CC Staff Report 3-4-2014 ��,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT 1�'V O TELEPHONE:(408)777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 4, 2014
Subject
Study Session to provide an update on the focused General Plan Amendment (GPA-2013-01)
process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options for City-wide development
allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities
for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the CiEy Council:
■ Review the General Plan Amendment(GPA) Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR
and provide comments.
Discussion
This report is an update to the discussion at the Planning Commission study session on the
GPA Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR. A detailed discussion of issues is provided
in the February 19, 2014 P1aruling Commission staff report(Attachment CG1).
Background
On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the GPA Concept
Alternatives to be siudied in the EIR. Members of the public attended an open house prior to
the study session that included stations showcasing Draft General Plan Community Vision and
Guiding Principles, Concept Alternatives, and the proposed Housing Element sites. Please refer
to Attachment CG1 for the Plaruung Commission staff report for a detailed discussion of the
GPA process overview, a summary of flze various reports that have been produced for the
project, and description of the Concept Alternatives.
Also attached to this report are the other attadlments including the Settings and Opporttulities
Report (Attachment CG2); Market Study (Attachment CC-3); Concept Alternatives Report
(Attachment CC-4); Concept Alternatives comparison tables (Attachment CG5); Community
Workshop �1 Summary (Attachment CC-6);and Mobility and Desib Concepts Input Summary
(Attachment CC-7).
9'fi�'
Discussion frofn the February 19, 2014 Planning Cor�iniission Study Session
The following is a summary of Planning Commissioner comments at the February 19,2014 study
session. Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics.
■ Project-wide/community benefits to be considered for future projects with heights and/or
densities above the base allowances in any corridor should not allow heights and densities
beyond the ma�cimum contemplated in the General Plan — The GPA alternatives propose
specific heiglTts and densities even for projects that provide project-widelcommunity benefits.
Therefore, projects that require heights and densities beyond tllose pro�osed will not be allowed under
the proposed General Plan al ternatives.
■ Project-wide/community benefits for increased heights and/or densities should be clearly
stated in the General Plan and should not be negotiable — It is interided tllat the General Plan
provide a clear list of project-wide/community benefits related to height and/or density.
■ Visualizations of the different heights and densities proposed in each of the Concept
Alternatives should be provided— Tlzese will ve�rovided at tlle presentation at tlle March 4, 2014
Council study session.
■ Impacts to schools should be considered with respect to increased development poten�ial—
Tlze City cannot consider impacts on schools as a result of new liousing developrr2ents. SB 50 (State
Government Code sections 65995-65998 and Education Code sections 17620-17621) preenTpts
CEQA consideratioiz and mitigation of impacts on school facilities (such as the need for new or
expanded schools due to additional enrollment caused by new development). If new development pays
standard school impact fees, there is no further role for CEQA with regard to impacts on schools. In
addition, State law prohibits the City from using its planning and zoning powers to deny residency
to, make Iiousi�2g unavailable to, or discriminate against,fantilies with children. However,for large
projects, tlzere is the�otential for negotiated Development Agreements to result in additional benefits
st�ch as contributions towards schools, pocket parks in the development, traffic improvements beyond
required mitigations, etc.
■ The specific allocations for the Vallco Shopping District should be clarified under each of the
Concept Alternatives — Allocations are distributed by corridors and otl2er existing General Plan
Special Centers in the Concept Alternatives Report in order to allow flexibility of use across a greater
area. Therefore, tllere are not specific allocations assigned for the Vallco Sho}�ping District. However,
tlze following are assum�tions for t11e Vallco Shopping District in Alternatives A-C:
Vallco Shopping Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
District
Office (s.f.) 0 (no change) 1,000,000 2,000,000
Cornmercial (s.f.) 1,267,601 (no cllange) 625,335
Hotel (roo�ais) 150 400
Residential (units) 0 (no change) 600 800
9'E�3
■ Densities along major mixed-use corridors should be reviewed and possibly amended to
provide residential densities that are consistent with that along Homestead Road and Wolfe
Road— The GPA Alternatives do not contemplate changes to densities on a corridor-wide scale, with
the exception of the South De Anza Corridor,from 15 to 25 du/ac, to ensure that Housing Element
sites in the corridor meet density requirements for affordable housing. However, there are targeted
changes to densities in the sites �roposed in the Housing Elernent (see staff report for tJze Housing
Element).
■ The Commission also asked if stakeholders had reached out to the community with their
specific projects— The applicants have not solidifced their site specific plans as yet. This will be done
once the Council has made a decision on the General Plan amendmer2t and the allowable I�eiglzts and
densities have Ueen deterrrcined. TITis process allows community involvement at a r�zucll earlier level
tl2an is typical for most projects. Once the developers draft their site-specific plans based on tlze final
adopted General Plan, neighvorJlood meetings will be sclleduled to gather community inpist on the
projects.
■ There may be concerns with Alternative C since there have been historic community
concerns on higher levels of development and increased heights and densities.
■ There are concerns with BRT, particularly with the option involving a dedicated BRT travel
lane.
■ The Vallco Shopping District should be redeveloped. Residential development should only
be allowed with a complete redevelopment including viable retail.
■ Residential uses in the Vallco Shopping District may not guarantee viable retail.
■ Potential office and residential components in the Vallco Shopping District could be
synergistic with a retail component.
■ There is heightened community sensitivity widl school and traffic impacts.
■ Consider distributing housing development throughout the City in order to balance
potential impacts.
The following is a summary of public comments at the February 19, 2014 study session:
■ Vallco Mall needs to be revitalized.
■ Height limits should remain unchanged.
■ Maintain existing residential neighborhoods and shopping districts.
■ New development should consider school and firaffic impacts, as well as traffic estimates
from recently approved projects.
■ Consider traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road on the east side of
Cupertino, and the traffic impacts to neighborhoods bounded by these streets.
■ Neighborhood traffic impacts should be included in the EIR.
■ Cupertino residents' ulput on densities and heights in the Concept Altematives should be
considered,rather than that of property owners and developers.
9�
■ Residential allocations in the Concept Alternatives should consider previous ABAG
projections — Tlie�revious Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)for the 2007-2014 Housing
Element(1320 units)was greater than that for the 2014-2022 Housing Element (1064 units).
■ Consider the seven study area sites and others to meet ABAG residential projections.
■ In the coinmunity design surveys, Cupertino residents should have been able to give their
preference on existing Cupertino buildings and streetscape features.
■ What criteria determine retail and project-wide/communify benefits?
■ Residential allocations should be distributed throughout the City, particularly in the Monta
Vista area and along Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard.
■ The City has sufficient office and commercial development.
■ Mixed-use development is not desirable.
■ Residential densities should be low.
■ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is not desirable, particularly the option involving a dedicated BRT
travel lane.
■ Not enough notice was given for the community workshops.
Noticin�
In addition to the open house and study session at the Planning Commission meeting on
February 19,2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date.
Postcards
A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce
upcoming dates on the GPA and Housing Element projects. The postcard also provides a brief
description of the two projects and identifies the project website where interested persons may
sign up for project updates and further notices.
A previous City-wide postcard was sent in July 2013 announcing Community-wide Workshop
#1 (discussed below).
Website
A website has been set up for the combined GPA and Housing Element projects at
www.cupertinogpa.org. All tedinical reports, notices, and other important information are
available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at the website.
Workshops,PublicMeetings, Coansnissior�/CommifteeMeetings, and StakelzolderMeetings
■ Contmunity-wide Workshop #1 (July 18, 2013) - On July 18, 2013, the City hosted a community-
wide workshop to kick off the GPA project. As discussed above, a City-wide postcard was
sent to all City addresses, and the City's website and project website also announced the
workshop. In addition, e-mails were sent to all stakeholders and other interested parties.
Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to discuss and participate in
9'�
small group exercises which included a discussion of assets and mobility, urban design or
economic challenges that should be addressed by the GPA and opportunities for future
development. See Attachment CC-6 for a workshop summary, which contains a compilation
of the assets, challenges, and opportunities identified by the workshop participants.
■ Community-wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) -On October 23, 2013, the City held a second
Community-wide Workshop to discuss community ideas for future uses, design and
mobilify concepts along major mixed-use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, and
Stevens Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E-mails were sent to all study area
stakeholders, Community-wide Workshop #1 participants, and other interested parties. The
City's website and project website also announced the workshop. Following a presentation,
workshop participants were asked to participate in a Community Design Survey and Vallco
Mapping Exercise. See Attachment CC-7 for a workshop summary.
■ Other Public Meetings —The City also held the following additional meetings which covered
essentially the same concepts from Community-wide Workshop#2:
o Follow-up meeting for interested Cupertino residents on December 5, 2013
o Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on January 29, 2014
o Annual meeting of the Cupertino Neighborhood Block Leaders on January 29,2014.
See Attachment CC-7 for the meeting summaries.
■ Commission and Committee Meetings — City staff introduced the GPA project before certain
City Commissions and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Action
Committee (LAC)in order to expand awareness of the project, receive feedback, and answer
questions. Staff presented the project at the:
o October 2, 2013 Teen Commission meeting;
o December 6, 2013 and February 7,2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings;and
o January 15,2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting
■ StakelTOldeY Meetings — Meetings wifh key neighborhood representatives, organizations
(including the Chamber of Commerce and VTA), property owners in the siudy areas, etc.
were held from May 2013 through February 2014.
The following table summarizes the noticulg for fl1e March 4,2014 Council meeting:
���;��.��;�.�.��������.���.��,� _��������������� � �������, ����{�����������������������������
■ Email sent to all study area ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
stakeholders, prior workshop board (one week prior to tl�e liearing)
participants, and interested parties ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site
signed up through the project website (one week prior to tlle Izearing)
■ Citywide postcard sent to all addresses ■ Posted on the project Website (one week
in fl1e City prior to hearing)
9'�I
Environmental Impact Re�ort
The goal for this study session is for the Council to collect public input and provide comments
on the Concept Alternatives.
The next step of the EIR involves a scoping meeting, which includes a 30-day comment period
to consult with agencies, organizations or individuals on the contents of the EIR, including the
range of alternatives. The final scope of the EIR and additional alternatives may be identified
through the scoping process.
CEQA requires the EIR to discuss a "reasonable range of alternatives," and should briefly
discuss alternatives that are considered but rejected for further analysis during the scoping
process. A proposed alternative need not be considered unless it would reduce significant
impacts, meet most of the basic project objectives, is feasible, and is needed to have a
"reasonable range" of alternatives.
It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will be released for public review in late
Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the 45-day public review period.
Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The
recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning
Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively
scheduled for Fa112014.
Next Stevs
The following additional meetings have been scheduled for the GPA:
■ March 11,2014: Envirorunental Scoping Meeting on the GPA and Housing Element
■ April 1, 2014: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the GPA and
Housing Element. This meeting will involve a discussion of policies to be included in the
GPA and Housing Element.
Pre�ared b� George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed bv: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and Aarti
Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
A�roved for Submission b� David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
CG1. February 19,2014 Planning Commission staff report
CC-2. Settings and Opportunities Report
CC-3. Market Study
CC-4. Concept Alternatives Report
CC-5. Concept Alternatives Comparison Tables
CC-6. Community Workshop#1 Summary
CC-7. Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary
9�