ‐st o r y  cl a s s r o o m  bu i l d i n g s .   Since these are  es t a b l i s h e d  sc h o o l  si t e s  cu r r e n t l y  in  op e r a t i o n ,  en v i r o n m e n t a l  im p ac t s  du e  to  co n s t r u c t i o n  of  th e  fa c i l i t i e s  ar e  ex p e c t e d  to be minimal. The  CU S D  wo u l d  re c e i v e  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  $9 . 1  7. 4  mi l l i o n  in  de v e l o p m e n t  im p a c t  fe e s  fr om  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  wh i c h  would mitigate the  im p a c t s  fr o m  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  pe r  SB  50 .  Th e  im p a c t  to  th e  CU S D  wo u l d  be  le s s   t h a n   s i g n i f i c a n t .                                                                                                                           2 No t e  th a t  th i s  re p o r t  ha s  be e n  re v i s e d  to  in c l u d e  mi n o r  re v i s i o n s  th a t  do  no t  af f e c t  th e  an a l y s i s .    Th e  re v i s i o n s  ar e  sh o w n  in this table  un d e r  th e  he a d i n g  “A p p e n d i x  F”  be l o w .   26   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 10  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 4. 1 2 ‐19   Im p a c t  PS ‐5 –  Fr e m o n t  Un i f i e d   Hi g h  Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Wi t h  th e  es t i m a t e d  in c r e a s e  of  4, 4 2 1  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s  to  Cu p e r t i n o ,  of  wh i c h  3, 6 0 1  un i t s  wo u l d  be  in  th e  FU H S D ,  the FUHSD would  ex p e r i e n c e  an  in c r e a s e  of  30 9 2 5 3  st u d e n t s  by  20 4 0 .  Al t h o u g h  cu r r e n t  st u d e n t  en r o l l m e n t  al m o s t  eq u a l s  to  it s  ca p a c i t y ,  an additional  30 9 2 5 3  st u d e n t s  wo u l d  in c r e a s e  th e  ca p a c i t y  de f i c i t  fo r  th e  FU H S D .  Ho w e v e r ,  th e  FU H S D  ha s  be e n  mo d e r n i z i n g  its facilities with additional  cl a s s r o o m  an d  ca f e t e r i a s  to  co n t i n u o u s l y  ad d r e s s  th e  ca p a c i t y  de f i c i t  is s u e ,  an d  ad d i t i o n a l  de v e l o p m e n t  im p a c t  fee of $64.9 million would  am e l i o r a t e  th e  ca p a c i t y  pr o b l e m .  Th e r e f o r e ,  mo s t  of  th e  im p r o v e m e n t s  ar e  ex p e c t e d  to  oc c u r  on  ex i s t i n g  si t e s  with two‐story classroom  bu i l d i n g s .  Si n c e  th e s e  ar e  es t a b l i s h e d  sc h o o l  si t e s  cu r r e n t l y  in  op e r a t i o n ,  en v i r o n m e n t a l  im p a c t s  du e  to  co n s t r u c t i o n  of the facilities are  ex p e c t e d  to  be  mi n i m a l .  Th e  im p a c t  to  th e  FU H S D  wo u l d  be  le s s   t h a n   s i g n i f i c a n t .   4. 1 2 ‐19   Im p a c t  PS ‐5 –   Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Un i f i e d   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Wi t h  Of  th e  4, 4 2 1  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s  wi t h  pr o v i d e d  fo r  in  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  82 0  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s  wi l l  be  lo c a t e d  in  the SCUSD. With  th e  an t i c i p a t e d  82 0  ho u s i n g  un i t s ,  th e  ex p e c t e d  gr o w t h  in  st u d e n t  en r o l l m e n t  fo r  th e  SC U S D  wo u l d  be  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  22056 students  (1 3 2 2 8  fo r  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s ,  an d  44  14  st u d e n t s  fo r  mi d d l e  sc h o o l s  an d  14  fo r  hi g h  sc h o o l s ) .  Al t h o u g h  in c r e a s e d  enrollment would add  st r e s s  to  th e  sc h o o l  in  th e  SC U S D ,  de v e l o p m e n t  im p a c t  fe e s  fo r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  mi t i g a t e  th e  im p a c t  to the SCUSD facilities;  th e r e f o r e ,  th e  im p a c t s  to  th e  SC U S D  wo u l d  be  le s s   t h a n   s i g n i f i c a n t .     Ch a p t e r  4. 1 3 :  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  an d  Tr a f f i c   4. 1 3 ‐44   20 4 0  No  Pr o j e c t   In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e 3  Ta b l e  4. 1 3 ‐12   20 4 0  No  Pr o j e c t  AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r  Le v e l  of  Se r v i c e  Re s u l t s   St u d y   In t e r s e c t i o n   In t e r s e c t i o n   LO S   St a n d a r d   Pe a k   Ho u r   Av e r a g e   De l a y  No Project LOS  12   De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  SR  85  SB  Ra m p a  D  AM   23 . 9   C  PM   22 . 2   B‐C+    4. 1 3 ‐50   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   Fi v e    Si x  (5 6 )  of  th e  si x t e e n  (1 6 )  in t e r s e c t i o n s  th a t  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  an  un a c c e p t a b l e  le v e l  of  se r v i c e  fo r  at  le a s t  one peak hour under the  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  we r e  al s o  pr e d i c t e d  to  op e r a t e  at  an  un a c c e p t a b l e  le v e l  of  se r v i c e  un d e r  th e  No  Pr o j e c t  sc e n a r i o .                                                                                                                             3 Ta b l e  4. 1 3 ‐12  li s t s  41  to t a l  in t e r s e c t i o n s ;  ho w e v e r ,  on l y  th e  No  Pr o j e c t  LO S  fo r  th e  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r  fo r  In t e r s e c t i o n  #1 2  wa s  re v i s e d .   27   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 11  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 4. 1 3 ‐52   th r o u g h   4. 1 3 ‐53   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  4. 1 3 ‐13 ,  ab o v e ,  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  re s u l t  in  si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t s  to  se v e n t e e n  (1 7 )  si x t e e n  (16) intersections  du r i n g  at  le a s t  on e  of  th e  pe a k  ho u r s .     SR  85  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 ) :  LO S  E – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r    St e l l i n g  Ro a d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 3 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Su n n y v a l e ‐Sa r a t o g a  Ro a d / D e  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 ) :  LO S  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 ) :  LO S  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 7 ) :  LO S  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Mc C l e l l a n  Ro a d / P a c i f i c a  Dr i v e  (# 9 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 1 6 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 ) :  LO S  F an d  E – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s ,  re s p e c t i v e l y    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 9 ) :  LO S  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  (# 2 1 ) :  LO S  E+  AM  Pe a k  Ho u r    No r t h  Ta n t a u  Av e n u e / Q u a i l  Av e n u e  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 2 4 ) :  LO S  E – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r  an d  E+  – PM  Pe a k  Hour   St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ta n t a u  Av e n u e  (# 2 7 ) :  LO S  E+  an d  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s ,  re s p e c t i v e l y    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  SB  Ra m p s / C a l v e r t  Dr i v e  (# 2 9 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Ag i l e n t  Te c h  Dr i v e  Wa y  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 3 0 ) :  LO S  F ‐   AM  Pe a k  Ho u r     La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 3 1 ) :  LO S  F – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 3 2 ) :  LO S  F – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r   4. 1 3 ‐55   th r o u g h   4. 1 3 ‐56   Mi t i g a t i o n  Me a s u r e   TR A F ‐1  Wh i l e  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  Mi t i g a t i o n  Me a s u r e  TR A F ‐1 wo u l d  se c u r e  a fu n d i n g  me c h a n i s m  fo r  fu t u r e  ro a d w a y  an d  infrastructure  im p r o v e m e n t s  th a t  ar e  ne c e s s a r y  to  mi t i g a t e  im p a c t s  fr o m  fu t u r e  pr o j e c t s  ba s e d  on  th e n  cu r r e n t  st a n d a r d s ,  im p a c t s  would remain  si g n i f i c a n t   a n d   u n a v o i d a b l e , be c a u s e  th e  Ci t y  ca n n o t  gu a r a n t e e  im p r o v e m e n t s  at  th e s e  in t e r s e c t i on s  at  th i s  ti m e .  This is in part because  th e  ne x u s  st u d y  ha s  ye t  to  be  pr e p a r e d  an d  be c a u s e  so m e  of  th e  im p a c t e d  in t e r s e c t i o n s  ar e  un d e r  th e  ju r i s d i c t i o n s  of the Cities of  Su n n y v a l e  an d  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  an d  Ca l t r a n s .  Sp e c i f i c a l l y ,  th e  fo l l o w i n g  in t e r s e c t i o n s  ar e  ou t s i d e  th e  ju r i s d i c t i o n  of  Cu p e r t i n o :     SR  85  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C a l T r a n s )  (# 2 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (C a l T r a n s )  (# 6 )   28   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 12  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e  Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (S u n n y v a l e / C u p e r t i n o )  (# 1 6 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (C a l T r a n s )  (# 1 8 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (C a l T r a n s )  (# 1 9 )    No r t h  Ta n t a u  Av e n u e / Q u a i l  Av e n u e  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (S u n n y v a l e / C u p e r t i n o )  (# 2 4 )    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ag i l e n t  Te c h n o l o g i e s  Dr i v e w a y  (S a n t a  Cl a r a )  (# 3 0 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C M P ,  Co u n t y ) ( # 3 1 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C M P ,  Co u n t y )  (# 3 2 )   4. 1 3 ‐63   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐2 –  CM P  Im p a c t s   Of  th e  41  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o n s  in c l u d e d  in  th i s  an a l y s i s ,  21  ar e  in c l u d e d  in  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Co u n t y ’ s  Co n g e s t i o n  Ma n a g e m e n t  Program (CMP).  Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1,  wh i c h  pr e s e n t s  th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  im p a c t  an a l y s i s  un d e r  20 4 0  No  Pr o j e c t  Co n d i t i o n s  an d  th e  pr o p o s e d  Project on all of the  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o ns ,  in c l u d e s  th e  21  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s .  Th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  re s u l t  in  si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t s  to the following twelve  (1 2 )  el e v e n  (1 1 )  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s  at  le a s t  on e  of  th e  pe a k  ho u r s :    SR  85  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 )    St e l l i n g  Ro a d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d ( # 3 )    Su n n y v a l e ‐Sa r a t o g a  Ro a d / D e  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d .  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 7 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 9 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 1 )    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  Ra m p s / C a l v e r t  Dr i v e  (# 2 9 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C o u n t y )  (# 3 1 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C o u n t y )  (# 3 2 )   Ch a p t e r  5. 1 :  No  Pr o j e c t  Al t e r n a t i v e   5. 1 ‐50   Si t i n g  Ne w  Od o r   Wh i l e  no t  al l  so u r c e s  in  Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐10 ,  in  Ch a p t e r  4. 2 ,  Ai r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  ar e  fo u n d  in  Cu p e r t i n o  (e . g .  re n d e r i n g  plants, confined  an i m a l  fa c i l i t i e s ) ,  co m m e r c i a l  an d  in d u s t r i a l  ar e a s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  ha v e  th e  po t e n t i a l  to  in c l u d e  la n d  us e s  that generate  29   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 13  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e So u r c e s   ob j e c t i o n a b l e  od o r s .  Bu i l d o u t  pe r m i t t e d  un d e r  th e  No  Pr o j e c t  Al t e r n a t i v e  co u l d  in c l u d e  ne w  so u r c e s  of  od o r s ,  su c h  as composting,  gr e e n w a s t e ,  an d  re c y c l i n g  op e r a t i o n s ;  fo o d  pr o c e s s i n g ;  ch e m i c a l  ma n u f a c t u r i n g ;  an d  pa i n t i n g / c o a t i n g  op e r a t i o n s ,  because these are  pe r m i t t e d  us e s  in  th e  co m m e r c i a l  an d / o r  in d u s t r i a l  ar e a s  in  th e  Ci t y .  Fu t u r e  en v i r o n m e n t a l  re v i e w  co u l d  be  re q u i r e d  for industrial projects  li s t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐84 . 2 ‐9,  in  Ch a p t e r  4. 2 ,  Ai r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  to  en s u r e  th a t  se n s i t i v e  la n d  us e s  ar e  no t  exposed to objectionable  od o r s .   5. 1 ‐55   Im p a c t  BI O ‐3  De v e l o p m e n t  an d  la n d  us e  ac t i v i t i e s  co n s i s t e n t  wi t h  th e  No  Pr o j e c t  Al t e r n a t i v e  co m p o n e n t s  oc c u r  in  ur b a n i z e d  areas where jurisdictional  wa t e r s  ar e  ab s e n t .  In d i r e c t  im p a c t s  to  we t l a n d s  an d  ju r i s d i c t i o n a l  ot h e r  wa t e r s  in c l u d e :  1)  an  in c r e a s e  in  th e  po t e n t i a l  for sedimentation  du e  to  co n s t r u c t i o n  gr a d i n g  an d  gr o u n d  di s t u r b a n c e ,  2)  an  in cr e a s e  in  th e  po t e n t i a l  fo r  er o s i o n  du e  to  in c r e a s e d  runoff volumes generated  by  im p e r v i o u s  su r f a c e s ,  an d  3)  an  in c r e a s e  in  th e  po t e n t i a l  fo r  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  de g r a d a t i o n  du e  to  in c r e a s e d  le v e l s  in non‐point pollutants.  Ho w e v e r ,  in d i r e c t  im p a c t s  co u l d  be  la r g e l y  av o i d e d  th r o u g h  ef f e c t i v e  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  Be s t  Ma n a g e m e n t  Pr a c t i c e s  (BMPs) during  co n s t r u c t i o n  an d  co m p l i a n c e  wi t h wa t e r  qu a l i t y  co n t r o l s .  As  di s c u s s e d  in  Se c t i o n  4. 8 . 1 . 1 ,  Re g u l a t o r y  Fr a m e w o r k ,  of Chapter 4.94.8,  Hy d r o l o g y  an d  Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  in  st o r m w a t e r  ru n o f f  is  re g u l a t e d  lo c a l l y  by  th e  Sa n t a  Clara Valley Urban  Ru n o f f  Po l l u t i o n  Pr e v e n t i o n  Pr o g r a m  (S C V U R P P P ) ,  wh i c h  in c l u d e s  pr o v i s i o n  C. 3  of  th e  Mu n i c i p a l  Re g i o n a l  St o r m  Water National Pollutant  Di s c h a r g e  El i m i n a t i o n  Sy s t e m  (N P D E S )  Pe r m i t  (M R P )  ad o p t e d  by  th e  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o  Ba y  Re g i o n a l  Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y  Control Board (RWQCB).  5. 1 ‐78   Im p a c t  HA Z ‐2  Th e  No  Pr o j e c t  Al t e r n a t i v e  wo u l d  fa c i l i t a t e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t ,  in c l u d i n g  re s i d e n t i a l ,  mi x e d ‐us e ,  an d  co m m e r c i a l  uses, within Cupertino.  So m e  of  th e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t  co u l d  oc c u r  on  pr o p e r t i e s  th a t  po s s i b l y  ar e  co n t a m i n a t e d  an d  in a c t i v e ,  un d e r g o i n g  evaluation, and/or  un d e r g o i n g  co r r e c t i v e  ac t i o n ,  as  in d i c a t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 7 . 1 4 . 7 ‐2 of  Ch a p t e r  4. 7 ,  Ha za r d s  an d  Ha z a r d o u s  Ma t e r i a l s .   5. 1 ‐13 0   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n   Op e r a t i o n s   As  sh o w n  on  Ta b l e  5. 1 ‐10  an d  li s t e d  be l o w ,  th e  No  Pr o j e c t  Al t e r n a t i v e  wo u l d  re s u l t  in  si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t s  to  ei g h t  (8) intersections during  th e  AM  pe a k  ho u r ,  th e  PM  pe a k  ho u r  or  bo t h  pe a k  ho u r s .  Th e  in t e r s e c t i o n  nu m b e r ,  as  us e d  wi t h i n  th e  Ta b l e  5. 1 ‐10, is shown in  pa r e n t h e s e s .    Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  an d  De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d / S a r a t o g a ‐Su n n y v a l e  Ro a d  (# 5 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 ) :  LO S  E ‐   – PM  pe a k  ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Mc C l e l l a n  Ro a d / P a c i f i c a  Dr i v e  (# 9 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 ) :  LO S  F – AM  pe a k  ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 1 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r     Ta n t a u  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 7 ) :  LO S  E+  – PM  pe a k  ho u r   30   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 14  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  SB  Ra m p s / C a l v e r t  Dr i v e  (# 2 9 ) :  LO S  F – PM  pe a k  ho u r   5. 1 ‐13 1   Mi t i g a t i o n  Me a s u r e   TR A F ‐1   St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  SB  Ra m p s / C a l v e r t  Dr i v e  (# 2 9 ) :  Ma k e  th e  ea s t b o u n d  to  so u t h b o u n d  ri g h t  turn a free movement.  Th i s  wo u l d  re q u i r e  bu i l d i n g  an  is l a n d  an d  se p a r a t i n g  th e  ri g h t  tu r n  fr o m  si g n a l  co n t r o l .  It  al s o  wo u l d  re q u i r e  building a third  so u t h b o u n d  la n e  on  Ca l v e r t  Dr i v e  to  re c e i v e  th e  ri g h t  tu r n  tr a f f i c .    5. 1 ‐13 5   Mi t i g a t i o n  Me a s u r e   TR A F ‐2 – CM P   Im p a c t s   Of  th e  41  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o n s  in c l u d e d  in  th i s  EI R  do c u m e n t ,  21  ar e  in c l u d e d  in  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Co u n t y ’ s  CM P .  As  sh o w n  on Table 5.1‐910 and  li s t e d  ab o v e ,  th e  re s u l t s  in d i c a t e  th a t  th e  fo l l o w i n g  si x  (6 )  fi v e  (5 )  CM P  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  un a c c e p t a b l e  levels of service  du r i n g  th e  AM  pe a k  ho u r ,  th e  PM  pe a k  ho u r  or  bo t h  pe a k  ho u r s  un d e r  th e  20 4 0  No  Pr o j e c t  co n d i t i o n s .  Th e  in t e r s e c t i o n  number, as used  wi t h i n  th e  Ta b l e  5. 1 ‐91 0 ,  is  sh o w n  in  pa r e n t h e s e s .     Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  an d  De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d / S a r a t o g a ‐Su n n y v a l e  Ro a d  (# 5 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 ) :  LO S  FE ‐  – PM  pe a k  ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 ) :  LO S  F – AM  pe a k  ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 1 ) :  LO S  E – PM  pe a k  ho u r     I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 9 ) :  LO S  F – PM  pe a k  ho u r     Of  th e  ab o v e  si x  in t e r s e c t i o n s ,  on l y  th r e e  tw o  of  th e m  – th o s e  wi t h  an  LO S  E‐  or  LO S  F ‐ ‐   wo u l d  fa l l  be l o w  th e  VT A ’ s  CMP standard, which is  LO S  E.  Th e  th r e e  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s  th a t  ar e  wi t h i n  Cu p e r t i n o ’ s  ju r i s d i c t i o n  an d  ha v e  LO S  E (# 5 ,  #6 ,  an d  #2 1 )  do  not actually fall below the  CM P  st a n d a r d ,  bu t  on l y  be l o w  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ’ s  st a n d a r d  of  D re s u l t i n g  in  a si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t .   Ch a p t e r  5. 2 :  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A  5. 2 ‐58   Si t i n g   Ne w   Od o r   So u r c e s   Wh i l e   no t   al l   so u r c e s   in   Ta b l e   4. 2 ‐10 ,   in   Ch a p t e r   4. 2 ,   Ai r   Qu a l i t y ,   of   th i s   Dr a f t   EI R ,   ar e   fo u n d   in   Cu p e r t i n o   (e . g .  rendering plants, confined  an i m a l   fa c i l i t i e s ) ,   co m m e r c i a l   an d   in d u s t r i a l   ar e a s   in   th e   Ci t y   of   Cu p e r t i n o   ha v e   th e   po t e n t i a l   to   in c l u d e  land uses that generate  ob j e c t i o n a b l e   od o r s .   Bu i l d o u t   pe r m i t t e d   un d e r   La n d   Us e   Al t er n a t i v e   A  co u l d   in c l u d e   ne w   so u r c e s   of   od o r s ,  such as composting,  gr e e n w a s t e ,   an d   re c y c l i n g   op e r a t i o n s ;   fo o d   pr o c e s s i n g ;   ch e m i c a l   ma n u f a c t u r i n g ;   an d   pa i n t i n g / c o a t i n g   op e r a t i o n s ,  because these are  pe r m i t t e d  us e s  in  th e  co m m e r c i a l  an d / o r  in d u s t r i a l  ar e a s  in  th e  Ci t y .  Fu t u r e  en v i r o n m e n t a l  re v i e w  co u l d  be  re q u i r e d  for industrial projects  li s t e d  in   Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐84 . 2 ‐9,   in   Ch a p t e r   4. 2 ,   Ai r   Qu a l i t y ,   of  th i s   Dr a f t   EI R ,   to  en s u r e   th a t   se n s i t i v e  la n d  us e s  ar e   no t  exposed to objectionable  od o r s .   5. 2 ‐62   Im p a c t  BI O ‐3  De v e l o p m e n t   an d   la n d   us e   ac t i v i t i e s   co n s i s t e n t   wi t h   La n d   Us e   Al t e r n a t i v e   A  Co m p o n e n t s   wo u l d   oc c u r   in urbanized areas where  ju r i s d i c t i o n a l   wa t e r s   ar e   ab s e n t .   In d i r e c t   im p a c t s   to   we t l a n d s   an d   ju r i s d i c t i o n a l   ot h e r   wa t e r s   in c l u d e :   1)   an   in c r e a s e  in the potential for  31   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 15  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e se d i m e n t a t i o n   du e   to   co n s t r u c t i o n   gr a d i n g   an d   gr o u n d   di s t u r b a n c e ,   2)   an   in c r e a s e   in   th e   po t e n t i a l   fo r   er o s i o n  due to increased runoff  vo l u m e s   ge n e r a t e d   by   im p e r v i o u s   su r f a c e s ,   an d   3)   an   in c r e a s e   in   th e   po t e n t i a l   fo r   wa t e r   qu a l i t y   de g r a d a t i o n  due to increased levels in  no n ‐po i n t  po l l u t a n t s .  Ho w e v e r ,  in d i r e c t  im p a c t s  co u l d  be  la r g e l y  av o i d e d  th r o u g h  ef f e c t i v e  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  Best Management Practices  du r i n g  co n s t r u c t i o n  an d  co m p l i a n c e  wi t h  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  co n t r o l s .  As  di s c u s s e d  in  Se ct i o n  4. 8 . 1 . 1 ,  Re g u l a t o r y  Fr a m e w o r k ,  of Chapter 4.94.8,  Hy d r o l o g y   an d   Wa t e r   Qu a l i t y ,   of   th i s   Dr a f t   EI R ,   wa t e r   qu a l i t y   in   st o r m w a t e r   ru n o f f   is   re g u l a t e d   lo c a l l y   by   th e  Santa Clara Valley Urban  Ru n o f f   Po l l u t i o n   Pr e v e n t i o n  Pr o g r a m  (S C V U R P P P ) ,   wh i c h   in c l u d e s   pr o v i s i o n  C. 3   of   th e   Mu n i c i p a l   Re g i o n a l   St o r m  Water National Pollutant  Di s c h a r g e  El i m i n a t i o n  Sy s t e m  (N P D E S )  Pe r m i t  (M R P ) ,  ad o p t e d  by  th e  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o  Ba y  Re g i o n a l  Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y  Control Board (RWQCB).   5. 2 ‐88   Im p a c t  HA Z ‐2  La n d   Us e   Al t e r n a t i v e   A  wo u l d   fa c i l i t a t e  ne w   de v e l o p m e n t ,   in c l u d i n g   re s i d e n t i a l ,   mi x e d ‐us e ,   an d   co m m e r c i a l  us e s ,  within Cupertino. Some  of  th e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t  co u l d  oc c u r  on  pr o p e r t i e s  th a t  po s s i b l y  ar e  co n t a m i n a t e d  an d  in a c t i v e ,  un d e r g o i n g  ev a l u a t i o n ,  and/or undergoing  co r r e c t i v e  ac t i o n ,  as  in d i c a t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 7 . 1 4 . 7 ‐2.   5. 2 ‐13 2   Im p a c t   PO P ‐1  –  Re g i o n a l  Pl a n n i n g   Wi t h   re s p e c t   to  jo b s ,  AB A G  pr o j e c t s  an  in c r e a s e   of  7, 0 4 0  jo b s  fo r  a  to t a l  of  33 , 3 6 0   jo b s   in  20 4 0 ,  as  sh o w n   in  Ta b l e  4.11‐1 in Chapter 4.11,  Po p u l a t i o n  an d  Ho u s i n g ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R .  As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  5. 2 ‐9,  wh e n  ap p l y i n g  th e  Ci t y ’ s  jo b  ge n e r a t i o n  ra t e s  for office, commercial and  ho t e l   de v e l o p m e n t ,   bu i l d o u t   of   th i s   Al t e r n a t i v e   co u l d   re s u l t   in   as   ma n y   as   5, 2 0 6   ad d i t i o n a l   jo b s   fo r   a  to t a l   of   32,593 jobs in 2040, which  wo u l d  be  wi t h i n  th e  re g i o n a l  jo b  pr o j e c t i o n s  (1 9  pe r c e n t  co m p a r e d  to  27  pe r c e n t ) .    5. 2 ‐14 9   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  5. 2 ‐10 ,  th e  fo l l o w i n g  th r e e  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  an  un a c c e p t a b l e  le v e l  un d e r  bo t h  No Project and Land Use  Al t e r n a t i v e  A co n d i t i o n s ,  bu t  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A wo u l d  no t  ha v e  a si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t  on  th e i r  op e r a t i o n s :    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Mc C l e l l a n  Ro a d / P a c i f i c a  Dr i v e  (# 9 ) :  LO S  E – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r     Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 1 ) :  LO S  E – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r     Ta n t a u  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 7 ) :  LO S  E+  – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  SB  Ra m p s / C a l v e r t  Dr i v e  (# 2 9 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r   5. 2 ‐15 0   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  5. 2 ‐10 ,  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A wo u l d  re s u l t  in  si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t s  du r i n g  at  le a s t  on e  of  th e  pe a k  hours. The following  fo u r  (4 )  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  a si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t  un d e r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A tr a f f i c  co n d i t i o n s :     Su n n y v a l e ‐Sa r a t o g a  Ro a d / D e  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 ) :  LO S  E+  an d  EF  – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Hours, respectively   De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 ) :  LO S  FE ‐  – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 ) :  LO S  F – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r   32   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 16  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 5. 2 ‐15 7   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐2 –  CM P  Im p a c t s   Of  th e  41  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o n s  in c l u d e d  in  th i s  EI R  do c u m e n t ,  21  ar e  in c l u d e d  in  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Co u n t y ’ s  Co n g e s t i o n  Management Program  (C M P ) .    Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1,  wh i c h  pr e s e n t s  th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  im p a c t  an a l y s i s  un d e r  20 4 0  No  Pr o j e c t  Co n d i t i o n s  an d  the Land Use Alternative A  on  al l  of  th e  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o n s ,  in c l u d e s  th e  21  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s .  La n d  Us e  Al t er n a t i v e  A re s u l t e d  in  si g n i f i c a n t  impacts to five (5) four  (4 )  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s .  Th e  fo l l o w i n g  fo u r  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s  ex p e r i e n c e d  a si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t  du r i n g  at  le a s t  on e  of the peak hours:    Sa r a t o g a ‐Su n n y v a l e  Ro a d / D e  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 ) :  LO S  E+  an d  F – AM  an d  PM  pe a k  hours, respectively   De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  (# 6 ) :  LO S  F – PM  pe a k  ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 ) :  LO S  E‐  – PM  pe a k  ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 ) :  LO S  F – AM  pe a k  ho u r    Of  th e  ab o v e  fo u r  in t e r s e c t i o n s ,  tw o  of  th e m  Al l  fo u r  of  th e  ab o v e  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  fa l l  be l o w  VT A ’ s  CM P  st a n d a r d ,  which is LOS E.  The  tw o  CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n s  th a t  ar e  wi t h i n  Cu p e r t i n o ’ s  ju r i s d i c t i o n  an d  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  LO S  E (S a r a t o g a ‐Su n n y v a l e  Road/De Anza Boulevard  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  [# 5 ]  an d  De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  [# 8 ] )  Sa r a t o g a ‐Su n n y v a l e  Ro a d / D e  Anza Boulevard and  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 ) ,  wh i c h  is  a CM P  in t e r s e c t i o n  th a t  is  wi t h i n  Cu p e r t i n o ’ s  ju r i s d i c t i o n  an d  wo u l d  op e r a t e  ab o v e  LOS E during the AM  pe a k  ho u r ,  do e s  no t  ac t u a l l y  fa l l  be l o w  th e  CM P  st a n d a r d ,  bu t  on l y  be l o w  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ’ s  st a n d a r d  of  LO S  D. It does, however, fall  be l o w  th e  CM P  st a n d a r d  fo r  th e  PM  pe a k  ho u r .   5. 2 ‐16 1   Im p a c t  UT I L ‐1 – Ca l   Wa t e r   Fo r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A,  it  is  as s u m e d  th a t  pr o j e c t e d  wa t e r  de m a n d  wo u l d  be  ad d e d  to  th e  LA S  Di s t r i c t  an d  Apple Campus 2 demands.  Al s o ,  it  is  as s u m e d  th a t  de v e l o p m e n t  wo u l d  oc c u r  at  a re l a t i v e l y  co n s t a n t  ra t e  ov e r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A’ s  26 ‐year horizon period. The  WS E  in c l u d e s  de t a i l e d  ca l c u l a t i o n s  of  wa t e r  de m a n d  fr o m  La nd  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A,  ba s e d  on  th e  la n d  us e s  sh o w n  in Table 5.2‐1315. As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  5. 2 ‐15 . 1 ,  th e  WS E  de t e r m i n e d  th e  wa t e r  de m a n d  at  bu i l d o u t  (2 0 4 0 )  fo r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  A in  the Cal Water LAS District  wo u l d  be  80 7  af y .    Th i s  pr o j e c t i o n  wa s  ca l c u l a t e d  us i n g  th e  re d u c e d  pe r c e n t a g e  of  de v e l o p m e n t  fo r  ea c h  la n d  us e  classification and  ap p l y i n g  it  to  th e  de m a n d  es t i m a t e d  fo r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t .    Ap p ly i n g  a 15  pe r c e n t  re d u c t i o n  fa c t o r  du e  to  wa t e r  conservation  me a s u r e s  to  be  in c o r p o r a t e d  in t o  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t ,  th e  to t a l  LA S  GP  am e n d m e n t  wa t e r  de m a n d  at  bu i l d o u t  (2 0 4 0 )  for Alternative A is  es t i m a t e d  to  be  85  pe r c e n t  of  94 9  af y ,  or  37 . 8  pe r c e n t  of  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t .  Th e r e f o r e ,  th e  fi v e‐ye a r  in c r e a s e  for Land Use Alternative  A Pr o j e c t  de m a n d  is  16 1  af y .   5. 2 ‐16 4   Im p a c t  UT I L ‐1 – Ca l   Wa t e r  Mu l t i p l e  Dr y   Ye a r s   Ta b l e  5. 2 ‐19  co m p a r e s  de m a n d  to  su p p l y  fo r  a 4 ye a r  mu l t i p l e  dr y  ye a r  pe r i o d .  Fo r  th e  fi r s t  th r e e  ye a r s ,  th e  an a l y s i s  conservatively  as s u m e s  th a t  de m a n d  wo u l d  re m a i n  un c h a n g e d  fr o m  a no r m a l  hy d r o l o g i c  ye a r  an d  th a t  in  th e  fo u r t h  ye a r  de m a n d would decrease by 10  pe r c e n t  as  do e s  th e  de l i v e r y  of  SC W V D  “c o n t r a c t ”  wa t e r .  In  al l  ca s e s ,  th e  su p p l y  is  pr o j e c t e d  to  me e t  10 0  pe r c e n t  of demand. It is noted  th a t  ev e n  if  de m a n d  di d  no t  de c r e a s e  by  10  pe r c e n t  in  ye a r  4 an d  SC V W D  su p p l y  di d ,  th e  in c r e a s e d  gr o u n d w a t e r  supplied in 2040 would  33   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 17  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e be  1, 5 6 5  ac r e  fe e t  fo r  a to t a l  of  3, 9 6 3 3 , 9 5 4 ac r e  fe e t ,  wh i c h  ca n  be  pu m p e d  by  th e  LA S  Di s t r i c t  by  in c r e a s i n g  we l l  operation times 5. 2 ‐16 5   Im p a c t  UT I L ‐1 – Ca l   Wa t e r  Mu l t i p l e  Dr y   Ye a r s   TAB L E  5. 2 ‐19   DEM A N D  AN D  SUP P L Y  COM P A R I S O N  ‐ MUL T I P L E  DRY  YEA R  PER I O D  (4  YEA R S ):  CAL  WAT E R  LA S  DIS T R I C T  + LAND USE  ALT E R N A T I V E  A (A F Y )      20 1 5   20 2 0   20 2 5   20 3 0   20 3 5   2040  To t a l  De m a n d :  Ye a r s  1 ‐   3  13 , 6 4 1   12 , 8 1 2   13 , 5 2 2   14 , 2 3 1   14 , 9 4 2   15,654  SC V W D  Su p p l y   10 , 2 0 0   9, 7 0 0   10 , 2 0 0   11 , 2 0 0   12 , 1 2 0   13,000  LA S  Gr o u n d w a t e r   3, 4 4 1   3, 3 7 8   3, 8 5 5   3, 8 3 1   3, 8 8 8   3,984  To t a l  Su p p l y   13 , 6 4 1   13 , 0 7 8   14 , 0 5 5   15 , 0 3 1   16 , 0 0 8   16,984  Di f f e r e n c e   0  26 6   53 3   80 0   1, 0 6 6   1,330  To t a l  De m a n d :  Ye a r  4  12 , 2 7 7   11 , 5 3 0   12 , 1 7 0   12 , 8 0 8   13 , 4 4 8   14,089  SC V W D  Su p p l y   9, 1 8 0   8, 7 3 0   9, 1 8 0   10 , 0 8 0   10 , 9 0 8   11,700  LA S  Gr o u n d w a t e r   3, 0 9 7   2, 8 0 0   2, 9 9 0   2, 7 2 8   2, 5 4 0   2,389  Di f f e r e n c e   0  0  0  0  0  0    Ch a p t e r  5. 3 :  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B  5. 3 ‐63   Si t i n g  Ne w  Od o r   So u r c e s   Wh i l e  no t  al l  so u r c e s  in  Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐10 ,  in  Ch a p t e r  4. 2 ,  Ai r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  ar e  fo u n d  in  th e  Ci t y  (e . g .  re n d e r i n g  plants, confined  an i m a l  fa c i l i t i e s ) ,  co m m e r c i a l  an d  in d u s t r i a l  ar e a s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  ha v e  th e  po t e n t i a l  to  in c l u d e  la n d  us e s  that generate  ob j e c t i o n a b l e  od o r s .  Bu i l d o u t  pe r m i t t e d  un d e r  La nd  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B co u l d  in c l u d e  ne w  so u r c e s  of  od o r s ,  su c h  as composting,  gr e e n w a s t e ,  an d  re c y c l i n g  op e r a t i o n s ;  fo o d  pr o c e s s i n g ;  ch e m i c a l  ma n u f a c t u r i n g ;  an d  pa i n t i n g / c o a t i n g  op e r a t i o n s ,  because these are  pe r m i t t e d  us e s  in  th e  co m m e r c i a l  an d / o r  in d u s t r i a l  ar e a s  in  th e  Ci t y .  Fu t u r e  en v i r o n m e n t a l  re v i e w  co u l d  be  re q u i r e d  for industrial projects  li s t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 2 ‐84 . 2 ‐9,  in  Ch a p t e r  4. 2 ,  Ai r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  to  en s u r e  th a t  se n s i t i v e  la n d  us e s  ar e  no t  exposed to objectionable  od o r s .   5. 3 ‐67   Im p a c t  BI O ‐3  De v e l o p m e n t  an d  la n d  us e  ac t i v i t i e s  co n s i s t e n t  wi t h  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B Co m p o n e n t s  wo u l d  oc c u r  in  ur b a n i z e d  areas where  ju r i s d i c t i o n a l  wa t e r s  ar e  ab s e n t .  In d i r e c t  im p a c t s  to  we t l a n d s  an d  ju r i s d i c t i o n a l  ot h e r  wa t e r s  in c l u d e :  1)  an  in c r e a s e  in the potential for  34   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 18  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e se d i m e n t a t i o n  du e  to  co n s t r u c t i o n  gr a d i n g  an d  gr o u n d  di s t u r b a n c e ,  2)  an  in c r e a s e  in  th e  po t e n t i a l  fo r  er o s i o n  du e  to increased runoff  vo l u m e s  ge n e r a t e d  by  im p e r v i o u s  su r f a c e s ,  an d  3)  an  in c r e a s e  in  th e  po t e n t i a l  fo r  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  de g r a d a t i o n  du e  to increased levels in  no n ‐po i n t  po l l u t a n t s .  Ho w e v e r ,  in d i r e c t  im p a c t s  co u l d  be  la r g e l y  av o i d e d  th r o u g h  ef f e c t i v e  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  Be s t  Management Practices  du r i n g  co n s t r u c t i o n  an d  co m p l i a n c e  wi t h  wa t e r  qua l i t y  co n t r o l s .  As  di s c u s s e d  in  Se c t i o n  4. 8 . 1 . 1 ,  Re g u l a t o r y  Fr a m e w o r k ,  of Chapter 4.94.8,  Hy d r o l o g y  an d  Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  wa t e r  qu a l i t y  in  st o r m w a t e r  ru n o f f  is  re g u l a t e d  lo c a l l y  by  th e  Sa n t a  Clara Valley Urban  Ru n o f f  Po l l u t i o n  Pr e v e n t i o n  Pr o g r a m  (S C V U R P P P ) ,  wh i c h  in c l u d e s  pr o v i s i o n  C. 3  of  th e  Mu n i c i p a l  Re g i o n a l  St o r m  Water National Pollutant  Di s c h a r g e  El i m i n a t i o n  Sy s t e m  (N P D E S )  Pe r m i t  (M R P ) ,  ad o p t e d  by  th e  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o  Ba y  Re g i o n a l  Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y  Control Board (RWQCB).  5. 3 ‐92   Im p a c t  HA Z ‐2  Th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  fa c i l i t a t e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t ,  in c l u d i n g  re s i d e n t i a l ,  mi x e d ‐us e ,  an d  co m m e r c i a l  us e s ,  within Cupertino. Some of  th e  ne w  de v e l o p m e n t  co u l d  oc c u r  on  pr o p e r t i e s  th a t  po s s i b l y  ar e  co n t a m i n a t e d  an d  in a c t i v e ,  un d e r g o i n g  ev a l u a t i o n ,  and/or undergoing  co r r e c t i v e  ac t i o n ,  as  in d i c a t e d  in  Ta b l e  4. 7 . 1 4 . 7 ‐2 of  Ch a p t e r  4. 7 ,  Ha z a r d s  an d  Ha za r d o u s  Ma t e r i a l s .   5. 3 ‐14 4   th r o u g h   5. 3 ‐14 5   Im p a c t  PS ‐5 –  Cu p e r t i n o  Un i o n   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Th e  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B wo u l d  ge n e r a t e  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  3, 3 6 1  3, 3 1 6  ho u s i n g  un i t s  in  Cu p e r t i n o ; .  Af t e r  su b t r a c t i n g  the 344 units  ex p e c t e d  to  be  lo c a t e d  in t o  th e  SC U S D ,  th e  CU S D  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  an  ad d i t i o n a l  in c r e a s e  in  th e i r  at t e n d a n c e  of  743 students in  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s  an d  20 9  st u d e n t s  in  mi d d l e  sc h o o l s .  Th e  pr o j e c t i o n ,  as  we l l  as  th e  cu r r e n t  en r o l l m e n t ,  in d i c a t e s  that the CUSD would  no t  ha v e  su f f i c i e n t  ca p a c i t y  to  ac c o m m o d a t e  th e  ex p e c t e d  in c r e a s e  in  en r o l l m e n t  by  20 4 0 .  th u s  th e  CU S D  wo u l d  experience additional  st u d e n t s  in  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s  an d  mi d d l e  sc h o o l .  Wi t h  st u d e n t  en r o l l m e n t  al r e a d y  ex c e e d i n g  CU S D ’ s  ca p a c i t y ,  the additional students  wo u l d  ex a c e r b a t e  th e  CU S D ’ s  ca p a c i t y .  In  or d e r  to  ac c o m m o d a t e  ne w  st u d e n t s ,  th e  CU S D  ne e d s  to  ei t h e r  ex p a n d  existing facilities or  co n s t r u c t  ne w  sc h o o l s .  Ho w e v e r ,  Cu p e r t i n o  do e s  no t  ha v e  su f f i c i e n t  lo c a t i o n s  fo r  ne w  sc h o o l  fa c i l i t i e s  to  ac c o m m o d a t e  the increased  en r o l l m e n t  ex p e c t e d .  Ho w e v e r ,  th e  CU S D  wo u l d  re c e i v e  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  $9 . 1  6. 1  mi l l i o n  in  de v e l o p m e n t  im p a c t  fees from Land Use  Al t e r n a t i v e  B,  wh i c h  wo u l d  mi t i g a t e  th e  im p a c t s  fr o m  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B pe r  SB  50 .  Th e  im p a c t  to  th e  CU S D  would be less than  si g n i f i c a n t .  5. 3 ‐14 5   Im p a c t  PS ‐5 –  Fr e m o n t  Un i f i e d   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Wi t h  th e  es t i m a t e d  in c r e a s e  of  2, 9 7 2  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s  to  Cu p e r t i n o ,  th e  FU H S D  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  in c r e a s e  20 9  new students by 2040.  Al t h o u g h  cu r r e n t  st u d e n t  en r o l l m e n t  al m o s t  eq u a l s  to  it s  ca p a c i t y ,  th e  ad d i t i o n a l  st u d e n t s  wo u l d  in c r e a s e  th e  ca p a c i t y  deficit for the  FU H S D .  Ho w e v e r ,  th e  FU H S D  ha s  be e n  mo d e r n i z i n g  it s  fa c i l i t i e s  wi t h  ad d i t i o n a l  cl a s s r o o m  an d  ca f e t e r i a s  to  co n t i n u o u s l y  address the  ca p a c i t y  de f i c i t  is s u e ,  an d  ad d i t i o n a l  de v e l o p m e n t  im p a c t  fe e  of  $6 4 . 0 6  mi l l i o n  wo u l d  am e l i o r a t e  th e  ca p a c i t y  pr o b l em. The impact to the  FU H S D  wo u l d  be  le s s  th a n  si g n i f i c a n t .   5. 3 ‐14 5   Im p a c t  PS ‐5 –   Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Un i f i e d   Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   Wi t h  Of  th e  3, 3 1 6  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s  wi t h  pr o v i d e d  fo r  in  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B,  34 4  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s  wi l l  be  located in the SCUSD. With  th e  an t i c i p a t e d  34 4  ne w  ho u s i n g  un i t s ,  th e  ex p e c t e d  gr o w t h  in  st u d e n t  en r o l l m e n t  fo r  th e  SC U S D  wo u l d  be  ap p r o x i m a t e l y  28 students (14  fo r  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s ,  7 fo r  mi d d l e  sc h o o l s ,  an d  7 fo r  hi g h  sc h o o l s ) .  in c r e a s e .  Al t h o u g h  in c r e a s e  en r o l l m e n t  wo u l d  add stress to the  35   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 19  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e sc h o o l  in  th e  SC U S D ,  de v e l o p m e n t  im p a c t  fe e s  fo r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B wo u l d  mi t i g a t e  th e  im p a c t  to  th e  SC U S D  facilities; therefore, the  im p a c t s  to  th e  SC U S D  wo u l d  be  le s s   t h a n   s i g n i f i c a n t .  5. 3 ‐15 1   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   Th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  le v e l  of  se r v i c e  an a l y s i s  un d e r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B sc e n a r i o  co m p a r e d  to  th e  20 4 0  No  Pr o j e c t  scenario are presented  in  Ta b l e  5. 3 ‐10 .  Th e  re s u l t s  sh o w  th a t ,  of  th e  41  st u d y  in t e r s e c t i o n s ,  29  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  an  ac c e p t a ble level of service under  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B,  an d  tw e l v e  (1 2 )  th i r t e e n  (1 3 )  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  an  un a c c e p t a b l e  le v e l  of  se r v i c e  during the AM peak  ho u r ,  th e  PM  pe a k  ho u r ,  or  bo t h  pe a k  ho u r s .    5. 3 ‐15 4   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   As  sh o w n  in  Ta b l e  5. 3 ‐10 ,  si x  (6 )  of  th e  el e v e n  (1 1 )  th i r t e e n  (1 3 )  in t e r s e c t i o n s  th a t  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at  an  un a c c e p t a b l e  level of service for at  le a s t  on e  (1 )  pe a k  ho u r  un d e r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B we r e  al s o  pr e d i c t e d  to  op e r a t e  at  an  un a c c e p t a b l e  le v e l  of  service under the No  Pr o j e c t  sc e n a r i o .  Th e  Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 1 )  in t e r s e c t i o n  wo u l d  op e r a t e  at an unacceptable level of  se r v i c e  fo r  at  le a s t  on e  pe a k  ho u r  un d e r  th e  No  Pr o j e c t  sc e n a r i o  im pr o v e d  fr o m  un a c c e p t a b l e  to  ac c e p t a b l e  le v e l s  of service: LOS E to LOS  D – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r .   5. 3 ‐15 4   th r o u g h   5. 3 ‐15 5   Im p a c t  TR A F ‐1 –  In t e r s e c t i o n  Le v e l s   of  Se r v i c e   Ba s e d  on  ap p l y i n g  th e  si g n i f i c a n c e  cr i t e r i a  fo r  tr a f f i c  im p a c t s  di s c u s s e d  in  Se c t i o n  4. 1 3 . 5 ,  Th r e s h o l d s  of  Si g n i f i c a n c e ,  in Chapter 4.13,  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  an d  Tr a f f i c ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R ,  th e r e  wo u l d  be  a si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t  at  tw e l v e  (1 2 )  th i r t e e n  (1 3 )  of  th e  study intersections  un d e r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B du r i n g  on e  or  bo t h  pe a k  ho u r s ,  as  hi g h l i g h t e d  in  th e  Ta b l e  4. 1 3 ‐10 ,  Ta b l e  5. 3 ‐13 .  Proposed Intersection  Le v e l s  of  Se r v i c e  Ta b l e ,  of  Ch a p t e r  4. 1 3 ,  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  an d  Tr a f f i c ,  of  th i s  Dr a f t  EI R .    Th e  fo l l o w i n g  tw e l v e  (1 2 )  th i r t e e n  (1 3 )  in t e r s e c t i o n s  wo u l d  ex p e r i e n c e  a si g n i f i c a n t  im p a c t  un d e r  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B traffic conditions:    SR  85  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 ) :  LO S  E – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r    St e l l i n g  Ro a d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 3 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Su n n y v a l e ‐Sa r a t o g a  Ro a d / D e  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 ) :  LO S  E‐  an d  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Hours, respectively   De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 ) :  LO S  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 7 ) :  LO S  F – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Mc C l e l l a n  Ro a d / P a c i f i c a  Dr i v e  (# 9 ) :  LO S  F – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 1 6 ) :  LO S  EF  – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 ) :  LO S  F an d  E+  – AM  an d  PM  Pe a k  Ho u r s ,  re s p e c t i v e l y    No r t h  Ta n t a u  Av e n u e / Q u a i l  Av e n u e  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 2 4 ) :  LO S  E+  – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r   36   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 20  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ta n t a u  Av e n u e  (# 2 7 ) :  LO S  E – PM  Pe a k  Ho u r    Ag i l e n t  Te c h  Dr i v e w a y  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 3 0 ) :  LO S  E – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 3 1 ) :  LO S  F – AM  Pe a k  Ho u r   5. 3 ‐15 7     Wh i l e  im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  Mi t i g a t i o n  Me a s u r e  TR A F ‐1 wo u l d  se c u r e  a fu n d i n g  me c h a n i s m  fo r  fu t u r e  ro a d w a y  an d  infrastructure  im p r o v e m e n t s  th a t  ar e  ne c e s s a r y  to  mi t i g a t e  im p a c t s  fr o m  fu t u r e  pr o j e c t s  ba s e d  on  th e n  cu r r e n t  st a n d a r d s ,  im p a c t s  would remain  si g n i f i c a n t   a n d   u n a v o i d a b l e , be c a u s e  th e  Ci t y  ca n n o t  gu a r a n t e e  im p r o v e m e n t s  at  th e s e  in t e r s e c t i o n s  at  th i s  ti m e .  This is in part because  th e  ne x u s  st u d y  ha s  ye t  to  be  pr e p a r e d  an d  be c a u s e  so m e  of  th e  im p a c t e d  in t e r s e c t i o n s  ar e  un d e r  th e  ju r i s d i c t i o n s  of the Cities of  Su n n y v a l e  an d  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  an d  Ca l t r a n s .  Sp e c i f i c a l l y ,  th e  fo l l o w i n g  in t e r s e c t i o n s  ar e  ou t s i d e  th e  ju r i s d i c t i o n  of  Cu p e r t i n o :     SR  85  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C a l t r a n s )  (# 2 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (C a l t r a n s )  (# 6 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (S u n n y v a l e / C u p e r t i n o )  (# 1 6 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (C a l t r a n s )  (# 1 8 )    No r t h  Ta n t a u  Av e n u e / Q u a i l  Av e n u e  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (S u n n y v a l e / C u p e r t i n o )  (# 2 4 )    Ag i l e n t  Te c h  Dr i v e w a y  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (S a n t a  Cl a r a )  (# 3 0 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C M P ,  Co u n t y ) ( # 3 1 )   5. 3 ‐16 8   Im p a c t  UT I L ‐1 –   Ca l  Wa t e r  No r m a l   Hy d r o l o g i c  Ye a r   TAB L E  5. 3 ‐17    DEM A N D  AN D  SUP P L Y  COM P A R I S O N  ‐ NOR M A L  HYD R O L O G I C  YEA R : CAL  WAT E R  LA S  DIS T R I C T  +L AN D  USE  ALT E R N A T I V E  B (AFY)    20 1 5   20 2 0   20 2 5   20 3 0   20 3 5   2040  To t a l  De m a n d   13 , 6 4 1   12 , 9 6 3   13 , 8 2 4   14 , 6 8 5   15 , 5 4 6   16,407  SC V W D  Su p p l y   10 , 2 0 0   9, 7 0 0   10 , 2 0 0   11 , 2 0 0   12 , 1 2 0   13,000  LA S  Gr o u n d w a t e r   3, 4 4 1   3, 3 7 8   3, 8 5 5   3, 8 3 1   3, 8 8 8   3,984  To t a l  Su p p l y   13 , 6 4 1 5   13 , 0 7 8   14 , 0 5 5   15 , 0 3 1   16 , 0 0 8   16,984  Di f f e r e n c e   0  11 5   23 1   34 6   46 2   577  So u r c e :  Ta b l e  14  (C a l  Wa t e r )  of  Wa t e r  Su p p l y  Ev a l u a t i o n  (Y a r n e  & As s o c i a t e s ) ,  Ma y  20 ,  20 1 4 ;  De m a n d  mo d i f i e d  to  re f l e c t  La n d  Us e  Al t e r n a t i v e  B; SVWD Supply and  LA S  Gr o u n d w a t e r  su p p l y  ar e  as  pr e s e n t e d  in  WS E  (i . e .  or i g i n a l  va l u e s  in  Ta b l e  14  of  WS E ) .  No t e :  Th e  su p p l y  su r p l u s  (D i f f e r e n c e )  sh o w n  in the table is theoretical. Total  37   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 21  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e gr o u n d w a t e r  ac t u a l l y  su p p l i e d  is  th e  qu a n t i t y  ne c e s s a r y  to  ma k e  up  th e  di f f e r e n c e  be t w e e n  LA S  di s t r i c t  de m a n d  an d  SC V W D  su p p l i e s  –both scheduled and Non‐ Co n t r a c t  de l i v e r i e s .  He n c e ,  in  pr a c t i c e ,  to t a l  su p p l y  al w a y s  eq u a l s  pr o j e c t e d  de m a n d  fo r  an y  gi v e n  ye a r .   Ch a p t e r  6:  CE Q A ‐Re q u i r e d  As s e s s m e n t  Co n c l u s i o n s 6. 7  th r o u g h   6. 8   Si g n i f i c a n t  an d   Un a v o i d a b l e   im p a c t s   TR A F ‐2  Im p l e m e n t a t i o n  of  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  re s u l t  in  si g n i f i c a n t  an d  un a v o i d a b l e  im p a c t s  to  th e  fo l l o w i n g  four Congestion  Ma n a g e m e n t  Pr o g r a m  (C M P )  in t e r s e c t i o n s  at  le a s t  on e  of  th e  pe a k  ho u r s .   Th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wo u l d  re s u l t  in  si g n i f i c a n t   a n d   u n a v o i d a b l e  im p a c t s  to  th e  fo l l o w i n g  Sa n t a  Cl a r a  Co u n t y ’ s  Congestion Management  Pr o g r a m  (C M P )  int e r s e c t i o n s  at  le a s t  on e  of  th e  pe a k  ho u r s :    SR  85  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p s  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 )  St e l l i n g  Ro a d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d ( # 3 )    Su n n y v a l e ‐Sa r a t o g a  Ro a d / D e  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  Ho m e s t e a d  Ro a d  (# 5 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 6 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d .  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 7 )    De  An z a  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 8 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 8 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d  an d  I‐28 0  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  (# 1 9 )    Wo l f e  Ro a d / M i l l e r  Av e n u e  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (# 2 1 )    St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  an d  I‐28 0  Ra m p s / C a l v e r t  Dr i v e  (# 2 9 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  So u t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C o u n t y )  (# 3 1 )    La w r e n c e  Ex p r e s s w a y  No r t h b o u n d  Ra m p  an d  St e v e n s  Cr e e k  Bo u l e v a r d  (C o u n t y )  (# 3 2 ) Ch a p t e r  3 of  th e  Fi n a l  EI R  – Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Dr a f t  EI R 3‐2 of  th e   Fi n a l  EI R   (R e v i s i o n s   Ch a p t e r )   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  5  Th e  la s t  pa r a g r a p h  un d e r  su b h e a d i n g  Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wi t h  re s p e c t  to  Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e  5 (G l e n b r o o k  Ap a r t m e n t s )  on page 3‐80 of  th e  Dr a f t  EI R  is  he r e b y  am e n d e d  as  fo l l o w s :   Un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  th e r e  wo u l d  be  no  ch a n g e s  to  th e  Ge ne r a l  Pl a n  la n d  us e  de s i g n a t i o n ,  zo n i n g ,  or  de n s i t y .  As shown in Table 3‐ 38   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 22  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 21 ,  fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  re s u l t  in  up  to  93  ne w  re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s  ad d e d  to  th e  existing 517 units, for a  to t a l  of  53 0 6 1 0  un i t s .    3‐6 of  th e   Fi n a l  EI R   (R e v i s i o n s   Ch a p t e r )   Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t   Si t e  6  Th e  la s t  pa r a g r a p h  un d e r  su b h e a d i n g  Pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  wi t h  re s p e c t  to  Ho u s i n g  El e m e n t  Si t e  6 (T h e  Vi l l a g e s  Ap a r t m e n t s )  on page 3‐82 of  th e  Dr a f t  EI R  is  he r e b y  am e n d e d  as  fo l l o w s :   Un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t ,  th e r e  wo u l d  be  no  ch a n g e s  to  th e  Ge ne r a l  Pl a n  la n d  us e  de s i g n a t i o n ,  zo n i n g ,  or  de n s i t y .  As shown in Table 3‐ 21 ,  fu t u r e  de v e l o p m e n t  un d e r  th e  pr o p o s e d  Pr o j e c t  co u l d  re s u l t  in  up  to  62  ne t  re s i d e n t i a l  un i t s  ad d e d  to  th e  ex i s t i n g  468 units, for a total  of  61 0 5 3 0  un i t s .    Re v i s i o n s  to  Ap p e n d i x  F,  Pu b l i c  Se r v i c e s  Da t a :  Sc h o o l  En r o l l m e n t  an d  Fi s c a l  Im p a c t  An a l y s i s  pr e p a r e d  by  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s 10   Ty p o g r a p h i c a l  er r o r   4. 1    Cu r r e n t  Co n d i t i o n s   Th e  Di s t r i c t  op e r a t e s  25  sc h o o l s ,  20  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s  an d  fi v e  mi d d l e  sc h o o l s .    Th e  el e m e n t a r y  sc h o o l s  se r v e  kindergarten through third  gr a d e  st u d e n t s ,  ex c e p t  fo r  Mc A u l i f f e  wh i c h  in c l u d e s  gr a d e s  ki n d e r g a r t e n  th r o u g h  ei g h t .    Th e  mi d d l e  sc h o o l s  se r v e  sixth through eighth  gr a d e  st u d e n t s .    12   CU S D  ho u s i n g   br e a k d o w n   Ta b l e  4‐1  Ne w  Ho u s i n g  Un i t s                                 Al t e r n a t i v e s   Ex i s t i n g   Co n d i t i o n s   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   A  Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   B  Most Growth C         By  20 2 3   1, 1 4 0   1, 1 4 0   1, 0 6 0   1,993  To t a l  Ex p e c t e d  in  CU S D   1, 8 4 5   1, 8 4 5   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2   3,5963,601  To t a l  in  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o   1, 8 9 5   1, 8 9 5   3, 3 1 6   4,421  So u r c e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o   39   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 23  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 14   CU S D  st u d e n t   br e a k d o w n  by   al t e r n a t i v e     Ta b l e  4‐2  En r o l l m e n t  fr o m  Ne w  Un i t s   Lo c a t e d  in  Cu p e r t i n o  Un i o n  Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t                                              SG R s   Ex i s t i n g   Co n d i t i o n s   Mi n i m a l    Gr o w t h   A  Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   B  Most  Growth C          By  20 2 3            gr a d e s  K‐5  0. 2 5   28 5   28 5   26 5   498  gr a d e s  6‐8  0. 0 7   80   80   74   140  To t a l  CU S D    36 5   36 5   33 9   638          Fr o m  To t a l  Un i t s  Al l o w e d            gr a d e s  K‐5  0. 2 5   46 1   46 1   74 2 7 4 3   899901  gr a d e s  6‐8  0. 0 7   12 9   12 9   20 8 2 0 9   252253  To t a l  CU S D    59 0   59 0   94 9 9 5 2   1,1511,154  So u r c e s :  En r o l l m e n t  Pr o j e c t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s  an d  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o   16   CU S D  To t a l  st u d e n t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e    Ta b l e  4‐3  En r o l l m e n t  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a s   Fr o m  Ne w  Ho u s i n g  Un i t s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o           By  20 2 3   To t a l     Un i t s   En r o l l m e n t   Un i t s   En r o l l m e n t   Di s t r i c t  To t a l *          Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   1, 1 4 0   28 5   1, 8 4 5   46 1   A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   1, 1 4 0   28 5   1, 8 4 5   46 1   B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   1, 0 6 0   26 5   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2   74 2 7 4 3   C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   1, 9 9 3   49 8   3, 5 9 6 3 , 6 0 1   89 9 9 0 1   *T h e  to t a l s  ar e  no t  al w a y s  ex a c t l y  th e  nu m b e r s  in  th e  pr i o r  ta b l e  du e  to  ro u n d i n g .                              So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s   40   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 24  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 17   CU S D  To t a l  st u d e n t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e    Ta b l e  4‐4  En r o l l m e n t  fr o m  Ne w  Un i t s  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a   Cu p e r t i n o  Un i o n  Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t  Mi d d l e  Sc h o o l s           By  20 2 3   To t a l     Un i t s   En r o l l m e n t   Un i t s   En r o l l m e n t   Di s t r i c t  To t a l *   Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s 1, 1 4 0 28 5   1, 8 4 5 46 1 A ‐ Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h 1, 1 4 0 28 5   1, 8 4 5 46 1 B ‐ Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h 1, 0 6 0 26 5   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2 74 2 7 4 3 C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   1, 9 9 3   49 8   3, 5 9 6 3 , 6 0 1   89 9 9 0 1   *T h e  to t a l s  ar e  no t  al w a y s  ex a c t l y  th e  nu m b e r s  in  th e  pr i o r  ta b l e  du e  to  ro u n d i n g .                              So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s   21   CU S D  To t a l  st u d e n t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e    Ta b l e  4‐6  En r o l l m e n t  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a s   fr o m  Ne w  Un i t s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Ex i s t i n g  Un i t s          En r o l l m e n t  By  20 2 3   En r o l l m e n t  To t a l     Fr o m  Ne w    To t a l    From New   *D i s t r i c t  To t a l          Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   28 5   11 , 8 9 7   46 1   12,073  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   28 5   11 , 8 9 7   46 1   12,073  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   26 5   11 , 8 7 7   74 2 7 4 3   12 , 3 5 4 1 2 , 3 5 5   C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   49 8   12 , 1 1 0   89 9 9 0 1   12 , 5 1 1 1 2 , 5 1 2   *T o t a l s  do  no t  in c l u d e  en r o l l m e n t  fr o m  ne w  un i t s  ou t s i d e  of  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  no r  ab o u t      12 0  st u d e n t s  wh o  do  no t  re s i d e  in  th e  Di s t r i c t .        So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ,  En r o l l m e n t  Pr o j e c t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s ,  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     41   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 25  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 23   CU S D  To t a l  st u d e n t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e    Ta b l e  4‐8  Pr o j e c t e d  Mi d d l e  Sc h o o l  En r o l l m e n t  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a s   Ne w  an d  Ex i s t i n g  Ho u s i n g  Un i t s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o          By  20 2 3   To t a l     Fr o m  Ne w   To t a l *   Fr o m  Ne w   Total*  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   80   6, 3 8 8   12 9   6,437  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   80   6, 3 8 8   12 9   6,437  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   74   6, 3 8 2   20 8 2 0 9   6,5166,517  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   14 0   6, 4 4 8   25 2 2 5 3   6,5606,561  *T o t a l s   do   no t  in c l u d e   en r o l l m e n t   fr o m  ne w   un i t s  ou t s i d e  of  th e   Ci t y   of  Cu p e r t i n o ,   no r   st u d e n t s  who do not  re s i d e  in  th e  Di s t r i c t ,  ab o u t  12 0  st u d e n t s .    So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ,  En r o l l m e n t  Pr o j e c t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s ,  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     24   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐89       Cl a s s r o o m  Co u n t  an d  En r o l l m e n t  Ca p a c i t y   26   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐91 0   El e m e n t a r y  Sc h o o l s  Lo c a t e d  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o     26   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐10 1 1   Mi d d l e  Sc h o o l s  Lo c a t e d  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o     27   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐11 1 2   Cu r r e n t  En r o l l m e n t  Co m p a r e d  to  Ca p a c i t y   El e m e n t a r y  Sc h o o l s   42   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 26  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 29   CU S D  To t a l  st u d e n t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e    Ta b l e  4‐12 1 3   En r o l l m e n t  Ca p a c i t y  Co m p a r e d  to  En r o l l m e n t  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a s   fr o m  Ne w  Un i t s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Ex i s t i n g  Un i t s        En r o l l m e n t   En r o l l m e n t  By  20 2 3   En r o l l m e n t  Total    Ca p a c i t y   Fr o m  Ne w    To t a l   Fr o m  Ne w  Total  Di s t r i c t  To t a l *            Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   14 , 4 1 4   28 5   11 , 8 9 7   46 1   12,073  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h    28 5   11 , 8 9 7   46 1   12,073  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h    26 5   11 , 8 7 7   74 2 7 4 3   12,35412,355  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h    49 8   12 , 1 1 0   89 9 9 0 1   12,51112,512  * To t a l s  do  no t  in c l u d e  en r o l l m e n t  fr o m  ne w  un i t s  ou t s i d e  of  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ,  ab o u t  62  st u d e n t s .                                                                    So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ,  En r o l l m e n t  Pr o j e c t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s ,  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     31   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐13 1 4   Mi d d l e  Sc h o o l s  Lo c a t e d  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o   32   CU S D  to t a l  st u d e n t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e    Ta b l e  4‐14 1 5   En r o l l m e n t  Ca p a c i t y  Co m p a r e d  to  En r o l l m e n t  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a s   fr o m  Ne w  Un i t s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Ex i s t i n g  Un i t s           En r o l l m e n t   En r o l l m e n t  By  20 2 3   Enrollment Total    Ca p a c i t y   Fr o m  Ne w    To t a l   Fr o m  New Total  *D i s t r i c t  To t a l            Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   4, 8 9 8   80   6, 3 8 8   12 9  6,437  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h    80   6, 3 8 8   12 9  6,437  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h    74   6, 3 8 2   20 8 2 0 9  6,5166,517  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h    14 0   6, 4 4 8   25 2 2 5 3  6,5606,561  *T o t a l s  do  no t  in c l u d e  en r o l l m e n t  fr o m  ne w  un i t s  ou t s i d e  of  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ,  ab o u t  62  st u d e n t s ,  and         students who  do  no t  re s i d e d  in  th e  Di s t r i c t ,  ab o u t  12 0  st u d e n t s .    So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o ,  En r o l l m e n t  Pr o j e c t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s ,  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     43   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 27  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 34   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐15 1 6   Ca m p u s  Si z e s  Co m p a r e d  to  St a t e  St a n d a r d s     37   CU S D  to t a l  st u d e n t   an d  co s t s  by   al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  4‐16 1 7   Pe r  St u d e n t  an d  pe r  Al t e r n a t i v e  Ca p i t a l  Co s t s  of  Ad d i t i o n a l  Ca p a c i t y  ‐   CU S D     St u d e n t s   by  20 2 3   Co s t s   (i n  mi l l i o n s )   To t a l   St u d e n t s   Costs (in millions)  El e m e n t a r y  Sc h o o l          Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   28 5   $8 . 4 9   46 1   $13.73  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   28 5   $8 . 4 9   46 1   $13.73  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   26 5   $7 . 8 9   74 2 7 4 9   $22.10$22.31  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   49 8   $1 4 . 8 3   89 9 9 0 1   $26.77$26.83  Mi d d l e  Sc h o o l          Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   80   $2 . 6 1   12 9   $4.21  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   80   $2 . 6 1   12 9   $4.21  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   74   $2 . 4 2   20 8 2 0 9   $6.79$6.82  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   14 0   $4 . 5 7    25 2 2 5 3   $8.23$8.26  CU S D  To t a l          Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   36 5   $1 1 . 1 0   59 0   $17.94  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   36 5   $1 1 . 1 0   59 0   $17.94  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   33 9   $1 0 . 3 1   95 0 9 5 2   $28.89$29.13  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   63 8   $1 9 . 4 0   1, 1 5 1 1 , 1 5 4   $35.00$35.09  So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     38   CU S D  to t a l  fe e s  by   al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  4‐17 1 8   De v e l o p m e n t  Im p a c t  Fe e  Re v e n u e  ‐   CU S D     Un i t s   by  20 2 3   Fe e  Re v e n u e   (i n  mi l l i o n s )   To t a l   Un i t s   Fee Revenue (in millions)  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   1, 1 4 0   $2 . 3 4   1, 8 4 5   $3.79  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   1, 1 4 0   $2 . 3 4   1, 8 4 5   $3.79  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   1, 0 6 0   $2 . 1 8   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2   $6.10 $6.11  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   1, 9 9 3   $4 . 1 0   3, 5 9 6 3 , 6 0 1   $7.39 $7.40  So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s   44   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 28  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 38   CU S D  to t a l   fe e s / c o s t s  by   al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  4‐18 1 9   De v e l o p m e n t  Im p a c t  Fe e  Re v e n u e  Ve r s u s  Fa c i l i t i e s  Co s t s  (i n  $ mi l l i o n s )  ‐   CU S D *     Un i t s  by  20 2 3   To t a l  Un i t s     Co s t   Re v e n u e   De f i c i t   Co s t   Re v e n u e   Deficit  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   $1 1 . 1 0   $2 . 3 4   $8 . 7 6   $1 7 . 9 4   $3 . 7 9    $14.15  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   $1 1 . 1 0   $2 . 3 4   $8 . 7 6   $1 7 . 9 4   $3 . 7 9    $14.15  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   $1 0 . 3 1   $2 . 1 8   $8 . 1 3   $2 8 . 8 9   $6 . 1 0  $6 . 1 1    $22.79$22.78  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   $1 9 . 4 0   $4 . 1 0   $1 5 . 3 1   $3 5 . 0 0   $7 . 3 9 $ 7 . 4 0   $27.61$27.60  * Bo t h  fe e  re v e n u e  an d  fa c i l i t i e s  co s t s  ar e  on e ‐ti m e ,  ra t h e r  th a n  an n u a l ,  es t i m a t e s . So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     39   Ta b l e  nu m b e r i n g   co r r e c t i o n  on l y   Ta b l e  4‐19 2 0   Op e r a t i n g  Co s t s  ‐   CU S D   43   FH U S D  to t a l  ho u s i n g   un i t s  by  al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐1  Ne w  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  Ho u s i n g  Un i t s  ‐   FU H S D                                  Al t e r n a t i v e s   Ex i s t i n g   Co n d i t i o n s   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   A  Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   B  Most Growth C            By  20 2 3   1, 1 4 0   1, 1 4 0   1, 0 6 0   1,993  To t a l  Al l o w e d  in  FU H S D   1, 8 4 5   1, 8 4 5   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2   3,5963,601  To t a l  in  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o   1, 8 9 5   1, 8 9 5   3, 3 1 6   4,421  So u r c e :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o   45   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 29  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 44   FH U S D  to t a l   st u d e n t s  un i t s  by   al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐2  En r o l l m e n t  fr o m  Ne w  Un i t s *  ‐   FU H S D     Al t e r n a t i v e s         SG R s   Ex i s t i n g   Co n d i t i o n s   Mi n i m a l   Gr o w t h   A  Mo d e r a t e   Gr o w t h   B  Most Growth C          By  20 2 3            Hi g h  sc h o o l  (g r a d e s  9‐12 )   0. 0 7   80   80   74   140          Fr o m  To t a l  Un i t s  Al l o w e d            Hi g h  sc h o o l  (g r a d e s  9‐12 )   0. 0 7   12 9   12 9   20 8 2 0 9   252253  *I n  th e  Cu p e r t i n o  Un i o n  Sc h o o l  Di s t r i c t   So u r c e s :  En r o l l m e n t  Pr o j e c t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s  an d  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o     45   FH U S D  to t a l  ho u s i n g   un i t s  by  al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐3  En r o l l m e n t  by  Sc h o o l  At t e n d a n c e  Ar e a s  ‐   FU H S D   Ne w  Ho u s i n g  Un i t s  in  th e  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o        By  20 2 3   To t a l     Un i t s   En r o l l m e n t   Un i t s   Enrollment  Di s t r i c t  To t a l Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s 1, 1 4 0 80 1, 8 4 5 129 A ‐ Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h 1, 1 4 0 80 1, 8 4 5 129 B ‐ Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h 1, 0 6 0 74 2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2 208209 C ‐ Mo s t  Gr o w t h 1, 9 9 3 14 0 3, 5 9 6 3 , 6 0 1 252253 *E n r o l l m e n t  ca p a c i t y  is  eq u a l  to  th e  nu m b e r  of  cl a s s r o o m s  ti m e s  th e  av e r a g e  st u d e n t  ge n e r a t i o n  rate of  re c e n t  pr o j e c t s .    Th e  to t a l s  ar e  no t  al w a y s  ex a c t l y  th e  nu m b e r s  in  th e  pr i o r  ta b l e  du e  to  ro u n d i n g .   So u r c e s :  Ci t y  of  Cu p e r t i n o  an d  Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     46   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 30  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 51   FH U S D  to t a l  co s t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐8  Co s t s  of  Ad d i t i o n a l  Ca p a c i t y  pe r  Al t e r n a t i v e  ‐   FU H S D     St u d e n t s   by  20 2 3   Co s t s   (i n  mi l l i o n s )   To t a l  St u d e n t s   Costs  (i n  millions)                   Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   80   $5 . 5 7   12 9   $8.98  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   80   $5 . 5 7   12 9   $8.98  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   74   $5 . 1 5   20 8 2 0 9   $1 4 . 4 8 $ 1 4 . 5 5   C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   14 0   $9 . 7 5   25 2 2 5 3   $1 7 . 5 5 $ 1 7 . 6 1   So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s                                                                      52   FH U S D  to t a l  fe e s  by   al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐9  De v e l o p m e n t  Im p a c t  Fe e  Re v e n u e  – FU H S D     Un i t s   by  20 2 3   Re v e n u e s   (i n  mi l l i o n s )   To t a l   Un i t s   Revenues  (i n  millions)  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   1, 1 4 0   $1 . 5 5   1, 8 4 5   $2.51   A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   1, 1 4 0   $1 . 5 5   1, 8 4 5   $2.51  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   1, 0 6 0   $1 . 4 4   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 6   $4.04$4.06  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   1, 9 9 3   $2 . 7 2   3, 5 9 6 3 , 6 0 1   $4.90$4.91  So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     53   FH U S D  to t a l   fe e s / c o s t s  by   al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐10   De v e l o p m e n t  Im p a c t  Fe e s  Ve r s u s  Fa c i l i t i e s  Co s t s  (i n  $ mi l l i o n s )  ‐   FU H S D *       Un i t s  by  20 2 3   To t a l  Un i t s     Co s t   Re v e n u e   Ne t  Co s t   Co s t   Re v e n u e   Net Cost  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   $5 . 5 7   $1 . 5 5   $4 . 0 2   $8 . 9 8   $2 . 5 1    $6.47  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   $5 . 5 7   $1 . 5 5   $4 . 0 2   $8 . 9 8   $2 . 5 1    $6.47  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   $5 . 1 5   $1 . 4 4   $3 . 7 1   $1 4 . 4 8 $ 1 4 . 5 5   $4 . 0 4  $4 . 0 6   $10.44$10.49  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   $9 . 7 5   $2 . 7 2   $7 . 0 3   $1 7 . 5 5 $ 1 7 . 6 1   $4 . 9 0  $4 . 9 1   $12.65$12.70  * Bo t h  fe e  re v e n u e  an d  fa c i l i t i e s  co s t s  ar e  on e ‐ti m e ,  ra t h e r  th a n  an n u a l ,  es t i m a t e s . 47   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 31  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e      So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     53   FH U S D  to t a l  co s t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐12   An n u a l  Op e r a t i n g  Co s t s  – FU H S D     Un i t s   by  20 2 3   Co s t s   (i n  mi l l i o n s )   To t a l   Un i t s   Costs (in millions)  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   80   $0 . 8 6   12 9   $1.39  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   80   $0 . 8 6   12 9   $1.39  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   74   $0 . 8 0   20 8 2 0 9   $2.25$2.26  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   14 0   $1 . 5 1   25 2 2 5 3   $2.72$2.73  So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s     54   FH U S D  to t a l  ta x e s   by  al t e r n a t i v e     Ta b l e  5‐13   Pr o p e r t y  Ta x  Re v e n u e s  ‐   FU H S D     Un i t s   by  20 2 3   Re v e n u e   (i n  mi l l i o n s )   To t a l   Un i t s   Revenue (in millions)  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   1, 1 4 0   $1 . 1 6   1, 8 4 5   $1.88   A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   1, 1 4 0   $1 . 1 6   1, 8 4 5   $1.88  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   1, 0 6 0   $1 . 0 8   2, 9 6 6 2 , 9 7 2   $3.03  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   1, 9 9 3   $2 . 0 3   3, 5 9 6 3 , 6 0 1   $3.67  So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s                                                                        48   Oc t o b e r  1, 2014 | Page 32  Ta b l e  1:  Su p p l e m e n t a l  Te x t  Re v i s i o n s  to  th e  Fi n a l  EI R   Pa g e  No .   Is s u e / T o p i c   Re v i s e d  Te x t / C h a n g e 55   FH U S D  to t a l  co s t s   by  al t e r n a t i v e   Ta b l e  5‐15   To t a l  An n u a l  Op e r a t i n g  Re v e n u e s  ve r s u s  Co s t s  (i n  Mi l l i o n s )  – FU H S D     Un i t s  by  20 2 3   To t a l  Un i t s     Re v e n u e   Co s t s   Ne t   Re v e n u e   Co s t s   Net  Ex i s t i n g  Co n d i t i o n s   $1 . 3 3   $0 . 8 6   $0 . 4 7   $2 . 1 6   $1 . 3 9   $0.77  A ‐   Mi n i m a l  Gr o w t h   $1 . 3 3   $0 . 8 6   $0 . 4 7   $2 . 1 6   $1 . 3 9   $0.77  B ‐   Mo d e r a t e  Gr o w t h   $1 . 2 4   $0 . 8 0   $0 . 4 4   $3 . 4 8   $2 . 2 5 $ 2 . 2 6   $1.23$1.22  C ‐   Mo s t  Gr o w t h   $2 . 3 4   $1 . 5 1   $0 . 8 3   $4 . 2 1   $2 . 7 2 $ 2 . 7 3   $1.49$1.48  So u r c e :    Sc h o o l h o u s e  Se r v i c e s                                             49 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: September 9, 2014 Application: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-03) Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: City-wide SUBJECT Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive this report and comments on the Final EIR. The Final EIR consists of the Response to Comments (RTC) Document, published in August 2014 (Attachment 1), and the Draft EIR published in June 2014 (Attachment 2). This is a study session and no action is required at this time. DISCUSSION Background On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate replenishing citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocation. During the same time frame, several property owners, including some owners within the Vallco Shopping District, approached the City about potential General Plan amendments to allow future development of their properties. In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, in early 2013, the City Council directed staff to combine these individual requests into one comprehensive General Plan Amendment. In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan, identifies appropriate locations and policies for future housing in Cupertino. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 50 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 2 The City Council decided to combine the Housing Element Update process with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss mobility, urban design, economic development, and housing options in one comprehensive outreach and planning process. The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussions and input provided during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions, and through online comment forms and surveys. The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000- 2020 General Plan. Environmental Impact Report The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have discretionary authority. A Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision‐making process. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the environmental effects, along with other factors. The EIR for the proposed Project evaluates three land use alternatives (Alternative A, B and C) for a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives consist of options for city-wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for Major Mixed-Use Special Areas, seven Study Areas, and Other Special Areas. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the General Plan goals, policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005. CEQA Project Alternative C includes the maximum development intensity considered; therefore, for purposes of studying the significant environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update, Alternative C is the proposed Project for purposes of the EIR. In this Alternative, the new growth for the 2040 horizon year studied is 4,040,231 square feet of office space, 1,343,679 square feet of commercial space, 1,339 hotel rooms, and 4,421 residential units. The proposed Project could result in up to 12,9981 new residents and 16,855 new jobs.2 1 Population is calculated by multiplying the number of residential units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. 2 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4040231 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft./employee + 1343679 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft./employee + 1339 rooms 0.3 employee/room = 13,467 + 2,986 + 402 = 16,855 Jobs 51 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 3 Under the proposed Project, the total 2040 buildout (existing conditions plus proposed Project) would be as follows:  Office: 12,970,005 square feet  Commercial: 5,073,248 square feet  Hotel: 2,429 rooms  Residential: 25,820 units  Population: 71,300  Jobs: 44,242 Table 1 provides a summary of the total development allocation projections in Alternative C. TABLE 1 ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED PROJECT) SUMMARY – ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS Remaining Allocation Proposed Project Difference Special Areas including Gateways /Nodes along major transportation corridors, Study Areas and Housing Element Sitesa Office 17,113 sf 3,290,000 sf + 3,272,887 sf Commercial 695,629 sf 1,250,000 sf + 554,371 sf Hotel 339 room 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms Residential 1,416 units 3,900 units + 2,484 units Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non -Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas and Housing Element Sitesb Office 523,118 sf 750,231 sf + 227,113 sf Commercial 5,784 sf 93,679 sf + 87,895 sf Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms Residential 479 units 521 units + 42 units Total Built / Approved Office 8,929,774 sf 540,231 sf 4,040,231 sf + 3,500,000 sf Commercial 3,729,569 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf + 642,266 sfc Hotel 1,090 rooms 339 rooms 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms Residential 21,399 units 1,895 units 4,421 units + 2,526 units Note: sf = square feet a. Includes Homestead, North Vallco Park, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South De Anza Major Mixed-Use Special Areas. b. Includes Bubb Road Mixed-Use Special Area, Monta Vista Village, Other Commercial/Mixed-Use Special Areas, Other Neighborhoods, Major Employers Category, and Housing Element Sites. c. Net new commercial is not proposed. This number assumes that the existing Vallco Shopping Mall square footage (1,267,601 sf) will be demolished and will go back into the City -wide commercial allocation pool. A total of 625,335 sf would be reserved for a future project in the Vallco district. Source: City of Cupertino, 2014. 52 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 4 The EIR also studies an update to the General Plan’s Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet the City’s fair-share housing obligation of 1,064 units. As part of this process, the following zoning amendments would be made:  Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) will be amended to be consistent with the 2007 –2014 Housing Element Program 12 (Density Bonus Program);  Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.76 (Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones), and Chapter 19.92 (Park and Recreation Zones) will be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining to the permanent emergency shelters;  Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones) will also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to farmworker housing and employee housing. Changes proposed to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning text and Zoning map are proposed to achieve internal consistency as a result of changes to the following:  Housing Element policies that are (1) required by State Law or (2) 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)  As a result of bringing non-conforming land use into conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance or for formatting or reorganizing the text. Alternatives In addition to the CEQA-required No Project alternative, the EIR also includes an analysis of two land use alternatives to the Proposed Project described above. These alternatives analyze the significant environmental impacts for lesser development intensities than the Proposed Project.  The No Project alternative envisions no change to the current General Plan and no changes to the remaining development allocation. No changes to the residential density would be allowed on any property.  In Alternative A, the proposed development intensity includes an increase in the office and hotel allocations but no increase in residential allocation. No increase in commercial allocation is proposed in Alternative A. In Alternative A, it is expected that some portions of the Vallco Shopping Mall may be re-tenanted or re-purposed. In addition, no maximum height increases are proposed under this Alternative. Residential density would be increased in the South De Anza Specific Plan area (south of Highway 85.)  In Alternative B, increases in office, hotel and residential development allocations are proposed more than those studied in Alternative A. It is expected that the existing Vallco 53 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 5 Shopping Mall would be demolished and returned to the commercial allocation pool. No increase in commercial allocation is proposed in this alternative. Under this Alternative, the proposed maximum height limits are less than those of the proposed Project. Residential density would be increased in certain areas of the City but to densities less than those proposed in the Project. The proposed development intensity in the alternatives to the proposed Project are presented in Table 2 below. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON SUMMARY BY PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS Category Proposed Project (Alternative C) No Projecta 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 Populationb 12,998 5,571 5,571 9,749 Jobs 16,855c 3,461d 5,206e 11,705f Notes: sf = square feet a. No Project represents remaining development allocation under the existing 2000 -2020 General Plan. b. Population is calculated by multiplying the number of residential units studied in each alternative by 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. c. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s employee generation rates for each category as follows; 4040231 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft./employee + 1343679 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft./employee + 1339 rooms 0.3 employee/room = 13,467 + 2,986 + 402 = 16,855 Jobs d. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s employee generation rates for each category as follows; 540231 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft./employee + 701413 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft./employee + 339 rooms 0.3 employee/room = 1,801 + 1,559 + 101 = 3,461 Jobs e. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s employee generation rates for each category as follows; 1040231 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft./employee + 701413 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft./employee + 600 rooms 0.3 employee/room = 3,467 + 1,559 + 180 = 5,206 Jobs f. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s employee generation rates for each category as follows; 2540231 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft./employee + 1343670 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft./employee + 839 rooms 0.3 employee/room = 8,467 + 2,986 + 252 = 11,705 Jobs Source: City of Cupertino, 2014. Program EIR 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, this proposed Project consists of long-term plans that will be implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City 54 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 6 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 adoption of the proposed Project. As a program EIR, the EIR prepared is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed under the General Plan. However, if future, proposed 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.) If a subsequent activity, which is not exempt from CEQA, would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, then the City will prepare an environmental checklist or Initial Study to determine what form of environmental review is required by CEQA, which could be a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or an Addendum, to secure the necessary development permits. For these subsequent environmental review documents, 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. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered from this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address project-specific impacts of individual projects. The growth and development studied under the proposed Project would be gradual over the 26-year buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore, while the impacts identified as a result of implementation of the proposed Project may be significant and unavoidable in the cumulative scenario (2040), even if no action is taken or no additional growth is contemplated, regional growth, growth permitted under the provisions of the current 2000-2020 General Plan, and the associated environmental effects linked to this growth, would continue to occur resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Future growth under all of the land use alternatives studied in this program EIR would occur incrementally over approximately 26 years and would be guided by a policy framework that is generally consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area, which concentrates new development within infill sites and near major transportation corridors. The EIR created as a result of review under CEQA must disclose the significant environmental impacts of the project and, in addition, identify the following:  Significant cumulative impacts of the project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects;  Mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce these effects;  Significant impacts that cannot be avoided;  Growth-inducing impacts; and  Effects found not to be significant. Prior to approving the proposed Project, the Planning Commission must decide whether to recommend that the City Council certify that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with 55 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 7 CEQA and whether to recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. The Commission’s recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Since this is a study session, an action is not required at this time. The City Council will review the Final EIR for adequacy and will exercise its independent judgment regarding certification. If the Council certifies the Final EIR, it will then consider whether to approve the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. As part of this approval, findings on the feasibility of reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects will be made, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project against is unavoidable environmental risks. EIR Process and Public Outreach The EIR process started with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse, 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. 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 the Draft EIR contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City in response to the NOP. The City also established a website for the Project in early 2013 where all project‐related documents including the Draft EIR and comments on the Project and the EIR were posted for public review. Following the preparation of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was issued to the OPR State Clearinghouse, interested agencies and persons, as well as the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder for a 45-day review period from Wednesday, June 18, 2014 through Friday, August 1, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for review to interested parties at:  10 public libraries in Cupertino and the surrounding area,  Cupertino City Hall at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, and  Project’s website at: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/ Postcards were mailed to all postal customers in the City of Cupertino and a notice was also published in the Cupertino Courier. A public meeting was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. at the Cupertino Community Hall to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The public was encouraged to provide written input regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Several comment letters were received during the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR. Responses to the written comments received during that period regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR have been prepared and compiled in the RTC document along with minor text revisions, corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. The RTC document together with the Draft EIR is considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project. 56 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 8 The RTC document was posted on the Project website on August 29, 2014. The NOA for the Final EIR has been made available at the City Hall, sent to 10 local libraries and to the agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. A notice was also published in the Cupertino Courier and an email was sent to all interested persons who had signed up through the website. Key Significance Findings And Mitigations Revised Table 2‐2, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the RTC document, along with Table 2‐2 of the Draft EIR summarize all significant Project impacts and mitigation measures. The list of mitigation measures does not include existing requirements (such as compliance with mandatory regulation (e.g. General Plan policies, zoning regulations) that are routinely applied to new development. This staff report highlights key findings only. The EIR has identified mitigation measures for all significant impacts. However, even with mitigation, some significant impacts would remain significant and have been determined to be significant and unavoidable. In some cases, the significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation measures require approval from a public agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g. the City of Santa Clara, Caltrans, etc.) and are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. If approval is not granted by that agency for implementation of the mitigation measure, the significant impact would remain and would, therefore, be considered significant and unavoidable. In other cases, a significant impact is unavoidable because the significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though mitigation measures have been identified to minimize/reduce the impact. A detailed discussion of the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, as well as significant and unavoidable impacts, and mitigation measures and alternatives identified to lessen or avoid these impacts where feasible is provided in the Draft EIR (Attachment 2). This section highlights key findings for cumulative impacts of the development proposed. Details are provided in the EIR. 1. Aesthetics The land use or intensity changes proposed under the Project do not represent a substantial reimagining of the character of the Project Component locations including those within the I- 280 viewshed. This is primarily because the existing conditions at these locations are largely urbanized and built out. The potential future development under the proposed Project would primarily involve gradual changes in development intensity similar to existing buildings, albeit with increased building height potential in limited locations. New and/or intensified uses as a result of the proposed Project would be dispersed within the Project Component locations and would occur gradually throughout the 26-year buildout horizon of the General Plan. The General Plan policies are an integral, inseparable component of the proposed Project, and amended policies under the proposed Project would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in Cupertino. Individual developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions. 57 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 9 Additionally, the increases in heights are proposed in Planned Development areas where individual projects would also be subject to the Architectural and Site Review process as well as the Design Standards outlined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the South Vallco Specific Plan, and other applicable Conceptual Plans to ensure that the development is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with adjoining land uses with appropriate setbacks. With the development review mechanisms in place, approved future development under the proposed Project is not anticipated to create substantial impacts to visual resources. Moreover, certain policy changes would serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing developments. Therefore, the General Plan policy amendments under the proposed Project were determined to result in less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics. 2. Air Quality Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts. The proposed Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan; however, the buildout of the proposed Project would conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Bay Area Clean Air Plan goal for community-wide vehicles miles traveled (VMT) to increase at a slower rate compared to population and employment growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of population and employment growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria air pollutant emissions in Cupertino. The Plan Bay Area aims to improve transportation efficiency and reduce regional infrastructure costs in the region. Policies and development standards in the proposed Project would facilitate continued City participation/cooperation with BAAQMD and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promote energy conservation design and development techniques, encourage alternative transportation modes, and implement transportation demand management strategies. In addition, future projects under the proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions during operation and construction phases that could exceed BAAQMD’s significance criteria. a. Operational Emissions: Future development under the proposed Project would result in a substantial long-term increase in criteria air pollutants over the 26-year General Plan horizon. Criteria air pollutant emissions would be generated from on-site area sources (e.g. fuel used for landscaping equipment, consumer products), vehicle trips generated by the Project, and energy use (e.g. natural gas used for cooking and heating). While the General Plan includes policies and strategies that once adopted would reduce operational emissions from development under the proposed Project to the maximum extent practicable, there are no additional measures available to mitigate this impact due to the level of growth forecast in the city. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a, for new sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), would also reduce criteria air pollutants associated with light industrial land uses within the 58 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 10 city. Operational emissions from future development would be determined during project-level CEQA review for future projects. The total criteria air pollutant emissions from operation of future development projects under the proposed Project would be substantial and would contribute to increases in concentrations of air pollutants, which could contribute to ongoing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. b. Construction Emissions: Future construction emissions associated with individual development projects under the proposed Project would generate an increase in criteria air pollutants and TACs. Existing federal, State, and local regulations, and policies and strategies of the proposed Project described in the Draft EIR, protect local and regional air quality. Continued compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan policies and strategies, would reduce construction-related impacts to the extent feasible. However, if uncontrolled, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) levels downwind of actively disturbed areas during construction or overlapping construction activities could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of pollutants during construction activities. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2a would require adherence to the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2b would require adherence to BAAQMD’s basic control measures for fugitive dust control and would ensure impacts from fugitive dust generated during construction activities are less than significant, applicants for future development in Cupertino could generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of the BAAQMD significance thresholds. An analysis of emissions generated from the construction of specific future projects under the General Plan would be required to evaluate emissions compared to BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds during individual environmental review. It should be noted that the identification of these program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criteria or meet applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the due to the level of growth forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the proposed Project, no additional mitigation measures are available and air quality impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. 3. Cultural Resources There are 22 recorded cultural resources within the City of Cupertino and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) that are documented on the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) recording forms. As of March 2011, there were 13 properties listed in the OHP’s Directory of Historic Properties. Additionally, the City has identified 37 locally important cultural resources in the current General Plan. Although, most of the 37 sites have not been evaluated for listing on the National Register or State Register, they are still recognized as sites to be protected under 59 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 11 the current General Plan. The properties considered locally important are unique to the lists where they appear, which include Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks, and Sites of Historic Mention. The sites of Historic Mention are sites outside of the City’s jurisdiction, but still recognized as locally important to Cupertino. As part of the General Plan Amendment, the Seven Springs Ranch, built in 1866 and located at 11801 Dorothy Anne Way in Cupertino, and listed on the Office of Historic Preservation Directory Listings, would be added to the City’s list of Historically Significant Resources. This site has been nominated for inclusion in the National Register; however, it is not currently listed in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, several of the identified historical resources are within the boundaries of some Project Component locations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources, by increasing commercial, office, hotel, and residential development allocations and providing for potential new development. However, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize potential impacts to historic resources. Implementation of these General Plan policies and strategies, as well as compliance with federal and State laws, would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property with cultural resources or improvements in the vicinity of property with cultural resources, and impacts were found to be less than significant. 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As explained in Chapter 4.6 of the EIR, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change are evaluated on a cumulative basis, because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of greenhouse gases. The EIR uses the methodology recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for evaluating the impacts of plan-level projects like the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update. The General Plan includes polices and strategies that encourage use of alternative modes of transportation and focus new growth in mixed-use areas. The proposed Project is consistent with the objectives of Plan Bay Area for growth within the Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Plan - Plan Bay Area. In addition, a General Plan is a regulatory document and does not directly result in development without further approvals. Any development in the city is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that the City is on a trajectory that is consistent with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals. Accordingly, impacts were found to be less than significant. 60 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 12 5. Noise As a result of implementation of the proposed Project and ongoing regional growth, it is anticipated that there would be substantial permanent increases to the ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino, and that these increases would primarily result from increases to transportation-related noise, especially that of automobile traffic. The impact analysis found that there would be multiple major road segments that would experience substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels, including at sensitive land uses. While the General Plan contains numerous policies to address excessive roadway noise at existing sensitive land uses, which could in certain cases reduce or prevent significant increases in ambient noise at sensitive land uses due to the proposed Project, the measures described in these policies would not be necessarily be feasible in all locations or contexts. For example, some of the most effective noise-attenuation measures, including sound walls and berms, are inappropriate along streets with commercial or residential street frontage (due to financial and aesthetic considerations, and negative impacts to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity), and therefore would be infeasible or inappropriate in a majority of locations where sensitive land uses already exist. For these reasons, there is no feasible mitigation that would substantially reduce or avoid significant increases in ambient noise levels, because in most cases all identified mitigations would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable, outside the City’s jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Therefore, the noise impacts of the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable impact. 6. Population and Housing The proposed Project would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Growth under the proposed Project would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 26 years and would be guided by the policy framework in the proposed Project that is generally consistent with most of the principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area. One of the key concepts of Plan Bay Area is the idea of focusing future growth into transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities that are expected to host the majority of future development. These areas are called Priority Development Areas (PDA). The PDAs in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa Clara, and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the City of Sunnyvale. These coincide with the Heart of the City and North De Anza Special Areas, portions of the Homestead and South De Anza Special Areas, and include three Study Areas and eleven potential Housing Element sites. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate infill growth and support regional planning efforts. Growth due to the proposed Project together with cumulative growth 61 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 13 would be consistent with regional planning efforts, and would not exceed regional growth projections, displace substantial numbers of people or housing, or exceed planned levels of growth. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 7. Transportation and Traffic a. Intersection Analysis The EIR included an analysis of forty-one (41study intersections, all of which are signalized. Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, describes the traffic conditions that would result with the addition of the trips generated by the development under the proposed Project on the local roadway network, compared to traffic conditions with the 2040 No Project scenario. The roadway network is assumed to be the same as under the 2040 No Project scenario. The results of the Level of Service (LOS) analysis show that, of the forty-one (41) study intersections, twenty-five (25) intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under the proposed Project and sixteen (16) intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM peak hour (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.), the PM peak hour (4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.), or both peak hours. Eleven (11) of the sixteen (16) intersections expected to operate at unacceptable LOS are included in Santa Clara County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). Five (5) of the sixteen (16) intersections (shown with an asterisk[*]) that would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least one peak hour under the proposed Project were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service under the No Project scenario. The following is a list of the sixteen (16) intersections that would result in a significant impact during at least one of the peak hours: Intersection (#) LOS Peak Hour 1. SR 85 Northbound Ramps & Stevens Creek Blvd (#2) (CMP) E AM 2. Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd (#3) (CMP) F PM 3. *Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd/De Anza Blvd & Homestead Rd (#5) (CMP) F AM and PM 4. *De Anza Blvd & I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6) (CMP) F AM and PM 5. De Anza Blvd & I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7) (CMP) F AM and PM 6. *De Anza Blvd & Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8) (CMP) F PM 7. De Anza Blvd & McClellan Rd/Pacifica Dr (#9) F PM 8. Wolfe Rd & Homestead Rd (#16) F PM 9. *Wolfe Rd & I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18) (CMP) F AM 10. Wolfe Rd & I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19) (CMP) F AM and PM 11. *Stevens Creek Blvd & Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (#21) (CMP) E+ AM 12. North Tantau Ave/Quail Ave & Homestead Rd (#24) E (E+) AM (PM) 13. Stevens Creek Blvd & Tantau Ave (#27) F PM 14. Agilent Tech Drive Way & Stevens Creek Blvd (#30) F AM 15. Lawrence Expy Southbound Ramp & Stevens Creek Blvd (#31) (CMP) F AM 16. Stevens Creek Blvd & Lawrence Expy Northbound Ramp (#32) (CMP) F AM 62 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 14 b. Freeway Segment Analysis Ten (10) freeway segments were analyzed for impacts due to implementation of the Project. If the existing level of service is LOS F and the number of net new trips added by the project is more than 1 percent of freeway capacity in that segment, there would be a significant impact. Under the proposed Project, one (1) of the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane segments and the following five (5) mixed-lane freeway segments would have significant impacts: 1. SR 85 Southbound between I-280 and Stevens Creek Blvd (+2.7%). 2. I-280 Southbound between Lawrence Exwy and Saratoga Ave (+2.2%) 3. I-280 Northbound between Saratoga Ave and Lawrence Exwy (+1.3%) 4. I-280 Northbound between Wolfe Rd and De Anza Blvd (+1.7%) 5. I-280 Northbound between De Anza Blvd and SR 85 (mixed-flow lanes & HOV lane) (+1.2%) A mitigation measure has been identified to reduce impacts at these intersections and freeway segments. The mitigation measure requires the City to prepare and implement 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 to establish nexus between the improvements identified and the fee established. The EIR identifies examples of transportation improvements and facilities that would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion that 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 63 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 15 be required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlled by the traffic signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights. The pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience.  De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection that is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and Pacifica Drive legs are across from each other may be required. In addition, double left turn lanes may be required to be added to De Anza Boulevard with sections of double lanes on McClellan Road and Pacifica Drive to receive the double left turn lanes. These improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of existing commercial buildings. However, some existing right-of-way could be abandoned, which would reduce the net right-of-way take.  Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): The addition of a third southbound through lane to the southbound approach of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road may be required, as well as the addition of a southbound exclusive right-turn lane. Three southbound receiving lanes on the south side of the intersection currently exist. An additional westbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead westbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of a westbound exclusive right-turn lane may be required. This will require widening Homestead Road. An additional eastbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead eastbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of an eastbound exclusive left-turn lane for a total of two left-turn lanes may be required. These improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas.  Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General Plan development. This could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. Right- of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which may include widening the overcrossing and may include redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This 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 64 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 16 separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance the bicycling experience.  North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): Restriping of the southbound leg of the intersection (Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left turn lane may be required. This will require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. The level- of-service calculations show that with implementation of these improvements, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D.  Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): The addition of a separate left-turn lane to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolition of existing commercial buildings would be required.  Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): The restriping of the westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance the bicycling experience.  Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#31): The addition of a second right-turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required. 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 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. While implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on then current standards, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, because the City cannot guarantee improvements at these intersections at this time. 65 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 17 The exact type and timing of required transportation improvements are pending the timing and phasing of future development projects in Cupertino. 8. Utilities and Service Systems a. Water Supply A Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project on May 20, 2014 concluded that there would be adequate water within the water utility service areas of Cal Water and San Jose Water Company for the proposed project during a single-dry year and multiple-dry years with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. Thus, water supply impacts were found to be less than significant. b. Wastewater Treatment While the current General Plan recognizes existing system deficiencies in both the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) and City of Sunnyvale wastewater service areas and includes policies to address this issue, potential future development under the proposed Project would exceed the current contractually available treatment capacity at San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP) by 0.85 million gallons per day. Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6bhave been identified to ensure that CSD has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Implementation of these mitigation measures requires the City to work with the CSD to increase the available citywide treatment and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying reduced wastewater generation rates are completed and accepted. With implementation of these mitigation measures, wastewater treatment impacts were found to be less than significant. c. Solid Waste Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-significant impact on the achievement of the City’s target disposal rates, and the City would continue its current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies. Nevertheless, the 2023 termination of the agreement between the Newby Island Landfill facility, as well as the facility’s estimated closure date in 2025 would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at buildout of the proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, which requires the City to 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, monitor solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate future growth, and seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed, would result in less-than-significant impacts to solid waste disposal capacity. d. Energy Future new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, use new modern appliances and equipment, and would comply with the current CALGreen Building Code, which requires the use of recycled 66 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 18 construction materials, environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems. In addition, there are several General Plan policies and strategies that once adopted would ensure energy conservation is practiced in Cupertino. Buildout of the proposed Project would not significantly increase energy demands in the context of the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas generation, transmission and distribution. As a result, new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure, or capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities, would not be required and impacts would be less than significant. Project Alternatives In addition to the proposed Project, the Draft EIR evaluated three Project alternatives, including the CEQA-mandated No Project Alternative as previously discussed. The alternatives were intended to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project while avoiding or lessening any of the significant effects of the Project. Each of the Alternatives was analyzed at the same level of detail, independent of the proposed Project. Recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would apply to all alternatives. Furthermore, compliance with mandatory federal, State and local regulations, including both existing and proposed General Plan policies, designed to reduce environmental impacts would also apply to all future development in Cupertino. The Table 3 shows a comparison of impacts from the Project Alternatives in each of the areas of study in the EIR. Within each area of study, specific impacts have been studied. Even if one impact has been identified as significant and unavoidable, Table 3 identifies the impact in this entire area of study as significant and unavoidable. TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS FROM PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Topic Proposed Project (Alternative C) No Project Land Use Alternative A Land Use Alternative B Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS LTS Air Quality SU SU SU SU Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Cultural Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS Geology, Soils, And Mineral Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS LTS LTS LTS Hazards And Hazardous Materials LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Hydrology And Water Quality LTS LTS LTS LTS Land Use And Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS Noise SU SU SU SU Population And Housing LTS LTS LTS LTS Public Services And Recreation LTS LTS LTS LTS Transportation And Traffic SU SU SU SU Utilities And Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Note: SU = Significant and Unavoidable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with mitigation 67 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 19 A comparison table of the specific impacts within each area of study is provided in Attachment 2 (Draft EIR Volume II Chapter 5.0 Page 5.7 – 5.15.) Table 5.3 in the Draft EIR indicates that future development under Land Use Alternative B would result in a less-than-significant conclusion under Impact AQ-1 (Air Quality), whereas under the other three alternatives were found to be significant and unavoidable. This is because development anticipated under Land Use Alternative B would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan based on the outcome of the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis.3 The VMT estimates in the VTA model are sensitive to changes in land use. Generally, land uses that reflect a more balanced jobs- housing ratio in the VTA model result in lower per capita VMT. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan requires that the VMT increase be less than or equal to the projected population increase and of the proposed Project. The analysis indicates that daily VMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slower rate (22.3 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study Area (25.0 percent). Whereas in the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative, and in Alternative B, daily VMT would increase at a slightly greater rate between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study Area. The potential impacts of future development under the No Project Alternative would be substantially less than the proposed Project (Alternative C) followed by Alternative A and then Alternative B. This is because Alternatives A and B would reduce development allocations, population and jobs when compared to the Proposed Project, which would reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, production of waste and pollutants, and decreasing the demand for public facilities and infrastructure compared to the Proposed Project in proportion to the reduction in development proposed for Alternative A and Alternative B. However, the Draft EIR indicates that Significant and Unavoidable Impacts would occur even under the No Project Alternative with the growth assumptions in the current 2000-2020 General Plan. The EIR identifies Land Use Alternative A as the environmentally superior alternative,4 because less development would occur compared to both the proposed Project and Land Use Alternative B. Under Land Use Alternative A, no new office, commercial space or residential units would be permitted beyond what is approved in the current General Plan. Therefore, Alternative A is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Subsequently, less development would result in the reduction of the consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources, and would place fewer demands on public service providers which could require new facilities, require fewer road, sewer, water, and energy infrastructure improvements, and generate less waste. 3 The vehicles miles traveled (VMT) refers to Cupertino trips multiplied by the trip distances. See Section 4.13.4.9 in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of this Draft EIR. 4 CEQA requires that an alternative other than the No Project Alternative be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). 68 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning September 9, 2014 Page 20 Response to Comments and Text Revisions Six comment letters were received from public agencies and 19 comment letters were received from members of the general public during the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR. A majority of the comments were either in support of or opposition to the Project or concerned the merits of the Project itself, and did not address a significant environmental issue implicating the adequacy of the EIR. Comments received included comments on traffic, aesthetics and the impacts on utilities and public services (sanitary/sewer facilities and schools.) All comments received during the public review period and that raised a significant environmental issue have been addressed in the RTC document. Text revisions to clarify text in the Draft EIR and updates in response to comments have also been made. The revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. The RTC document and the Draft EIR together are considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project. Because no new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project were identified after circulation of the Draft EIR, recirculation of the EIR is not required. Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period. While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the public review period, staff will continue to provide responses to these comments. As of August 31, 2014, two comment letters were received. The comment letters received after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft EIR (see Attachment 3.) Next Steps Staff will present the Final EIR to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for review and recommendation on October 2, 2014. The Final EIR and General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on October 14, 2014. The City Council’s review on the certification of the EIR, General Plan Amendment, Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element, and associated rezoning is expected to be on November 3, 2014. _______________________________ Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1 ‐ General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document, August 29, 2014 2 ‐ General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 18, 2014 3 – Late Comments Memo from PlaceWorks dated Sept. 4, 2014 69 PAPER COPIES OF ATTACHMENTS 1 & 2 WERE DELIVERED ON JUNE 18, 2014 AND AUGUST 29, 2014 RESPECTIVELY. THESE ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: www.cupertinogpa.org and www.cupertino.org/records. ATTACHMENT 1: Response To Comments (RTC) Document: Click here. Appendix A To RTC Document Click here. ATTACHMENT 2: Draft EIR Volume I: Click here. Draft EIR Volume II: Click here. Draft EIR Appendices: Click here. 70 Technical Memorandum Date: March 29, 2014 To: Terri McCracken, Placeworks Steve Noack, Placeworks From: Jill Hough Gary Black Subject: Cupertino General Plan Update – Transportation Effects of BRT Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to present the transportation effects of future proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) service within the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. The analysis is in effect a sensitivity analysis to provide insights on the traffic changes that could result from implementation of BRT service in the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. The Santa Clara VTA is conducting planning studies on a Stevens Creek BRT Project that would provide rapid transit service for 8.5 miles from De Anza College to the Transit Mall in downtown San Jose using Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Carlos Avenue. The Stevens Creek BRT project would add a BRT service (BRT 523) in addition to the local one (Line 23), which would provide fast, frequent service, with limited stops, and enhanced amenities for passengers. The Stevens Creek corridor is served by VTA’s second highest ridership line. Due to increased demand on Line 23, VTA began service on the Limited Stop Line 323 which provides faster and more direct service between De Anza College and downtown San Jose by supplementing Line 23. The Limited Stop Line 323 service operates weekdays and is a first step towards building an effective Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on Stevens Creek. A primary objective of the BRT project is to create a faster and more frequent transit service in the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. Transit Service Description The Stevens Creek BRT service would include many features, such as green-technology vehicles with comfortable and modern interiors, stations offering passenger amenities, dedicated travel lanes for BRT vehicles, separated from traffic to improve transit travel time, transit signal priorities, electronic message signs at stations, rapid boarding, and fast, frequent and reliable service. Service would be provided at several stations in the City of Cupertino: De Anza College, Stelling, De Anza, Wolfe, and Lawrence Expressway. BRT operating headways of 10 minutes during the peak and mid-day periods are anticipated. 71 Transportation Effects of Stevens Creek BRT in Cupertino May 29, 2014  Page| 2  Changes in Roadway Network The ability for the Stevens Creek BRT service to operate in a dedicated lane separated from vehicular traffic would have the effect of reducing vehicular traffic lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard1. For purposes of this sensitivity analysis, the dedicated BRT lanes (i.e., the reduced vehicular travel lanes) were assumed between DeAnza College in Cupertino and Monroe Street in Santa Clara, resulting in a total of 4 travel lanes under the BRT scenario (compared with 6 lanes without BRT). Estimating the daily capacity of Stevens Creek Boulevard at 47,550 vehicles per day in the existing 6-lane configuration, the reduced vehicular capacity would be approximately 31,700. In looking at today's typical ADT volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard of 30,780, this represents a volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.65 under existing conditions. With reduced roadway capacity and the same volume of 30,780 the corresponding V/C ratio would be 0.97. Effects on Vehicular Traffic In the city of Cupertino, the exclusive BRT lanes would result in reduced traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard ranging from 10 percent (between DeAnza College and Stelling Road) to approximately 30 percent (between I-280 and Lawrence Expressway). As expected, vehicular traffic would be forecast to increase on other Cupertino roadways due to reduced traffic capacity on Stevens Creek Boulevard with the proposed exclusive BRT lanes, summarized as follows:  Traffic volume increases on Homestead Road would be forecast to range from 1 percent (between Stelling Road and DeAnza Boulevard) to 4 percent (between Blaney Avenue and Wolfe Road) with implementation of the BRT,  Traffic volume forecast increases on Alves Drive would be approximately 1,550 vehicles daily,  Traffic volumes would be forecast to increase by up to 3 percent on McClellan Road between Stelling Road and DeAnza Boulevard,  Traffic volumes would be forecast to increase by up to 8 percent on Pepper Tree Lane,  Traffic volumes would be forecast to increase by up to 28 percent on Pacifica Drive,  Traffic volume forecast increases on Bollinger Road would be in the range of 5 percent between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway, and between 4 percent and 8 percent between DeAnza Boulevard and Wolfe Road,  Traffic volume forecast increases would be as much as 4 percent on Stelling Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road with smaller increases on the other segments,  Traffic volume forecast increases would be in the range of 5 percent on most segments of DeAnza Boulevard,  Traffic volume forecast increases would be as much as 11 percent on Blaney Road between Pacifica Drive and Bollinger Road with smaller increases on the other segments,  On Wolfe Road, traffic volume forecast increases would be approximately 3 percent on the I-280 overpass, and 6 percent to 8 percent between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard,  On Miller Road, traffic volume forecast increases would range from approximately 17 percent to 23 percent between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road, and  On Tantau Boulevard, traffic volume forecast increases would be on average 29 percent between Homestead Road and Vallco Parkway, and approximately 10 percent between Lorre Avenue and Bollinger Road. 1 Exclusive lane segments are to be decided in cooperation between VTA and the City of Cupertino and are pending environmental analyses. 72 Transportation Effects of Stevens Creek BRT in Cupertino May 29, 2014  Page| 3  The various changes in forecast volumes for 2040 are illustrated on Figure 1. BRT Ridership Ridership in the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor is primarily associated with the 23 and 323 lines. The current average weekday ridership in the corridor is an estimated 9,714 daily boardings and accounts for an estimated 9.2 percent of all VTA bus ridership2. By 2040 without implementation of BRT service, ridership in the corridor is predicted to remain unchanged or decrease slightly. This ridership was estimated using the VTA travel demand model with the proposed General Plan Project scenario for the City of Cupertino. This ridership number is an estimate and does not represent official ridership projections for the purposes of pending environmental analyses by the Santa Clara County VTA. Using the same modeling methods, the ridership of the proposed BRT service was forecasted for the proposed General Plan Project. With the additional BRT service being planned for this corridor, average weekday ridership is expected to increase significantly from 9,700 to 25,000 daily boardings by the year 2040. Intersection Impacts The BRT project would reduce the number of traffic lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard from 3 lanes in each direction to 2 lanes in each direction. This represents a 33% reduction in the traffic capacity on Stevens Creek. The model forecasts show that the traffic demand would also be reduced due to the BRT ridership and due to the reduced capacity. However, the demand would not be reduced 33%. Therefore, the delays would be increased during peak hours at the intersections along Stevens Creek (see Figure 2). Delays also would be increased at some of the intersections along De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road due to traffic diverted off of Stevens Creek and seeking alternative routes. 73  / L F H Q V H G  W R  + H [ D J R Q  7 U D Q V S R U W D W L R Q  & R Q V X O W D Q W V   , Q F  5R D G Z D \  9 R O X P H  & K D Q J H V       ' D L O \  I R U  $ O W  &  Z L W K  % 5 7  F R P S D U H G  W R  1 R  % 5 7 /H J H Q G 6P D O O  9 R O X P H  ' H F U H D V H 0H G L X P  9 R O X P H  ' H F U H D V H +L J K  9 R O X P H  ' H F U H D V H 6P D O O  9 R O X P H  , Q F U H D V H 0H G L X P  9 R O X P H  , Q F U H D V H /D U J H  9 R O X P H  , Q F U H D V H Fi g u r e 1 74 75 76 39 6 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com ELLEN J. GARBER Attorney garber@smwlaw.com M E M O R A N D U M TO: Carol Korade, City Attorney FROM: Ellen J. Garber DATE: February 25, 2014 RE: Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (“SB 50”)1 preempts the issue of impacts of new development on school facilities. Therefore, if a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB 50, the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),2 no mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required, and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools or due to the inadequacy of school facilities. Hence, state law limits the City’s discretion to (i) consider the effects of new development on the ability of schools to accommodate enrollment, (ii) require mitigation, and (iii) deny projects. A relatively recent case, Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1016, holds that development applications may be analyzed under CEQA, and mitigation may be required, if the potential impacts are indirectly caused by the operation or construction of schools on the non-school physical environment. 1 Gov. Code §§ 65995-65998 and Educ. Code §§ 17620-17621. 2 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 77 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION I. SB 50 Pursuant to SB 50, which was enacted in 1998, impacts on school facilities are not to be considered in an EIR, and SB 50 fees constitute adequate mitigation of those impacts. As SB 50 states, payment of fees “shall be the exclusive method[] of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities,” and “are . . . deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Gov. Code §§ 65996 (a) and (b). See Part II, below. In addition, A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable. Gov. Code § 65995(i). Even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, however, if the proposed development, including the school expansion it requires, would cause other environmental impacts—traffic or construction impacts, for example—then those impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA. This is discussed in Part III, below. II. Impacts of New Development On School Facilities SB 50 limited the scope of CEQA analysis of impacts on school facilities, making the fees set forth in Government Code section 65995 “the exclusive means of both ‘considering’ and ‘mitigating’ school facilities impacts of projects. The provisions of [S.B. 50] are ‘deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation.’” Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2012), § 14.28 (citations omitted). According to the Kostka & Zischke treatise, SB 50 appears to transform CEQA review of impacts on school facilities into a ministerial function after the applicant agrees to pay the required mitigation fees. Id., § 14.28 (concluding that the law limits not only mitigation but also the scope of the EIR).3 No case expressly reached 3 Cf. 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25.49, 25–213 to 25–214, fns. omitted (“SB 50 employs three primary means to preempt the field of development (footnote continued) 78 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 3 this conclusion until the Chawanakee Unified School District case, discussed below, but logic seemed to dictate this outcome based on the statutory language. Therefore, if a project applicant has agreed to pay school mitigation fees, the lead agency may not consider the following items in an EIR, nor deny the project based on these considerations: • impacts on the physical structures at the school (on school grounds, school buildings, etc.) related to the ability to accommodate enrollment; • mitigation measures above and beyond the school mitigation fee ; • other non-fee mitigation measures the school district’s ability to accommodate enrollment. 3. Physical Effects on the Environment Because of School Facilities Despite the restrictions on environmental review and mitigation discussed above, SB 50 also states that “[n]othing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of land use approvals other than on the need for school facilities, as defined in this section.” Gov. Code, § 65996(e). This leaves the agency free to reject a project based on impacts other than impacts on the need for “school facilities.”4 Any number of impacts could fall outside of this definition; for example, impacts on wildlife in the development site, impacts on air quality, or inadequate water supply. fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities and to overturn [Mira and its progeny]. First, it provides for a cap on the amount of fees, charges, dedications or other requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting refusals to approve legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fee amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures which can be required, under the California Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts ‘to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation [.]’” (emphasis in original). 4 SB 50 defines “school facilities” as “any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment.” Gov. Code § 65996(c). 79 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 4 In 2011, the court in Chawanakee Unified School District carefully interpreted the statutory language of SB 50 and held that while an EIR need not analyze the impacts on school facilities as a result of accommodating more students, the document must consider the impacts on traffic of additional students traveling to the school and consider other impacts to the non-school physical environment from construction of additional facilities. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028-1029.5 Courts have found the physical activities caused by school growth to be outside the definition of “school facilities,” and therefore not shielded from review by SB 50. For example, as discussed above, Chawanakee Unified School District interpreted the traffic associated with more students traveling to a school to be something other than impacts on school facilities, and therefore subject to review and mitigation under CEQA. Accordingly, traffic impacts resulting from more students traveling to the school, dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities, and any other impacts to the non-school physical environment were not impacts on “school facilities,” and must be addressed in an EIR. According to the court in Chawanakee: Consequently, the phrase ‘impacts on school facilities’ used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory interpretation . . . the prepositional phrase ‘on school facilities’ limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical changes to the school grounds, school buildings and ‘any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment.’ Therefore, the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 (internal citation omitted). Hence, the lead agency must determine whether impacts fall outside the definition of “school facilities,” thereby making them subject to environmental review. In light of the Chawanakee case, however, the agency’s discretion to conduct environmental review, to require mitigation, and to consider denying the would be limited to physical effects on the non-school environment. 5 While SB 50 was not at issue in this case, in City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889 the court held that an EIR prepared in connection with the construction of a new school properly analyzed health and safety issues, air quality, traffic impacts, and land use issues. 80 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 5 Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction: • traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school; • dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities; • effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on wildlife at the construction site; • effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality; • other “indirect effects” as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2) (growth-inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density, related effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Chawanakee Unified School District, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029. CONCLUSION When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities. However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50. 567716.2 81 MEMORANDUM DATE September 3, 2014  TO Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino   FROM Steve Noack, PlaceWorks  SUBJECT General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft  Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Late Comments Received after the 45‐Day Comment  Period  Table 1, below, lists and provides a brief response to the comment letters that were received by the  City on the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR  after the close of the public comment period. The 45‐day public comment period ended on August 1,  2014. This memo responds to the letters received between August 2 through August 25, 2014.  No  other late comments on the Draft EIR have been received as of the date of this memo.  These comment letters do not contain “significant new information,” as defined in the California  Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5, which includes new or substantially more  severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or information indicating that  the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. No revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR.  82   Se p t e m b e r  3, 2014 | Page 2   TAB L E    1:    LAT E  COM M E N T S    AN D  RES P O N S E S   T y p e 1 N u m b e r 2 N a m e Da t e R e c e i v e d T o p i c Re s p o n s e 3 1 B L C - 0 1 J o h n F r e y 8/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 T r a f f i c , E m e r g e n c y R e s p o n s e , S c h o o l s , Ae s t h e t i c s ( i n c r e a s e d h e i g h t ) Im p a c t s t o t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4. 1 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d T r a f f i c , o f t h e D r a f t E I R be g i n n i n g o n p a g e 4 . 1 3 - 4 9 . T h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s an a l y s i s i n t h e E I R a c c o u n t s f o r r e g i o n a l G r o w t h . S e e Dr a f t E I R , p p . 4 - 4 t o 4 - 5 . Im p a c t s t o f i r e p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s , p o l i c e s e r v i c e s a n d sc h o o l s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 2 , P u b l i c S e r v i c e s an d R e c r e a t i o n , b e g i n n i n g o n p a g e s 4 . 1 2 - 1 , 4 . 1 2 - 8 a n d 4. 1 2 - 1 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I m p a c t s t o p u b l i c s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s we r e f o u n d t o b e l e s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . Im p a c t s d u e t o i n c r e a s e d h e i g h t l i m i t s u n d e r t h e p r o p o s e d Pr o j e c t a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 , A e s t h e t i c s , o f t h e Dr a f t E I R . A s d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 , i m p a c t s w e r e fo u n d t o b e l e s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l a r e a s w h e r e po t e n t i a l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t i n v o l v i n g i n c r e a s e d h e i g h t i s be i n g c o n s i d e r e d . S e e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t B 1 1 - 0 1 i n Ch a p t e r 5 o f t h e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s D o c u m e n t . 2 B L C - 0 2 B a r b a r a R o g e r s 8 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 S e n i o r H o u s i n g : N o n - E I R r e l a t e d . T h e c o m m e n t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . No t e s : 1. T h e c o m m e n t “ t y p e ” p e r t a i n s t o t h e c a t e g o r i e s u s e d t o o r g a n i z e t h e c o m m e n t s s u b m i t t e d o n t h e D r a f t E I R i n t h e R e s p o n s e t o C o mm e n t s D o c u m e n t . T y p e A = A g e n c i e s a n d S e r v i c e P r o v i de r s a n d T y p e B = P r i v a t e I n d i v i d u a l s a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n s ; 2. T h e c o m m e n t n u m b e r L C = L a t e C o m m e n t . T h e La t e C o m m e n t l e t t e r s a r e a t t a c h e d t o t h i s m e m o . 3. T h e “ r e s p o n s e ” c o l u m n r e f e r e n c e s r e sp o n s e s p r o v i d e d i n t h e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m en t s D o c u m e n t , p u b l i s h e d o n A u g u s t 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 . 83   September 3, 2014 | Page 3  Late Comment Letter 01 From: John Frey [mailto:johnfreyca@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:58 PM To: City Council Subject: Growth and the straining of our services. Dear Honorable City Council Members, I am writing you on my concerns about our growth and straining of our services. I have lived in Cupertino for approximately 22 years and grew up in Mtn. View / Palo Alto. I have firsthand witnessed how Silicon Valley changed from the orchards I rode my bike though to the concrete jungle we now live in. I truly understand businesses need to grow and that they provide valuable tax revenue to Cupertino. But when I see our businesses being bulldozed then replaced with buildings with businesses on the bottom and APARTMENTS / CONDOS above them, it is a bit upsetting. Is our City Planning strategy to become like San Francisco or San Jose? Or are we going to make Cupertino one of the most balanced Cities in Santa Clara? Where businesses are welcomed and residents have a safe beautiful neighborhood to raise their children in. When we approve plans to build these high rises we take away from this. We put more cars on our roads, more calls for service from our Deputies and Fire / Paramedics, and more children in our schools. All but one of which, I have not seen any growth in. Our roads have not gotten wider, there are no more Deputies patrolling though their beats have increased. This also can be said about our Fire / Paramedics too. We do have construction on new classrooms (etc.) in our schools but these school are in established neighborhoods that were designed for single family homes back in 60's, 70's, and part of the 80's. Traffic around these schools are becoming a parking lot. Blocking city residents from being able to exit their neighborhoods and sometime their own driveways. I have personally talked to Deputies who have stated to me that if they work in the west end of Cupertino and a call comes out on the east end of Cupertino, they know it can take up to 30 mins. or more depending on the time of day. When you approve apartments / condos above old businesses, you indirectly create a whole new beat for each floor added. This adds many more calls for service with the same amount of Deputies we have had since I moved here back in 90's with no one to replacing the vacuum. We need more Deputies! I know we are building a "new downtown" off of Stevens Creek Blvd. I also know we are building the new Apple 2 building off of Wolfe. These are hugh projects and will bring more strain on our services and way of life here in Cupertino. Some for the good and I feel more for the bad. 84   September 3, 2014 | Page 4  The bad is the high density housing and traffic! It really has to stop, we cannot support any more of these projects without destroying our way of life here in Cupertino. If a single family home has to cost 2 million dollars, then unfortunately it is the cost of living here in Cupertino. We have no more room for this type of high density growth! Or are we going the way of being the San Francisco of the South Bay? I know every one of my neighbors feel the same way about limiting the growth. I know a few years ago we had a petition passed that City Hall cannot approve any construction above 3 stories without voter approval (correct me if I am wrong). That was due to the big eye sore at the Crossroads (Stevens Creek and De Anza) being built with high density housing. Please, don't make the citizens of Cupertino have to speak up again. All of you live here and represent us. Control the Planning Commission and preserve what is left of our city community! Thank you for your consideration to this matter! Respectfully, John Frey 85   September 3, 2014 | Page 5  Late Comment Letter 02   -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:04 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela Subject: Re: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting Hi, C.J. and thanks for your courtesy. I'm sorry I didn't see reference to senior housing in the staff report. But glad it was there--and not surprised that it would have been included. As the City is fortunate to have excellent members of staff. Please accept my apologies for not reading well enough to find the staff reference. And extend my apologies, as appropriate. Thnx, again, C.J. Love, BR On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Valenzuela <ChristopherV@cupertino.org> wrote: Hi Barbara, I have forwarded your comment below to the Housing Commission as I didn't see the Housing Commission included on your prior e-mail. Thank you. Christopher "C.J." Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner City Hall Community Development Department 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3251 (Phone) christopherv@cupertino.org (E-mail) www.cupertino.org (Website) -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:03 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela; City of Cupertino Fine Arts Cc: Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting To: Housing Commission Chair Raman and Members Wilson, Barnett, Chu, and Maroko— 86   September 3, 2014 | Page 6  I am very sorry to not be able to attend your meeting this Thurs. Aug. 28 at 9:00. I have a conflict on 2nd and also on 4th Thurs. mornings, unfortunately. Therefore, I'm emailing my input which I hope you will adopt in some form in your recommendations to the Planning Commission. Specifically, I look at the Housing Element section of the staff report for your meeting this Thurs. morning. I find no reference to older adult (senior) housing an the need for it. Perhaps I may have overlooked something in the long, well-written report. I did testify at several of the workshops where it seemed to me that my comments were welcomed and would be included. I ask that you include some reference to the need for older adult housing in Cupertino, as well as housing for all segments of the population, in your recommendations to the Planning Commission. And not just below-market-rate and subsidized housing but also for-profit units. There is ample documentation of this need which exists all over the country and is growing. I've made available to staff material relative to successful for-profit and subsized senior housing projects constructed in the Bay Area, across the U.S. and world-wide. This need for senior housing, both government-assisted and also for profit, is growing in Cupertino, as elsewhere, as the senior demographic is burgeoning. I hope that in recognizing this need in Cupertino you will recommend for the City of Cupertino to increase the housing available in Cupertino for older adults. Thanks, again, for all you do to benefit our community and its residents-- that you care enough to give of your time and expertise and make a difference for the better. I look forward to welcoming you to the Sept. 30 Forum Aging-in-Place. Thnx, again, Love, BR 87 MEMORANDUM DATE September 30, 2014  TO Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino   FROM Steve Noack, PlaceWorks  SUBJECT General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft  Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Updated Late Comments Received after the 45‐Day  Comment Period  Table 1, below, lists and provides a brief response to written comments that were received by the City  on the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR after  the close of the public comment period. The 45‐day public comment period ended on August 1, 2014.  This memo responds to comments received between August 2 through September 23, 2014.1  These  comments are reproduced at the end of this memo. No other late comments on the Draft EIR have  been received as of the date of this memo.  These comments do not contain “significant new information,” as defined in the California  Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5, which includes new or substantially more  severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or information indicating that  the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. No revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR.  1 This memo updates our September 3, 2014 memo that addressed late comments received  through August 25, 2014.  88    Se p t e m b e r  30, 2014 | Page 2   TAB L E    1:    LAT E  COM M E N T S    AN D  RES P O N S E S   T y p e 1 N u m b e r 2 N a m e Da t e R e c e i v e d T o p i c Re s p o n s e 3 1 B L C - 0 1 J o h n F r e y 8/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 T r a f f i c , E m e r g e n c y R e s p o n s e , S c h o o l s , Ae s t h e t i c s ( i n c r e a s e d h e i g h t ) Im p a c t s t o t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4. 1 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d T r a f f i c , o f t h e D r a f t E I R be g i n n i n g o n p a g e 4 . 1 3 - 4 9 . T h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s an a l y s i s i n t h e E I R a c c o u n t s f o r r e g i o n a l G r o w t h . S e e Dr a f t E I R , p p . 4 - 4 t o 4 - 5 . Im p a c t s t o f i r e p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s , p o l i c e s e r v i c e s a n d sc h o o l s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 2 , P u b l i c S e r v i c e s an d R e c r e a t i o n , b e g i n n i n g o n p a g e s 4 . 1 2 - 1 , 4 . 1 2 - 8 a n d 4. 1 2 - 1 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I m p a c t s t o p u b l i c s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s we r e f o u n d t o b e l e s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . Im p a c t s d u e t o i n c r e a s e d h e i g h t l i m i t s u n d e r t h e p r o p o s e d Pr o j e c t a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 , A e s t h e t i c s , o f t h e Dr a f t E I R . A s d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 , i m p a c t s w e r e fo u n d t o b e l e s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l a r e a s w h e r e po t e n t i a l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t i n v o l v i n g i n c r e a s e d h e i g h t i s be i n g c o n s i d e r e d . S e e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t B 1 1 - 0 1 i n Ch a p t e r 5 o f t h e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s D o c u m e n t . 2 B L C - 0 2 B a r b a r a R o g e r s 8 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 S e n i o r H o u s i n g : N o n - E I R r e l a t e d . T h e c o m m e n t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . 3 B L C - 0 3 C a r l e n e M a t c h n i f f 9 / 9 / 2 0 1 4 N o n - E I R r e l a t e d . Th e c o m m e n t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . 4 B L C - 0 4 D a n W h i s e n h u n t 9 / 8 / 2 0 1 4 N o n - E I R r e l a t e d . Th e c o m m e n t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . P l e a s e s e e t h e re s p o n s e s t o l e t t e r B - 1 6 i n t h e A u g u s t 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 R e s p o n s e to C o m m e n t s D o c u m e n t . 5 B L C - 0 5 R u b y E l b o g e n 9 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 4 W a t e r s u p p l y , s c h o o l s Im p a c t s s c h o o l s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 2 , P u b l i c Se r v i c e s a n d R e c r e a t i o n , b e g i n n i n g o n p a g e 4 4 . 1 2 - 1 8 . Im p a c t s t o s c h o o l s w e r e f o u n d t o b e l e s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . Im p a c t s t o w a t e r s u p p l y w e r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 . 1 4 , 89   Se p t e m b e r  30, 2014 | Page 3  TAB L E    1:    LAT E  COM M E N T S    AN D  RES P O N S E S   Ut i l i t i e s a n d S e r v i c e S y s t e m s , b e g i n n i n g o n p a g e 4 . 1 4 - 1 . Wa t e r s u p p l y i m p a c t s w e r e f o u n d t o b e l e s s t h a n si g n i f i c a n t . 6 B L C - 0 6 R u b y E l b o g e n 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 N o n - E I R r e l a t e d . Th e c o m m e n t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . 7 B L C - 0 7 S a b r i n a R i s k 9/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 N o n - E I R r e l a t e d . Th e c o m m e n t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . 8 B L C - 0 8 T r i s h M c A f e e 9/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 T r a f f i c Im p a c t s t o t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4. 1 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d T r a f f i c , o f t h e D r a f t E I R be g i n n i n g o n p a g e 4 . 1 3 - 4 9 . T h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s an a l y s i s i n t h e E I R a c c o u n t s f o r r e g i o n a l g r o w t h . S e e Dr a f t E I R , p p . 4 - 4 t o 4 - 5 . W i t h r e s p e c t t o p a r k i n g , f u t u r e de v e l o p m e n t w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t pa r k i n g a s r e q u i r e d i n T i t l e 1 9 , Z o n i n g , C h a p t e r 1 9 . 1 2 4 , Pa r k i n g R e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e M u n i c i p a l C o d e . 9 B L C - 0 9 S t e v e H i l l 9/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 T r a f f i c Im p a c t s t o a l l m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d i n Ch a p t e r 4 . 1 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d T r a f f i c , o f t h e D r a f t E I R be g i n n i n g o n p a g e 4 . 1 3 - 4 9 . T h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s an a l y s i s i n t h e E I R a c c o u n t s f o r r e g i o n a l g r o w t h . S e e Dr a f t E I R , p p . 4 - 4 t o 4 - 5 . No t e s : 1. T h e c o m m e n t “ t y p e ” p e r t a i n s t o t h e c a t e g o r i e s u s e d t o o r g a n i z e t h e c o m m e n t s s u b m i t t e d o n t h e D r a f t E I R i n t h e R e s p o n s e t o C o mm e n t s D o c u m e n t . T y p e A = A g e n c i e s a n d S e r v i c e P r o v i de r s a n d T y p e B = P r i v a t e I n d i v i d u a l s a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n s ; 2. T h e c o m m e n t n u m b e r L C = L a t e C o m m e n t . T h e La t e C o m m e n t l e t t e r s a r e a t t a c h e d t o t h i s m e m o . 3. T h e “ r e s p o n s e ” c o l u m n r e f e r e n c e s r e sp o n s e s p r o v i d e d i n t h e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m en t s D o c u m e n t , p u b l i s h e d o n A u g u s t 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 . 90   September 30, 2014 | Page 4  From: John Frey [mailto:johnfreyca@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:58 PM To: City Council Subject: Growth and the straining of our services. Dear Honorable City Council Members, I am writing you on my concerns about our growth and straining of our services. I have lived in Cupertino for approximately 22 years and grew up in Mtn. View / Palo Alto. I have firsthand witnessed how Silicon Valley changed from the orchards I rode my bike though to the concrete jungle we now live in. I truly understand businesses need to grow and that they provide valuable tax revenue to Cupertino. But when I see our businesses being bulldozed then replaced with buildings with businesses on the bottom and APARTMENTS / CONDOS above them, it is a bit upsetting. Is our City Planning strategy to become like San Francisco or San Jose? Or are we going to make Cupertino one of the most balanced Cities in Santa Clara? Where businesses are welcomed and residents have a safe beautiful neighborhood to raise their children in. When we approve plans to build these high rises we take away from this. We put more cars on our roads, more calls for service from our Deputies and Fire / Paramedics, and more children in our schools. All but one of which, I have not seen any growth in. Our roads have not gotten wider, there are no more Deputies patrolling though their beats have increased. This also can be said about our Fire / Paramedics too. We do have construction on new classrooms (etc.) in our schools but these school are in established neighborhoods that were designed for single family homes back in 60's, 70's, and part of the 80's. Traffic around these schools are becoming a parking lot. Blocking city residents from being able to exit their neighborhoods and sometime their own driveways. I have personally talked to Deputies who have stated to me that if they work in the west end of Cupertino and a call comes out on the east end of Cupertino, they know it can take up to 30 mins. or more depending on the time of day. When you approve apartments / condos above old businesses, you indirectly create a whole new beat for each floor added. This adds many more calls for service with the same amount of Deputies we have had since I moved here back in 90's with no one to replacing the vacuum. We need more Deputies! I know we are building a "new downtown" off of Stevens Creek Blvd. I also know we are building the new Apple 2 building off of Wolfe. These are hugh projects and will bring more strain on our services and way of life here in Cupertino. Some for the good and I feel more for the bad. The bad is the high density housing and traffic! It really has to stop, we cannot support any more of 91   September 30, 2014 | Page 5  these projects without destroying our way of life here in Cupertino. If a single family home has to cost 2 million dollars, then unfortunately it is the cost of living here in Cupertino. We have no more room for this type of high density growth! Or are we going the way of being the San Francisco of the South Bay? I know every one of my neighbors feel the same way about limiting the growth. I know a few years ago we had a petition passed that City Hall cannot approve any construction above 3 stories without voter approval (correct me if I am wrong). That was due to the big eye sore at the Crossroads (Stevens Creek and De Anza) being built with high density housing. Please, don't make the citizens of Cupertino have to speak up again. All of you live here and represent us. Control the Planning Commission and preserve what is left of our city community! Thank you for your consideration to this matter! Respectfully, John Frey 92   September 30, 2014 | Page 6    -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:04 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela Subject: Re: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting Hi, C.J. and thanks for your courtesy. I'm sorry I didn't see reference to senior housing in the staff report. But glad it was there--and not surprised that it would have been included. As the City is fortunate to have excellent members of staff. Please accept my apologies for not reading well enough to find the staff reference. And extend my apologies, as appropriate. Thnx, again, C.J. Love, BR On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Valenzuela <ChristopherV@cupertino.org> wrote: Hi Barbara, I have forwarded your comment below to the Housing Commission as I didn't see the Housing Commission included on your prior e-mail. Thank you. Christopher "C.J." Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner City Hall Community Development Department 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3251 (Phone) christopherv@cupertino.org (E-mail) www.cupertino.org (Website) -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:03 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela; City of Cupertino Fine Arts Cc: Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting To: Housing Commission Chair Raman and Members Wilson, Barnett, Chu, and Maroko— I am very sorry to not be able to attend your meeting this Thurs. Aug. 28 at 9:00. 93   September 30, 2014 | Page 7  I have a conflict on 2nd and also on 4th Thurs. mornings, unfortunately. Therefore, I'm emailing my input which I hope you will adopt in some form in your recommendations to the Planning Commission. Specifically, I look at the Housing Element section of the staff report for your meeting this Thurs. morning. I find no reference to older adult (senior) housing an the need for it. Perhaps I may have overlooked something in the long, well-written report. I did testify at several of the workshops where it seemed to me that my comments were welcomed and would be included. I ask that you include some reference to the need for older adult housing in Cupertino, as well as housing for all segments of the population, in your recommendations to the Planning Commission. And not just below-market-rate and subsidized housing but also for-profit units. There is ample documentation of this need which exists all over the country and is growing. I've made available to staff material relative to successful for-profit and subsized senior housing projects constructed in the Bay Area, across the U.S. and world-wide. This need for senior housing, both government-assisted and also for profit, is growing in Cupertino, as elsewhere, as the senior demographic is burgeoning. I hope that in recognizing this need in Cupertino you will recommend for the City of Cupertino to increase the housing available in Cupertino for older adults. Thanks, again, for all you do to benefit our community and its residents-- that you care enough to give of your time and expertise and make a difference for the better. I look forward to welcoming you to the Sept. 30 Forum Aging-in-Place. Thnx, again, Love, BR  94 95 96 97 98 99 From: Ruby Elbogen <rgelbogen@aol.com> Date: September 12, 2014 at 8:06:04 AM PDT To: gwong212@aol.com Subject: Mr. Mayor - "Hell No, I Won't Go" Dear Mr. Mayor - As I watched the Planning Commission meeting last evening, and assumed the Irvine Company was pulling a prank on the Commissioners by telling them that the Company from The OC is planning to add 800-ish (give or take 3) apartments to what they already have here--I laughed and waited for the punch line. Little did I know the joke is on us. So, when this is approved--are we expected to give up OUR water for them, as well as for Apple--so they can flush their thousands of new toilets? If not, where will the water come from? And, where will their kids go to school--even though it's not the City Council's problem, so to speak, you will still be blamed for letting it happen. You could tell the Irvine Company to go back to Disneyland. Thanks, Ruby Thanks & Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & Cupertino-News.com 408/355-0575 100 From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com]  Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:54 AM  To: George Schroeder  Subject: The Fence Between Vallco & Our Neighborhood    Hi, George ‐ Rumor has it that Apple, the City and/or some other entity wants to take down the  fence between Vallco and our neighborhood.  Our home is on No. Portal.  I can only assume that  all the people involved, who are fairly new to Cupertino are unaware of Propositions D & E‐‐and  the fact that our neighborhood fought a huge war to keep that fence up.  And, does the City and  Apple, etc. realize how dumb the premise is that in order to promote Walkability those who  want to turn our area of Cupertino into what it doesn't want to be‐‐a friggin' Pass Through for  Apple employees ‐‐who profess Walkability, but who can't or won't walk around our very nice  quiet area?  We want to nip this in the bud early, but we can gather a crowd to make it an issue.   What is your advice?  Cheers, Ruby    Thanks & Regards,  Ruby Elbogen,  Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & CMagazineOnline.com  408/355‐0575  101 102 103 104 105 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0409 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/3/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: One Case Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject :ConferencewithLegalCounsel-InitiationofLitigationpursuanttosubdivision(c)of Section 54956.9: One Case CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™106 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0436 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/16/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957): City Manager Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject :PublicEmployeePerformanceEvaluation(GovernmentCodeSection54957):City Manager CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™107 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0463 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/30/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Present Proclamation to Diana Khoury, owner of The Original Pancake House Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Present Proclamation to Diana Khoury, owner of The Original Pancake House Present Proclamation CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™108 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0459 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/29/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Present Proclamation to the Cupertino Library Foundation for #LoveYourLibrary Month and #GivingTuesday Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :PresentProclamationtotheCupertinoLibraryFoundationfor#LoveYourLibrary Month and #GivingTuesday Present Proclamation CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™109 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0171 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Approve the September 2 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Approve the September 2 City Council minutes Approve the minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™110 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 2, 2014 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL At 5:05 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the Special City Council meeting to order in Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None. Council went into closed session and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. 1. Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957) – City Attorney 2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: One Case Mayor Wong announced that item number one was continued September 9 and for item number two, Council obtained briefing from legal counsel, gave direction, and no was action taken. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the Regular City Council meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 111 City Council Minutes September 2, 2014 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. Subject: Proclamation to Diana Ding recognizing the Ding Ding TV 4th Annual Silicon Valley Food Festival Recommended Action: Present proclamation Mayor Wong presented the proclamation to Diana Ding. 4. Subject: Presentation from Cupertino student delegates regarding their recent trip to Toyokawa, Japan Recommended Action: Receive presentation Tammy Fox, member of the Toyokawa Sister City Board introduced the students who presented a slideshow on their recent trip to Toyokawa, Japan. Alysa Sakkas, President of the Toyokawa Sister City Committee recognized the members of the Committee and also the Board members. Council received the presentation. POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Anjali Kausar, Executive Director of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce invited everyone to the Annual Diwali Festival on September 27 from 10-5 at Cupertino Memorial Park. Darrel Lum noted issues with the proposed height of the Hyatt House Hotel which was discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 112 City Council Minutes September 2, 2014 5. Subject: Approve the August 19 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 15, 2014. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.14-192 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 15, 2014 7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 22, 2014. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-193 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending August 22, 2014 8. Subject: 2014 Pavement Maintenance Project - Phase 3, Project No. 2014-05, authority to award construction contract Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract with a construction contingency of up to 10% if the bids are within the established budget and there are no unresolved bid protests SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 9. Subject: Amendment to the Municipal Code to regulate outdoor smoking Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 14-2121, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Sections 10.90.010 and 10.90.020 of Chapter 10.90 and adding Section 10.90.045 of Chapter 10.90 and amending Section 10.56.020 of Chapter 10.56 of Title 10 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to regulate outdoor smoking" Description: Application No(s).: CP-2014-02; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: citywide; City Project to amend Chapters 10.90 and 10.56, Title 10, of the Cupertino Municipal Code to regulate outdoor smoking Written communications for this item included an email from Kevin McClelland. Carol Baker from Cancer Action Network spoke in support of the ordinance to protect the health of the citizens of Cupertino. Chang moved and Santoro seconded to read Ordinance No. 14-2121 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Chang moved and Santoro seconded to enact Ordinance No. 14-2121. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 113 City Council Minutes September 2, 2014 PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Subject: Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Project for the installation of solar power generation facilities at the Service Center Recommended Action: Approve the following recommendations relating to the Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Project for the installation of solar power generation facilities at the Service Center: A. Accept report on bid process with bid result; B. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Energy Services Contract and related agreements, including bond forms, with Cupertino Electric, Incorporated, for an amount not to exceed Four Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand, Two Hundred Seven Dollars ($426,207.00) for the complete design, construction, and installation of one of the Regional Renewable Energy Procurement (R-REP) projects, for solar photovoltaic systems to be located at the Cupertino Service Center located at 10555 Mary Avenue; C. Adopt Resolution No. 14-194 making findings necessary to authorize entering into an Energy Services Contract, including a finding that the total cost for the Service Center Solar Project will be less than the anticipated cost of electricity that would have been consumed at the Service Center and Don Burnett Bridge in the absence of this system and that the terms of the award are in the best interest of the City of Cupertino; D. Authorize a design/construction contingency allowance of $64,000, approximately 15 percent of the value of the Energy Service Contract, to address unforeseen conditions and for adjustments due to operational needs during construction, and authorize the Public Works Director to issue changes orders as necessary against the allowance; E. Authorize City Manager to negotiate and execute other agreements related to the Energy Services Contract, including an Operation and Maintenance Agreement Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report. Sinks moved and Mahoney seconded and the motion carried unanimously to: A. Accept report on bid process with bid result; B. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Energy Services Contract and related agreements, including bond forms, with Cupertino Electric, Incorporated, for an amount not to exceed Four Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand, Two Hundred Seven Dollars ($426,207.00) for the complete design, construction, and installation of one of the Regional Renewable Energy Procurement (R-REP) 114 City Council Minutes September 2, 2014 projects, for solar photovoltaic systems to be located at the Cupertino Service Center located at 10555 Mary Avenue; C. Adopt Resolution No. 14-194 making findings necessary to authorize entering into an Energy Services Contract, including a finding that the total cost for the Service Center Solar Project will be less than the anticipated cost of electricity that would have been consumed at the Service Center and Don Burnett Bridge in the absence of this system and that the terms of the award are in the best interest of the City of Cupertino; D. Authorize a design/construction contingency allowance of $64,000, approximately 15 percent of the value of the Energy Service Contract, to address unforeseen conditions and for adjustments due to operational needs during construction, and authorize the Public Works Director to issue changes orders as necessary against the allowance; E. Authorize City Manager to negotiate and execute other agreements related to the Energy Services Contract, including an Operation and Maintenance Agreement ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 11. Subject: First Amendment of an Agreement between the City of Cupertino (City) and Recology Cupertino (Recology) for the Solid Waste Services Franchise Agreement. Recommended Action: Approve the First Amendment to the Solid Waste Services Franchise Agreement requiring additional collection services and expansion of organic processing services with Recology. The amendment would be effective November 1, 2014 through January 31, 2019 and includes an option to negotiate a new ten-year agreement with Recology that could begin as early as January 31, 2017, contingent upon Recology meeting First Amendment requirements Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant Director of Public Works Roger Lee reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Jennifer Griffin asked about the plan for food scraps, where they would be placed and information on how to clean out the bin. Kevin McClelland from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce urged Council to extend the contract for Recology as per the staff report. Mr. Lee responded to Ms. Griffin’s questions noting the following: food scraps would go into the yard waste container and kitchen bins would be provided by Recology; food scraps could be wrapped in newspaper to reduce excess moisture; the City currently 115 City Council Minutes September 2, 2014 offers a service to clean the larger bins and would look into cleaning the food scrap bins as well; an educational sticker would be placed on all yard waste containers. John Zirelli, General Manager of Recology explained that contamination would not a problem and Recology would produce a short, educational video. Santoro moved and Chang seconded to approve the First Amendment to the Solid Waste Services Franchise Agreement requiring additional collection services and expansion of organic processing services with Recology. The amendment would be effective November 1, 2014 through January 31, 2019 and includes an option to negotiate a new ten-year agreement with Recology that could begin as early as January 31, 2017, contingent upon Recology meeting First Amendment requirements. The motion carried unanimously. 12. Subject: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags. Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2122: “An Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Cupertino Amending Section 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of The Cupertino Municipal Code relating to the regulation of single-use carryout bags.” Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report. Jennifer Griffin said that her shopping habits have changed since the bag ordinance was enacted by buying more pre-packaged foods which also avoids organic waste. She noted that she shops in cities that still offer plastic bags and urged Council to keep the price at 0.10 per bag. Chang moved and Mahoney seconded to read Ordinance No. 14-2122 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 13. Subject: Public Works Construction Project Update Recommended Action: Receive Construction Project Update Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the construction project update via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the update. 116 City Council Minutes September 2, 2014 City Manager David Brandt noted that the Annual Report had been published and is on the website, and that the Budget at a Glance document would be on website soon. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 8:12 p.m., Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, September 9 at 5:05 p.m. for closed session items regarding the City Attorney and City Manager evaluations, City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. The September 16 meeting was cancelled and the next regular meeting is Tuesday, October 7. _______________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, and then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 117 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0416 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/9/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 29, 2014 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 29, 2014 AdoptResolutionNo.14-195acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingAugust29, 2014. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™118 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING August 29, 2014 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0417 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/9/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 5, 2014 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 5, 2014 AdoptResolutionNo.14-196acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingSeptember5, 2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™128 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 5, 2014 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0449 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/22/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 12, 2014 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 12, 2014 AdoptResolutionNo.14-197acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingSeptember12, 2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™138 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 12, 2014 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0450 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/22/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 19, 2014 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 19, 2014 AdoptResolutionNo.14-198acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingSeptember19, 2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™153 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 19, 2014 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0440 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/17/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J and K (November 4, 2014) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Summary FUHSD Measure J B - Summary FUHSD Measure K C - FUHSD Fact Sheet Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :FremontUnionHighSchoolDistrict(FUHSD)ParcelTaxRenewal,MeasureJandK (November 4, 2014) AcceptLegislativeCommitteerecommendationtosupporttheFUHSDParcelTaxRenewal, Measure J, and New Bond, Measure K for the November 4, 2014 General Election CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™166 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3262 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J and K (November 4, 2014). Recommended Action Accept Legislative Committee recommendation to support the FUHSD Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J, and New Bond, Measure K for the November 4, 2014 General Election. Description Between 2010 and 2020 student enrollment in the Fremont Union High School District is projected to increase by 18% with an additional 1,850 students coming our way. This significant growth will affect the entire district and in order to continue to provide a first class education to all students, the District estimates that it will need to build 51 new classrooms, repair aging facilities, and hire 60 teachers and additional classified staff. In an acknowledgement of the needs associated with a growing student population, at their July 8, 2014 meeting the FUHSD Board of Trustees made a decision to add two measures to the November 4, 2014 ballot: Renewal of the existing $98 per parcel tax from July 2016 through July 2022 (the current parcel tax is set to expire in 2016) – Measure J. A new $295 million bond measure to build new classrooms, improve aging facilities, and increase access to technology – Measure K As a basic aid district, all of FUHSD's general purpose funding comes from the local property tax. The state does not provide any general purpose funding. Unlike revenue limit districts, basic aid districts do not receive funding based on district enrollment. Extending the current parcel tax, scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2016, would serve an uninterrupted continuation of funds. 167 It was on Nov. 2, 2004, that voters approved the original parcel tax assessment of $98 per parcel for six years. In 2010, voters approved a six-year extension of the parcel tax at the same amount. The tax is assessed against each parcel of taxable land in the district. Parcel tax funds are separate from bond funds in that they allow the district to preserve core academic classes, maintain qualified and experienced teachers and school employees and continue programs that help students qualify for college. Bond funds are strictly used for building construction and rehabilitation. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Rick Kitson, Public Affairs Director Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Summary FUHSD Measure J B – Summary FUHSD Measure K C – FUHSD Fact Sheet 168 Fremont Union High School District Measure J November 4, 2014 Ballot Measure J Text To renew its existing parcel tax without increasing the cost or changing the structure of the proposal voters first approved in 2004, shall the Fremont Union High School District continue to levy a $98 parcel tax for 6 more years beginning July 1, 2016 to protect the math, science, English, foreign language, music and art classes currently offered, maintain class sizes, retain high quality teachers and staff and offer an exemption to individuals age 65 and over? From sccgov.org Measure Highlights Approval of Measure J will renew a local school parcel tax first approved by voters in 2004. Extending the current parcel tax, scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2016, would serve an uninterrupted continuation of funds to provide the high schools in the Fremont Union High School District - Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook and Monta Vista High - to address the additional student needs. The $98/parcel each year from 2016 – 2022 (extension of original parcel tax approved in 2004) will be used to pay for core programs and staff salaries, prevent a reduction of academic classes, avoid a loss of access to college prep, honors, and Advanced Placement courses, ensure high quality preparation for college and careers, and continue to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and classified staff. Measure J provides for a senior exemption to anyone 65 years of age or older who owns and resides in their home. If residents currently have an exemption from the parcel tax, they will continue to be exempt from Measure J. From: FUHSD.org Mercurynews.org 169 Fremont Union High School District Measure K November 4, 2014 Ballot Measure K Text To avoid overcrowding at Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook and Monta Vista High Schools by building the new classrooms and facilities needed to serve a growing student population, updating computer network capability and science labs, upgrading classroom computers and technology, and replacing, acquiring, constructing and renovating school facilities shall the Fremont Union High School District issue $295 million in bonds at interest rates within the legal limit with annual audits and all expenditures monitored by an Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee? From: sccgov.org Measure Highlights Measure K is an investment in the new classrooms and facilities at Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook and Monta Vista High Schools in the Fremont Union High School District. Measure K will raise the local bond funds needed to expand and renovate local high schools to serve a growing student population. Between 2010 and 2020 student enrollment in the Fremont Union High School District is projected to increase by 18% with an additional 1,850 students. This significant growth will affect the entire school district and in order to continue to provide a first class education to all students we will need to build 51 new classrooms, repair aging facilities, improve computer networks connecting local classrooms to each other and to research materials from around the world, upgrade and improve science labs and improve building security. Measure K will cost property owners an annual average of $21 per $100,000 of assessed value. The measure cannot offer a senior exemption. There are no exemptions provided for in the law that define how a general obligation bond is structured. Low-income senior citizens can, if they choose to, apply to have their taxes deferred under the provisions of State property tax law. From: FUHSD.org Mercurynews.com 170 FUHSD Fact Sheet Between 2010 and 2020 student enrollment in the Fremont Union High School District is projected to increase by 18% with an additional 1,850 students coming our way. This significant growth will affect our entire district and in order to continue to provide a first class education to all students we will need to build 51 new classrooms, repair aging facilities, and hire 60 teachers and additional classified staff. In an acknowledgement of the needs associated with a growing student population, at their July 8, 2014 meeting the FUHSD Board of Trustees made a decision to add two measures to the November 4, 2014 ballot:  Renewal of the existing $98/parcel tax from July 2016 through July 2022 (the current parcel tax is set to expire in 2016) – Measure J  A new $295 million bond measure to build new classrooms, improve aging facilities, and increase access to technology – Measure K Measure J and Measure K go hand-in-hand to provide for our growing student enrollment: Renewal of Parcel Tax New Bond Measure Measure J K Amount $98/parcel each year from 2016 – 2022 (extension of original parcel tax approved in 2004) $295 million (approximately $21/$100,000 of assessed property value) Purpose Parcel tax pays for core programs and staff salaries Bond pays for building construction, facilities renovation, and increased access to technology Details  Prevent reduction of academic classes  Avoid loss of access to college prep, honors, and Advanced Placement courses  Ensure high quality preparation for college and careers  Continue to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and classified staff  Build 51 new classrooms needed to accommodate an additional 1,850 students  Repair, modernize, and replace older classrooms and facilities so they can continue to serve students  Provide students and teachers with better access to classroom computers and technology  Upgrade and improve the computer networks that connect classrooms to each other and to research material from around the world 171 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0390 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/25/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A1 - Redlined - Second Amendment to Contract A2 - Clean - Second Amendment to Contract Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney Approve the Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™172 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney. Recommended Action Approve the Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney. Description The City Council held its annual evaluation of the City Attorney on Thursday, August 21, 2014 and on Tuesday, September 9, 2014. The Council desires to consider adjusting the compensation to the City Attorney. The Council also desires to consider extending the term of the City Attorney’s employment contract through August 31, 2020. The attached second amended contract is submitted for Council consideration of an annual salary increase of $3,600 ($300 per month) which will provide the City Attorney with a total monthly salary of $21,075.79, and for extending the term of the contract through August 31, 2020. No other changes were made to the terms and conditions of the existing contract. Fiscal Impact Approval of the above salary increase will increase the Fiscal Year 2014-15 budget appropriation by no more than $3,600. Prepared by: Timothy L. Davis, Partner, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Reviewed by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Second Amended Employment Contract for City Attorney 173 FIRST SECOND AMENDED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR CITY ATTORNEY This First Second Amended E mployment Contract is made and entered into this 7th17th day of DecemberOctober, 20132014, by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a Municipal Corporation, by and through its City Council (EMPLOYER), and Carol Korade (EMPLOYEE). RECITALS: A. EMPLOYER is a Municipal Corporation of the State of California. B. The City Council of the City of Cupertino, in accordance with the provisions of its Municipal Code, desires to employ the services of EMPLOYEE as the City Attorney. C. EMPLOYEE desires to reinstate from retirement and accept employment as Cupertino City Attorney. D. It is the desire of both EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE to set forth the terms and conditions of said employment. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 174 ARTICLE I TERM OF EMPLOYMENT 1. Section 1.01. Term of the Contract: This Contract originally began on the date the PERS employment and group status of EMPLOYEE was finalized, unless extended by written agreement of the parties, and will automatically expire on August 31, 20152020, unless extended in writing by the parties. On or within 30 days of August 31, 20142019, EMPLOYEE shall notify EMPLOYER of the expiration date of August 31, 20152020. In the event that EMPLOYER does not intend to extend this Contract beyond expiration, it shall notify EMPLOYEE in writing of its intent not to extend prior to the effective date of expiration. Failure of the EMPLOYER to provide such notice shall not affect the expiration date of August 31, 20152020. Section 1.02. Terminations Prior to Expiration: Notwithstanding any provision contained in this Contract to the contrary, EMPLOYEE understands and agrees that she serves at the pleasure of EMPLOYER and may be terminated prior to expiration of this Contract at the will of EMPLOYER, subject only to the severance provisions set forth in Article V of this Contract, and the ordinance provisions as set forth in Section 2.18.110 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. In like manner, nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYEE to resign at any time from the position of City Attorney subject only to the notice provisions set forth in Article V of this 2 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 175 Contract and the ordinance provisions as set forth in Section 2.18.110 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. EMPLOYEE further acknowledges that EMPLOYER has made no implied, expressed, or written assurances of continued employment with the City of Cupertino other than as specifically set forth in this Contract. ARTICLE II DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYEE Section 2.01. Duties: EMPLOYER hereby agrees to employ EMPLOYEE as City Attorney of the City of Cupertino to perform the functions and duties as specified in the Municipal Code, California Constitution, and California Statutes, and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as EMPLOYER shall from time to time assign to EMPLOYEE which are reasonably related to the position of City Attorney, including, but not limited to: (a) Attendance at City Council meetings and other meetings as required; (b) Research, preparation and review of ordinances, resolutions, agreements, contracts, leases, written opinions and other documents of legal nature necessary or requested by the City Council; 3 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 176 (c) Provision of all legal advice on behalf of the City to the City Council, City Manager, and other City officers and employees; (d) Representation of the City, members of the City Council and other City officers and employees in litigation as necessary; (e) Selection, retention, supervision and monitoring of outside legal counsel as required; (f) Commencement and prosecution of criminal actions and civil abatements necessary and appropriate to enforce City's ordinances; (g) Monitoring and advising the City Council and City staff regarding legislation and case law affecting the City. Section 2.02. Devotion to Duties: EMPLOYEE agrees to devote productive time, ability, and attention to the business of EMPLOYER during the term of this Employment Contract. This Contract shall not be interpreted nor intended to prohibit EMPLOYEE from making passive personal investments, conducting private business affairs or providing volunteer or limited legal services if those activities do not interfere with the services required under this Contract. Section 2.03. Performance Evaluation Procedures: The City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of EMPLOYEE at least annually, or on any other schedule deemed appropriate by the City Council. Said review and 4 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 177 evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed by EMPLOYER after consultation with EMPLOYEE. ARTICLE III COMPENSATION Section 3.01. Compensation: EMPLOYER agrees to pay to EMPLOYEE for services rendered by her pursuant to this Contract a monthly base salary of $21,075.7920,468.76, payable in installments at the time as other employees of EMPLOYER are paid. EMPLOYEE's monthly base salary shall be adjusted by any percentage increase given to Department Heads of EMPLOYER g enerally and shall not be decreased unless in a percentage consistent with a decrease applicable to Department Heads of EMPLOYER generally. At the time of EMPLOYEE’s periodic evaluations, EMPLOYER may consider an additional compensation package increase including, but not limited to, merit pay or an additional increase in salary or benefits. Section 3.02. Deferred Compensation: City shall provide to EMPLOYEE the same deferred compensation plan that may be provided to other Department Heads and Confidential employees, if any. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Section 4.01. Automobile Allowance: During the term of this Employment Contract, EMPLOYEE, to the extent necessary to perform her duties shall use her own personal vehicle. EMPLOYER, in consideration 5 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 178 thereof, shall pay EMPLOYEE the sum of $350 per month as an automobile allowance. EMPLOYEE shall be responsible for the payment of all operating expenses of the vehicle, including, but not limited to, gasoline, oil, service and repair, and, if necessary, the replacement of her automobile. EMPLOYEE shall procure and maintain, at her expense, a comprehensive automobile liability insurance policy on the vehicle being used by her, in an amount that is acceptable to EMPLOYER. During the course of this Employment Contract, EMPLOYEE shall provide EMPLOYER with written documentation that said insurance policy is in full force and effect. Section 4.02. Vacation and Sick Leave: EMPLOYEE shall be credited with 22 days of vacation and 12 days of sick leave as of the commencement of employment. Annual vacation and sick leave shall be accrued and administered in the same manner as vacation and sick leave is administered for Department Head employees of EMPLOYER. Section 4.03. Benefits: EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to receive benefits provided by EMPLOYER at a level no less than that provided to other Department Heads of the City, which presently consist of retirement benefits, family health coverage, life insurance, disability insurance, sports club membership, administrative leave, floating holidays and holidays. The benefits so provided are subject to modification during the course of this Contract at the sole and absolute discretion of EMPLOYER at such times and 6 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 179 to such extent as EMPLOYER may deem appropriate provided, however, there shall be no reduction in benefits unless EMPLOYER implements the same reduction of benefits to all other Department Heads of the City (except as specified below for retirement and lifetime medical benefits). EMPLOYER agrees that EMPLOYEE has a contract right to retirement benefits and lifetime medical benefits that is vested as of the date of execution of this Contract and is deemed irrevocable. EMPLOYER shall also recognize and apply to this Contract, any benefit or compensation changes resulting from any Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Resolution that may exist in the future from a bargaining unit that the City Attorney position may be allocated to pursuant to the City's personnel policies and that such MOU and Resolution is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Notwithstanding the above, EMPLOYER agrees that the retirement and lifetime medical benefits to be paid to EMPLOYEE upon retirement shall not be less than that based upon the calculation in effect at the time of execution of this Contract and may not be reduced. EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE acknowledge that (i) before being employed by EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE had retired from the City of Alameda with retiree medical benefits through CalPERS (Employee + 1) for which EMPLOYEE paid no premiums, (ii) when EMPLOYEE accepted employment from EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE lost those City of Alameda retiree medical 7 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 180 benefits, and (iii) after EMPLOYEE retires from EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE will have to pay additional retiree medical premiums to CalPERS in order to obtain the same retiree medical benefits as EMPLOYEE had (or would have had in the future), for no additional retiree medical premiums, if EMPLOYEE had not accepted employment from EMPLOYER. Therefore, in addition to EMPLOYER's premium payments for the lifetime medical benefits for EMPLOYEE specified above, EMPLOYER agrees to establish a retiree-only health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) covering EMPLOYEE when EMPLOYEE retires from EMPLOYER. The HRA will provide a monthly benefit to EMPLOYEE that will be equal to the amount, if any, that EMPLOYEE has to pay in retiree medical premiums for the month in order to obtain the same retiree medical benefits for the month as EMPLOYEE had (Employee + 1) (or would have had in the future) for the month as a retiree of the City of Alameda if EMPLOYEE had not accepted employment from EMPLOYER. The HRA will either (i) reimburse EMPLOYEE for such additional premiums upon proof that is satisfactory to EMPLOYER that such additional premiums have been paid to the appropriate third party (e.g., CalPERS) or (ii) pay such additional premiums directly to the appropriate third party (e.g., CalPERS). Section 4.04. Professional Dues and Subscriptions: EMPLOYER agrees to pay for EMPLOYEE's annual membership to the State Bar of California and for professional dues and subscriptions of EMPLOYEE 8 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 181 directly related to or beneficial to her duties as City Attorney, provided the City Council has made provisions for such costs in the annual budget. Section 4.05 Expenses: EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to reimbursement for all reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by her in the performance of her duties upon presentation of vouchers indicating the amount and purpose thereof, and further provided that such expenses are in accordance with policies established from time to time by EMPLOYER and consistent with budget allocations adopted by EMPLOYER for that purpose during the term of this Employment Contract. Section 4.06. Moving and Relocation Expenses: EMPLOYEE shall be reimbursed or EMPLOYER may pay directly for the expenses of packing, unpacking, and moving herself, her family, and her personal property from Alameda to Cupertino, California, not to exceed a maximum of $8,000. Moving shall also include any necessary storage and insurance costs. Section 4.07. Professional Development: EMPLOYER hereby agrees to pay travel and subsistence expenses of EMPLOYEE for professional and office travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of EMPLOYEE and to adequately pursue necessary official functions for EMPLOYER, including, but not limited to, city attorney associations and such other national, regional, state, and local government groups 9 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 182 and committees there of which EMPLOYEE serves as a member, provided the City Council has made provisions for such costs in the annual budget. EMPLOYER also agrees to pay tuition, travel, and subsistence expenses of EMPLOYEE for courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for her professional development and for the good of the City provided the City Council has provided for same in the annual budget. Section 4.08. Housing Assistance: EMPLOYEE may elect to receive Housing Assistance for Department Heads consistent with the EMPLOYER'S Housing Assistance Policy in effect on the date of execution of this Contract, with any loan repayment to be due two years after termination of employment or August 31, 2013, whichever is later. ARTICLE V TERMINATION AND NOTICE Section 5.01. Termination of Employment and Severance: a. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.18.110 of EMPLOYER'S Municipal Code, EMPLOYEE serves at the pleasure of the EMPLOYER and nothing herein shall be taken to prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYER to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE with or without cause; provided, however, EMPLOYER shall take no action to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE within ninety (90) days after an 10 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 183 election at which one or more new members are elected to the City Council or where the effective date of termination is less than one year and one day after commencement of the term of this Contract. There is no express or implied promise made to EMPLOYEE for any form of continued employment. This Contract and the EMPLOYER'S Municipal Code Chapter 2.18 are the sole and exclusive bases for an employment relationship between EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYER. b. If the EMPLOYEE is terminated by the EMPLOYER prior to expiration of this Contract, while still willing and able to perform the duties of the City Attorney, EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE a single lump sum payment made on the effective date of the termination, in an amount equivalent to nine months aggregate salary and aggregate medical insurance benefit allowance. If notice of termination is given less than three months and one day after commencement of the term of this Contract, EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE her aggregate salary and aggregate medical insurance benefit allowance until one year and one day after the commencement of the Contract and no additional severance payment is owing. If this Contract is not renewed, then EMPLOYER shall either provide EMPLOYEE 11 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 184 with nine months prior notice of nonrenewal or shall pay EMPLOYEE a single lump sum payment made on the effective date of the termination in an amount equivalent to the difference between nine months aggregate salary and medical insurance benefit allowance and the amount of such aggregate salary and medical insurance benefit allowance computed for the number of months of notice actually given. Any such payments will release EMPLOYER from any further obligations under this Contract. Contemporaneously with the delivery of the severance pay herein above set out, EMPLOYEE agrees to execute and deliver to EMPLOYER a release releasing EMPLOYER of all claims that EMPLOYEE may have against EMPLOYER. c. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) above, EMPLOYER shall not be obligated to pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under the provisions of paragraph (b), if EMPLOYEE is terminated because of a crime of moral turpitude or a violation of statute or law constituting misconduct in office. Further, EMPLOYER shall not be obligated to pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under paragraph (b), in the event EMPLOYEE voluntarily resigns or retires without 12 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 185 affirmative action by EMPLOYER to terminate, initiate termination proceedings or request resignation. ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS Section 6.01. Form of Notices: Notices pursuant to this Contract shall be in writing given by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: a. The CITY: Mayor and City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 b. EMPLOYEE: Carol Korade 9 Chatham Pointe Alameda, CA 94502 Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this Contract may be personally served in the same manner as is applicable to civil judicial process. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date three days after deposit of such written notice, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service. Section 6.02. Bonding: EMPLOYER shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of EMPLOYEE under any law or ordinance. 13 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 186 Section 6.03. Indemnification: EMPLOYER shall defend, save harmless and indemnify EMPLOYEE against any tort, professional liability claim or demand, or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of EMPLOYEE's duties as City Attorney. If EMPLOYER compromises or settles any such claim or suit, EMPLOYER shall pay the amount of any settlement, or if the claim or suit results in a judgment against EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER shall pay any such judgment. This indemnification does not apply to any act, action, or omission arising out of the gross negligence, willful misconduct on the part of EMPLOYEE, or acts of EMPLOYEE outside the course and scope of her duties. Section 6.04. General Provisions: a. The text herein shall constitute the entire Contract between the parties. b. This Contract shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of EMPLOYEE. c. This Contract may only be modified upon the written consent of the EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE. d. In any action to enforce the terms of this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and 14 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 187 court costs and other non-reimbursable litigation expenses, such as expert witness fees and investigation expenses. Section 6.05. Severability: If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Contract is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Contract shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMPLOYER has caused this Contract to be signed and executed in its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this Contract, both in duplicate, the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF CUPERTINO: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Timothy Davis, Partner “EMPLOYEE” Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 15 Revised 12.17.1310.7.14 188 1 Revised 10.7.14 SECOND AMENDED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR CITY ATTORNEY This Second Amended Employment Contract is made and entered into this 7th day of October, 2014, by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a Municipal Corporation, by and through its City Council (EMPLOYER), and Carol Korade (EMPLOYEE). RECITALS: A. EMPLOYER is a Municipal Corporation of the State of California. B. The City Council of the City of Cupertino, in accordance with the provisions of its Municipal Code, desires to employ the services of EMPLOYEE as the City Attorney. C. EMPLOYEE desires to reinstate from retirement and accept employment as Cupertino City Attorney. D. It is the desire of both EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE to set forth the terms and conditions of said employment. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 189 2 Revised 10.7.14 ARTICLE I TERM OF EMPLOYMENT 1. Section 1.01. Term of the Contract: This Contract originally began on the date the PERS employment and group status of EMPLOYEE was finalized, unless extended by written agreement of the parties, and will automatically expire on August 31, 2020, unless extended in writing by the parties. On or within 30 days of August 31, 2019, EMPLOYEE shall notify EMPLOYER of the expiration date of August 31, 2020. In the event that EMPLOYER does not intend to extend this Contract beyond expiration, it shall notify EMPLOYEE in writing of its intent not to extend prior to the effective date of expiration. Failure of the EMPLOYER to provide such notice shall not affect the expiration date of August 31, 2020. Section 1.02. Terminations Prior to Expiration: Notwithstanding any provision contained in this Contract to the contrary, EMPLOYEE understands and agrees that she serves at the pleasure of EMPLOYER and may be terminated prior to expiration of this Contract at the will of EMPLOYER, subject only to the severance provisions set forth in Article V of this Contract, and the ordinance provisions as set forth in Section 2.18.110 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. In like manner, nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYEE to resign at any time from the position of City Attorney subject only to the notice provisions set forth in Article V of this 190 3 Revised 10.7.14 Contract and the ordinance provisions as set forth in Section 2.18.110 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. EMPLOYEE further acknowledges that EMPLOYER has made no implied, expressed, or written assurances of continued employment with the City of Cupertino other than as specifically set forth in this Contract. ARTICLE II DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYEE Section 2.01. Duties: EMPLOYER hereby agrees to employ EMPLOYEE as City Attorney of the City of Cupertino to perform the functions and duties as specified in the Municipal Code, California Constitution, and California Statutes, and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as EMPLOYER shall from time to time assign to EMPLOYEE which are reasonably related to the position of City Attorney, including, but not limited to: (a) Attendance at City Council meetings and other meetings as required; (b) Research, preparation and review of ordinances, resolutions, agreements, contracts, leases, written opinions and other documents of legal nature necessary or requested by the City Council; 191 4 Revised 10.7.14 (c) Provision of all legal advice on behalf of the City to the City Council, City Manager, and other City officers and employees; (d) Representation of the City, members of the City Council and other City officers and employees in litigation as necessary; (e) Selection, retention, supervision and monitoring of outside legal counsel as required; (f) Commencement and prosecution of criminal actions and civil abatements necessary and appropriate to enforce City's ordinances; (g) Monitoring and advising the City Council and City staff regarding legislation and case law affecting the City. Section 2.02. Devotion to Duties: EMPLOYEE agrees to devote productive time, ability, and attention to the business of EMPLOYER during the term of this Employment Contract. This Contract shall not be interpreted nor intended to prohibit EMPLOYEE from making passive personal investments, conducting private business affairs or providing volunteer or limited legal services if those activities do not interfere with the services required under this Contract. Section 2.03. Performance Evaluation Procedures: The City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of EMPLOYEE at least annually, or on any other schedule deemed appropriate by the City Council. Said review and 192 5 Revised 10.7.14 evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed by EMPLOYER after consultation with EMPLOYEE. ARTICLE III COMPENSATION Section 3.01. Compensation: EMPLOYER agrees to pay to EMPLOYEE for services rendered by her pursuant to this Contract a monthly base salary of $21,075.79, payable in installments at the time as other employees of EMPLOYER are paid. EMPLOYEE's monthly base salary shall be adjusted by any percentage increase given to Department Heads of EMPLOYER generally and shall not be decreased unless in a percentage consistent with a decrease applicable to Department Heads of EMPLOYER generally. At the time of EMPLOYEE’s periodic evaluations, EMPLOYER may consider an additional compensation package increase including, but not limited to, merit pay or an additional increase in salary or benefits. Section 3.02. Deferred Compensation: City shall provide to EMPLOYEE the same deferred compensation plan that may be provided to other Department Heads and Confidential employees, if any. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Section 4.01. Automobile Allowance: During the term of this Employment Contract, EMPLOYEE, to the extent necessary to perform her duties shall use her own personal vehicle. EMPLOYER, in consideration 193 6 Revised 10.7.14 thereof, shall pay EMPLOYEE the sum of $350 per month as an automobile allowance. EMPLOYEE shall be responsible for the payment of all operating expenses of the vehicle, including, but not limited to, gasoline, oil, service and repair, and, if necessary, the replacement of her automobile. EMPLOYEE shall procure and maintain, at her expense, a comprehensive automobile liability insurance policy on the vehicle being used by her, in an amount that is acceptable to EMPLOYER. During the course of this Employment Contract, EMPLOYEE shall provide EMPLOYER with written documentation that said insurance policy is in full force and effect. Section 4.02. Vacation and Sick Leave: EMPLOYEE shall be credited with 22 days of vacation and 12 days of sick leave as of the commencement of employment. Annual vacation and sick leave shall be accrued and administered in the same manner as vacation and sick leave is administered for Department Head employees of EMPLOYER. Section 4.03. Benefits: EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to receive benefits provided by EMPLOYER at a level no less than that provided to other Department Heads of the City, which presently consist of retirement benefits, family health coverage, life insurance, disability insurance, sports club membership, administrative leave, floating holidays and holidays. The benefits so provided are subject to modification during the course of this Contract at the sole and absolute discretion of EMPLOYER at such times and 194 7 Revised 10.7.14 to such extent as EMPLOYER may deem appropriate provided, however, there shall be no reduction in benefits unless EMPLOYER implements the same reduction of benefits to all other Department Heads of the City (except as specified below for retirement and lifetime medical benefits ). EMPLOYER agrees that EMPLOYEE has a contract right to retirement benefits and lifetime medical benefits that is vested as of the date of execution of this Contract and is deemed irrevocable. EMPLOYER shall also recognize and apply to this Contract, any benefit or compensation changes resulting from any Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Resolution that may exist in the future from a bargaining unit that the City Attorney position may be allocated to pursuant to the City's personnel policies and that such MOU and Resolution is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Notwithstanding the above, EMPLOYER agrees that the retirement and lifetime medical benefits to be paid to EMPLOYEE upon retirement shall not be less than that based upon the calculation in effect at the time of execution of this Contract and may not be reduced. EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE acknowledge that (i) before being employed by EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE had retired from the City of Alameda with retiree medical benefits through CalPERS (Employee + 1) for which EMPLOYEE paid no premiums, (ii) when EMPLOYEE accepted employment from EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE lost those City of Alameda retiree medical 195 8 Revised 10.7.14 benefits, and (iii) after EMPLOYEE retires from EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE will have to pay additional retiree medical premiums to CalPERS in order to obtain the same retiree medical benefits as EMPLOYEE had (or would have had in the future), for no additional retiree medical premiums, if EMPLOYEE had not accepted employment from EMPLOYER. Therefore, in addition to EMPLOYER's premium payments for the lifetime medical benefits for EMPLOYEE specified above, EMPLOYER agrees to establish a retiree-only health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) covering EMPLOYEE when EMPLOYEE retires from EMPLOYER. The HRA will provide a monthly benefit to EMPLOYEE that will be equal to the amount, if any, that EMPLOYEE has to pay in retiree medical premiums for the month in order to obtain the same retiree medical benefits for the month as EMPLOYEE had (Employee + 1) (or would have had in the future) for the month as a retiree of the City of Alameda if EMPLOYEE had not accepted employment from EMPLOYER. The HRA will either (i) reimburse EMPLOYEE for such additional premiums upon proof that is satisfactory to EMPLOYER that such additional premiums have been paid to the appropriate third party (e.g., CalPERS) or (ii) pay such additional premiums directly to the appropriate third party (e.g., CalPERS). Section 4.04. Professional Dues and Subscriptions: EMPLOYER agrees to pay for EMPLOYEE's annual membership to the State Bar of California and for professional dues and subscriptions of EMPLOYEE 196 9 Revised 10.7.14 directly related to or beneficial to her duties as City Attorney, provided the City Council has made provisions for such costs in the annual budget. Section 4.05 Expenses: EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to reimbursement for all reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by her in the performance of her duties upon presentation of vouchers indicating the amount and purpose thereof, and further provided that such expenses are in accordance with policies established from time to time by EMPLOYER and consistent with budget allocations adopted by EMPLOYER for that purpose during the term of this Employment Contract. Section 4.06. Moving and Relocation Expenses: EMPLOYEE shall be reimbursed or EMPLOYER may pay directly for the expenses of packing, unpacking, and moving herself, her family, and her personal property from Alameda to Cupertino, California, not to exceed a maximum of $8,000. Moving shall also include any necessary storage and insurance costs. Section 4.07. Professional Development: EMPLOYER hereby agrees to pay travel and subsistence expenses of EMPLOYEE for professional and office travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of EMPLOYEE and to adequately pursue necessary official functions for EMPLOYER, including, but not limited to, city attorney associations and such other national, regional, state, and local government groups 197 10 Revised 10.7.14 and committees there of which EMPLOYEE serves as a member, provided the City Council has made provisions for such costs in the annual budget. EMPLOYER also agrees to pay tuition, travel, and subsistence expenses of EMPLOYEE for courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for her professional development and for the good of the City provided the City Council has provided for same in the annual budget. Section 4.08. Housing Assistance: EMPLOYEE may elect to receive Housing Assistance for Department Heads consistent with the EMPLOYER'S Housing Assistance Policy in effect on the date of execution of this Contract, with any loan repayment to be due two years after termination of employment or August 31, 2013, whichever is later. ARTICLE V TERMINATION AND NOTICE Section 5.01. Termination of Employment and Severance: a. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.18.110 of EMPLOYER'S Municipal Code, EMPLOYEE serves at the pleasure of the EMPLOYER and nothing herein shall be taken to prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYER to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE with or without cause; provided, however, EMPLOYER shall take no action to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE within ninety (90) days after an 198 11 Revised 10.7.14 election at which one or more new members are elected to the City Council or where the effective date of termination is less than one year and one day after commencement of the term of this Contract. There is no express or implied promise made to EMPLOYEE for any form of continued employment. This Contract and the EMPLOYER'S Municipal Code Chapter 2.18 are the sole and exclusive bases for an employment relationship between EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYER. b. If the EMPLOYEE is terminated by the EMPLOYER prior to expiration of this Contract, while still willing and able to perform the duties of the City Attorney, EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE a single lump sum payment made on the effective date of the termination, in an amount equivalent to nine months aggregate salary and aggregate medical insurance benefit allowance. If notice of termination is given less than three months and one day after commencement of the term of this Contract, EMPLOYER agrees to pay EMPLOYEE her aggregate salary and aggregate medical insurance benefit allowance until one year and one day after the commencement of the Contract and no additional severance payment is owing. If this Contract is not renewed, then EMPLOYER shall either provide EMPLOYEE 199 12 Revised 10.7.14 with nine months prior notice of nonrenewal or shall pay EMPLOYEE a single lump sum payment made on the effective date of the termination in an amount equivalent to the difference between nine months aggregate salary and medical insurance benefit allowance and the amount of such aggregate salary and medical insurance benefit allowance computed for the number of months of notice actually given. Any such payments will release EMPLOYER from any further obligations under this Contract. Contemporaneously with the delivery of the severance pay herein above set out, EMPLOYEE agrees to execute and deliver to EMPLOYER a release releasing EMPLOYER of all claims that EMPLOYEE may have against EMPLOYER. c. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) above, EMPLOYER shall not be obligated to pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under the provisions of paragraph (b), if EMPLOYEE is terminated because of a crime of moral turpitude or a violation of statute or law constituting misconduct in office. Further, EMPLOYER shall not be obligated to pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under paragraph (b), in the event EMPLOYEE voluntarily resigns or retires without 200 13 Revised 10.7.14 affirmative action by EMPLOYER to terminate, initiate termination proceedings or request resignation. ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS Section 6.01. Form of Notices: Notices pursuant to this Contract shall be in writing given by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: a. The CITY: Mayor and City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 b. EMPLOYEE: Carol Korade 9 Chatham Pointe Alameda, CA 94502 Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this Contract may be personally served in the same manner as is applicable to civil judicial process. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date three days after deposit of such written notice, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service. Section 6.02. Bonding: EMPLOYER shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of EMPLOYEE under any law or ordinance. 201 14 Revised 10.7.14 Section 6.03. Indemnification: EMPLOYER shall defend, save harmless and indemnify EMPLOYEE against any tort, professional liability claim or demand, or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of EMPLOYEE's duties as City Attorney. If EMPLOYER compromises or settles any such claim or suit, EMPLOYER shall pay the amount of any settlement, or if the claim or suit results in a judgment against EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER shall pay any such judgment. This indemnification does not apply to any act, action, or omission arising out of the gross negligence, willful misconduct on the part of EMPLOYEE, or acts of EMPLOYEE outside the course and scope of her duties. Section 6.04. General Provisions: a. The text herein shall constitute the entire Contract between the parties. b. This Contract shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of EMPLOYEE. c. This Contract may only be modified upon the written consent of the EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE. d. In any action to enforce the terms of this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and 202 15 Revised 10.7.14 court costs and other non-reimbursable litigation expenses, such as expert witness fees and investigation expenses. Section 6.05. Severability: If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Contract is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Contract shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMPLOYER has caused this Contract to be signed and executed in its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this Contract, both in duplicate, the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF CUPERTINO: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Timothy Davis, Partner “EMPLOYEE” Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 203 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0451 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/22/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015 Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™204 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015. Recommended Action Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015. Discussion It has been past City Council practice to cancel the first meeting in January because City Hall is closed between Christmas and New Year’s Day. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: None 205 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0412 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/4/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Fee waiver request from the League of Women Voters of Cupertino - Sunnyvale for $180 facility use fee for the Community Hall on October 13, 2014 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the Cupertino Union School District Board of Trustees and on October 16, 2014 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the City of Cupertino City Council. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - LOWV Letter Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :FeewaiverrequestfromtheLeagueofWomenVotersofCupertino-Sunnyvalefor $180facilityusefeefortheCommunityHallonOctober13,2014from6:30-9:30p.m.fora candidateforumfortheCupertinoUnionSchoolDistrictBoardofTrusteesandonOctober16, 2014 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the City of Cupertino City Council. Approve the fee waiver request for both events in Community Hall. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™206 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Consider a fee waiver request from the League of Women Voters of Cupertino- Sunnyvale for $180 facility use fee for the Community Hall on October 13, 2014 from 6:30-9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the Cupertino Union School District Board of Trustees and on October 16, 2014 from 6:30-9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the City of Cupertino City Council. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of fee waiver request for both events in Community Hall. Background The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale is a non-profit, non-partisan political organization. Pursuant to the City of Cupertino’s facility use policy, a non- profit organization providing a service to the community can receive a waiver of fees for specific events that provide community benefit. Fiscal Impact $180 in rental income. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Carol Atwood, Director of Recreation and Community Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A-Letter from League of Women Voters 207 208 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0406 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/29/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Viva Thai Bistro, 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard Sponsors:Julia Kinst Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforVivaThaiBistro,19058Stevens Creek Boulevard RecommendapprovalofapplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforVivaThaiBistro, 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™209 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7th , 2014 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License, Viva Thai Bistro, 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action Recommend approval of the application for On-Sale Beer and Wine Description Name of Business: Viva Thai Bistro Location: 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 41 - On Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Annual Fee, Original Fees, Federal Fingerprints, State Fingerprints Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Julia Kinst, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 210 211 212 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0456 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/24/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Bob's Discount Liquor Store, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F Sponsors:Julia Kinst Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforBob'sDiscountLiquorStore,7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F RecommendapprovalforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforBob'sDiscountLiquorStore,7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™213 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7th , 2014 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License, Bob’s Discount Liquors, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F Recommended Action Recommend approval of the application for On-Sale Beer and Wine Description Name of Business: Bob’s Discount Liquors Location: 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F Type of Business: Package Store Type of License: 21 – Off-Sale General – Package Store Reason for Application: Annual Fee, Person-to-Person Transfer, Federal Fingerprints, State Fingerprints Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 21 authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Julia Kinst, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 214 215 216 217 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0457 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/24/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Elephant Bar Restaurant, 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard Sponsors:Julia Kinst Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforElephantBarRestaurant,19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard RecommendapprovalofAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforElephantBarRestaurant,19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™218 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7th , 2014 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License, Elephant Bar Restaurant, 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action Recommend approval of the application for On-Sale General Eating Description Name of Business: Elephant Bar Restaurant Location: 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 47 – On-Sale General – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Fiduciary Transfer, Issue Temporary Permit Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 47 authorizes the sale of beer and wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licenses premises. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Julia Kinst, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 219 220 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0152 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Project, No. 2014-06 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Contract Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Project, No. 2014-06 Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Valentine Corporation in the amount of $188,369; and approve a construction contingency of $20,000 for a total of $208,369. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™221 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Project, No. 2014-06. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Valentine Corporation in the amount of $188,369; and approve a construction contingency of $20,000 for a total of $208,369. Discussion On September 23, 2014, the City received bids for the Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Project. This project will repair the existing retaining wall by installing new footings, pilasters, and shotcrete-facing partially covering the existing wall. The work will be achieved without removal of the existing wall and pilasters and will be completed on the City’s side of the wall—not encroaching on the private residences within the Commons. Two companies submitted bid packages for this project. The following is a summary of bids deemed complete: Bidder Bid Amount Engineers Estimate $150,000.00 Valentine Corporation 188,369.00 Robert A. Bothman, Inc. 331,400.00 Staff mailed out approximately 20 notices to targeted contractors and to the local trade journals, along with posting on the City’s website. The relative small size of the project, along with it being in the middle of an active site and immediately adjacent to residents is likely the cause for the higher bids and the reluctance of other contractors to participate. Follow-up calls to non-bidding plan holders confirmed this indication. How contractors will view these specific site conditions and the overall risk and profitability of a project are challenging to quantify within a pre-bid engineer’s estimate. For these reasons, as well as needing to have the three courts back in active use by February 15, 2015, staff does not recommend rejecting all bids and re-bidding the project. 222 2 Fiscal Impact Award of the project will result in a fiscal impact of $208,369. Sufficient funds have been budgeted and are available from account #420-9152-9300 (Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair). _____________________________________ Prepared by: Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Contract 223 Project No. 2014-06 City of Cupertino 00520 - 1 Contract Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Valentine Corporation DOCUMENT 00520 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, dated this day of , 20 ___ , by and between Valentine Corporation whose place of business is located at 111 Pelican Way, San Rafael, CA 94901 (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the City by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, City, on the 7th day of October, 2014 awarded to Contractor the following Project: PROJECT NUMBER 2014-06 SPORTS CENTER TENNIS COURT RETAINING WALL REPAIR NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows: Article 1. Work 1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Article 2. Agency and Notices to City 2.1 City has designated Katy Jensen, Capital Improvement Program Manager, to act as City’s Authorized Representative(s), who will represent City in performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents. City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural, inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all releases and indemnities. 2.2 City has designated Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc. Consultant. City may change the identity of the Consultant at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.3 City has designated Gilbane Building Co. to act as Construction Managers. City may change the identity of the Construction Manager at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.4 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shall be to City’s Authorized Representative at: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other person(s) and address(es) as City shall provide to Contractor. Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages 3.1 Contract Time. The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance with Section 00700 (General Conditions) within 81 Calendar Days from the date when Contract Time commences to run. A notice to proceed is anticipated to be issued by October 20, 2014. ATTACHMENT A 224 Project No. 2014-06 City of Cupertino 00520 - 2 Contract Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Valentine Corporation 3.2 Liquidated Damages. City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Contract and that City will suffer financial loss in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Conditions), Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City: 3.2.1 $1,000 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work as specified above. 3.2.2 $3,000 for each occurrence of a violation of Document 00800, Section 1.7 WORK DAYS AND HOURS. 3.2.3 Three Months Salary for each Key Personnel named in Contractor’s SOQ pursuant to Article 2.G of Document 00450 (Statement of Qualifications for Construction Work) who leaves the Project and/or Contractor replaces at any point before Final Completion, for any reason whatsoever, that Contractor can demonstrate to City’s satisfaction is beyond Contractor’s control. Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work. Contractor should be aware that California Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies, may also levy fines and penalties for the harming, harassing or killing of protected wildlife and endangered species. Contractor hereby agrees to become familiar with and adhere to wildlife and endangered species protection requirements. 3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Article 4. Contract Sum 4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached Article 5. Contractor’s Representations In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties: 5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as-built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exploration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, which are identified in Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Materials Surveys and Existing Conditions), or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor ATTACHMENT A 225 Project No. 2014-06 City of Cupertino 00520 - 3 Contract Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Valentine Corporation accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Conditions) of the limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely. Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings. 5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document 00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (General Conditions); and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes. 5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as-built drawings and actual conditions and the written resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor. 5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract, the other Contract Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Contract Documents do not violate or create a default under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor. 5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. in document 00340 (Subcontractors List) Article 6. Contract Documents 6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications thereto: Document 00400 Bid Form Document 00430 Subcontractors List Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit Document 00482 Bidder Certifications Document 00510 Notice of Award Document 00520 Contract Document 00530 Insurance Forms Document 00550 Notice to Proceed Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00630 Guaranty Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims Document 00660 Substitution Request Form Document 00680 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposit in Lieu of Retention Document 00700 General Conditions Document 00800 Special Conditions Document 00821 Insurance Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program Technical Specification/Special Provisions ATTACHMENT A 226 Project No. 2014-06 City of Cupertino 00520 - 4 Contract Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Valentine Corporation Addenda(s) Drawings/Plans 6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Material Surveys and Existing Conditions), and the information supplied therein, are not Contract Documents. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Conditions). Article 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Conditions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract Documents or applicable law. 7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. 7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). 7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties. 7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on file at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract Documents. 7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document required herein or therein to be executed or delivered, be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Documents is required to be included by any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provision is required to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that portion). 7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby ATTACHMENT A 227 Project No. 2014-06 City of Cupertino 00520 - 5 Contract Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Valentine Corporation waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer any action or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5. ATTACHMENT A 228 Project No. 2014-06 City of Cupertino 00520 - 6 Contract Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Valentine Corporation P.O. _____________________ IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in quadruplicate the day and year first above written. SPORTS CENTER TENNIS COURT RETAINING WALL REPAIR CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California Valentine Corporation By: [Signature] Attest: [Please print name here] City Clerk: Grace Schmidt Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title: ______________________________________________ [If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President] City Attorney: Carol Korade By: I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized to execute this document on behalf of the City of Cupertino. [Signature] [Please print name here] Title: [If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer] Dated: _____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ________________________________________________ State Contractor’s License No. Classification ________________________________________________ Expiration Date Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________ Name: Timm Borden Name: Title: Director of Public Works Title: Address: 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: 111Pelican Way, San Rafael, CA 94901 Phone: 408-777-3354 Phone: 415-453-3732 Facsimile: 408-777-3333 Facsimile: 415-457-5820 AMOUNT: $ 188,369 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 420-9152-9300 FILE NO.: 92,053.07 NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY NO. IS REQUIRED END OF DOCUMENT ATTACHMENT A 229 EXHIBIT A 230 EXHIBIT A 231 EXHIBIT A 232 EXHIBIT A 233 EXHIBIT A 234 EXHIBIT A 235 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0318 Name: Status:Type:Second Reading of Ordinances Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/8/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Redline Ordinance B - Amended Ordinance C - Addendum to Final Program EIR Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags. ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.14-2122:“AnOrdinanceoftheCity CounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingSection9.17.130ofChapter9.17ofTitle9ofthe CupertinoMunicipalCoderelatingtotheregulationofsingle-usecarryoutbags,”tocapthe requiredminimumchargeforrecycledpaperbagsattencentsandeliminateafutureincreaseto twenty-five cents per bag. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™236 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags. Recommended Action Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 14-2122, amending Chapter 9.17.130 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to cap the required minimum charge for recycled paper bags at ten cents and eliminate a future increase to twenty-five cents per bag. Discussion On September 2, 2014, the City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2122 amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code with no changes. Since its implementation on October 1, 2013, staff has monitored the success of the City’s ordinance related to plastic, single–use shopping bags. Staff conducted six different compliance surveys between March 21, 2014 and June 27, 2014. Staff observed shoppers exiting large stores in Cupertino and gathered data showing that 82% of consumers are bringing reusable bags or are shopping without bags. Since the regulation of single-use carryout bags has made significant progress toward reaching the desired effect in the first year of implementation, staff recommends keeping the minimum required charge for recycled paper bags at ten cents. This will prevent an additional administrative burden on retailers which would result from a required increase in the minimum fee for bags, while still allowing individual retailers to increase the price of shopping bags if they so desire. The neighboring communities of San José and Sunnyvale, who originally had similar twenty-five-cent per bag fee increases, have also amended their ordinances to keep the bag fee at ten cents. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no additional environmental review is required. The City’s Ordinance is based on the San Mateo County’s model 237 2 ordinance, which was evaluated in San Mateo County’s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”, SCH#2012042013) and was further studied in the City of Cupertino’s Addendum to the EIR. The City Council certified the EIR and approved the Addendum when it adopted the original ordinance on March 5, 2013. The ten-cent per bag charge, which is currently in effect and would remain in effect if this amendment is approved, is within the range of charges evaluated in the EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the proposed amendment. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Cheri Donnelly, Environmental Programs Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A- Redline Ordinance B- Amended Ordinance C- Addendum to Final Program EIR 238 1 ORDINANCE NO. 14-2122 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 9.17.130 OF CHAPTER 9.17 OF TITLE 9 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS The City Council of the City of Cupertino does hereby ordain that Section 9.17.130 be amended as follows: 9.17.130 Single-Use Carryout Bag. A. No person or retail establishment shall provide a single-use carryout bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section or in section 9.17.140. B. Effective October 1, 2013, a retail establishment may only make recycled paper bags available to customers if the retailer charges a minimum of ten cents. Reusable bags may be given by retailer without charge. C. Effective January 1, 2015 a retail establishment may only make recycled paper bags or reusable bags available to customers if the retailer charges a minimum of twenty-five cents. DC. Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment may make available for sale a recycled paper bag unless the amount of the sale of such bag is separately itemized on the sale receipt. ED. A retail establishment may provide one or more recycled paper bags at no cost to any of the following individuals: a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; and a customer participating in Calfresh pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. 239 2 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 2nd day of September 2014 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 7th of October 2014, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor 240 1 ORDINANCE NO. 14-2122 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 9.17.130 OF CHAPTER 9.17 OF TITLE 9 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with the State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), the lead agency County of San Mateo caused that certain County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance and Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2012042013) (“EIR”) to be prepared for a model Reusable Bag Ordinance (“County Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the EIR analyzed impacts of the County of San Mateo’s Ordinance if an ordinance like the County Ordinance were adopted in 24 jurisdictions, including the City of Cupertino. WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors certified that the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the County; WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the Cupertino City Council certified the EIR and made findings of facts, specifically, that the EIR had been prepared in compliance with CEQA and Cupertino’s Ordinance fell within the scope of the EIR; WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, the Cupertino City Council adopted an Addendum to the EIR (SCH#2012042013) for a City Ordinance Relating to the Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bag (“City Ordinance”) that is the nearly the same as the County Ordinance but with minor revisions in order, which concluded that the City Ordinance would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts that were not analyzed in the EIR; WHEREAS, the City has determined to cap the minimum charge for recycled paper bags at ten cents and to eliminate a future increase to twenty-five cents per bag; and WHEREAS, the ten-cent-per paper bag charge was analyzed in the EIR and Addenda; and 241 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Ordinance, the City Council has exercised its independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the EIR and Addendum and finds that scope of this Ordinance falls within the previously certified EIR and Addendum and no further environmental review is required. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9.17.130 Single-Use Carryout Bag. A. No person or retail establishment shall provide a single-use carryout bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section or in section 9.17.140. B. Effective October 1, 2013 a retail establishment may only make recycled paper bags available to customers if the retailer charges a minimum of ten cents. Reusable bags may be given by retailer without charge. C. Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment may make available for sale a recycled paper bag unless the amount of the sale of such bag is separately itemized on the sale receipt. D. A retail establishment may provide one or more recycled paper bags at no cost to any of the following individuals: a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; and a customer participating in Calfresh pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. 242 3 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 2nd day of September, 2014 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 7th of October 2014, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor 243 City of Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR January 2013 244 City of Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR Prepared by: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Contact: Cheri Donnelly Environmental Programs Mgr. Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 January 2013 245 This report is printed on 30% recycled paper with 30% post-consumer content and chlorine-free virgin pulp. 246 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino i Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 Project Description ............................................................................................................2 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................4 Air Quality ................................................................................................................4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................6 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................7 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................9 References and Preparers ..............................................................................................10 List of Tables Table 1 Existing and Proposed Bag Use ......................................................................3 Table 2 Estimated Emission Changes Due to the County’s Ordinance and the City’s Ordinance ...............................................................................................................5 Table 3 Estimated Daily Emissions from Increased Truck Trips ..............................5 Table 4 Estimated GHG Emissions ................................................................................7 Table 5 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags ..............9 Appendix Appendix A: URBEMIS Results for Truck Trips 247 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 1 INTRODUCTION This document is an addendum to the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the County of Mateo Board of Supervisors on October 23, 2012 (SCH #2012042013). As one of the 6 participating municipalities from the County of Santa Clara in the EIR, the City of Cupertino proposes an ordinance to ban plastic carryout bags that is largely consistent with the ordinance analyzed in the County of San Mateo’s Final EIR and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The addendum is required to address the possible environmental effects associated with adoption of such an ordinance within Cupertino. The proposed Ordinance within Cupertino would ban single-use plastic carryout bags at all commercial establishments that sell perishable or nonperishable goods, including, but not limited to, clothing, food and personal items and would place a minimum ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recycled paper carryout bags by an affected store, as defined. Retailers would be allowed to provide reusable carryout bags (a minimum of 2.25 mils thick) to customers at the point of sale for no cost. According to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum to a previously adopted Final EIR is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and when the new information does not involve new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in an adopted Final EIR. The change being contemplated involves adopting a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance in the City of Cupertino that is similar to the County of San Mateo’s adopted Ordinance. The EIR for the County of San Mateo’s adopted Ordinance included San Mateo County, incorporated cities within San Mateo, and 6 participating municipalities in Santa Clara County (including Cupertino). These participating jurisdictions were collectively called the “Study Area” in the EIR. The City is one of the 6 participating municipalities from the County of Santa Clara that were included in the EIR analysis for the County of San Mateo’s Ordinance. The City would adopt the County’s Reusable Carryout Bag Ordinance with a few minor changes that are specific to Cupertino. These minor revisions are discussed below in the project description. The City’s proposed Ordinance would have no new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the County’s Certified Program EIR. Since the proposed Ordinance does not require substantial changes to the County’s Ordinance, major revisions of the EIR analysis are not warranted. As such, a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines would not be warranted and an addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA. This addendum includes a description of the currently proposed Ordinance in Cupertino and a comparison of the impacts of the proposed Ordinance to those identified for the County of San Mateo’s approved Ordinance, which was studied in the Final Program EIR that was certified on October 23, 2012. 248 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance (“Ordinance”) would ban the issuance of plastic carryout bags and impose a minimum ten (10) cent charge on the issuance of recycled paper carryout bags at all retail establishments. Reusable bags may be given by a retailer without charge. The stores that would be affected are located within the City limits and include commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food, and personal items directly to the customer. Public eating establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers would be exempt. The differences between the City’s proposed Ordinance and the ordinance adopted by the San Mateo County include the following:  Under the County’s ordinance, recycled paper and reusable bags may be made available by a retail establishment for a minimum charge of 10 cents. Under the City’s ordinance, there is no minimum charge for reusable bags. Reusable bags may be given by a retailer without charge.  Under the County’s ordinance, the minimum charge for recycled paper and reusable bags would increase from 10 cents to 25 cents on January 1, 2015. This provision is not included in the City’s propose Ordinance. The minimum charge for recycled paper bags would not increase to 25 cents. The minimum charge would remain at 10 cents.  Under the County’s Ordinance stores affected by the ordinance must keep records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags for three years from the date of purchase. This provision is not included in the City’s proposed Ordinance. The differences between the City of Cupertino and County of San Mateo Ordinances as listed above are minor changes that would not significantly alter any of the bag use assumptions in the County of San Mateo’s Final EIR (adopted October 2012). Consistent with the County’s adopted Ordinance, with a ban on single-use plastic carryout bags and a minimum charge of 10 cents for recycled paper bags in the City’s Ordinance, it is assumed that 65% of plastic bag use would be switched to reusable bags and 30% would switch to recycled paper bags.1 An estimated 31,340,682 plastic bags are currently used annually in the City of Cupertino. With a proposed Ordinance, as shown in Table 1, total bag use would be reduced to approximately 11,360,998 carryout bags per year. This bag use was considered in the County’s Final EIR analysis, which analyzed bag use in San Mateo County and in 6 participating municipalities in the County of Santa Clara. Thus, even with the minor changes to the text of the Ordinance, the total bag use that would result from the City’s proposed Ordinance would be the same as that analyzed in the County’s Final Program EIR. 1 Assumption from Table B-2, Herrera Fiscal Analysis, 2010 and City of San Jose Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance FEIR (SCH # 2009102095). Though the City’s proposed Ordinance would allow retail establishments to provide reusable bags free of charge, it is assumed that most retailers would include a charge. The assumption in the Herrera Fiscal Analysis of 30% switch to paper bags and 60% switch to reusable also assumes no charge for reusable bags. 249 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 3 Table 1 Existing and Proposed Bag Use Area Existing Plastic Bags Proposed Plastic Bags: 5% Remain (exempt retailers) ¹ Proposed Reusable Bags: 65% Switch to Reusable¹ Proposed Paper Bags: 30% Switch to Paper¹ Proposed Total Carryout Bags County of San Mateo EIR Study Area 552,931,362 27,646,568 165,879,409 6,911,642 200,437,619 Cupertino 34,340,682 1,567,034 391,759 9,402,205 11,360,998 ¹ Rates utilized in the County of San Mateo Final EIR, SCH #2012042013, and City of San Jose Final EIR, SCH # 2009102095, October 2010. The proposed bag use assumptions used in the environmental analysis contained in the County’s Final Program EIR analyzed a $0.10 fee on recyclable paper bags because under a $0.10 fee, more customers would likely pay for recyclable paper bags in comparison to a $0.25. Because more paper bags would be used under a $0.10 fee rather than under a $0.25 fee, and thus greater environmental impacts associated with paper bags, the County’s Final Program EIR used the $0.10 fee as a “worst case” scenario in analyzing environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives, in the County of San Mateo’s Draft EIR, the EIR included an Alternative (Alternative #3) that considered a $0.25 fee on recyclable paper bags which was considered “environmentally superior” to the County’s Proposed Ordinance (with a $0.10 fee) as the $0.25 fee would result in the use of fewer recyclable paper bags (and more reusable bags). Nevertheless, as discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives, of the County’s Draft EIR, the County’s Proposed Ordinance would not have any significant impacts; therefore, adopting an environmentally superior alternative rather than the County’s Proposed Ordinance would not avoid any significant environmental effects. As such, the EIR analysis and CEQA findings that were adopted by the County Supervisors were based on the environmental impacts associated with a $0.10 fee. Thus the City’s proposed Ordinance, which would not increase the fee for recyclable paper bags to $0.25, would be similar to the project considered in the County’s EIR. Further, it should be noted that the bag use assumptions used in the environmental analysis contained in the County’s Final Program EIR were not based on a fee for recyclable bags or whether retailers kept records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags for three years. Thus, under the City’s proposed Ordinance which would not require a fee for recyclable bags or the provision that requires retailers keep records of the purchase and sale of recycled paper or reusable bags, the bag use assumptions would be the same as in the County’s Final Program EIR. The City’s objectives for the proposed Ordinance would be the same as San Mateo County’s objectives for the countywide ordinance. The objectives as described in the County’s Final EIR include:  Reducing the amount of single-use plastic bags in trash loads (e.g., landfills), in conformance with the trash load reduction requirements of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit  Reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic carryout bags, such as impacts to biological resources (including marine environments), water quality and utilities (solid waste) 250 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 4  Deterring the use of paper bags by customers in the respective jurisdictions  Promoting a shift toward the use of reusable carryout bags by retail customers in the respective jurisdictions  Avoiding litter and the associated adverse impacts to stormwater systems, aesthetics and the marine environment (San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section addresses each of the environmental issues studied in the Final EIR, comparing the effects of the proposed Cupertino Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance with the effects of the County of San Mateo Reusable Bag Ordinance that was the subject of the adopted Final Program EIR. In addition to stating the County’s finding for each impact statement, the analysis includes a discussion of the City’s impact related to adopting its own plastic carryout bag ban ordinance and the impacts associated with implementation of such an ordinance citywide. The City’s proposed Ordinance would not change any of the impacts identified as less than significant in the County’s EIR Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR). Each of those impacts would remain less than significant for the City’s proposed Ordinance. As such, further discussion of these issues in this addendum is not warranted. Air Quality The City’s proposed Ordinance would have impacts related to Air Quality similar to those of the previously studied San Mateo County Ordinance. The City’s existing and proposed bag use was considered in the County’s Final EIR analysis, which analyzed bag use in San Mateo County and in 6 participating municipalities in the County of Santa Clara. Therefore, all of the carryout bags that would be subject to the City’s proposed Ordinance have already been analyzed for air quality impacts as part of the County’s Final EIR and, as shown below, impacts would be no greater than what was already determined in the County’s Final EIR. Like the County’s Ordinance, the City’s proposed Ordinance does not involve any construction activities; therefore, there would be no regional or localized construction impacts and consideration of construction air quality impacts is not relevant. Thus, this analysis focuses on operational impacts. As studied in the County’s Final EIR, operational impacts include emissions associated with bag manufacture, transportation, and use as well as emissions resulting from increased delivery trips. Emissions from Manufacture, Transportation and Use As described in Section 4.1 of the County’s Final EIR, the County’s Ordinance would be expected to result in an overall decrease in ozone and atmospheric acidification (AA) emissions. Table 2 shows the estimated daily emission changes that would result if the County of San Mateo and participating cities in Santa Clara County (including Cupertino) were to implement a plastic bag ban ordinance similar to the County’s Ordinance. The emissions related to converting from plastic to paper and reusable bags as a result of the City’s proposed Ordinance are also shown in Table 2. As shown, ozone and atmospheric acidification emissions would decrease in Cupertino. Therefore, similar to the County’s determination in the Final EIR, air 251 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 5 quality impacts from the manufacture, transportation and use of carryout would be beneficial compared to existing conditions. Table 2 Estimated Emission Changes Due to the County’s Ordinance and the City’s Ordinance Emission Source Ozone Emissions per year (kg) AA Emissions per year (kg) San Mateo County Ordinance (6,884) (205,220) City of Cupertino Ordinance (390) (11,632) ( ) denotes decrease in emissions compared to existing conditions Source: San Mateo County Draft Program EIR, June 2012, Table 4.1-5 and Appendix B Emissions Resulting From Increased Delivery Trips Similar to the County’s Ordinance, the City’s proposed Ordinance would be expected to cause a potential increase in delivery truck trips required to transport paper and reusable carryout bags to affected stores. As stated in the County’s Final EIR, the County’s Ordinance would result in an overall increase of approximately 1.57 truck trips per day in the Study Area. Using the County’s methodology to determine truck trips, the City of Cupertino’s contribution to this increase would be approximately 0.09 truck trips per day.2 As shown in Table 3, similar to the County’s Ordinance, the increase of truck trips in the City would not result in an exceedance of any thresholds of significance set by the BAAQMD. Consistent with the County’s Ordinance, impacts related to mobile emissions from the City’s proposed Ordinance would be less than significant. Table 3 Estimated Daily Emissions From Increased Truck Trips Emission Source Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM2.5 PM10 San Mateo County Ordinance 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.01 City of Cupertino Ordinance <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No County Ordinance Significant Impact? No No No No Source: San Mateo County Draft Program EIR, August 2012, table 4.1-6; and, URBEMIS output (see Appendix A). 2 Existing bag use in Cupertino estimated to be 31,340,682 plastic bags per year. Assuming that 30% of existing plastic bag use would switch to paper (9,402,205 paper bags), 65% would switch to reusable bags (391,759 reusable bags assuming 52 uses a year) and 5% would remain (1,567,034 plastic bags) to account for exempt retailers. Assuming 2,080,000 plastic bags per truck load, 217,665 paper bags per truck load, and 108,862 reusable bags per truck load. 252 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 6 Biological Resources As with the County’s Ordinance, the City’s proposed Ordinance would result in a reduction in the use and disposal of plastic carryout bags and an increase in the use and disposal of recycled paper and reusable bags. As such, the City’s ordinance would incrementally reduce the amount of single-use plastic bag litter that could enter the marine environment and affect sensitive species. The City’s Ordinance would also be anticipated to increase consumer use of recycled paper and reusable carryout bags, which, as discussed in the County’s Final EIR, have not been widely noted to have adverse impacts upon biological resources. Although reusable bags may become a part of the waste stream, because they can be reused multiple times and are heavier than plastic carryout bags, the number of reusable bags that would likely end up as litter which could impact biological resources would be lower than the number of plastic or paper carryout bags. In addition, because paper bags are not as resistant to biodegradation, paper bags do not persist in the marine environment for as long as plastic bags. For the reasons stated above, consistent with the findings of the County’s Final EIR, the City’s proposed Ordinance would result in beneficial effects on sensitive wildlife species and sensitive habitats. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Carryout bags have the potential to contribute to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) either through emissions associated with manufacturing process of carryout bags, truck trips delivering carryout bags to retailers or through disposal during landfill degradation. For this analysis, the City’s proposed Ordinance is evaluated based on the project-level threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2E per service population per year (BAAQMD, June 2010). Based on existing population and employment data provided by the California Department of Finance (2012), the existing population in Cupertino is approximately 59,022. Manufacturing, Transportation, and Disposal As discussed in the County’s Final EIR, the manufacture, transport, and disposal of a single-use paper bag generates 3.3 times more GHG emissions than the manufacture, transport, and disposal of a single-use plastic bags. If only used once, the manufacture, use, and disposal of a reusable carryout bag results in 2.6 times the GHG emissions of a single-use plastic bag. However, reusable carryout bags are intended to be used multiple times. With reuse of carryout bags, the total carryout bags that would be manufactured, transported and disposed of would be reduced. The County’s Ordinance would be expected to contribute indirectly to an overall increase of approximately 6,418 metric tons of CO2E emissions per year, or 0.006 metric tons CO2E per person, as shown in Table 4. Thus, the County’s Final EIR determined that the County’s Ordinance would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and therefore impacts related to the manufacturing of paper bags would be less than significant. Similarly, for the City’s proposed Ordinance, the conversion of plastic to paper and reusable bags would increase GHG emissions in the City by approximately 364 metric tons per year or 0.006 metric tons per person as shown in Table 4. As such, consistent with the findings of the County’s Final EIR, the City’s proposed Ordinance would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. 253 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 7 Table 4 Estimated GHG Emissions Emission Source CO2e Emissions (metric tons/year)¹ Metric Tons per Year per Capita San Mateo County Ordinance 6,418 0.006 City of Cupertino Ordinance 364 0.006 1 Represents a net change in GHG emissions compared to existing plastic bag use Source: San Mateo County Draft Program EIR, August 2012 Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans and Policies Consistent with the County Ordinance, the City’s Ordinance would be consistent with the CAT strategies and measures suggested in the Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report as discussed in tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4 of the County’s EIR. Therefore, the proposed Ordinance would be consistent with the objectives of AB 32, SB 97, and SB 375. Impacts would be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to those identified in the County’s Final EIR. The following discusses the impacts related to drainage and surface water quality that would result from implementation of the City’s proposed Ordinance. Drainage Consistent with the findings of the County’s Final EIR, the City’s proposed Ordinance would not require construction of new structures or additional storm water infrastructure. Consequently, the capacity of existing storm water drainage would remain unchanged and redirecting storm water flows would be unnecessary. Single-use plastic bags that become litter may enter storm drains from surface water runoff or may be blown directly into local waterways by the wind. By banning plastic carryout bags within the City, the Ordinance would improve the existing drainage capacity by removing a significant source of trash that can clog features of the system and reduce its capacity. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the County’s Final EIR, the proposed Ordinance would not result in significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality related to drainage. Surface Water Quality As noted in the County’s Final EIR, the manufacturing processes for single-use plastic, single- use paper, and reusable bags utilize various chemicals and materials. The City’s ordinance would reduce plastic bag use by 95% and increase the use of recycled paper and reusable bags. With implementation of the City’s ordinance, approximately 11 million single-use bags (including single-use paper, single-use plastic, and reusable bags) would be manufactured for use in the City—a decrease of 64% compared to existing conditions. Consequently, the City’s proposed Ordinance would reduce the overall impacts to water quality associated with bag manufacturing. Furthermore, manufacturing facilities would be required to adhere to existing 254 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 8 federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, impacts to water quality related to the potential change of processing activities as a result of the City’s Ordinance would not be significant, which is consistent with the County’s Final EIR. Utilities and Service Systems Impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of the City’s proposed Ordinance would be similar to impacts discussed in the County’s Final EIR. The following summarizes the impacts related to wastewater collection and treatment, water supply, and solid waste for the City’s proposed Ordinance compared to the findings contained in the County’s Final EIR. Water Supply Carryout bags would indirectly result in water use through the manufacturing process of carryout bags. As discussed in the County’s Final EIR, the conversion from plastic bags to paper carryout bags and reusable carryout bags would result in an increase of water use from the manufacturing process of paper and reusable bags. Manufacturing facilities of carryout bags are not known to be located within San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties. Therefore, manufacturing facilities would not utilize the water supplies of either County or of the City of Cupertino. In addition to water use from manufacturing carryout bags, the proposed Ordinance may result in increased water use as reusable bags would be washed. The County’s Final EIR determined that the water demand from washing reusable bags would increase by 395.19 acre-feet per year (AFY). The City’s contribution to this countywide increase would be 44.2 AFY as a result of the City’s proposed Ordinance. Total water use in Santa Clara County is estimated to be 332,900 AFY in calendar year 2010. The increase of water demand would represent approximately 0.013% of the total water supplied to the County. This increase would not have significant impacts. As noted above, there is no known manufacturing and production of paper carryout bags in the Study Area (or in the City of Cupertino). Therefore, any increase in water supply necessary for paper carryout bag manufacturing would not impact suppliers in the County and the proposed Ordinance, consistent with the findings in the County’s Final EIR, would not be anticipated to necessitate new or expanded entitlements for water. Consistent with the Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater Generation As noted in the County’s Final EIR, no manufacturing facilities for paper carryout bags appear to be located within the Study Area. Therefore, any increase in wastewater generation due to paper carryout bag manufacturing would not affect wastewater treatment providers in the Study Area. Nevertheless, in the County’s Final EIR, assuming that 100% of the water used to wash reusable bags would become wastewater, there was an expected increase in wastewater of approximately 395 AFY per year (128,774,812 gallons) or approximately 352,808 gallons per day. The San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, which serves Cupertino, has a remaining capacity of 47 million gallons per day (MGD) and therefore has capacity to treat the increase in wastewater from the City’s ordinance. The City’s proposed Ordinance would not change the conclusions regarding wastewater generation since the estimated increase of wastewater and impacts related to wastewater generation for the City’s proposed Ordinance would be less than significant. 255 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 9 Solid Waste As described in the County’s Final EIR, based on the Ecobilan LCA data, the County’s Ordinance would reduce solid waste by 2,180 tons per day. Also, as shown in Table 5, the City’s proposed Ordinance would also result in a reduction of approximately 123 tons of solid waste per year. However, as shown in Table 5, using the Boustead data, the County’s Final EIR determined that the ordinance would result in an increase of approximately 255 tons of solid waste per year. Of this total countywide, approximately 86 tons of solid waste per year, or 0.24 tons per day, would be directly related to implementation of the City’s proposed Ordinance. As stated in the County’s Final EIR, the permitted daily maximum throughput of the Newby Island Landfill, which serves the City of Cupertino, is 4,000 tons per day. For the City’s proposed Ordinance, using the worst case scenario (the Boustead data) the potential increase of 0.24 tons of solid waste per day would represent approximately 0.00006% of the daily capacity of the landfill. Thus, the existing waste disposal facilities in the City could accommodate any indirect increases in solid waste related to the City’s proposed Ordinance. Similar to the findings in the County’s Final EIR, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. Table 5 Solid Waste Generation Due to Plastic and Paper Carryout Bags Solid Waste Sources Solid Waste Generation (tons per year) Ecobilan Boustead San Mateo County Ordinance (2,180) 1,524 City of Cupertino Ordinance (123) 86 Sources: Ecobilan. February 2004; Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. ( ) denotes reduction in solid waste compared to existing conditions Assumes a 36.8 percent of paper carryout bags are diverted from landfills and 11.9 percent of plastic carryout bags are diverted from landfills, based on the 2007 USEPA recycling rates. Conclusion As discussed above, impacts from the City’s proposed Ordinance related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems were determined to have similar impacts as San Mateo County’s Final EIR. All of these issues were determined to result in either less than significant impacts or beneficial impacts. Based on the City’s determination that none of the impacts of the proposed Ordinance would be significant, no new significant environmental effects beyond those already analyzed in San Mateo County’s Final EIR would occur. 256 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 10 LIST OF REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2010, Updated May 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Retrieved From: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQM D%20CEQA%20Guidelines_December%202010.ashx Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adopted September 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Homepage: CEQA Guidelines. Accessed May 2012. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx Boustead Consulting and Associates Ltd. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags – Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper. Prepared for the Progressive Bag Alliance. California Department of Finance. May 2012. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2012, with 2010 Benchmark.” City of Huntington Beach. February 2012. Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2011111053. City of San Jose. May 2011. Environmental Services. San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Last Updated May 24, 2011. Retrieved From: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/esd/wastewater/water-pollution-control-plant.asp. City of San Jose. Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH # 2009102095. October 2010. City of Santa Monica. January 2011. Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010041004). City of Sunnyvale. December 2011. Sunnyvale Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011062032). County of Los Angeles. Ordinances to Ban Plastic Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2009111104). Certified by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors November 16, 2010. County of San Mateo. Reusable Bag Ordinance (formerly Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance) Final Program EIR. Adopted October 2012 (SCH#2012042013). County of San Mateo. Single Use Bag Ban Ordinance Draft Program EIR. June 2012 (SCH#2012042013). 257 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 11 County of Santa Clara. October 2010. Initial Study for Single-use Carryout Bag. Ecobilan. 2004. Environmental impact assessment of Carrefour bags. Report prepared for Carrefour by Ecobilan. February 2004. Herrera et al. 2008. “Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items. Volume I and II. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. January 2008. Herrera Environmental Consultants. June 2010. City of San José Single-Use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal Analysis – Final Report. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). 2010. Urban Water Management Plan 2010. Retrieved From: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/UWMP2010.aspx. URBEMIS Model, Version 9.2.2. 2007. United States Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review from the U.S. Government. August 2010. http://www.eia.gov/aer/envir.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). December 2007. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/cctp.html. U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990-2009. USEPA #430-R-11-005. April 2011. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. U.S. EPA. 2005. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste. Table 7. As reported in County of Los Angeles, 2007. REPORT PREPARERS Rincon Consultants, Inc. Joe Power, AICP, Principal Matt Maddox, MESM, Senior Program Manager Karly Kaufman, Environmental Planner Katie Stanulis, Production Coordinator 258 Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Environmental Impact Report Addendum City of Cupertino 12 This page intentionally left blank 259 Appendix A Air Quality URBEMIS Results 260 1/21/2013 2:03:17 PM Page: 1 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 File Name: C:\Users\mmaddox\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Cupertino Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: San Mateo County Bag Ban Ordinance EIR - City of Cupertino Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.000.010.000.000.000.00 2.68 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.000.010.000.000.000.00 2.68 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 261 1/21/2013 2:03:41 PM Page: 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Cupertino Bag Ban Ordinance 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 Source ROGNOX COSO2PM10PM25 CO2 Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Cupertino Bag Ban Ordinance 0.091000 sq ft1.00 0.09 0.67 0.09 0.67 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type AcreageTrip RateUnit TypeNo. UnitsTotal TripsTotal VMT Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 0.8 96.9 2.3 Light Auto 0.0 0.6 99.2 0.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel File Name: C:\Users\mmaddox\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Cupertino Ordinance.urb924 Project Name: San Mateo County Bag Ban Ordinance EIR - City of Cupertino Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Operational Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) 262 1/21/2013 2:03:41 PM Page: 2 Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 0.0 56.2 43.8 0.0 Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 Trip speeds (mph)35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Cupertino Bag Ban Ordinance 2.0 1.0 97.0 Rural Trip Length (miles)16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6 Urban Trip Length (miles)10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Travel Conditions Home-WorkHome-ShopHome-OtherCommuteNon-WorkCustomer Residential Commercial 263 1/21/2013 2:03:41 PM Page: 3 Operational Changes to Defaults 264 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0394 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/26/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Conversion of interim Associate Civil Engineer position to a permanent position and a three- and-a-half-year extension to interim Associate Planner position. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :ConversionofinterimAssociateCivilEngineerpositiontoapermanentpositionanda three-and-a-half-year extension to interim Associate Planner position. Authorize1)theconversionofthetwo-yearlimited-termAssociateCivilEngineerinthePublic WorksDevelopmentServicesDivisiontoapermanentposition,and2)theextensionofthe current interim planner position to an additional three-and-a-half-year term. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™265 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Conversion of interim Associate Civil Engineer position to a permanent position and a three-and-a-half-year extension to interim Associate Planner position. Recommended Action Authorize 1) the conversion of the two-year limited-term Associate Civil Engineer in the Public Works Development Services Division to a permanent position, and 2) the extension of the current interim planner position to an additional three-and-a-half-year term. Background With the adoption of 2012-2013 Operating Budget, a two-year limited-term Associate Civil Engineer was funded in the Public Works Development Services Division and a two-year limited-term Associate Planner was funded in the Community Development Planning Division, in order to backfill for more experienced staff as they worked to support the Apple Campus 2 entitlement, design review, and construction process. The Associate Engineer and the Associate Planner were proposed as limited-term positions for two reasons; 1) Apple was directly funding the position to allow their aggressive and demanding permitting timeline to be met, and 2) even though the City and the Valley were appearing to slowly climb out of the economic recession, it was not entirely clear, aside from the Apple Campus 2 project, that the development permit volume would soon return and stabilize at pre-recession levels. Analyzing development volume over the past few years, it is clear that the economy and development conditions have risen to at least pre-recession levels. The City is again receiving a steady stream of typical development permits, and an influx of larger development projects that are now reaching the construction stage—most notably the Apple Campus 2 and Main Street projects. The upcoming General Plan update is also expected to generate a flow of projects since applicants have put their projects on hold until the update is complete. 266 2 Both of these limited-term positions currently sunset prior to the Council’s consideration of the 2015-2016 Operating Budget; therefore, consideration of the subject recommendations are being brought to Council at this time. Discussion Associate Civil Engineer During the recession, Public Works reduced staff support in Development Services based on the decreased volume of work. The down turn in the economy resulted in a drastically reduced number of development and encroachment permit applications, which allowed the Division to provide permit review services with one less engineering position. With the Apple Campus 2 project, the interim Associate Civil Engineer position was added to allow the division to adequately support the subsequent demands. As time progressed, the economy and development activity rebounded to pre-recession levels, causing the need to augment staff with part-time contractual services. Public Works Development Services review volumes over the past several years are shown below: Public Works - Development Services Review Count Fiscal Year Number of Projects Reviewed Number of Encroachment Permits 2007 - 2008 151 260 2008 - 2009 118 285 2009 - 2010 112 221 2010 - 2011 174 241 2011 - 2012 172 300 2012 - 2013 206 281 2013 - 2014 232 363 The construction of required public infrastructure for the Apple project will continue to demand Public Works design and construction support over at least the next three years. Along with the review of development proposals, the Development Services Division manages the permitting of right-of-way encroachments to all utility companies, including the current effort to facilitate the AT&T GigaPower Project. Encroachment permits have also steadily risen in volume over the past few years as shown above. 267 3 Finally, aside from the City’s day-to-day development needs, the division also works with PG&E and other utilities and jurisdictions on the establishment and coordination of Rule 20A Underground Districts, and manages and assists on other efforts that are increasing in volume such as utility and infrastructure CIP projects, as well as additional support directed toward many of the City’s traffic projects including locating and striping of bike lanes and various mobility improvement projects. Support of the City’s storm water program is also a key duty, as well as supporting Community Development on various long-term planning efforts such as the current General Plan update. In order to ensure that Development Services staffing is sufficient to support the growth in development applications and the City’s day-to-day needs, staff is recommending that the interim Associate Civil Engineer be converted to a permanent position. As indicated by the variety of support functions delivered by the division, it is clear that the Associate Engineer position requires a great deal of understanding of land use, the subdivision map act, traffic engineering principles, and specific knowledge and understanding of the Cupertino Municipal Codes, policies, street network and utility systems. With these technical requirements, the ability to deliver quality customer service is just as important. After a strong recruitment resulted in hiring an already knowledgeable and experienced engineer, a year-and-a-half of Cupertino experience has made the specific incumbent a valuable asset. At this time, the limited-term Associate Engineer has 6 months before the term expires. During the last 6 months of a limited term, the employee typically begins searching for more permanent opportunities. The loss of any staff in Development Services would be detrimental to the Division’s ability to provide timely and high-quality service to developers, property owners and contractors. Comparison of Public Works Development Services Staffing Levels with other Cities While conversion of the Associate Civil Engineer position will bring staffing support to pre-recession levels, the recommended staffing level is still leaner than similarly sized organizations in the south bay, as is indicated in the table below: 268 4 City Population Area Served (SQ MI) Development Services Staffing Total Staffing Level (FTE) Population per FTE Dev. Engrs Engr. Techs Limited Term Cupertino (recommended change) 60,009 11.25 1.5 0.5 1 3 20000 Mountain View 76781 12.3 5 1 1 7 11000 Milpitas 70092 13.6 4 1 5 10000 Palo Alto 66861 23.9 2 3 5 13400 Campbell 41993 5.9 2.5 0.5 3 14000 Associate Planner The Community Development Department is also experiencing an increase in the number of permit applications due to a rebound in development activity to pre- recession levels. Permit review volumes for Planning staff over the past several years are shown below. In the past six years, development permits have increased by about 40%. Staff would like to note that the slight dip in development permits in FY 2011-12 can likely be attributed to the fact that projects are larger and property owners have been putting their projects on hold until the completion of the General Plan. Additionally, it should be noted that the table does not account for staffing required to assist at the counter, preliminary reviews, over-the-counter building permits, business licenses, and advance planning projects, which take up a considerable amount of staff time. Community Development Department – Planning Staff Review Count Permit Type 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Total Planning Permits 172 153 219 270 258 260 234 Total Building Plan Checks 734 734 812 1035 970 1022 1038 Total Permits 906 887 1031 1305 1228 1282 1272 % Annual Change -2% 16% 27% -6% 4% -1% % Change from 07-08 to 13-14 40% Also, similar to the Public Works Department, a great deal of staff time is being spent on development projects that are reaching the construction stage, most notably the Apple Campus 2 project, which is scheduled to be completed in 2016-17. Therefore, maintaining the higher staffing level is essential to ensure that the City continues to process projects in a timely manner. 269 5 This interim Associate Planner position is scheduled to expire in December 2014. Extending the interim Associate Planner position until June 2018, for a three-and-a-half- year limited term, will sustain the expected staffing requirements until the end of FY 2017-18. While it is not entirely clear whether the position should be made permanent, it may be necessary if projects are proposed as part of the General Plan revisions and/or if development stream continues at its current pace. Staff proposes to review staffing levels and come back to the Council to identify any staffing changes as they become apparent. Fiscal Impact The Associate Planner position is budgeted for approximately $130,000 and the Associate Civil Engineer position is budgeting at approximately $155,000 per year, including salary and benefits. Although the limited-term Associate Planner position sunsets in December 2014 and the Associate Civil Engineer position sunsets in May 2015, salary savings will allow these positions to be funded for the current fiscal year. Therefore, no budget action is required at this time. Both positions will be reflected in subsequent budgets. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Senior Engineer Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Public Works Director Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: None 270 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0418 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/9/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Set application deadline and interview dates for commissions with terms expiring January 30, 2015. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Appointments List Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject :Setapplicationdeadlineandinterviewdatesforcommissionswithtermsexpiring January 30, 2015. ApproveanapplicationdeadlineofFriday,January16andinterviewdatesofMonday,January 26 and Tuesday, January 27 beginning at 5:00 p.m. on both days. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™271 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Set application deadline and interview dates for commissions with terms expiring January 30, 2015. Recommended Action Recommend an application deadline of Friday, January 16 and interview dates of Monday, January 26 and Tuesday, January 27 beginning at 5:00 on both days. Discussion The City Council appoints members to 10 advisory commissions. Members serve staggered, four-year terms with a two-term limit and must wait two years before they can reapply for the same commission. The Cupertino Municipal Code specifies that the term of office for the members of each commission shall end on January 30th of the year their term is due to expire. No commissioner shall serve more than two consecutive terms except if he or she has been appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy for a term that is less than two years. Recruitment, appointment, and reappointment are governed by City Council Resolution No. 10-048, and Government Code sections 54970-54974. The Teen Commission is governed by Resolution No. 09-115 and follows a different appointment schedule and structure. Vacancies will be announced in October in the local news media, posted at City Hall, Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center, and the Library, and included in the Cupertino Scene and the City’s web site. Notices are also mailed to CERT graduates, Neighborhood Block Leaders, Leadership 95014 graduates, the Chamber of Commerce, service organizations, and other interested parties. Commissioners who have expired terms and are eligible for reappointment are notified as well as those with applications on file. The attached list describes all the commissions, and lists the names of incumbents whose terms are ending in January 2015. Applicants may apply for up to two commissions and each applicant is interviewed for his or her preferred commission(s). 272 _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Appointments List and Notice of Commission Terms Expiring in 2015 273 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST AND NOTICE OF COMMISSION TERMS EXPIRING IN 2015 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that residents are encouraged to apply for positions on City commissions that will have vacancies in January of 2015. The application deadline is 4:30 p.m. on Friday, January 16, 2015. Council will conduct interviews beginning at 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday, January 26 and 27. Commissioners are interviewed and appointed by the City Council, and may serve a total of two consecutive 4-year terms. (The Teen Commission has a different term structure). If a person is appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy that is less than two years, that partial term is not counted against the term limit. All meetings are open to the public. For more information or to apply for a commission, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 777-3223, or visit the City website at www.cupertino.org/vacancies. AUDIT COMMITTEE - No residency requirement Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment No terms expiring in January 2015 Eligibility Requirements: The Committee consists of four or five members serving four-year terms. Two individuals are members of City Council, and a minimum of two and a maximum of three are at large members. The at large members shall not be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Committee, the City Manager or staff person assigned to the Committee. An Audit Committee at large member is not required to be a Cupertino resident, but the City Council will give priority to individuals who have substantial accounting, audit, or investment experience, preferably in connection with a governmental agency. The Audit Committee falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: A. Review the annual audit report and management letter; B. Recommend appointment of auditors; C. Review the monthly Treasurer’s report, D. Review City investment policies and internal controls of such policies. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held as needed in January, April, July, and October on the 3rd Thursday of the month at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall in Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Lisa Taitano at (408) 777-3280 or lisat@cupertino.org. 274 BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION - Residency requirement for all five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment William Chan 1/25/11 1/30/15 Yes Jill Mitsch 1/25/11 1/30/15 Yes Sean Lyn 6/10/14 1/30/15 Yes Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members who are residents of the City and shall be appointed by the Council to four-year overlapping terms. None shall be officials or employees of the City nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to, any member of the committee, the City Manager or the staff person or persons assigned to the Commission. The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Review, monitor and suggest recommendations for City transportation matters including, but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking, education and recreation within Cupertino. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held monthly on the third Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison David Stillman at (408) 777-3249 or davids@cupertino.org. FINE ARTS COMMISSION - Residency Requirement for three out of five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment Jessi Kaur 1/22/07 1/30/15 Not eligible Michael Sanchez 1/28/13 1/30/15 Yes Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members appointed by Council for four-year terms. None of the members shall be employees or officials of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or staff person assigned to the Commission. At least three shall be Cupertino residents. The Fine Arts Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Foster, encourage and assist the realization, preservation and advancement of the fine arts for the benefit of the community. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held on the 4th Monday of every other month (odd months) and more often as necessary at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Piu Ghosh at (408) 777-3277 or finearts@cupertino.org. HOUSING COMMISSION - Residency requirement for three out of five members; Business and financial institution representatives must be located in Cupertino. Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment Rajeev Raman 1/24/11 1/30/15 Yes Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members appointed by the council to four- year terms. One must be a representative from a Cupertino financial institution and another from a Cupertino business. Housing Commission members who are representatives of a financial institution or a business are not required to be Cupertino residents, but the financial institution and the business represented must be located in Cupertino. The three remaining community members must be residents 2 275 of Cupertino. The Cupertino Housing Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Assists in developing housing policies and strategies, recommends policies for implementation and monitoring of affordable housing projects, helps identify sources of funding for affordable housing and performs other advisory functions authorized by the City Council. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held at 9:00 a.m., the second Thursday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room C. For more information, contact staff liaison Christopher (CJ) Valenzuela at (408) 777-3251 or christopherv@cupertino.org. LIBRARY COMMISSION - Residency requirement for three out of five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment Rose Grymes 1/25/11 1/30/15 Yes Adrian Kolb 1/27/09 1/30/15 Not eligible Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members appointed by the Council to four- year, overlapping terms. At least three members must be residents of Cupertino. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Library Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Advises the City Council on the adequacy of library service within the community and such other matters relating to library service as specified by the city council, and serves as liaison between the city and the Santa Clara County library system. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held monthly on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room C. For more information, contact staff liaison Nidhi Mathur at (408) 777-3377 or nidhim@cupertino.org. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - Residency requirement for all five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment David Fung 1/24/11 1/30/15 Yes Geoffrey Paulsen 1/29/13 1/30/15 Yes Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members who are residents of the City and shall be appointed by the Council to four-year, overlapping terms. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Advises the City Council on municipal activities in relation to parks and recreation, including park site acquisition and development, recreation program policy, and expansion of the park program as development occurs. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month in the Community Hall. For more information, contact staff liaison Carol Atwood at (408) 777-3110 or parks@cupertino.org. 3 276 PLANNING COMMISSION - Residency requirement for all five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment Don Sun 1/24/11 1/30/15 Yes Paul Brophy 3/18/08 1/30/15 Not eligible Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members appointed by the Council to overlapping four-year terms. Each member shall be a qualified elector in and resident of the City. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City and none of whom shall cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any other member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Planning Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Advises the City Council on land use matters such as specific and general plans, zonings and subdivisions. The Commission reviews other matters as specified by City ordinances or Title VII of the Government Code of California. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held at 6:45 on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month in the Community Hall. For more information, contact staff liaison Gary Chao at (408) 777-3308 or garyc@cupertino.org. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION - Residency requirement for all five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment No terms expiring in January 2015 Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members and shall be appointed by the council to four-year, overlapping terms. All members shall reside within the City. None shall be officials or employees of the City, members of the Sheriff’s Department of the County, either regular or reserve, nor shall they be members of the Central Fire Protection District. No members of the Public Safety Commission shall cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Public Safety Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Advises the City Council on all areas relating to public safety, traffic, and police, fire and other matters relating to the foregoing. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held monthly on the second Thursday of each month at 6 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Captain Kenneth Binder at (408) 868-6610 or kenneth.binder@sheriff.sccgov.org. TEEN COMMISSION - Residency requirement for all nine members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment No terms expiring in January 2015 Eligibility Requirement: The Commission consists of nine members, serving two-year staggered terms, with the intention if possible to include at least one person from each public middle school and public 4 277 high school in Cupertino. Membership on the Commission is limited to Cupertino residents. Members may attend schools outside of the city limits, or be schooled at home. Commissioners must be in 8th through 12th grade. Powers and Functions: Advises the City Council and staff on issues and projects important to youth. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held September through May, twice monthly (except December), for a total of 17 meetings on the second and Fourth Wednesday at 6:15 p.m. at the Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling Road. For more information, contact staff liaison David Jahns, 777-3139 or davidj@cupertino.org. TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION - Residency requirement for all five members Incumbent Appointment Date Present Term Expires Eligible for Re-Appointment Rod Livingood 1/24/11 1/30/15 Yes Beverly Siegel 6/21/11 1/30/15 Yes Peter Friedland 2/20/07 1/30/15 Not eligible Eligibility Requirements: The Commission consists of five members, appointed by the council to four- year, overlapping terms. All members must be from among the qualified electors of the City. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Technology, Information, and Communications Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Powers and Functions: Advises the City Council on all matters relating to telecommunications within the City of Cupertino, including evaluating compliance with any franchise or other agreement between the City and a telecommunications provider and conducting periodic reviews of providers, facilities, and products. In addition, members serve as liaisons between the City, the public, and telecommunications providers in enhancing education and information. The Commission also provides support for community access television, especially public and educational access, and gives guidance when needed for development and implementation of access channels and programming. Meeting Schedule: Regular meetings are held at least once every three months and, at the discretion of the Commission, other meetings may be held as necessary or expedient. Meetings usually fall on the first Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Mariyah Serratos at 408-777-3189 or mariyahs@cupertino.org. 5 278 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0361 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/4/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing Councilmember call for review Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing Councilmember call for review IntroduceandconductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.14-2123:"AnOrdinanceoftheCity CounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingtheCupertinoMunicipalCodeChapter2.08ofTitle 2 to include Section 2.08.145 relating to call for review" CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™279 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 7, 2014 Subject Approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing Councilmember call for review. Recommended Action Introduce and conduct the first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify Councilmember call for review. Description City decisions, including those of City Commissions or the City Manager, often involve broad policy and community interest. Councilmembers, as the ultimate decision makers for the City, have the opportunity to review these matters. Over the last several years, various Councilmembers have exercised a call for review. Councilmembers have typically done so when a City decision involves a land use decision, but this right is not limited. The proposed Ordinance codifies the existing practice and provides clarity for the Council and members of the public on this procedure. Discussion The proposed Ordinance sets forth the basic requirements for the call for review, and parallels the language in Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.12.170 regarding appeals of decisions and matters under the zoning code. Similar to an appeal by a person aggrieved or affected by a decision, a call for review must:  be filed in the same timeframe as an appeal of the matter; and  be on form provided by the City. 280 However, a call for review differs from an appeal in that:  the call for review is only available to sitting Councilmembers;  no fee is required;  the grounds for review is presumed to be that the subject matter has significant or material effects on the quality of life within Cupertino; and  there is no inference of bias on the part of the Councilmember who called for review, such that it is clear that the Councilmember may participate in the matter. As with any decision before them, Councilmembers should remain mindful of potential conflicts of interest, including those at common law. Sustainability Impact The proposed Ordinance codifies existing procedure and is a matter of policy. It does not involve any potential changes to the environment. Fiscal Impact The proposed Ordinance will not have any fiscal impact, as Councilmembers are already exempt from the payment of fees. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Colleen Winchester, Assistant City Attorney Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 adding Section 2.08.145 relating to Call for Review. 281 Council Agenda: September 2, 2014 Page: 1 ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.08 OF TITLE 2 TO INCLUDE SECTION 2.08.145 RELATING TO CALL FOR REVIEW WHEREAS, this Ordinance was determined to be not a project under provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), in that the amendments do not involve changes in the physical environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the “not a project” determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 2.08.145 to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: 2.08.145 Calls for Review. A. Any Councilmember may initiate a call for review of any decision or matter that may be appealed to the City Council under this Code. B. Filing: 1. A call for review shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the City and shall be filed during regular office hours. A call for review is subject to the same time limitations as required for an Appeal of a decision. A call for review not filed within such time shall be barred. 282 Council Agenda: September 2, 2014 Page: 2 2. A call for review is not subject to a fee. C. Noticing: Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner as would be required in an appeal of the matter. D. Grounds: If a call for review is made by a Councilmember, there is a presumption that the reason for the review is that the action has significant or material effects on the quality of life within Cupertino. No inference of bias shall be made or implied due to a call for review by a Councilmember, and the Councilmember who filed the call for review may participate in the hearing on the matter. E. Hearing Body: The City Council shall decide the matter on review in accordance with the provisions of this Code. F. Decision of the City Council: The decision or determination of the City Council shall be final and effective immediately. G. Notice of Decision: Notice of the City Council’s decision shall be mailed to the original applicant and to any other person who has filed a written request with the City Clerk. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. * * * * * * * * INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ___ day of ____ and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ____ of _______ 2014, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: 283 Council Agenda: September 2, 2014 Page: 3 Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor 284 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0400 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:8/27/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:10/7/2014 Title:Subject: Present Construction Project Update Report Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council10/7/20141 Subject: Present Construction Project Update Report Receive Project Update Report CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/1/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™285