The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 10-07-14 #1 Responses to CommentsPlaceWorks August 28, 2014 | Response to Comments Document General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document for the City of Cupertino State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007 August 28, 2014 | Response to Comments Document General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document for the City of Cupertino State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007 Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego www.placeworks.com In association with: BKF Engineering Environmental Collaborative Hexagon Transportation Consultants Tom Origer & Associates 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 Prepared by PLACEWORKS i Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ................................................................. 1-1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .............................................................................................. 1-1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ............................................................. 2-3 2.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................... 2-5 2.6 AREAS OF CONCERN ......................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................... 2-7 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 3-1 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 3-2 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3-2 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.9, LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 3-6 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.11, POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................... 3-7 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.12, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ....................................................... 3-8 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.13, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................... 3-8 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.14, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 3-10 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.1, NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................ 3-15 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.2, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A .......................................................................... 3-16 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.3, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B .......................................................................... 3-20 REVISIONS TO APPENDIX F, PUBLIC SERVICES DATA ................................................................................ 3-27 REVISIONS TO APPENDIX G, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC DATA....................................................... 3-27 REVISIONS TO APPENDIX I, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICY AMENDMENTS .................................. 3-40 4. LIST OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS ............................................................................................................ 4-1 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................ 4-1 5. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A: Comment Letters GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS ii AUGUST 28, 2014 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Alternatives Development Allocations Comparison Summary ............................................................... 2-6 Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................................... 2-8 Table 3-21 Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards .............................................. 3-3 Table 4.14-6.1 Cal Water LAS District Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ................................................................ 3-11 Table 4.14-12.1 SJWC plus Cupertino Water Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ....................................................... 3-12 Table 4.14-13.1 Proposed Project Buildout Wastewater Generation – SJ/SCWPCP.................................................... 3-13 Table 4.14-13.2 Wastewater Generation – SJ/SCWPCP Remaining Development Allocation ..................................... 3-14 Table 4.14-13.3 Proposed Project Wastewater Generation - SWPCP .......................................................................... 3-14 Table 5.2-15.1 Cal Water LAS District Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ................................................................ 3-19 Table 5.2-15.2 SJWC plus Cupertino Water Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ....................................................... 3-19 Table 5.3-9 Land Use Alternative B Estimated Population, Household, and Employment ..................................... 3-22 Table 5.3-15.1 Cal Water LAS District Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ................................................................ 3-25 Table 5.3-21.1 SJWC plus Cupertino Water Projected Demand – 2040 Buildout ....................................................... 3-26 Table 5-1 Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................ 5-2 PLACEWORKS 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Response to Comments document, which has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the adoption and implementation of the City of Cupertino’s General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project, herein referred to as the “proposed Project.” The Draft EIR identifies significant impacts associated with the proposed Project, identifies and considers alternatives to the proposed Project, and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental effects (“significant impacts”) of the proposed Project. This document also contains text revisions to the Draft EIR. This Response to Comments document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed Project. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. A Notice of Preparation of an EIR was issued by the City on March 5, 2014. The Draft EIR was made available for public review from Wednesday, June 18, 2014 through Friday, August 1, 2014. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional and State agencies, and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for review to interested parties at:  Cupertino Library at 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA, 95014  Sunnyvale Library at 665 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086  Central Park Library at 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 95051  Mission Library at 1098 Lexington Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050  Saratoga Library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070  Los Altos Library at 13 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94024  Woodland Library at 1975 Grant Road, Los Altos, CA 94024  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library at 150 East San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112  San Jose Public Library West Valley Branch at 1243 San Tomas Aquino Road, San Jose, CA 95117  San Jose Public Library Calabazas Branch at 1230 South Blaney Avenue, San Jose, CA 95129  Cupertino City Hall at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014  The City's website at: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/app_folders/view/177 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO INTRODUCTION 1-2 AUGUST 28, 2014 The 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIR ended on Friday, August 1, 2014. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR are contained in this document. These comments are reproduced in Chapter 5, Comments and Responses, of this Response to Comments document, and responses to comments on environmental issues, are provided. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix A, Comment Letters, of this Response to Comments document. This Final EIR will be presented at a Planning Commission hearing at which the Commission will advise the City Council on certification of the EIR. The City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the Final EIR and the proposed Project during a noticed public hearing, and will make the final action with regard to certification of the Final EIR. The City Council is currently scheduled to consider certifying the Final EIR in Fall 2014. PLACEWORKS 2-1 2. Executive Summary This chapter presents a summary of the conclusions of this EIR, which consists of Draft EIR Volumes I and II and this Response to Comment Document. 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents an overview of the proposed Project, identifies areas of concern, and conclusions of the analysis contained in Chapters 4.0 through 4.14 of the Draft EIR. For a complete description of the proposed Project, please see Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. For a discussion of alternatives to the proposed Project, please see Chapters 5.0 through 5.3, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR. This EIR addresses the significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project. CEQA requires that public agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary approval authority prior to taking action. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public and local and State governmental agency decision-makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making. This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA1 (and the CEQA Guidelines 2) to determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development could have a significant effect on the environment (i.e. significant impact). The City of Cupertino, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Information for the Draft EIR was obtained from on-site field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g. air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic). 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES The six main purposes of this document as established by CEQA are:  To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.  To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. 1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-21177. 2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-2 AUGUST 28, 2014  To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.  To disclose to the public the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.  To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.  To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full- disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed Project that has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision- making tools used by a lead agency to consider the environmental merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and Alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 2.2.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION The Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:  Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the Draft EIR document.  Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Summarizes the environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed Project, the alternatives to the proposed Project, the recommended mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts with and without mitigation.  Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed Project in detail, including the characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed action.  Chapter 4: Environmental Evaluation. Organized into 14 sub-chapters corresponding to the environmental resource categories identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter provides a description of the physical environmental conditions in the City of Cupertino as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective, as well as an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce their significance. The environmental setting included in each sub-chapter provides baseline physical conditions from which the Lead Agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Each sub-chapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLACEWORKS 2-3  Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Organized into three sub-chapters, this chapter considers three alternatives to the proposed Project, which are the CEQA-required “No Project” Alternative, General Plan Land Use Alternative A, and General Plan Land Use Alternative B.  Chapter 6: CEQA -Required Assessment Conclusions. Discusses growth inducement, cumulative impacts, significant unavoidable effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed Project. Additionally, this chapter identifies environmental issues that were determined not to require further environmental review during the scoping process pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128.  Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed Project.  Appendices: The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the back cover) contain the following supporting documents: Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Appendix B: Community Discussion Summaries Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data and Calculation Sheet Appendix D: Cultural Resources Data Appendix E: Noise Data Appendix F: Public Services Data Appendix G: Transportation and Traffic Data Appendix H: Utilities and Service System Data Appendix I: Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments 2.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This document is organized into the following chapters:  Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and organization of this Response to Comments Document.  Chapter 2: Executive Summary. This chapter is a summary of the conclusions of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments Document.  Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR. Additional corrections to the text and graphics of the Draft EIR are contained in this chapter. Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.  Chapter 4: List of Commenters. Names of agencies and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR are included in this chapter.  Chapter 5: Comments and Responses. This chapter lists the comments received from agencies and the public on the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those comments. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-4 AUGUST 28, 2014 2.3.1 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS EIR According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to: Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. Because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed Project and the permitting, planning, and development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions for implementation, this EIR has been prepared as a program EIR for the proposed Project, pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Once a program EIR has been certified, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether additional CEQA review needs to be prepared. However, if the program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, subsequent activities could be found to be within the program EIR scope, and additional environmental review may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and Alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of a program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this Prog ram EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis. This program EIR can also serve to streamline future environmental review of subsequent projects. 2.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT The City of Cupertino has undertaken a community-based planning process to review land use alternatives as part of a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives include options for city-wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for Special Areas along major transportation corridors, where Gateways/Nodes have been identified, seven Study Areas, and Other Special Areas including Residential and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas. These Project Component locations are shown in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR on Figures 3-4, 3 -10, and 3-19, respectively. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the goals, policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005. The City is also updating the General Plan’s Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet its fair-share housing obligation of 1,064 units. As part of this process, Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code will be amended to be consistent with the 2007–2014 Housing Element Program 12 (Density Bonus Program) and Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.76 (Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones), and Chapter 19.92 (Park and Recreation Zones), also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code, will be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining to the permanent emergency GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLACEWORKS 2-5 shelters. Furthermore, Program 15 of the Housing Element addresses the potential loss of rental housing and displacement of lower and moderate income households due to new development. The Zoning Ordinance will also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to farmworker housing and employee housing. Under the proposed Project, the City may also consider amending existing policies to be compliant with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement impacts to renters (e.g., tenant relocation benefits). The proposed Project will also include changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance (including Chapters listed above and 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.144 (Development Agreements) and Zoning map for internal consistency as a result of changes to Housing Element policies that are required by State Law 3 or as adopted by the City Council as a result the Project, changes to General Plan Policy to address changes required as a result of recently adopted State Law (such as Assembly Bill 1358, Complete Streets) and as a result of bringing non-conforming land use into conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This EIR provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project. Because of the comprehensive nature of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning, the Project Description is organized by the following five distinct Project Components: 1. Special Areas, along major transportation corridors, including City Gateways/Nodes 2. Study Areas 3. Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas 4. Housing Element Sites 5. General Plan Land Use Map and, Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments A detailed description of each of these proposed Project Components is provided in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT This EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed Project that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative involves comparing the environmental effects of the alternatives with the environmental effects of the proposed Project. The following three alternatives to the proposed Project were considered and analyzed in detail in Chapter 5, of this EIR.  No Project Alternative  General Plan Land Use Alternative A  General Plan Land Use Alternative B 3 Specific State Law includes, but is not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the State’s Housing Element law. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-6 AUGUST 28, 2014 Table 2 -1 provides the development projections for each alternative that is analyzed in this EIR. As shown in Table 2 -1, the proposed Project provides the most conservative and worst-case analysis for CEQA purposes. TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS COMPARISON SUMMARY Category Proposed Projecta No Projectb Land Use Alternative A Land Use Alternative B Office 4,040,231 sf 540,231 sf 1,040,231 sf 2,540,231 sf Commercial 1,343,679 sf 701,413 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf Hotel 1,339 rooms 339 rooms 600 rooms 839 rooms Residential 4,421 units 1,895 units 1,895 units 3,316 units Note: sf = square feet a. The proposed Project represents General Plan Land Use Alternative C. b. No Project represents remaining development allocation under the existing 2005 General Plan. c. Reflects the redevelopment of Vallco Mall (1,267,601 sf) with 625,335 sf reserved for the Vallco Mall and the remaining 642,266 sf reallocated to other areas in the City. Source: City of Cupertino. Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR, includes a complete discussion of these alternatives and alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. 2.6 AREAS OF CONCERN The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on March 5, 2014, and held a scoping meeting on March 11, 2014. The scoping period for this EIR was between March 5 and April 7, 2014, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the proposed Project. The following is a discussion of issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review process. While every environmental concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in the Draft EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive; rather, it attempts to capture those concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping process.  Visual resources including the views of hillsides/skylines.  Emissions from exhaust of idling cars in need of parking.  Increased building height and density impacts on raptor/hawk populations.  Wildlife ecosystem including birds and squirrels.  Public health hazards from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  General impacts on seniors and children.  Noise from new sources, including restaurants.  Impacts to public service providers including police, libraries, schools, and the loss of playgrounds.  Water treatment and demand.  Sewe r and water capacity along the Special Areas.  Solid waste capacity and service proximity to sites. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLACEWORKS 2-7  PG&E capacity.  Possibility of extending recycled water line into city from Wolfe/Homestead.  Overall impacts to transportation infrastructure, including congestion on Homestead Road.  Morning and afternoon traffic near schools.  Pedestrian safety for all ages including seniors and children.  Additional traffic generated by work, schools shopping.  Shuttles/alternative modes of transportation.  Vehicle miles traveled.  Meeting Association of Bay Areas Governments (ABAG ) requirements and impacts of high-density residential.  Impacts on neighboring cities.  Impacts of entitled projects. 2.7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment (i.e. significant impact) is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the Project Study Area , including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance. The proposed Project has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number of areas. As shown in Table 2-2, some significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures identified in this EIR are adopted and implemented. However, pursuant to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, as shown in Table 2-2, significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the areas of air quality, noise and transportation and traffic. For a complete summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts, please see Section 6.2 in Chapter 6.0, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions, of this Draft EIR. As described in detail in Chapter 6.0, the proposed Project would have no significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and mineral resources due to existing conditions in the City of Cupertino. Accordingly, these topics have not been analyzed further in this EIR. Table 2-2 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR and presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14. The table is arranged in four columns: 1) environmental impacts; 2) significance without mitigation; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) significance with mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-8 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Aesthetics AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. LTS N/A N/A AES-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a State scenic highway. LTS N/A N/A AES-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Site and its surroundings. LTS N/A N/A AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. LTS N/A N/A AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics. LTS N/A N/A Air Quality AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. S There are no additional mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, for a complete discussion. SU AQ-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. S AQ-2a: As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10. AQ-2b: As part of the City’s development approval process the City shall require applicants for future development projects that could generate emissions in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during construction, as determined by project-level environmental review, when applicable, to implement the current BAAQMD construction mitigation measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) or any construction mitigation measures subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD. SU GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-9 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation AQ-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). S There are no additional mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, for a complete discussion. SU AQ-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution. S AQ-4a: Applicants for future non-residential land uses within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the proposed Project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:  Restricting idling on-site.  Electrifying warehousing docks.  Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.  Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed Project. LTS/M GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-10 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation AQ-4b: Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g. hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers) in Cupertino within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g. warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 16 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e. below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:  Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.  Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters. Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed Project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-11 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation AQ-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. LTS N/A N/A AQ-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. S There are no additional mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, for a complete discussion. SU Biological Resources BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species. S BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside the nesting period. If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be documented and protective measures implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to LTS/M GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-12 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type. LTS N/A N/A BIO-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. LTS N/A N/A BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites. LTS N/A N/A BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. LTS N/A N/A BIO-6: Implementation of the No Project alternative, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources. LTS See Mitigation Measure BIO-1. LTS/M Cultural Resources CULT-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. LTS N/A N/A CULT-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-13 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation CULT-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature. LTS N/A N/A CULT-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. LTS N/A N/A CULT-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources. LTS N/A N/A Geology, Soils, and Seismicity GEO-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving surface rupture along a known active fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and landslides. LTS N/A N/A GEO-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS N/A N/A GEO-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to development on unstable geologic units and soils or result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. LTS N/A N/A GEO-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create substantial risks to life or property as a result of its location on expansive soil, as defined Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property. LTS N/A N/A GEO-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to geology and soils. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-14 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. LTS N/A N/A GHG-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. LTS N/A N/A GHG-3: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions. LTS N/A N/A Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. LTS N/A N/A HAZ-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. LTS N/A N/A HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. LTS N/A N/A HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. S HAZ-4a: Construction at the sites with known contamination shall be conducted under a project-specific Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is prepared in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering LTS/M GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-15 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies, and regulations. The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP. HAZ-4b: For those sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting, and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment and associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a). HAZ-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-16 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. LTS N/A N/A HAZ-7: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. LTS See Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b. LTS/M Hydrology and Water Quality HYDRO-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-17 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation HYDRO-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-7: Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-8: Implementation of the proposed Project would not be impacted by inundation as a result of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. LTS N/A N/A HYDRO-9: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to water quality. LTS N/A N/A Land Use and Planning LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. LTS N/A N/A LU-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LTS N/A N/A LU-3: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-18 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Noise NOISE-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. LTS N/A N/A NOISE-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. LTS N/A N/A NOISE-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. S No feasible mitigation measures were identified. A discussion of mitigation measures considered but found to be infeasible is included in Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. SU NOISE-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. LTS N/A N/A NOISE-5: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise. S No feasible mitigation measures were identified. A discussion of mitigation measures considered but found to be infeasible is included in Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. SU Population and Housing POP-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). LTS N/A N/A POP-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-19 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation POP-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. LTS N/A N/A POP-4: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing. LTS N/A N/A Public Services and Recreation PS-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts. LTS N/A N/A PS-2: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection service. LTS N/A N/A PS-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts. LTS N/A N/A PS-4: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to police protection service. LTS N/A N/A PS-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts. LTS N/A N/A PS-6: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to school service. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-20 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts. LTS N/A N/A PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to libraries. LTS N/A N/A PS-9: Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, or be accelerated. LTS N/A N/A PS-10: Implementation of the proposed Project would include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. LTS N/A N/A PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to parks and recreational facilities. LTS N/A N/A Transportation and Traffic TRAF-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. S TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support implementation of the proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the transportation improvements and facilities required to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed SU GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-21 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation Project. The following examples of transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study: SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): An exclusive left-turn lane for the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off- ramp) at the intersection of SR 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left-turn lane, one all-movement lane, and one right turn lane. The additional lane could be added within the existing Caltrans right-of-way. Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): The addition of a second exclusive left-turn lane for the eastbound leg of the intersection from Stevens Creek Boulevard to northbound Stelling Road, which could be accomplished by reworking the median. Right turns would share the bike lane. Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (#5): Widen De Anza Boulevard to four lanes in each direction or the installation of triple left-turn lanes. De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield to pedestrians. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): Restripe westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through vehicles may be required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlled by the traffic signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights. The pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-22 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection that is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and Pacifica Drive legs are across from each other may be required. In addition, double left turn lanes may be required to be added to De Anza Boulevard with sections of double lanes on McClellan Road and Pacifica Drive to receive the double left turn lanes. These improvements will require the acquisition of right-of- way and demolition of existing commercial buildings. However, some existing right-of-way could be abandoned, which would reduce the net right-of-way take. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): The addition of a third southbound through lane to the southbound approach of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road may be required, as well as the addition of a southbound exclusive right-turn lane. Three southbound receiving lanes on the south side of the intersection currently exist. An additional westbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead westbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of a westbound exclusive right-turn lane may be required. This will require widening Homestead Road. An additional eastbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead eastbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of an eastbound exclusive left-turn lane for a total of two left-turn lanes may be required. These improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas. Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. This will require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. In addition to widening the overcrossing, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-23 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency. Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19): An additional through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes for the northbound leg of the intersection at the Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp may be required. This additional northbound through lane would require widening to the freeway overcrossing. In addition to widening the overcrossing, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with the problem of heavy volume in the right lane, which contributes to the level of service deficiency. Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21): The restriping of the westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance the bicycling experience. North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): Restriping of the southbound leg of the intersection (Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left turn lane may be required. This will require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. The level-of-service calculations show that with implementation of these improvements, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D. Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): The addition of a separate left-turn lane to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolition of existing commercial buildings would be required. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): The restriping of the westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated from through vehicles may be GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-24 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance the bicycling experience. Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#31): The addition of a second right-turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required. Both lanes would need to be controlled by the signal, and disallow right turns on red. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through-movement lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane may be required. Right-of-way acquisition would be required. The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate. Transportation mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City shall use the transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate transportation impacts. TRAF-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and S See Mitigation Measures under TRAF-1. SU GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-25 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. TRAF-3: Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). LTS N/A N/A TRAF-4: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. LTS N/A N/A TRAF-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. LTS N/A N/A TRAF-6: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. S See Mitigation Measure TRAF-1. SU Utilities and Service Systems UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements are not needed. LTS N/A N/A UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. LTS N/A N/A UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to water supply. LTS N/A N/A UTIL-4: Implementations of the proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant/Mitigation 2-26 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation UTIL-5: Implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. LTS N/A N/A UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves, or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. S UTIL-6a: The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available citywide treatment and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying reduced wastewater generation rates are approved by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c. UTIL-6b: The City shall work to establish a system in which a development monitoring and tracking system to tabulate cumulative increases in projected wastewater generation from approved projects for comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and implemented. If it is anticipated that with approval of a development project the actual system discharge would exceed the contractual treatment threshold, no building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a. UTIL-6c: The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to prepare a study to determine a more current estimate of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the actual development to be constructed as part of Project implementation. The study could include determining how the green/LEED certified buildings in the City reduce wastewater demands. LTS/M UTIL-7: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater treatment. LTS See Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c. LTS/M UTIL-8: Implementation of the proposed Project would not be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Project’s solid waste disposal S UTIL-8: The City shall continue its current recycling ordinances and zero- waste policies in an effort to further increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In addition, the City shall monitor solid waste LTS/M GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S = Significant LTS = Less than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation PLACEWORKS 2-27 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance With Mitigation needs. generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed. UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed Project would not be out of compliance with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. LTS N/A N/A UTIL-10: Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste. LTS N/A N/A UTIL-11: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands, and would not require new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. LTS N/A N/A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-28 AUGUST 28, 2014 PLACEWORKS 3-1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This chapter presents text revisions to the Draft EIR that have been made in response to public and agency comments, as well as staff-directed changes. These text revisions include typographical corrections, insignificant modification, amplifications and clarifications of the Draft EIR. In each case, the revised page and location on the page is presented, followed by the textual, tabular, or graphical revision. Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR. None of the revisions constitutes significant new information as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; therefore, this EIR does not need to be recirculated. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION The first paragraph on page 1-3 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: In this case, the proposed Project that is the subject of this EIR consists of long-term plans that will be implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level EIR that analyzes the potential significant environmental effects of the adoption of the proposed Project. As a program EIR, it is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed under the General Plan. However, if the program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as is reasonably possible, and later activities are within scope of the effects examined in the program EIR, then additional environmental review may not be required for those future projects. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c] and CEQA streamlining provisions.) When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR unless the activity qualifies for an exemption. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this Program EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis. The program EIR can also serve to streamline future environmental review of subsequent projects. Such subsequent projects will require a separate environmental review, when applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered from this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address project-specific impacts of individual projects. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-2 AUGUST 28, 2014 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY All changes to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, including changes to Table 2-2, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, are included in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of this Final EIR. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following is added to Section 3.7.4, Housing Element Sites, on page 3-67 as follows: Housing Element law allows local governments to use “default” density standards determined by HCD. In accordance with HCD’s determination, suburban cities in Santa Clara County require a minimum “realistic” density of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater to meet lower income/affordable requirements. For Cupertino’s last Housing Element (2007-2014), HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85 percent of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on city-specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, while the maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units, the realistic yield for Housing Element purposes is (25 times 85 percent) = 21 units. In anticipation that HCD will continue to accept this realistic yield, most of the proposed Housing Element sites are located in areas that would be at or above 25 dwelling units per acre. Table 3 -21, Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards, on pages 3-68 through 3-70 is hereby amended as shown on the following page: Note “a” in Table 3-21, Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards, on page 3-70 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: a. While this table shows a realistic yield of 4,804 residential units (which is 85 percent of the maximum 5,651 units), as shown in Table 3-2 in Section 3.7 of this chapter, the proposed Project includes allows a maximum of 4,421 residential units. The housing sites in this table are being evaluated in this Draft EIR to provide a broad evaluation to aid in the City’s ultimate selection of housing sites to be included in the Housing Element. The maximum housing that would be permitted under the proposed Project is 4,421 units. The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) on page 3-80 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 93 new residential units added to the existing 517 units, for a total of 530 units. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR PLACEWORKS 3-3 TABLE 3-21 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site # Address APN Lot Area (acres) Existing Use General Plan Zoning Maximum Density (du/ac) Capacity (du/ac) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Realistic Yield Net 1 20007 Stevens Creek Blvd. 316-23-093 1.7 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 36 36 10041 N. Blaney Ave 316-23-036 20021 Stevens Creek Blvd. 316-23-033 2 19930 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-05-009 2.83 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 58 58 19936 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-05-010 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-05-038 3 10025 East Estates 369-06-002 4.86 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 103 103 10075 East Estates 369-06-003 10075 East Estates 369-06-004 19541 Richwood Dr. 369-06-005 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd. 369-06-007 10055 Miller Ave. 369-06-011 4 19160 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-07-001 0.55 Vacant C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 11 11 5 10160 Parkwood 326-27-036 31.34 Residential Med/High Density (10-20 du/ac) Med/High Density (10-20 du/ac) R3(10-20) R3(10-20) 20 20 517 610 93 21297 Parkwood 326-27-037 6 20800 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-040 27.1 Residential Med/High Density (10-20 du/ac) Med/High Density (10-20 du/ac) R3 R3 20 20 468 530 62 20975 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-041 20990 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-053 20800 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-054 20875 Valley Green Dr. 326-09-064 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-4 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 3-21 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site # Address APN Lot Area (acres) Existing Use General Plan Zoning Maximum Density (du/ac) Capacity (du/ac) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Realistic Yield Net 7 20705 Valley Green Dr. 326-10-046 7.98 Office Light Industrial O/I/C/R O/I/C/R P(CG, ML, Res) P(CG, ML, Res) 25 25 0 169 169 8 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd. Various 0.67 Commercial C/R C/R P(CG) P(CG, Res) 15 35 0 19 19 9 10625 S. Foothill Blvd. 342-16-087 1.3 Commercial C/R C/R P(CG) P(CG, Res) 15 25 0 27 27 10 19500 Pruneridge Ave. 316-06-032 12.44 Residential High Density (20-35 DU/Gr Ac) High Density (Greater than 35 du/ac) P(Res)-70 P(Res) 25 110 342 1,162 820 19500 Pruneridge Ave. 316-06-037 11 10123 N. Wolfe Rd. Various 47.83 Commercial C/-/R C/O/R P(Regional Shopping) P(Regional Shopping, OP, Res) 35 35 0 800 800 10150 N. Wolfe Rd. N. Wolfe Rd 316-20-092 12 20916 Homestead Rd. 326-09-052 5.1 Commercial C/R C/R P(CG) P (CG, Res) 35 35 0 151 151 20956 Homestead Rd. 326-09-061 P(CG) 20990 Homestead Rd. 326-09-060 P(Rec, Ent) 10990 N. Stelling Rd. 326-09-051 P(Rec, Ent) 13 10029 Judy Ave. 375-07-046 1.29 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 27 27 19060 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-07-045 14 10118 Bandley Ave. 326-34-066 6.86 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 40 0 232 232 15 20823 Stevens Creek Blvd. 326-32-053 6.31 Office C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, OP, Res) 25 40 0 214 214 16 1471 S. De Anza Blvd. 366-19-055 4.46 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res 5-15) P(CG, Res) 15 40 0 154 154 1491 S. De Anza Blvd. 366-19-053 1505 S. De Anza Blvd. 366-19-054 1451 S. De Anza Boulevard 366-19-044 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR PLACEWORKS 3-5 TABLE 3-21 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site # Address APN Lot Area (acres) Existing Use General Plan Zoning Maximum Density (du/ac) Capacity (du/ac) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Realistic Yield Net 17 21020, 21040, 21060, 21070 Homestead Rd. 326-07-020 5.42 Commercial Office C/R C/R P(CG) P(CG, Res) 15 35 0 161 161 326-07-036 326-07-022 326-07-034 326-07-033 326-07-032 18 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd. 326-27-039 7.9 Commercial C/O/R C/O/R P(CG) P(CG, OP, Res) 25 35 0 235 235 326-27-999 326-27-041 326-27-040 19 19200 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-06-005 4.98 Commercial Office C/O/R C/O/R P(CG, Res) P(CG, Res) 25 25 0 105 105 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-06-007 19280 Stevens Creek Blvd. 375-06-006 TOTAL 181.04 1,327 4,804a 3,477 Notes: APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number, du/ac = dwelling units per acre Zoning Acronyms: P = Mixed-Use Planned Development, CG = General Commercial, Res = Residential, OP = Office/Planned Office: General Plan Acronyms: C/R = Commercial/Residential, C/O/R = Commercial/Office/Residential a. While this table shows a realistic yield of 4,804 residential units, as shown in Table 3-2 in Section 3.7 of this chapter, the proposed Project includes a maximum of 4,421 residential units. The housing sites in this table are being evaluated in this Draft EIR to provide a broad evaluation to aid in the City’s ultimate selection of housing sites to be included in the Housing Element. The maximum housing that would be permitted under the proposed Project is 4,421 units. Source: City of Cupertino, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR PLACEWORKS 3-6 The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) on page 3-82 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 62 net residential units added to the existing 468 units, for a total of 610 units. The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) on page 3-90 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Under the proposed Project, the General Plan land use designation would be changed to High Density with greater than 35 du/ac (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)) and the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The permitted residential density would increase to 110 du/ac and the maximum height would be 85 feet. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units added to the existing 342 units, for a total of 1,162 units. The text under the subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks) on page 3-106 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however, the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial, Residential, and Professional Office (P(CG, Res, OP)) to allow for future mixed-use development including residential uses. Under the proposed Project, the permitted residential density would be increased to 35 du/ac and building heights would range from be 60 feet or up to 75 feet with a retail component. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 235 net residential units. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.9, LAND USE AND PLANNING The description of current zoning on Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) on page 4.9-20 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North Vallco Park Special Area (see Figure 3-6). The Site has two parcels totaling approximately 12.44 acres, is designated as High Density with up to 20 to 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (20- 35 DU/Gr. Ac.)) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)-70). The maximum density currently permitted on the Site 10 is 35 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 60 feet (see Figure 3-30). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-7 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.11, POPULATION AND HOUSING The amendments to Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) on page 4.11-15 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows: Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons). The General Plan land use designation would be changed to High Density with greater than 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (Greater than 35 DU/Gr. Ac)) and the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The permitted density would increase to 110 dwelling units per acre. Future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units added to the existing 342 units, for a total of 1,162 units. The discussion of total units on Housing Element Site 10 in the last paragraph on page 4.11-16 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: In addition to the 342 existing dwelling units on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons), Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) and Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) have 517 and 468 existing dwelling units, respectively. However, Sites 5 and 6 are anticipated to be infill sites, therefore, no demolition of existing residential units would occur at these locations. However, potential future development under the proposed Project at Housing Element Site 10 could result in the temporary loss of 342 residential units. If this Site were to be redeveloped, the existing units may need to be demolished in order to redevelop the sites at their proposed maximum capacity. Nevertheless, the resulting redevelopment at this site would provide a net increase of 820 units added to the existing 342 units, for a total of 1,162 units. The first paragraph under Impact Statement POP-3 on page 4.11-17 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: As described under Impact POP-2 above, potential future development potential Housing Elements Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments), Site 6 (The Villages Apartments), and Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons) could involve the demolition and replacement of existing housing units, which could result in the temporary displacement of some residents, but this would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of people and housing necessitating more replacement housing than is already planned. For the remainder of the Housing Element Sites 1 – through 4, 7, 10 and 11 – through 19, described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, no displacement would occur because the increase in housing would be accomplished by constructing infill units on portions of the Housing Element Sites that are not currently developed with housing. For Housing Element Sites 10, redevelopment of the site at its proposed maximum capacity would require demolishing existing units and would require the occupants to move while the new residential project is under construction; however, there would be a net increase in the number of housing units in Cupertino (4,421 units compared to 1,895 units). Additionally, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons per household, the proposed net increase of 820 housing units from redevelopment on Housing Element Site 10 would accommodate approximately 2,411 new residents in the city. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-8 AUGUST 28, 2014 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.12, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION The third paragraph under subheading Santa Clara Unified School District on page 4.12- 18 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The SCUSD is also not a revenue limit district; therefore, property tax revenues are sufficient for it not to receive any additional funding from the State. The annual property taxes received by SCUSD from the redevelopment of the Hamptons would generate approximately $4 over one million dollars. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.13, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The first and third bullets listed on page 4.13-42 under the subheading No Project Roadway Network are hereby amended as follows:  Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps: Add a westbound lane to create two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. Add a third northbound through lane.  Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west): Add an exclusive right turn lane to eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard and construct a third eastbound lane along the Calvert connector road connecting the free right-turn receiving lane from eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway. The following has been added to page 4.13-42 after the bulleted list of improvements that will be completed before 2040 in association with approval of the Apple Campus 2 project, which were included in the 2040 No Project roadway network as follows: Following the Notice of Preparation for this EIR, Apple agreed to installation of a traffic signal at Calvert Drive and the I-280 southbound connector ramp between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway. The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-53 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support implementation of the proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic transportation improvements GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-9 and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study: The fourth bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-53 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield to pedestrians. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience. The third bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-54 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General Plan development. This will could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which may include In addition to widening the overcrossing and may include, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency. The second bullet on page 4.13-55 of the Draft EIR under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 is hereby removed as follows:  Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29): Make the eastbound to southbound right turn a free movement. This would require building an island and separating the right turn from signal control. It also would require building a third southbound lane on Calvert Drive to receive the right turn traffic. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-10 AUGUST 28, 2014 The last paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 4.13-55 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate. Traffic Transportation mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic transportation impacts. The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 4.13-59 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 4.13-62 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.14, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The third and fourth paragraphs under the subheading Cal Water on page 4.14-14 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is inserted below the fourth paragraph: Table 4.14 -7 presents the combined projected water demand for the Cal Water LAS District and proposed Project. The As shown in Table 4.14 -6.1, the WSE determined that the water demand at buildout (2040) for the proposed Project in the Cal Water LAS District would be 2,137 afy. This water demand projection consists of the total consumption from future residential, office space, commercial, hotel, and landscape irrigation uses that could be developed under the proposed Project. The water demand from each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s 2040 buildout area by its GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-11 respective generation rate. No more specific breakdown of the 972,734 square feet for commercial uses is available at this time. Therefore, the following mix of commercial uses was assumed for the proposed Project:  Dry Goods and Services: 680,914 square feet (70 percent)  Restaurants: 145,910 square feet (15 percent)  Groceries and Supermarkets: 97,273 square feet (10 percent)  Sports or Athletic Clubs: 48,637 square feet (5 percent) TABLE 4.14-6.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Units Generation Rate Projected Demand (gpd) Projected Demand (AFY) Residential 3,484 dwelling units 137.2 gpd/ dwelling unit 478,000 536 Office Space 3,785,000 sq ft 300 sq ft/ employee 90 gpd/ employee 1,135,500 1,273 Commercial 972,734 sq ft Dry Goods and Services 680,914 sq ft 0.11 gpd/sq ft 74,900 84 Restaurants 145,910 sq ft 1.10 gpd/sq ft 160,500 180 Groceries and Supermarkets 97,273 sq ft 0.65 gpd/sq ft 63,230 71 Sports or Athletic Clubs 48,637 sq ft 0.85 gpd/sq ft 41,340 46 Hotels 1,339 rooms 390 sq ft/ room 0.50 gpd/sq ft 261,100 293 Landscape Irrigation 1,419,112 sq ft 43,560 sq ft/ acre 3,615 gpd/acre 117,850 132 Total 2,514 15% Reduction Factor -377 Total Water Demand at Buildout 2,137 Note: afy = acre feet per year. gpd = gallons per day Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. Table 4.14 -7 presents the combined projected water demand for the Cal Water LAS District and proposed Project. Using this information, it was determined that Therefore, the 5-year increase for proposed Project water demand is 427 afy.18 The last paragraph on page 4.14-20 of the Draft EIR under the subheading Normal, Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Hydrologic Years is hereby amended as follows: The As shown in Table 4.14-12.1, the WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from the proposed Project, based on the land use in the SJWC and Cupertino Water service areas. As reported in the WSE, total projected water demand at build out of the proposed Project for the SJWC and leased Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be 399 afy without taking into account requirements for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-12 AUGUST 28, 2014 water conservation measures that will be incorporated into new development. This water demand projection consists of the total consumption from future residential, office space, commercial, hotel, and landscape irrigation uses that could be developed under the proposed Project. The water demand from each of these uses was reached by multiplying each use’s 2040 buildout area by its respective generation rate. No specific breakdown of the 972,734 square feet for commercial uses is available at this time. Therefore, the following mix is assumed for the General Plan Amendment:  Dry Goods and Services: 680,914 square feet (70 percent)  Restaurants: 145,910 square feet (15 percent)  Groceries and Supermarkets: 97,273 square feet (10 percent)  Sports or Athletic Clubs: 48,637 square feet (5 percent) If these measures requirements for water conservation measures that will be incorporated into new development are accounted for, the proposed Project water demand in the SJWC service area would be 339 afy. TABLE 4.14-12.1 SJWC PLUS CUPERTINO WATER PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Units Generation Rate Projected Demand (gpd) Projected Demand (AFY) Residential 937 dwelling units 137.2 gpd/ dwelling unit 128,560 144 Office Space 255,231 sq ft 300 sq ft/ employee 90 gpd/ employee 75,570 86 Commercial 370,945 sq ft Dry Goods and Services 259,661 sq ft 0.11 gpd/sq ft 28,560 32 Restaurants 55,642 sq ft 1.10 gpd/sq ft 61,206 68 Groceries and Supermarkets 37,094 sq ft 0.65 gpd/sq ft 24,110 27 Sports or Athletic Clubs 18,547 sq ft 0.85 gpd/sq ft 15,765 18 Landscape Irrigation 262,586 sq ft 43,560 sq ft/ acre 3,615 gpd/acre 21,690 24 Total 399 15% Reduction Factor -60 Total Water Demand at Buildout 339 Note: afy = acre feet per year. gpd = gallons per day Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-13 The following paragraph under the subheading San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Plant beginning at the bottom of page 4.14-37 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The CSD calculated wastewater flow associated with the 2020 General Plan development allocations, together with existing flows at the time the General Plan was approved, to be 7.2 mgd. The As shown in Table 4.14-13.1, the projected additional wastewater generated by buildout of the proposed Project, over and above the current General Plan flows, are calculated to be 1.45 mgd. This projection was calculated by adding the number of gallons of wastewater generated daily from office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses (gallons per day, or gpd). The wastewater generated by each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s area increased by the proposed Project by its respective generation rate (millions of gallons per day, or mgd ). Adding the proposed Project buildout flows (1.45 mgd) to the current General Plan flow (7.2 mgd) results in a total wastewater generation of 8.65 mgd. The total contractual treatment allocation with the SJ/SC WPCP is 7.8 mgd. Thus, the proposed Project would exceed the current contractually available treatment capacity by 0.85 mgd. The following discussion identifies alternatives to increase treatment capacity, analyses to reduce projected treatment requirements, and a tracking mechanism to allow development to occur up to such time as the contractual treatment threshold is reached, at which time a development moratorium would be implemented. TABLE 4.14-13.1 PROPOSED PROJECT BUILDOUT WASTEWATER GENERATION – SJ/SCWPCP Use Area Difference Generation Rate Wastewater Office Commercial Hotel Residential Additional Buildout Sum 3,500,000 square feet 642,266 square feet 1,000 rooms 2,525 units 0.15 gpd per square foot 0.1 gpd per square foot 200 gpd per room 263.2 gpd per unit 525,000 gpd 64,227 gpd 200,000 gpd 664,580 gpd 1.45 MGD Source: BKF Engineers, 2014. The section under the subheading Monitoring on page 4.14-39 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The CSD projects the remaining contractual treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP to be 0.6 mgd (7.8 mgd minus 7.2 mgd) upon buildout of the 2020 General Plan. That projection includes the remaining development allocation, which is also part of the Project. The As shown in Table 4.14-13.2, the remaining development allocation is projected to generate 0.72 mgd. This projection was calculated by adding the number of gallons of wastewater generated daily from office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. The wastewater generated by each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s area increased by the proposed Project by its respective generation rate., and the The remaining contractual treatment capacity for the Project is 1.32 mgd (0.6 mgd plus 0.72 mgd). Based on the conservative wastewater generation rates used by CSD, over half the proposed development allocation under the proposed Project could be built before exceeding the contractual treatment threshold with GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-14 AUGUST 28, 2014 SJ/SCWPCP. A development monitoring system could be implemented to track the projected wastewater generation as projects are approved. Nevertheless, the proposed Project exceeds the current contractually available treatment capacity at SJ/SCWPCP by 0.85 mgd. As a result, unless and until additional contractual capacity is achieved, impacts on the contractual treatment capacity at SJ/SCWPCP would be significant. TABLE 4.14-13.2 WASTEWATER GENERATION – SJ/SCWPCP REMAINING DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION Use Area Difference Generation Rate Wastewater Office Commercial Hotel Residential Remaining Allocation 540,231 square feet 701,413 square feet 339 rooms 1,895 units 0.15 gpd per square foot 0.1 gpd per square foot 200 gpd per room 263.2 gpd per unit 81,035 gpd 70,141 gpd 67,800 gpd 498,764 gpd 0.72 MGD Source: BKF Engineers, 2014. The first paragraph under the subheading City of Sunnyvale on page 4.14-39 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is added to the bottom of the same paragraph: The SWPCP has a capacity of 29.5 mgd and is currently operating at a daily treatment rate of less than 15 mgd. The As shown in Table 4.14-13.3, the projected wastewater generation for the entire Heart of the City Special Area is 1.16 mgd. This projection was calculated by adding the number of gallons of wastewater generated daily from office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. The wastewater generated by each of these uses was calculated by multiplying each use’s area increased by the proposed Project by its respective generation rate. The portion of this Special Area served by the SWPCP is 4 percent of the total area of this Special Area. Assuming a uniform use distribution across the entire Special Area, the wastewater flow to the City of Sunnyvale would be 0.05 mgd. This projected increase amounts to 0.32 percent of the current daily treatment flow of 15 mgd, and 0.16 percent of the SWPCP’s dry weather permitted capacity. Thus, the projected increase in wastewater is within the available capacity, and impacts on the SWPCP would be less than significant. TABLE 4.14-13.3 PROPOSED PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION - SWPCP Use Area Difference Generation Rate Wastewater Office Commercial Hotel Residential Total Generation 2,700,000 square feet 750,000 square feet 639 rooms 2,100 units 0.15 gpd per square foot 0.1 gpd per square foot 200 gpd per room 263.2 gpd per unit 405,000 gpd 75,000 gpd 127,800 gpd 552,720 gpd 1.16 MGD Source: BKF Engineers, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-15 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.1, NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.1-130 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support implementation of the proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic transportation improvements and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study: The second and fifth bullets under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.1-131 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended as follows:  De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield to pedestrians. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience.  Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General Plan development. This will could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which may include In addition to widening the overcrossing and may include, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-16 AUGUST 28, 2014 The first paragraph on page 5.1-132 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate. Traffic Transportation mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic transportation impacts. The paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.1-135 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable. REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.2, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A The paragraph under the subheading Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite Rock) on page 5.2-15 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Under this Alternative, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation. The permitted density would remain at increase from 15 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre, no height increases would occur, and the land uses would generally remain the same; thus, future development permitted under this Alternative would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant. The paragraph under the subheading Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) on page 5.2- 15 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) Under this Alternative, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation to allow for residential uses, and density would be increased to 35 dwelling units per acre, but no height increases would occur and the land uses would remain the same; thus, future development permitted under this Alternative would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-17 The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.2-150 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support implementation of the proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic transportation improvements and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study: The second bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.2-150 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield to pedestrians. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience. The fourth bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.2-150 and 5.1-151 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General Plan development. This will could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which may include In addition to widening the overcrossing and may include, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-18 AUGUST 28, 2014 The first full paragraph on page 5.2-151 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate. Traffic Transportation mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic transportation impacts. The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.2-153 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.2-157 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable. The second paragraph under the subheading Cal Water on page 5.2-161 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is added at the bottom of the same paragraph: For Land Use Alternative A, it is assumed that projected water demand would be added to the LAS District and Apple Campus 2 demands. Also, it is assumed that development would occur at a relatively constant rate over Land Use Alternative A’s 26-year horizon period. The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from Land Use Alternative A, based on the land uses shown in Table 5.2- 13. The As shown in Table 5.2-15.1, the WSE determined the water demand at buildout (2040) for Land Use Alternative A in the Cal Water LAS District would be 807 afy. This projection was calculated using the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the demand estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at buildout (2040) for Alternative A is estimated to be 85 percent of 949 afy, or 37.8 percent of the proposed Project. Therefore, the five-year increase for Land Use Alternative A Project demand is 161 afy.42 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR PLACEWORKS 3-19 TABLE 5.2-15.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Projected Demand – Proposed Project (AFY) Alternative A Reduced Percentage Projected Demand – Alternative A (AFY) Residential 536 36.5 196 Office Space 1,273 25 318 Commercial 381 64.8 247 Hotels 293 44.8 131 Landscape Irrigation 132 43 57 Total 949 15% Reduction Factor -142 Total Water Demand at Buildout 807 Note: afy = acre feet per year. Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. The second paragraph on page 5.2-168 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from Land Use Alternative A, based on the land use in the SJWC (plus Cupertino Water) service area. As reported in the WSE, and as shown in Table 5.2 -21.2, total projected water demand at build out of Land Use Alternative A for the SJWC and leased Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be 165 afy. T his projection was calculated by using the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the demand estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at buildout (2040) for Alternative A is estimated to be 85 percent of 165 afy, or 41.3 percent of the proposed Project. without taking into account requirements for water conservation measures to be incorporated into new development. If these measures are accounted for, Land Use Alternative A water demand in the SJWC service area is 140 afy. TABLE 5.2-15.2 SJWC PLUS CUPERTINO WATER PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Projected Demand – Proposed Project (AFY) Alternative A Reduced Percentage Projected Demand – Alternative A (AFY) Residential 144 66 95 Office Space 86 37 32 Commercial 145 19.2 28 Landscape Irrigation 24 41 10 Total 165 15% Reduction Factor -25 Total Water Demand at Buildout 140 Note: afy = acre feet per year. Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-20 AUGUST 28, 2014 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 5.3, LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B The first paragraph under Section 5.3.4, Housing Development Allocation, on page 5.3-3 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Although the existing development allocations would limit overall development, the residential unit development allocation under this Alternative would accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and allow the city to meet its fair-share housing obligation of 1,064 units. As shown in Table 5.3-1, the residential allocation under this Alternative would allow for the construction of up to 3,361 3,316 units, which represents 1,421 units above the Cupertino’s fair-share housing obligation. The remaining housing development allocation would be allocated throughout the city by reducing the total number of new housing in the Bubb Road Special Area by 94 units and the South De Anza Special Area by 29 units. Under this Alternative, new residential units would be distributed in the Special Areas and Neighborhoods as follows: The last bulleted item on page 5.3-6 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center): Height would increase from 45 feet to 60 feet with a retail component. Density would increase from 25 du/ac to 35 du/ac. Zoning designation would be changed from Planned Development with General Commercial and Professional Office (P(CG, OP )) to Planned Development with General Commercial, and Residential, (P(CG, Res)) to allow for future mixed-use development including residential uses. The last paragraph on page 5.3-9, which continues onto page 5.3-10, of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: As described in detail in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, the Project Component locations, where potential future development is expected to occur, would be concentrated on a limited number of vacant parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. Proposed changes under Land Use Alternative B consist primarily of increased development intensities; however, some Project Component locations propose height increases at restricted areas where increased height would allow for gradual height and bulk transitions and where abrupt changes in building scale would not occur. The proposed increases would generally occur in the North De Anza Special Area, and would be 15 feet (45 feet existing to 60 feet proposed), and in a few limited areas in the Heart of the City would be 15 to 30 feet (up to 60 feet or 75 feet with a retail component and additional height increases on specific parcels, if community benefits are provided), and in the North Vallco Park Special Areas would range from 30 to 50 15 feet if a retail component is provided (up to 75 feet with a retail component) and to 35 feet additional height in certain areas of the North Vallco Gateway if community benefits are provided (up to 95 feet). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-21 The first paragraph under the subheading North Vallco Gateway/Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village)/Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) beginning at the bottom of page 5.3-13 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: There are no proposed changes to the current General Plan land use designation for the Study Area; however, under the Land Use Alternative B, the General Plan land use designation for Housing Element Site 10 would be changed to High Density with greater than 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (Greater than 35 DU/Gr. Ac)) and the Zoning designation for the Study Area would be changed to Planned Development with General Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential uses P(CG, OP, Res) to accommodate office uses. The Zoning designation for Housing Element Site 10 would be amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The proposed density in this Gateway and Study Area would be 25 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Housing Element Site 10, which would be 110 65 dwelling units per acre. Maximum building heights would range from 60 feet or 75 feet with a retail component along Wolfe Road (retail not required on east side of Wolfe Road) or up to 95 feet with retail and community benefits in the North Vallco Gateway, with 95 75 feet permitted on Housing Element Site 10. The third paragraph on page 5.3-14 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: While these amendments represent greater intensity and building heights (1 story to 95 feet at Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) and North Vallco Gateway, and 60 feet to 95 75 feet at Housing Element Site 10), given the surrounding land uses, and the nearby projects under construction, including the Apple Campus 2 site, the City could, as part of its discretionary Architecture and Site Approval permit process, require buildings to be set back from the public rights of way and adjacent residential development. The text regarding Housing Element Site 6 (The Village) on page 5.3-16 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) is not located within a Special Area; however, it will be located in the Garden Gate Planning Area and is situated on the south side of I-280 south of the Homestead Special area and west of the North De Anza Special Area and Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property). Under Land Use Alternative B, there would be a 15-foot no increase (45 feet existing to 60 feet proposed) in building height; however, given this site’s proximity to existing large-scale residential developments and large format office buildings and parking lots along I-280, the potential increase in building height and future development on this Site would not damage or obstruct a view of a scenic resource from the I-208 viewshed. The foreground views would continue to be of the built urban environment and the far-distant views to the Santa Cruz Mountains would remain; thus, impacts would be less than significant. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-22 AUGUST 28, 2014 The text in the second paragraph under Impact AES-3 on page 5.3-17 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Implementation of this Alternative would allow continued development and redevelopment throughout the city. As discussed above under Impact AES-2, future development in the Homestead Special Area, North Vallco Park Special Area, the North De Anza Special Area and Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property) and the South Vallco Park West Gateway and South Vallco Park West Gateway in the Heart of the City Special Area, would not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character of the Site or its surroundings. Potential impacts to visual character from future development on the remaining Project Component locations under Land Use Alternative B are discussed below. Table 5.3-9, located on page 5.3-135 of the Draft EIR, is hereby amended as follows: TABLE 5.3-9 LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B ESTIMATED POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND EMPLOYMENT Land Use Alternative B 2013 2040 Growth Rate Percent Population 9,749 58,302 68,051 17% Households 3,361 3,316 21,399 24,715 15% Jobs 11,705c 27,387 39,092 43% a. Percent are rounded to the nearest whole number. b. Population is calculated by 3,316 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. c. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 2,540,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300 square feet equals 8,467 jobs; 1,343,670 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and 839 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 252 jobs for a total of 11,705 jobs. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino, 2014. The paragraph directly under Table 5.3-9 on page 5.3-135 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: As shown in Table 5.3-9, implementation of Land Use Alternative B would result in a total of 3,361 3,316 new households in the city for a total of 24,715 households for the buildout horizon year 2040. Assuming the new dwelling units permitted under Land Use Alternative B would have the average 2.94 persons per household size as applied in ABAG Projections 2013, population in the city could increase by 9,749 residents for a total of 68,051 residents by 2040. By comparison, ABAG anticipates 3,861 new households and 12,961 new residents in Cupertino, for a total of 24,180 households and 71,700 residents by 2040.36 While Land Use Alternative B would result in 3,649 fewer residents and 535 more units, the rate of growth under the Land Use Alternative B and estimated by ABAG would be less for population growth (i.e. 17 percent compared to 22 percent) and household growth (15 compared to 19 percent). Consequently, the additional housing units resulting from implementation of Land Use Alternative B would not substantially exceed regional projections. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-23 The discussion of existing dwelling units on Housing Element Site 10 in the last paragraph on page 5.3-138 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: In addition to the 820 342 existing dwelling units on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons), Housing Elements Site 5(Glenbrook Apartments) and Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) have 517 and 468 existing dwelling units, respectively. However, Sites 5 and 6 are anticipated to be infill sites, therefore, no demolition of existing residential units would occur at these locations. However, potential future development under Land Use Alternative B at Housing Element Site 10 could result in the temporary loss of 820 342 residential units. If this Site were to be redeveloped, the existing units may need to be demolished in order to redevelop the sites at their proposed maximum capacity. Nevertheless, the resulting redevelopment at this site would provide a net increase of 342 344 units. The first paragraph under Impact Statement POP-3 on page 5.3-139 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: As described under Impact POP-2 above, potential future development potential Housing Elements Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments), Site 6 (The Villages Apartments), and Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons) could involve the demolition and replacement of existing housing units, which could result in the temporary displacement of some residents, but this would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of people and housing necessitating more replacement housing than is already planned. For the remainder of the Housing Element Sites 1 through 4, 7, 10 and 11 through 19, described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, no displacement would occur because the increase in housing would be accomplished by constructing infill units on portions of the Housing Element Sites that are not currently developed with housing. For Housing Element Sites 10, redevelopment of the site at its proposed maximum capacity would require demolishing existing units and would require the occupants to move while the new residential project is under construction; however, there would be a net increase in the number of housing units in Cupertino (3,3613,316 units compared to 1,895 units). Additionally, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons per household, the proposed net increase of 342 344 housing units from redevelopment on Housing Element Site 10 would accommodate approximately 1,006 1,012 new residents in the city. The first paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.3-155 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support implementation of the proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic transportation improvements and facilities required to mitigate the traffic transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following examples of traffic transportation GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-24 AUGUST 28, 2014 improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, could be included in the development impact fees nexus study: The fourth bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.3-155 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield to pedestrians. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide space for bikes wait at red lights may enhance the bicycle experience. The third bullet under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on page 5.3-156 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:  Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): An additional northbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General Plan development. This will could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which may include In addition to widening the overcrossing and may include, the City may wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the right lane, which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency. The last paragraph under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on pages 5.3-156 and 5.3-157 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate. Traffic Transportation mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic transportation impacts. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-25 The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.3-161 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The first paragraph under the subheading Mitigation Measures on page 5.3-163 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards, the impacts to these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable. The second paragraph under the subheading Cal Water on page 5.3-167 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows, and the following table is added at the bottom of the same paragraph: For this Alternative, it is assumed that projected water demand would be added to the LAS District and Apple Campus 2 demands. Also, it is assumed that development would occur at a relatively constant rate over the 26-year horizon period. The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from this Alternative, based on the land uses shown in Table 5.3-1. The As shown in Table 5.3-15.1, the WSE determined the water demand at buildout (2040) for this Alternative in the Cal Water LAS District would be 1560 afy. This projection was calculated by using the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the demand estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at buildout (2040) for Alternative A is estimated to be 85 percent of 949 afy, or 37.8 percent of the proposed Project. Therefore, the five-year increase for Land Use Alternative B demand is 312 afy.46 Table 5.3 -16 presents the combined projected water demand for the Cal Water LAS District, Apple Campus 2 development and Land Use Alternative B. TABLE 5.3-15.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Projected Demand – Proposed Project (AFY) Alternative B Reduced Percentage Projected Demand – Alternative B (AFY) Residential 536 71.2 382 Office Space 1,273 62.2 792 Commercial 381 100 (no reduction) 381 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-26 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5.3-15.1 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Projected Demand – Proposed Project (AFY) Alternative B Reduced Percentage Projected Demand – Alternative B (AFY) Hotels 293 62.6 183 Landscape Irrigation 132 74 98 Total 1,836 15% Reduction Factor -276 Total Water Demand at Buildout 1560 Note: afy = acre feet per year. Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. The third paragraph on page 5.3-173 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended, and the following table is inserted below the same paragraph: The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from Land Use Alternative B, based on the land use in the SJWC (plus Cupertino Water) service area. As reported in the WSE, and as shown in Table 5.3 -21.1, total projected water demand at build out of Land Use Alternative B for the SJWC and leased Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be 357 afy. T his projection was calculated by using the reduced percentage of development for each land use classification and applying it to the demand estimated for the proposed Project. Applying a 15 percent reduction factor due to water conservation measures to be incorporated into new development, the total LAS GP amendment water demand at buildout (2040) for Alternative B is estimated to be 85 percent of 357 afy, or 89.5 percent of the proposed Project. without taking into account requirements for water conservation measures to be incorporated into new development. If these measures are accounted for, Land Use Alternative B water demand in the SJWC service area is 303 afy. TABLE 5.3-21.1 SJWC PLUS CUPERTINO WATER PROJECTED DEMAND – 2040 BUILDOUT Projected Demand – Proposed Project (AFY) Alternative B Reduced Percentage Projected Demand – Alternative B (AFY) Residential 144 89.3 129 Office Space 86 72 62 Commercial 145 100 (no reduction) 145 Landscape Irrigation 24 87 21 Total 357 15% Reduction Factor -54 Total Water Demand at Buildout 303 Note: afy = acre feet per year. Source: Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-27 REVISIONS TO APPENDIX F, PUBLIC SERVICES DATA The second and third paragraphs under subheading 6.2 Enrollment Projections on page 58 of the school background study has hereby been amended as follows: Alternatives B and C assume redevelopment of the 342-unit Hamptons complex to a significantly higher density, but without any other units being developed in the area. For Alternatives B the current number of units would be increased to 662686 units, an increase of 350344 units. The total would be increased to 1,167 1,162 units in Alternative C, an increase of 825 820 units. The SGRs for these units would be expected to be far lower than those current in the low-rise buildings. Given the expected small size of the new units and the height of the buildings that would be necessary, the SGR would probably be at the low end of future apartments in SCUSD. For Alternative B, SGRs of 0.04, 0.02 and 0.02 for elementary, middle and high school respectively would generate 2528, 1314 and1314 students for the three grade levels. These SGRs are significantly higher than the demographer has found for recent apartment complexes in SCUSD. The total of about 50 students is less than the existing enrollment from the Hamptons. REVISIONS TO APPENDIX G, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC DATA The trip generation calculations were prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Project. The trip generation is based on the 54 transportation analysis zones (TAZ) in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) model that represent Cupertino. This information has been added to the Transportation and Traffic data as follows: 0.310.220.310.29 TAZ #GP Planning Area Allocation Assumption Jobs In Out In Out 86 N. Wolfe Corridor - west side 30090 94659288 97 Heart of the City Corridor - South Vallco west 489147 153106150144 98 Homestead Corridor - west of D. Anza 30090 94659288 119 N. De Anza Corridor - west side 10030 31223129 119 Heart of the City Corridor - b/w De Anza and Stelling 15045 47334644 1,339402419291410394 Assumption - 0.3 jobs per room Proposed Project AM PM Total HOTEL ALLOCATION - TRIP GENERATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-28 AUGUST 28, 2014 1.370.190.251.24 TAZ #GP Planning Area Allocation Assumption Jobs In Out In Out 86 N. Wolfe Corridor - west side 30,000100 41 68 37 86 Homestead Corridor - b/w Blaney and Linnet 25,00084 34 56 31 87 Existing Major Employer pot - N. Vallco - East side (AC2)200,000667 2753751247 89HOC - s. side b/w Miller and Judy 150,000500 2062838186 93N. De Anza - East side 200,000667 2753751247 93Exiting Major Employer pot - N. De Anza - east side 200,000667 2753751247 93New Major Employer - N. De Anza - east side 50,000167 69 9 1362 95N. Vallco - East side (E. of Tantau)60,000200 82111574 97HOC - n. side b/w Perimeter and N. Wolfe 2,000,0006,667 2,7463745072,473 98 Homestead Corridor - west of Stelling 15,00050 21 34 19 98 Homestead Corridor - east of Stelling 10,00034 14 23 12 110HOC - s. side b/w De Anza and Blaney 285,000950 3915372352 112HOC - s. side b/w Portal and Miller 150,000500 2062838186 113S. De Anza - b/w McClellan & SCB 25,00084 34 56 31 115 Bubb Rd 100,000334 1371925124 115 New Major Employer - Bubb Rd 50,000167 69 9 1362 116Monta Vista - n. side b/w RR tracks and Adriana 7,73126 11 12 10 117Monta Vista - s side b/w RR tracks and Orange 7,50025 10 129 119N. De Anza - West side 225,000750 3094257278 119Existing Major Employer pot - N. De Anza - West side 100,000334 1371925124 119HOC - n. side b/w De Anza and Stelling 115,000384 1582229142 126S. De Anza - South of 85 25,00084 34 56 31 127Other comml. Mixed use center - 7-11 at Bubb/McClellan 10,00034 14 23 12 4,040,23113,2575,4577441,0074,916 Assumption - Jobs will be created at 300 s.f. per employee OFFICE ALLOCATION - TRIP GENERATION Total Proposed Project AM PM 0.600.361.781.93 TAZ #GP Planning Area Allocation Assumption Jobs In Out In Out 86 N. Wolfe Corridor - West side 100,000223 6036178193 86 Homestead Corridor - b/w Blaney & Linnet 450,0001000 268164801868 89 Heart of the City Corridor - s. side b/w Miller & Judy 200,000445 11973356386 91 HOC - n. side b/w De Anza & Blaney 75,018167 4527134145 94 HOC - n. side b/w Blaney & Wolfe 100,000223 6036178193 94 HOC - Vallco west -445,171-990 -265-162-793-859 97HOC - Vallco east -197,095-438 -117 -72 -351-380 98 Homestead Corridor - east of Stelling 50,000112 30188996 99 Homestead Corridor - west of Stelling 40,00089 24157177 110 S. De Anza Corridor - e. side, b/w Rodrigues & Pacifica 10,00023 64 1819 111 S. De Anza Corridor - e. side, b/w Silverado & Bollinger 45,000100 27168087 111 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - Tintin Mkt 125,000278 7446223241 112 HOC - s. side b/w Blaney & Wolfe 250,000556 14991445482 113S. De Anza Corridor - w. side, n. of McClellan 75,000167 4527134145 113HOC - s. side b/w Stelling & De Anza 100,000223 6036178193 115Monta Vista Special Center - east of RR tracks 8,01618 53 1415 116Monta Vista Special Center - n. side, west of RR tracks 5,42913 32 1010 117Monta Vista Special Center - s. side, west of RR tracks 7,50017 43 1314 119N. De Anza - west side 25,00056 15 9 4548 119 HOC - n. side b/w Stelling & De Anza 224,982500 13482401434 126South De Anza Corridor - west side, south of 85 75,000167 4527134145 135 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - Foothill Mkt 5,00012 329 10 135 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - Bateh Bros.5,00012 329 10 206 Other Comml Mixed-Use Special Center - HS X-ing 10,00023 64 1819 1,343,6792,9968004902,3932,592 Assumption - Jobs will be created at 450 s.f. per employee COMMERCIAL ALLOCATION - TRIP GENERATION Proposed Project AM PM Total GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR P LACEWORKS 3-29 Household Growth by TAZ – TRIP GENERATION TAZ #Household Growth (units) Includes:In Out In Out 86 0 N/A 87 0 N/A 88 825 Hamptons (N. Wolfe)84337332179 89 183 27 for Loree HE site (HOC) + 105 for Opposite Main Street (HOC) + 11 for Barry Swenson (HOC) + 40 TAZ 89 (Other Neighborhoods) 19757440 90 0 N/A 91 82 36 for Shaan/China Dance/Q-Mart (HOC) + 1 Forest sub (Other Neighborhoods) + 45 for St. Joseph’s Center (HOC) 15465230 92 0 N/A 93 40 TAZ 93 (Other Neighborhoods)8 232515 94 974 104 for Portal Plaza (HOC) + 800 for Vallco (HOC) + 40 TAZ 94 (Other Neighborhoods) + 30 TAZ 94 (HOC) 99397393211 97 -40 Main Street (Heart of the City) – was 160 in 2009 then reduced to 120 in late 2012 -8-23-25-15 98 309 151 for Homestead Lanes (Homestead), 158 for remaining Homestead TAZ 98 3212612567 99 165 161 for Homestead W11 site (Homestead) + 4 for 7-11 Homestead (Other Commercial)17676636 100 0 N/A 101 235 Oaks HE site (HOC)24969551 102 17 Lots with subdivision potential and potential redevelopment (Monta Vista)3 1011 6 103 0 N/A 105 6 Seven Springs lot (Other Neighborhoods)1342 106 0 N/A 107 0 N/A 108 0 N/A 109 0 N/A 110 87 80 for Biltmore + 7 for Biltmore Clubhouse (Heart of the City Corridor)16495532 111 101 60 from S. De Anza + 41 for Pacific Rim Center (Other Com’l Mixed Use)19576437 112 161 18 for Arya (HOC) + 40 for Scandinavian Design (HOC) + 58 for United Furniture (HOC) + 45 for E. of E. Estates (HOC) 309110160 113 0 N/A 114 0 N/A 115 0 N/A 116 0 N/A 117 84 80 from Monta Vista + 1 for Lomita Sub (Monta Vista) + 3 for random sub potential (Monta Vista) 16475331 118 93 Glenbrook HE site (HOC)17525934 119 678 232 for Marina Foods (HOC) + 62 for Villages HE site (Other Neighborhoods) + 170 for Carl Berg HE Site (N. De Anza) + 214 for Stevens Creek Office Ctr (HOC) 69277273147 120 62 2 for 20840 McClellan (Other Neighborhoods) + 60 from S. De Anza 12353923 121 0 N/A 122 0 N/A 123 0 N/A 124 0 N/A 125 0 N/A 126 155 Summer Winds/Jack in the Box (S. De Anza)16636234 127 8 2 for Bubb Sub (Other Neighborhoods) + 6 for 7-11 McClellan (Other Commercial)2553 128 0 N/A 129 10 4 for vacant lots + 6 for Evulich (Other Neighborhoods)2664 130 18 Parkside Trails (Other Neighborhoods)3 1011 7 131 3 1 for 21740 Rainbow (Other Neighborhoods) + 2 vacant lots (Other Neighborhoods)1221 132 70 15 for Foothill Apt project (Other Neighborhoods) + 10 for NE Foothill & SCB (Other Commercial) + 45 for other TAZ 132 (Other Neighborhoods) 13394426 133 6 Foothill Live/Work (Other Commercial Mixed-Use) 1342 134 9 2 units on vacant lots on San Leandro under construction (Other Neighborhoods) + 7 SE Foothill & SCB (Other Commercial) 2563 135 63 3 for Cordova Homes (Other Neighborhoods) + 14 for vacant lots (Other Neighborhoods) + 27 for Foothill & McClellan (Other Com’l Mixed Use) + 19 for Bateh Bros (Other Com’l Mixed Use) 12354023 136 0 N/A 204 0 N/A 1334 0 N/A 1434 60 Redevelopment (Homestead)11343822 Total 5361,9672,0121,113 AM PM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-30 AUGUST 28, 2014 The following diagrams of project trips and intersection turning movements for the Project Trips, 2040 No Project Baseline Volumes, and 2040 + Proposed Project have been added to the Transportation and Traffic data as follows: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-40 AUGUST 28, 2014 REVISIONS TO APPENDIX I, PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICY AMENDMENTS The third paragraph under Policy 2-44 in the first column, 2005 General Plan/Concept Alternative A, on page 62 of Appendix I is hereby amended as follows: Two -thirds of the commercial/office square footage that is converted to residential uses shall be allocated to major employers (companies with Cupertino sales offices or and corporate headquarters) as identifiable in Table 2-A: Development Allocation. The remainder of the square footage shall be allocated to the commercial or office pool in the subject area. The Concept Alternative and Housing Element Sites Maps for General Plan Land Use Alternatives A, B and C have been added to Appendix I as follows: City Hall De Anza College Apple Campus 2280 85 280 280 85 85 85CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE SARATOGA WEST VALLEY SANTA CLARA ·········· Development Allocation Commercial..........70,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................10,000 s.f. Hotel.....................125 rooms Residential............200 units Homestead Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 10 (between Blaney and Blue Jay), 20 (between Blue Jay and De Anza, and north side of Homestead between De Anza and Franco), 35 (south side of Homestead between De Anza and Stelling) and 15 (between Stelling and Sunnyvale) units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Development Allocation Commercial..........50,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................30,000 s.f. Hotel.....................100 rooms Residential............100 units North Vallco Park Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........500,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................315,000 s.f. Hotel.....................375 rooms Residential............1,000 units Heart of the City Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........10,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................25,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential............170 units North De Anza Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........50,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................10,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential...........150 units South De Anza Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet Citywide Development Summary Existing Alternative A Difference 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1416 units 1620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Citywide Development Allocation 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,416 units 1,620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Major Corridors Built/Approved Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Other Special Areas* Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Total Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential +372,887 s.f. - 15,629 s.f. +261 rooms +204 units +127,113 s.f. +15,629 s.f. 0 - 204 units +500,000 s.f. 0 +261 rooms 0 * Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as deﬁned in the 2005 General Plan. Remaining in Existing GP Alternative A Difference 8,929,774 s.f. 3,729,569 s.f. 1,090 rooms 21,399 units STEVENS CREEK BLVD WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D DE A N Z A B L V D HOMESTEAD RD Stelling Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre (east side of Stelling), 15 units per acre (west side of Stelling) Maximum Height 30 (west side of Stelling) or 45 (east side of Stelling) feet Oaks Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet North Crossroads Node Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet City Center Node Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet South Vallco Park Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component South Vallco Park Gateway East Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Ofﬁce Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet North De Anza Gateway Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet 08001600 2400 Feet N Legend City Boundary Key Intersections Alternative Arevised 6.9.14 City Hall De Anza College Apple Campus 2280 85 280 280 85 85 85CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE SARATOGA WEST VALLEY SANTA CLARA ·· Development Allocation Commercial..........250,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................25,000 s.f. Hotel.....................150 rooms Residential............400 units Homestead Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density Up to 35 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Development Allocation Commercial..........100,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................75,000 s.f. Hotel.....................150 rooms Residential............350 units North Vallco Park Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce, Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 or 65 (Hamptons site) units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........750,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................1,500,000 s.f. Hotel.....................439 rooms Residential............1,700 units Heart of the City Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (Vallco, Stevens Creek Ofﬁce Center, Marina Foods, and the Oaks) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........25,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................200,000 s.f. Hotel.....................100 rooms Residential............170 units North De Anza Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........125,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................25,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential............201 units South De Anza Special Area ·· Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet ** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects. ·········· Citywide Development Summary Existing Alternative A Difference 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1416 units 1620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Citywide Development Allocation Major Corridors Built/Approved Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Other Special Areas* Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Total Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Difference 8,929,775 s.f. 3,729,569 s.f. 1,090 rooms 21,399 units + 1,807,887 s.f. + 554,371 s.f. ** + 500 rooms + 1,405 units + 192,113 s.f. + 87,895 s.f. ** 0 + 16 units + 2,000,000 s.f. + 642,266 s.f. ** + 500 rooms + 1,421 units 17,113 s.f. 1,825,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f. 339 rooms 839 rooms 1,416 units 2,821 units 523,118 s.f. 715,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f. 0 0 479 units 495 units 540,231 s.f. 2,540,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f. 339 rooms 839 rooms 1,895 units 3,316 units * Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as deﬁned in the 2005 General Plan. Note: Housing Element sites may have different densities as noted. STEVENS CREEK BLVD WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D DE A N Z A B L V D HOMESTEAD RD Oaks Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component North Crossroads Node Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component City Center Node Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, 75 feet with a retail component. = 90 feet with retail and project-wide/ community South Vallco Park Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component. 75 feet along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with retail and project-wide/community beneﬁts South Vallco Park Gateway East Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. = 110 feet with retail and project-wide/ community beneﬁts North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre (65 units per acre for Hamptons Site) Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component along Wolfe Rd (retail not required on east side of Wolfe Rd). = 95 feet with retail and project-wide/ community beneﬁts North De Anza Gateway Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component. 95 feet with retail and project-wide/ community beneﬁts Stelling Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 with a retail component * ** * * * * * * * * 08001600 2400 Feet N Legend City Boundary BRT Stop (for environmental analysis) BRT Line (for environmental analysis) Key Intersections * Additional height allowances w/ retail and project-wide/community beneﬁts Alternative Brevised 6.9.14 City Hall De Anza College Apple Campus 2280 85 280 280 85 85 85CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE SARATOGA WEST VALLEY SANTA CLARA 100,000 s.f. 200 rooms 200 units Development Allocation Commercial..........250,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................50,000 s.f. Hotel.....................300 rooms Residential............530 units Homestead Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density Up to 35 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Development Allocation Commercial..........100,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................90,000 s.f. Hotel.....................300 rooms Residential............825 units North Vallco park Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........750,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................2,700,000 s.f. Hotel.....................639 rooms Residential............2,100 units Heart of the City Special Area Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........25,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................400,000 s.f. Hotel.....................100 rooms Residential............170 units North De Anza Special Area Primary Uses Ofﬁce Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet Development Allocation Commercial..........125,000 s.f. Ofﬁce....................50,000 s.f. Hotel.....................none Residential............275 units South De Anza Special Area Primary Uses Ofﬁce Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet ·········· Citywide Development Summary Existing Alternative A Difference 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1416 units 1620 units 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. 0 0 479 units 275 units 540,231 s.f. 1,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 339 rooms 600 rooms 1,895 units 1,895 units Citywide Development Allocation Major Corridors Built/Approved Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Other Special Areas* Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Total Ofﬁce Commercial Hotel Residential Remaining in Existing GP Alternative C Difference 8,929,775 s.f. 3,729,569 s.f. 1,090 rooms 21,399 units + 3,272,887 s.f. + 554,371 s.f. + 1,000 rooms + 2,484 units + 227,113 s.f. + 87,895 s.f. 0 + 42 units + 3,000,000 s.f. + 642,266 s.f. + 1,000 rooms + 2,526 units 17,113 s.f. 3,290,000 s.f. 695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f. 339 rooms 1,339 rooms 1,416 units 3,900 units 523,118 s.f. 750,231 s.f. 5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f. 0 0 479 units 521 units 540,231 s.f. 4,040,231 s.f. 701,413 s.f. 1,343,679 s.f. 339 rooms 1,339 rooms 1,895 units 4,421 units * Includes Bubb Road, Fairgrove, Monta Vista, Oak Valley, other neighborhoods, major employers and other commercial/mixed-use centers, as deﬁned in the 2005 General Plan. ** Net new commercial is not proposed - it is assumed that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601 s.f.) will be demolished and that 625,335 s.f. would be reserved for future projects. Note: Housing Element sites may have different dnsities as noted. STEVENS CREEK BLVD WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D DE A N Z A B L V D HOMESTEAD RD North Crossroads Node Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 40 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 with a retail component City Center Node Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet, or 90 feet with a retail component, = 110 feet with retail and project-wide/ community beneﬁts South Vallco Park Gateway East Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet or 90 feet with retail, = 160 feet with retail and project-wide/ community beneﬁts North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre (110 units per acre for Hamptons Site) Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component (retail not required east of Wolfe Rd), or 85 feet with no retail for the Hamptons = 130 feet along Wolfe Rd with retail and project-wide/community beneﬁts North De Anza Gateway Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component, 145 feet with retail and project-wide/ community beneﬁts South Vallco Park Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 with a retail component, or 85 feet along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with retail and project-wide/community beneﬁts Stelling Gateway Primary Uses Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component Oaks Gateway Primary Uses Commercial, Ofﬁce and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet, or 75 feet with a retail component * ** * * * * * * * 08001600 2400 Feet N Legend City Boundary BRT Stop (for environmental analysis) BRT Line (for environmental analysis) Key Intersections * Additional height allowances w/ retail and project-wide beneﬁts Alternative Crevised 6.9.14 Alternative A Potential Housing Sites BU B B R D BL A N E Y A V E HOMESTEAD RD ST E L L I N G R D MI L L E R A V E PROSPECT RD RAINBOW DR LA W R E N C E E X P W Y TA N T A U A V E WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D STEVENS CREEK BLVD PRUNE BOLLINGER RD FO O T H I L L B L V D MCCLELLAN RD RIDGE AVE §¨¦280§¨¦280 ·|}85 ·|}85 LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SARATOGA STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR LI N D A V I S T A R D SALEM AVE B U B B R D VALLEY GREEN MA R Y A V E BE A R D O N D R ALVES DR BA N D L E Y D R PO R T A L A V E FI N C H A V E VALLCOPK W Y JU D Y A V E * 20 du/ac: 93 units 20 du/ac: 62 units 25 du/ac: 169 units 25 du/ac: 167 units 25 du/ac: 145 units 25 du/ac: 36 units 25 du/ac: 58 units 25 du/ac: 27 units 25 du/ac: 105 units 25 du/ac: 11 units25 du/ac: 103 units 25 du/ac: 96 units Alternative A Potential Housing Sites o 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014 Revised: 03/31/14 City Boundary WaterFeature Site Note: Previously erroneously identified as the Yamagami’s site * Potential to Meet HCD Criteria Moderate High Freeways Major Roads VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) 20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximum capacity allowed under Alternative A. Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic Capacity BU B B R D B L A N E Y A V E HOMESTEAD RD S T E L L I N G R D MI L L E R A V E PROSPECT RD RAINBOW DR LA W R E N C E E X P W Y TA N T A U A V E WOLFE RD DE A N Z A B L V D STEVENS CREEK BLVD PRUNE BOLLINGER RD F O O T H I L L B L V D MCCLELLAN RD RIDGE AVE §¨¦280§¨¦280 ·|}85 ·|}85 LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SARATOGA STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR LI N D A V I S T A R D SALEM AVE B U B B R D VALLEY GREEN MA R Y A V E BE A R D O N D R ALVES DR BA N D L E Y D R PO R T A L A V E FI N C H A V E VALLCOPK W Y JU D Y A V E * 20 du/ac: 93 units 20 du/ac: 62 units 25 du/ac: 169 units 25 du/ac: 167 units 25 du/ac: 145 units 25 du/ac: 36 units 25 du/ac: 58 units 25 du/ac: 27 units 25 du/ac: 105 units 25 du/ac: 11 units25 du/ac: 103 units 25 du/ac: 96 units Alternative A Potential Housing Sites o 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014 Revised: 03/31/14 City Boundary WaterFeature Site Note: Previously erroneously identified as the Yamagami’s site * Potential to Meet HCD Criteria Moderate High Freeways Major Roads VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) 20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximum capacity allowed under Alternative A. Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic Capacity Alternative B Potential Housing Sites BU B B R D B L A N E Y A V E HOMESTEAD RD ST E L L I N G R D MI L L E R A V E PROSPECT RD RAINBOW DR LA W R E N C E E X P W Y TA N T A U A V E WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D STEVENS CREEK BLVD PRUNE BOLLINGER RD FO O T H I L L B L V D MCCLELLAN RD RIDGE AVE §¨¦280§¨¦280 ·|}85 ·|}85 LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SARATOGA STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR LI N D A V I S T A R D SALEM AVE B U B B R D VALLEY GREEN MA R Y A V E BE A R D O N D R ALVES DR BA N D L E Y D R PO R T A L A V E FI N C H A V E VALLCOPK W Y JU D Y A V E *25 du/ac: 96 units 35 du/ac: 161 units 35 du/ac: 151 units 20 du/ac: 93 units 20 du/ac: 62 units 25 du/ac: 169 units 35 du/ac: 187 units 35 du/ac: 235 units 35 du/ac: 204 units 25 du/ac: 36 units 25 du/ac: 58 units 35 du/ac: 600 units 65 du/ac: 344 units 25 du/ac: 27 units 25 du/ac: 105 units 25 du/ac: 11 units25 du/ac: 103 units Alternative B Potential Housing Sites o 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014 Revised: 03/31/14 City Boundary WaterFeature Site Note: Previously erroneously identified as the Yamagami’s site * Potential to Meet HCD Criteria Moderate High Freeways Major Roads VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) 20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximum capacity allowed under Alternative B. Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic Capacity BU B B R D BL A N E Y A V E HOMESTEAD RD S T E L L I N G R D MI L L E R A V E PROSPECT RD RAINBOW DR LA W R E N C E E X P W Y TA N T A U A V E WOLFE RD DE A N Z A B L V D STEVENS CREEK BLVD PRUNE BOLLINGER R D F O O T H I L L B L V D MCCLELLAN RD RIDGE AVE§¨¦280§¨¦280 ·|}85 ·|}85 LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SARATOGA STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR LI N D A V I S T A R D SALEM AVE B U B B R D VALLEY GREEN MA R Y A V E BE A R D O N D R ALVES DR BA N D L E Y D R PO R T A L A V E FI N C H A V E VALLCOPK W Y JU D Y A V E *25 du/ac: 96 units 35 du/ac: 161 units 35 du/ac: 151 units 20 du/ac: 93 units 20 du/ac: 62 units 25 du/ac: 169 units 35 du/ac: 187 units 35 du/ac: 235 units 35 du/ac: 204 units 25 du/ac: 36 units 25 du/ac: 58 units 35 du/ac:600 units 65 du/ac: 344 units 25 du/ac: 27 units 25 du/ac: 105 units 25 du/ac: 11 units25 du/ac: 103 units Alternative B Potential Housing Sites o 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014 Revised: 03/31/14 City Boundary WaterFeature Site Note: Previously erroneously identified as the Yamagami’s site * Potential to Meet HCD Criteria Moderate High Freeways Major Roads VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) 20 du/ac::62 units Note: See attached list for site details. Realistic capacity is 85% of maximum capacity allowed under Alternative B. Allowable Density (dwelling units per acre): Realistic Capacity BU B B R D BL A N E Y A V E HOMESTEAD RD ST E L L I N G R D MI L L E R A V E PROSPECT RD RAINBOW DR LA W R E N C E E X P W Y TA N T A U A V E WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D STEVENS CREEK BLVD PRUNE BOLLINGER RD FO O T H I L L B L V D MCCLELLAN RD RIDGE AVE 280280 85 LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SARATOGA STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR LI N D A V I S T A R D SALEM AVE B U B B R D VALLEY GREEN MA R Y A V E BE A R D O N D R ALVES DR BA N D L E Y D R PO R T A L A V E FI N C H A V E LC PK W Y JU D Y A V E Site 9 27 units Site 8 19 units Site 16 154 units Site 12 151 units Site 5 93 units Site 6 62 units Site 7 169 units Site 15 214 units Site 18 235 units Site 14 232 units Site 1 36 units Site 2 58 units Sites 11 800 units Site 10 820 units Site 13 27 units Site 19 105 units Site 4 11 unitsSite 3 103 units HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA NORTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA HOMESTEADSPECIAL AREA NORTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA Site 17 161 units85 280 VALO Residential Sites Inventory 0 2,0004,0001,000 FeetPrepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014 Revised: 06/23/14 City Boundary Water Feature Note: Realistic capacity is 85% of maximum capacity allowed under Alternative C. Housing Element Sites Site Number: Realistic CapacitySite 2 58 units Special Areas Heart of the City Special Area North De Anza Special Area North Vallco Park Special Area Homestead Special Area South De Anza Special AreaFreeways Major Roads VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) BU B B R D BL A N E Y A V E HOMESTEAD RD ST E L L I N G R D MI L L E R A V E PROSPECT RD RAINBOW DR LA W R E N C E E X P W Y TA N T A U A V E WO L F E R D DE A N Z A B L V D STEVENS CREEK BLVD PRUNE BOLLINGER RD FO O T H I L L B L V D MCCLELLAN RD RIDGE AVE 280280 85 LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SARATOGA STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR LI N D A V I S T A R D SALEM AVE B U B B R D VALLEY GREEN MA R Y A V E BE A R D O N D R ALVES DR BA N D L E Y D R PO R T A L A V E FI N C H A V E LC PK W Y JU D Y A V E Site 9 27 units Site 8 19 units Site 16 154 units Site 12 151 units Site 5 93 units Site 6 62 units Site 7 169 units Site 15 214 units Site 18 235 units Site 14 232 units Site 1 36 units Site 2 58 units Sites 11 800 units Site 10 820 units Site 13 27 units Site 19 105 units Site 4 11 unitsSite 3 103 units HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA NORTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA HOMESTEADSPECIAL AREA NORTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZASPECIAL AREA Site 17 161 units85 280 VALO Residential Sites Inventory 0 2,0004,0001,000 FeetPrepared by: MIG, Inc. 2013; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, 2014 Revised: 06/23/14 City Boundary Water Feature Note: Realistic capacity is 85% of maximum capacity allowed under Alternative C. Housing Element Sites Site Number: Realistic CapacitySite 2 58 units Special Areas Heart of the City Special Area North De Anza Special Area North Vallco Park Special Area Homestead Special Area South De Anza Special AreaFreeways Major Roads VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) Alternative C Potential Housing Sites PLACEWORKS 4-1 4. List of Commenters Comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies and private individuals and organizations. Each comment letter has been assigned a number, as indicated below. AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS A01 Lani Lee, County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health, June 18, 2014 A02 Holly Roberson, Community Engagement and Land Use Specialist, State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, June 25, 2014 A03 Erik Alm, District Branch Chief, Local Development – Intergovernmental Review, State of California, Department of Transportation, August 1, 2014 A04 William A. Bosworth, President, County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department, August 1, 2014 A05 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, August 1, 2014 A06 Cupertino Sanitary District, July 16, 2014 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS B01 Ruby Elbogen, June 18, 2014 B02 Catherine Alexander, June 24, 2014 B03 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, June 25, 2014 B04 Gary Jones, July 4, 2014 B05 Gary Jones, July 4, 2014 B06 Myron Crawford, Berg & Berg Developers, Inc., July 8, 2014 B07 Phyllis Dickstein, July 10, 2014 B08 Jennifer Griffin, July 10, 2014 B09 Marisa Yap, July 10, 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO LIST OF COMMENTERS 4-2 AUGUST 28, 2014 B10 Patricia McAfee, July 10, 2014 B11 Ruby Elbogen, July 17, 2014 B12 Josh Tsai, July 28, 2014 B13 Youichi Y., July 31, 2014 B14 Christine Cheng, August 1, 2014 B15 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, August 1, 2014 B16 Dan Whisenhunt, Senior Director, Real Estate & Development, Apple, August 1, 2014 B17 Jonathan Sanchez, June 17, 2014 B18 Youichi, July 31, 2014 B19 Anonymous, August 1, 2014 PLACEWORKS 5-1 5. Comments and Responses This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, each significant environmental issue raised during the public review period. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix A, Comment Letters, along with annotations that identify each comment number. Responses to those individual comments are provided in Table 5 -1 alongside the text of each corresponding comment. Letters follow the same order as listed in Chapter 4, List of Commenters, of this Response to Comments Document and are categorized by:  Agencies and Service Providers  Private Individuals and Organizations Letters are identified by category and each comment is labeled with the comment reference number in the margin. During the review period for the Draft EIR, members of the public submitted several comments that related to the details of the proposed Project itself, convey the commenter’s opinion of the proposed Project, or address the relative consequences or benefits of the proposed Project (referred to here as “merits of the proposed Project”), rather than the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR. It is important for a Lead Agency in its decision-making process to consider both the adequacy of the EIR and the merits of the proposed Project. However, a Lead Agency is only required by CEQA to respond in its Final EIR to comments related to significant environmental issues raised in the comments. See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088(c) and 15204(a). Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for parties reviewing and providing comment on a Draft EIR, as follows: In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Section 15204(a) states in relation to the role of the Lead Agency in responding to comments: When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. Although comments related to merits of the proposed Project do not require responses in the Response to Comments Document, they do provide important input to the decision-making process. Therefore, comments addressing the merits of the proposed Project are included in the Response to Comments Document in order to make them readily available to the decision-makers when considering whether to approve the proposed Project. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-2 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS A01 County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health A01-01 As a comment under HAZ-4, the ESMP can also be prepared under the oversight of either the County of Santa Clara Voluntary Cleanup Program, the RWQCB, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, referred to in Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, on page 4.7-23 and -24, states that the Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) can be prepared in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). A02 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research A02-01 Purpose: The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is writing to notify you of recent updates to the military point of contact notification list, and remind you of local government planning and project notification requirements with respect to military land use compatibility. Please see Attachment One for the updated point of contact list. In addition, this memorandum is a reminder from OPR to Counties to notify all of the branches of the United States Military (Military), as required by law, when proposed general plan actions and amendments, or development projects, may have an impact on military facilities and operations. As discussed in Chapters 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.9, Land Use and Planning, 4.10, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, Cupertino is not located within any protected airspace zones defined by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. There are no military installations within the City of Cupertino; however, Moffett Federal Airfield, a former naval air station that is now a joint civil-military airport owned and operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center is located approximately 4.4 miles to the north of Cupertino. In addition, there is a U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Center in Sunnyvale approximately one mile north of Cupertino City Boundaries at Homestead High School, on the corner of Mary Avenue and Fremont Avenue. There is also a building owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense in Sunnyvale approximately two and one-quarter miles north of Cupertino City Boundaries at Homestead road, on the intersection of Mathilda Avenue and State Route 82. Finally, there is a U.S. Army Recruiting Center in San Jose approximately one and one- half mile east of Cupertino City boundaries on Stevens Creek Boulevard. None of these facilities are listed on the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA), and therefore do not require Military notification. As discussed in the Draft EIR in the chapters listed above, there would be no impacts related to airports, including the Moffett Federal Airfield, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-3 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response due to their proximity to the City. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not impact on any military facilities or operations, including training facilities. A02-02 Planning Notification Requirements: SB 1468 (Knight, 2002) made changes to the General Plan law, at Gov. Code Section 65302, which require local governments to consider impacts to military operations in the general plan. When a local government is updating its general plan, it should notify the military points of contact listed in Attachment One. Gov. Code section 65302(a)(2) requires that the general plan land use element consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses governed by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes or airspace. Other elements of the General Plan must also consider military compatibility. For example, the circulation element must include any military airports and ports, and be correlated with the land use element of the general plan. (Gov. Code section 65302(b)(1)). The conservation element must consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. (Gov. Code section 65302(d)(1)). The noise element must analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for ground stationary noise sources, including military installations identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. (Gov. Code section 65302(f)(1)(F)). These requirements are valid statewide. Many local governments are unaware of military operations or the extent of testing and training routes throughout the state. You can determine where special use airspace, low level flight paths, and military training routes are relative to your jurisdiction by using the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst. See below for more information about this mapping tool. Mapping Tools to Meet Planning and Notification Requirements: The California Military Land Use Compatibility Planning Analyst is a planning tool which provides an easy to use map of military installation locations throughout the state, as well as a map of where military training activities takes place. Again, please note that even if a City or County is not near a military base, it may still be within a military training route or special use area. This comment provides background information regarding local government planning and project notification requirements with respect to military land use compatibility. See Response to Comment A02-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-4 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response The Military provided the State with maps of its installations, low-level flight paths, and special use airspace to enable local governments to comply with planning and notification requirements. The Resources Agency of California, in conjunction with OPR, has made this information publically available. The California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA) is available for use by local planners, permit applicants, and developers to easily determine if a project triggers Military notification. CMLUCA is available at: http://cmluca.projects.atlas.ca.gov. Project Notification Requirements: SB 1462 (Kuehl, 2004) created a notification process to inform the Military of local land use proposals that might have an impact on military facilities and operations, in order to prevent land use conflicts between local communities and military installations and training activities. Specifically, the bill amended Government Code Sections 65352, 65404, 65940, and 65944, and required local governments to: 1) revise their development permit application forms to require identification of whether the proposed project is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path, or within special use airspace and 2) notify the Military when a proposed project, or an updated or revised general plan, might have an impact on military facilities and operations. The following is a summary of the statutory requirements under SB 1462. The relevant Government Code sections are provided in Attachment 2. These process changes only apply to jurisdictions, or proposed projects and actions that are located within 1,000 feet of a military installation; beneath a low-level flight path; or, within special use airspace which is defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code as any below 1,500 feet about ground level. 1. Government Code Section 65352 (a)(6) Before any legislative body adopts or substantially amends a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action, if it meets one or more of the above criteria, to all of the branches of the Military. 2. Government Code Section 65940 Local governments are required to change their development permit application forms to allow an applicant to identify whether a proposed project meets one or more of the listed criteria, as well as whether the project is in an urbanized area as defined in Government Code Section 65944 (2). 3. Government Code Section 65944 (d)(1) After a local agency accepts a development application as complete, and if the project applicant has identified that the proposed project meets one or more of the criteria listed above, the local agency GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-5 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response shall send a copy of the complete application to all of the Military branches. Exceptions to Notification Requirements: Please note the following exceptions, listed in Government Code Section 65940. Cities and Counties that do not contain a military installation and are not beneath a low-level flight path, or within special use airspace, are not required to change their project applicant information lists. In addition, except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not required to provide a copy of the application to the military if the project is located entirely in an “urbanized area”. For the definition of an urbanized area, see Gov. Code Section 65944(d)(2). Military Points of Contact: Attachment 1 contains point of contact mailing addresses for each of the four branches of the Military. Please use these addresses for referring general plans or general plan amendments, and development applications to the Military. Currently documents must be sent by mail to each of these addresses. You may also send documents via email. Once the Military receives a copy of a development application from your agency, the Military may request a consultation with your agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military facilities or operations (Gov. Code Section 65944 (e)). Resources: More information is available through the California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning, and the Community and Military Compatibility Planning Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines. You may also wish to use the resources available at the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment website, www.oea.gov. Questions: OPR coordinates with the military to provide technical assistance and high quality GIS maps to local governments through the California Strategic Coordination and Engagement Program. Please contact Holly Roberson, Community Engagement and Land Use Specialist, if you have any questions about military land use compatibility, or would like technical assistance or more detailed maps for your jurisdiction. Ms. Roberson can be reached at (916) 322-0476 or holly.roberson@opr.ca.gov. Attachments: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-6 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 1. Military Mailing Addresses for SB 1462 Compliance 2. Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1462 and Public Resources Code Section defining low level flight paths. 3. Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1468 A2-03 Attachment 1 Military Mailing Addresses for SB 1462 Notification All SB 1462 required referrals to the United State Military must be addressed to the following single points of contact for the four Military branches listed below. All SB 1462 required documents must be sent by US Mail. Please also send SB 1462 notification via email. US Air Force Steve Arenson Regional Environmental Officer for California Western Region Environmental Office US Air Force 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94105-22230 steven.arenson@us.af.mil US Army Region Nine Fort Irwin Tim Kilgannon Philip Crosbie Region Nine Environmental Coordinator Chief Regional Environmental and Energy Office Strategic Plans, S3, NTC Office of the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of the Army Fort Irwin National Training Center Office of Strategic Integration P.O. Box 10172 721 19th St., Room 427 Ft. Irwin, CA 92310 Denver, CO 80202 phil.crosbie@us.army.mil timothy.r.kilgannon.civ@mail.mil Fort Hunter Ligget Gary Houston Chief Environmental Division The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-7 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Directorate of Public Works USAG Fort Hunter Ligget, CA 93928 gary.a.houston10.civ@mail.mil US Navy Steve Chung Regional Community Plans and Liaison Officer Navy Region Southwest US Navy 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190 steve.u.chung@navy.mil US Marine Corps Col. John Gamelin MCIWEST MCB-CAMPEN Attn G-7 PO Box 555010 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5010 A02-04 Attachment 2 Government Code Sections and Public Resources Code Section The bold-faced type indicates the portions of the Government Code which requiring notification to the United States Military of certain general plan actions and development permit applications. 65352. Referral of Plans (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities: (1) A city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district that may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (2) An elementary, high school, or unified school district within the area covered by the proposed action. (3) The local agency formation commission. (4) An area wide planning agency whose operations may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (5) A federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-8 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response (6) (A) The branches of the United States Armed Forces that have provided the Office of Planning and Research with a California mailing address pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65944 when the proposed action is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, provided that the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (B) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with subparagraph (A) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. (7) A public water system, as defined in Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, that serves water to customers within the area covered by the proposal. The public water system shall have at least 45 days to comment on the proposed plan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning agency with the information set forth in Section 65352.5. (8) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a proposed action within the boundaries of the district. (9) On and after March 1, 2005, a California Native American tribe, that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, with traditional lands located within the city or county's jurisdiction. (b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of a general plan pursuant to this section shall have 45 days from the date the referring agency mails it or delivers it in which to comment unless a longer period is specified by the planning agency. (c) (1) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section does not affect the validity of the action, if adopted. (2) To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with the requirements of Chapter 4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), the requirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail. 65940. List specifying required data for development project (a) Each state agency and each local agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. Each GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-9 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response local agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant to include a certification of compliance with Section 65962.5, and the statement of application required by Section 65943. Copies of the information, including the statement of application required by Section 65943, shall be made available to all applicants for development projects and to any person who requests the information. (b) (1) The list of information required from any applicant shall include, where applicable, identification of whether the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path or within special use airspace as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, and within an urbanized area as defined in Section 65944. (2) The information described in paragraph (1) shall be based on information provided by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) as of the date of the application. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with paragraph (1) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. (c) (1) A city, county, or city and county that is not beneath a low-level flight path or not within special use airspace and does not contain a military installation is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b). (2) A city, county, or city and county that is entirely urbanized, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 65944, with the exception of a jurisdiction that contains a military installation, is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b). (d) (1) Subdivision (b) as it relates to the identification of special use airspace, low-level flight paths, military installations, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 84; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1048 and Ch. 1019; Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 985; Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1200; Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 906.) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-10 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 65944. Agency Acceptance of Application (a) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, the agency shall not subsequently request of an applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940. The agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application. (b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall not be construed as requiring an applicant to submit with his or her initial application the entirety of the information which a public agency may require in order to take final action on the application. Prior to accepting an application, each public agency shall inform the applicant of any information included in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940 which will subsequently be required from the applicant in order to complete final action on the application. (c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (d) (1) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, and if the project applicant has identified that the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special use airspace or beneath a low-level flight path in accordance with Section 65940, the public agency shall provide a copy of the complete application to any branch of the United States Armed Forces that has provided the Office of Planning and Research with a single California mailing address within the state for the delivery of a copy of these applications. This subdivision shall apply only to development applications submitted to a public agency 30 days after the Office of Planning and Research has notified cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of Department of Defense information on the Internet pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65940. (2) Except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not required to provide a copy of the application if the project is located entirely in an "urbanized area." An urbanized area is any urban location that meets the definition used by the United State Department of Commerce's Bureau of Census for "urban" and includes locations with core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census block groups containing at least 500 people per square mile. (e) Upon receipt of a copy of the application as required in subdivision (d), any branch of the United States Armed Forces may request consultation with the public agency and the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-11 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military installations, low- level flight paths, or special use airspace, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures. (f) (1) Subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) as these relate to low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with subdivision (d) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 84; Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 906.) Public Resources Code Section 21098 21098. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Low-level flight path" includes any flight path for any aircraft owned, maintained, or that is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense that flies lower than 1,500 feet above ground level, as indicated in the United States Department of Defense Flight Information Publication, "Area Planning Military Training Routes: North and South America (AP/1B)" published by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. (2) "Military impact zone" includes any area, including airspace that meets both of the following criteria: (A) Is within two miles of a military installation, including, but not limited to, any base, military airport, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for a ship, or any other military activity center that is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense. (B) Covers greater than 500 acres of unincorporated land, or greater than 100 acres of city incorporated land. (3) "Military service" means any branch of the United States Armed Forces. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-12 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response (4) "Special use airspace" means the land area underlying the airspace that is designated for training, research, development, or evaluation for a military service, as that land area is established by the United States Department of Defense Flight Information Publication, "Area Planning: Special Use Airspace: North and South America (AP/1A)" published by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. (b) If the United States Department of Defense or a military service notifies a lead agency of the contact office and address for the military service and the specific boundaries of a low-level flight path, military impact zone, or special use airspace, the lead agency shall submit notices, as required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092, to the military service if the project is within those boundaries and any of the following apply: (1) The project includes a general plan amendment. (2) The project is of statewide, regional, or area wide significance. (3) The project is required to be referred to the airport land use commission, or appropriately designated body, pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) The requirement to submit notices imposed by this section does not apply to any of the following: (1) Response actions taken pursuant to Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) Response actions taken pursuant to Chapter 6.85 (commencing with Section 25396) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) Sites subject to corrective action orders issued pursuant to Section 25187 of the Health and Safety Code. (d) (1) The effect or potential effect that a project may have on military activities does not itself constitute an adverse effect on the environment for the purposes of this division. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a project's impact on military activities may cause, or be associated with, adverse effects on the environment that are subject to the requirements of this division, including, but not limited to, Section 21081. A2-05 Attachment 3 Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1468 The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-13 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Gov. Code section 65302 (a)(2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A) In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources. (B) The following definitions govern this paragraph: (i) “Military Readiness activities” mean all of the following: (I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for combat. (II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use. (ii) “Military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in the paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b)(1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. (d)(1) The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. (f)(1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: (F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-14 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response (g) The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum roads widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. A03 State of California, Department of Transportation A03-01 Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the plan referenced above. We have reviewed the DEIR and have the following comments to offer. Also, please refer to Caltrans' comments on the Notice of Preparation in a letter dated April 3, 2014. The comment references the commenter’s letter submitted on April 3, 2014, which was addressed in the Draft EIR and included for reference in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, of the Draft EIR. A03-02 Traffic Impacts State Route (SR) 85 and Interstate (I-) 280 are critical to regional and interregional traffic in the San Francisco Bay region. They are vital to commuting, freight, and recreational traffic and are two of the most congested regional facilities. The traffic generated and/or redistributed by the proposed housing element changes and rezoning, together with other completed and proposed projects in the vicinity, will have a cumulative significant regional impact to the already congested State Highway System. An analysis of the proposed Project's impacts to SR 85 and I-280 are provided in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, Impact TRAF-1 and Impact TRAF-2 found that impacts to SR 85 and I-280 intersections and freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1. A03-03 1. Figures 4.13-5a, b, and c (see pp. 4.13-8 -4.13-10) only includes turning movement traffic diagram per study intersection under Existing Conditions. Table 4.13-11, 2040 No Project and Project Model Forecasts (see p. 4.13-41), demonstrates the City of Cupertino (City) citywide household totals and job totals increase between 2014 and 2040. Since net jobs increase in Cupertino and nearby San Jose, Santa Cara and Sunnyvale in Table 4.13-11, it likely contributes to the high level of AM (PM) generated traffic. Therefore, Caltrans requests the report provide more information on the trip generation assumptions, including but not limited to a trip generation table, the AM (PM) turning movement traffic diagram per study intersection under 2040 No Project, Project Only, 2040 +Project Conditions and their associated traffic impact analysis for further review. The Draft EIR has been revised to include the additional information requested from Caltrans. The revisions include the trip generation of the project and diagrams of intersection turning movements for the 2040 No Project, 2040 plus Project, and Project only scenarios. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-15 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response A03-04 2. De Anza Boulevard and Interstate (I-) 280 Northbound Ramp (see p. 4.13-53): the proposed change to this intersection appears to be in conflict with the General Plan of ensuring "these facilities are safe and effective for Cupertino residents and employees" and avoiding "a challenging condition that currently does not exist for bicyclists" (see p. 4.13-48). To meet Caltrans standards, the bicycle lane would need to connect to a bicycle pocket lane placed to the left of the right-turn only lane (see Figure 9C-4 in. Part 9 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Dashed striping would preferably be provided to visually connect the bicycle lane to the pocket lane (shown as "optional" in the Figure 9C·4). However, if a double right turn consisting of a devoted right only lane and a right through lane are being proposed, then a bicycle pocket lane would endanger bicyclists in that bicyclists would be caught between the two right turn lanes. Caltrans recommends the DEIR be clarified whether a double or a single devoted right turn is being proposed for this location. The proposed bike box would require the approval of a request to experiment submitted to the California Traffic Control Devices Committee and Federal Highway Administration, since this treatment is not yet an approved traffic control device. However, in this location the proposed bike box appears unnecessary, since bicyclists have a dedicated lane and would not be making use of a bike box to facilitate left turns given that they would not be turning left onto the freeway off-ramp. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, described in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, on page 4.13-53, requires the City to commit to preparing and implementing a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation. As part of the nexus study, the City will study widening the curb lane so that right turn vehicles could maneuver past other vehicles. This would effectively provide a right turn lane , but the lane would not be striped as a right turn lane. This potential improvement does not consider providing two right turn lanes, thereby not creating the bicycle conflict described by the commenter. The Draft EIR has been revised to remove the reference to the bike box. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. A03-05 Lead Agency As the lead agency, the City is responsible for all mitigation measures, including any needed improvements to State highways. Fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This information should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan of the environmental document. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). As stated by the commenter, the City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project and is therefore responsible for enforcing and monitoring the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A03-06 Traffic Mitigation Fee Program We appreciate the City committing to continued cooperation with Caltrans in identifying improvements to reduce or minimize impacts to State facilities. To that end, we request that the City work with Caltrans on the preparation of the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and "nexus" study to identify and implement feasible measures to ensure all mitigation measures are funded and As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.13-56, the City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans, and other surrounding jurisdictions to identify improvements that would reduce or minimize the impacts to intersections and roadways that are out of the City's jurisdiction as a result of implementation of future development projects in Cupertino. The City will conduct a nexus study and will include fair share GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-16 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response implemented. It is essential that feasible mitigation be included to ensure that impacts from the Plan on the transportation network are reduced or eliminated. This will be important to the success of this Plan. contributions towards any programmed improvements that mitigate impacts to state facilities at the time of commencement of the nexus study. A03-07 Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to: David Salladay, District Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. See this website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.govihq/traffops/developserv/permits. As a matter of standard operating procedures, the City complies with all local, regional, State and federal regulations, including those required by Caltrans, when approving and overseeing development in Cupertino. A04 County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department A04-01 The DEIR states in TRAF-1 (page 4.13-53) that the proposed project would result in significant impacts to Intersections #31 at Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Intersection #32 at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp during the AM Peak Hour. In addition to implementing Mitigation Measure TRAF- 1 (page 4.13-55), which secures funding for future roadway and infrastructure improvements proposed in the DEIR for Intersections #31 and #32, the project should also consider improvements to ramp capacity and land storage to prevent queue spillbacks on Lawrence Expressway and I-280. As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, of the Draft EIR, describes possible improvements for these two intersections that would involve widening the ramps to add lanes. The extent of the widening (i.e., the distance from the intersections) will be determined during the design phase for the improvements. The need to reduce queue (line of traffic) lengths will be a consideration in the improvement design. A04-02 The County appreciates the continual cooperation of the City in identifying improvement that would reduce or minimize impacts to the intersections and roadways as a result of implementation of future development projects in Cupertino (4.13-56). Any future LOS analysis for specific development projects should be conducted using County signal timing for County study intersections and the most recent CMP count and LOS data for CMP intersections. Future traffic studies in Cupertino will continue to use the most recent standards for evaluating traffic impacts, including those of the County. A05 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority A05-01 VMT Analysis VTA supports the City's progressive approach to transportation analysis in the DEIR, including the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis provided for informational purposes, consistent with recent state legislation. The comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-17 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response A05-02 Land Use VTA supports the stated purpose of the proposed General Plan amendment to "replenish, reallocate, and increase citywide office, commercial, hotel, and residential allocations," particularly in the mixed-is corridors and city gateways/nodes identified in Figure 3-5 of the DEIR. These areas include Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and the Cupertino Town Center, which are the locations in the city of Cupertino identified for concentrated land use and transportation investments in the VTA's Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program Cores, Corridors and Stations Areas framework, which shows BTA and local jurisdiction priorities for supporting concentrated development in the County. In addition, VTA's Stevens Creek Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is included in Plan Bay Area. In light of these currently and future transportation investments, VTA supports increased development densities in these locations. The comment is acknowledged. A05-03 Transportation Demand Management/Trip Reduction Policy 4-3, Strategy 8 of the General Plan Update states that the City will "Require large employers to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce the vehicle trips generated by their employees. Work together with the large employers to develop a tracking system of the TDM programs to allow ongoing assessments of results." VTA comments the City for including a TDM requirement and tracking system in the General Plan Update. VTA notes that these measures could be made more effective by including a specific trip reduction target, an enforcement component, and a requirement for future developed to participate in a Transportation Management Association (TMA). In additions, VTA recommends that the TDM programs include financial incentives for non-automobile travel such as transit fare incentives, parking cash out or parking pricing. The Draft EIR has been revised to include the VTA recommendation. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. A05-04 CMP Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures The DEIR indicates that there will be significant impacts to seven Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections. As a mitigation measure, the City proposes to prepare a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program including a nexus study. However, the impact is still found significant and unavoidable, because the City cannot guarantee improvement at these intersections at this time (pg. 4.13-55). VTA commends the City for proposing a proactive approach to address congestion thought the implementation of a TIF Program. However, the VTA notes that the "examples of traffic improvements: listed on pages 4.13-53 to 4.13-55 only include physical auto capacity expansions. VTA recommends that the City take a broader approach to identifying projects and programs that Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 on pages 4.13-53 through 4.13-55 of the Draft EIR has been amended to include the preparation of Multimodal Improvement Plans as an alternative to physical improvements to expand automobile capacity. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-18 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion, including bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements; operational/efficiency improvement to the transportation system; and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs including financial incentives, consistent with Policy 4-3 of the General Plan (see previous comment). In addition, VTA suggests consideration of an area-wide Multimodal Improvement Plan (previous "Deficiency Plan") to address these CMP Impacts. Under CMP policy, when one or more CMP Intersections fall below the CMP LOS standard, either the impacts must be mitigated or the city must prepare a Multimodal Improvement Plan when such mitigations are infeasible or undesirable. The Multimodal Improvement Plan must contain a list of actions to help offset the vehicular level of service impacts, and an implementation plan with specific responsibilities and a schedule. The preparation of a Multimodal Improvement Plan can be an opportunity to implement multimodal (non- automotive) transportation improvement and offsetting measures. These offsetting improvements can include improvement to transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities. A05-05 Congestion Impacts on Transit Travel Times Under "Thresholds of Significance" the DEIR states, "Significant impacts to transit service would occur if the proposed Project or any part of the proposed Project….Causes a substantial increase in delay to transit vehicles" (pg. 4.13-49). However, the analysis of transportation impacts in the DEIR does not include an analysis of increased delay to transit vehicles. The DEIR identify significant impacts to auto delay at several CMP Intersections, including four intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard, utilized by high ridership VTA Local Line 23 and Limited 323. In addition, VTA's Stevens Creek Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is included in Plan Bay Area. Given the increase in auto delay at this intersections, similar increases in transit delay are likely to occur at the same locations. While VTA is supportive of increasing developed densities along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, these delays could degrade the schedule reliability of transit and increase travel times, making transit a less attractive option for travelers in the corridor. Based on the increased delay found at these intersections, VTA recommends that the City work with VTA to identify and support feasible transit priority measures near the affected facilities and include contributions to any applicable project in the City's proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. Transit priority signal timing, bulb-out transit stops, and/or dedicated transit lanes. In Cupertino transit vehicles are a part of the general traffic stream, so any increased delays to traffic in general also would result in increases to transit delays. As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, intersections where delays would increase have been identified, which would affect buses along with cars and trucks. Impacts have been identified based on these increases in delay, and Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was identified to minimize impacts to the degree feasible. To the extent that the Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would improve delays for traffic in general, it would also improve bus travel times to the same extent. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 of the Draft EIR has been amended to include the multimodal improvements as an option to extensive physical improvements. Multimodal improvements could include measures to increase bus travel speeds, such as queue jump lanes and signal priority treatments. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-19 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response A05-06 Freeway Analysis and Mitigation Measures The DEIR indicates that there will be significant impacts to four segments of I-280 and one segment of SR 85, which are CMP facilities. The DEIR mentions the proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program as mitigation measure, but conclude that the impact would still be significant and unavoidable. VTA notes that the "example of traffic improvements" discussed in relation to the proposed TIF program on pages 4.13-53 to 4.13-55 only include intersection modifications and do not include project to improve operations or relieve congestions on freeways. VTA recommends that the City include voluntary contributions to regional improvements identified in Plan Bay Area on the affected corridor, such as SR 85 Express Lanes and Stevens Creek Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, as mitigation measures for these significant impacts. Please see the March 6, 2014 Report to the VTA Board of Directors (Agenda Item 6.18) for further information about Voluntary Contributions to Transportation Improvements. Alternatively, the City could include contributions to these projects in the proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.13-56, the City will endeavor to coordinate with the VTA and other surrounding jurisdictions to identify improvements that would reduce or minimize the impacts of future development projects in Cupertino on intersections and roadways that are outside of the City's jurisdiction. It is the City's intent to include these improvements, or fair share contributions towards these regional improvements, in a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. The program could include contributions to regional transportation improvements, such as on the freeway system, in proportion to the impacts of development in Cupertino. A05-07 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report VTA's Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for any project that is expected to generate 100 or more net new peak-hour trips. VTA's understanding is that this General Plan Amendment does not grant a specific development entitlement and therefore a CMP TIA is not required at this time (per Section 2.2 of the TIA Guidelines). It is our understanding that the future specific development within the project area would require separate discretionally approvals and therefore world require CMP TIA's at that time. The current March 2009 version of the TIA Guidelines may be downloaded from http://www.vta.org/cmp/technical- guidelines. For more information on the TIA Guidelines, please call Shanthi Chatradhhi of the VTA Planning and Program Development Division at 408-952-4224. In processing development applications, the City, complies with all local, regional, State and federal regulations, including those required by the VTA when approving and overseeing development in Cupertino. A06 Cupertino Sanitary District A06-01 2) Summary of Impact UTIL-6a states that City shall work with Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available citywide treatment and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day. • Please note the Cupertino Sanitary District service area is greater than just City of Cupertino. It serves portion of City of Saratoga, unincorporated area and small portion of Cities of Los Altos and Sunnyvale. • To work to increase capacity may be very challenging and may result in significant cost impact and funding. The comment correctly describes the information provided in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service System, of the Draft EIR concerning the service area of Cupertino Sanitary District as discussed on page 4.14-27 of the Draft EIR. The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer service for Cupertino, portions of Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and surrounding unincorporated Santa Clara County communities. In addition, Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a states the City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-20 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response citywide treatment and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying reduced wastewater generation rates are approved by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c. Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c states that the City shall cooperate with the Cupertino Sanitary District to prepare a study to determine a more current estimate of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the actual development to be constructed as part of Project implementation. The study could include determining how the green/LEED certified buildings in the City reduce wastewater demands. A06-02 3) Summary of Impact UTIL-6b states no building permits shall be issued prior to increasing the available citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity, once capacity is exceeded. • Again, this would impact other agencies that District serves and would not just be a City of Cupertino issue. • When our discharge rate is at near capacity, we will develop a process for moratorium of issuing building permits, until such time, additional capacity is secured. The comment correctly describes the information provided in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service System, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b states, the City shall work to establish a system in which a development monitoring and tracking system to tabulate cumulative increases in projected wastewater generation from approved projects for comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and implemented. If it is anticipated that with approval of a development project the actual system discharge would exceed the contractual treatment threshold, no building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a. See Response to Comment A06-01. A06-03 4) Summary of Impact UTIL-6c. District will cooperate with the City in a study as outlined with no cost to the District. The City shall pay its fair share toward the study if the study area extends beyond the City of Cupertino limits. See Response to Comment A06-02. PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS B01 Ruby Elbogen B01-01 Our "environmental" comments were clear. More housing in our 'hood will affect Cupertino's environment. Because we live in the "flats" and not the hills doesn't mean the environment will not be negatively affected by overcrowding--impact on the sewer system, school crowding. That's exactly why our Vallco neighborhood brought forth Measures D & E. r [sic] Impacts to sewer systems are discussed in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning on page 4.14-32. Impacts to schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, beginning on page 4.12-18. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-21 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B02 Catherine Alexander B02-01 As a home owner in the center of the area affected by the proposed GPA, I reject the EIR and the proposed GPA, which would make traffic congestion and noise in my neighborhood even more miserable than it is now. Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, beginning on page 4.13-49. Impacts to noise are discussed in Chapter 4.10, Noise, beginning on page 4.10-27. B02-02 This greed-based plan would ruin our schools, lower our property values, and despite the proposed "two-story" modifications in this EIR, our kids would suffer from the congestion and overcrowding in schools, not to mention the chaos adding second stories to schools would cause. (Where the heck are the kids supposed to go during construction?) Have any of you actually parked near Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School when school is starting or ending? Residents can't leave their driveways for 40 minutes twice each day, since traffic from parents managing kids being picked up or dropped off is so intense, and we can't get to De Anza, Stevens Creek or Homestead either twice a day, for the same reason. Don't do this to our kids or to our neighborhoods! Impacts to schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, beginning on page 4.12-18. Impacts on traffic are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. The commenter's comment regarding existing traffic conditions near Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School is reflected in Table 4.13-12, which starts on page 4.13-43 in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic. Intersections #6 (De Anza Boulevard and I-280 North Bound Ramp), #7 (De Anza Blvd and I-280 SB Ramp), #8 (De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard and #38 (Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard) are all intersections close to the area described by the commenter. The proposed Project would result in a substandard level of service for Intersections #6 (De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp) and #7 (De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramp) during AM and PM peak hours, as well as for Intersection #8 (De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard) during PM peak hours. B02-03 As a life-long resident who valued our previous no-growth policy, who has observed the tacky, run- down strip malls, apartment-like housing developments and unoccupied businesses which have ruined our Cupertino landscape in the last 40 years (as a result of zoning changes once we lost that prior no-growth policy), I vote "no" to any more development in Cupertino, for any reason and for ANY proposed "new" GPA plan. I would, however, approve tearing down any commercial or multi-unit residential, or multi use development over two stories high, and any shopping area, mall, or strip mall over 30 years old, and replacing these eyesores with parks, community gardens and green spaces for existing residents. Likewise, I would approve moving City Hall to Quinlan Center, tearing down the old City Hall buildings Including the new City Hall Community Room and fountain garden, and putting an underground parking garage in their place, which would not overlook resident's homes. The comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-22 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Cupertino should be preserved for existing residents, not sold off continually for the benefit of developers, or to lure new high tech workers to cubicle-like housing, or to gamble with new or existing businesses who have big pie-in-the-sky ideas which they seem to "sell" to our City Council nearly every year, only to fail in one to five years. These businesses never stay here, leaving their empty, dated commercial buildings and traffic-ridden housing complexes behind as eyesores and problems in our neighborhoods. How much is enough? Our City leaders seems [sic] to be driven more by greed for new revenue, than quality of life for the people they are supposed to serve here. Residents here in Cupertino are disgusted with what has happened to our City and do not want to end up like Mountain View, where there are so many mixed use developments and new developments in a small area, congestion, parking problems and traffic is now unbearable for nearby older residential areas. That City now charges residents $300 per year just for a permit to park downtown near their library and City Hall, or to eat at a Castro Street restaurant. It takes some residents 30 minutes just to find parking in their own city, so they can patronize local businesses or return a library book. That is why I say, no GPA with any new Cupertino developments, for any reason. No more tacky, fake Mediterranean/Santana Row-like developments here, with the lawsuits which follow from new residents due to bad construction which was previously okay'ed by our City inspectors, who seem to be more allied with developers and construction companies, than in working to protect current and future residents. Enough is enough. Cupertino is not for sale any longer and residents want to take our City back for the benefit of families who already live here. Developers can find another City to milk for $$$ then leave in ruins for residents to salvage. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-23 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B02-04 The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. B03 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino B03-01 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REV 2 IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A COPY OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO 2000·2020 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED TO DATE SINCE ITS ADOPTION TO HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION SO THE PUBLIC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DIFFERENCES? NO RESPONSE This comment provides background information and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is acknowledged. B03-02 IS THERE SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE CITY OF (CUPERTINO) APPROACHES HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS? PARAPHRASED ANSWER: IN (CUPERTINO), WE GET SO CAUGHT UP IN DISCUSSING THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE FORGET IT IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE PROJECT See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-24 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response UNDER OUR ORDINANCES. THEN, AFTER LOTS OF DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE WITH THE DEVELOPER, WE ARE SO FAR DOWN THE ROAD THAT CHANGING OUR ZONING ORDINANCES FOR THE PROJECT IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. IN SHORT, OUR PLANNING PROCESS FOR LARGE PROJECTS IS PROJECT DRIVEN RATHER THAN BEING DRIVEN BY THE CITY'S PHILOSOPHY, VALUES, VISION OR OVERALL GENERAL PLAN. SOURCE; VALLCO CONDOMINIUMS 2-STORY/ 3-STORY CONDOMINIUMS, 139 UNITS, WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE SOURCE: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05 EASEMENTS: OCTOBER 17, 1974 SUBTERRANEAN EASEMENT AND ABOVE-GROUND LEVEL EASEMENT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF VALLCO CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. SEE ATTACHMENT #1 NO DISCLOSURE OF THESE EASEMENTS. B03-03 COMMERCIAL vs RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE BUILDING(S) MEASURE (HONEYWELL) ON BUBB ROAD AND MCCLELLAN AVENUE GROSVENOR GROUP, OWNER OF PROPERTY " ...HONEYWELL BUILDINGS WERE FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE. WE WILL DEMOLISH THEM REGARDLESS, SAID ALAN CHAMORRO, A GROSVENOR VICE PRESIDENT." SOURCE: DEVELOPMENT DEAL SHOW THE DOOR BY MICHELLE MAGHRIBI LOS GATOS DAILY NEWS MARCH 10, 2006 TAYLOR WOODROW THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA DEMOLISH INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS REZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL 94 RESIDENTIAL UNITS See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-25 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 3·1 TO DENY DENIED IN MARCH 2006 BY CITY COUNCIL EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS PROJECT APPROVAL IN 2008 FOR DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING MANUFACTURING SPACE INTO OFFICE SPACE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL ENTITLEMENTS IN 2009 LEASE TO APPLE RESULTS WAY CAMPUS FOR 7 YEARS NO DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS THE EMPLOYEES IN THESE BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE MOVING INTO APPLE CAMPUS 2 COMPAQ BUILDINGS ON PRUNERIDGE AVENUE TOLL BROTHERS PROJECT REFERENDUM NOVEMBER 2006 > APPLE VALLCO 1 > MAIN STREET CUPERTINO COMPAQ BUILDING ON PRUNERIDGE AVENUE >APPLE VALLCO 2 PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL/MORLEY BROTHERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-2005-01) REZONING (Z·2005•020) MET CONDITIONS OF INITIATIVES A, B & C SUPPORTED BY CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO APPROVED NOVEMBER 15, 2005 COMMERCIAL > RESIDENTIAL > COMMERCIAL APPLE CAMPUS 2/PHASE IX TANTAU AVENUE SEE ATTACHMENT 1 APPLE CAMPUS 2/PHASE II GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-26 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-04 ATTACHMENT 1 Pruneridge Avenue & Tantau Avenue Housing 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Morley Brothers LLC/Sobrato Development Companies The project is comprised of two parcels totaling 8.5 acres. In 2005, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change to allow residential development at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre at this site. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Net fiscal surplus of $32,245 per annum. On November 15, 2005 City Council approved Pruneridge Residential with 130 townhomes and a 1 (0.937) acre park. July 28, 2006 Apple buys properties April 28, 2009: Apple requested rezoning the residential project site from Planned Residential to Planned Industrial and Residential, retaining the existing planned residential zoning. The approximately one acre portion of the properties on the northeast corner of the site that was zoned for public park ... will retain its (Public Park/Recreation) PR zon(ing). 2009: Site moved to Tier 1 Sites Inventory List for 2007-2014 Housing Element/Site 10 Source: Housing Element 2007-2014 City Council meeting on June 16, 2009/Agenda Item #18 10300 & 10400 North Tantau Avenue Pacific Resources Development 9.14 acres Proposed 125 town homes and 1.286 acre park February 16, 2007 Apple buys properties 2009: Site removed from Site Inventory List for 2007-2014 Housing Element Since 10300 & 10400 North Tantau Avenue are owned and fully occupied by Apple and have significant tenant improvements valued at over $5,000,000. The value of the tenant improvements along with the value of the building make it unlikely that Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would consider this property likely to redevelop in the next five The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-27 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response years. Source: Housing Element 2007-2014 City Council meeting on June 16, 2009 I Agenda Item #18 10590 North Tantau Avenue November 12, 2010 Sold 10670, 10700 & 10710 North Tantau Avenue Tantau Building Associates 2005: "We would plan to bring these housing units to the market as soon as possible and thereby contribute to Cupertino's progress at stabilizing the jobs/housing imbalance." 3.6 acre Proposed 87 units 2009; Sites may potentially meet the HCD requirements for being listed as an available housing site December 15, 2010 Sold According to the 2009 proposed General Plan Amendment all of the above North Tantau Avenue sites were considered as potential conversion area for residential use @ 25 units/acre for the North Tantau area. B03-05 COMMERCIAL: INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/RETAIL > RESIDENTIAL MACYS PARKING LOT EXISTENCE OF EASEMENTS SEE PAGE 1 & 2 MEASURE TAYLOR WOODROW IMPACT ON SCHOOLS APPLE CAMPUS BUBB EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS INVESTED AND REPOSITIONED THE MEASURE PROPERTY LEASED TO APPLE CAMPUS BUBB 10 BUILDINGS/383, 750 SF EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS> RREEF See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-28 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response $168.85 MILLION ROSEBOWL EVERSHINE IMPACT UNKNOWN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL RENTALS IMPACT ON SCHOOLS GROUND FLOOR RETAIL TANTAU COMMERCIAL > RESIDENTIAL > R &D HEWLETT PACKARD/COMPAQ TOLL BROTHERS IMPACT ON SCHOOLS PRESENTLY DEVELOPING MAINSTREET CUPERTINO SENIOR HOUSING IMPACT ON SCHOOLS: NONE CHANGE TO MARKET RATE HOUSING IMPACT ON SCHOOLS: UNKNOWN VALLCO VALLCO PENNYS' PARKING STRUCTURE PRIMARILY PARKING GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL NOT DEVELOPED TO DATE OTHER NON-CUPERTINO EXAMPLE BRIDGEPOINTE SHOPPING CENTER WILL NOT RENEW LEASE FOR ICE CENTER SOURCE: GOAL: TO KEEP ICE RINK OPEN BY AARON KINNEY SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS JULY 30, 2012 GLOBE FREMONT 200 RETAILERS AND RESTAURANTS 250·ROOM HOTEL 40,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-29 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response MOVIE THEATER PACIFIC MALL SILICON VALLEY MILPITAS 200 TO 300 STORES 280, OOO SQUARE FOOT MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS 240-ROOM HOTEL SAN ANTONIO SHOPPING CENTER MOUNTAIN VIEW 66,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 741,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, 12 STORY/ 167 FEET TO SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF HOTEL 200-ROOM HOTEL SAFEWAY PARK ALONG HETCH HETCHY RIGHT OF WAY SANTA CLARA SQUARE SANTA CLARA 125,000 SQUARE FEET SHOPPING CENTER 560,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE 40,000 SQUARE FEET GROCERY /WHOLE FOODS VIETNAM TOWN SAN JOSE 1ST PHASE 120 COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS 2ND PHASE 140 COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS 40,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY B03-06 VALLCO MAJOR RETAIL AT VALLCO: MACY'S PENNEYS SEARS SEARS PURCHASED ORCHARD SUPPLY IN 1996 See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-30 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SEARS PURCHASED LANDS END IN 2002 K-MART PURCHASED SEARS IN 2005 > SEARS HOLDING "I THINK THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT YOU GOING TO SEE A LOT OF STORE CLOSINGS. THAT'S A WRONG PRESUMPTION, HE SAID. OUR PROGRAM IS TO KEEP AS MANY STORES OPEN AS WE CAN." "LANDS END ISN'T FOR SALE,... " SEARS CALLS FOR PATIENCE IN WAKE OF CRITICISM COMPANY ACCUSED OF IGNORING STORES AT MALL. BY TERRY PRJSTIN NEW YORK TIMES JULY 4, 2007 SEARS TOWER > WILLIS TOWERS SEARS HQ MOVED TO HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILL. AT LEAST 100 SEARS, KMART STORES TO BE CLOSED BY CHRISTINA REXRODE AND MICHELLE CHAPMAN ASSOCIATED PRESS DECEMBER 28, 2011 SEARS ACQUIRES ORCHARD SUPPLY 1996 SEARS SPINS OFF ORCHARD SUPPLY 2011 ORCHARD SUPPLY ACQUIRED BY LOWE'S 2013 SEARS... PLANS TO SELL 11 STORES "SEARS HOLDING CORP. PLANS TO RAISE AS MUCH AS $770 MIL.L.ION BY SELLING 11 STORE SITES .... " SOURCE: SEARS POST BIG QUARTERLY l.OSS BY LAUREN COLEMAN-LOCHNER AND ASHLEY LUTZ BLOOMBERG FEBRUARY 24, 2012 SEARS SPIN OFF LANDS' END SEARS MAY SPIN OFF AUTO SERVICE CENTERS SEARS IN CUPERTINO? BAY CLUB SEARS AT MERIDIAN: GONE SEARS AT SAN ANTONIO SHOPPING CENTER: GONE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-31 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SEARS AT GEARY/MASONIC IN SAN FRANCISCO: GONE SEARS IN OAKLAND: GOING SEARS AT SOUTHLAND MALL: ? SEARS TO CLOSE FL.AGSHIP STORE IN CHICAGO NEWS RELEASE JANUARY 23, 2014 B03-07 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALOFT HOTEL A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LUXURY HOTEL WITH CONFERENCE FACILITIES AND FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH PUBLIC ACCESS M2010·07: MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT (u2008·02) TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, REDUCE THE CONFERENCE AREA FROM ABOUT 4,194 SQUARE FEET TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET, REDUCE THE RESTAURANT/BAR AREA AND SCOPE FROM PUBLIC-SERVING TO HOTEL PATRON-SERVING, AND ELIMINATE THE GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENT FOR AN APPROVED 138-ROOM HOTEL AT 10165 NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD. DUE TO CHANGE, MODIFIES HOTEL SERVICE FROM LUXURY FULL SERVICE TO SELECT SERVICE BUSINESS HOTEL WITH REDUCED CONFERENCE ROOMS W NO PUBLIC ACCESS TO CAFE. 2000/2020 GENERAL PLAN AN EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPE SETBACK NEXT TO DE ANZA BOULEVARD IS REQUIRED FROM ALVES DRIVE TO ROUTE 280. THE LANDSCAPE AREA SHALL. BE COMPLEMENTED BY LANDSCAPED MEDIANS AND GENEROUS PRIVATE LANDSCAPED AREAS. NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 2, 1976: IN THE NORTH DE ANZA CONCEPTUAL PLAN WHICH APPLIES TO THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO IT STATES THAT "THE CIVIC IMAGE OF A CITY IS IN LARGE MEASURE DETERMINED BY THE MOOD CREATED BY THE TREATMENT OF ITS MAJOR STREETS. THE LANDSCAPING TREATMENT THAT IS GIVEN TO THE MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS DEFINES THE ENTRANCE INTO THE CITY AND ENHANCES THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE. " THE LANDSCAPING TREATMENT ALONG DE ANZA BOULEVARD IS THE DOMINANT FEATURE THAT INTEGRATES THE DIVERSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE STREET. THE HEAVY TRAFFIC ALONG THE ROADWAY RESULTS IN HIGH NOISE LEVELS See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-32 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response AND AIR POLLUTION. THESE ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE TO BE MITIGATED THROUGH DENSE PLANTINGS THAT HELP ABSORB THE POLLUTANTS, AND PROVIDE FOR A MORE PLEASANT ATMOSPHERE FOR THOSE LIVING AND SHOPPING IN THE CORE AREA." SOURCE: APPENDIX B NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN ORDINANCE #723 ENACTED FEBRUARY 2, 1976 ORDINANCE #767 ENACTED NOVEMBER 16, 1976 THE 50 FT. LANDSCAPE SETBACK WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE ZONING DISTRICT BY LINKING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND DIVERSE DEVEL.OPMENTS. THE LANDSCAPE SETBACK WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE AN ATTRACTIVE ENTRANCE INTO THE CITY, AND THUS ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES FOR THOSE CONCERNED." SOURCE: 50 FT. LANDSCAPING SETBACK NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN PAGE 10 USE PERMIT FOR ALOFT HOTEL 26. TRANSFORMERS ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS, TELEPHONE VAULTS AND SIMILAR ABOVE GROUND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH FENCING AND LANDSCAPING OR LOCATED UNDERGROUND SUCH THAT SAID EQUIPMENT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREET AREAS. THE TRANSFORMER SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT OR SIDE BUILDING SETBACK AREA. SOURCE: CONDITION OF APPROVAL #26 U·2008·02 JANUARY 20, 2009 SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS BUILDINGS AND LAND USES- HOTELS/LODGING 53. Do you like this idea for Cupertino? I really like it Worth considering I don't like it I'm not sure The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-33 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Aloft Hotel The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. APPLE INFINITY LOOP CAMPUS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LIMITED USE OF FACILITY FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS CUPERTINO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDA TION ANNUAL FUNCTION IN 2014 WAS IN SAN JOSE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-34 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response CITY CENTER AUDITORIUM ON TORRE AVENUE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LIMITED USE OF AUDITORIUM FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS UNKNOWN CIVIC PARK A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS LIMITED USE OF PARK FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS DIFFICULT DUE TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DE CARLI RESIDENCE HILLSIDE EXCEPTION (16-EXC-98) APPROVED JANUARY 11, 1999 CONDITION OF APPROVAL: LANDSCAPE PLAN COMPLIED 2007, APPROXIMATELY 8 YEARS LATER "IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TOPPED EXISTING MATURE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN DOWNHILL ELEVATION IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THEIR VIEWS." SOURCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 10, 2008 PAGE 1·3 M·2008·01 HILLSIDE EXCEPTION (EXC·07) DENIED HILLSIDE EXCEPTION (M·2008·0 1) APPROVED JUNE 10, 2008 1999 CONDITION OF APPROVAL COMPLIED 2007 2008 CONDITION OF APPROVAL: TREE REPLACEMENT FOR TOPPED TREES LEARNING TREE CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS FOR RETAIL LEARNING GAME RETAIL BUSINESS TO RELOCATE TO PROJECT SITE NO LEARNING GAME AS OF 2014 E·TRADE MAIN STREET CUPERTINO CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS FOR SENIOR AGE RESTRICTED HOUSING HOUSING CHANGED TO MARKET RATE "A PERCEPTION THE CITY LETS ITSELF TO BE BULLIED INTO DECISIONS. THE EXAMPLE CITED WAS MAIN STREET BEING APPROVED W SENIOR HOUSING, BUT SOON AFTER THE HOUSING COMPONENT WAS APPROVED BY THE DECISION-MAKERS, THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-35 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response HOUSING BEING CONVERTED TO MARKET-RATE AT THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST. " SOURCE: RETAIL STRATEGY REPORT BY GREENSFELDER MARCH 6, 2014 PAGE 87 CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS FOR 400·PERSON BANQUET FACILITY WITH 6,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE. CHANGE TO ONLY 8,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE. ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING BY DMB ARCHITECTS, THE RESTAURANT/KITCHEN AREA IS 5,000 SF; THE APPROXIMATELY I,000 SF KITCHEN SEPARATES THE RESTAURANT FROM THE TWO MEETING ROOMS WHICH TOTAL ABOUT 1,200 SF; THE EFFECTIVE RESTAURANT/BANQUET FACILITY/CONFERENCE CENTER IS ONLY A 4,000 SF SINGLE ROOM. MEMOREX "A 1,500 SQUARE-FOOT CAFE IS PROPOSED AS PART OF BUILDING A (NEAREST TO BUBB ROAD) AND IS BEING TREATED BY STAFF AS AN ANCILLARY AND SUPPORTIVE USE OF THE INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE PARK, WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE COUNTED TOWARD THE TOTALS. IT IS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CAFE WILL BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC." SOURCE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AUGUST 26, 2008 PAGE 4-2 "THE CAFE WILL BE LOCATED NEAR BUBB ROAD TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ADJACENT BUSINESSES. SOURCE: SITE DESIGN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AUGUST 26, 2008 PAGE 4·3 "THE DESIGN TEAM DESCRIBED WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE BUILDINGS TO QUALIFY THEM FOR LEED SILVER DESIGNATION, ... AND A CAFE AT THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT. " SOURCE: APPLICANT COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-36 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PAGE 14-2 WE SUPPORTED APPROVAL DUE TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO ITS CAFE. SEE ATTACHMENT 2 DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 ASSUME THAT LEASE W APPLE PRECLUDES PUBLIC ACCESS B03-08 ATTACHMENT 2 DARREL W. LUM, DDS 20395 PACIFICA DRIVE/SUITE 102 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DOLLY SANDOVAL, MAYOR ORRIN MAHONEY, VICE·MAYOR KRISWANG GILBERT WONG MARK SANTORO RE: 1 RESULTS WAY/ AGENDA ITEM # 14 PLEASE FIND ATTACHED SOME COMMUNITY OPINIONS REGARDING THE 1 RESULTS WAY PROJECT WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL WAS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 AND RESCHEDULED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2008@ 4PM. WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND. PLEASE CONSIDER THE ATTACHED COMMENTS. THANK YOU DARREL W. LUM, DDS ATTACHMENTS: 1 RESULTS WAY SITE/CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 1 RESULT WAY /MEASURE SITE/CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 WE WERE ASKED BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS OF THIS PROJECT TO ATTEND THE PROJECT'S PRESENTATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN AUGUST. IN OUR ANALYSIS THIS PROJECT HAS SEVERAL POSITIVE FEATURES: CONCERN ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROJECT TO THE IMPERIAL AVENUE RESIDENTIAL AREA HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING AND CONTINUING THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDINGS TO ADDRESS THE PRIVACY OF THE HOMES. THE LOW PROFILE SCALE OF THE PROJECT: 2-STORY BUILDINGS AND THE DESIGN OF THE PARKING GARAGE PLACING THE FIRST LEVEL BELOW GRADE TO REDUCE THE PROFILE OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE. PLANS TO ATTAIN LEED SILVER CERTIFICATION FOR ITS BUILDINGS. The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-37 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PLANS TO RENOVATE A FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE BUILDING #5. PROVIDING AN OPEN CAMPUS. REMOVING THE FENCE ALONG THE BUBB ROAD SIDE. PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CAFE. RETAINING A SAFE AND SECURE PATHWAY ON THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE ASTORIA RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS, TO MCCLELLAN ROAD. UPGRADING THE LANDSCAPING ON THE PATHWAY AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE PROJECT. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION DARREL LUM VALLCO NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE 2005 OCTOBER 18, 2005 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 3·STORY PARKING GARAGE NOVEMBER 1, 2005 CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 3-STORY PARKING GARAGE W 32 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT DECEMBER 7, 2005 VALLCO FASHION PARK NORTH PARKING STRUCTURE PLAN BY PERKOWITZ+RUTH ARCHITECTS SHOWS PROPOSED 4-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 760 STALLS JANUARY 17, 2006 THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE GARAGE AT 3 LEVELS NOT TO EXCEED 32 FEET. THE COUNCIL STIPULATED: "THERE IS AN INTENTION TO NOT APPROVE ANY MORE HEIGHT TO THE STRUCTURE IN THE FUTURE." THE APPLICANT IS A WARE OF THE COUNCIL'S INTENT ... " SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 PARKING STRUCTURE PLAN BY PERKOWITZ+RUTH ARCHITECTS SHOW SURFACE OF LEVEL P·4 @ ELEVATION OF 213.83 BASE OF 1st LEVEL P·1 @ ELEVATION OF 176.50 = 37.33 VALLCO TRIES TO USE A NEIGHBOR YARD @ ELEVATION OF183.0 TO MEET THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 32 FEET; THE PARKING STRUCTURE IS SEPARATED FROM THE BACKYARD BY THE LANDSCAPE AREA EAST OF PERIMETER ROAD, PERIMETER ROAD AND LANDSCAPE AREA WEST OF PERIMETER ROAD. SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 M·2006·05 TO ALLOW THE PARKING GARAGE NORTH OF MACY'S TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED 32-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND TO ALLOW PARKING ON THE FOURTH LEVEL. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-38 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRED DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE GARAGE HEIGHT EXTENSION AND PARKING ON THE 4TH LEVEL .... OCTOBER 3, 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# 16 M·2006·05 OCTOBER 18, 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #2 M·2006·05 APPROVED W CONDITIONS DAN ORLOFF, COMMUNITY SPOKEPERSON FOR VALLCO: "ONCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, THEY FELT THAT THEY COULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE NEIGHBORS AND ALL CONCERNED THAT VALLCO COULD MAKE THAT FOURTH LEVEL OF PARKING ALL BUT INVISIBLE VISUALLY AND AUDIBLY. SOURCE: COUNCIL WILL ALLOW PARKING LOT TO EXCEED AGREED HEIGHT BY AARON CLAVERNE LOS GATOS DAILY NEWS OCTOBER 20, 2006 "VALLCO REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY HOPED THE COUNCIL WOULD EVENTUALLY APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF PARKING,..." SOURCE: CRITICISM OVER PARKING GARAGE BY AARON CLAVERIE Los GATOS DAILY NEWS OCTOBER 24, 2006 B03-09 COMMUNITY BENEFITS/PROJECT BENEFITS A PROJECT SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERITS, NOT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT IS OFFERING SOME COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THE METROPOLITAN PROJECT REQUESTED A 2003 EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN'S HEIGHT OF 36 FEET FOR AN INCREASED HEIGHT OF 44 FEET BECAUSE IT WAS PROVIDING 6,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE. THE RETAIL COMPONENT HAS EXPERIENCE LONG-TERM DIFFICULTY IN LEASING THESE RETAIL SPACES; IN FACT ONE SPACE HAS NOT BEEN LEASED TO DATE. ALTHO METROPOLITAN RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY IS CONFIDENTIAL, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ACTUAL SALES TAX REVENUE BE COMPARED TO THE EXPECTED SALES TAX REVENUE PRO FORMA BY THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT OF THE METROPOLITAN PROJECT, THE CITY'S FINANCIAL PROJECTION AND See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-39 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response THE INDEPENDENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS. ADOBE TWO UNITS OF RETAIL. LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL. RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS CITY CENTER/STEVENS CREEK BLVD & SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD GROUND FLOOR RETAIL; SECOND FLOOR+ RESIDENTIAL. APARTMENT CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL LACK OF RETAIL PARKING METROPOLITAN FRONT GROUND FLOOR RETAIL CONDOMINIUMS; FRONT SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS; ALL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS TO REAR PARKING ISSUE. TRAVIGNE PLAZA GROUND FLOOR RETAIL; SECOND FLOOR OFFICE; ALL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS TO REAR SHARED PARKING CONCEPT LACK OF PARKING SEE PHOTO CIVIC CENTER/SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD GROUND FLOOR RETAIL: SECOND FLOOR+ RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL LACK OF RETAIL PARKING AT ROUNDTABLE CONVERSATION: Q: OFTEN, PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A RETAIL COMPONENT ON THE GROUND FLOOR. WHAT CAN HELP MAKE THAT SUCCESSFUL? A: ACCESS, VISIBILITY AND HAVING A GOOD PARKING PLAN FOR RETAIL ARE ALL KEY. YOU NEED TO BRING CUSTOMERS IN FROM OUTSIDE; PEOPLE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET WANT TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN, WALK IN, DO THEIR SHOPPING AND GET BACK ON THE ROAD. AND THE RETAILERS HAVE CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT THEY WANT, SUCH AS PARKING IN FRONT AND CO-TENANCY WITH OTHER RETAILERS, TO BRING IN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-40 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response CUSTOMERS." PHIL MAHONEY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT CORNISH & CAREY SOURCE: BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE: BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL MAY 2, 2014 ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE ATTRIBUTED TO AN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS IS CONFIDENTIAL, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ACTUAL SALES TAX REVENUE BE COMPARED TO THE EXPECTED SALES TAX REVENUE PRO FORMA BY THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT OF THE PROJECT, THE CITY'S FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT AND THE INDEPENDENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT. PUBLIC BENEFITS AS REQUIRED BY P DISTRICT ZONING OF MOUNTAIN VIEW OR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE OF PALO ALTO: GENERAL PLAN OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENCOURAGES OPEN SPACE IN MULTI-FAMILY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-41 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PROJECTS THAT IS DESIGNED FOR A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES AND PROMOTES SOCIAL GATHERING. P DISTRICT STANDARDS RECOMMEND 175 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE PER UNIT P DISTRICT STANDARD STATES ONLY SETBACK AREAS OF 30 FEET OR GREATER SHOULD COUNT TOWARD COMMON OPEN SPACE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN OF CITY OF CUPERTINO: COMMON, USABLE OUTDOOR SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS. A MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT EXCLUDING REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS. PALO ALTO PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING ALLOWS INCREASE OF HEIGHT AND INCREASE OF DENSITY IN EXCHANGE FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS 565·595 MAYBELL A VENUE HIGH-DENSITY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT 60 APARTMENT UNITS + 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 2.5 ACRE EXISTING ZONING: 46 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MEASURE D TO ZONE TO PLANNED COMMUNITY DEFEATED 395 PAGE MILL ROAD MENLO PARK 311,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE WITH PUBLIC BENEFIT OF 44,500 SQUARE FEET PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET AT 3045 PARK BLVD. APPLICATION FOR PROJECT WITHDRAWN TRAFFIC: SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS MENLO PARK EL CAMINO REAL/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVED JUNE 2012 ALLOWS 240,820 SF OF OFFICE IN 20 TO 30 YEAR TIME FRAME 2013 STANFORD/ARRILLAGA PROJECT 199,500 SF OFFICE GREENHEART PROJECT 194,000 SF OFFICE =393,500 SF OFFICE. INITIATIVE BY SAVE MENLO WOULD RESTRICT NEW OFFICE SPACE TO A TOTAL OF 240,820 SF ALONG EL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-42 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response CAMINO REAL AND DOWNTOWN WOULD ALLOW NO INDIVIDUAL PROJECT MORE THAN I00,000 SF WOULD REQUIRE VOTERS TO APPROVE ANY PROPOSAL TO RAISE THE OFFICE SPACE TOTAL ABOVE 240,820 SF. INITIATIVE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 2014 ELECTION COMMENT ON PUBLIC BENEFITS: "THERE SHOULD BE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUE GAINED BY A DEVELOPER AND THE BENEFIT VALUE TO RESIDENTS." "THE BENEFIT SHOULD BE WANTED AND NEEDED BY RESIDENTS, NOT JUST CONVENIENT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE." COMMENT: "WHEN A PROJECT GETS ITS FINAL INSPECTION AND DEPARTMENTS SIGN OFF ON IT, ALL PUBLIC BENEFITS MUST BE CHECKED TO ENSURE THEY ARE COMPLETED AND WILL BE PROVIDED AS AGREED TO." "IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIGN OFF ON A PROJECT UPON COMPLETION OF A PROJECT GIVEN MANY PUBLIC BENEFITS CAN BE LOST OR CHANGED COUNTER TO THE AGREEMENT." "REASON FOR SUBSEQUENT MANDATORY INSPECTIONS IS TO CONFIRM THAT ALL PUBLIC BENEFITS AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT ARE BEING PROVIDED AS PROMISED ... AND TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC REALIZES THEIR PROMISED BENEFITS." "TO INSPECT, ONE MUST KNOW FIRST WHAT TO INSPECT. ...NEED TO INVENTORY AND DOCUMENT PROPERTIES LISTED BY DATE, ADDRESS, AND COMPLETE WITH PUBLIC BENEFITS MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC." " ... CITY (SHOULD HAVE) THE POWER TO LEVY PENALTIES AN AND FINES TO ENFORCE (CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL), INCLUDING WHEN PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE NOT PROVIDED OR DISCONTINUED." B03-10 PUBLIC ART ALOFT HOTEL PLANNING COMMISSION "THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOW...: 7. WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC ART (CONDITION #11) STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS WAIVING THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT "THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT AS A MECHANISM TO REDUCE PROJECT COSTS FOR THE APPLICANT. See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-43 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response " STAFF RESPONSE:" IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF NOTES THAT THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT IS BOTH A GENERAL PLAN POLICY AND ORDINANCE AND THERE IS NO PROVISION TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OR REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE CONDITION TOWARD THE ARTS. THE CITY COUNCIL, HOWEVER, HAS THE DISCRETION TO DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE AND/OR CREATIVE FORMATS OF ART THAT CAN HELP REDUCE THE COST TO THE APPLICANT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FINAL ART PROPOSAL WOULD STILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE FINE ARTS COMMISSION." CITY COUNCIL "COUNCIL ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT. CITY ATTORNEY CAROL KORADE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT BUT THAT THERE MAY BE FLEXIBILITY IN WORKING WITH THE FINE ARTS COMMISSION TO DISCUSS WHAT ART WOULD BE. SHE NOTED THAT IF ART WASN'T FEASIBLE, THE APPLICANT COULD APPLY TO FINE ARTS COMMISSION FOR IN-LIEU APPLICATION, BUT THAT IS DISCOURAGED." SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 1, 2010 AGENDA # PAGE 2 & 7 FINE ARTS COMMISSION FOUNTAIN POOL. WITH UPRIGHT STONE COLUMNS AND GRIDS OF WATER PLANTS. CASCADING WATER. HOTEL MONUMENT SIGN WALL WITH WATER CASCADING DOWN ON BOTH SIDES. SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONCEPTURAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 KLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1/06/09 CASCADING FOUNTAIN ELEMENT BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND DINING PATIO. SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING LANDSCAPE CROSS-SECTIONS L2/SECTION A KLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-44 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 1/06/09 SEE AUGUST 28, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 3 IN ADDITION TO THE ARTWORK, "THERE IS A FOUR-FOOT WATER WALL BETWEEN THE PATIO AND STREET.... " COMMENT: THE ENCLOSURE FOR THE POWER GENERATOR AND THE PGE TRANSFORMER IS MORE VISIBLE THAN THE PUBLIC ART COMMENT: ANOTHER PROJECT'S CONDITION OF APPROVAL STATES THAT "IT (THE ARTWORK) SHOULD BE VISIBLE THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS..." APPLE INFINITY LOOP CAMPUS “THE CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AN ART PROJECT FOR APPLE'S SOON TO BE COMPLETED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY ON DE ANZA BOULEVARD NEAR INTERSTATE 280." "THE COUNCIL REQUIRED APPLE TO INSTALL AN ART PROJECT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL CONDITIONS FOR THE R & D CAMPUS." THE ART PROJECT "SELECTED FOR SCULPTURE ARE THE PENCIL, ARROW, HAND, DOG AND ERASER ICONS.." "THE FINE ARTS COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE DESIGN, BECAUSE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF ART FOR PUBLIC VIEWING AND THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN GOAL OF EXPRESSING CUPERTINO'S INNOVATIVE SPIRIT." SOURCE: CUPERTINO COURIER APRIL 14, 1993 ART REMOVED AND NOT REPLACED AS OF 2014 PROJECTS SHOULD PROVIDE HEIGHT TRANSITIONS TO EXISTING ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. PROJECTS SHOULD PROVIDE SETBACK TRANSITIONS TO EXISTING ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. B03-11 SETBACK SETBACK IS THE DISTANCE A BUIL.DING MUST BE SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES OR DEED RESTRICTIONS. SETBACK: IN LAND PLANNING, THE DISTANCE FROM A LOT LINE, EASEMENT, OR EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT CANNOT BE ENCROACHED ON BY A NEW IMPROVEMENT. SETBACK ORDINANCE REGULATES THE DISTANCE FROM THE LOT LINE TO THE POINT WHERE IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED. THE SETBACK COULD INCLUDE FURNISHINGS, PLANTINGS INCLUDING STREET TREES ... See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-45 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SOURCE: CITY OF PALO ALTO STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND DE ANZA BOULEVARD SHOULD BE PEDESTRIAN- FRIENDLY BOULEVARDS, AS REQUIRED BY NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL FOR NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD (WHICH SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD) AND HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD. REDUCTION OF MASSING ALONG STREETS SUCH AS STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND DE ANZA BOULEVARD REDUCTION OF MASSING ALONG OTHER STREETS IS INDICATED. DOUBLE ROW OF TREES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CREATE A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY WALKING ENVIRONMENT B03-12 PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY WALKING ENVIRONMENT WALKABLE FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT IN CUPERTINO DIRECTIONAL SIGNS DISTANCES MAPS REST AREAS MEETING PLACES SEATING SHELTERS FROM WIND, SUN, RAIN REDUCTION IN USE OF AUTOMOBILES ENCOURAGE PROPERTY AND/OR BUSINESS OWNERS TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN- FRIENDLY AMENITIES ON THEIR STREET FRONTAGE THESE AMENITIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROJECT BENEFITS PEDESTRIAN BILL OF RIGHTS SEE ATTACHMENT 3 SOURCE: PEDESTRIAN OFFERS BILL OF RIGHTS TO BY ARROL GELLNER SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE MAY 12, 2007 See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-46 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-13 The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. B03-14 PUBLIC BENEFITS vs PROJECT BENEFITS PUBLIC BENEFITS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS OR MAINTENANCE EXPENSES BY THE CITY. EITHER A MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. PROJECT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC/ COMMUNITY BENEFITS; PROJECT BENEFITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-47 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER A 2·TIER FORMAT BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IS A SERIOUS CONCERN AS FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND CITY COUNCILS MAY NOT BE AS AWARE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO RESIDENTS' CONCERNS REGARDING SCHOOLS, TRAFFIC, DENSITIES, HEIGHTS, SETBACKS, ETC. B03-15 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SETBACK THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SETBACK... THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 20, 2005 FOR THE WHOLE FOODS MARKET OMITS THE SETBACKS IN THE PROJECT DATA FOR THIS PROJECT. EXCEPT FOR "BUILDING SIDE SETBACK. THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SIDE SETBACK IN THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN CALLS FOR A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 FEET OR 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE BUIL.DING WALL, WHICH IS GREATER." TO ITS CREDIT SANDHILL PROPERTIES AND WHOLE FOOD MARKET, 20955 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, CONSTRUCTED, THE BUILDING WITH ITS SIDE SETBACK ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD WITH THE 35 FEET SETBACK. SEE PHOTO ALSO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CONSTRUCTED THE SENIOR CENTER BUILDING WITH ITS BACK SETBACK ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD WITH THE 35 FEET SETBACK. SEE PHOTO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS CORNER SIDE SETBACKS CONTRARY TO THE PLANNING STAFF'S INTERPRETATION IN THE SAICH WAY STAFF REPORT. SEE ATTACHMENT 10 See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-48 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-49 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-16 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS INDEPENDENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION. PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. SEPTEMBER 2005 FISCAL AND ENROLLMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY TOWN HALL SERVICES SEPTEMBER 2005 THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-50 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON THE CITY AND SCHOOLS PREPARED BY ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. JANUARY 2006 APPLE CAMPUS 2 ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS GENERATED BY APPLE IN CUPERTINO PREPARED BY KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES MAY 2013 COMMISSIONED BY APPLE B03-17 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION RETAIL STRATEGY REPORT PREPARED BY GREENSFELDER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LLC DATED MARCH 6, 2014: STUDY AREA # 1 : CUPERTINO INN AND GOODYEAR TIRE ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER IS A POSITIVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO RENDER AN OPINION SINCE THERE ARE NO DEFINITE DETAILS REGARDING THE STRUCTURE. SEE COMMENTS REGARDING ALOFT HOTEL. STUDY AREA #2: CITY CENTER "FUNDAMENTALLY, CITY CENTER IS NOT A RETAIL SITE. THE PROJECT WOULD NEED TO REDESIGNED TO CREATE A RETAIL STATEMENT,..." SEE ATTACHMENT 4 COMMENTS REGARDING CITY CENTER TO FOLLOW The proposed Project study areas are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 3-35. As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 1-2, the Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. Different types of EIRs are used for varying situations and intended uses. As described in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, the most common type of EIR is a project EIR, which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria. In this case, the proposed Project that is the subject of this EIR consists of long-term plans that will be implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level EIR that analyzes the potential significant environmental effects of the adoption of the proposed Project. As a program EIR, it is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed under the General Plan. Such subsequent projects will require a separate environmental review, when applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-51 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response tiered from this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address project- specific impacts of individual projects. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-52 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response STUDY AREA #3: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC PGE HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION TO VACATE THIS PROPERTY. STUDY AREA #4: MIRAPATH "REZONING THE MIRAPATH STUDY AREA FROM ML (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ALMOST CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE." STUDY AREA #5: CUPERTINO VILLAGE "IF REPURPOSING THE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WERE EVER DESIRED, THE LOSS OF THIS RETAIL AMENITY MAY NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED." GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-53 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response COMMENTS REGARDING CUPERTINO VILLAGE TO FOLLOW STUDY AREA #6: VALLCO SHOPPING MALL UNABLE TO COMMENT AS WE NEED TO EVALUATE AND COMPREHEND THE LENGTHY VALLCO SHOPPING MALL REPORT. IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME FOR ANY PLAN TO PROCEED. STUDY AREA #7: STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER "THE SITE MIGHT BE DESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MORE DENSE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, ADDITIONAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, OR A COMBINATION OF ANY OR ALL OF THESE USES." "CONSEQUENTLY, ALL OF THESE USES WOULD BECOME POTENTIAL RETAIL USES FOR THIS STUDY AREA. FOR THESE REASONS, CONTINUATION OF THE RETAIL PORTION OF STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONFIGURED, OR A PARTIAL OR COMPLETE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY AREA AS A RETAIL PROJECT ARE BOTH VIABLE OPTIONS." "IN ADDITION TO OTHER REASONS NOTED HERE, THESE IMPROVEMENTS MAKE THE STUDY AREA A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AS A RETAIL PROJECT." MR. GREENFELDER 'S PRESENTATION AT THE APRIL 1, 2014 CITY COUNCIL. STUDY SESSION WAS EXCELLENT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT MR. GREENFELDER BE REQUESTED TO ELABORATE ON HIS VIEWS FOR THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY FOR STUDY AREA #6, VALLCO SHOPPING MALL. ARTICLE: THE PERILS OF MIXED-USE IN SILICON VALLEY (AND WHY EVERY PROJECT CAN'T BE A SANTANA ROW) BY LAUREN HEPLER SOURCE: SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL. MARCH 11, 2014 PAGE 14 B03-18 HOUSING ELEMENT STATE LAW STATES THAT SITES MEETING A DEFAULT DENSITY OF 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ARE DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW INCOME HOUSING. SITES FOR CONSIDERATION SITE #2, 1.2 & 1.2 20007 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Housing Element law allows local governments to use “default” density standards determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In accordance with HCD’s determination, suburban cities in Santa Clara County require a minimum “realistic” density of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater to meet lower income/affordable requirements. (California Government Code Section GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-54 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 20021 STEVENS CREEK BLVD 10041 NORTH BLANEY AVENUE WILL ENCOUNTER OPPOSITION SITE #8 19160 STEVENS CREEK BLVD BARRY SWENSON SITE IF CONSIDERED WITHIN CONTEXT OF DEVELOPING SITE #W23 19200, 19220 & 19280 STEVENS CREEK BLVD ESPECIALLY 19200 STEVEN CREEK BLVD SITE #9 19060 STEVENS CREEK BLVD & 10029 JUDY AVE LOREE CENTER HAS BECOME SUCCESSFUL RETAIL/RESTAURANT CENTER SITE ##P1 22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD/ APN 342·14·1 04 BATEH ............STEVENS CREEK BLVD/ APN 342·14·066 UNDEVELOPED SITE SIZE: 0.67 DU/A: 20·35 REALISTIC CAPACITY: 11·1 9 PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPMENT INTEREST BATEH BROTHERS SEE ATTACHMENT 5 RECOMMEND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT Attachment 5 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iii) states that for suburban jurisdictions: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. ) With Cupertino’s last Housing Element (2007-2014), HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85 percent of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on city-specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, while the maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units, the realistic yield for Housing Element purposes is (25 times 85 percent) = 21 units. In anticipation that the HCD will continue to accept this realistic yield, most sites in the Housing Element are in areas that are at or above this density. Descriptions of the proposed housing element sites under the proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 3-65. See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-55 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-56 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-57 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-58 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-59 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SITE #P3 10625 SOUTH FOOTHILL BLVD/APN 342·16-087 CUPERTINO BIKE SHOP (10625) ANTIQUE FURNITURE STEVENS CREEK MARKET (10629) SIZE: 1.3 DU/A: 20·25 REALISTIC CAPACITY: 22·27 PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPMENT INTEREST GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-60 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SEE ATTACHMENT 6 RECOMMEND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-61 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-62 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-63 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SITE #W1 2173 1 STEVENS CREEK BL. VD/ APN 326·20·048 SHOE REPAIR (21725) VIVA'S (21731) DAVE'S BARBER SHOP (21739) LUCY BEAUTY SALON (21741) CLEANER (21749) TAE KWON DO (21749) 134 X 200 = 26,800 SF/ 43,560 = 0.615 ACRE SIZE: 0.62 DU/A: 4.4·1.2 REALISTIC CAPACITY: 2-6 MAY CONSIDER INCREASE IN DENSITY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-64 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response MAY SUPPLEMENT TO CRITICAL. MASS OF MONTE VISTA BUSINESS SEE ATTACHMENT 7 RECOMMEND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT SITE #W21 21771 STEVENS CREEK BLVD OFFICE BUILDING (21771) NOT VIVA'S The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-65 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-66 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SITE #W23 19200, 19220 & 19280 STEVENS CREEK BLVD APN 375·06·006, 375·06·007, 375·06·005 CITIBANK & LES PAVILLIONS, SUNFLOWER. SEE ATTACHMENT 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-67 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-68 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-19 ALTHO WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS W SOME PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS WE HAVE NOT OPINED BECAUSE NO DETAILS, DESIGN OR PLANS HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO DEFINE OUR COMMENTS. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SOURCE: 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE HOUSING ELEMENT 2014 SENT AS AN ATTACHMENT FOR MARCH 4, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO RESPONSE "IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO DETERMINE THE DENSITY, HEIGHT AND SETBACK FAVORED BY THE RESIDENTS OF CUPERTINO RATHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNERS." SOURCE: PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 19, 2014 See Response to Comments B03-17 and B03-18. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-69 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response NO RESPONSE 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 11: GLENBROOK APARTMENTS SITE 12: VILLAGES OF CUPERTINO "BOTH SITES CONTAIN EXISTING GARDEN APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE NOT BUILT TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY. THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES HAVE LARGE OPEN SPACES THAT EXCEED THE CITY'S OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. AS SUCH, ADDITIONAL UNITS COULD BE BUILT ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES." "THIS (THESE) SITE(S) WAS (WERE) RECOMMENDED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO). SOURCE: 2007·20 14 HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO GPA·2008·01 RECENTLY, BILTMORE HAS IN 2012 AND 2014 HAS ADDED HOUSING UNITS WITHIN ITS MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY B03-20 Mitigation: Housing previously submitted for Draft Environmental Impact Report for Apple Campus 2 City of Cupertino General Plan Housing Element 2007-2014 Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance Program Require major new office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. As part of the development review process, the City will evaluate the impact of any application that will produce additional jobs in the community. The purpose of the evaluation is to describe the impacts of the new jobs on the City's housing stock, especially in relation to the jobs/housing ratio in the City. City of Palo Alto/Stanford Hospital & Clinics/Lucille Packard Children's Hospital Stanford proposal includes a $23.1 million contribution to Palo Alto's affordable housing plan Stanford's Vice President for Special Projects said the amount is equivalent to what a for-profit Population and housing impacts of the proposed Project are described in detail in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.11-10. The housing impacts of the proposed Project would be less-than-significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. The comment also provides information on another project. See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-70 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response developer would have to pay .... the hospital is exempt from the housing fee, but is willing to pay it anyway to help mitigate the project's impacts .... the hospital aren't offering to build the houses because they don't own the land where these houses would have to stand." Source: Stanford Offers $125 Million in 'Community Benefits' for Hospital Expansion By Gennady Sheyner Palo Alto Online June 16, 2009 In exchange for approving the project, Palo Alto negotiated a development agreement that includes nearly $175 million in "community benefits" to be provided by Stanford, ...about $23.2 million for the city to use on housing projects. Source: Council OKs Stanford Hospital Expansion By Diana Samuels San Jose Mercury News June 8, 2011 City of Menlo Park/Facebook West Campus The company is seeking a development agreement that would spell out its long-term development rights in exchange for public benefits. Facebook would also pay approximately $4.5 million to the City's below-market rate housing fund. Source: More Details Emerge on Face book's West Campus Design By Nathan Donato-Weinstein Silicon Valley Business journal September 28, 2012 Page 10 City of Cupertino/ Apple "...a $2.5 million contribution to affordable housing, the report said." Source: Apple Plans to Add Thousands of jobs by Peter Burrows of Bloomberg San Francisco Chronicle June 6, 2013 " ... payment of a $2.5 million Below Market Rate (BMR) affordable housing fee. Apple will be making an additional voluntary $2.5 million contribution to the City's BMR program as part of its GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-71 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response investment in public improvements and benefits." Source: Economic and Fiscal Impacts Generated by Apple in Cupertino by Keyser Marston Associates Prepared for Apple May 2013 Page 18 Footnote 20 Comment: Stanford $5 billion project > $23 million for affordable housing Facebook West Campus project > $4.5 million for below-market rate housing Apple Campus 2 $3 to 5 billion project > $5.0 million for affordable housing CURRENT COMMENT: "IF YOU'VE EVER WONDERED WHAT MOUNTAIN VIEW (CUPERTINO) MIGHT LOOK LIKE IF THERE WAS ENOUGH HOUSING FOR ALL OF GOGGLE' [sic] (APPLE'S) LOCAL EMPLOYEES, YOU AREN'T ALONE. BERKELEY·BASED DESIGNER WONDERED THE SAME THING. HE CREATED A DIGITAL RENDERING..." SEE ATTACHMENT "ITOWN" SOURCE: GOGGLE [sic] TOWN: IMAGINING HOUSING FOR ALL EMPLOYEES BY DANIEL DEBOLT MARCH 7, 2014 PAGE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-72 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-73 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response HOUSING FACEBOOK "WILL FUND 15 LOW-INCOME UNITS AT ANTON MENLO, PLANNED 400-UNIT UPSCALE APARTMENT COMMUNITY IN MENLO PARK .... " FACEBOOK AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE TO MENLO PARK'S AFFORDABLE STOCK AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE CITY THAT ALLOWED FACEBOOK TO EXPAND IN MENLO PARK." GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-74 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SOURCE: FACEBOOK TO FUND 15 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOPURNAL OCTOBER 4, 2013 PAGE 19 B03-21 TRAFFIC CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENCOURAGES REDUCED TRAFFIC DEMAND BY PROMOTING EFFECTIVE TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAMS FOR EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT. NOTABLE ADDITION TO THE TDM PROGRAM FOR THE SAMSUNG BUILDING AT 625·685 CLYDE AVENUE IS A SHUTTL.E SERVICE FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC. To ENSURE THAT A PROJECT PROVIDES AND MAINTAINS THE PERCENT PEAK HOUR TRIP REDUCTION, AN ANNUAL. THIRD-PART OF THE TDM PROGRAM WILL BE REQUIRED. THE TDM REPORT WILL BE PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT AND PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT. THE TDM REPORT WILL INCLUDE A DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL EMPLOYEE COMMUTE, WHICH INFORMATION SHALL BE OBTAINED BY SURVEY OF ALL EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE BUILDINGS ON THE PROJECT SITE. ALL NONRESPONSES TO THE EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SURVEY WILL BE COUNTED AS A DRIVE-ALONE TRIP. THE ANNUAL TDM REPORT WILL QUANTIFY THE PEAK HOUR TRIP ACHIEVED FOR THE PROJECT, AND IF THAT FIGURE IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED PERCENT, THE REPORT WILL DESCRIBED ADDITIONAL MEASURES THAT WILL BE ADOPTED TO ATTAIN THE PERCENT REQUIRE. A SIX MONTH GRACE PERIOD IS PROPOSED THAT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO ADJUST THE TDM MEASURES TO MEET THE PERCENT REQUIREMENT. IF THE PERCENT TRIP REDUCTION IS NOT ACHIEVED BY THE END OF THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE FINED A PENALTY OF $100,000 FOR THE FIRST 1 PERCENT BELOW THE PERCENT THRESHOL.D, THEN $50,000 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL The comment provides information on another project. See Response to Comment B03-01. Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.13-49. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-75 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PERCENT BELOW THE PERCENT THRESHOLD. THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THE PROPOSED PENALTY IS TOO HIGH. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW STAFF BELIEVES THE PENALTY LEVEL IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IF THE PENALTY IS TOO LOW, IT WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE TO PAY THE PENALTY THAN TO RETAIN COSTLY TDM MEASURES, SUCH AS THE SHUTTLE SERVICE. SOURCE: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW SAMSUNG BUILDING 625·685 CLYDE AVENUE MARCH 19, 2013 "CORPORATE SHUTTLE SERVICES... SUCH AS APPLE INC. AND GOGGLE [sic] INC. TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES FROM SAN FRANCISCO (AND OTHER LOCALES) TO CAMPUSES IN SILICON VALLEY. BUT SUCH SERVICES HAVE REMAINED... SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER AND CERTAINLY CUT OFF FROM YOUR AVERAGE NON-TECH-WORKER CITIZEN. NOW SEVERAL TECH COMPANIES AND DEVELOPERS ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO PLAN A MORE EFFICIENT AND OPEN SYSTEM... SAN FRANCISCO-BASED DEVELOPER TMG PARTNERS ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK IT WOULD TEAM WITH GOGGLE [sic] INC., INTUIT CORP., AND FELLOW DEVELOPER SARIS REGIS GROUP OF NORTHERN CAL.IFORNIA TO FORM A NEW TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW. THE NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION WILL. DEVISE, FUND AND OPERATE A SHARED-SHUTTLE SERVICE THAT WILL OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY AND BE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND WORKERS AT OTHER COMPANIES." "TMG, WHICH IS BUILDING A NEW 385,000 SQUARE FOOT CAMPUS FOR SAMSUNG R&D INSTITUTE AMERICA AT 685 CLYDE AVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO SET UP THE AGENCY AS A CITY CONDITION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT." "GOING FORWARD, COMPANIES THAT WANT TO GROW IN THE CITY MIGHT NOT HAVE A CHOICE. "WE'RE STARTING TO MAKE IT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR A LOT OF THESE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN," SAID MARGARET ABE KOGA, A CITY COUNCILWOMAN." "THE AGENCY'S GOALS INCLUDE REDUCING SINGLE-OCCUPANT CAR USE, PROVIDING MORE TRANSIT OPTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC, AND CONNECTING BUSINESSES TO DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN VIEW." "ASIDE FROM KEEPING SOLO CAR DRIVERS OFF THE ROAD, THE ASSOCIATION'S EFFECTIVENESS WILL BE IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF NEARLY EMPTY EMPLOYEE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-76 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SHUTTLES IN TOWN, WHILE POTENTIALLY COORDINATING OTHER EFFORTS TO REDUCE CAR TRIPS." "REDUCED TRAFFIC ISN'T THE ONLY WAY THE PUBLIC WILL BENEFITS. THE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (TMA) IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO RUN A SHUTTLE SERVICE TO AND FROM DOWNTOWN THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC." SOURCE: GOGGLE [sic] JOINS TECH FIRMS TO FORM TRANSIT AGENCY BY DANIEL DEBOLT MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE OCTOBER 25, 2013 "WITH MOUNTAIN VIEW FACING A POSSIBLE AVALANCHE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND GENTRIFICATION FROM 5.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE GROWTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE, THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES COMPANIES CHOOSE TO PACK INTO THEIR BUILDINGS IS AS IMPORTANT A FACTOR AS EVER,... " "DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING CONSEQUENCES FOR NEARLY EVERY RESIDENT OF A CITY, MOUNTAIN VIEW'S LARGEST EMPLOYER, GOGGLE [sic], REFUSES TO SAY EXACTLY HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IT HAS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW, OR EVEN HOW MANY IT TENDS TO HOUSE IN 1,000 SQUARE FEET." "WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE ISSUE, MOUNTAIN VIEW'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RANDY TSUDA SAID THAT "IT'S TOUGH TO PIN DOWN BECAUSE COMPANIES DON'T NECESSARILY OPENLY SHARE THAT NUMBER." "IT'S NO SECRET THAT GOGGLE [sic] AND FACEBOOK HAVE BEEN LEADING A TREND TO SQUEEZE EMPLOYEES INTO TIGHTER SPACES. THAT MAY BE ONE REASON WHY TRAFFIC AND HOUSING COSTS HAVE SPIKED IN RECENT YEARS WITHOUT MUCH NEW OFFICE DEVELOPMENT." SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES BY DANIEL DEBOLT MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE APRIL 18, 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-77 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response MOUNTAIN VIEW: 5.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE STANDARD CALCULATION: 5,500, 000 SF/ 333 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 18,517 5,500, 000 SF/ 250 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 22,000 "THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION DID A SURVEY IN 2012 OF 500 CORPORATE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES, ASKING HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WAS ALLOCATED TO EMPLOYEES. IT CONCLUDED THAT "THE METRIC HAS CHANGED FROM 225 SQUARE FEET (PER EMPLOYEE) IN 2010 TO 178 (SQUARE FEET) IN 2012, AND IS PROJECTED TO REACH 151 IN 2017,..." SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES BY DANIEL DEBOLT MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE APRIL 18, 2014 MOUNTAIN VIEW: 5.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE NEW CALCULATION: 2010 5,500,000 SF/225 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 24,444 2012 5,500,000 SF/178 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 31,250 2017 5,500,000 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 38,424 SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES BY DANIEL DEBOLT MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE APRIL 18, 2014 AT RECENT APRIL 8, 2014 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MEETING THE CITY COUNCIL HAS RECOMMENDED TO RREEF TO SCALE BACK ITS 1 MILLION SQUARE FEET BUILDING AT 700 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BY 25 PERCENT. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-78 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response "...CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS (OF MOUNTAIN VIEW) SUPPORTED THE USE OF "CONGESTION PRICING" AS A WAY TO ENFORCE PROPOSED LIMITS ON COMMUTER TRAFFIC INTO THE CITY'S GROWING NORTH BAYSHORE OFFICE PARK." "COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY SUCCESS WITH SUCH A CAP IMPOSED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, WHICH PREVENTS THE STANFORD CAMPUS FROM EXPANDING UNLESS CAR TRIPS ARE KEPT AT 1989 LEVELS." SOURCE: CITY CONSIDERS FEES TO REDUCE COMMUTERS BY DANIEL DEBOLT MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE MAY 2, 2014 "...PARTLY FROM THE 8,000 NET-NEW APPLE EMPLOYEES THE (APPLE) CAMPUS (2) WILL BRING,... AND, ONCE COMPLETED, WILL APPLE LEAVE THE SCORES OF BUILDINGS IT HAS LEASED IN CUPERTINO,..." SOURCE: THE APPLE EFFECT: CUPERTINO AWAITS JOBS, CASH BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL OCTOBER 18, 2013 "APPLE EXPECTS TO EXPAND ITS SILICON VALLEY WORKFORCE BY NEARLY 50 PERCENT DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS,... THE PROJECTIONS DETAILED IN A REPORT... ENVISION APPLE HIRING 7,400 MORE WORKERS AT ITS CUPERTINO, CALIF., HEADQUARTERS BETWEEN NOW AND THE PLANNED COMPLETION OF A NEW OFFICE COMPLEX IN 2016. APPLE INC. NOW EMPLOYS ABOUT 16,000 PEOPLE IN AND AROUND CUPERTINO,... SOURCE: APPLE POISED FOR HIRING SPREE IN SILICON VALLEY BY MICHAEL LIEDTKE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-79 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response ASSOCIATED PRESS 2013 "APPLE PLANS TO BOOST ITS WORKFORCE BY 48 PERCENT TO 23,400 IN ITS HOMETOWN OF CUPERTINO... BY THE TIME ITS ENORMOUS NEW HEADQUARTERS IS COMPLETED IN 2016." SOURCE: APPLE PLAN TO ADD THOUSANDS OF JOBS BY PETER BURROWS BLOOMBERG 2013 APPLE $35 MILLION ON A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SOURCE: FIA KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES 2013 PAGE "APPLE CAMPUS 2 WOULD ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 14,200 EMPLOYEES AT FULL OCCUPANCY. THIS CORRESPONDS TO AN EMPLOYEE DENSITY OF 4.15 EMPLOYEES PER 1, 000 SF... THE EMPLOYEE DENSITY PROPOSED AT THE PROJECT SITE IS HIGHER THAN INDUSTRY STANDARDS (3.3 EMPLOYEES PER 1,001 SF) AND APPLE'S EXISTING CAMPUS AT THE INFINITY LOOP CAMPUS AND OFFICE SOUTH OF MARIANI AVENUE IN CUPERTINO (3.8 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF)." SOURCE: APPLE CAMPUS 2 DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FEHR & PEERS MAY 31, 2014 PAGE 1 B03-22 COMMENT: 4.15 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF= 241 SF/EMPLOYEE The comment provides information on another project. See Response GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-80 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 3.30 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF= 303 SF/EMPLOYEE 3.60 EMPLOYEES PER 1,000 SF= 278 SF/EMPLOYEE 2011 14,200 EMPLOYEES X 3.59 = 50,978 TRIPS 2017 AT 151 SF/EMPLOYEE IN 3,420,000 SF= 22,649 EMPLOYEES @ APPLE CAMPUS 2 TRIP GENERATION: 22,649 X 3.59 = 81,310 TRIPS to Comment B03-01. B03-23 COMMENT: "THE MANY VARIABLES OF CORPORATE REAL ESTATE PLANNING MAKE DETERMINING HEADCOUNT FROM SQUARE FOOTAGE DIFFICULT." See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-24 COMMENT: "EVALUATE THE EMPLOYEE DENSITY IN COMMERCIAL SPACE AS IT AFFECTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PARKING DEMAND AND CONSIDERATION OF ADEQUATE TDM PROGRAMS." As described in Chapter 3, Project Description of the Draft EIR, on page 3-12, the propose Project would generate 44,242 jobs over the buildout of the General Plan. Specifically, footnote 9 on page 3-12 states that jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300 square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs. The traffic impact analysis, as with each environmental analysis, including the traffic analysis, evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the potential future jobs in Cupertino as a result of the proposed Project. B03-25 COMMENT: "AS TRAFFIC DELAYS WORSENS, SO DOES AIR QUALITY. SHOULD OR CAN THIS BE FACTORED INTO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS?" Traffic delays have been factored into the environmental analysis and impacts of mitigation for the proposed Project. A detailed analysis of delayed traffic's impacts to air quality can be found in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page. 4.2-22. B03-26 COMMENT: "THERE IS WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY CONCERN ABOUT THE RAPID EXPANSION OF BUILDING DENSITY ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN CUPERTINO. THE MOST DYNAMIC AND OBVIOUS INDICATORS OF THIS PUBLIC CONCERN ARE PARKING AND TRAFFIC. IN MOST CASES THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT HAS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR AN IMPACT THAT CAN BE EASILY MITIGATED. YET RESIDENTS TALK CONTINUALLY OF EXPERIENCING INCREASING TIME DELAYS ON MANY Traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.13-49. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-81 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response MAJOR ROUTES THROUGH TOWN AND AT KEY INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT TOWN. B03-27 COMMENT: THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT BUT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED. The comment correctly states the conclusions of the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic; however, it is unclear if the comment is referring to the proposed Project or the Apple Campus 2 project. Regardless, the comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue; therefore, no further response is required. B03-28 CITY OF PALO ALTO CASTILLEJA SCHOOL "IN THE LONG SAGA THAT INVOLVES THE TRAFFIC AROUND PALO ALTO'S CASTILLEJA SCHOOL,..." "...IT HAS HIRED TRAFFIC GURUS WHO HAVE PROMISED REFORMS THAT CAN LESSEN THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AROUND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. CASTILLEJA ALSO IS RUNNING SHUTTLE BUSES..." SOURCE: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PAYS BIG FINE, DIGS IN OVER TRAFFIC BY SCOTT HERHOLD SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS NOVEMBER 10, 2013 "THE CITY ALSO AGREED TO A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... IN JANUARY 2015, THE SCHOOL WOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT THAT REFLECTS ITS GROWTH AS IT... HITS TRIP REDUCTION TARGETS OUTLINED IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM." "IT IS THE CITY'S OPINION THAT THE PROCESS TO AMEND THE SCHOOL'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THE BEST WAY TO FULLY ANALYZE THE CURRENT OPERATIONS OF THE SCHOOL AND ADDRESS THE IMPACTS THAT AFFECT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD," SOURCE: CASTILLEJA'S PLANS GETS PASSING GRADE BY JASON GREEN BAY AREA NEWS GROUP MARCH 5, 2014 See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-82 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-29 CITY OF MENLO PARK & FACEBOOK TRIP CAP SPECIFIC PARAMETERS REGARDING THE TRIP CAP CAN BE FOUND IN THE WEST CAMPUS TRIP CAP MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY DATED MARCH 26, 2013. See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-30 CUPERTINO: 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OFFICE EXISTING: 17,113 SF 2012 17,113 SF/176 SF PER EMPLOYEE* = 97 EMPLOYEES 2017 17,113 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE* = 113 EMPLOYEES * "THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION DID A SURVEY IN 2012 OF 500 CORPORATE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES, ASKING HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WAS ALLOCATED TO EMPLOYEES. IT CONCLUDED THAT "THE METRIC HAS CHANGED FROM 225 SQUARE FEET (PER EMPLOYEE) IN 2010 TO 176 (SQUARE FEET) IN 2012, AND IS PROJECTED TO REACH 151 IN 2017,..." SOURCE: CITY SEES OFFICE WORKERS SQUEEZED INTO TIGHTER SPACES BY DANIEL DEBOLT MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE APRIL 18, 2014 See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-31 RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 1,895 ALTERNATIVE A: +500,000 SF 2012 +500,000 SF /176 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 2840 2017 +500,000 SF/ 151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 3311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 0 ALTERNATIVE B: +2,000,000 SF See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-83 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 2012 +2,000,000 SF/176 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 11,364 2017 +2,000,000 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 13,245 RESIDENTIAL UNITS: + 1,421 ALTERNATIVE C: +3,500,000 SF 2012 +3,500,000 SF/176 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 19,886 2017 +3,500,000 SF/151 SF PER EMPLOYEE = 23,179 RESIDENTIAL UNITS: +2,526 SOURCE: 2014 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT B03-32 "THE FEHR AND PEERS STUDY AREA FOCUSED ON THE MAIN BUILDINGS AT APPLE'S INFINITE LOOP CAMPUS: INFINITE LOOP 1-6 AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS MARIANI 1 AND DE ANZA 3. TOGETHER, THESE BUILDINGS HOUSE ROUGHLY 4,199 EMPLOYEES IN A TOTAL OCCUPIED AREA OF 1,165,967 SQUARE FEET AND REPRESENT THE CORE OF APPLE'S INNOVATION PROCESS." SOURCE: ALVES CAFE TRANSPORTATION TDM OVERVIEW FEHR AND PEERS TRANSPORTATION STUDIES 2009 AND 2011 1,165,967 SQUARE FEET/4,199 EMPLOYEES = 166.66 SF PER EMPLOYEE See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-33 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PHASE 1 2,820,000 SQUARE FEET/12,000 EMPLOYEES = 235 SF PER EMPLOYEE PHASE 2 300,000 SQUARE FEET/1,200 EMPLOYEES = 250 SF PER EMPLOYEE 3,120,000 SQUARE FEET/14,200 EMPLOYEES = 220 SF PER EMPLOYEE APPLE "AND, ONCE COMPLETED (APPLE CAMPUS 2), WILL APPLE LEAVE THE SCORES OF See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-84 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response BUILDINGS IT HAS LEASED IN CUPERTINO, SUNNYVALE AND SANTA CL.ARA OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS?" SOURCE; THE APPLE EFFECT BY NATHAN DONATO-WEINSTEIN SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL OCTOBER 18, 2013 CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD OFFICE CAMPUS 295,000 SF + 54,900 SF = 349,900 SF "IN 2012 APPLE LEASED TWO LARGE BUILDINGS IN SANTA CLARA..." PEERY- ARRILLAGA SUNNYVALE (APPLE)... "SIGNED A LEASE FOR A TWO-BUILDING CAMPUS TOTALING 108,712 SQUARE FEET AT 975 AND 995 BENECIA AVENUES." PEERY-ARRILLAGA SOURCE: APPLE SPREADING TO SUNNYVALE BY MARY ANN AZEVEDO AND SHANA LYNCH SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 "IN ADDITION, APPLE IS EXPECTED TO LEASE 501 MACARA AVENUE." "APPLE HAS AGREED TO LEASE A SEVEN-BUILDING CAMPUS IN SUNNYVALE WHERE THE TECH GIANT COULD MOVE ABOUT 1,450 WORKERS,...." SUNNYVALE CROSSING 290,000 SF/1,450 EMPLOYEES = 200 SF PER EMPLOYEE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-85 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response "APPLE HAD INSISTED ON LEASES IN THE THREE-TO-FIVE-YEAR RANGE AT VARIOUS EXPANSION SITES IN SUNNYVALE, BUT NOW IS SIGNING 7-T0-10 YEAR LEASES,.... SOURCE: APPLE AGREES TO LEASE SUNNYVALE CAMPUS BY GEORGE AVALOS SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS MAY 22, 2014 ERICSSON SANTA CLARA SQUARE 410,000 SQUARE FEET /2100 EMPLOYEES = 195 SF PER EMPLOYEE FACEBOOK/WEST CAMPUS 433,555 SQUARE FEET/2,800 EMPLOYEES = 155 SF PER EMPLOYEE GOGGLE [sic] 1,100,000 SQUARE FEET LINKEDIN "LINKEDIN AGREED TO FULLY LEASED [sic] A SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE TOWER THAT'S BEING BUILT BY TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES IN THE SOUTH OF MARKET AREA... THE PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKING COMPANY WILL OCCUPY THE BUILDING AT 222 SECOND ST. ON A LEASE THAT INCLUDES 450,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICES,... THE TOWER CAN ACCOMMODATE 2,500 WORKERS,..." SOURCE: ENTIRE SKYSCRAPER TO BE OCCUPIED BLOOMBERG NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE APRIL 23, 2014 PAGE B12 450,000 SQUARE FEET/2,500 EMPL.OYEES = 180 SF PER EMPLOYEE NVIDIA 1,000,000 SQUARE FEET/4,000 EMPLOYEES = 250 SF PER EMPLOYEE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-86 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SALESFORCE/SAN FRANCISCO 400,000 SQUARE FEET/2000 EMPLOYEES = 200 SF PER EMPLOYEE SAMSUNG/MOUNTAIN VIEW B03-34 HOTELS ALOFT BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES BAR AREA FOOD SERVICE AND MEETING ROOMS TO SERVE HOTEL GUESTS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOST OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES CUPERTINO INN BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES SMALL BAR AREA 3 MEETING ROOMS WITH TOTAL OF 1,720 SF FOOD SERVICE AND MEETING ROOMS TO SERVE HOTEL GUESTS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOST OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES CYPRESS HOTEL FULL SERVICE HOTEL BAR AND RESTAURANT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC SEVERAL MEETING ROOMS WITH TOTAL OF 5,000 SF HILTON GARDEN INN BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES SMALL BAR/RESTAURANT AREA 3 MEETING ROOMS WITH TOTAL OF 1,650 SF FOOD SERVICE AND MEETING ROOMS TO SERVE HOTEL GUESTS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOST OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES MAIN STREET CUPERTINO "..MAY BUILD UP TO FIVE-STORY HOTEL OF UP TO 250 ROOMS; IF THERE ARE OVER 160 ROOMS THE HOTEL SHALL PROVIDE FULL AMENITIES, INCLUDING A BANQUET FACILITY." SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-87 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response JANUARY 20, 2009 ASA·2012-11 HOTEL W 180 ROOMS REPLACE REQUIREMENT FOR A 400·PERSON BANQUET FACILITY WITH A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE SOURCE: RESOLUTION # 12·098 ITEM #6 MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN BUSINESS SERVICE HOTEL WITH LIMITED AMENITIES BAR AND RESTAURANT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE AND MEETING ROOM REQUIRED RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE: 6,500 SF PROPOSED RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE: 7,095 SF SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JANUARY 15, 2013 RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACES WILL BE ABLE TO RECONFIGURE TO HAVE 7,095 SF MARRIOT ON WOLFE ROAD OAKS MIXED-USE PROJECT MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & RETAIL/OFFICE/CONVENTION 2 PHASE PROJECT MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN 122 ROOMS IN 4 STORY BUILDING RETAIL/OFFICE/CONVENTION CONVENTION HALL 14,902 SF W 804 SF PANTRY NO KITCHEN NO CONNECTION TO MARRIOT NO ASSURANCE RETAIL/OFFICE/CONVENTION HALL WILL BE BUILT CITY COUNCIL APPROVALS EXPIRE 9/2/12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-88 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response EXTENSION OF PERMITS TO 9/2/14 B03-35 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, & TRAILS COORDINATE WITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT The comment requests coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District on Open Space, Parks and Trails. Existing General Plan Policy 2-73 Strategy 4 encourages the City to establish a Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) that sets standards and establishes implementation measures for creek trails. Further, the City coordinates with the SCVWD on City initiated projects and improvements located adjacent to SCVWD owned property or easements, including parks and open space projects. B03-36 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY POPPY WAY /SARON GARDENS/MURANO 53 TOWN HOUSES AND 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES RAINBOW DRIVE APN 2005 CENTEX HOMES CITY ALLOWED ADDITIONAL 15.66 FEET FRONT SET BACK TO 1282 AND 1292 POPPY WAY WITH CORRESPONDING DECREASE IN WIDTH OF POPPY WAY POPPY WAY NEIGHBORS CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY OF NEGOTIATING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC ON NARROW STREET "APPROVED MODIFICATIONS TO THE MURANO DEVELOPMENT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BARON GARDEN) TO WIDEN POPPY WAY AND ADD A PARKING LANE." SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 4, 2005 CUPERTINO SCENE FEBRUARY 2005 "THE COSTS FOR ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY, REMOVAL. See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-89 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response OF THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AND INSTALLATION OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS RANGE FROM APPROXIMATELY $300,000 TO $500,000." SOURCE: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JANUARY 4, 2005 AGENDA ITEM #23 ACTUAL COST: $80,000 SEE ATTACHMENT 9 Attachment 9 INITIATIVES/SARON GARDENS COUNCIL GIVES OK TO SCRAP SARON GARDENS Prometheus will demolish the 39-unit Saran Garden Apartments and one single-family house to construct 55 single-family homes. The NET INCREASE in units must be used to determine the number of below market rate units to be constructed. As the project results in a net increase of 15 units, the developer is responsible for two below market rate units (15% of 15 units). The developer has voluntarily agreed to construct 3 below market rate units in an effort to offset the impact of demolishing Saran Garden Apartments, which are low-income housing units. "This is a good project," said Councilman Richard Lowenthal. ... As Cupertino is nearly built out, this is a good way to get affordable housing .... " Vice-Mayor Sandra James said, " ... This should be a model for all future projects." The Cupertino Courier July 16, 2003 www. svcn. com/archives/cu perti nocou rier/20030716/cu-news 1 .shtml RESULT: LOSS OF 39 LOW-INCOME HOUSING UNITS FOR 3 BELOW- MARKET UNITS Saran Gardens Apartments: 13 students at Regnart 3 students at Kennedy GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-90 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response 4 students at Manta Vista RESULT: 10 HOUSING UNITS = 4 STUDENTS AT CUSD 10 HOUSING UNITS = 1 STUDENT AT FUHSD Attachment 9 INITIATIVES/SARON GARDENS COUNCIL GIVES OK TO SCRAP SARON GARDENS Prometheus will demolish the 39-unit Saran Garden Apartments and one single-family house to construct 55 single-family homes. The NET INCREASE in units must be used to determine the number of below market rate units to be constructed. As the project results in a net increase of 15 units, the developer is responsible for two below market rate units (15% of 15 units). The developer has voluntarily agreed to construct 3 below market rate units in an effort to offset the impact of demolishing Saran Garden Apartments, which are low-income housing units. "This is a good project," said Councilman Richard Lowenthal. ... As Cupertino is nearly built out, this is a good way to get affordable housing .... " Vice-Mayor Sandra James said, " ... This should be a model for all future projects." The Cupertino Courier July 16, 2003 www. svcn. com/archives/cu perti nocou rier/20030716/cu-news 1 .shtml RESULT: LOSS OF 39 LOW-INCOME HOUSING UNITS FOR 3 BELOW- MARKET UNITS Saran Gardens Apartments: 13 students at Regnart 3 students at Kennedy 4 students at Manta Vista RESULT: 10 HOUSING UNITS = 4 STUDENTS AT CUSD 10 HOUSING UNITS = 1 STUDENT AT FUHSD UNDER THE ABOVE GUIDELINES: MURANO HOMES DOES NOT MEET THE 2001 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN SARON GARDEN APARTMENTS REQUIRED MURANO HOMES 39 APARTMENTS/ 1 HOME 55 HOMES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-91 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response *40 UNITS 80 UNITS 55 HOMES 12 BMR UNITS 3 BMR UNITS @15% OF 80 UNITS *39 RENTAL UNITS 39 UNITS NO RENTAL UNITS * BMR UNITS 3 BMR UNITS @20% OF 55 UNITS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-92 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-37 SOUTH STELLING ROAD/CATALANO 5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 1108 1 SOUTH STELLING ROAD APN 362·1 8·003 2006 PAN CAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL: DEDICATED 25 FEET TO WIDEN SOUTH STELLING ROAD SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SET A-2 12/12/05 See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-38 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN: CORNER LOT SETBACK SEE ATTACHMENT 10 REGARDING BAlCH WAY STATION APPEAL See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-039 ATTACHMENT 10 To: CITY OF CUPERTINO See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-93 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response FROM: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO DARREL LUM DENNIS WHITTAKER DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2013 RE: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT SAICH WAY STATION EXCLUSION OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN THERE WAS A MAJOR CHANGE SINCE THE DECISION BY THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT: IN THE AGENDA FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE DECEMBER 6, 2012 MEETING, IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED DECEMBER 6, 2012, IN THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE JANUARY 8, 2012 MEETING AND THE POSTED SIGN AT THE PROJECT SITE, THEY INCLUDED THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A REDUCED STREET SIDE SETBACK FOR TWO NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING PADS, WHERE A 35 FOOT SETBACK (FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB) IS REQUIRED. YET PRIOR TO THE FINAL APPROVAL, IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 8, 2013, APPLICATION SUMMARY: 3. EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN (EXC-2012·02) TO ALLOW A REDUCED STREET SIDE SETBACK FOR TWO NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING PADS, WHERE A 35 FOOT SETBACK (FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB) IS REQUIRED. NOT REQUIRED. SEE DISCUSSION BELOW PAGE 4 HEART OF THE CITY STREET SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION AFTER FURTHER REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-94 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PLAN (HOC), STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT AN EXCEPTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK ALONG SAICH WAY. ACCORDING HOC SECTION 1 .0 1.030(B)( 1) & 1.0 1.040(0)(1), THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK ALONG THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE IS 35 FEET (MEASURED FROM THE CURB), WHICH CONSISTS OF A 26 FOOT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND A 9 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE BACK OF THE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT. SINCE THE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE STEVENS CREEK FRONTAGE, ANY NON·STEVENS CREEK FRONTAGE ONLY REQUIRES A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 9 FEET. THE PROJECT PROPOSED A MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK OF 12 FEET, WHICH CONFORMS TO THE HOC STANDARD. THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN IS B. FRONT SETBACK 1. MINIMUM SETBACK -FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE 35 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB (NINE (9) FEET FROM THE REQUIRED BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT; SEE SECTION 1 .01 .040(0)). IT DOES NOT STATE "WHICH CONSISTS OF" ACCORDING TO HOC SECTION 1 .0 1 030(B)(2): 2. CORNER PARCELS - SETBACK REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO BOTH FRONTAGES (E.G., CORNER PARKING LOTS ARE DISCOURAGED); MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT RECOMMENDED BUT NOT REQUIRED. OTHER PLANNING PLANS, SUCH AS BELOW, HAVE SPECIFIC SETBACKS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE (PLANNING AND/OR LEGAL) INTERPRETATION. North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Adopted by the Cupertino City Council January 20, 1976 Amended by the Cupertino City Council November 1, 1976 Section 6. "Auxiliary streets (Torre Avenue, Bandley, Valley Green, Lazaneo, Alves and Mariani Drives): the landscape setback for the above listed streets shall contain a minimum land area equal to 25 feet times the lineal street frontage measured from face of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-95 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response curb. The intent of this requirement is to create a broad landscaped setback; ... " South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Adopted by the Cupertino City Council July 1, 1985 Section 20 Streetscape a. The setback distance measured between the street curb line and building shall be 35 feet for new construction unless unusual site or architectural problems make the setback infeasible. South Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Planning Area Adopted by the Cupertino City Council December 21, 1981 Section 19. Landscaping Requirements c. Property owners are required to provide, where feasible, no less than twenty-five feet of landscape area from face-of-curb along secondary streets (Wildflower Way, Prospect Road, the planned West Valley Freeway frontage road). Monta Vista Design Guidelines Adopted by the Cupertino City Council February 21, 1978 Section 6. Areawide Form C. Building Placements (Setbacks) Minimum 5' setback from property lines adjacent to public streets. 10' setback in Central Commons Area (Pasadena Avenue). No interior sideyard or rear setback requirement THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH DE ANZA CONCEPTUAL PLANS, THE SOUTH SARATOGA SUNNYVALE PLANNING AREA, AND THE MONTA VISTA DESIGN GUIDELINES WERE ONLY CITED AS EXAMPLES OF THE INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE A LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM THE STREET C. Discussion of Issues Raised in Appeal 3. The HOC gives the City discretion to determine appropriate setbacks for corner parcels, and the HOC has different requirements than other City planning documents. The appellants note that other City planning documents such as the North and South De Anza Conceptual Plan and Manta Vista Design Guidelines have specific setbacks approved by the City Council, not by a staff interpretation. Staff does not believe that the application of the setback GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-96 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response requirements is an interpretation since there are multiple sections of the HOC (approved by the City Council) that confirm the minimum street setback requirement of 9 feet....Furthermore, conceptual plans, planning areas, and design guidelines are different types of documents with different requirements in each. The City did not establish uniform requirements for or between each type of plan. PLEASE HAVE STAFF IDENTIFY THE "MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE HOC THAT CONFIRM THE MINIMUM STREET REQUIREMENT OF 9 FEET." WE RECOMMEND THAT THE SAICH WAY STATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REQUEST AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. Exception Process for Development Standards In order to provide design flexibility in situations when small lot size, unusually shaped parcels, or unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and where all efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards. EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN MUST BEEN HAVE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION HAS APPEARED IN THE ERC AND THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION YET THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 8, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION, PAGE 6 STATES THAT "...THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING FOR ONE;" B. Refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.12, Administration, for approval authority of an Exception Process An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided in section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in conjunction with the mandatory findings contained in subsection A above, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-97 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response City Council Staff Report C. Discussion of Issues Raised in Appeal 1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is not required for the Saich Way setback because the Plan specifies that minimum frontage requirements for corner lots are recommended but not required, and the City therefore has the discretion to determine a desirable setback. The proposed project is located on a corner parcel at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saich Way. For the Stevens Creek frontage, Section 1.01.030(B)(1) of the HOC requires a building setback totaling 35 feet (measured from the curb), which consists of a 26 foot Boulevard Landscape easement and a 9 foot building setback from the back of the Boulevard Landscape Easement. Section 1.01.030(B)(2) of the HOC sets the requirements for corner parcels and therefore governs the Saich Way setback. Pursuant to Section 1.01.030(B)(2), the front setback requirement "applies to both frontages" of a corner parcel, but "the minimum frontage requirement recommended but not required." In addition, HOC Section 1.01.040(D)(l)is clear that the 26-foot Boulevard Landscape Easement only applies along Stevens Creek Boulevard and would not be required on Saich Way. Therefore, the 12-foot setback proposed for Saich Way complies with the setback requirements prescribed for the corner parcels in the HOC and an exception is not required. Alternatively, the appellants argue that the HOC side setback requirements of one half the building height or 10 feet, whichever is greater [Section 1.01.030 (C)(l))] should apply along Saich Way, so that the project must provide at least 13.5 to 14.5 feet of setback along Saich Way. Since Section 1.01.030 (B)(2) addresses the specific street side setback for corner lots, the requirement in Section 1.01.030 (C)(l) only applies to the interior side setback. Section (C)(1) even states that this interior side setback may be reduced to zero when adjacent properties are jointly developed as they may occur in a shopping center, provided that it promotes pedestrian access. The project proposes a minimum building setback of 30 feet on the interior (west) side, which conforms to the HOC standard. Therefore, because this is a corner parcel and the HOC specifies that the setback for Saich Way is recommended but not required, the City has discretion to determine an appropriate setback. Factors to consider in making that determination could include the project context, proper orientation for pedestrian access and retail visibility, surrounding land uses, and the extent to which there is justification to either maintain similar building relationships between similar land uses and/or to facilitate better transitions between different land uses (e.g., from commercial to residential). For example, the appellants note that for the Biltmore mixed-use development, the multifamily GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-98 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response residential building setback referenced by the appellant along Blaney Avenue exceeds the minimum required. While not required, the City felt it was appropriate to maintain similar building setbacks between the existing apartment buildings and new residential buildings under the same ownership. The proposed project along Saich Way does not share a similar project context with the Biltmore mixed use project. There is no justification to match the 20-foot day care building setback further to the north, since the project intends to feature active commercial uses that warrant a closer setback to the street. The Planning Commission considered matching the setback of the day care building, but ultimately decided to approve the proposed setback as-is, given that it meets the HOC setback requirements and avoids placing the parking lot in front of the building, which would be inconsistent with the pedestrian-oriented building siting policies of the HOC. DUE THE NON·EXISTENCE OF THE PHASE "ANY NON-STEVENS CREEK FRONTAGE ONLY REQUIRES A MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK OF 9 FEET", THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SETBACK AS INTERPRETED BY STAFF. AND DUE TO THESE INCONSISTENCIES WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO REMOVE THE INTERPRETATION THAT "ANY NON-STEVENS CREEK FRONTAGE ONLY REQUIRES A MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK OF 9 FEET." B03-40 DENSITY OF HOUSING UNITS BASED ON GROSS LOT AREA "GROSS LOT AREA" MEANS THE HORIZONTAL. AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPERTY THE PROPERTY LINES OF A SITE PLUS THE STREET AREA BOUNDED BY THE STREET CENTERLINE UP TO THIRTY FEET DISTANT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND THE EXTENDED SIDE YARD TO THE STREET CENTERLINE." SOURCE: CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19: ZONING CHAPTER 19.08: DEFINITIONS SECTION 19.08.030: DEFINITIONS G. "G" DEFINITIONS COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROMETHEUS PROJECT "THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND BLANEY AVENUE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE GROSS AND/OR NET LOT. IF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER WAS REQUIRED TO DEDICATE ITS LAND AS A CONDITION See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-99 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response OF APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, THEN THE DENSITY SHOULD BE CALCULATED USING THE SIZE OF THE LOT PRIOR TO STREET DEDICATION. City of Pasadena Ordinance #7000 effective February 26, 2005 Article 8 - Glossary Chapter 17.80 - Glossary of Specialized Terms and Land Use Types 17.80.020 Definitions Density: The number of dwelling units on a lot in relation to the lot size, expressed in units per acre. If a street dedication is required, density shall be calculated using the size of the lot prior to the street dedication. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. THE STREET DEDICATION WAS DONE BY A PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE PROPERTY LINE WAS ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. PROPERTY TAX, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, PUBLIC SERVICES ARE BASED ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE. THE HOUSING ELEMENT USES LOT SIZE BASED ON PARCEL, NOT ON LAND USED FOR STREET DEDICATION. SEE TABLE 6.2 VACANT AND UNDER UTILIZED LAND IN THE HEART OF THE CITY DISTRICT." SOURCE: PROMETHEUS BILTMORE PROJECT CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 4, 2102 CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN, HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, OTHER LAND USE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CITIES DO NOT CONSIDER STREET DEDICATED LANDS TO DETERMINE HOUSING DENSITY FOR SINGLE OR MULTI- UNITS DEVELOPMENT. GROSS DENSITY VS. NET DENSITY "THE COUNCIL HAS IN THE PAST INDICATED THAT DENSITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED ON THE GROSS ACREAGE (INCLUDING A PORTION OF ADJACENT STREET AREA) OFA PROPERTY AS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY THE CITY'S ZONING CODE. THE GE N E R A L P L A N A M E N D M E N T , H O U S I N G E L E M E N T U P D A T E , A N D A S S O C I A T E D R E Z O N I N G RE S P O N S E T O C O MM E N T D O C U M E N T CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O CO M M E N T S A N D R E S P O N S E S 5- 1 0 0 AUGUST 28, 2014 TAB L E 5- 1 R ES P O N S E T O COM M E N T S Nu m b e r C o m m e n t Re s p o n s e NU M B E R O F U N I T S A S S U M E D F O R T H E H O U S I N G E L E M E N T S I T E S A R E B A S E D O N L Y O N NE T L O T A R E A A N D D O N O T I N C L U D E P O R T I O N S O F A D J A C E N T S T R E E T S . T H E R E L A T E D CH A N G E S T O T H E Z O N I N G C O D E W I L L B E M A D E I N C O N J U N C T I O N W I T H T H E G E N E R A L PL A N A M E N D M E N T . " SO U R C E : C I T Y C O U N C I L S T A F F R E P O R T C I T Y C O U N C I L S T UD Y S E S S I O N T O R E VI E W 2 0 1 4 · 2 0 2 2 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T M A R C H 3 , 2 0 1 4 P A G E 9 B0 3 - 4 1 GE N E R A L C O M M E N T S DE F I N I T I V E M I T I G A T I O N S M U S T B E A P A R T O F F I N A L E I R WH A T H I G H D E N S I T Y H O U S I N G D E V E L O P M E N T I S A C C E P T A B L E T O T H E C I T Y O F CU P E R T I N O A N D T H E R E S I D E N T S O F C U P E R T I N O ? WH A T A R E A S O F T H E C I T Y A R E O P E N T O H I G H D E N S I T Y H O U S I N G D E V E L O P M E N T ? WH A T A R E T H E C I T Y ' S G U I D E L I N E S F O R D E V E L O P I N G N E W P A R K S ? WH A T W I L L T H E C I T Y O F F E R T O C O N T I N U E T H E G R A N D B O U L E V A R D C O N C E P T O N D E AN Z A B O U L E V A R D ( N O R T H D E A N Z A C O N C E P T U R A L P L A N ) A N D S T E V E N S C R E E K BO U L E V A R D ( H E A R T O F T H E C I T Y S P E C I F I C P L A N ) ? WH A T C H A N G E S W O U L D B E E N C O U R A G E D T O R E D E V E L O P T H E V A L L C O S H O P P I N G CE N T E R Th e c o m m e n t e r r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e 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 pr o v i d e “ d e f i n i t i v e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s , ” b u t d o e s n o t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s sp e c i f i c m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s . C h a p t e r s 4 . 1 t h r o u g h 4 . 1 4 o f t h e D r a f t E I R id e n t i f y f e a s i b l e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s t o r e d u c e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t en v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s o f t h e p r o j e c t . T h e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s a r e a l s o li s t e d i n C h a p t e r 2 , E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y , o f t h e D r a f t E I R . Th e p r o p o s e d r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t i e s a n d l o c a t i o n s f o r n e w r e s i d e n t i a l us e s a r e d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r 3 , P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n , o f t h e D r a f t E I R . Th e C i t y ’ s p o l i c i e s a n d s t r a t e g i e s r e l a t e d t o p a r k s a r e f o u n d i n t h e O p e n Sp a c e , P a r k s a n d T r a i l s s e c t i o n o f t h e G e n e r a l P l a n L a n d U s e E l e m e n t . Th e G e n e r a l P l a n i d e n t i f i e s a r e a s o f t h e C i t y w h e r e p a r k s a r e l a c k i n g . Ei t h e r a p a r k l a n d d e d i c a t i o n o r a n i n - l i e u p a r k f e e i s r e q u i r e d a s a co n d i t i o n o f a p p r o v a l o f m o s t d e v e l o p m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s . T h e f e e s a r e us e d t o a c q u i r e p a r k l a n d o r i m p r o v e e x i s t i n g p a r k f a c i l i t i e s . Wh i l e i t i s u n c l e a r w h a t t h e “ G r a n d B o u l e v a r d C o n c e p t ” r e f e r e n c e s , i t ap p e a r s t h a t t h e c o m m e n t r e f e r s t o t h e l a n d s c a p i n g t r e a t m e n t c u r r e n t l y im p l e m e n t e d a l o n g N o r t h D e A n z a B o u l e v a r d a n d S t e v e n s C r e e k Bo u l e v a r d . N o c h a n g e s t o t h e l a n d s c a p i n g t r e a t m e n t a l o n g N o r t h D e An z a B o u l e v a r d a n d S t e v e n s C r e e k B o u l e v a r d a r e p r o p o s 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 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-101 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-42 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS INSUFFICIENT TIME IT WAS STATED THAT THE REASON FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS THE STATE DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. THE DECISION TO COMBINE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT WAS: 1. TO REDUCE THE COST TO PREPARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIR) 2. TO INTEGRATE PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TO COORDINATE RNDA HOUSING REQUIREMENTS MIG CONSULTANT MEETING WITH CARE AND CCC, MAY 15, 2013 @ 3:15 PM LATE, START @ 3:30 PM LIMITED TO 30 MINUTE SCHEDULED MEETING MIG UNPREPARED NO AGENDA NO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED 3 REPRESENTATIVES FROM CARE 3 REPRESENTATIVES FROM CCC WOULD BE INFORMATIVE TO REVIEW MIG'S NOTES OF THIS MEETING. INSUFFICIENT COMMUNITY INPUT PUBLIC MEETINGS ALTHOUGH CITY STAFF, ONLY 170 OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATED. IT IS UNDETERMINED WHETHER THESE 170 PARTICIPANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF CUPERTINO, CUPERTINO PROPERTY OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS. The Draft EIR was prepared according to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed on page 1-4 of Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA Section 21080(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City of Cupertino determined that the proposed Project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that an EIR would be required. In compliance with Section 21080.4 of the California Public Resources Code, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on March 5, 2014 for a 30-day review period. A public Scoping Meeting was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. at the Cupertino Community Hall (10350 Torre Avenue, next to the library). The NOP and scoping process solicited comments from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties regarding the scope of the Draft EIR. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, of this Draft EIR contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City in response to the NOP. The Draft EIR was made available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting Tuesday, June 18, 2014 and ending Friday, August 1, 2014. A Community Open House was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014. During the comment period, the public was invited to submit written comments via mail or e-mail on the Draft EIR to the City of Cupertino Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 1, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-102 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B03-43 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE ON HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN ALTHO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ENACTED JANUARY 17, 2012 AFTER 10+ PUBLIC MEETINGS, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE GENERAL PLAN SUPERCEDES ANY PART OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN. IN FACT, IF ANY PART OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN CONFLICTS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THAT PART WILL BE REWRITTEN TO CONFORM WITH THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INCREASES DENSITY AND HEIGHT AND DECREASES SETBACK. See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-44 SOME STAKEHOLDERS' POINT OF VIEW "...THAT STAFF AND COUNCIL OFTEN HAD A DIFFERENT VISION THAN DEVELOPERS,..." "A VIEW THAT DEVELOPERS ARE MARKET DRIVEN, AND POLICY-MAKERS WOULD BENEFIT TO (DEFER TO) DEVELOPERS' ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE CITY NEEDS, AND THEIR MARKET- BASED POINT OF VIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS." "IT WAS NOTED THAT IF THERE WERE NOT RESISTANCE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, THERE WOULD BE OPPORTUNITIES ALL ALONG STEVENS CREEK AND DE ANZA FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT." SOURCE: RETAIL STRATEGY BY GREENSFELDER MARCH 6, 2014 PAGE 87 See Response to Comment B03-01. B03-45 PERCEPTIONS "THE PERCEPTION CITY GOVERNMENT OPPOSES SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT DESPITE DEMAND "A PERCEPTION THE CITY LETS ITSELF BE BULLIED INTO DECISIONS." "A PERCEPTION THAT DECISION-MAKERS OVERWEIGH CONCERNS OF CONSERVATIVE RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT WANT CHANGE. THIS PERSON ALSO INDICATED THAT THE See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-103 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PEOPLE WHO TAKE THE TIME TO GO AND SPEAK AT COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE GENERALLY THOSE THAT DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT OR SOME ASPECT THEREOF. SUPPORTERS DO NOT TAKE THE TIME TO GO TO HEARINGS. SOURCE: RETAIL STRATEGY REPORT BY GREENSFELDER MARCH 6, 2014 PAGE 87 COMMENT: AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF A PAST CITY COUNCIL PUBLICLY STATED THAT HE/SHE IS AWARE SUPPORTERS OF A PROPOSAL DO NOT ATTEND MEETINGS AND HE/SHE TAKES THEIR ABSENCE AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING HIS/HER VOTE. AS INDICATED, THE MEMBERS OF CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO (CCC) ARE CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CUPERTINO. HAVE SUPPORTED SEVERAL PROJECTS HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS HOUSING ELEMENT HAVE SUPPORTED CITY POLICIES HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SEE ATTACHMENT 11 B03-46 ATTACHMENT 11 PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON AUGUST 20, 2013 CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO (CCC) HAS A STRONG INTEREST IN THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN. WE PARTICIPATED IN ALL OF THE TEN+ (10+) MEETINGS FOR THE REVISION OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN IN 2010. NOW WE SUGGEST THAT 1. RETAIN THE 35 FOOT SETBACK ON STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 2. DETERMINE AN ADEQUATE SIDE STREET SETBACK FOR A CORNER LOT IN THE HOC SIMILAR TO OTHER The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-104 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response PLANS OF THE CITY. 3. RETAIN THE CURRENT EXCEPTION PROCESS IN THE HOC. 4. RESCIND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING STREET SQUARE FOOTAGE TO DETERMINE GROSS LOT DENSITY. WE SUGGEST THAT THE PLANNING STAFF REVIEW OUR MORE DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROMETHEUS BILTMORE PROJECT, ISLANDS RECONSIDERATION AND THE SAICH WAY STATION APPEAL. ON AUGUST 20, 2013 THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC PROCESS TO CLARIFY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CORNER PARCELS. B03-47 CITY OF CUPERTINO SHOULD CONSIDER: EL CAMINO REAL GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE THE EL CAMINO REAL GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE WAS FORMED IN 2006 AS A REGIONAL VISION TO LINK LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION IN TWO COUNTIES WITH 19 CITIES. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT EVERY CITY CAN DECIDE ON ITS OWN HOW TO DEVELOP ITS LAND USE INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHERS. THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HAS ITS OWN NORTH DE ANZA CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN. THE CITY SHOULD CONTINUE THE INTENT AND VISION OF THESE TWO PLANS. PLAN BAY AREA 25·YEAR PLAN PROJECTED INCREASE OF 2.1 MILLION RESIDENTS AND 1.1 MILLION JOBS IN THE BAY AREA BY ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) AND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS REQUIRE CITIES TO PLAN FOR MORE HOUSING NEAR MAJOR TRANSIT HUBS. CITIES ASKED TO IDENTIFY PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS THAT COULD See Response to Comment B03-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-105 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response ACCOMMODATE THE BULK OF THE NEW HOUSING STATE ROUTE 85 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) CONCERNS: SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT THE SR 85/HIGHWAY 280 INTERCHANGE NO OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH OF SR 85 FROM CUPERTINO TO MOUNTAIN VIEW WITH THESE TWO CHOKEPOINTS MOST NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC WILL TERMINATE IN CUPERTINO PROJECT MAY PRECLUDE MASS TRANSIT IN MEDIAN OF SR 85 B04 Gary Jones B04-01 Through Matt Wilson's article in the Courier today I discovered the General Plan is being updated. I'm really surprised I totally missed all of this. Great website; thank you. I suggest you publish this site and related documents to all 2,700 members of www.nextdoor.com<http://www.nextdoor.com> in the immediate area including Cupertino and our neighbors. I believe I'm not the only one who had no idea the GP was being amended. I would like to attend the July 8th and 15th meetings; however, I am traveling those days and will not be able to give my input. It appears a great job is being done and I'm truly sorry I've missed all of this process to day. It appears the train has left the station as it applies to my input. Keep up the great work. I'm truly hopeful the human mobility issue will ease to the surface as the #1 priority. Staying in Cupertino as a senior is of serious concern to many of us who are retired as we a hesitant to ride our bikes, wake or take the VTA as it only really serves De Anza College students. Due to some vision and other health issues as they progress over the next 10 years my driving will become limited. This poses the question as to how people from our side of Cupertino will be capable of getting to the Vallco development area including the Main Street Project without The comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-106 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response spending substantial $'s on UBER. :>) After reading the "Concept Alternatives" just this morning I must have missed any discussion as to the 7000 seniors still living in Cupertino. There was a line item as to "Senior Housing Choices." The income tax and property tax structure currently has locked many of us in our single family homes. We are not selling and relocating. There is no community bus system like in Los Gatos, Morgan Hill or Milpitas as provided to those communities by the VTA; their focus is on De Anza College students and not our community. I believe there has been a significant effort put into the Bike/Ped plan and then only $249,000 of this year's $80 million budget is provided for this plan. Really? I was asked recently by Mark Santoro to select one aspect of the plan that has an appeal for priority. Then Orrin requested I suggest an item within the "Plan" that could be considered as a priority at the mid‐year "Budget" review. Well; I sincerely believe completing the Plan item of $2.4 million to complete a bike/ped route from Foothill Blvd down McClellan Road past Monta Vista High School, Lincoln School to So De Anza Blvd would be a significant project for consideration. B05 Gary Jones B05-01 Can I get a hard copy of the Concept Alternatives drp the GP Amendment? The comment is acknowledged. B06 Myron Crawford - Berg & Berg Developers, Inc. B06-01 Don’t Over Specify Green Requirements As you move forward on the General Plan please do not over specify unnecessary green requirements. The study attached titled Economic comparison of white, green and black roofs in the Unites States, shows that plain white and less expensive roofs outperform more expensive green roofs. a. Green roofs are not only more expensive to build initially and consume more natural resources; more steel, irrigation system, drainage system, more labor and therefore generate more green house [sic] gases, but also imagine the additional expense in removing sod to be able to accommodate the addition of a new HVAC unit to a commercial building or trying to find a leak in a sod roof in the rain!! You have the Cal Green Code, there is no need to specify more green elements. b. Green roof also have a forward GHG footprint versus a simple white roof. The comment compares the relative costs and other characteristics of "green" roofs and white roofs. The comment is acknowledged. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-107 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response b1. More landscape labor is required to maintain the roof. b2. Gasoline and or electricity is required for landscape equipment and transportation of labor and equipment. b3. They require water in the summer. b4. Vegetation has to be cut and hauled off, more GHG. Simply piling on more requirement [sic] is not always better, everything has consequences. Sometimes less is better. B06-02 Economic comparison of white, green, and black flat roofs in the United States (Sproul, J. et. al.) The attachment to the comment is acknowledged. The attached report is included in Appendix A of this Response to Comments Document. B07 Phyllis Dickstein B07-01 Housing and Traffic As I have noted in previous comment cards and now do so officially for the EIR, the Shan site should be eliminated from the list of housing element sites (and the City Council should disallow the 7 units requested by Prometheus and approved by the Planning Commission for Biltmore I). The intersection of SCB and Blaney Avenue already has multifamily housing on its NE, SE and SW corners, with 80 additional units (Biltmore II) under construction on the SW corner. Additional multifamily housing exists on both sides of the street at the northern end as you approach Homestead Avenue. The comment is acknowledged. B7-02 Blaney Avenue is a narrow two-lane roadway with bicycle lanes on either side of the street. The bike lanes are not that safe for children, who must compete with the increasing traffic on this narrow road. Two years ago, when the City Council approved the Biltmore II development over the protests of local residents, it did make one concession to the community: the number of units was reduced from 90 to 80. This was not done in order to reduce the internal density of the project, but rather in recognition of the impact of the increased traffic on Blaney Avenue. So, approval of additional multifamily housing would be a direct contradiction of this decision. Any traffic impact survey done on Blaney Avenue is moot, because the 80 units of Biltmore II, with at least 120 additional cars likely, are not yet occupied. Nevertheless, the EIR projects a degradation of the wait time at lights from C+ or B, to D! This is *not* an insignificant impact to those As discussed in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, the traffic analysis includes two intersections on Blaney Avenue: at Homestead and at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both intersections are shown to operate at LOS D or better, which is within the Cupertino standard. The traffic analysis also shows the existing and future daily volume estimate for Blaney Avenue (Table 4.14-14). The existing and estimated future volume is within typical volume for a two-lane street. As discussed in Chapter 4.13, under Impact TRAF-3 on page 4.13-62, because the proposed Project is a program-level planning effort, it does not directly address project-level design features or building specifications (See Response to Comment B03-17); however, the current General Plan contains policies, as identified in Table 4.13-2 in GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-108 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response of us who live here. Blaney Avenue, Cupertino (Homestead to Bollinger) is saturated with high density housing. Furthermore, an increase in traffic generated in Cupertino will even affect our neighbors across Bollinger, in San Jose. In fairness to the residents, areas beyond the Stelling to Lawrence corridor, as well as scatter-site projects, should be explored in the quest to meet housing quotas/needs. Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Framework, that would reduce potential hazards due to roadway design or incompatible uses. The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure that hazardous features are minimized. As with current practice, the improvements would be designed and reviewed in accordance to the City of Cupertino Standard Details, which are promulgated and administered by the City Engineering Department. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Project would be less than significant. B07-03 Note on affordable housing: The most rational approach to affordable housing is for cities (through ABAG?) to seek to overturn a ridiculous court ruling (amend the state constitution?) that prevents municipalities from requiring developers to set aside such units in market rate rental projects. Developers make very significant profits from their market rate units, while receiving benefits from cities (permits, sewer lines, etc.). They should be required to contribute their share, *within* their density allotments, without receiving bonus allotments. This would spare the cities the expenditures, and likely be less costly than separately constructed housing projects. An additional advantage is that moderate income residents would be better integrated into the communities. See Response to Comment B03-20. B07-04 Overall development (esp. with respect to water) Optimum development is not the same as maximum development. Lifestyles and environmental absorptive capacities need to be borne in mind. As far as lifestyles are concerned, some people like rural or semi-rural areas, others (especially when young) want to live in downtown San Francisco. Those who choose to reside in Cupertino generally prefer a suburban lifestyle. I doubt that most residents want this city to become an extension of downtown San Jose. The comment is acknowledged. B07-05 An important environmental absorptive capacity issue (in addition to traffic and air pollution) is water availability. Here the projections in the EIR may be overly optimistic. Even so, the estimated difference in water supply between a normal year and a five-year drought period is significant. And, given the results of climate change that we have been seeing in recent years, what if water purchased from out-of-state becomes unavailable? This is a problem, of course, that needs to be considered statewide, but localities should give it serious attention. Thus, the development plan for the future should be realistic, and more on the conservative side. Impacts on water supply are addressed in Chapters 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, beginning on page 4.14-1, based on the Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project in May 2014, impacts on water supply were found to be less than significant. As shown in Chapter 4.14, the analysis includes water supply during both single-dry years (Table 4.14-9) and multiple-dry years (Tables 4.14-10, 4.14-12). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-109 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Also discussed in Chapter 4.14 are the long-term plans for the water service providers for the City, which include planning for water shortages. The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and San Jose Water Company (SJWC) provide retail water service to Cupertino. SJWC also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s water system. Cal Water and SJWC obtains a the vast majority of their water via wholesale purchase from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). In compliance with the SB X7 7 and the Urban Water Management Planning Act, both water service providers (CalWater and SJWC) for the City of Cupertino, adopted their 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) in June 2011. The SCVWD, which provides water supply to both service providers, also adopted its 2010 UWMP in May 2011. The UWMP is required to address water supply in dry (drought) years. In addition, Cal Water has also developed Water Shortage Allocation Plans (WSAPs), which are plans of action to reduce water demand should significant water supply shortages occur, primarily due to drought and SJWC developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in 1992 to document measures it would take to conserve water during drought conditions. For example, the plan includes as part of its mandatory water rationing plans a list of water uses that are classified as non- essential or unauthorized. The plan was coordinated with the SCVWD and local cities and was developed in conformance with the California Water Code. The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan is the SCVWD’s overall plan for water resource management in Santa Clara County. The SCVWD is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara County. The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan describes the key water resource issues facing the County, and provides a framework for understanding SCVWD’s policies related to water supply, natural flood protection, and water resources stewardship. The Plan provides factsheets for all cities within Santa Clara County that have shared responsibilities with SCVWD, Citywide Programs and GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-110 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Projects related to water resources management issues, and a list of related Plan Elements. B08 Jennifer Griffin B08-01 I am very concerned about the effect of increased building on the traffic on city streets and expressways and highways. Of particular concern is the 280 Southbound/Stevens Creek Blvd/Calvert Connector Road/Lawrence ExpressWay/280 Northbound roadway sequence. I'm glad that this intersection and travel sequence was studied, but the solution of adding an extra lane to the above travel sequence has a dangerous result. The northbound traffic traveling from Calvert Drive will have to make a suicidal left turn across three lanes of traffic on Calvert Connector Road to get to Calvert. It is hard to cross the two lanes on Calvert Connector Road, let alone three lanes. This sets up a Suicide Run sequence and will result in traffic fatalities. This area needs to be studied by all entities, Santa Clara, San Jose, CalTrans, Water District, and Cupertino. The comment speculates the outcome of a roadway improvement identified as a mitigation measure for the Apple Campus 2 project. The Draft EIR did not identify the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Calvert Avenue and the ramp between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway. However, the City and representatives for Apple have been discussing the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. There is agreement from Apple that installing this signal will address safety concerns identified by the City and, therefore, Apple has agreed to install this traffic signal. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, Project study intersection Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#32) would be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 involves the City creating a Traffic Mitigation Impact Fee Program to fund roadway and infrastructure improvements for affected intersections in order to reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards. Potential intersection improvements are listed in Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, but these improvements will need to be designed and fully funded. Any changes to the road system would be designed in accordance with applicable standards with respect to sight distance so they would operate safely. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-111 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B09 Marisa Yap B09-01 Kindly have a free shuttle medium size busing the Cupertino Residents from Steven Creek Blvd to our Public library and the City Hall. We can eliminate -Traffic -Gasoline -Many library fans can enjoy their time without driving. If you need funding I will try to find the budget. Let me know. The comment is acknowledged. B10 Patricia McAfee B10-01 1. We have a drought. Additional high density housing will require more water Impacts on water supply and water quality are addressed in Chapters 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, beginning on page 4.14-1, based on the Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project in May 2014, impacts to water supply were found to be less than significant. See Response to Comment B07- 05. B10-02 2. Traffic on North Blaney is very heavy at school time and ~5 PM. Heavier all day. We must not add housing at corner of Blaney + Stevens Creek. 36 units. Streets have been blocked off so everyone must come down Blaney to get to the schools. I can't get out of my driveway at certain times due to traffic congestion. As discussed in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, the traffic analysis includes two intersections on Blaney Avenue: at Homestead and at Stevens Creek. Both intersections are shown to operate at LOS D or better, which is within the Cupertino standard. The traffic analysis also shows the existing and future daily volume estimates for Blaney Avenue (Table 4.14-14). The existing and estimated future volumes within typical volume for a two-lane street. B10-03 3. Small businesses on Stevens Creek between Blaney + Apple office complex do not provide enough parking so cars are parked on Blaney + Wheaton. The comment concerns existing parking on Blaney Avenue. Future development would be required to provide sufficient parking as required in Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.124, Parking Regulations of the Municipal Code. B10-04 4. Bike lanes on Blaney have been eliminated more bikers are riding on the sidewalk because cars are parked on Blaney. Blaney is a narrow street. Bike lanes have not been eliminated on Blaney Avenue. See Response to Comment B07-02. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-112 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B10-05 5. Some years ago Houston overbuilt apartments - we should provide a variety of housing - not just for singles but for families. The comment is acknowledged. B11 Ruby Elbogen B11-01 Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the issue, but what is the status of the General Plan Amendment as it applies to the requested height bump-up by the Cupertino Inn (to go up to 8 stories)? I feel it's a mistake to do that, because it will not only change the look and feel of Cupertino in general, it will also dwarf the surrounding homes, including the area east of De Anza--and Homestead. If the hotel goes up that high, Cupertino will surely lose it's small city feel. Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, impacts were found to be less than significant in all areas where potential future development involving increased height is being considered, because it would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance and/or would be required to comply with Design Standards outlined in the General Plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan, or other appropriate Conceptual Plans, the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or the South Vallco Specific Plan. In addition, compliance with General Plan policies regarding development standards would help ensure that future development in Cupertino would reduce potential aesthetic impacts, including those associated with the increased height of future development in the City. As discussed on page 4.1-26 in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR the maximum height at the property addressed in the comment Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) would be 75 feet if a future project has a retail component, or up to 145 feet if a future project includes a retail component and provides community benefits. This represents a substantial height increase from the currently permitted 1 to 3 stories at this location. As described above in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, in Chapter 4.1, Study Area 1 is within the vicinity of existing large-scale 1 to 3 story residential developments, large format retail buildings and parking lots. While an 8 to 10 story building would be a taller building than those in the area of Study Area 1, with the discretionary Architectural and Site Approval of any development, the project could be required to provide suitable setbacks from public rights- of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions for buildings GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-113 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response adjacent to low-density residential development. ` B11-02 It will also change the climate somewhat, as breezes are trapped by larger buildings. We went through that when Marina Del Rey and the Fox Hills area of my home town, Culver City were constructed. We actually lost a considerable amount of sea breeze that used to come from the beaches of Playa del Rey, Venice and the Marina's predecessor, Mud Lake. The comment speculates that weather conditions in Cupertino could be altered as a result of increasing building heights, but provides no substantial evidence for this claim. The comment is acknowledged. B12 Josh Tsai B12-01 I grew up in Cupertino and after graduating from Monta Vista and UC Berkeley, I moved out to New York for several years before relocating back to the Bay Area recently to get married and be closer to my parents (who still live in Cupertino). While looking for housing in Cupertino with my wife, I realized how ridiculously few options there are for a young family. There's no chance we can outbid other folks for a single family house in Cupertino without breaking the bank at this point in our careers. Ideally, we'd like to purchase a more affordable condo that we can outgrow in the next five to ten years, but condos are few and far inbetween in Cupertino. While we did find an apartment in Sunnyvale that suits us temporarily, we would love to move back into Cupertino and raise kids that can attend the same schools as I did and be close to my parents as well. In addition to more affordable housing options, I strongly feel that Cupertino needs to bring back some retail vibrancy. Most of my childhood friends who also grew up in Cupertino have instead looked to Mountain View, San Francisco, or Santana Row areas to purchase their first homes. It's a common discussion among us that we'd all like to raise our families in Cupertino, where it's close to work and with great schools, but the lack of retail vibrancy is always a consideration. Thus, I am a supporter of the general plan amendment process in Cupertino if it means the possibility of more housing and added retail in the major streets of Cupertino. My parents, who are long time residents of the city, also feel that added vibrancy along the major streets of Cupertino (i.e. not existing residential areas) would make the city more enjoyable so they don't have to travel to Los Gatos or Palo Alto to have an enjoyable evening out. The comment concerns the existing availability of affordable housing in Cupertino. The comment is acknowledged. See Response to Comment B03-20. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-114 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B13 Youichi Y. B13-01 Thanks for your all information from Housing Element report. From postcard in my mail, I have come to this website to read more about housing in Cupertino. I think there is not enough housing in Cupertino for other familys [sic] like mine. I work and live in Cupertino for 7 years but also travel to Japan. My two daughters attend primary school in Cupertino and their friends are here so we would like to live here for longer time. We rent the apartment in Cupertino but rent every year is going up. I think Housing Element report suggestion for more building height and more du/ac can help with more future housing in Cupertino and help keep rent to stop going up so quick. The location near freeway or big road in Cupertino can support more familys [sic] and I think noise will not be a problem. Cupertino is great place to live and I think more apartments can help more familys [sic] like mine in future. The comment is acknowledged. B14 Christine Cheng B14-01 We've been residents of Cupertino for 10 years and have witnessed deterioration of our city's living quality. Our schools Eaton/Lawson/Cupertino High are getting ridiculously crowded. The large increase in student population has drastically reduced the quality of education for the existing students, which we are experiencing first hand today. More dense housing units will only aggravate our school problems. Impacts on schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, beginning on page 4.12-13. As discussed in Chapter 4.12, impacts to schools as a result of the proposed Project were found to be less than significant. B14-02 The traffic near the entrance and exit of 280 are increasingly worse. And almost every time we go to the library we can't find a spot in the library parking lot. High density units like the Rose Bowl project has already compromised our city's living quality, how can we tolerate more housing units in site 7/L7 which is so close to the Rose Bowl and many mixed use complexes there along Stevens Creek? Hundreds of units have just been built to the west of Blaney and south of Stevens Creek, how can we afford to have even more housing development in site 2/L2, which will induce even worse congestion in this area? Impacts of the proposed Project on traffic and transportation are discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR. This analysis includes all of the intersections providing access to I-280, including the intersection identified by the commenter. B14-03 As many residents have voiced strongly before, our building heights should reflect the character of Cupertino. Our city is and should never be San Jose or San Francisco. We do not want Cupertino to become a large metropolitan city called "Condotino". Unreasonably tall and high density buildings like the Rose Bowl complexes have been regarded as an eyesore by the general public in Cupertino, though it was approved a long time ago. Our city needs to learn from such mistakes of Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR and impacts were found to be less than significant. See Response to Comment B11-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-115 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response poor planning and prevent this kind of ill-fitting development from being constructed in the future. To be in harmony with Cupertino's existing buildings and houses, the maximum height for commercial buildings/apartments/mixed use should be under 45 feet regardless. The Rose Bowl complex building on Wolfe road opposite to the AMC building is way too close to the side walk. Blocking the sky and the sun, it's rather monstrous height gives overwhelming pressure to the people walking or driving by. We hope the city will enforce ample and consistent distance between side walk and large buildings for comfortable general public use. B15 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino B15-01 ADDENDUM TO 6/25/14 COMMENTS (PAGE 72) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS "The City of Cupertino's (2000 -2020) General Plan is the blueprint for the future of the City. This Plan has been under discussion by the City Council and Planning Commission for four years, and the Planning Commission is currently holding public hearings on proposed amendments to it. The Commission will hold an important hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Tuesday, May 24, 2005, where the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan will be discussed." Source: General Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan Task Force May 17, 2005 This comment provides background information and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is acknowledged. B15-02 "Nearly five years in the making, the plan (EI Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) that will guide the future design and construction of Menlo Park's downtown and EI Camino Real corridor for years will be released next week and put on a nine-week fast track for approval." "These documents are very important. They'll be in place for decades," Mayor Kirsten Keith said. "There will be an envelope that developers know they can build within. If somebody came in with a project in those parameters, they'll know they can produce something. That's a different model from doing it piecemeal." Source: City Puts Plan on Fast Track by Bonnie Eslinger San Jose Mercury News April 15, 2012 See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-116 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B15-03 Although controversial, the project (Stanford/Arrillaga) complies with the building standards and zoning established in the EI Camino Real/ Downtown Specific Plan that the Council approved in June." Source: Stanford Adds Housing in New Plan Proposal Cuts Office Space; Menlo Park Leaders Say Changes are Good, But Still Have Concerns by Bonnie Eslinger The Daily News April 12, 2013 See Response to Comment B15-01. B15-04 "The Specific Plan, which took more than five years to draft, was approved by the City Council in June 2012....Stanford submitted its mixed-use proposal above five months later. The project submitted by Stanford University and developer John Arrillaga calls for 199,500 square feet of office, 170 apartments and 10,000 square feet of retail." at 300-500 EI Camino Real Source: Study: Traffic Really Will Increase First of Three Reviews Released on Stanford Project by Bonnie Eslinger San Jose Mercury News March 16, 2014 See Response to Comment B15-01. B15-05 Greenheart LLC submitted proposal for 210,000 square feet (two office building of 105,000 square feet each), 216 residential units and 23,000 square feet of retail at 1300 EI Camino Real. See Response to Comment B15-01. B15-06 Comment: 2014 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment appears to be done in haste. See Response to Comment B03-42. B15-07 Comment: In spite of conforming to the EI Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan the Stanford/Arrillaga and Greenheart projects in Menlo Park have not proceeded due to concerns of residents of Menlo Park. See Response to Comment B15-01. B15-08 Community Design Survey Analysis "Over 120 people completed an interactive Community Design Survey, either during Community- wide Workshop #2 or online." > ... more than 65 percent of people said "I Really Like It" or it is "Worth Considering" See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-117 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Comment: 65% of 120 = 78 Comment: 78 of 59,000, assuming 50% adults =30,000, not statistical meaningful. Comment: Does the 78 include non-residents, property owners and/or developers. Green infrastructure and 50% Stormwater planters 37% Highly visible pedestrian crossing 51% 35% Wide sidewalk with seating 59% 24% Outdoor dining 55% 32% Art and play space 29% 36% 39% None of the above Shared bike lane/sharrow 33% 22% 43% I don't like it 42% None of the above Separate bike lane 43% 36% Separated bike path 30% 34% Enhanced bus shelter 43% 32% Bus rapid transit 31% 28% Neighborhood park 55% 29% Children play space 44% 38% 34% None of the above Small plaza 48% 34% GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-118 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Parklet 37% 25% Trail connection 49% 31% Low rise commercial w parking in front 27% 33% Low rise commercial w small street setbac 33% 35% Low rise commercial w street parking 27% 37% Mid rise outdoor commercial district 50% 31% Mid rise outdoor commercial district 47% 24% Mid rise indoor shopping mall 26% 30% 37% I don't like it 41% None of the above Low rise office 18% 38% 37% None of the above Mid rise office 36% 30% Mid rise mixed use 43% 30% High rise office 27% 26% 44% 39% None of the above Low/mid rise hotel 28% 41% Mid rise hotel 30% 35% Mid/high rise hotel 36% 24% 33% None of the above GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-119 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Detached townhomes 27% 31% 33% 39% None of the above Low rise residential 19% 35% 40% 41% None of the above Mixed use residential and retail 38% 27% Mid rise mixed use residential and retail 38% 31% Mid rise mixed use residential 34% Mid rise residential lofts 24% 40% I don't like it 37% None of the above Mid/high rise mixed use residential and retail 29% 19% 42% I don't like it 46% None of the above Source: Community Design Survey/Summary B15-09 Comment: Although some (2) of the photos (#33 Boudin SF) and # ? (Aloft Hotel) are of sites in Cupertino, there should be more Cupertino sites to determine opinions of recent completed developments: Adobe Terrace Apple Cafeteria Astoria Biltmore Cali Plaza Civic Park Crossroad Cypress Hotel Homestead Square Shopping Center Intersection of North De Anza Conceptual Plan & Heart of the City Specific Plan Marketplace Metropolitan See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-120 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Montebello Nerona Monte Vista Oak Park village Panera/Peet South De Anza Travigne Vallco AMC Theaters Bay Club B15-10 "The following pages show the combined summary of all responses to the Community Design Survey." Source: Community Design Survey/Summary Community Discussion Summaries Appendix B Draft Environmental Impact Report See Response to Comment B15-01. B15-10 (cont.) Comment: Although there were at least 63 photos, only 35 photos were cited as responses in the Community Design Survey/Summary. Comment: I really like it: >50% Green infrastructure and stormwater planter Highly visible pedestrian crossing Wide sidewalk with seating Outdoor dining Neighborhood park Mid rise outdoor commercial district (50% and 47%) I don't like it/None of the locations Shared bike lane (43%/42%) Mid rise indoor shopping mall (37%/41 %) High rise office (44%/39%) Detached townhomes (33%/39%) Low rise residential (40%/41 %) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-121 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Mid rise mixed-use residential (40%/37%) Mid/high rise mixed-use residential and retail (42%/46%) B15-11 Office Demand Analysis "The following table calculates the long-term demand for new office space based on the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) projection of employment growth by broad industry sector between 2010 and 2030. By applying the approximate percentage of jobs in each sector that take place in an office and a demand factor of 250 gross square feet of building space per new job, the calculator estimates how much office space will be needed in order to accommodate job growth over the next twenty years." "Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects the number of new office jobs, apply the number of new office jobs to 250 square feet, or the estimated gross square footage required per employee with an efficiency factor of 90%. "However, some of that demand will be absorbed by vacancies in existing buildings, while another portion may be absorbed by new buildings constructed elsewhere in the Market Area." Source: Market Study and Business Development Strategy Page 82 "Table 23 takes these sources of competitive supply under consideration in order to calculate the projected residual demand for new office space, which could present a market opportunity for office development at the North 40." Table 23: Residual Demand Calculator, Market Area Projected Demand for Office Space, 2010·2030 (sf) 1,570,599 Vacancy Vacant Existing Inventory and Vacancy. 1Q11 (a) Inventory (sf) Rate (sf) Inventory (sf) Los Gatos 1,368.790 8.8% 121,001 Campbell 2,267,022 16.7% 378,819 Cupertino 4,054,170 7.9% 318,252 Saratoga 323,128 9.9% 31.990 Total 8,013,110 850,062 See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-122 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response "However, not all of this vacant supply should be considered competitive for future demand absorption. Office markets never achieve 100 percent occupancy. Therefore, it should be assumed that there will always be a normalized amount of vacancy. ABAG Employment Projections/Cupertino 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 31,780 32,550 33,340 34,260 35,880 37,620 Source: ABAG Projections, 2009: BAE 2010 Square Feet of Office ( Office Jobs x 250 sf per employee) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 7,945,000 8,137,500 8,335,000 8,565,000 8,970,000 9,405,000 City of Cupertino General Plan 2000 - 2020 2010 2020 8,629,849 Built 9,470,005 Buildout Proposed General Plan Amendment 2014 Office sf * # Employees 8,929,774 sf used /250* = 35,719 540,231 sf Unused of existing 9,470,005 sf +500,000 sf + 500,000 sf 1,040,231'sf Alternative A 9,970,000 total sf / 250* = 39,880 "+2,000,000 sf +2,000,000 sf 2,540,231 sf Alternative B 11,470,005 total sf I 250* = 45,880 +3,500,000 sf +3,500,000 sf 4,040,231 sf Alternative C 12,970,000 total sf I 250* = 51,880 *250 sf per employee B15-12 Comment: Will the City of Cupertino have sufficient infrastructure (housing, transportation, etc,) to accommodate the increase of employees? The Draft EIR for the proposed Project includes a complete analysis of the City's ability to accommodate the proposed growth associated with the potential future development permitted as a result of adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Not all future employees of jobs provided in Cupertino will reside in Cupertino. As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, under Impact POP-1, beginning on page 4.11-10, the proposed Project would not GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-123 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Growth under the proposed Project would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 26 years and would be guided by a policy framework in the proposed Project that is generally consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area and impacts were found to be less than significant. Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.13-49. See Response to Comment B03-24. B15-13 Retail Sales Analysis Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2000-2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Retail Stores Total $799,758 $729,802 $603,067 $543,016 $522,256 $513,514 $503,148 $720,411 $630,904 in $000 Population 50,602 50,941 52,080 52,197 53,087 53,632 54,338 55,611 56,297 Sales per Capita $ 15,805 Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 2009-2011 2009-2011 data presented in a separate table due to major change in catagorization, such that data are not fully comparable with earlier years. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Retail Stores Total $599,104 $645,004 $696,060 ? ? In $000 Population 58,302 58,665 59,022 ? ? Sales per Capita $10,276 $10,995 $11,793 ? ? Sources: 2000 & 2010 U.S. Census; State Dept. of Finance; State Board of Equalization; CA Dept. of Industrial Relations; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BAE, 2013. Per capita sales calculated based on sales divided by population. 2000 and 2010 population from U.S. Census; estimates for other years from CA State Dept. of Finance. See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-124 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B15-14 Comment: Recommend determination of retail sales leakage. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects, economic or social effects of a project, such as retail sales leakage, shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. B15-15 Cupertino Taxable Retail Sales: 2000 vs 2011 Sales in 2012 $ and in $000 2000 2011 Motor Vehicles and Parts $59,286 $2,920 Home Furnishings and Appliances $48,273 $188,832 Building Materials $9,055 13,443 Food Stores $33,386 $34,035 Services Stations $61,607 $76,510 Apparel Stores $43,351 $34,635 General Merchandise Stores $254,804 $114,911 Eating and Drinking Places $125,576 $128,299 Other Retail Stores $164,420 $102,475 Total Retail $799,758 $696,060 Sources: 2000 & 2010 U>S> Census; State Department of Finance; State Board of Equalization; CA Dept of Industrial Relations; U>S> Bureau of Labor Statistics; BAE, 2013. Due to major change in catagorization, data are not fully comparable with earlier year. The City Council approved the (Rosebowl) Mixed Use Development in October 2004 (U-2004-10, ASA-2005-03, and TM-2006-08). The approval allowed for. .. approximately 105,200 square feet of retail/commercial area....Since approval of the project, the developer has reduced the retail space to 45,000 square feet. .. revised in 2012). Source: Planning Commission Staff Report U-2014-03 Rosebowl/Nineteen800/Cupervino Wine Bar July 22, 2014 Comment: 105,200 square feet > 45,000 (actual 44,126) square feet 44,126/105,200 = 41.94% of original retail space Comment: ADOBE See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-125 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response TWO UNITS OF RETAIL: MAX MUSCLE & ALEXA EYEWEAR LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL THE TWO UNITS OF RETAIL REDUCED TO ONE UNIT OF RETAIL ALEXA EYEWARE > INSURANCE CITY CENTER/STEVENS CREEK BLVD at SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD GROUND FLOOR RETAIL FRONTAGE ON CALI PLAZA LACK CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL. LE BOULANGER COMPARE SALES TAX REVENUE W PREVIOUS LOCATION AT ST. JOSEPH PLACE. TAILOR> TARTINO FROZEN YOGURT> VACANT HAIR SALON NO RETAIL FRONTAGE ON STEVENS CREEK BLVD LACK OF CONVENIENT RETAIL PARKING CIVIC CENTER/SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD LACKS CRITICAL MASS OF RETAIL SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD AMICI'S CURRY HOUSE BAKERY LACK OF CONVENIENT RETAIL PARKING TOWN CENTER BITTER SWEET ORTHODONTIST ORAL SURGERY HAIR REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT OF 50% RETAIL FROM SIDE OF BUILDING LACK OF CONVENIENT RETAIL PARKING % OF RETAIL REDUCED METROPOLITAN BUILT 2004 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-126 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response FRONT GROUND FLOOR 5 RETAIL CONDOMINIUMS 6,500 SF NON-VIABLE RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE/DEPTH LONG TERM VACANCY SINCE CONSTRUCTION MINIMAL SALE TAX GENERATORS HAIR SALON PRIMARILY SERVICE MARTIAL ARTS PRIMARILY INSTRUCTION OPTICAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE W OPTICAL SALES SINGLE SALES TAX GENERATOR RESTAURANT PARKING ISSUE W RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PENNEY PARKING STRUCTURE RETAIL SPACE GROUND FLOOR NEVER DEVELOPED/VACANT UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGE ADJACENT CORNER PARCEL AT INTERSECTION OF WOLFE ROAD AND VALLCO PARKWAY NEVER DEVELOPED/VACANT LAND. TRAVIGNE PLAZA BUILT 2003 FRONT GROUND FLOOR FIVE RETAIL RENTAL HAIR & NAIL QUlZNOS CLOSED> PUMPS TANNING THE BEAUTY CREATION VACANT: VERDE TEA CAFE MOVED TO MARKETPLACE; BONJOUR MOVED TO ST. JOSEPH PLACE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-127 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response SHARED PARKING CONCEPT LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKING VALLCO Heart of the City Specific Plan enacted by the City Council on October 2, 1995. Heart of the City Specific Plan updated by the City Council on January17, 2012 after 10+ public meetings over a two year period. 1.01.020 Land Use and Zoning - Permitted and Conditional Uses A. Commercial - All Permitted and Conditional Uses in accordance With the Zoning Ordinance regulations of the City's General Commercial (CG) zoning district. Uses such as professional, general, administrative, business Offices, business services, such as advertising bureaus, credit Reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenoGraphic services, and communication equipment buildings, Vocational and specialized schools, dance and music studios, Gymnasiums and health clubs and child care centers and other Uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public shall be limited to occupy no more than 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and/or 50% of the rear of the building. Comments: 1.01.020 has been ignored on several projects. B15-16 Housing Analysis What is the ratio of ownership type of residential units vs rental type of residential units? Aviare: 140 apartments > 140 condominiums in = 140 apartments Rosebowl > Nineteen800 204 condominiums > 204 apartments Public Perception. Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion, specifically community concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks. Over the past several years, a number of housing developments and related planning efforts have been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizens' concerns about the impacts of housing development on community quality of life remain a significant potential constraint to housing development. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects, comparing ownership and rental information is not required in this EIR because it is not pertinent to the analysis of significant physical effects on the environment. See Response to Comment B03-20. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-128 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Local developers indicated that public opposition to new development can be an obstacle to the production of both market rate and affordable housing in Cupertino. In any jurisdiction, the entitlement process can be a costly one. In Cupertino, several developers successfully obtained the necessary entitlements from the City but had their projects halted by citizen referenda, resulting in financial losses. This threat of a referendum and associated financial losses makes development in the City more risky. The potential for community opposition means that good design and planning are essential, particularly for higher density projects. Source: Draft Consolidated Plan 2010-2015 City of Cupertino April 2010 Page 85 B15-17 PUBLIC BENEFITS VS PROJECT BENEFITS ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE B AND ALTERNATIVE C IN REFERENCE TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT USES THE PHASE, AN INCREASED HEIGHT WITH RETAIL AND PROJECT-WIDE BENEFITS. THE TERM, PROJECT-WIDE BENEFITS, REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DEFINITION. DOES PROJECT-WIDE MEAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT BENEFITS OR COMMUNITY PUBLIC BENEFITS? A discussed on page 3-13 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, General Plan Policy 2-23.A, Community Benefits Program, states that at the discretion of the City Council and as indicated in certain land use policies, the City Council may approve heights different from the maximum base height standard in Gateways and Nodes identified in the Special Areas Map, if a project includes a retail component and provides community benefits. A list of community-wide benefits is provided on page 3-14 in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. There is no discussion of project-wide benefits in the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment B11- 01. B15-18 Park & Trail Analysis Resolution #12-098 49. CREEK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall contribute an amount not to exceed $65,000 to the improvements of a trail connection along Calabazas Creek from Vallco Parkway to 1-280. This contribution shall be used by the City to administer a creek trail plan and necessary approvals and improvements. If this fund is not used within five years of the project completion then it shall be returned to the applicant. See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-129 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Status of Apple park? B15-19 HOTEL ANALYSIS "The area of Cupertino around Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards is one of the strongest office hubs within the Market Area, and its prominent technology tenants likely drive a significant portion of the demand for business travel and meeting space. In fact, two more hotels are planned for this area, representing the only hotel developments currently in the pipeline in the entire Market Area. At present there are no hotels in the Market Area that can accommodated more than 285 people in a single room." "A 123-room Hyatt Place recently received planning approval, and the project is slated for completion by the end of 2012. With 6,000 square feet of meeting space, the Hyatt Place will become the Market Area's largest hotel meeting facility in term of conference square footage." "Another hotel is planned as part of the 17-acre Main Street Cupertino development at Vallco Parkway....as a condition of approval, Sand Hill Property Co. has agreed to provide a 400-person banquet facility if the hotel exceeds 160 rooms." Comment: The 123-room Hyatt Place became 123-room Aloft Hotel with 1,110 square feet of meeting space; the 160+ Main Street Cupertino became Marriott Residence Inn with 7,095? configurable square feet of restaurant/meeting space (contiguous sf needs to be confirmed). Aloft Hyatt Place> Aloft. 6,000 sf of meeting space> 1,000 sf Cypress "Perfect for meetings or social events, Park Place (Restaurant) and the Cypress Hotel boast over 6,000 square feet of flexible meeting space, including an outdoor terrace space overlooking Cali Mill Plaza." Source: 2014/2015 Community Guide & Business Directory Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Comment: Cypress Cali Ballroom consist of combining Cali A, B, and C = 3,040 sf Parkview consist of combining Parkview West/East = 1,245 sf Soleil = 612 sf See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-130 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Total of 3 separate locations 4,897 sf See diagram Source: Floorplans Cypress B15-20 Main Street Cupertino 250 > 180 rooms. Committed meeting space undetermined at this time due to changing conditions of approval. Resolution #12-098 4. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PERMIT EXPIRATION Approval of a Modification to the Master Use Permit is granted based upon the site plan identified dated received August 28 2012 to allow the construction of a hotel with 180 rooms; ... 6. HOTEL OPERATIONS The hotel shall be permitted to operate as a 24 hour late business operation and shall provide a minimum 6,500 square foot restaurant and meeting space area on the ground floor of the hotel See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-131 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response along the Town Square. Any additional or revised uses for the hotel will be reviewed at the time specific business operation information is provided about these uses to determine if they are permitted and will require a separate Use Permit application. Note: This modifies the Condition No 5 in the approval dated January 20 2009 to replace the requirement for a 400 person banquet facility with a 6,500 square foot restaurant and meeting space. Comment: "Since a day conference center typically require subsidy, the... should consider incorporating a conference/meeting space use into a new hotel property....requiring as has the City of Cupertino a space with a capacity for up to 400 to 500 as a condition of hotel use. The hotel would have to be sized over 150 to 200 rooms to support such a meeting space." "...Iargely devoid of dedicated, day-use meeting facilities that are designed for business use. While a number of facilities exist that can accommodate business meetings of 50 to 500 people, the bulk of them are publicly-run community centers and community colleges. Though many of these properties were recently constructed or renovated, and all are outfitted with some degree of meeting equipment, they may not appear professional enough to appeal to certain business users." Comment: Cupertino Community Hall # of rooms: 1 Capacity: 152 to 170 depending upon configuration Cupertino Senior Center # of rooms: 4 Capacity: 10 to 200 Quinlan Community Center # of rooms: 2 Capacity: 80 to 300 Recent users: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club of Cupertino Flint Center for Performing Arts # of rooms: 1 Capacity: 2,400 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-132 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Recent users: Corporate events: Evernote, Seagate, Netflix, Hot Chips 26 (8/10/14 to 8/12/14). Comment: Use of these existing facilities would improve the cost effectiveness and utilization of these public facilities. Perhaps a public/private entity could be considered to promote this type of use. Comment: 2015 Cupertino Educational Foundation Gala at Fairmont San Jose on March 21, 2015 2014 Cupertino Educational Foundation Gala at Fairmont San Jose on March 1,2014 2013 Cupertino Educational Foundation Gala at Fairmont San Jose on March 9, 2013 Dynasty # of rooms: 10 private Capacity: 10 to 50 # of rooms: 2 Capacity: 600 Tatami # of rooms: 1 Capacity: 200 2014 General Plan Amendment: Study Area #1: 250-room hotel/conference facility Cupertino Inn Goodyear Tire Study Area #2: No hotel contemplated City Center Study Area #3: No hotel contemplated PG&E Study Area #4: No hotel contemplated Mirapath Study Area #5: Possible hotel Cupertino Village GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-133 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Study Area #6: Possible hotel Vallco Shopping Center Study Area #7: Possible hotel Stevens Creek Office Center Comment: There should be a hotel allocation that requires a 5* hotel component with 200 to 250 rooms with a 400 person facility for meeting, conference and banquet dining. B15-21 HEIGHT ANALYSIS 1.01.030 Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation A. Height 1. Maximum - Forty-five (45) feet, except where regulated by the Cupertino General Plan - Maximum Building Heights. 2. The primary bulk of buildings shall be maintained below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial street curb line or lines in all areas subject to the Heart of the City standards except for the Crossroads area and the Vallco area. See the Crossroads Streetscape Plan and the Maximum Building Heights diagram in the Cupertino General Plan for details. Comments: 1.01.030 There is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan The Heart of the City Specific Plan will be superceded by the 2014 General Plan Amendment after only one year of preparation: The 2000 - 2020 General Plan maximum building heights of 30 feet, 45 feet, and 60 feet will be changed substantially by the 2014 General Plan Amendment as follows: 2014 General Plan Amendment: Alternative C Study Area #1: Cupertino Inn Goodyear Tire Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 130 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits are provided). Alternative B: 60 feet up to 90 feet Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet Impacts from increased height limits under the proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment B11-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-134 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Study Area #2: City Center Maximum height would be 75 feet (up to 110 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits are provided). Alternative B: 60 feet up to 90 feet Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet Study Area #3: PG&E Study Area #4: Mirapath Alternative A Maximum height remains unchanged at 35 feet Alternative B Maximum height remains unchanged at 30 feet Alternative C Maximum height remains unchanged at 45 feet Comment: What does unchanged mean? Study Area #5: Cupertino Village Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 130 feet ... (if) there is a retail component and project-wide benefits are provided). Alternative B: 60 feet up to 95 feet Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet Study Area #6: Vallco Shopping Center Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 85 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits Center are provided) in South Vallco Gateway West Alternative B: 45 feet up to 60 feet (or) Maximum height (would be) 75 feet (up to 160 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits are provided) in South Vallco Gateway East. Alternative B: 60 feet up to 110 feet GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-135 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Alternative A: unchanged at 45 feet, up to 60 feet with retail Study Area #7: Stevens Creek Office Center Maximum height would be 60 feet (up to 75 feet if there is a retail component and project-wide benefits are provided). Alternative A & B: unchanged at 45 feet Source: General Plan Amendment Concept Alternatives Report Section III Study Area Potential Projects Page 34 B15-22 Comment: Viable retail component Define "project-wide" Define 'benefits" See Response to Comment B15-17. B15-23 Comment: Why can Vallco Shopping Center either be in South Vallco Gateway West or South Vallco Gateway East? Vallco Shopping Center encompasses property on both the East and West of Wolfe Road. Since the development standards for property on the east side of Wolfe Road are different from the development standards for property on the west side of Wolfe Road, two different planning areas have been identified – South Vallco Gateway West and South Vallco Gateway East. The comment poses a question regarding the location of the Vallco Shopping Center and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR. B15-24 Comment: The 2000 - 2010 General Plan allows an increase in height to 60 feet if there is a retail component only in South Vallco Gateway West or South Vallco Gateway East. Source: City of Cupertino 2000 - 2010 General Plan Community Design Figure 2-D Maximum Building Heights Page 2-11 See Responses to Comments B11-01 and B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-136 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Comment: The 2000 General Plan Amendment aIlowed an exception to the maximum height limit of 75 feet to permit a 102-feet apartment complex and a 108-feet hotel. Comment: There should be a "Maximum height of ? only for a 5* hotel component with 200 to 250 rooms with a 400 person facility for meeting, conference and banquet dining. B15-25 SETBACK ANALYSIS 2000-2010 General Plan Setback Ratios Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial street curb line or lines except for the Crossroads and Vallco areas. For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan. For the Vallco area: Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1,5 feet of setback for every 1 foot of building height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd., Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue curb lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road curb line. Source: City of Cupertino 2000 - 2010 General Plan Community Design Figure 2-D Maximum Building Heights Page 2-11 Comment: Define setback Comment: What is allowed in setback area? Comment: Will 2014 General Plan Amendment change the above setback ratios? Comment: There is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 1-2, the Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. See Response to Comment B03-17. The term “setback” is defined in the Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.08, Definitions, to mean a line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any specified front, side or rear yard, or the boundary of any public right-of-way or private road, whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise, or a line otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses. Where no minimum front, side or rear yards are specified, the setback line shall be coterminous with the corresponding lot line. The allowable use vary by setback area (i.e. front, rear, side). The amended General Plan policies do not indicate setback ratios along streets. There is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan at this time. It is anticipated that a plan will be created at some future date. B15-26 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Level of Service TABLE 4.13-3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project are described in detail in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.13-49. Impacts on intersections already operating at LOS F are disclosed. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-137 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response AVERAGE DELAY Level of Service Description Average Control Interval Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) (Seconds) A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at ail. Short 10.0 or less 10 cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than LOS A, 10.1 to 20.0 10 causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. C Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Some vehicles must wait more than one cycle at this level. The number of vehicles stopping 20.1 to 35.0 15 is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to- 35.1 to 55.0 20 capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and wait more than one cycle. E This is considered to the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long 55.1 to 80.0 25 cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Some vehicles must wait more than two cycles. F This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many vehicles must wait more than two cycles. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. Greater than 80.0 30 >80.1 to 110 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. (Washington, D,C. 2000) Comment: Given that each Level of Service (LOS) category increases by 5 seconds, some signalized intersections are in LOS categories greater than LOS F: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-138 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Hypothetical Level of Service G 110.1 to 145 35 De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 SB Ramp/Cupertino Jurisdiction (LOS D) CMP am 110.9 Wolfe Rd. and 1-280 NB Ramp/Cupertino (D) CMP am 113.2 1-280 SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Blvd/Santa Clara (E) CM pm 118.3 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Blvd/County (E) CMP am 112.4 H. 145.1 to 185 40 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd./De Anza Blvd and Homestead Rd/Cupertino (D) CMP pm 181.4 De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 SB Ramp/Cupertino (D) CMP pm 162.2 De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd/Cupertino (E+) CMP pm 160.4 Source: 4.13 Transportation and Traffic Table 4.13-13 2014 Draft General Plan Amendment City of Cupertino B15-27 Comment: Some of these intersections connect with freeway segments that are LOS F. See Response to Comment B15-26. B15-28 Comment: Hexagon concludes that under the proposed Project scenario compared to the 2040 No Project scenario ... presented in Table 4.13-13... "16 intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service... Five of the sixteen (16) intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least one peak hour under the proposed Project were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service under the No Project scenario." This statement seems to minimize the traffic impact: See Response to Comment B15-26. B15-29 No Project LOS Peak Avg. Avg. # Intersection Standard Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 5 Sunnyvale/Saratoga D am 51.2 D 101.5 F Homestead RD pm 66.1 E 181.4 F 6 De Anza Blvd D am 46.4 D 100.0 F I-280 NB Ramp pm 71.7 E 162.2 F 7 De Anza Blvd D am 47.0 D 110.9 F See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-139 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response I-280 SB Ramp pm 35.3 D+ 99.9 F 8 De Anza Blvd E+ pm 76.2 E- 160.4 F Stevens Creek Blvd 9 De Anza Blvd D pm 70.7 E 108.8 F McClellan/Pacifica 16 Wolfe Rd D pm 51.9 D- 105.2 F Homestead Rd 18 Wolfe Rd D am 88.3 F 113.2 F I-280 NB Ramp pm 36.5 D+ 70.3 E 19 Wolfe Rd D am 38.9 D+ 86.0 F I-280 SB Ramp pm 24.7 C 85.7 F 29 I-280 SB Ramp E pm 84.9 F 118.3 F Stevens Creek Blvd B15-30 Study Scenarios The potential effects of the proposed Apple Campus 2 project on the study intersections were evaluated during the AM and PM peak hours for the following six scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions: Scenario 1 plus traffic generated by the proposed project and roadway system modifications proposed as part of the project. Scenario 3: Background No Project Conditions: Existing volumes plus traffic from "approved but not yet built or occupied" developments. Scenario 4: Background Plus Project Conditions: Scenario 3 plus net-added traffic generated by the proposed project and roadway system modifications proposed as part of the project. Scenario 5: Cumulative No Project Conditions: Scenario 3 plus traffic from pending developments in the area. Source: Study Scenarios Apple Campus 2 Draft Transportation Impact Analysis by Fehr & Peers May 31,2013 The comment provides background information on the traffic analysis for the Apple Campus 2 project . As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, the traffic impacts scenarios analyzed in the EIR include the 2040 No Project Traffic Conditions and the 2040 Proposed Project. Also see Response to Comment B03-17 regarding the difference between a program-level EIR and a project-level EIR. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-140 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Comment: It seems that the potential effects of the proposed 2014 General Plan Amendment were evaluated for only the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions B15-31 Comments: Hexagon also concludes that TRAF-6 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. The analysis of the proposed Project, above, addresses cumulative impacts to the Transportation network in the City and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts Would be the same as proposed Project-specific impacts. Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable Source: Mitigation Measures 2014 General Plan Amendment: Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report Document: 4.13 Transportation and Traffic by Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2014 Resolution #12-098 93 TRAFFIC CALMING The developer shall agree to fund up to $100000 for the purpose of mitigating traffic impacts in the adjacent neighborhoods resulting from the project for a period of 5 years following project occupancy. The developer shall submit a bond for this purpose which will be released 5 years from the date of project occupancy. The comment recites information stated in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, and background information concerning another project. See Response to Comment B15-01. B15-32 EIR for Valley Fair I-280/I-880 interchange to be completed Spring 2015 $62.1 million Construction in progress as of July 2014 Completion of interchange ? months after completion of Valley Fair Renovation See Response to Comment B15-01. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-141 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B16 Apple B16-01 This letter sets forth Apple's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project (collectively, the "General Plan Amendment"). Apple has a strong interest in the City's future growth and development. We are investing billions of dollars to remain in our hometown. As a general matter, Apple supports the increases in office and hotel development allocations in the General Plan Amendment. The positive impact of Apple Campus 2 on the area is already apparent. We believe Apple Campus 2 and Apple's continued presence in the area will continue to drive demand for new office space and generate additional visitors to the area. We support the City's efforts to accommodate economic development and reasonable growth. We also value our good relations with The Irvine Company. We have worked cooperatively on a number of initiatives. We understand The Irvine Company's desire to update and densify the Hamptons, and we are not opposed to reasonable development on that site. However, we have grave concerns about the dramatic increases in density and height the General Plan Amendment would allow at the Hamptons. Such increases are unprecedented in Cupertino. The impact of these increases on the unique privacy and security needs of Apple Campus 2, which the City has acknowledged in the EIR for the campus, have not been considered. We also have concerns about the impact buildings of this height will have on view corridors, sunlight and emission of light and glare. For the reasons outlined below, we respectfully request that the updated General Plan maintain the longstanding height limit of 60 feet for the Hamptons site, for all structures located within 50 feet of the parcel line abutting Apple Campus 2 or Pruneridge. The height limit should remain at 60 feet for the remainder of the Hamptons site, unless the City makes special findings that an increased height, up to 75 feet, would not infringe on the privacy and security needs of Apple Campus 2, nor unreasonably impact view corridors or sunlight, or create light or glare trespass. We also request that setbacks, transitions, landscaping, or other mitigations be imposed, unless the City makes the special findings specified above. The comment expresses concerns about the proposed height increase on potential Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) with regard to the privacy and security of the Apple Campus 2 project. However, neither issue constitutes a physical effect on the environment as defined by CEQA, and therefore are not addressed in the EIR. As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR beginning on page 1-2, the Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning, but not the site-specific impacts of future development, which will require submittal to the City of site-specific applications and plans. See Response to Comment B03-17. Impacts of the proposed Project on view corridors, sunlight and light and glare as a result of the proposed height increases, including proposed height increases on potential Housing Element Site 10, are addressed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. Impacts from light and glare are discussed under Impact AES-4, and were found to be less than significant because new developments would be required to comply with the General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels. The City's General Plan policies require reducing light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses by buffering new development with landscaping and trees. The preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development and glare generated by windows of multistory buildings. Furthermore, because the Project Component locations and surrounding area are largely developed, the lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the Project Study Area or its surroundings. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-142 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response See Response to Comment B11-01. B16-02 1. The Proposed Height Increase and Elimination of Setbacks for the Hamptons Site Threatens the Security of Apple Campus 2 As we have discussed extensively in the past, the key purpose of Apple Campus 2 is to provide a single, unified and secure campus where Apple will invent future generations of Apple products. The Apple Campus 2 Environmental Impact Report ("AC2 EIR") acknowledges that security is one of the Project's two "primary objectives": "[a]chiev[ing] the security and privacy required for the invention of new products by eliminating any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters against unauthorized persons." AC 2 DEIR, page 63. The AC2 EIR followed this imperative in its analysis. For example, it concluded that the Mobility and Park alternative, which would have placed a public trail along the southern portion of the site, was such a threat to security that it was not even studied. According to the AC2 EIR, "[a] public trail traversing the project site and Calabazas Creek would conflict with Apple's safety and security needs" and even security measures would be insufficient "because Apple is under intense scrutiny." AC 2 DEIR, page 626. Likewise, the Pruneridge Open alternative was rejected because it posed too much of a security threat. Placing 85-foot residential towers immediately adjacent to Apple Campus 2 poses the same security concerns as a trail through the site. A penthouse at that height along the perimeter of the campus would provide a direct view into the activities and patterns of behavior at the campus. Even allowing lower heights with no setbacks, transitions or landscaping jeopardizes the privacy and security of Apple Campus 2. It's inconsistent with the AC2 EIR's acknowledgment of Apple's security and privacy needs to permit a building envelope that would breach those needs. The only way to remedy the issue is to limit heights and impose setbacks, transitions, landscaping or other mitigations, and require special findings that security and privacy at Apple Campus 2 will not be compromised if the City approves a larger building envelope at the Hamptons site. See Response to Comment B11-01 with regard to building heights. As discussed in Response to Comment B16-01, effects on privacy and security of private property do not constitute physical effects on the environment. As discussed in Response to Comment B03-17, the Draft EIR analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. The evaluation of individual projects, including potential future development on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons) that may be proposed under the General Plan, will be conducted at the time that site-specific development applications are filed. Accordingly, this EIR may be used for tiering purposes but is not intended to provide site-specific evaluation of future development projects. B16-03 2. Apple Designed the Apple Campus 2 Project Assuming Compliance with Existing General Plan Policies While Apple's goals for the campus are hugely ambitious, Apple carefully stayed within the existing General Plan development standards, and went to great lengths to respect our neighbors. None of the buildings exceed 60 feet, even though taller buildings would have been a logical choice. The See Responses to Comments B11-01, B16-01 and B16-02. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-143 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response parking garage is setback from the Hamptons and screened from view. Other setbacks were greatly increased over the previously existing condition. Where our campus comes closest to residential neighbors - along the eastern boundary adjacent to Santa Clara - great attention has been paid to ensure that our neighbors' privacy is protected and impacts minimized. We made these investments at a considerable cost. Our multi-billion dollar investment was based on the good faith understanding that adjacent land uses would not be dramatically changed to the detriment of our campus. We recognize that land use policies may evolve, but we never anticipated a wholesale rewrite of the rules targeted solely for our most immediate neighbor, which would more than triple the permitted density and increase height limits by more than 40%. B16-04 3. The General Plan Amendment Proposes a Dramatic Increase in Density and Height at the Hamptons Site The Hamptons site currently is developed with 342 apartment units, built at a density of approximately 27 units/acre and at a height of about 45 feet. This is already considered high density in Cupertino. The General Plan Amendment proposes to dramatically increase the permitted density to 110 units/acre, which would allow up to 1,368 units, a 300% increase and over 1,000 new units. While the General Plan Amendment states that the "realistic" yield is 1,162 units, which would be an increase of 820, for EIR purposes the maximum, not the "realistic", density should be analyzed. Further, by taking advantage of the State Density Bonus Law, a project could exceed even this higher limit, and require the City to waive development standards, such as height, to achieve the desired density. Government Code § 65915. The result would be to take control of development on this site out of the City's hands. Currently, the greatest density allowed anywhere in the City is 35 units/acre; the proposal would allow over three times that density on this single site. The Hamptons site is the only site in the City proposed for such a dramatic increase. The next densest sites under the new General Plan would allow only 40 units/acre and most multi-family residential sites are proposed at 25 to 35 units/acre. In addition to density, the General Plan Amendment would allow residential towers of up to 85 feet at the Hamptons, an increase of more than 40% over the current 60 foot height limit. Further, unlike other areas in the City where a "bonus" height requires inclusion of a retail component and "community benefits," neither are required for the Hamptons. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, on page 3-20, the net increase in housing units permitted on Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) would be 820. As stated on Draft EIR pages 3- 12 to 3-13, a maximum number of 4,421 residential units was analyzed in the Draft EIR because that is the maximum number of new residential units that would be permitted under the proposed Project. Therefore, while the physically possible realistic yield of the combined potential Housing Element Sites shown in Table 3-21 equals 4,804, only a maximum of 4,421 units would be permitted over the 26-year build out horizon of the proposed Project. Therefore, the EIR analyzes the maximum number of units that would be permitted to be constructed under the proposed Project. The significant environmental effects of the proposed increased development density and increased building heights that would be allowed on the identified housing sites, including Site 10, are analyzed at a program level in the resources sections of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02 and B16-03, no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project and the site-specific evaluation of individual projects, including potential future development on Housing Site 10, would be required at the time that project-level site plans are submitted to the City as part of a specific GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-144 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response Finally, the General Plan Amendment appears to abandon longstanding setback requirements, and where setbacks may be required, they must account only for impacts to residential uses. For example, the current General Plan includes setback ratios in the Vallco area, including a 1:1 slope line drawn from the Wolfe Road curb line. General Plan, Figure 2-D. According to the EIR Appendix I, it appears the General Plan Amendment would delete the setback ratios, and instead require unspecified "appropriate setbacks" to promote active uses along street frontage and "minimize potential conflict with adjacent low-density single-family neighborhoods." Appendix I, Revised Policy 2-15. It appears that setbacks would be determined during the project entitlement process, yet there is no General Plan language that requires any consideration of impacts to or privacy concerns of adjacent commercial uses. There is nothing currently in the General Plan to prevent approval of an 85 foot residential tower that immediately abuts Apple Campus 2. The General Plan Amendment needs to better balance the desire for increased density at the Hamptons with Apple's security needs and rational planning. These needs are well documented in the AC2 EIR and in City findings for the campus, and must be respected. project development application at this location. See Response to Comment B11-01 with regards to building heights. B16-05 4. The General Plan Amendment EIR Should Acknowledge the Environmental Impacts of the Increased Height and Density Greatly increasing height, and eliminating setbacks at The Hamptons would result in adverse environmental impacts. In addition to amending the General Plan to limit height, as described above, we also request that the EIR impose setbacks, transitions, landscaping and other mitigations to reduce the environmental impacts of tall structures. The following discusses areas of the EIR where this should be addressed. In the discussion of AES-2 (impacts to scenic resources), the EIR notes that as part of the Architecture and Site Approval process, the City "could" require "suitable setbacks for buildings along the public rights-of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions adjacent to low- density residential development." EIR, at 4.1-30. However, the General Plan does not mention the Hamptons' nearest neighbor, Apple, the party most likely to be impacted by the Hamptons' development. Moreover, the EIR appears to rely on the potential for setbacks as the basis for its less than significant conclusion. Without an actual setback requirement, the EIR should assume that residential buildings will be built to the maximum height on the parcel lines. For the EIR to rely on setbacks as mitigating the impact, it should in fact require setbacks. We request that the General Plan either include policy language requiring adequate setbacks, to protect Apple's privacy and security needs, view corridors and sunlight, and eliminate light and glare trespass, or add such requirements as mitigation. See Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02, B16-03 and B16-05. As discussed in these previous responses, the proposed Project analyzed in the EIR consists of plan-level approvals, and no specific development project is proposed or authorized for Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons). Therefore, the Draft EIR for the proposed Project does not address the project-level concerns of the commenter. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, the Draft EIR, on page 4.1-30, a maximum building height of 85 feet at Housing Site 10 is considered in the Draft EIR. The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR relies on the potential for setbacks as the basis for finding less-than-significant impacts aesthetics impacts. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, in all the areas where additional height is allowed, potential future development would be subject to the City’s discretionary review processes, including the Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval Review, in accordance with Section 19.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Future development would also would be required to comply with the Design Standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Vallco Master Plan, and the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, and other applicable conceptual GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-145 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response plans and General Plan policies, to ensure that the bulk, mass, height, and architectural character of new development are compatible with surrounding use, and minimize impacts from light and glare. See Response to Comment B16-01. Impact AES-2 analyzed the impacts to scenic resources from the view shed of I-280, a designated State Scenic Highway, and concluded that land use or intensity changes do not represent a substantial reimagining of the character of the Project Component locations in the I-280 view shed. See Response to Comment B11-01 with regards to building heights. B16-06 As for the analysis of impacts to Apple Campus 2 in particular, the EIR is conclusory when it simply states that "the taller heights may marginally impede views of the Santa Cruz mountains for the users of the Apple Campus." EIR, at 4.1-30. There is no data or analysis to support this statement. The EIR contains no visual simulation, shade and shadow study, lighting study, or the like. We request that the City prepare a visual simulation and shade and shadow study and analyze the impacts of light and glare from the Hamptons, assuming a project built within the maximum envelope permitted. We believe these will show that 85-foot towers along the parcel lines would have significant impacts, which could be mitigated by reasonable measures. Consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR does not analyze impacts on private views. As stated in the Draft EIR in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, on page 4.1-21, public view corridors are areas in which short-range, medium-range and long-range views are available from publicly accessible viewpoints, such as from city streets. The Apple Campus 2 project is a private development and not a publically accessible viewing location, and the views from private development in Cupertino are not considered protected views. The additional studies requested by the commenter for future development on potential Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) could be required by the City at the time a specific development project is proposed. Generally, the City does not require shade and shadow studies for evaluating development; but does have setback standards in the zoning code; however, as previously discussed in Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02, B16-03, B16-05, no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project and the evaluation of individual projects, including the potential future development on Housing Site 10, would be required at the time that project-level site plans are submitted to the City as part of a specific project development application at this location. See Response to Comment B11-01 with regards to building heights. B16-07 Impact AES-3 is also conclusory. It states in a single sentence that the prior analysis in the EIR showed that future development in the North Vallco Park Special Area, as well as in several other See Responses to Comments B03-17, B16-02, B16-03, B16-05 and B16-06. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-146 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response large portions of the City, would not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character or its surroundings. However, the prior analysis did not look at this question. The discussion in AES-2, which is the only portion of the c hapter with any substance, looked at impacts to scenic resources, not changes to the existing visual character or surroundings. These are distinct questions. We believe there will be a dramatic change in the existing visual character and surroundings. In order to build out the Hamptons site at the proposed density of 110 units/acre, the buildings must grow taller, must be closer together and must move closer to the lot lines. To fully appreciate the extent of the change to the existing visual character, we request that the City prepare visual simulations. Impact AES-2 analyzed the impacts to scenic resources from the view shed of I-280, a designated State Scenic Highway, and concluded that land use or intensity changes do not represent a substantial reimagining of the character of the Project Component locations in the I-280 view shed. Therefore, in addition to considering the impacts to the view shed from I-280, this impact discussion also considered the changes to the overall character as a result of the proposed increases to height. Impact AES-3, which discusses whether the proposed Project would substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of the sites that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped under the Proposed Project, analyzes affected special areas, study areas and housing sites on pages 4.1-33 through 4.1-38. These areas are already developed, underutilized and/or in close proximity to existing development. The Draft EIR concludes that gradually increasing urban development in areas that are already developed with commercial, industrial and residential uses will not substantially degrade existing visual character or quality. Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-27 to 4.2-38. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Also see Response to Comment B11-01. B16-08 We also note that the General Plan Amendment proposes to delete existing Policy 2-14, Strategy 6, View Preservation. That Strategy requires that the City "[d]evise and implement a policy to encourage developers to limit building heights in order to preserve hillside views throughout the City." Deletion of Policy 2-14, Strategy 6 paves the way for allowing taller buildings that impede hillside views, but the EIR fails to even mention the deletion. The EIR should be revised to either delete, or to acknowledge and study, the impact of this very significant policy change. The impacts to views of scenic resources as result of the proposed Project is discussed under Impacts AES-1 and AES-2 in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR. These impacts were found to be less than significant. Potential future development where increases in height are requested would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance. Future development would also be required to comply with Design Standards outlined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Vallco Specific Plan, and other Conceptual Plans. In addition, potential aesthetic impacts of future development under the proposed Project, including development in the hillsides, would be mitigated to the extent feasible with the existing and proposed General Plan policies . For example, Policy 2-47, Hillside Development Standards, would require the City to establish building and development standards for the hillsides GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-147 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response that ensure hillside protection. See Response to Comment B16-07 B16-09 Further, although the EIR recognizes that the impact of shade and shadow "is an important environmental issue," it contains no analysis of such impacts. EIR, at 4.1-21. When describing this issue, the EIR identifies certain land uses as being "shadow-sensitive" because they have "expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun." EIR, at 4.1-21. The list of such sensitive uses includes private enterprises, such as outdoor restaurants. However, it fails to recognize that corporate campuses, such as Apple Campus 2, may similarly be "shadow-sensitive" and have an expectation of sunlight. One of the signature features of Apple Campus 2 is its extensive outdoor space. This space is designed to invite employees to interact in a relaxed, park-like setting. Creating this open space comes at an enormous cost, particularly the elimination of impervious spaces for surface parking by constructing high cost underground and structured parking. The value of that investment and the healthy lifestyle amenity to Apple employees would be threatened by new residential towers casting long shadows across this key campus feature. Apple's expectation of sunlight clearly warrants at least the same attention as an outdoor restaurant, and the EIR should address this potential impact. Likewise, the EIR doesn't mention the light and glare trespass resulting from residential towers within this building envelope. We were very careful to avoid any light or glare trespass from Apple Campus 2 (see Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report Lighting Technical Report, October 29, 2012, by Arup and AC2 EIR, Section V.B.2.b.(4)). We request the City to study this topic in connection with the proposed building envelope. Setbacks established in the zoning code allow for light and air for buildings within a project and for adjoining properties. Key criteria for review of new development include compatibility with surrounding sites including abrupt changes in scale and the availability of light and air. Should any impacts to shade and shadow be identified at the time, the need for a shade and shadow study will be considered. Additionally, since this is a Program EIR, no detailed, project-specific analysis for shade/shadow was prepared. See Responses to Comments B03-17. As discussed throughout Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, potential future development in all areas where increased heights would be permitted also would be subject to the Architectural and Site Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance or would be required to comply with Design Standards in the General Plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan, or other appropriate Conceptual Plans, the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or the South Vallco Specific Plan. See Response to Comment B11-01. Impacts from light and glare are discussed under Impact AES-4, and were found to be less than significant because new developments would be required to comply with the General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels. See Response to Comment B16-01. B16-10 5. Apple Requests Additional Changes and Corrections to the General Plan Amendment Below are minor additional changes that we request be made to the General Plan Amendment and the EIR: • Remove Pruneridge. The EIR acknowledges that Pruneridge has been vacated for Apple Campus 2, but it remains depicted in all figures. The General Plan and its figures should reflect the vacation of Pruneridge and the amendment to the General Plan's Circulation Element effected as part of the Apple Campus 2 approvals. As stated by the commenter, the Draft EIR acknowledges the removal of Pruneridge Avenue in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic. As discussed in the Draft EIR, Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino was recently vacated between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue as part of the Apple Campus 2 project. The physical roadway still existed at the time that the aerial photo used to prepare the base map for the EIR was taken, however. The depiction of Pruneridge Avenue on the figures in the Draft EIR has no bearing on the conclusions in the EIR concerning the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-148 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response • Acknowledge the Development Agreement. A key entitlement for Apple Campus 2 is the Development Agreement,' which vested Apple's right to build out the campus under the policies, plans and regulations that were in place at the time of the Development Agreement, including the General Plan. This General Plan Amendment should acknowledge that, so long as the Development Agreement is in place, the prior General Plan policies apply to Apple Campus 2. We note that the current General Plan takes this approach with respect to Hewlett-Packard's development agreement. • Clarify "Major Employer." We believe the entities that qualify for the "major employer" pool of development allocations should be clarified. First, we note that Appendix I mistranscribes the existing General Plan language. Policy 2-44 describes "major employers" as those "companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in Cupertino," but EIR Appendix I shows this as companies with "sales offices or corporate headquarters." This needs to be corrected. However, we think the definition could be further clarified. The purpose of the "major employer" category is to encourage large, established companies to stay and grow in Cupertino. We believe that only requiring a sales office and corporate headquarters is too broad. The City acknowledges that it has previously entered into a Development Agreement for the Apple Campus 2 project. That Development Agreement was fully analyzed in the Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2011082055. The proposed Project does not affect the subjects covered by the Development Agreement. The Draft EIR has been revised to correct a typographical error in Policy 2-44 identified by the commenter. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. The comment related to the definition of “Major Employer” is acknowledged. B16-11 • Assumption for Hamptons. Table 3-5 indicates a net increase of 528 units within the North Vallco Special Area, but elsewhere the EIR states that redevelopment of The Hamptons will result in a net increase of 820 units. The full density anticipated in the EIR should be assumed. Further, we were unable to determine in the traffic section how many units were assumed at that site. Please clarify this issue. The commenter correctly describes that Table 3-5, Existing and Proposed North Vallco Special Area Development Standards, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, on page 3-24 shows that the difference between the remaining units permitted under the current General Plan (297 units) and the buildout under the proposed Project (825 units), which is 528 units. The EIR analyzes the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project. Hence, a total of 825 additional units in the North Vallco Special Area was analyzed in the Draft EIR. The difference between the development potential of the proposed Project and the remaining development potential under the current General Plan is shown for information purposes only; no analysis in the EIR is based on this number. As stated on page 3-13, a maximum of 4,421 residential units was analyzed in the Draft EIR. See Response to Comment B16-05. B16-12 • I-280 Northbound Ramp Improvements. It appears that the EIR does not assume some of the improvements Apple is making to the Wolfe Road and E-280 northbound ramp. We believe this accounts for the discrepancy between the finding in the AC2 EIR that with mitigation, that As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the EIR, of this Final EIR, page 4.13-42 has been revised to acknowledge the addition of the third northbound through lane as an Apple Campus 2 improvement. In GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PLACEWORKS 5-149 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response intersection would operate at LOS B (see MM TRANS-5, pg. 404) and the finding in the General Plan Amendment EIR that the same intersection would operate at LOS F in the "no project" scenario. In particular, the Transportation Impact Analysis for Apple Campus 2 assumed widening the northbound Wolfe approach to three lanes (see AC2 TIA, pg. 3-10, Intersection #21, Wolfe Road and 1-280 NB Ramps providing data for Cumulative plus Project conditions, for both AM and PM traffic), but the General Plan Amendment EIR assumed only two lanes for this approach (see EIR, Appendix G, pg. 231-76). Apple is, in fact, constructing this third northbound approach lane, so it should be assumed. addition, page 4.13-54, under Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 has been revised to clarify that the Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the added northbound traffic due to the general plan development. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. B16-13 • Bridge Widening Should Not be Assumed. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 commits the City to preparing and implementing a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and then identifies several improvements that would mitigate the impacts. EIR, at 4.13-53. Several of these improvements are ambitious, particularly the potential for widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. These very substantial improvements have not been studied. Please clarify in the text of the EIR that there may be other solutions available and that any mitigation measures will be identified and fully studied when preparing the Fee Program. There should be no assumption at this point that the bridge may need to be widened. The Draft EIR has identified a deficiency at the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange and significant impacts to intersection levels of service at both the northbound and southbound ramps (i.e. Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18) and Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19)). Adding lanes to Wolfe Road, which could require widening the overcrossing, has been identified as a potential way to mitigate the impacts. There may be other ways to mitigate without widening the overcrossing. Any changes to the interchange would require the preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) in accordance with Caltrans procedures. The PSR would study all potential ways to improve operations and would select the design that provided the most cost- effective solution for all transportation modes. B16-14 Apple has made an unprecedented investment in Cupertino and the decision to do so was based on certain understandings about our neighborhood. We respectfully request that the City continue to collaborate with Apple and The Irvine Company to identify appropriate development standards for the Hamptons site, including 60-foot height limits along the property lines, reasonable setbacks, transitions, landscaping or other mitigations, and findings that any structure will not breach the privacy and security needs of Apple Campus 2, and that the impacts of any project on view corridors, sunlight, and emission of light and glare will be thoroughly studied and adverse impacts mitigated. See Responses to Comments B16-01 through B16-13. B17 Jonathan Sanchez B17-01 Do you know when the Draft EIR will be posted regarding the General Plan Amendment? We received a notice in the mail that the Draft EIR would be available here online. The Draft EIR was made available for public review for 45-days from Wednesday, June 18, 2014 through Friday, August 1, 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING RESPONSE TO COMMENT DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-150 AUGUST 28, 2014 TABLE 5-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Number Comment Response B18 Youichi B18-01 Thanks for your all information from Housing Element report. From postcard in my mail, I have come to this website to read more about housing in Cupertino. I think there is not enough housing in Cupertino for other familys like mine. I work and live in Cupertino for 7 years but also travel to Japan. My two daughters attend primary school in Cupertino and their friends are here so we would like to live here for longer time. We rent the apartment in Cupertino but rent every year is going up. I think Housing Element report suggestion for more building height and more du/ac can help with more future housing in Cupertino and help keep rent to stop going up so quick. The location near freeway or big road in Cupertino can support more familys and I think noise will not be a problem. Cupertino is great place to live and I think more apartments can help more familys like mine in future. The comment is acknowledged. B19 Anonymous B19-01 As a daily bike commuter, I would like to see more bike lanes through the major corridors of Cupertino. More density (and thus cars) is fine with me as long as there are clear and well-marked paths for bicyclists and appropriate signage/markings for the car commuters to pay attention. The comment is acknowledged. ........................................................................................................................ A PPENDIX A: C OMMENT L ETTERS ........................................................................................................................ From: <info@cupertinogpa.org> Date: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:11 AM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website To: info@cupertinogpa.org Comment Submitted by: Name: Lani Lee Organization: County of Santa Clara, Dept. of Environmental Health Email: lani.lee@deh.sccgov.org Subject: Cupertino GPA and Housing Element Draft EIR Comment: name: Lani Lee email: lani.lee@deh.sccgov.org As a comment under HAZ-4, the ESMP can also be prepared under the oversight of either the County of Santa Clara Voluntary Cleanup Program, the RWQCB or the Department of Toxic Substances Control. COMMENT LETTER # A01 A01-01 From: Holly Roberson [mailto:Holly.Roberson@OPR.CA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 11:18 AM To: Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Military Land Use Compatability Planning Requirements for Local Governments S TATE OF C ALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH EDMUND G. BROWN JR. KEN ALEX GOVERNOR DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM Date: June 24, 2014 To: Aarti Shrivastava, Cupertino Planning Director From: Holly Roberson, Community Engagement and Land Use Specialist Subject: Military Land Use Compatibility Planning Requirements for Local Governments Purpose: The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is writing to notify you of recent updates to the military point of contact notification list, and remind you of local government planning and project notification requirements with respect to military land use compatibility. Please see Attachment One for the updated point of contact list. In addition, this memorandum is a reminder from OPR to Counties to notify all of the branches of the United States Military (Military), as required by law, when proposed general plan actions and amendments, or development projects, may have an impact on military facilities and operations. Planning Notification Requirements: SB 1468 (Knight, 2002) made changes to the General Plan law, at Gov. Code Section 65302, which require local governments to consider impacts to military operations in the general plan. When a local government is updating its general plan, it should notify the military points of contact listed in Attachment One. Gov. Code section 65302(a)(2) requires that the general plan land use element consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and COMMENT LETTER # A02 A02-01 A02-02 operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses governed by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes or airspace. Other elements of the General Plan must also consider military compatibility. For example, the circulation element must include any military airports and ports, and be correlated with the land use element of the general plan. (Gov. Code section 65302(b)(1)). The conservation element must consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. (Gov. Code section 65302(d)(1)). The noise element must analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for ground stationary noise sources, including military installations identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. (Gov. Code section 65302(f)(1)(F)). These requirements are valid statewide. Many local governments are unaware of military operations or the extent of testing and training routes throughout the state. You can determine where special use airspace, low level flight paths, and military training routes are relative to your jurisdiction by using the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst. See below for more information about this mapping tool. Mapping Tools to Meet Planning and Notification Requirements: The California Military Land Use Compatibility Planning Analyst is a planning tool which provides an easy to use map of military installation locations throughout the state, as well as a map of where military training activities takes place. Again, please note that even if a City or County is not near a military base, it may still be within a military training route or special use area. The Military provided the State with maps of its installations, low-level flight paths, and special use airspace to enable local governments to comply with planning and notification requirements. The Resources Agency of California, in conjunction with OPR, has made this information publically available. The California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA) is available for use by local planners, permit applicants, and developers to easily determine if a project triggers Military notification. CMLUCA is available at: http://cmluca.projects.atlas.ca.gov. Project Notification Requirements: SB 1462 (Kuehl, 2004) created a notification process to inform the Military of local land use proposals that might have an impact on military facilities and operations, in order to prevent land use conflicts between local communities and military installations and training activities. Specifically, the bill amended Government Code Sections 65352, 65404, 65940, and 65944, and required local governments to: 1) revise their development permit application forms to require identification of whether the proposed project is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path, or within special use airspace and 2) notify the Military when a proposed project, or an updated or revised general plan, might have an impact on military facilities and operations. The following is a summary of the statutory requirements under SB 1462. The relevant Government Code sections are provided in Attachment 2. These process changes only apply to jurisdictions, or proposed projects and actions that are located within 1,000 feet of a military A02-02 cont. installation; beneath a low-level flight path; or, within special use airspace which is defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code as any below 1,500 feet about ground level. 1.Government Code Section 65352 (a)(6) Before any legislative body adopts or substantially amends a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action, if it meets one or more of the above criteria, to all of the branches of the Military. 2.Government Code Section 65940 Local governments are required to change their development permit application forms to allow an applicant to identify whether a proposed project meets one or more of the listed criteria, as well as whether the project is in an urbanized area as defined in Government Code Section 65944 (2). 3.Government Code Section 65944 (d)(1) After a local agency accepts a development application as complete, and if the project applicant has identified that the proposed project meets one or more of the criteria listed above, the local agency shall send a copy of the complete application to all of the Military branches. Exceptions to Notification Requirements: Please note the following exceptions, listed in Government Code Section 65940. Cities and Counties that do not contain a military installation and are not beneath a low-level flight path, or within special use airspace, are not required to change their project applicant information lists. In addition, except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not required to provide a copy of the application to the military if the project is located entirely in an “urbanized area”. For the definition of an urbanized area, see Gov. Code Section 65944(d)(2). Military Points of Contact: Attachment 1 contains point of contact mailing addresses for each of the four branches of the Military. Please use these addresses for referring general plans or general plan amendments, and development applications to the Military. Currently documents must be sent by mail to each of these addresses. You may also send documents via email. Once the Military receives a copy of a development application from your agency, the Military may request a consultation with your agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military facilities or operations (Gov. Code Section 65944 (e)). Resources: More information is available through the California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning, and the Community and Military Compatibility Planning Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines. You may also wish to use the resources available at the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment website, www.oea.gov. A02-02 cont. Questions: OPR coordinates with the military to provide technical assistance and high quality GIS maps to local governments through the California Strategic Coordination and Engagement Program. Please contact Holly Roberson, Community Engagement and Land Use Specialist, if you have any questions about military land use compatibility, or would like technical assistance or more detailed maps for your jurisdiction. Ms. Roberson can be reached at (916) 322-0476 or holly.roberson@opr.ca.gov. Attachments: 1.Military Mailing Addresses for SB 1462 Compliance 2.Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1462 and Public Resources Code Section defining low level flight paths. 3.Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1468 Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. A02-02 cont. Attachment 1 Military Mailing Addresses for SB 1462 Notification All SB 1462 required referrals to the United State Military must be addressed to the following single points of contact for the four Military branches listed below. All SB 1462 required documents must be sent by US Mail. Please also send SB 1462 notification via email. US Air Force Steve Arenson Regional Environmental Officer for California Western Region Environmental Office US Air Force 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94105-22230 steven.arenson@us.af.mil US Army Region Nine Tim Kilgannon Region Nine Environmental Coordinator Regional Environmental and Energy Office Office of the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of the Army Office of Strategic Integration 721 19th St., Room 427 Denver, CO 80202 timothy.r.kilgannon.civ@mail.mil Fort Irwin Philip Crosbie Chief Strategic Plans, S3, NTC Fort Irwin National Training Center P.O. Box 10172 Ft. Irwin, CA 92310 phil.crosbie@us.army.mil Fort Hunter Ligget Gary Houston Chief Environmental Division Directorate of Public Works USAG Fort Hunter Ligget, CA 93928 gary.a.houston10.civ@mail.mil US Navy Steve Chung Regional Community Plans and Liaison Officer Navy Region Southwest US Navy 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190 steve.u.chung@navy.mil US Marine Corps Col. John Gamelin MCIWEST MCB-CAMPEN Attn G-7 PO Box 555010 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5010 A02-03 Attachment 2 Government Code Sections and Public Resources Code Section The bold-faced type indicates the portions of the Government Code which requiring notification to the United States Military of certain general plan actions and development permit applications. 65352. Referral of Plans (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities: (1) A city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district that may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (2) An elementary, high school, or unified school district within the area covered by the proposed action. (3) The local agency formation commission. (4) Anarea wide planning agency whose operations may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (5) A federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (6) (A) The branches of the United States Armed Forces that have provided the Office of Planning and Research with a California mailing address pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65944 when the proposed action is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, provided that the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (B) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with subparagraph (A) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. (7) A public water system, as defined in Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, that serves water to customers within the area covered by the proposal. The public water system shall have at least 45 days to comment on the proposed plan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning agency with the information set forth in Section 65352.5. (8) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a proposed action within the boundaries of the district. (9) On and after March 1, 2005, a California Native American tribe, that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, with traditional lands located within the city or county's jurisdiction. (b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of a general plan pursuant to this section shall have 45 days from the date the referring agency mails it or delivers it in which to comment unless a longer period is specified by the planning agency. (c) (1) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section does not affect the validity of the action, if adopted. (2) To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with the requirements of Chapter 4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), the requirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail. A02-04 65940. List specifying required data for development project (a)Each state agency and each local agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. Each local agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant to include a certification of compliance with Section 65962.5, and the statement of application required by Section 65943. Copies of the information, including the statement of application required by Section 65943, shall be made available to all applicants for development projects and to any person who requests the information. (b) (1) The list of information required from any applicant shall include, where applicable, identification of whether the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path or within special use airspace as defined in Section 21098 of the Public Resources Code, and within an urbanized area as defined in Section 65944. (2) The information described in paragraph (1) shall be based on information provided by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) as of the date of the application. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with paragraph (1) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. (c) (1) A city, county, or city and county that is not beneath a low-level flight path or not within special use airspace and does not contain a military installation is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b). (2) A city, county, or city and county that is entirely urbanized, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 65944, with the exception of a jurisdiction that contains a military installation, is not required to change its list of information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b). (d) (1) Subdivision (b) as it relates to the identification of special use airspace, low-level flight paths, military installations, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 84; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1048 and Ch. 1019; Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 985; Amended by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1200; Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 906.) 65944. Agency Acceptance of Application (a) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, the agency shall not subsequently request of an applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940. The agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application. (b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall not be construed as requiring an applicant to submit with his or her initial application the entirety of the information which a public agency may require in order to take final action on the application. Prior to accepting an application, each public agency shall inform the applicant of any information included in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940 which will subsequently be required from the applicant in order to complete final action on the application. (c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. A02-04 cont. (d) (1) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, and if the project applicant has identified that the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special use airspace or beneath a low-level flight path in accordance with Section 65940, the public agency shall provide a copy of the complete application to any branch of the United States Armed Forces that has provided the Office of Planning and Research with a single California mailing address within the state for the delivery of a copy of these applications. This subdivision shall apply only to development applications submitted to a public agency 30 days after the Office of Planning and Research has notified cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of Department of Defense information on the Internet pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65940. (2) Except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the public agency is not required to provide a copy of the application if the project is located entirely in an "urbanized area." An urbanized area is any urban location that meets the definition used by the United State Department of Commerce's Bureau of Census for "urban" and includes locations with core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census block groups containing at least 500 people per square mile. (e) Upon receipt of a copy of the application as required in subdivision (d), any branch of the United States Armed Forces may request consultation with the public agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military installations, low-level flight paths, or special use airspace, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures. (f) (1) Subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) as these relate to low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and urbanized areas shall not be operative until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research. (2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and Research that the information provided by the Department of Defense is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notify cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with subdivision (d) within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 84; Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 906.) Public Resources Code Section 21098 21098. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Low-level flight path" includes any flight path for any aircraft owned, maintained, or that is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense that flies lower than 1,500 feet above ground level, as indicated in the United States Department of Defense Flight Information Publication, "Area Planning Military Training Routes: North and South America (AP/1B)" published by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. (2) "Military impact zone" includes any area, including airspace that meets both of the following criteria: (A) Is within two miles of a military installation, including, but not limited to, any base, military airport, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for a ship, or any other military activity center that is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense. (B) Covers greater than 500 acres of unincorporated land, or greater than 100 acres of city incorporated land. A02-04 cont. (3) "Military service" means any branch of the United States Armed Forces. (4) "Special use airspace" means the land area underlying the airspace that is designated for training, research, development, or evaluation for a military service, as that land area is established by the United States Department of Defense Flight Information Publication, "Area Planning: Special Use Airspace: North and South America (AP/1A)" published by the United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. (b) If the United States Department of Defense or a military service notifies a lead agency of the contact office and address for the military service and the specific boundaries of a low-level flight path, military impact zone, or special use airspace, the lead agency shall submit notices, as required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092, to the military service if the project is within those boundaries and any of the following apply: (1) The project includes a general plan amendment. (2) The project is of statewide, regional, or area wide significance. (3) The project is required to be referred to the airport land use commission, or appropriately designated body, pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) The requirement to submit notices imposed by this section does not apply to any of the following: (1) Response actions taken pursuant to Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) Response actions taken pursuant to Chapter 6.85 (commencing with Section 25396) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) Sites subject to corrective action orders issued pursuant to Section 25187 of the Health and Safety Code. (d) (1) The effect or potential effect that a project may have on military activities does not itself constitute an adverse effect on the environment for the purposes of this division. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a project's impact on military activities may cause, or be associated with, adverse effects on the environment that are subject to the requirements of this division, including, but not limited to, Section 21081. A02-04 cont. Attachment 3 Government Code Sections as Amended by SB 1468 Gov. Code section 65302 (a)(2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A) In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources. (B) The following definitions govern this paragraph: (i) “Military Readiness activities” mean all of the following: (I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for combat. (II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use. (ii) “Military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in the paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b)(1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. (d)(1) The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. (f)(1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: A02-05 (F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. (g) The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum roads widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. A02-05 cont. COMMENT LETTER # A03 A03-01 A03-02 A03-03 A03-04 A03-05 A03-06 A03-07 A03-07 cont. COMMENT LETTER # A04 A04-01 A04-02 COMMENT LETTER # A05 A05-01 A05-02 A05-03 A05-03 cont. A05-04 A05-05 A05-05 cont. A05-06 A05-07 COMMENT LETTER # A06 A06-01 A06-02 A06-02 cont. A06-03 1 Alex Lopez From:Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org> Sent:Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:08 PM To:Ruby Elbogen Subject:RE: Vallco Neighborhood Thank you for your comment, Ruby. Regards, Piu From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:58 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: Re: Vallco Neighborhood Our "environmental" comments were clear. More housing in our 'hood will affect Cupertino's environment. Because we live in the "flats" and not the hills doesn't mean the environment will not be negatively affected by overcrowding--impact on the sewer system, school crowding. That's exactly why our Vallco neighborhood brought forth Measures D & E. r Thanks & Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher C Magazine & CMagazineOnline.com 1-408/355-0575 -----Original Message----- From: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org> To: rgelbogen <rgelbogen@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 12:47 pm Subject: Vallco Neighborhood Hi! Ruby, Thank you for your email in response to the email about the availability of the Draft EIR. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the environmental effects of the development that is being considered and as such would not address the comment you made. The public review period that is currently open is for comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. I.e., if there is any environmental analysis that is missing from the Draft EIR, please do let us know so we may address that adequately in the Final EIR due later in the Fall. The concerns of the Vallco neighborhood were forwarded to the Council with the staff reports presented to them in March and April this year. We will take your comments under advisement and once again report all comments we receive on the project to the Council when the item goes for hearings later this year. Have a great summer! Regards Piu COMMENT LETTER # B01 B01-01 From: CDJ Alexander [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:30 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: CDJ Alexander (home) Subject: EIR GPA Feedback - No more development in Cupertino Hello, As a home owner in the center of the area affected by the proposed GPA, I reject the EIR and the proposed GPA, which would make traffic congestion and noise in my neighborhood even more miserable than it is now. This greed-based plan would ruin our schools, lower our property values, and despite the proposed "two-story" modifications in this EIR, our kids would suffer from the congestion and overcrowding in schools, not to mention the chaos adding second stories to schools would cause. (Where the heck are the kids supposed to go during construction?) Have any of you actually parked near Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School when school is starting or ending? Residents can't leave their driveways for 40 minutes twice each day, since traffic from parents managing kids being picked up or dropped off is so intense, and we can't get to De Anza, Stevens Creek or Homestead either twice a day, for the same reason. Don't do this to our kids or to our neighborhoods! As a life-long resident who valued our previous no-growth policy, who has observed the tacky, run-down strip malls, apartment-like housing developments and unoccupied businesses which have ruined our Cupertino landscape in the last 40 years (as a result of zoning changes once we lost that prior no-growth policy), I vote "no" to any more development in Cupertino, for any reason and for ANY proposed "new" GPA plan. I would, however, approve tearing down any commercial or multi-unit residential, or multi use development over two stories high, and any shopping area, mall, or strip mall over 30 years old, and replacing these eyesores with parks, community gardens and green spaces for existing residents. Likewise, I would approve moving City Hall to Quinlan Center, tearing down the old City Hall buildings Including the new City Hall Community Room and fountain garden, and putting an underground parking garage in their place, which would not overlook resident's homes. Cupertino should be preserved for existing residents, not sold off continually for the benefit of developers, or to lure new high tech workers to cubicle-like housing, or to gamble with new or existing businesses who have big pie-in-the-sky ideas which they seem to "sell" to our City Council nearly every year, only to fail in one to five years. These businesses never stay here, leaving their empty, dated commercial buildings and traffic-ridden housing complexes behind as eyesores and problems in our neighborhoods. COMMENT LETTER # B02 B02-01 B02-02 B02-03 How much is enough? Our City leaders seems to be driven more by greed for new new revenue, than quality of life for the people they are supposed to serve here. Residents here in Cupertino are disgusted with what has happened to our City and do not want to end up like Mountain View, where there are so many mixed use developments and new developments in a small area, congestion, parking problems and traffic is now unbearable for nearby older residential areas. That City now charges residents $300 per year just for a permit to park downtown near their library and City Hall, or to eat at a Castro Street restaurant. It takes some residents 30 minutes just to find parking in their own city, so they can patronize local businesses or return a library book. That is why I say, no GPA with any new Cupertino developments, for any reason. No more tacky, fake Mediterranean/Santana Row-like developments here, with the lawsuits which follow from new residents due to bad construction which was previously okay'ed by our City inspectors, who seem to be more allied with developers and construction companies, than in working to protect current and future residents. Enough is enough. Cupertino is not for sale any longer and residents want to take our City back for the benefit of families who already live here. Developers can find another City to milk for $$$ then leave in ruins for residents to salvage. Catherine Alexander http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/ B02-03 cont. Ci t y o f S u n n y v a l e %&'(28 0 |ÿ85 Ci t y o f S a n J o s e Ci t y o f Sa n t a C l a r a S BLANEY AVEN BLANEY AVE B OL LI NGER RD N STELLING RD B U B B R D NTANTAUAVE S DE ANZA BLVD BLANEYAVE FOOTHILL BLVDNFOOTHILLBLVD RA I N B O W D R S STELLING RD HOMESTEAD RD P RUNERIDGE AVE M I L L E R AVE ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D STANTAUAVE GRA N T R D N DE ANZA BLVD MC C L E L L A N R D HOLLENBECK AVE N WOLFE RDS WOLFE RD PD A M i x e d - U s e C o r r i d o r Pr o j e c t C o m p o n e n t s Ci t y B o u n d a r y Fi g u r e 4 . 1 1 - 1 Cu p e r t i n o P r i o r i t y D e v e l o p m e n t A r e a s So u r c e : C i t y o f C u p e r t i n o , 2 0 1 3 ; M I G , I n c , 2 0 1 4 ; A s s o c i a t i o n o f B a y A r e a G o v e r n m e n t s , 2 0 1 2 ; P l a c e W o r k s , 2 0 1 4 . PO P U L A T I O N A N D H O U S I N G CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O GE N E R A L P L A N A M E N D M E N T , H O U S I N G E L E M E N T U P D A T E , A N D A S S O C I A T E D R E Z O N I N G P R O J E C T 0 1 , 0 0 0 2 , 0 0 0 50 0 Fe e t B02-04 COMMENT LETTER # B03 B03-01 B03-02 B03-02 cont. B03-03 B03-03 cont. B03-04 B03-04 cont. B03-05 B03-05 cont. B03-05 cont. B03-06 B03-06 cont. B03-07 B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-07 cont. B03-08 B03-08 cont. B03-08 cont. B03-08 cont. B03-09 B03-09 cont. B03-09 cont. B03-09 cont. B03-09 cont. B03-09 cont. B03-10 B03-10 cont. B03-10 cont. B03-10 cont. B03-11 B03-12 B03-13 B03-14 B03-15 B03-15 cont. B03-15 cont. B03-16 B03-17 B03-17 cont. B03-17 cont. B03-17 cont. B03-17 cont. B03-17 cont. B03-18 B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-18 cont. B03-19 B03-19 cont. B03-20 B03-20 cont. B03-20 cont. B03-20 cont. B03-20 cont. B03-20 cont. B03-21 B03-21 cont. B03-21 cont. B03-21 cont. B03-21 cont. B03-21 cont. B03-21 cont. B03-22 B03-23 B03-24 B03-25 B03-26 B03-27 B03-28 B03-26 cont. B03-29 B03-28 cont. B03-30 B03-31 B03-31 cont. B03-32 B03-33 B03-33 cont. B03-33 cont. B03-34 B03-34 cont. B03-34 cont. B03-35 B03-36 B03-36 cont. B03-36 cont. B03-36 cont. B03-36 cont. B03-37 B03-38 B03-39 B03-39 cont. B03-39 cont. B03-39 cont. B03-39 cont. B03-39 cont. B03-40 B03-40 cont. B03-41 B03-42 B03-42 cont. B03-43 B03-44 B03-45 B03-46 B03-47 B03-47 cont. From: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Date: July 4, 2014 at 12:01:51 PM PDT To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website Reply‐To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Comment Submitted by: Name: Gary Organization: 37 Year Resident and Rotary Member Email: gjoneshome@yahoo.com<mailto:gjoneshome@yahoo.com> Subject: Outreach failure Comment: name: Gary email: gjoneshome@yahoo.com<mailto:gjoneshome@yahoo.com> Through Matt Wilson's article in the Courier today I discovered the General Plan is being updated. I'm really surprised I totally missed all of this. Great website; thank you. I suggest you publish this site and related documents to all 2,700 members of www.nextdoor.com<http://www.nextdoor.com> in the immediate area including Cupertino and our neighbors. I believe I'm not the only one who had no idea the GP was being amended. I would like to attend the July 8th and 15th meetings; however, I am traveling those days and will not be able to give my input. It appears a great job is being done and I'm truly sorry I've missed all f this process to day. It appears the train has left the station as it applies to my input. Keep up the great work. I'm truly hopeful the human mobility issue will eise to the surface as the #1 priority. Staying in Cupertino as a senior is of serious concern to many of us who are retired as we a hesitant to ride our bikes, wake or take the VTA as it only really serves De Anza College students. Due to some vision and other health issues as they progress over the next 10 years my driving will become limited. This poses the question as to how people from our side of Cupertino will be capable of getting to the Vallco development area including the Main Street Project without spending substantial $'s on UBER. :>) After reading the "Concept Alternatives" just this morning I must have missed any discussion as to the 7000 seniors still living in Cupertino. COMMENT LETTER # B04 B04-01 There was a line item as to "Senior Housing Choices." The income tax and property tax structure currently has locked many of us in our single family homes. We are not selling and relocating. There is no community bus system like in Los Gatos, Morgan Hill or Milpitas as provided to those communities by the VTA; their focus is on De Anza College students and not our community. I believe there has been a significant effort put into the Bike/Ped plan and then only $249,000 of this year's $80 million budget is provided for this plan. Really? I was asked recently by Mark Santoro to select one aspect of the plan that has an appeal for priority. Then Orrin requested I suggest an item within the "Plan" that could be considered as a priority at the mid‐year "Budget" review. Well; I sincerely believe completing the Plan item of $2.4 million to complete a bike/ped route from Foothill Blvd down McClellan Road past Monta Vista High School, Lincoln School to So De Anza Blvd would be a significant project for consideration. Respectfully, Gary E. Jones Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA B04-01 cont. From: <info@cupertinogpa.org> Date: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:59 AM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website To: info@cupertinogpa.org Comment Submitted by: Name: Gary Jones Email: Gjoneshome@yahoo.com Possibly Regarding Page: /users/login Subject: Concept Alternatives Comment: Can I get a hard copy of the Concept Alternatives drp the GP Amendment? COMMENT LETTER # B05 B05-01 From: Myron Crawford [mailto:Mcrawford@bergvc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12:46 PM Subject: General Plan - Plain White Roofs Reduce GHG More Effectively Than Green Roofs - Don’t Over Specify Green Requirements BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax (408) 725-1626 mcrawford@bergvc.com 7/8/14 Piu Ghosh Senior City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-777-3308 Dir 408-777-3277; Fax: 408-777-3333 Email: piug@cupertino.org Reference: Plain White Roofs Reduce GHG More Effectively Than Green Roofs Subject: 1) This Is The Full Report 2) Don’t Over Specify Green Requirements Piu, Don’t Over Specify Green Requirements As you move forward on the General Plan please do not over specify unnecessary green requirements. The study attached titled Economic comparison of white, green and black roofs in the Unites States, shows that plain white and less expensive roofs outperform more expensive green roofs. a.Green roofs are not only more expensive to build initially and consume more natural resources; more steel, irrigation system, drainage system, more labor and therefore generate more green house gases, but also imagine the additional expense in removing sod to be able to accommodate the addition of a new HVAC unit to a commercial building or trying to find a leak in a sod roof in the rain!! You have the Cal Green Code, there is no need to specify more green elements. b.Green roof also have a forward GHG footprint versus a simple white roof. COMMENT LETTER # B06 B06-01 b1. More landscape labor is required to maintain the roof. b2. Gasoline and or electricity is required for landscape equipment and transportation of labor and equipment. b3. They require water in the summer. b4. Vegetation has to be cut and hauled off, more GHG. Simply piling on more requirement is not always better, everything has consequences. Sometimes less is better. Please pass this onto the Council as well. Thank you, Myron Crawford B06-01 cont. EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 Contentslistsavailableat ScienceDirect Energy andBuildings j ournal homepag e:www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild Economic comparisonofwhite,green,andblackflatroofsinthe UnitedStates JulianSproul a ,ManPunWan b ,BenjaminH.Mandel a,∗,ArthurH.Rosenfeld a a Lawrence BerkeleyNationalLaboratory,OneCyclotronRoad,Berkeley,CA94720,UnitedStates b SchoolofMechanical&AerospaceEngineering,NanyangTechnologicalUniversity,Singapore articleinfo Articlehistory: Received16December2012 Receivedinrevisedform 11November2013 Accepted18November2013 Keywords: Whiteroofs Greenroofs Life-cyclecostanalysis(LCCA) Urbanheatisland Energyefficiency Stormwatermanagement Buildingcodes abstract Whiteand“green”(vegetated)roofshavebegunreplacingconventionalblack(dark-colored)roofsto mitigatetheadverseeffectsofdarkimperviousurbansurfaces.Thispaperpresentsaneconomicper- spectiveonroofcolorchoiceusinga50-yearlife-cyclecostanalysis(LCCA).Wefindthatrelativeto blackroofs,whiteroofsprovidea50-yearnetsavings(NS)of$25/m2 ($2.40/ft2 )andgreenroofshave anegativeNSof$71/m2 ($6.60/ft2 ).Despitelastingatleasttwiceaslongaswhiteorblackroofs,green roofscannotcompensatefortheirinstallationcostpremium.However,whilethe50-yearNSofwhite roofscomparedtogreenroofsis$96/m2 ($8.90/ft2 ),theannualizedcostpremiumisjust$3.20/m2 -year ($0.30/ft2 -year).Thisannualdifferenceissufficientlysmallthatthechoicebetweenawhiteandgreen roofshouldbebasedonpreferencesofthebuildingowner.Ownersconcernedwithglobalwarming shouldchoosewhiteroofs,whicharethreetimesmoreeffectivethangreenroofsatcoolingtheglobe. Ownersconcernedwithlocalenvironmentalbenefitsshouldchoosegreenroofs,whichofferbuilt-in stormwatermanagementanda“natural”urbanlandscapeesthetic.Westronglyrecommendbuilding codepoliciesthatphaseoutdark-coloredroofsinwarmclimatestoprotectagainsttheiradversepublic healthexternalities. ©2013ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved. 1.Introduction 1.1.Background RapidurbanizationintheUnitedStates(U.S.)duringthe20th centuryconvertedmuchofthenation’svegetationintourban areas,madeuplargelyofbuildingsandpavements.According totheStatisticalAbstractoftheUnitedStates,nearly75%of theU.S.populationlivesinlargemetropolitanareas [1].Inaddi- tion,U.S.buildingsconsumeabout39%oftotalU.S.energyuse, andcontribute40%ofU.S.CO2 emissions [2].Asglobalwarm- ingsetsin,excessurbanheatwillexacerbatesummerurban Abbreviations:A/C,air-conditioning;BMP,bestmanagementpractice;BUR, built-upbituminousroofing;CO2 ,carbondioxide;CSO,combinedsewerover- flow;GHG,greenhousegas;GSA,GeneralServicesAdministration;LBNL,Lawrence BerkeleyNationalLaboratory;LCCA,life-cyclecostanalysis;LID,low-impactdevel- opment;NOx ,nitrogenoxides;NS,netsavings;O&P,overhead&profit;SO2 ,sulphur dioxide;SR,solarreflectance;TPO,thermoplasticelastomers;UV,ultra-violet;VOC, volatileorganiccompound. ∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+15166722680. E-mailaddresses:julian.sproul@gmail.com (J.Sproul),mpwan@ntu.edu.sg (M.P.Wan),benjamin.h.mandel@gmail.com (B.H.Mandel),ahrosenfeld@lbl.gov (A.H.Rosenfeld). heatislandsandleadtomoreheat-relateddeaths,respiratory illness,increasedpeakelectricityuse,andotherecologically adverseimpacts. Thesedetrimentalimpactsofurbanizationonsocietyandthe environmentarepartlyattributabletotheconventionaluseofblack anddark-coloredroofsonbuildingsthroughouttheU.S.Themajor- ityofthebuildingsectorintheU.S.ismadeupofimpervious blackordark-coloredroofsthatabsorbroughly80%ofincoming sunlight [3].Thesunlightthatisabsorbedheatstheroof,which increasescoolingcostsinair-conditionedbuildings,increasesdis- comfortinunconditionedbuildings,increasesmortalityduring heatwaves,andpolluteslocalandregionalair.Tomitigatethe publichealthhazardsassociatedwithdark-coloredroofs [4,5],1 the constructionindustryhasbegunreplacingtheminrecent yearswithtworoofingalternatives—whiteand“green”(vegetated) roofs—thataremuchmorebeneficialtosocietyandtheurban environment. 1 Excessdeathsduringthe2003Europeanheatwavewereestimatedtobeover 50,000 [4];analysisofthe1995Chicagoheatwaveidentifiedasacriticalriskfactor livingonthetopfloorofabuilding(beneathablackroof)[5]. 0378-7788/$–seefrontmatter©2013ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.058 B06-02 J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 21 Table1 Solarreflectancesummaryforwhiteandgreenroofs. Agedwhiteroof Greenroof 1 Solarreflectance(SR)0.55 0.20 2 RatioofSR(white/green)2.75(roundedto3)1 3 One-timeemittedCO2 offset(tonsCO2 e/100m2 )10 ∼3 4 Row3convertedtoanannualrateovera20-yearroofservicelife(tons/year)0.5 0.15 5 Globalpotentialforcoolroofsrelativetoblackroofs,one-time CO2 offset(Gt)24 8 6 Row5convertedtoannualrateovera20yr.roofservicelife(Gt/year)1.2 0.4 AsfirstestimatedbyAkbarietal.[6],converting100m2 ofdarkrooftowhiteoffsetstheemissionof ∼10tonsofCO2.Therefore,accordingtothe(2.75 ±0.5):1ratioofthe SRofwhiteandgreenroofs,100m2 ofgreenroofhasaone-timeglobalwarmingoffsetpotentialof3–4tonsofCO2 equivalent. 1.2.Whiteandgreenroofsaredisplacingblackroofs Forflat“coolroofs,”whiteisthemosteffectivecolor.Awhite roofreflects55–80%2 of incidentsunlight [3],keepingitssurface coolonaclearsummerday.Thisreducesheattransferthrough theroofandmakesthespacebelowtheroofmorecomfortable inunconditionedbuildings.Whiteroofsonair-conditionedbuild- ingsinhotclimatescancutcoolingenergyuseby10–20%on thefloorofthebuildingimmediatelybeneaththeroof [6].Cooler roofsurfacesalsomitigatetheurbanheatislandeffect,which improvesairquality,reducesGHGemissionsfrompowerplants, andincreasesgridreliabilityduringthesummer(seesupplemen- tarydataintheonlineversionformoreinformationontypesof whiteroofs). Moreover,increasingthesolarreflectance(SR)ofroofsur- facesreducestheamountofheatabsorbedatearth’ssurfaceand transferredintotheatmosphere.This“albedoeffect”3 counters global warming;studiesestimatethatconverting100m2 (roughly 1000ft2 )ofdarkrooftowhiteoffsetstheemissionof10tonsof CO2 equivalentoverthelifetimeoftheroof [6,7].Akbarietal.[6] also estimatetheglobalcoolingpotentialforcoolroofs(mainlyflat whiteroofs)incitieswithhotsummerstohaveaone-timeoff- setpotentialof24GtCO2 e.Assumingthattheworld’saveragecar emits4tonsofCO2 peryear,thisoffsetisroughlyequivalenttotak- inghalfoftheworld’sapproximately600millioncarsofftheroad for20years. Relativetowhiteroofs,greenroofsarelessreflectiveofincom- ingsunlightandthereforehavelowerglobalcoolingpotential. Figure4ofGaffinetal.[8]indicatesthataverageJulySRofanexten- sivegreenroofis0.20.Weassumethatanagedwhiteroofhasan SRof0.55,whichcanberoundedtothreetimesthegreenroofSR owingtotheuncertaintyinboth SRestimates.Thisthreefolddif- ferenceinsolarreflectancecorrespondstoathreefolddifference inglobalcoolingpotential,whichisadistinctionnostudieshave madetodate.Appliedtotheabovegreenhousegasoffsettingesti- matesfromAkbarietal.[6],thissuggeststhatreplacing100m2 of darkroofwithagreenroofoffsetstheemissionof3–4tonsofCO2 equivalentoverthelifetimeoftheroof(see Table1 foracompar- isonofglobalcoolingpotentialsbetweenwhiteandgreenroofs). Thuswhiteroofs,whichoffset10tonsofCO2 equivalentforevery 100m2 ofroofarea,moreeffectivelyhelptocooltheworldand mimichigh-albedolandsurfacessuchasdisappearingglaciersor Arcticseaice4 [9–11]. 2 Reflectance degradesasthewhiteroofages—asolarreflectanceof0.80istypical ofanewwhiteroof,andasolarreflectanceof0.55istypicalafter1–2years. 3 “Albedo”isaGreektermmeaning“whiteness”andisusedinterchangeablywith theterm“solarreflectance.” 4 Thisanalysisreliessolelyuponcomparingdifferencesinalbedo,anddoesnot considertheresultingchangesinupwardfluxesofsensibleandlatentheat [9,10]. Nor doesitconsideranyclimatefeedbacks,suchascloudformationandprecip- itation,thatcanresultfromchangesinroofalbedo [11].Wetakethesetobe “Green”(vegetated)roofsvaryinsize,weightandvegetation, buttheyallshadetheroofandprotectitfromwater,UVdamage, thermalcycling(expansionandcontraction),androofpunctures. Vegetationandsoilcooltheroof’ssurfaceandthenearbyairin twomajorways:(1)theyprovideadditionalinsulationandther- malmasstotheroof,whichreducesthetransferofheatintothe spacebelow;(2)evapotranspirationtransformssensibleheatinto latentheatofvaporization.However,itshouldbenotedthatwhile thislowersthecityairtemperature,itdoesnotinfluenceglobal temperatures.5 On asunnysummerday,thesefactorsreduceelec- tricityuseinair-conditionedbuildingsandimprovecomfortin non-air-conditionedbuildings.Byreducingelectricitydemandin cities,greenroofsreducetheemissionofairpollutantsandGHGs frompowerplants,whichinturnmitigatesglobalwarmingand improvesurbanairquality. Unlikewhiteorblackroofs,greenroofscanbepartofabuild- ingstormwatermanagementplan.Inwetweather,greenroofscan reducepeakrunoffbyupto65%andextendby3hthetimeittakes forwatertoleaveasite.“Extensive”greenroofs(describedmorein Section 1.3.2 andindetailinthesupplementarydataintheonline version)interceptandretainthefirst1–2cm(0.5–0.8in)ofrain- fall,preventingitfromrunningoff.Incitiesthatrequirestormwater managementplans,greenroofscansavebuildingownersmoneyon bothavoidedstormwaterfeesandthecostsofupgradingstormwa- terinfrastructure [12].Thisisparticularlyhelpfulinoldercitiesthat haveundersizedcombinedsewersystems.6 Additionally,green roofscancreatenaturalhabitats,limitnoisepollution,andincrease propertyvalues. Relativetoblackroofsthatincreaseurbanclimatevulnerabil- ity,whiteand greenroofsconfersocialbenefitsthatmakecities morecomfortable.However,becausethereisnostandardprotocol forquantifyingtheseurbanheatisland-relatedexternalities,com- parisonsamongthesethreeroofingstrategiesarelimited.Todate therehavebeenanumberofpublishedcasestudiesthatcompare greenroofstoblackroofs [12–16]andwhiteroofstoblackroofs [17–20].However,wecouldnotfindacomprehensivecomparison ofgreenandwhiteroofs. Thispaperpresentsa50-yearLCCA7 for white,green,andblack roofsusingdatacollectedfrom22flatroofprojectsorstudiesin theU.S.Evenwithoutaccountingforimportantheatisland-related externalities,weinvestigatewhetherwhiteandgreenroofsoffer purelyeconomicadvantagesoverblackroofs.Weseektodetermine second-ordereffectsonwhichnoconsensuscurrentlyexists,butweacknowledge theirabilitytoaffectourresults. 5 Windtransferscoolmoistairawayfromthecity,whereitcondensesasrain. Theheatreleasedduringcondensationexactlycancelstheevaporativecooling,so thereisnonetglobalcoolingeffect. 6 ThesecitiesmayexperienceCSOs(combinedseweroverflow),whichresultin thedischargeofuntreatedwastewaterandstormwaterfromacombinedsewer systemdirectlyintoariver,stream,lake,orocean. 7 WerefertoouranalysisasanLCCA,whereasGSA [12]referstoitsanalysisasa cost-benefitanalysis.Weviewthesetermsasinterchangeable. B06-02 cont. 22 J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 whichrooftypeismostcost-effectiveovera50-yearlifecycle,and weexploreappropriatesettingsforeachroofingstrategy. 1.3.Roofinstallation,maintenance,andreplacementcosts8 1.3.1.Whiteroofinstallationandend-of-service-lifereplacement costs Whiteroofsareacost-effectivealternativetoblackroofsonflat roofbuildingsbecausetheirinstallationcostsarecomparable,and insomecasescheaper.ThemostexpensiveTPOmembraneisonly $20/m2 ($1.88/ft2 )includingO&P,whichis$7.40/m2 ($0.69/ft2 ) cheaperthaninstallingthecheapestBUR,whichcosts$28/m2 ($2.57/ft2 )includingO&P [21].9 For newandre-roofingcommercial projects,themarketshareofasphalt-basedroofshasdroppedfrom itshistoricaldominancetoabout35%[22].Furthermore,astudyby UrbanandRoth [23]showedthatawhitesingle-plymembrane nowcoststhesameasablacksingle-plymembrane.Weassume thefirstinstallationcostforwhiteandblackroofstobeequalat $22/m2 . Disposalcostsforawhiteorblackroofdependonthecondition oftheroof;iftheexistingroofisamembraneoraBURthatisstill infaircondition,itcanbesimplycoveredbyanewmembrane. Inthiscasetherearenodisposalcosts,onlythecostsoflabor andthenewmembrane.10 All rooflivesarelimitedbythree majornaturalforces:thawing/freezing,UVradiation,anddaily thermalexpansion/contraction.Theselattertwosuggestthat whitemembranesshouldhavealongerservicelifethanblack membranes,andindeedthereismuchanecdotalevidencethat theydo;butactualmeasurementsandstatisticsarelacking.This LCCAconservativelyassumesthatwhiteandblackmembrane roofshaveidentical20-yearservicelives. 1.3.2.Greenroofinstallationandend-of-service-lifereplacement costs Greenroofsaretypicallymoreexpensivetoinstallthanwhite orblack.PeckandKuhn [16]pointoutthateventhecheapest categoryofgreenroof(“extensive”andinaccessibletothepub- lic)costs$108–248/m2 ($10–23/ft2 ),including10%O&P,whilean intensiveandpubliclyaccessiblegreenroofcosts$355–2368/m2 ($33–220/ft2 ),includingthesame10%O&P.Duetothewiderange ofgreenroofcosts,thisLCCAonlyincludestheleastexpensive category—extensive.Weuse$172/m2 ($16/ft2 ),themedianinstal- lationcostofthe11green roofprojectssurveyedinthisreport. Becausemostofthegreenroofsystemcomponents,e.g.,growth media,sedum,etc.,canbesalvaged,thecosttoreplaceanexten- sivegreenroofattheendofitsservicelifeisroughly1/3ofthe initialinstallationcost [12].Thusweassumethattheextensive greenroofreplacementcostis1/3themedianinstallationcost,or $57/m2 ($5.30/ft2 ). 1.3.3.Blackandwhiteroofmaintenancecosts Blackandwhiteroofshavesimilarmaintenanceneedsthat includevariousrepairprocedures(forpunctures,leaks,etc.)aswell asgutteranddownspoutcleanouts.Themajordifferenceinmain- tenanceneedsbetweenblackandwhiteroofsistheissueofpower washingtomaintainhighsolarreflectanceforwhiteroofs.How- ever,ratherthanincludingroofpowerwashinginthisLCCA,we 8 Abbreviationsandnomenclatureforroofproductsdiscussedinthissectioncan befoundinmoredetailinthesupplementarydata(availableintheonlineversion at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.058). 9 The mostexpensiveTPOis60mil.self-adhered.TheleastexpensiveBURis asphaltbasesheet,3plies#15asphaltfelt,mopped. 10 Thisisthestandardassumptionwemakeinthisstudyforproductend-of-life condition. assumethatbrandnewwhiteroofsarealreadyweatheredwith anSRofonly0.55(typicalforanagedwhiteroof).11 Thus,the annualmaintenancecostforblackandwhiteroofsisassumedto bethesameat$0.20/m2 /year($0.02/ft2/year),whichisthemedian maintenancecostofthe22projectswesurveyed. 1.3.4.Extensivegreenroofmaintenancecosts The40-yearannualmaintenancecostofanextensivegreenroof, includingirrigationcosts,is$2.90/m2 ($0.27/ft2 )[12],whichis20 timeshigherthanforblackandwhiteroofs.Thegreatestmainte- nancecostsoccurduringthefirsttwogrowingseasons(i.e.,the establishmentperiod),whicharecriticaltoensurethesystem’s long-termsuccess.Duringthisperiod,atleasttwolaborersare requiredtoperformaminimumofthreevisitsperyear [12].How- ever,aftertheestablishmentperiod,thedemandformaintenance isreducedslightly. 2.Methodology 2.1.Life-cyclecostanalysis(LCCA) WeuseanLCCAtodeterminethenetsavingsforgreen,white, andblackroofsovera50-yearlifecycle.Becausegreenroofsare expectedtolastforatleast40years(comparedto20yearsforwhite andblackroofs),a50-yearlifecycleincludesreplacementcosts foreachofthethreerooftypesanalyzedinthisstudy.TheLCCA accountsforthefollowingparameters:roofinstallation,replace- mentandmaintenance,energy-relatedbenefits(cooling/heating costs,A/Cdownsizing,peakshaving),avoidedpowerplantemis- sions(CO2 ,NOx ,andSO2 ),equivalentCO2 offsetbyglobalcooling (the“albedoeffect”),andstormwater-relatedbenefits(reduced feesandinstallationcosts).Someotherbenefitsofwhiteorgreen roofs(relativetoblackroofs)areexternalitiesthatareeitherdiffi- culttoquantifyornegligiblysmall,andarethereforeNOTincluded inourLCCA.Theseinclude(amongothers)heatislandmitigation, biodiversity,airquality,CO2 sequestration,andincreasedproperty value. Table2 showsthelamentablysparsedatacollectedfrom22 case studiesofbuildingprojectsacrosstheU.S.[13–15,17,24–34]. Many variablesareregionallydependent,e.g.,installationcosts, water-for-irrigationcosts,energycostsanddemand,stormwater regulation/fees,roofsizeandaccessibility.Withonly22casestud- iesspreadoversevenASHRAEClimateZones [35],thedataare clearlyinadequateforregionalLCCAsandweonlyusenational medianvalues. WeuseEq.(1)tocalculatethenetsavings(NS)foreachof threepossibleroofcomparisons(xy =green–black,white–black,or white–green)12 : NSxy = N t=0 Sxy,t (1 +es )t (1 +d)t − N t=0 Cxy,t (1 +ec )t (1 +d)t (1) Here Sxy,t representsthesavingsdifferenceinyear t betweentwo rooftypes,Cxy,t representsthecostdifferenceinyear t (including periodicreplacementcostsevery20or40years),d istheintergen- erationalrealdiscountrate(setto3.0%),es and ec aretheannual fuelpriceescalationratesforthesavingsandcostsrespectively (averaging0.4–2.6%)[36],and N isthenumberofyearsinthelife 11 Seesupplementarydataintheonlineversion(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.enbuild.2013.11.058)forananalysisthatshowspowerwashingforwhiteroofs nottobecost-effectiverelativetoleavingtheroofinalessreflectivecondition. 12 NotethatalthoughLCCAstandsforlife-cyclecostanalysis,thisreportactually calculatesandplotsthenetpresentvalueofsavings(negativeofcosts),sothemost desirableoutcomeispositiveandnotnegative. B06-02 cont. J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 23 Ta b l e 2 Su m m a r y o f 2 2 s u r v e y e d p r o j e c t s ( k e y d a t a a n d t h e i r m e d i a n s ) . # P r o j e c t Lo c a t i o n Re r o o f Y e a r Ar e a ( m 2) F i r s t i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t ($ / m 2 ) Ma i n t e n a n c e c o s t ($ / m 2 /y e a r ) $ He a t i n g s a v i n g s r e l a t i v e to b l a c k ( $ / m 2 /y e a r ) Co o l i n g s a v i n g s r e l a t i v e to b l a c k ( $ / m 2 /y e a r ) Ro o f l i f e ( y e a r s ) G W B G W B G W # B G W B G W B S o u r c e 1 B u c h a n a n R - M e r L i t e I l l i n o i s Ne w 2 0 0 8 19 8 8 17 2 9 9 22 2 . 9 0. 2 0. 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 25 3 0 20 [2 4 ] 2 Bu c h a n a n W h i t e P V C I l l i n o i s Ne w 2 0 0 8 19 8 8 17 2 7 3 22 2 . 9 0. 2 0. 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 30 2 0 20 [2 4 ] 3 Ch i c a g o C i t y H a l l Ch i c a g o , I L Ne w 2 0 0 1 18 8 6 21 5 22 12 9 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 7 0. 0 0. 3 0 . 2 0. 0 40 20 20 [2 5 ] 4 Fo r r e s t a l c o m b i n e d Wa s h i n g t o n , D C N e w 46 4 4 22 6 3 1 22 0. 5 1 . 1 0. 2 0. 7 0. 0 0. 4 0 . 4 0. 0 30 20 2 0 [2 6 ] 5 Ni u e t a l . ( 9 p r o j e c t s ) W a s h i n g t o n , D C N / A 20 0 8 17 9 4 21 0 22 24 2 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 3 0. 2 0 . 0 40 20 20 [1 5 ] 6 Fi e l d s t o n Ne w Y o r k , N Y N / A 20 0 7 87 7 9 18 3 22 75 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 30 20 20 [2 7 ] 7 Wa l m a r t C h i c a g o Ch i c a g o , I L Ne w 2 0 0 6 69 6 8 10 8 2 . 6 22 0. 9 1 . 9 0. 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0. 6 0. 2 0 . 0 40 1 5 20 [2 8 ] 8 Je f f e r s o n S c h o o l Al e x a n d r i a , V A R e r o o f 1 9 9 4 77 1 1 17 2 42 22 2 . 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 4. 0 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [2 9 ] 9 Ta n y a r d At h e n s , G A N/ A 20 0 2 92 9 15 5 22 84 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0. 4 0. 2 0 . 0 40 20 20 [1 4 ] 10 Ou r S a v i o r ’ s Co c o a B e a c h , F L R e r o o f 1 9 9 5 11 1 5 17 2 5 22 2 . 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 [3 0 ] 11 Po r t l a n d B u i l d i n g Po r t l a n d , O R Ne w 2 0 0 8 37 1 6 17 0 22 10 8 0 . 3 0. 2 0. 1 0 . 2 0. 0 0. 2 0. 2 0 . 0 40 20 20 [1 3 ] 12 Ha m i l t o n A p t . B u i l d i n g P o r t l a n d , O R Re r o o f 1 9 9 9 78 0 16 4 22 2 2 2 . 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 40 20 2 0 [3 1 ] 13 Mu l t n o m a h Po r t l a n d , O R Re r o o f 2 0 0 3 11 1 5 16 2 22 10 8 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 40 20 20 [3 2 ] 14 La r g e R e t a i l S t o r e Au s t i n , T X Re r o o f 2 0 0 0 92 9 0 17 2 16 1 6 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 6 0. 0 4 0 13 1 3 [1 7 ] 15 Ka i s e r P e r m a n e n t e Da v i s , C A Re r o o f 1 9 9 7 29 4 5 17 2 22 2 2 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 7 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [1 7 ] 16 Ka i s e r P e r m a n e n t e Gi l r o y , C A Re r o o f 1 9 9 6 22 1 1 17 2 22 2 2 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 4 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [1 7 ] 17 Lo n g s D r u g s Sa n J o s e , C A Re r o o f 1 9 9 7 30 5 6 17 2 22 2 2 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 0 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [1 7 ] 18 Sa c r a m e n t o O f f i c e Sa c r a m e n t o , CA R e r o o f 1 9 9 6 22 8 5 17 2 19 1 9 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 1 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [1 7 ] 19 Sa c r a m e n t o M u s e u m S a c r a m e n t o , C A R e r o o f 1 9 9 7 45 5 17 2 22 2 2 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 2 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [1 7 ] 20 Sa c r a m e n t o H o s p i c e S a c r a m e n t o , C A R e r o o f 1 9 9 7 55 7 17 2 14 1 3 2. 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0. 2 0. 0 4 0 20 20 [1 7 ] 21 Sc o t t s d a l e I n s u r a n c e S c o t t s d a l e , A Z N e w 2 0 0 8 10 5 9 17 2 86 22 2 . 9 0. 2 0. 2 0 . 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 [3 3 ] 22 Co n E d i s o n Ne w Y o r k , N Y N e w 2 0 0 8 10 0 0 17 2 22 2 2 2 . 9 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 3 0. 0 0. 2 0 . 1 0. 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 [3 4 ] ME D I A N VA L U E 17 2 22 2 2 0. 3 0. 0 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 Ke y : G , g r e e n ; B , b l a c k , W , w h i t e ; $ , d e f a u l t s f r o m e x t e r n a l s o u r c e s r a t h e r t h a n m e d i a n s ; # , n o d a t a o n w i n t e r h e a t i n g p e n a l t y f o r w h i t e . cycle(50years).13 A positiveNSindicatesthatroofcolor x ismore cost-effectiveandanegativeNSindicatesthatcolor y wins. 2.2.Datacollectionandhandlingsparsedata Wecalculatepresentvaluesoftheinputsofinterestovera50- yearhorizon.Thevaluesoftheseinputsaremainlyextractedfrom 22casestudiesofflat-roofedbuildingsacrosstheU.S.(summa- rizedin Table2).Thecostsreportedincasestudiesareprinted inboldwithin Table2;thebottomrowreportsmediansofeach column’sboldvalues.However,becausetheavailabledataareso sparsethatnotasingleoneofthe22casespresentsenoughvalues toevaluateEq.(1),wereplacemissingvalueswithcorrespond- ingdefaultvaluesprintedinitalics.Thesedefaultvaluesareeither mediansofreporteddataorvaluesgatheredfromrelevantexternal sourcesregardingemissionfactors,airpollutant(CO2 ,SO2 ,NOx ) costs,stormwaterinfrastructurecosts,andA/Cequipmentcosts (defaultvaluesaresummarizedin Table3[12,13,15,37–40]). We cannowapplyEq.(1)firstto each ofthe22casestudies(asin Fig.1,discussedbelow,whichcomparestheNSofwhiteandgreen roofs).Wecanthenusethesameequationtocomparedefaultval- ues(whicharetypicallymedians)ineachroofcolorcombination, asin Fig.2,alsodiscussedbelow. 3.Results 3.1.Whiteroofscomparedtogreenroofs Fig.1 displaysthenetsavingsofonly“White–Green”compar- isons.Innearlyallofthe22‘White–Green’comparisons,thetallleft stackreflectsthefactthatthewhiteroofismuchlessexpensiveto installandmaintainthanthegreenroof.Theshorterrightstack showsthe50-yearsavingsaccruedbythegreenroofcompared tothewhiteroof,namelyenergysavings(coolingandheating), stormwaterinfrastructureandfeesavings,andreducedpower plantemissions.Thedifferenceoftheleftandrightstacksisthe totaloverallnetsavingsof‘White–Green’overa50-yearlifecycle (indicatedbytheblankspacebeneatheachproject’ssmallerstack in Fig.1). The mediannetsavingsofthe22roofprojectsis$102/m2 ($9.5/ft2 )infavorofwhiteroofs,shownasagoldbaronthefar righthandsideofthefigure.14 The left-mostproject(#7)resultsin negativenetsavingvalues,meaningthatawhiteroofislesscost- effectivethanagreenroofforthatproject.Fortheremaining21 projectshowever,whiteroofsaremorecost-effectivethangreen roofs,aspureroofcosts(installation,maintenance,and,replace- ment)exceedthemonetizedenvironmentalbenefitsofgreenroofs. Itisimportanttonotethatweusedoneormoredefaultvalues (shownin Table3)ineachofthe22projects,soresultswould changeasmorerealprojectcostandbenefitdatawereincluded. Fig.2 takesadifferentapproach;thisfigureusesthedefault valuesof Table3 asgenericproxiesforall22projectevaluations.15 Fig.2 illustratesthatthegenericwhiteroof,comparedtothegeneric greenroof,hasaNSof$96/m2 ($8.90/ft2),whichiscomfortably closetotheNSof$102/m2 ($9.5/ft2 )shownonthefarrightof Fig.1.Thismeansthatwhiteroofsaremorecost-effectivethan greenroofsovera50-yearlifecycleandthatacomparisonoftheir genericcostsisareasonablerepresentationofdatafromthe22 surveyedstudies. 13 PricesandescalationratesforenergyandavoidedemissionofCO2 areadopted fromRushingetal.[36]. 14 Note thatalthoughthemedian,incontrasttothemean,isinsensitivetooutliers, thestandarddeviationofthemedianishighlysensitivetooutliers. 15 Theerrorbarsin Fig.2 comefromvariationinthe22individualLCCAsthatwere usedin Fig.1. B06-02 cont. 24 J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 Table3 Medianvalueinputs. Green White Black Remarks Installation,replacementandmaintenance Firstinstallationcost($/m2 )172 22 22 Medianvaluefrom Table2,includinglabor Replacementcost($/m2 )57 22 22 Equaltoinstallationcostforwhiteandblack, 1/3ofinstallationcostforgreen Maintenancecost($/m2 year)2.9a 0.2 0.2 Medianvaluefrom Table2;assumesblack equalswhite Rooflife(years)40 20 20 Medianvaluefrom Table2 Disposal cost($/m2 )1.3 0 0 One-timecost Energy-relatedbenefits(relativetoblack) Avoidedheatingfuelcost($/m2 year)0.3 0b 0 Medianvaluefrom Table2 Avoided coolingelectricitycost($/m2 year)0.3 0.2 0 Medianvaluefrom Table2 Peak loadshavingbenefit($/m2 )2.2 2.2c 0 CMU/ABSIC [37] Air-quality-related benefits(relativetoblack) AvoidedCO2 emissiond,e (kg/m2 year)5.7 4.3 0 Estimatedfromenergysavingdata AvoidedNOx emissiond,f ($/m2 year)0.011 0.009 0 Estimatedfromenergysavingdata AvoidedSO2 emissiond,f ($/m2 year)0.013 0.011 0 Estimatedfromenergysavingdata CO2 eoffsetbyglobalcoolinge (kg/m2 )34 100 0 One-time Stormwater-relatedbenefits(relativetogreen) Annualstormwaterfee($/m2 year)0 0.9 0.9 Assumeswhiteandblackretainsameamount ofstormwaterasgreen—impervioussurface feeg Annual stormwaterBMPmaintenance($/m2 year)0 1.5 1.5 Medianvalue [12] Stormwater BMPequipmentcost($/m2 )0 44.7 44.7 One-time/replacement a Thecostisspreadacrossthe50years;adoptedfromGSA [12]. b None ofthe22casestudiesprovideddataforthewinterheatingpenalty,thusthisfigurelikelyoverstatesthenetsavings. c Dataavailableforgreenroofonly.Samevaluewasassumedforwhiteroofsbecausethecostdifferenceisinsignificant. d EmissionfactorsforheatingfuelfromEPA [38];emissionfactorsforelectricityfromEPA [39]. e Price informationforCO2 ,increasinglinearlyfrom$0/tonsin2005to$115/tonsin2060,fromFullerandPeterson [40]. f Price informationforNOx andSO2 fromNiuetal.[15]. g This assumptionreferstocase#11(PortlandBuilding)inwhichupto35%ofthestormwaterfeecanbewaivedbyinstallingagreenrooforanotherbestmanagement practice [13]. $7 . 8 $8 . 4 $4 3 . 9 $7 3 . 5 $8 1 . 0 $8 4 . 4 $8 6 . 8 $9 0 . 3 $9 6 . 2 $9 8 . 0 $1 0 2 . 3 $1 0 2 . 3 $1 0 8 . 6 $1 1 0 . 7 $1 2 4 . 3 $1 2 5 . 9 $1 3 4 . 3 $1 4 9 . 2 $1 5 0 . 1 $1 7 3 . 0 $3 4 6 . 9 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 7 2 1 11 9 17 13 12 18 19 4 22 21 20 16 14 10 15 3 5 6 8 Di f f e r e n c e s i n 5 0 - y e a r n e t sa vi n g s i n p r e s e nt v a l u e s ($ /m 2) Project # 1-�me storm water equipment down sizing Storm water avoided fee Storm water avoided m aintenance Reduced power plant emiss ion Global cooling (CO2 offset) Energy saving s (AC + hea�ng) Roo f maintenance Roo f replacement Roo f 1st Install a�on Err or bars show 1 σ of net savings -$ 1 2 2 . 6 Me d i a n d i f f e r e n c e i n n e t s a v i n g s = $1 0 2 .3 Project nu mber Le � s ta ck = N e t sa v in gs by w hi t e R i g h t s ta ck = N e t sa v i n g s by g r ee n Difference in 50-year net savings (white wins) Fig.1.Comparisonofwhiteandgreenroofsforeachofthe22surveyedprojects. 3.1.1.Roofinstallationandreplacementcosts Theinstallationcostpremiumofgreencomparedto white—$151/m2 ($14/ft2 )—dominatestheeconomicsofthe 50-yearlife-cycleNSofwhiteandgreenroofs.Theexpensive installationcostofgreenroofsalsocontributestotheirexpensive replacementcost,despitethefactthatgreenroofslastatleast twiceaslongaswhite.However,sincethemajorityofgreenroof componentscanbesalvagedandonlythewaterproofingmem- braneneedstobereplaced,thedifferenceinroofreplacementNS betweenwhiteandgreenroofsisamoremodest$35/m2 ($3.25/ft2 ) B06-02 cont. J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 25 Fig.2.Netpresentvalue(NPV)of50-yearlifecyclesavingsforthreedifferentroofcolorcomparisons. (see Table3,Line2).16 Moreover,the50-yearmaintenancecostsof greenroofsare$69/m2 ($6.40/ft2 )morethanthoseofwhiteroofs owingtotheneedforadditionalmaintenanceforthevegetation. Inthisstudy,weonlyincludedtheleastcostlytypeofgreenroofs (extensive),thoughthemaintenancecostsofgreenroofscanvary significantlyaccordingtothetypeofvegetationused. 3.1.2.Energycosts Greenroofssaveroughly$11/m2 ($1/ft2 )morethanwhiteroofs inenergycostsbecauseoftheextracoolingeffectofevapotrans- pirationduringcoolingseasonsandtheadditionalinsulationof thegrowthmediumduringheatingseasons.Dependingonthecli- mate,whiteroofscanleadtohigherheatingcostsasaresultof reducedsolarheatgain,aneffectreferredtoasthe“winterheat- ingpenalty.”Thispenaltyvariessensitivelyfromsouthernstates tonorthernstates(see“MapofWinterHeatingPenaltybyState” in [41]).Thehigherenergysavingsofgreenroofsisdirectlycor- relatedtothelargerreductionofpowerplantemissions(ofNOx , SO2 andCO2 ),givingthemanadditionalsavingsofabout$10.3/m2 ($0.96/ft2 )comparedtowhiteroofs.ThedownsizedA/Cequipment savingswereassumedtobethesameforgreenandwhiteroofs. 3.1.3.Globalcooling AsdiscussedinSection 1.2,greenroofshavelessofaglobalcool- ingeffect(intermsofCO2 offsets)thanwhiteroofs,becausegreen roofshaveroughlyone-thirdofthesolarreflectanceofwhiteroofs. 16 Inyear40theroofreplacementNSisaninsignificant$5.40/m2 ($0.50/ft2 ). Surprisingly,thisfactorofthreeamountstoarelativelymodest NSforwhiteroofsof$1.20/m2 ($0.10/ft2 ),asshownin Fig.2;this advantagecontributesonlyroughly1%ofthetotalnetbenefitof whitecomparedtogreen. 3.1.4.Stormwater-relatedcosts Savingsfromavoidedstormwater-relatedcosts(stormwater equipmentdownsizing,reducedstormwatermaintenanceand stormwaterfee)arethemajorbenefitsofgreenroofs.Thegrowth mediumofthegreenroofsretainsabouthalfofthestormwater, whichreducesthesizeoftheresidualstormwatermanagement equipment(mainlycisterns)needed,particularlyincitiesthat requireastormwatermanagementplanfornewbuildingsand majorretrofits.TheequipmentdownsizingresultsinaNSofabout $45/m2 ($4.20/ft2 ).Additionally,thereducedmaintenancecosts associatedwiththestormwaterequipmentdownsizing(mainlythe maintenanceofcisterns)resultsinanother$36/m2 ($3.30/ft2 )of NS(medianvaluefromGSA [12]).Theextrastormwaterretention capabilityofgreenroofsresultsinanother$22.2/m2 ($2/ft2)ofNS. Weassumedthatwhiteandblackroofsbothpaidthestormwater runofffeeof$0.90/m2 year($0.09/ft2 year)aswellasthecostsof installingandmaintainingacisternorinfiltrationchamber.These additionalcostsabsorbedbythewhiteandblackroofsresultinan advantageforgreenroofs. Takingintoconsiderationalloftheparametersdiscussedabove, greenroofsareabout$96/m2 ($8.90/ft2 )morecostlythanwhite roofs.Theenergy,airqualityandstormwaterbenefitsofgreenroofs adduptoaround$125/m2 ($11.60/ft2 ),alargeportionofwhichis offsetbythehighextracostsofmaintenanceassociatedwithgreen B06-02 cont. 26 J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 roofsovera50-yearperiod(anextra$69/m2 ($6.40/ft2 )compared towhiteroofs).However,thelargefirstinstallationcostpremiumof greenroofsremainstheprimaryfactorinitspoorcost-effectiveness comparedtowhiteroofs. 3.2.Comparingallthreeroofcolors 3.2.1.Green–black Asshownin Fig.2,greenroofsarelesscost-effectivethan blackroofs,whilewhiteroofsaremorecost-effectivethanblack roofs.Thehighinstallationandmaintenancecostsofgreenroofs outweighthesavingstheyofferandarethemajordriversof greenroofs’poorcost-effectivenessrelativetoblackroofs.The totalsavingsfromgreenroofsof$149/m2 ($14/ft2 )arecompletely offsetbytheiradditionalinstallationcostsof$151/m2 ($14/ft2 ). Roofreplacementandmaintenanceforgreenroofsadd$69/m2 ($6.40/ft2 )tothecosts,leavinggreenroofs$71/m2 ($6.60/ft2 )more expensivethanblackroofsovera50-yearlifecycle. 3.2.2.White–black Whiteroofshavethesamelowinstallation(andreplacement) costsasblackroofs.Thus,thesavingsfromenergyuse,powerplant emissions,andglobalcoolingassociatedwithwhiteroofsleadto aNSofabout$26/m2 ($2.40/ft2 )comparedtoblackroofsovera 50-yearlifecycle.Themaintenancecostswereassumedthesame forbothwhiteandblackroofs. 4.Discussion 4.1.Choosingaroofcolor Decision-makersfacethreeprimaryoptionswhenchoosing aroofcolor—white,green,orblack.Whileblackhot-moproofs havebeenhistoricallydominantforflat-roofedbuildings,factory- producedroofcoatingsandmembraneshavelargelytakenoverthe U.S.roofingmarketinrecentyears.Sincemostoftheseproductscan bemadewhiteatnoadditionalcost,thecostpremiumofwhite overblackhasvirtuallydisappeared,andallofthesetechnologies runfrom$10–30/m2 ($1–3/ft2 ).LargecorporationslikeWalmart, whichownshundredsofmillionsofsquarefeetofroofspaceinthe U.S.,nowchoosewhitemembraneroofs [42].Morerecently,cities, states,governmentagenciesandmodelbuildingenergyefficiency codeorganizationshaveimplementedwhiteroofrequirementsfor newandreplacementflatroofsonapartmentsandnon-residential buildings.17 However,onlyasmallfractionofcitiesandstatesintheU.S.are up-to-dateinadoptingthesemodelstandardsincludingcoolroofs. Accordingly,werecommendthateveryU.S.city andstateasfar northasChicago,ILorBoston,MAimplementano-costupgrade programforflatcommercialbuildingroofstorequirewhiteroofs fornewconstructionandend-of-service-liferoofreplacements. This“no-costupgradeprogram,”asrecommendedbyLevinson [43],showsthata20-yearphase-incampaignofwhiteroofson allcommercialflatroofsintheU.S.couldsavemorethanone quadrillionBTUsinnetprimaryenergy(apresentvalueofnearly $8billion)atlittleornoextraup-frontcost.18 The projectswesur- veyedconfirmthisfirst-costparity.Thepurelyeconomic50-year 17 SeetheGlobalCoolCitiesAlliance’sCoolRoofsandPavementsToolkit (http://coolrooftoolkit.org)foracompletelistofU.S.coolroofbuildingcodesand standards. 18 Thesenetprimaryenergyandcostsavingsdifferfrom,butarebasedon,those reportedin Table1 ofLevinson [43],whichassumesanunrealisticallyinstanta- neousphase-inofwhiteroofsonflat-roofedbuildingsinallRECSU.S.climatezones. Weadjustthoseresultsbyscalingtheannualvaluesby 20 i=1 (i/20)(1 +r)−i to netsavingsof$25/m2 ($2.40/ft2 )infavorofwhiteroofs,though only$1/m2 yearwhenannualized,islikelytounderestimateofthe truesocietaladvantagesofwhiteroofs—namely,darkroofsposea publichealththreatbyexacerbatingurbanheatislands.Wethere- forerecommendthatarchitectsandbuildingownerschoosewhite whendecidingbetweenwhiteandblackroofs. Greenroofshavealsogrownmorepopularinrecentyears, butourLCCAshowsthatgreenroofsaretheleastcost-effective ofthethreeoptionsstudied,thoughonlybyasmallmargin onanannualizedbasis.Comparedtogreen,whiteroofsoffera 50-yearNSof$96/m2 ($8.90/ft2 )andblackroofsofferaNSof $71/m2 ($6.60/ft2 )overthesameperiod(see Fig.2).Whenannu- alizedover50years,however,thesepremiumsforgreenarejust $2–4/m2 year($0.20–0.40/ft2 year).Thisannualizedcostdifference shouldnotdeterbuildingownerswhoarerelativelyunconstrained bybudgettooptforgreenroofstocapturetheirpositiveenviron- mentalqualities,heatislandmitigationpotential,andpublichealth advantages—noneofwhichareincludedinourLCCA. 4.2.Heatislandmitigationandpolicyimplications AsnotedinSections 1.1and1.2,whiteandgreenroofsoffer localcoolingbenefitsthatcanmitigateurbanheatislandsthat havebeenpartlycausedbytheprevalenceofdarkroofs.While weshowblackroofstobemorecost-effectivethangreenroofs, andonlyslightlylesscost-effectivethanwhiteroofs,thefactors includedinouranalysisarelimitedtothosethatcanbemonetized forthepurposesofaneconomiccomparison;choosingdarkroofs inwarmclimatescanexacerbateheatwavesandriskhumanlives, whicharenotdirectlyreflectedinourLCCA.Conversely,choosing greenroofsfortheirenvironmentalorestheticbenefits,in spiteof theirpoorcost-effectiveness,risksonlymoneyratherthanhuman lives. Whiteroofsarethemostcost-effectivestrategy,evenwithout accountingfortheirheatislandmitigationvirtues.Still,thefactthat thelargepublichealthadvantagesofgreenorwhiteroofsoverblack roofscannotbeincorporatedintoaneconomicanalysisindicates thatprivateactorswillnotalwaysmakethesociallyoptimalroofing choice.Thispresentsastrongcaseforpublicpolicytointerveneby phasingoutblackroofsinlocationswithhotsummers,ashasbeen implementedinCalifornia [44],Chicago [45],NewYork [46],and severalsmallercities. 5.Conclusion Weconcludethatthechoiceofwhitevs.extensivegreenroof shouldbebasedontheenvironmentalandsocietalconcernsofthe decision-maker.If globalwarming isamajorconcern,whiteroofs, whicharearoundthreetimesaseffectiveatcoolingtheglobeas greenroofs,willbethepreferredchoice.Ontheotherhandifthe localenvironment isaprimaryinterest,greenroofswillbepre- ferred.Ofcourse,stormwatermanagementmaybeadecisivefactor infavorofgreenroofs,particularlyinthepresenceofstrictlocal stormwaterregulations. Thisstudywasintendedtoaddressthechoicebetweenthetwo principaltypesofenvironmentallyfriendlyroofingstrategies—that is,whitevs.green—byprovidingthefirstempiricalcomparison betweenthemthatweareawareof.Oureconomicresultsovera 50-yearlifecyclewereconclusiveinfavorofwhiteroofs,butonly overasampleof22projectsthatarefairlyrepresentativeofvarious U.S.regions.Still,ourlessonslearnedfromthiscomparisonteachus thateachindividualchoicebetweenwhiteandgreenroofsdepends determineresultsofamorerealisticlinearphase-inofwhitecommercialroofsin allRECSU.S.climatezonesover20years(r =0.03). B06-02 cont. J.Sprouletal./EnergyandBuildings71(2014)20–27 27 heavilyoncase-by-casefactors.Amongthese,summerrainfall patterns,climate,energyprices,andstormwatermanagementfees andpoliciesmaygreatlyinfluencetheresultsofthecomparison. Wethereforecannotpresentasimpleconclusionforenvironmen- tallyfriendlyroofing,butwedostronglyrecommendeitheroption overdarkroofsthatincreasebuildingenergycosts,summerurban heatislands,andglobalwarming. Acknowledgments FirstwewouldliketothanktheHeatIslandGroupatLawrence BerkeleyNationalLaboratoryandtheEnergyResearchInstituteat NanyangTechnologicalUniversity(ERI@N)throughgrantnumber (SERC112-176-0021)fortheirfinancialsupport.Secondwewould liketothankthefollowingindividualsfortheirtechnicaloversight andoverallsupport:RonnenLevinson,GeorgeBan-Weiss,Kirstin Weeks,JordanO’Brien,AdamFriedberg,StuartGaffin,AndreDes- jarlais,LouiseDunlap,RobertGoo,KentPeterson,DonMoseley, JamesMcClendon,ScottWilliams,KurtShickman,ChrisMackey, andAmyNagengast.ThisworkwassupportedbytheAssistant SecretaryforEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy,Building TechnologiesProgramoftheU.S.DepartmentofEnergyunderCon- tractNo.DE-AC02-05CH11231. AppendixA.Supplementarydata Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbe foundintheonlineversionat http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild. 2013.11.058. References [1]U.S.CensusBureau,StatisticalAbstractoftheUnitedStates:2011,2011,Online at:http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab [2]U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration,2006AnnualEnergyReport,2006, Onlineat:http://www.me.mtu.edu/∼jstallen/courses/MEEM4200/lectures/ energy intro/aer2006.pdf [3]H.Akbari,M.Pomerantz,H.Taha,Coolsurfacesandshadetreestoreduceenergy useandimproveairqualityinurbanareas,SolarEnergy70(2001)295–310. [4]J.Larsen,SettingtheRecordStraight:Morethan52,000EuropeansDiedfrom HeatinSummer2003EarthPolicyInstitute—PlanBUpdates,2006,Onlineat: http://www.earth-policy.org/plan b updates/2006/update56 [5]J.C.Semenza,C.H.Rubin,K.H.Falter,J.D.Selanikio,W.D.Flanders,H.L.Howe, J.L.Wilhelm,Heat-relateddeathsduringtheJuly1995heatwaveinChicago, NewEnglandJournalofMedicine335(2)(1996)84–90. [6]H.Akbari,S.Menon,A.Rosenfeld,Globalcooling:increasingworld-wideurban albedostooffsetCO2 ,ClimateChange94(2009)275–286. [7]S.Menon,H.Akbari,S.Mahanama,I.Sednev,R.Levinson,Radiativeforcingand temperatureresponsetochangesinurbanalbedosandassociatedCO2 offsets, EnvironmentalResearchLetters5(2010)1–11. [8]S.R.Gaffin,R.Khanbilvardi,C.Rosenzweig,Developmentofagreenroofenvi- ronmentalmonitoringandmeteorologicalnetworkinNewYorkCity,Sensors 9(2009)2647–2650. [9]M.Z.Jacobson,J.E.Ten-Hoeve,EffectsofUrbanSurfacesandWhiteRoofson GlobalandRegionalClimate,DepartmentofCivilandEnvironmentalEngineer- ing,StanfordUniversity,PaloAlto,CA,2011. [10]G.Ban-Weiss,G.Bala,L.Cao,J.Pongratz,K.Caldeira,Climateforcingand responsetoidealizedchangesinsurfacelatentandsensibleheat,Environmen- talResearchLetters6(2011)034001. [11]D.Millstein,S.Menon,Regionalclimateconsequencesoflarge-scalecoolroof andphotovoltaicarraydeployment,EnvironmentalResearchLetters6(2011) 034001. [12]U.S.GeneralServicesAdministration(GSA),TheBenefitsandChallengesof GreenRoofsonPublicandCommercialBuildings:AReportoftheUnitedStates GeneralServicesAdministration,GeneralServicesAdministration,Washing- ton,DC,2012. [13]S.Adams,D.Marriott,CostBenefitEvaluationofEcoroofs2008,Environmen- talServices,Portland,OR,2008,Onlineat:http://www.portlandonline.com/ bes/index.cfm?a=261053&c=50818 [14]T.Carter,A.Keeler,Life-cyclecost–benefitanalysisofextensivevegetatedroof systems,JournalofEnvironmentalManagement87(2008)350–363. [15]H.Niu,C.Clark,J.Zhou,P.Adriaens,Scalingofeconomicbenefitsfromgreenroof implementationinWashington,DC,EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology44 (2010)4302–4310. [16]S.Peck,M.Kuhn,DesignGuidelinesforGreenRoofs,CanadaMortgageand HousingCorporation,Ottawa,andtheOntarioAssociationofArchitects, Toronto,ON,2010. [17]S.Konopacki,L.Gartland,H.Akbari,I.Rainer,DemonstrationofEnergySav- ingsofCoolRoofs.PaperLBNL-40673,LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory, Berkeley,CA,1998. [18]S.Konopacki,H.Akbari,MeasuredEnergySavingsandDemandReductionfrom aReflectiveRoofMembraneonaLargeRetailStoreinAustin(PDF),CAReport No.LBNL-47149,LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory,Berkeley,CA,2001. [19]S.Konopacki,H.Akbari,EnergySavingsforHeatIslandReductionStrategies in ChicagoandHouston(IncludingUpdatesforBatonRouge,Sacramento,and SaltLakeCity),ReportNo.LBNL-49638,LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory, Berkeley,2002. [20]L.S.Rose,H.Akbari,H.Taha,CharacterizingtheFabricoftheUrbanEnvi- ronment:aCaseStudyofGreaterHouston,Texas,ReportNo.LBNL-51448, LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory,Berkeley,CA,2003. [21]R.S.Means,BuildingConstructionCostData21stAnnualEdition,2002. [22]M.Dodson,TheGrowingWesternRoofingMarket,WesternRoofingInsulation andSiding,2013,Onlineat:http://www.westernroofing.net/Home.html [23]B.Urban,K.Roth,GuidelinesforSelectingCoolRoofs,U.S.Departmentof Energy,Washington,DC,2010. [24]GreenSaveCalculator,GreenRoofsforHealthyCities,Vancouver,BC,2011. [25]DepartmentoftheEnvironment,GeneralServices,andPlanningandDevelop- ment,CityofChicago,FinalReport—UrbanHeatIslandInitiativePilotProject, Chicago,IL,2000. [26]U.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE),Personalcommunication,2008. [27]S.R.Gaffin,Personalcommunication,2009. [28]Arup,Personalcommunication,2011. [29]U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)EnergyStarProgram,Profileof Success:EnergyStarLabeledRoofProductsCaseStudy:JeffersonHoustonEle- mentarySchool,Alexandria,VA,2000,Onlineat:http://www.energystar.gov/ ia/partners/manuf res/JeffersonHouston new.pdf [30]U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)EnergyStarProgram,Profileof Success:EnergyStarLabeledRoofProductsCaseStudy:OurSavior’sElemen- tarySchool.CocoaBeach,FL,2000,Onlineat:http://www.energystar.gov/ia/ partners/manuf res/OurSaviors new.pdf [31]PortlandBureauofEnvironmentalServices,HamiltonWestApartmentsEco- roof,Portland,OR,2005. [32]PortlandBureauofEnvironmentalServices,MultnomahBuildingGreenRoof, Portland,OR,2004. [33]C.Walker,CoolRoofCaseStudy—Arewhiteroofscoolerandmoreenergy efficientthannon-whiteroofs?Onlineat:http://www.onsetcomp.com/ application stories/cool-roof-case-study [34]S.R.Gaffin,C.Rosenzweig,J.Eichenbaum-Pikser,R.Khanbilvardi,T.Susca,A TemperatureandSeasonalEnergyAnalysisofGreen,White,andBlackRoofs, CenterforClimateSystemsResearch,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,NY,2010, Onlineat:http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20100503.asp [35]AmericanSocietyofHeating,Refrigeration,andAirConditioningEngineers (ASHRAE),Standard90.1-2010EnergyConservationinNewBuildingsExcept LowRiseandResidentialBuildings,AmericanSocietyofHeating,Refrigerating andAir-ConditioningEngineers,Atlanta,GA,2010. [36]A.S.Rushing,J.D.Kneifel,B.C.Lippiatt,EnergyPriceIndicesandDiscountFactors forLife-CycleCostAnalysis—2010,in:AnnualSupplementtoNISTHandbook 135andNBSSpecialPublication709,NationalInstituteofStandardsandTech- nology,Gaithersburg,MD,2010. [37]CMUCenterforBuildingPerformance/ABSIC,AOCDirksenGreenRoofStudy: BIDSYearEndReport,AdvancedBuildingSystemsIntegrationConsortium, CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh,PA,2008. [38]U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),CompilationofAirPollutantEmis- sionFactors,Vol.I:StationaryPointandAreaSources,U.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency,ResearchTrianglePark,NC,1995. [39]U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),TheEmissions&Gen- erationResourceIntegratedDatabase(eGRID),2010,Onlineat: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html [40]S.Fuller,S.Petersen,NISTHandbook135:Life-CycleCostingManualforthe FederalEnergyManagementProgram,NationalInstituteofStandardsand Technology,Gaithersburg,MD,1995. [41]R.Levinson,H.Akbari,Potentialbenefitsofcoolroofsoncommercialbuildings: conservingenergy,savingmoney,andreducingemissionofgreenhousegases andairpollutants,EnergyEfficiency3(2010)53–60. [42]J.McClendon,Personalcommunication,2012. [43]R.Levinson,TheCaseforCoolRoofs,EnvironmentalEnergyTechnologiesDivi- sion:HeatIslandGroup,LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory,Berkeley,CA, 2011. [44]CaliforniaEnergyCommission(CEC),2008BuildingEnergyEfficiencyStandard forResidentialandNonresidentialBuildings,CEC-400-2008-001-CMFSec. 143,CaliforniaEnergyCommission,Sacramento,CA,2008,96pp.Onlineat: http://energy.ca.gov/title24/ [45]CityofChicago,ChicagoEnergyConservationCode,Chapter18–13ofMunicipal CodeofChicago,2008,47pp.Onlineat:http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/ dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/Energycode/EnergyCodeChapter18 13.pdf [46]CityofNewYork,LocalLawsoftheCityofNewYorkfortheYear2011: No.21,2011,5pp.Onlineat:http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/ pdf/ll21of2011.pdf B06-02 cont. COMMENT LETTER # B07 B07-03 B07-02 B07-01 B07-04 B07-05 COMMENT LETTER # B08 B08-01 COMMENT LETTER # B09 B09-01 COMMENT LETTER # B10 B10-01 B10-02 B10-03 B10-04 B10-05 From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:48 AM To: Aarti Shrivastava Subject: General Plan Amendment Good Morning, Aarti - Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the issue, but what is the status of the General Plan Amendment as it applies to the requested height bump-up by the Cupertino Inn (to go up to 8 stories)? I feel it's a mistake to do that, because it will not only change the look and feel of Cupertino in general, it will also dwarf the surrounding homes, including the area east of De Anza--and Homestead. If the hotel goes up that high, Cupertino will surely lose it's small city feel. It will also change the climate somewhat, as breezes are trapped by larger buildings. We went through that when Marina Del Rey and the Fox Hills area of my home town, Culver City were constructed. We actually lost a considerable amount of sea breeze that used to come from the beaches of Playa del Rey, Venice and the Marina's predecessor, Mud Lake. Thank you so much for your patience on this issue. Having been ill for 6 weeks now leaves me playing major catch- up. Cheers, Ruby Thanks & Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & TheCMags.com 1-408/355-0575 COMMENT LETTER # B11 B11-01 B11-02 From: info@cupertinogpa.org [mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:50 PM To: info@cupertinogpa.org Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website Comment Submitted by: Name: Josh Tsai Organization: None Given Email: joshtsai8@gmail.com Subject: More affordable housing for younger families Comment: name: Josh Tsai email: joshtsai8@gmail.com Hi, I grew up in Cupertino and after graduating from Monta Vista and UC Berkeley, I moved out to New York for several years before relocating back to the Bay Area recently to get married and be closer to my parents (who still live in Cupertino). While looking for housing in Cupertino with my wife, I realized how ridiculously few options there are for a young family. There's no chance we can outbid other folks for a single family house in Cupertino without breaking the bank at this point in our careers. Ideally, we'd like to purchase a more affordable condo that we can outgrow in the next five to ten years, but condos are few and far inbetween in Cupertino. While we did find an apartment in Sunnyvale that suits us temporarily, we would love to move back into Cupertino and raise kids that can attend the same schools as I did and be close to my parents as well. In addition to more affordable housing options, I strongly feel that Cupertino needs to bring back some retail vibrancy. Most of my childhood friends who also grew up in Cupertino have instead looked to Mountain View, San Francisco, or Santana Row areas to purchase their first homes. It's a common discussion among us that we'd all like to raise our families in Cupertino, where it's close to work and with great schools, but the lack of retail vibrancy is always a consideration. Thus, I am a supporter of the general plan amendment process in Cupertino if it means the possibility of more housing and added retail in the major streets of Cupertino. My parents, who are long time residents of the city, also feel that added vibrancy along the major streets of Cupertino (i.e. not existing residential areas) would make the city more enjoyable so they don't have to travel to Los Gatos or Palo Alto to have an enjoyable evening out. Thanks COMMENT LETTER # B12 B12-01 From: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Date: July 31, 2014 at 6:11:47 PM PDT To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website Reply‐To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Comment Submitted by: Name: Youichi Organization: None Given Email: None Given Subject: No Subject Given Comment: regarding: The Housing Element Hello Thanks for your all information from Housing Element report. From postcard in my mail, I have come to this website to read more about housing in Cupertino. I think there is not enough housing in Cupertino for other familys like mine. I work and live in Cupertino for 7 years but also travel to Japan. My two daughters attend primary school in Cupertino and their friends are here so we would like to live here for longer time. We rent the apartment in Cupertino but rent every year is going up. I think Housing Element report suggestion for more building height and more du/ac can help with more future housing in Cupertino and help keep rent to stop going up so quick. The location near freeway or big road in Cupertino can support more familys and I think noise will not be a problem. Cupertino is great place to live and I think more apartments can help more familys like mine in future. Many thanks YMY COMMENT LETTER # B13 B13-01 From: Christine Cheng [mailto:huayingnew@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 8:53 AM To: City Council Subject: Comments regarding the environment impact of Cupertino's housing development Main comment points: - Because of traffic congestion, school quality, existing housing density, we strongly oppose the following sites being considered for potential housing development: site 2/L2 Shaan Restaurant/Q Mart//China Dance, site 7/L7 United Furniture/east of E. Estates. - Maximum building height must be under 45 feet for all city housing, commercial or mixed use units. - There should be more distance between the side walk and large buildings. Dear Cupertino City Staff, We've been residents of Cupertino for 10 years and have witnessed deterioration of our city's living quality. Our schools Eaton/Lawson/Cupertino High are getting ridiculously crowded. The large increase in student population has drastically reduced the quality of education for the existing students, which we are experiencing firsthand today. More dense housing units will only aggravate our school problems. The traffic near the entrance and exit of 280 are increasingly worse. And almost every time we go to the library we can't find a spot in the library parking lot. High density units like the Rose Bowl project has already compromised our city's living quality, how can we tolerate more housing units in site 7/L7 which is so close to the Rose Bowl and many mixed use complexes there along Stevens Creek? Hundreds of units have just been built to the west of Blaney and south of Stevens Creek, how can we afford to have even more housing development in site 2/L2, which will induce even worse congestion in this area? As many residents have voiced strongly before, our building heights should reflect the character of Cupertino. Our city is and should never be San Jose or San Francisco. We do not want Cupertino to become a large metropolitan city called "Condotino". Unreasonably tall and high density buildings like the Rose Bowl complexes have been regarded as an eyesore by the general public in Cupertino, though it was approved a long time ago. Our city needs to learn from such mistakes of poor planning and prevent this kind of ill-fitting development from being constructed in the future. To be in harmony with Cupertino's existing buildings and houses, the maximum height for commercial buildings/apartments/mixed use should be under 45 feet regardless. The Rose Bowl complex building on Wolfe road opposite to the AMC building is way too close to the side walk. Blocking the sky and the sun, it's rather monstrous height gives COMMENT LETTER # B14 B14-01 B14-02 B14-03 overwhelming pressure to the people walking or driving by. We hope the city will enforce ample and consistent distance between side walk and large buildings for comfortable general public use. Thank you very much for considering our feedback. Huaying Cheng and Qing Li Jane Lee and Adalia Lee 10501 Davison Ave. Cupertino B14-03 cont. COMMENT LETTER # B15 B15-01 B15-02 B15-02 cont. B15-03 B15-04 B15-04 cont. B15-05 B15-06 B15-07 B15-08 B15-08 cont. B15-08 cont. B15-08 cont. B15-09 B15-09 cont. B15-10 B15-10 cont. B15-10 cont. B15-11 B15-11 cont. B15-11 cont. B15-12 B15-13 B15-14 B15-15 B15-15 cont. B15-15 cont. B15-15 cont. B15-15 cont. B15-15 cont. B15-16 B15-16 cont. B15-17 B15-18 B15-19 B15-19 cont. B15-19 cont. B15-19 cont. B15-20 B15-20 cont. B15-20 cont. B15-20 cont. B15-20 cont. B15-21 B15-21 cont. B15-21 cont. B15-21 cont. B15-22 B15-23 B15-24 B15-24 cont. B15-25 B15-25 cont. B15-26 B15-26 cont. B15-27 B15-28 B15-29 B15-29 cont. B15-30 B15-31 B15-32 COMMENT LETTER # B16 B16-01 B16-01 cont. B16-02 B16-03 B16-04 B16-03 cont. B16-04 cont. B16-05 B16-06 B16-07 B16-08 B16-10 B16-09 B16-10 cont. B16-11 B16-12 B16-12 cont. B16-13 B16-14 8/6/2014 MIG, Inc. Mail - Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a18e048bed&view=pt&q=%22comment%20from%20city%20of%20cupertino%22&qs=true&search=query&th=146ac9…1/1 Dan Amsden <damsden@migcom.com> Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website 1 message info@cupertinogpa.org <info@cupertinogpa.org>Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:27 PM Reply-To: info@cupertinogpa.org To: info@cupertinogpa.org Comment Submitted by: Name: Jonathan Sanchez Email: jsanchez8882@gmail.com Possibly Regarding Page: /app_pages/view/10 Subject: Draft EIR Comment: Hi, Do you know when the Draft EIR will be posted regarding the General Plan Amendment? We received a notice in the mail that the Draft EIR would be available here online. Thanks, Jonathan COMMENT LETTER # B17 B17-01 From: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Date: July 31, 2014 at 6:11:47 PM PDT To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website Reply‐To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>> Comment Submitted by: Name: Youichi Organization: None Given Email: None Given Subject: No Subject Given Comment: regarding: The Housing Element Hello Thanks for your all information from Housing Element report. From postcard in my mail, I have come to this website to read more about housing in Cupertino. I think there is not enough housing in Cupertino for other familys like mine. I work and live in Cupertino for 7 years but also travel to Japan. My two daughters attend primary school in Cupertino and their friends are here so we would like to live here for longer time. We rent the apartment in Cupertino but rent every year is going up. I think Housing Element report suggestion for more building height and more du/ac can help with more future housing in Cupertino and help keep rent to stop going up so quick. The location near freeway or big road in Cupertino can support more familys and I think noise will not be a problem. Cupertino is great place to live and I think more apartments can help more familys like mine in future. Many thanks YMY COMMENT LETTER # B18 B18-01 8/6/2014 MIG, Inc. Mail - Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a18e048bed&view=pt&q=%22comment%20from%20city%20of%20cupertino%22&qs=true&search=query&th=14792b…1/1 Dan Amsden <damsden@migcom.com> Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website 1 message info@cupertinogpa.org <info@cupertinogpa.org>Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:03 AM Reply-To: info@cupertinogpa.org To: info@cupertinogpa.org Comment Submitted by: Name: None Given Organization: None Given Email: None Given Subject: Bike lanes Comment: regarding: The General Plan As a daily bike commuter, I would like to see more bike lanes through the major corridors of Cupertino. More density (and thus cars) is fine with me as long as there are clear and well-marked paths for bicyclists and appropriate signage/markings for the car commuters to pay attention. COMMENT LETTER # B19 B19-01