The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 10-7-2014 4} � OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL _.....:..........._......._._.._.......... . 103d0 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E FtT I N O (408)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 CiTY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meetin : October 7, 2014 Application: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01,Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013- 03);Applicant: City of Cupertino;Property Location: City-wide Sub�ect Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report and comments on the Final EIR. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR published in June 2014 (Attachment A), the Response to Comments (RTC) Document, published in August 2014 (Attachment B), and the Errata memo No. 1 (Attachment C). This is a study session and no action is required at this time. Background On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate replenishing citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocation. During the same time frame, several property owners, including some owners within the Vallco Shopping District, approached the City about potential General Plan amendments to allow future development of their properties. In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, in early 2013, the City Council directed staff to combine these individual requests into one comprehensive General Plan Amendment. In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan, identifies appropriate locations and policies for future housing in Cupertino. The City Council decided to combine the Housing Element Update process �vith the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss mobility, urban design, economic development, and housing options in one comprehensive outreach and planning process. 1�1 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and Associated Rezoning October 7,2014 Page Z The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussions and input provided during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions, and through online comment forms and surveys. The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City's 2000- 2020 General Plan. Environmental Im�act Re�ort The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that all State and local governments consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have discretionary authority.A Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision-making process. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a propvsed project against the environmental effects, along with other factors. The Planning Commission had a study session on September 9, 2014. The attached staff report (Attachment D) provides additional details on the EIR and the land use alternatives studied. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the General Plan goals, policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2Q00-2020 General Plan adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005. Discussion Planning Commission Study Session At the Planning Commission Study Session, commissioners and members of the public asked questions and requested clarification as follows: Planning Commission ■ Number of alternatives studied in the EIR and wliich alter�iative was the Environmentally Superior Alternative: It was clarified that the EIR provided an analysis of four alternatives; 1) Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C, which was the proposed Project under CEQA, and the CEQA-required No Project Alternative. The EIR identified the No Project Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative; however, as required by CEQA when the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, another alternative must be selected. Accordingly, Alternative A, which would consume the fewest resources and result in the least amount of development when compared to Alternatives B and C,was chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. ■ Alter•native C vs. "Preferred Project": Clarification was requested on the difference between Alternative C and "Preferred Project." It was clarified that Alternative C was not to be the "preferred project" of the City, but rather it was the alternative that was selected to be studied in the EIR as the proposed Project because it represented the most intensive development. It was clarified that the terrn "preferred project" is a term-of-art when preparing �rogram-level EIR's and only means it is the project studied in the EIR; it does not mean it has been pre-determined to be the approved plan. When the Commission and ��2 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and Associated Rezoning October 7,2014 Page 3 the Council consider which alternative to select, the EIR only represents one factor to consider. Other potential factors that may determine which alternative to select include economic impacts, social and community benefits,jobs and housing etc. ■ RHNA vs. recommended housing units: Clarification was requested on the number of housing units required by the RHNA (i.e. 1,064 units) versus the number of housing units recommended for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element. It was clarified that the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) typically recommends 40 percent over the required RHNA for the current planning period. Since there have been entitlements for 62 units in this planning period, the City's remaining RHNA is 1002. Therefore, it is being recommended that the City select sites with a total capacity of approximately 1,400 units. ■ Mitigation: Staff clarified the term "mitigation" meaning that the impact would be reduced to the acceptable threshold for that particular impact. Where the impact is not brought below the acceptable threshold, the term "significant and unavoidable" is used to show the impact will remain even�vhen mitigation is applied. ■ Plan Bay Area: Clarification requested on whether Plan Bay Area is a controlling document. The Plan Bay Area is the long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Staff clarified that the RHNA is the only regulatory portion of the Plan Bay Area. ■ Nurnber of Housing Units by Alternative: Clarification on the number of housing units considered in each of the altematives was requested. Staff clarified that both the No Project Alternative and Alternative A represent no change to the existing housing units development allocation in the current 2020 General Plan. Alternatives B and C respond to the Plan Bay Area. The selection of housing sites in each alternative represent gradations of what is ultimately required by 2040, which spans a time-period comprised of three Housing Element cycles.Alternative B represents 75 percent (or a total of 3,601 units) and Alternative C represents 100 percent (or a total of 4,421 units) of the Housing Element sites required through 2040, ■ Tr�affic Analysis:Clarification on the traffic study prepared for the EIR,what would happen if there are errors in the traffic study, whether the TIA considered the longer commute patterns from regionally generated traffic volumes and whether the VTA model extends to 2040. Staff clarified that the traffic study has been prepared to forecast traffic impacts accurately using the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines for how to prepare traffic studies. Staff clarified that the traffic model applied is the VTA standard model that includes regional traffic in the communities that contribute to traffic in Cupertino and extends to 2040. The VTA approved methodology is the standard for all projects in Cupertino and the surrounding communities, which ensures consistency in assessing traffic impacts in the region. 1��i3 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and Associated Rezoning October 7,2014 Page 4 ■ Bus Rapid Tr•ansit (BRT): A questions regarding the status of the BRT project was posed. Staff clarified the BRT project is not considered in the EIR and when proposed by the VTA, any changes to the City's right-of-way would need the City's approval. At this time, no proposal has been brought to the City to consider. However, a separate memo has been prepared reviewing the impacts of a dedicated bus lane for BRT (see Attachment E). ■ Sewer Capacity: Information was requested on the sewer capacity. It was clarified that sewer capacity is not a physical impact,but the contractual limit on what has been purchased from the San Jose/Santa Clara Treatment Plant. The contractual limit could be reached many years into the buildout of the proposed Project and in the meantime it is quite possible that ongoing measures, including water conservation and green building practices would continue reducing the sewer generation rates studied in the EIR. ■ Air Quality: Clarification was requested on whether the long-term horizon analyzed in the traffic impact analysis (TIA) considered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) trends and mandates with regard to fuel economy is factored into the TIA. Staff clarified the EPA standards are factored into the air quality model and not the traffic model. Assumptions regarding cleaner fuel-burning cars and more cars are considered in the long-term air quality emissions projections. ■ HCD Review Timelines: Clarification on the deadlines and timelines for the Project regarding HCD review was requested. The deadline for the Housing Element is January 31, 2015 and there is a 120-day grace period; therefore, the City must have an adopted Housing Element by May 31, 2015. HCD is allowed a 60-day review period to review the Housing Element. For the City to have adequate time, the draft Housing Element must be sent to HCD by November. ■ Adequate Sifes for the Housing Element: Clarification was requested on what would happen if HCD determines that the sites selected do not meet HCD criteria. It was explained that the list of potential housing element sites has been selected using both HCD and City criteria. The importance of submitting the draft Housing Element to HCD early was stressed, since the dialogue regarding adequate housing sites will commence between the City and HCD during the 60-day review period. More sites than necessary to accommodate the RHNA have been identified, which will help facilitate the dialogue with HCD. ■ Schools: Clarification on why the EIR concludes that overcrowding in schools can be alleviated through the construction of additional floors (building up), and how impact fees can be used by the school. It was also noted the schools are currently at capacity and the student generation is based on high-density housing. Staff clarified that the school districts are going to prepare a facilities plan for ongoing long-range planning. Schools constantly work on plans to alleviate overcrowding such as moving students between schools and consolidating programs as short term solutions and to avoid redistricting. The school impact fees, which are set by the schools and the state, can be applied to new facilities, but not to operations. Staff clarified that the data used to prepare the school impact analysis is from the school's demographer and the housing sites and unit types are in synch with the district's projections. However, the City cannot dictate how the impact fees are used or 1��4 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and Associated Rezoning October 7,2014 Page 5 make land use decisions based on impacts to schools since the impact fee is intended to mitigate school impacts (See Attachment F). ■ Public Comment: The role of public comment in the decision making process for the project was discussed. Staff clarified that the study session was about the EIR. All comments on the environmental impacts have been addressed in the Response to Comments document and late comments memo dated 3 September, 2014 (Attachment G) and late comments memo update dated 30 September, 2014 (Attachment H). Comments on the merits of proposed Project will be addressed separately prior to public hearings on the project. ■ Baseline: Clarification on the baseline for the buildout numbers described in the proposed Project with respect to development that is currently underway was sought. It was clarified that the development that is currently underway is part of what has already been analyzed in the 2020 General Plan and the buildout projections of the proposed Project are set at the time the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Project was issued (i.e. March 5, 2014). Staff maintains a current list of development allocation which tracks what is approved and what has been developed. ■ Impact AaZalysis: It was noted that all of the environmental impact conclusions are the same, but the impacts vary by degrees based on the level of development analyzed in each alternative. Staff confirmed this is correct. ■ Errors and Omissions: A missing footnote was identified. This has been included in the Supplemental Text Revisions of the Final EIR memo (see Attachment C). ■ Buildout Projections: Clarification on the differing build out numbers in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR was sought. Staff clarified that persons per household rate used in ABAG projections varies in 5 year increments, which is different than the single 2040 rate used in the EIR. Members of the Public ■ Traffic — Concerns were expressed by a speaker about existing traffic and increased traffic anticipated as part of the Alternatives studied in the EIR. The speaker expressed a preference for the No Project alternative or Alternative A. ■ Heart of the City — One speaker requested that the Heart of the City be maintained and respected. Another speaker expressed concerns about development on the eastern part of the city and recommended that there should be a citywide distribution to reduce impacts. Staff clarified that sites brought forward by applicants and during the community process were all reviewed; however, the sites on the western side of the city alone either did not meet the criteria or would not be able to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation(IZHNA)required by the State. ■ Schools - There was also a comment made that school sites should be identified. Staff clarified that developments will be required to pay a school impact fee set by each school district. However, sites would have to be acquired by school districts through their facility planning process. 1��5 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and Associated Rezoning October 7,2014 Page 6 ■ Nor•tli Vallco - A representative from Apple Inc., requested that future development adjacent to Apple Campus be considerate of their needs related to security, privacy, and traffic. He clarified that they are working closely with the Irvine Company regarding the adjacent Hamptons site. A representative from the Irvine Company stated they are cooperating with Apple on the redevelopment of the Hamptons site and would not be opposed to reduced heights directly adjacent to the Apple campus. She clarified students generated from any potential project on their site would be in the Santa Clara Unified School District and they are working with the District on possible mitigations. ■ Regional Plans — concerns were expressed about the Plan Bay Area, the regional Bay Area document prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). A resident felt that it was not a good fit for Cupertino and that the document looked too far into the future. In addition, a resident noted that she did not support the Bus Rapid Transit dedicated lanes because they would cause more delays in traffic. Staff would like to note that the General Plan and Housing Element updates do not include dedicated Bus Rapid Transit lanes since the project has not been approved. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is working on this as a potential future project but has not presented any plans to the City. The project is not being reviewed at this time by the City and would require the participation and consent of the City. Response to Comments and Text Revisions Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period on August 1, 2014. While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the public review period, staff will continue to provide responses to these comments. As of September 30, 2014, eleven comment letters were received. The comment letters received after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft EIR (see Attachments G &H.) Supplemeaztal Text Revisions Following the publication of the RTC document on August 28,2014, supplemental text revisions to clarify text in the Draft EIR have been made. These supplemental revisions are provided in the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report Errata No. 1. (See Attachment C) These revisions do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. The Draft EIR, the RTC document and Errata No. 1 together are considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project. Because no new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project were identified after circulation of the Draft EIR, recirculation of the EIR is not required. 1��6 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and Associated Rezoning October 7,2014 Page 7 Next Steps The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) will review and make a recommendation for the EIR for the project on October 2, 2014. The ERC recommendation will be provided to the City Council at the October 7, 2014 EIR Study Session, and to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing on October 14, 2014. The Final EIR and General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project including zoning text amendments and Specific Plan Amendments will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on October 14, 2014. The City Council's review on the certification of the EIR, General Plan Amendment, 2014-2022 Housing Element, and associated rezoning is expected to be on November 3, 2014, and the second reading related to the rezoning is expected to be on November 18, 2Q14. Pre�ared b�Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner Reviewed bv: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development A�proved for Submission b�Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Attachments: A—General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report,June 18, 2014 B—General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document, August 29, 2014 C—Errata No. 1: Supplemental Text Revisions, October 1, 2014 D—Planning Commission Staff Report, September 9, 2014 E—Transportation Effects of BRT,March 29,2014 F—Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications G—Late Comments Memo from PlaceWorks, September 3, 2014 H—Late Comments Memo Updated from P1aceWorks, September 30, 2014 1��7 .� � . ° � � �� DATE October 1, 2014 To Piu Ghosh FROM Steve Noack and Terri McCracken SUBJECT Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and Assoicated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) This memorandum describes changes made to the text of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning Project Final EIR. The Final EIR is comprised of the June 18, 2014 Draft EIR and the August 28, 2014 Response to Comments document. As shown in Table 1, Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR, the revisions include These text revisions include typographical corrections, insignificant modification, amplifications and clarifications of the EIR. These changes do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Final EIR as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with �+��^��h has been deleted from the EIR. �"v?�51��`1��§;,��t��'ii��; �t�i��: ( ��rk�;��rs ��li��.�r�'�[��.��J'� � ��1'.��.��3.5. [ �'IEJc�1dV�arEcs.cc�m , �� .'��. Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Chapter 1:Introduction 1-1 Proposed Project The City of Cupertino is currently undertaking 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 five Special Areas along major transportation corridors,where Gateways and Nodes have been identified,seven Study Areas,and Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-residential/Mixed Use.Special Areas.These Project Component locations are shown in Chapter 3,Project Description,of this Draft EIR on Figures�-43=5,�-3�3-11,and 3-19,respectively. Chapter 2:Executive Summary 2-3 and Summary of The City of Cupertino has undertaken a community-based planning process to review land use alternatives as part of a focused General 2-4 Proposed Project 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 this Draft EIR on Figures�-43=5,-�-�93-11 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. 2-5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS COMPARISON SUMMARY _..._.........._...................--------�------------ -----------------.....-------..............__...........- -------- -------� Proposed No Land Use Land Use Category Projecta Projectb Alternative A 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. October 1,2014 � Page 2 � � . �� ..� �� R. �.•��..,: Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 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 3:Project Description ofthe Draft EIR 3-61 Monta Vista Village The Monta Vista Village Neighborhood was a farming and second home community since the later 1800s and is now a residential, Neighborhood commercial,and industrial neighborhood.As shown on Figure 3-19,this neighborhood is centrally located in Cupertino.As shown in Table 3-17,there is no remaining development allocation for office space or hotel rooms;however,there is commercial allocation of 5,784 square feet and residential allocation for up to�474 units at 12 du/ac.The maximum height in this neighborhood is 30 feet. 3-80 Housing Element Under the proposed Project,there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation,zoning,or density.As shown in Table 3- Site 5(Glenbrook 21,future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 93 new residential units added to the existing 517 units.for a Apartments) total of 610 units. 3-82 Housing Element Under the proposed Project,there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation,zoning,or density.As shown in Table 3- Site 6(The Villages 21,future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 62 net residential units added to the existinE 468 units.for a total Apartments) of 530 units. 3-90 Housing Element As shown in Table 3-21,future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units added to the Site 6(The Villages existin�342 units,for a total of 1.162 units. Apartments) Chapter 4.1:Aesthetia 4.1-8 Special Areas The five Special Areas,including the Gateways/Nodes represent key locations in the city where intensified development could occur under along Major the proposed Project.The Special Areas are shown on Figure�-43=5,of this Draft EIR.The Special Areas include major arterials in the city, Transportation near freeways,capturing the Cupertino's most cultural and economic cores.The Special Areas also includes a variety of uses,including Corridors Including office,commercial,industrial,and residential. Gateways and Nodes October 1,2014 � Page 3 ��,", �� '��- � Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Chapter 4.2:Air Quality 4.2-16 Existing Ambient Air Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of Cupertino have been documented by Quality measurements made by the BAAQMD.In addition to 24 permanent monitoring stations located around the Bay Area,BAAQMD has a special monitoring station located in Cupertino at the Monta Vista Park on Foothill Boulevard.This Special Purpose Monitoring Station started operating in September 2010.Therefore,for years prior to 2010,data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring Station was used in this analysis.Data from these stations are summarized in Table 4.2-4.The data show occasional violations of the State and federal 03 standards.The federal PM2.5 standards have been exceeded on five davs,and state PMlo standards have been exceeded eae�on one da�in the last five years.The State and federal CO and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the vicinity of the city. 4.2-65 Siting New Odor Buildout permitted under the proposed Project could include new sources of odors,such as composting,greenwaste,and recycling Sources operations;food processing;chemical manufacturing;and painting/coating operations,because these are permitted uses in the commercial and/or industrial areas in the city.Future environmental review could be required for industrial projects listed in Table 4� g4.2-9,above,to ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors.BAAQMD Regulation 7,Odorous Substances, requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint.Typical abatement includes passing air through a drying agent followed by two successive beds of activated carbon to generate odor-free air.Facilities listed in Table 4.2-10 would need to consider measures to reduce odors as part of their CEQA review. Chapter 4.3:Biological Resources 4.3-13 Impact BIO-3 Development and land use activities consistent with the proposed Project Components would occur in urbanized areas where jurisdictional waters are absent.Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include:1)an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance,2)an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces,and 3)an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants.However,indirect impacts could be largely avoided through effective implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP)during construction and compliance with water quality controls.As discussed in Section 4.8.1.1,Regulatory Framework,of Chapter 4-54_8,Hydrology and Water Quality,of this Draft EIR,water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program,which includes provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit(MRP)adopted by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. October 1,2014 � Page 4 � �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Chapter 4.6:Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.6-30 Impact GHG-1 The General Plan establishes the framework for future growth and development in Cupertino.A General Plan does not directly result in development without additional approvals.Before ariy development can occur in the City,it is required to be analyzed for consistency with the General Plan,zoning requirements,and other applicable local and state requirements;compiy with the requirements of CEQA;and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. As identified in Tables 4-:5—�4.6-5 and 4�-F4.6-6,the proposed Project would achieve the 2�020 and 2035 performance criteria,respectively,which would ensure that the City is on a trajectory that is consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goals.Consequently,short-term and long-term GHG emissions impacts ofthe proposed Project are less than significant. Chapter 4.7:Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-15 Wildland Fire CAL FIRE evaluates fire hazard severity risks according to areas of responsibility(i.e.federal,state,and local).According to CAL FIRE,and as Hazard depicted on Figure 4.7-2,there are no very high fire hazard severity zones within the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino with the exception of a small area near the City's south center boundary. Also as depicted on Figure 4.7-3,there are no moderate-or high� uer-y-�igl�fire hazard severity zones in the State Responsibility Areas in the vicinity of the Project components. Furthermore,as discussed above in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Setting,the City's Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map,as shown on Figure 4.7-4 also identifies that there are no high or very high fire risk areas in the immediate vicinity of the Project Components. 4.7-21 Impact HAZ-2 The proposed Project would facilitate new development,including residential,mixed-use,and commercial uses,within Cupertino.Some of the new development could occur on properties that possibly are contaminated and inactive,undergoing evaluation,and/or undergoing corrective action,as indicated in Table 4-7�-4.7-2. Chapter 4.9:Land Use and Planning 4.9-13 Study Area 4 Study Area 4(Mirapath)is within the Homestead Special Area.As shown on Figure�-3:43-15 this Study Area is on one small parcel (Mirapath) comprising the Mirapath office building and surface parking fronting North Blaney Avenue. 4.9-14 Other Special The General Plan includes residential and non-residential Special Centers(see Figure�3=4). Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/ Mixed-Use Special October 1,2014 � Page 5 - '�� : z .. Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Areas 4.9-21 Housing Element Housing Element Site 14(Marina Plaza)is located in the North Crossroads Node,which is within the Heart of the City Special Area(see Site 14(Marina Figure 3-�3=8). Plaza) 4.9-23 Housing Element Housing Element Site 18(The Oaks Shopping Center)is located in the Oaks Gateway,which is part of the Heart of the City Special Area(see Site 18(The Oaks Figure�3=8). Shopping Center) 4.9-23 Housing Element Housing Element Site 19(Cypress Building Association/Hall Property)is located in the East Stevens Creek Boulevard Node,which is part of Site 19(Cypress the Heart of the City Special Area(see Figure�3=8). Building Association/ Hall Property) Chapter 4.10:Noise 4.10-29 Study Areas Study Areas may be loosely grouped into two non-exclusive categories:Study Areas along or near major arterials and study areas along or through near major freeways.As shown in Figure�3-11,Study Areas 7(Stevens Creek Office Center)and 2(City Center)fall into the first 4.10-30 category,and would experience noise environments dominated by noise along major arterials.Study Areas 1(Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire),3(PG&E),4(Mirapath)and 5(Cupertino Village)are in the second category where noise from nearby freeways is likely to dominate the noise environment.Study Area 6(Vallco Shopping District)would fall into both of these categories,as there are portions of the Study Area that may be more dominated by freeway noise and portions that may be more dominated by noise from major arterials. Chapter4.11:Population and Housing 4.11-5 Existing Conditions- The total population of Cupertino grew from 52,970 in 2000 to��58 739 in 2010. ' This represents an approximate 110 percent Population increase from 2000 to 2010. In contrast,the county grew from 1,682,585 in 2000 to 1,781,642 in 2010,which represents a slower rate of growth(5 percent compared to�10 percent)for the county as a whole during the same period,lo,ll In 2010,Cupertino had a much smaller population than the neighboring cities of Sunnyvale(140,085),Santa Clara(116,468)and San Jose(985,691). October 1,2014 � Page 6 � ' �� , �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Association of Bay Area Governments,Projections 2009,Cupertino Subregional Study Area Table,Santa Clara County. 9 Association of Bay Area Governments,Plan BayArea,Projections 2013,Subregional Study Area Table,Santa Clara,County. 10Association of eay Area Governments,Projections 2009,Cupertino Subregional StudyArea Table,Santa Clara County. 11 Association of Bay Area Governments,Plan Bay Area,Projections 2013,Subregional Study Area Table,Santa Clara County 4.11-6 Existing Conditions- Table 4.11-1 includes the ABAG's 2013 Projections for the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County.The projections estimate that by 2040 Future Housing the population in Cupertino is expected to grow to 71,700 people and the number of households would grow to 24,180,an increase of Needs approximately 22 percent and 19 percent from 2010,respectively.These rates are lowerthan the ABAG's projected population and household growth of approximately 36 and 35 percent resqe�ctivelv.for Santa Clara County as a whole during the same period. 4.11-13 Impact POP-1- As shown in Table 4.11-3,implementation of the proposed Project would result in a total of 4,421 new households in the city for a total of Regional Planning 25,820 households for the buildout horizon year 2040.Assuming the new dwelling units permitted under the proposed Project would have the average 2.94 persons per household size as applied in ABAG Projections 2013,population in the city could increase by 12,998 residents for a total of 71,300 residents by 2040.By comparison,as shown in Table 4.11-14�3�,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. While the proposed Project would result in 400 fewer residents and 1,640 more units,the rate of growth under the proposed Project and estimated by ABAG would be the same for population growth(i.e.22 percent)and increase by 2 percent(21 compared to 19 percent)for household growth.Consequently, the additional housing units resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially exceed regional projections. 4.11-13 Impact POP-1- With respect to jobs,ABAG projects an increase of 7,040 jobs for a total of 33,360 jobs in 2040,as shown in Table 4.11-1.As shown in Regional Planning Table 4.11-3�3.-4,when applying the City's job generation rates for office,commercial and hotel development,buildout of the proposed Project could result in as many as 16,855 additional jobs for a total of 44,242 jobs in 2040,which would exceed the regional job projections by 10,982 jobs,which represents a 35 percent rate increase(62 compared to 27 percent). 4.11-17 Impact POP-3 As described under Impact POP-2 above,potential future development at potential Housing Elements Site 5(Glenbrook Apartments),and Site 6(The Villages Apartments),would be infill and no removal of existing housing would occur;however,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 through 9 and 11 through 19 listed in Chapter 3,Project Description,of this Draft EIR,no displacement would occur because the increase in housing would be accomplished by October 1,2014 � Page 7 �� .�� Table 1:Supplementai Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 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 these Housi�g Element Site 10 would accommodate approximately 2,411 new residents in the city. Chapter 4.12:Public Services and Recreation The Draft EIR conservatively estimated that the total of 4,421 housing units under the proposed Project could be assigned to the Study Area as a whole. The following revisions provide a break-down of the total housing units by school district to more precisely illustrate the potential student generation by district. 4.12-13 Schools This section describes the existing conditions regard to schools serving Cupertino,based on the School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analvsis preoared bv Schoolhouse Services�in Aopendix F.Public Services,ofthis Draft EIR. 4.12-15 Cupertino Union As shown in Table 4.12-3,the CUSD schools are already well over their capacities,except for the Eaton Elementary School,which is also School District near its capacity.With the proposed Project,the CUSD would experience an additional increase in their attendance of��90124 students in elementary schools and�9925325 students in middle schools.The projection,as well as the current enrollment,indicates that the CUSD would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected increase in enrollment by 2040. ZQThe increased in the CUSD elementary school is calculated with the student generation rate of 0.25 from the school report,and the additional housing units expected at 2040 buildout,4,-4�-�3 601 units(4.421 total units—820 units in the SCUSD=3.601 units). ZS The increased in the CUSD^�^�Q^^+^�middle school is calculated with the student generation rate of 0.07 from the school report,and the additional housing units expected at 2040 buildout,4,4��3 60 units(4.421 total units—820 units in the SCUSD=3.601 units). 4.12-16 Fremont Unified As shown in the Table 4.12-4,FUHSD schools are within 5 percent of the capacity established based on the FUHSD's standards.For the district as a whole,the current enroliment is almost exactly equal to capacity.Almost all of the five high schools show a capacity deficit � Note that this report has been revised to include minor revisions that do not affect the analysis. The revisions are shown in this table under the heading"Appendix F" below. October 1,2014 � Page 8 - � �� f,. . Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change High School District with Cupertino High School with the largest deficit,and Monta Vista High School with a slight surplus in capacity.With the proposed Project,the FUHSD would experience an additional increase in their attendance by�25329 students by 2040.The increased student enrollment,and the capacity deficit for the FUHSD would increase and schools will be overcrowded. 29 The increased in the EFUHSD^�;y h�h school is calculated with the student generation rate of 0.07 from the school report,and the additional housing units expected at 2040 buildout,4;4��3 601 units(4.4Z1 total units-820 units in the SCUSD=3.601 unitsl. 4.12-18 Santa Clara Unified The SCUSD has been growing over the past decade,with enrollment increasing from 13,976 in 2003 to 15,394 in 2013.For the next School District decade,10,500 new units are estimated to be added in the SCUSD,of which 90 percent of them would be apartments.Since high density apartments generate very few students,the student generation rate averages only about 0.0�3 students per unit based on-0.0�4 for elementary schools and 0.0�2 for middle and high schools.The_increase in the SCUSD is calculated using the student generation rates from the school reoort.and the additional housin�units expected at 2040 buildout.820 units(4.421 total units—3.601units in the CUSD and FUHSD=820 unitsl. 4.12-18 Impact Discussion This section analyzes the proposed Project's potential impacts and cumulative impacts to school services,based on the School Enrollment Fiscal Imoact Analvsis ore�ared bv Schoolhouse ServicesZ in Aooendix F.Public Services.of this Draft EIR. 4.12-19 Impact PS-5— The proposed Project would generate approximately 4,421 housing units in Cupertino.As described above,after subtracting the 820 units Cupertino Union exoected to be located in the SCUSD�the CUSD would experience an additiona1�8�901 students in elementary schools and�253 School District students in middle school.With student enrollment already exceeding CUSD's capacity,the additional students would exacerbate the CUSD's capacity.In order to accommodate new students,the CUSD needs to either expand existing facilities or construct new schools. However,Cupertino does not have sufficient locations for new school facilities to accommodate the increased enrollment expected. Therefore,most of the improvements are expected to occur on existing sites with two-story classroom buildings. Since these are established school sites currently in operation,environmental impacts due to construction of the facilities are expected to be minimal.The CUSD would receive approximately$�L million in development impact fees from the proposed Project,which would mitigate the impacts from the proposed Project per SB 50.The impact to the CUSD would be less than significont. Z Note that this report has been revised to include minor revisions that do not affect the analysis. The revisions are shown in this table underthe heading"Appendix F" below. October 1,2014 � Page 9 ��`�� , Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 4.12-19 Impact PS-5— With the estimated increase of 4,421 new housing units to Cupertino,of which 3.601 units would be in the FUHSD the FUHSD would Fremont Unified experience an increase of�99253 students by 2040.Although current student enrollment almost equals to its capacity,an additional High School District �253 students would increase the capacity deficit for the FUHSD.However,the FUHSD has been modernizing its facilities with additional classroom and cafeterias to continuously address the capacity deficit issue,and additional development impact fee of$�4.9 million would ameliorate the capacity problem.Therefore,most of the improvements are expected to occur on existing sites with two-story classroom buildings.Since these are established school sites currently in operation,environmental impacts due to construction of the facilities are expected to be minimal.The impact to the FUHSD would be less thon significant. 4.12-19 Impact PS-5— �i�rOf t e 4,421 new housing units�#provided for in the proposed Project,820 new housing units will be located in the SCUSD.With Santa Clara Unified the anticioated 820 housin�units,the expected growth in student enrollment for the SCUSD would be approximately�856 students School District (3�28 for elementary schools,�4A-14 students for middle schools and 14 for high schools).Although increased enrollment would add , stress to the school in the SCUSD,development impact fees for the proposed Project would mitigate the impact to the SCUSD facilities; therefore,the impacts to the SCUSD would be less than significant. Chapter 4.13:Transportation and Traffic 4.13-44 2040 No Project Table 4.13-12 2040 No Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Results Intersection Levels Stud LOS Peak Avera e No Pro ect of Service3 Interse tion Intersection Standard Hour Delay LOS AM 12 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 SB Rampa D ?3.9__ __C___ __ PM 22.2 �--C+ 4.13-50 Impact TRAF-1— �Six(�6)of the sixteen(16)intersections that would operate at an unacceptabl�level of service for at least one peak hour under the Intersection Levels proposed Project were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service under the No Project scenario. of Service 3 Table 4.13-12 lists 41 total intersections;however,only the No Project LOS for the PM Peak Hour for Intersection#12 was revised. October 1,2014 � Page 10 � Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 4.13-52 Impact TRAF-1– As shown in Table 4.13-13,above,the proposed Project would result in significant impacts to°��^^��7 sixteen(16)intersections through Intersection Levels during at least one of the peak hours. 4.13-53 of Service � SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#2):LOS E–AM Peak Hour �' Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#3):LOS F–PM Peak Hour ° Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/DeAnza Boulevard and Homestead Road(#5):LOS F–AM and PM Peak Hours ° De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6):LOS F–AM and PM Peak Hours ' � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#7):LOS F–AM and PM Peak Hours � De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8):LOS F–PM Peak Hour ° De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive(#9j:LOS F–PM Peak Hour � Wolfe Road and Homestead Road(#16):LOS F–PM Peak Hour �' Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18):LOS F and E–AM and PM Peak Hours resp� � Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#19):LOS F–AM and PM Peak Hours � � Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue(#21):LOS E+AM Peak Hour � North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road(#24):LOS E–AM Peak Hour and E+–PM Peak Hour � Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue(#27):LOS E+and F–AM and PM Peak Hours res� �'—��2�,T�rc�J��ealevar��d-I 2��@-&a+�s,��al�er��r+�re�##�o�L-9�-F_o�� o„-,�u,..,� � Agilent Tech Drive Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#30):LOS F-AM Peak Hour � Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#31):LOS F–AM Peak Hour � Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp(#32):LOS F–AM Peak Hour 4.13-55 Mitigation Measure While implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway and infrastructure through TRAF-1 improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on then current standards,impacts would remain 4.13-56 significant and unavoidable,because the City cannot guarantee improvements at these intersections at this time.This is in part because the nexus study has yet to be prepared and because some of the impacted intersections are under the jurisdictions of the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Caltrans.Specifically,the following intersections are outside the jurisdiction of Cupertino: � SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard CalTrans (#2) �' De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp CalTrans (#6) October 1,2014 � Page 11 . �;�� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change ° Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Sunnvvale/Cupertino)(#16) � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp CalTrans (#18) � Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp Ca T a s (#19) � North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road(Sunnvvale/Cuoertino)(#24) � Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway(Santa Clara)(#30) � Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(CMP,County)(#31) '�' Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(CMP,County)(#32) 4.13-63 Impact TRAF-2— Of the 41 study intersections included in this analysis,21 are included in Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program(CMP). CMP Impacts ImpactTRAF-1,which presents the results of the impact analysis under 2040 No Project Conditions and the proposed Project on all of the study intersections,includes the 21 CMP intersections.The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to the following#�e1ve {3�eleven 11 CMP intersections at least one of the peak hours: ° SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#2) ° Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#3) � Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road(#5) '� De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6) � De Anza Boulevard.and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#7) ° De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8) � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18) � Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#19) ° Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#21) �-c+.,.,.....-r....,1,o..��l,,,.-,..J-,...J� '7on o�..�...�/r�l,,.,.t n.�,..,IH'7o1 � Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(County)(#31) � Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(County)(#32) Chapter 5.1:No Project Alternative 5.1-50 Siting New Odor While not all sources in Table 4.2-10,in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of this Draft EIR,are found in Cupertino(e.g.rendering plants,confined animal facilities),commercial and industrial areas in the City of Cupertino have the potential to include land uses that generate October 1,2014 � Page 12 � �, � �� .� � - ' � �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Sources objectionable odors.Buildout permitted under the No Project Alternative could include new sources of odors,such as composting, greenwaste,and recycling operations;food processing;chemical manufacturing;and painting/coating operations,because these are permitted uses in the commercial and/or industrial areas in the City.Future environmental review could be required for industrial projects listed in Table 4�4.2-9 in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of this Draft EIR,to ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. 5.1-55 Impact BIO-3 Development and land use activities consistent with the No Project Alternative components occur in urbanized areas where jurisdictional waters are absent.Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include:1)an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance,2)an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces,and 3)an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants. However,indirect impacts could be largely avoided through effective implementation of Best Management Practices(BMPs)during construction and compliance with water quality controls.As discussed in Section 4.8.1.1,Regulatory Framework,of Chapter4-94_8, Hydrology and Water Quality,of this Draft EIR,water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program(SCVURPPP),which includes provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit(MRP)adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). 5.1-78 Impact HAZ-2 The No Project Alternative would facilitate new development,including residential,mixed-use,and commercial uses,within Cupertino. Some of the new development could occur on properties that possibly are contaminated and inactive,undergoing evaluation,and/or undergoing corrective action,as indicated in Table 4�4.7-2 of Chapter 4.7,Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 5.1-130 ImpactTRAF-1— As shown on Table 5.1-10 and listed below,the No Project Alternative would result in significant impacts to eight(8)intersections during Intersection the AM peak hour,the PM peak hour or both peak hours.The intersection number,as used within the Table 5.1-10,is shown in Operations parentheses. � Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road(#5):LOS E—PM peak hour � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6):LOS E—PM peak hour � De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8):LOS E_—PM peak hour ° De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive(#9):LOS E—PM peak hour � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18):LOS F—AM peak hour � Wolfe Road/MillerAvenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#21):LOS E—PM peak hour ° Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#27):LOS E+—PM peak hour October 1,2014 � Page 13 - �� , . �� :,,. Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change ��e+�eRs 6�e��e��e�a�d-aad--I ��r�ps,/�a4ae��r+v�e{##�°�L� -��"^^��,�^�� 5.1-131 Mitigation Measure -� . TRAF-1 .-„��+titi.,,�...�i....,.,,.,r..i,..,.t n.�.,.,+.,.,...,,�,,..��,,,.�„tit+��.�*.-.sf;.. 5.1-135 Mitigation Measure Of the 41 study intersections included in this EIR document,21 are included in Santa Clara County's CMP.As shown on Table 5.1-310 and TRAF-2-CMP listed above,the results indicate that the following�five 5 CMP study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service Impacts during the AM peak hour,the PM peak hour or both peak hours under the 2040 No Project conditions.The intersection number,as used within the Table 5.1-�10 is shown in parentheses. � Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road(#5):LOS E-PM peak hour � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6):LOS E-PM peak hour ° De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8):LOS��-PM peak hour � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18):LOS F-AM peak hour � Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#21):LOS E-PM peak hour ��5{�� .,a�.,......,..a��e�eas-6�ee��=9�`�.-L�1�—RA�eak;�r Of the above six intersections,only�ee-two of them-those with an LOS E-or LOS F--would fall below the VTA's CMP standard,which is LOS E.The three CMP intersections that are within Cupertino's jurisdiction and have LOS E(#5,#6,and#21)do not actually fall below the CMP standard,but only below the City of Cupertino's standard of D resulting in a significant impact. Chapter 5.2:Land Use Alternative A 5.2-58 Siting New Odor While not all sources in Table 4.2-10, in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of this Draft EIR,are found in Cupertino (e.g. rendering plants, confined Sources animal facilities), commercial and industrial areas in the City of Cupertino have the potential to include land uses that generate objectionable odors. Buildout permitted under Land Use Alternative A could include new sources of odors, such as composting, greenwaste, and recycling operations; food processing; chemical manufacturing; and painting/coating operations, because these are permitted uses in the commercial and/or industrial areas in the City.Future environmental review could be required for industrial projects listed in Table A-�-�4.2-9 in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of this Draft EIR,to ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. 5.2-62 Impact BIO-3 Development and land use activities consistent with Land Use Alternative A Components would occur in urbanized areas where jurisdictional waters are absent. Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include: 1) an increase in the potential for October 1,2014 � Page 14 p �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance, 2) an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and 3) an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants.However,indirect impacts could be largely avoided through effective implementation of Best Management Practices during construction and compliance with water quality controls.As discussed in Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory Framework,of Chapter 4�}4_,8 Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program(SCVURPPP),which includes provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit(MRP),adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). 5.2-88 Impact HAZ-2 Land Use Alternative A would facilitate new development, including residential, mixed-use,and commercial uses,within Cupertino.Some of the new development could occur on properties that possibly are contaminated and inactive,undergoing evaluation,and/or undergoing corrective action,as indicated in Table 4-�4.7-2. 5.2-132 Impact POP-1 — With respect to jobs,ABAG projects an increase of 7,040 jobs for a total of 33,360 jobs in 2040 as shown in Table 4.11-1 in Chapter 4.11 Regional Planning Population and Housin�.of this Draft EIR.As shown in Table 5.2-9,when applying the City's job generation rates for office,commercial and hotel development, buildout of this Alternative could result in as many as 5,206 additional jobs for a total of 32,593 jobs in 2040, which would be within the regional job projections(19 percent compared to 27 percent). 5.2-149 Impact TRAF-1— As shown in Table 5.2-10,the following three intersections would operate at an unacceptable level under both No Project and Land Use Intersection Levels Alternative A conditions,but Land Use Alternative A would not have a significant impact on their operations: of Service �' De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive(#9):LOS E—PM Peak Hour � Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#21):LOS E—PM Peak Hour � antau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#271:LOS E+—PM Peak Hour -.�t�� ❑.,i J � ,J .!I �P�/ nri,..,/N'101.�c r Dnn D.,-.I,u..��. ��e�eas-E�eIE��e�;�z"�(�� rC�l�e��,T��- �-, 5.2-150 Impact TRAF-1— As shown in Table 5.2-10,Land Use Alternative A would result in significant impacts during at least one of the peak hours.The following Intersection Levels four(4)intersections would experience a significant impact under Land Use Alternative Atraffic conditions: of Service � Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road(#S):LOS E+and€F—AM and PM Peak Hours,respectively � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6}:LOS F—PM Peak Hour � De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8):LOS�E--PM Peak Hour � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18):LOS F—AM Peak Hour October 1,2014 � Page 15 � " ' �� '�.� �� < ' �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 5.2-157 Impact TRAF-2— Of the 41 study intersections included in this EIR document,21 are included in Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program CMP Impacts (CMP). Impact TRAF-1,which presents the results of the impact analysis under 2040 No Project Conditions and the Land Use Alternative A on all of the study intersections,includes the 21 CMP intersections.Land Use Alternative A resulted in significant impacts to#ive�5�four 4�CMP intersections.The following four CMP intersections experienced a significant impact during at least one of the peak hours: � Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road(#5):LOS E+and F—AM and PM peak hours,resoectivelv � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramps(#6}:LOS F—PM peak hour �" De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8):LOS E_—PM peak hour � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18):LOS F—AM peak hour nf+�,,,-,h,,,,,,f,,,,�;.,*,..�„�+;,,.,� f,.,.,..F+h,.,,.,All four of the above intersections would fall below VTA's CMP standard,which is LOS E. �#e .,,��,.�..,,,.,,,.,�,o.,.,a r,+�,.,.,a�,.�.,-,., o,,,,�,,...,.,,...,a�,,,.,,,..,.�.,.,.�,o,,,,�,.......,,ruo,�Sarato�a-Sunnvvale Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road #5).which is a CMP intersection that is within Cuoertino's iurisdiction and would operate above LOS E durine the AM peak hour�does not actually fall below the CMP standard,but only below the City of Cupertino's standard of LOS D.It does however fall below the CMP standard for the PM peak hour 5.2-161 Impact UTIL-1—Cal For Land Use Alternative A,it is assumed that projected water demand would be added to the LAS District and Apple Campus 2 demands. Water 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-�15.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. 5.2-164 Impact UTIL-1—Cal Table 5.2-19 compares demand to supply for a 4 year multiple dry year period.For the first three years,the analysis conservatively Water Multiple Dry assumes that demand would remain unchanged from a normal hydrologic year and that in the fourth year demand would decrease by 10 Years percent as does the delivery of SCWVD"contract"water.In all cases,the supply is projected to meet 100 percent of demand.It is noted that even if demand did not decrease by 10 percent in year 4 and SCVWD supply did,the increased groundwater supplied in 2040 would October 1,2014 � Page 16 � � �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change be 1,565 acre feet for a total of�3,954 acre feet,which can be pumped by the LAS District by increasing well operation times 5.2-165 Impact UTIL-1-Cal TABLE 5.2-19 DEMAND AND SUPPLY COMPARISON-MULTIPLE DRYYEAR PERIOD�4 YEARS�:CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT+LAND USE Water Multiple Dry ALTERNATIVEA(AFY� Years 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Demand:Years 1-3 13,641 12,812 13,522 14,231 14,942 15,654 SCVWD Supply 10,200 9,700 10,200 11,200 12,120 13,000 LAS Groundwater 3,441 3,378 3,855 3,831 3,888 3,984 Total Supply 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984 Difference 0 266 533 800 1,066 1,330 Total Demand:Year 4 12,277 11,530 12,170 12,808 13,448 14,089 SCVWD Supply 9,180 8,730 9,180 10,080 10,908 11,700 LAS Groundwater 3,097 2,800 2,990 2,728 2,540 2,389 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chapter 5.3:Land Use Alternative B 5.3-63 Siting New Odor While not all sources in Table 4.2-10,in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of this Draft EIR,are found in the City(e.g.rendering plants,confined Sources animal facilities),commercial and industrial areas in the City of Cupertino have the potential to include land uses that generate objectionable odors.Buildout permitted under Land Use Alternative B could include new sources of odors,such as composting, greenwaste,and recycling operations;food processing;chemical manufacturing;and painting/coating operations,because these are permitted uses in the commercial and/or industrial areas in the City.Future environmental review could be required for industrial projects listed in Table 4�-�4.2-9,in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of this Draft EIR,to ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. 5.3-67 Impact BIO-3 Development and land use activities consistent with Land Use Alternative B Components would occur in urbanized areas where jurisdictional waters are absent.Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include:1)an increase in the potential for October 1,2014 � Page 17 �� ' Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance,2)an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces,and 3)an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants.However,indirect impacts could be largely avoided through effective implementation of Best Management Practices during construction and compliance with water quality controls.As discussed in Section 4.8.1.1,Regulatory Framework,of Chapter A:44_,8 Hydrology and Water Quality,of this Draft EIR,water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program(SCVURPPP),which includes provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit(MRP),adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). 5.3-92 Impact HAZ-2 The proposed Project would facilitate new development,including residential,mixed-use,and commercial uses,within Cupertino.Some of the new development could occur on properties that possibly are contaminated and inactive,undergoing evaluation,and/or undergoing corrective action,as indicated in Table 4.?�4.7-2 of Chapter 4.7,Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 53-144 Impact PS-5— The Land Use Alternative B would generate approximately 3�,-3f�3.316 housing units in Cupertino;.After subtracting the 344 units through Cupertino Union exqected to be located into the SCUSD.the CUSD would experience an additional increase in their attendance of 743 students in 5.3-145 School District elem�ntary schools and 209 students in middle schools.The proiection,as well as the current enrollment,indicates that the CUSD would o ave sufficient caaacitv to accommodate the exoected increase in enrollment bv 2040.t'��'��''"�^..,�„'�'�.,��,�'�';*;^��' �`��'��+��'�~��`,�.,��"�^��,^�'~��'�'�^�^"^^� With student enrollment already exceeding CUSD's capacity,the additional students would exacerbate the CUSD's capacity.In order to accommodate new students,the CUSD needs to either expand existing facilities or construct new schools.However,Cupertino does not have sufficient locations for new school facilities to accommodate the increased enrollment expected.However,the CUSD would receive approximately$�6.1 million in development impact fees from Land Use Alternative B,which would mitigate the impacts from Land Use Alternative B per SB 50.The impact to the CUSD would be less than significant. 5.3-145 Impact PS-5— With the estimated increase of 2 972 new housing units to Cupertino,the FUHSD would experience increase 209 new students by 2040. Fremont Unified Although current student enrollment almost equals to its capacity,the additional students would increase the capacity deficit for the School District FUHSD.However,the FUHSD has been modernizing its facilities with additional classroom and cafeterias to continuously address the capacity deficit issue,and additional development impact fee of$g4.06 million would ameliorate the capacity problem.The impact to the FUHSD would be less than significant. 5.3-145 Impact PS-5— �Of the 3.316 new housing units�it#provided for in Land Use Alternative B,344 new housing units will be located in the SCUSD.With Santa Clara Unified the anticipated 344 new housing units,the expected growth in student enrollment for the SCUSD would be approximatelv 28 students(14 School District for elementarv schools.7 for middle schools.and 7 for hi�h schoolsl.��-Although increase enrollment would add stress to the October 1,2014 � Page 18 . � '�" ,'� �": - Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change school in the SCUSD,development impact fees for Land Use Alternative B would mitigate the impact to the SCUSD facilities;therefore,the impacts to the SCUSD would be less thon significont. 5.3-151 Impact TRAF-1— The results of the level of service analysis under Land Use Alternative B scenario compared to the 2040 No Project scenario are presented Intersection Levels in Table 5.3-10.The results show that,of the 41 study intersections,29 intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under of Service Land Use Alternative B,and}��•��thirteen(131 intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM peak hour,the PM peak hour,or both peak hours. 5.3-154 Impact TRAF-1— As shown in Table 5.3-10,six(6)of the��thirteen(13�intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at Intersection Levels least one(1)peak hour under Land Use Alternative B were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service under the No of Service Project scenario.The Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#21)intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least one peak hour under the No Project scenario improved from unacceptable to acceptable levels of service:LOS E to LOS D—PM Peak Hour. 5.3-154 Impact TRAF-1— Based on applying the significance criteria for traffic impacts discussed in Section 4.13.5,Thresholds of Significance,in Chapter 4.13, through Intersection Levels Transportation and Traffic,ofthis Draft EIR,there would be a significant impact at}��thirteen(131 ofthe study intersections 5.3-155 of Service under Land Use Alternative B during one or both peak hours,as highlighted in the T�'�'�,�o;Table 5.3-13.p��' '�*��^ I., .,I�..F C.,...��..T-.L.I., .,f/"h-..,t.,�A 'I� T�-..,�.,.,.+-.+�n.,-,.,.J T,--.ff�� r.F+hi�fl.-.F+CI� The following+��7thirteen(13�intersections would experience a significant impact under Land Use Alternative B traffic conditions: � SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#2):LOS E—AM Peak Hour ° Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#3):LOS F—PM Peak Hour `� Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road(#5):LOS€—a��F—AM and PM Peak Hours;��T.-^��"�',; � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6):LOS F—AM and PM Peak Hours � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#7):LOS F—AM and PM Peak Hours � De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8):LOS F—PM Peak Hour � De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive(#9):LOS F—PM Peak Hour � Wolfe Road and Homestead Road(#16):LOS€F—PM Peak Hour � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18):LOS F and E+—AM and PM Peak Hours es� � North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road(#24):LOS E+—AM Peak Hour October 1,2014 � Page 19 � ��. �� , .�,. �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change � Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue(#27):LOS E–PM Peak Hour � A ilent Tech Drivewav and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#301:LOS E–AM Peak Hour �' Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#31):LOS F–AM Peak Hour 5.3-157 While implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on then current standards,impacts would remain signifrcont and unavoidoble,because the City cannot guarantee improvements at these intersections at this time.This is in part because the nexus study has yet to be prepared and because some of the impacted intersections are under the jurisdictions of the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Caltrans.Specifically,the following intersections are outside the jurisdiction of Cupertino: � SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard Caltrans (#2) � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp Caltrans (#6) �' Wolfe Road and Homestead Road(Sunnyvale/Cupertino (#16) �' Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp Cal rans (#18) � North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road(Sunnvvale/Cuoertino)(#24) � Aeilent Tech Drivewav and Stevens Creek Boulevard(Santa Claral(#30) ° Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(CMP,County)(#31) 5.3-168 Impact UTIL-1– TaB�E 5.3-17 DEMAND ANO SUPPLY COMPARISON-NORMAL HYDROLOGIC YEAR:CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT+LqND USE ALTERNATIVE B�AFY� Cal Water Normal -----...._..._........._...-- --._._......._—._._._....._. Hydrologic Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total Demand 13,641 12,963 13,824 14,685 15,546 16,407 SCVWD Supply 10,200 9,700 10,200 11,200 12,120 13,000 LAS Groundwater 3,441 3,378 3,855 3,831 3,888 3,984 Total Supply 13,641§ 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984 Difference 0 115 231 346 462 577 �----.._.__.._..._.__..__._.... ........._............----�----------._... _..-�-------..._..._...-----------.._...------...---�---- -------- Source:Table 14(Cal Water)of Water Supply Evaluation(Yarne&Associates),May 20,2014;Demand modified to reflect Land Use Alternative B;SVWD Supply and LAS Groundwater supply are as presented in WSE(i.e.original values in Table 14 of WSE).Note:The supply surplus(Difference)shown in the table is theoretical.Total October 1,2014 � Page 20 �;� �: � Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change groundwater actually supplied is the quantity�ecessary to make up the difference between LAS district demand and SCVWD supplies—both scheduled and Non- Contract deliveries.Hence,in practice,total supply always equals projected demand for any given year. Chapter 6:CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions 6.7 through Significant and 6.8 Unavoidable TRAF-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following four Congestion _ impacts Management Program(CMP)intersections at least one of the peak hours. The proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program(CMP)intersections at least one of the peak hours: , � SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#2)Stelling Road and Stevens Creel<Boulevard(#3) � Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road(#5) � De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#6) � De Anza Boulevard.and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#7) �' De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#8) � Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp(#18) � Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp(#19) ° Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#21) �_c+.,.,,,..�rr„�I,Q., I., -.�a�.,�1 i �on o�....,�/�-,I,.,,�r n.�.,.,1+��1 � Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(County)(#31) � Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard(County)(#32) Chapter 3 of the Final EIR—Revisions to the Draft EIR 3-2 of the Housing Element The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Elernent Site 5(Glenbrook Apartments)on page 3-80 of Final EIR Site 5 the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: � (Revisions Chapter) Under the proposed Project,there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation,zoning,or density.As shown in Table 3- October 1,2014 � Page 21 � ` �-�� "'� � `��,�'� ��. �. Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 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�39610 units. 3-6 of the Housing Element The last paragraph under subheading Proposed Project with respect to Housing Element Site 6(The Villages Apartments)on page 3-82 of Final EIR Site 6 the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: (Revisions Chapter) 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 ofb�8530 units. Revisions to Appendix F,Public Services Data:School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Schoolhouse Services 10 Typographical error 4.1 Current Conditions The District operates 25 schools,20 elementary schools and five middle schools. The elementary schools serve kindergarten through third grade students,except for McAuliffe which includes grades kindergarten through eight. The middle schools serve sixth through eighth grade students. 12 CUSD housing Table 4-1 breakdown New Housing Units Existing Minimal Growth Moderate Growth Most Growth Alternatives Conditions A B C By 2023 1,140 1,140 1,060 1,993 Total Expected in CUSD 1,845 1,845 �-9�2.972 3�9F3 601 Total in City of Cupertino 1,895 1,895 3,316 4,421 Source City of Cupertino October 1,2014 � Page 22 �� . � � � �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 14 CUSD student breakdown by Table 4-2 alternative Enrollmentfrom New Units Located in Cupertino Union School District � Existing Minimal Growth Moderate Growth MoSt Growth SGRs Conditions A B C By 2023 grades K-5 0.25 285 285 265 498 grades 6-8 0.07 80 80 74 140 Total CUSD 365 365 339 638 From Total Units Allowed grades K-5 0.25 461 461 �743 F,�3901 grades6-8 0.07 129 129 �209 �253 Total CUSD 590 590 �952 3�5-�1 154 Sources:Enrollment Projection Consultants and City of Cupertino 16 CUSD Total students Table 4-3 by alternative Enrollment by School Attendance Areas From New Housing Units in the City of Cupertino By 2023 Total Units Enrollment Units Enrollment District Total* Existing Conditions 1,140 285 1,845 461 A-Minimal Growth 1,140 285 1,845 461 B-Moderate Growth 1,060 265 �-96C�2.972 �743 C-Most Growth 1,993 498 �4F�3.601 �9901 *The totals are not always exactly the numbers in the prior table due to rounding. Sources:City of Cupertino and Schoolhouse Services, October 1,2014 � Page 23 � � �� ,�� ,�� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 17 CUSD Total students Table 4-4 by alternative Enrollment from New Units by School Attendance Area Cupertino Union School District Middle Schools By 2023 Total Units Enrollment Units Enrollment District Total* Existin Conditions 1140 285 1845 461 A-Minimal Growth 1,140 285 1,845 461 B-Moderate Growth 1,060 265 �2.972 �4-i743 C-Most Growth 1,993 498 �;-59E,3 601 �99901 *The totals are not always exactly the numbers in the prior table due to rounding. Sources:City of Cupertino and Schoolhouse Services 21 CUSD Total students Table 4-6 by alternative Enrollment by School Attendance Areas from New Units in the City of Cupertino and Existing Units Enrollment By 2023 Enrollment Total From New Total From New *District Total Existing Conditions 285 11,897 461 12,073 A-Minimal Growth 285 11,897 461 12,073 B-Moderate Growth 265 11,877 �743 �412 355 C-Most Growth 498 12,110 Si}99� 3�-5-1�12 512 *Totals do not include enrollment from new units outside of the City of Cupertino nor about 120 students who do not reside in the District. Sources:City of Cupertino, Enrollment Projection Consultants,and Schoolhouse Services October 1,2014 � Page 24 �� , � Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 23 CUSD Total students Table 4-8 by alternative Projected Middle School Enrollment by School Attendance Areas New and Existing Housing Units in the City of Cupertino By 2023 Total From New Total* From New Total* Existing Conditions 80 6,388 129 6,437 A-Minimal Growth 80 6,388 129 6,437 B-Moderate Growth 74 6,382 �209 �6.517 C-Most Growth 140 6,448 �253 �96,561 *Totals do not include enrollment from new units outside of the City of Cupertino,nor students who do not reside in the District,about 120 students. Sources:City of Cupertino,Enrollment Projection Consultants,and Schoolhouse Services 24 Table numbering Table 4-$9 correction only Classroom Count and Enrollment Capacity 26 Table numbering Table 4-310 correction only Elementary Schools Located in the City of Cupertino 26 Table numbering Table 4-�811 correction only Middle Schools Located in the City of Cupertino 27 Table numbering Table 4-3�12 correction only Current Enrollment Compared to Capacity Elementary Schools October 1,2014 � Page 25 �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 29 CUSD Total students Table 4-3�13 by alternative Enrollment Capacity Compared to Enrollment by School Attendance Areas from New Units in the City of Cupertino and Existing Units Enrollment Enrollment By 2023 Enrollment Total Capacity From New Total From New Total District Total* Existing Conditions 14,414 285 11,897 461 12,073 A-Minimal Growth 285 11,897 461 12,073 B-Moderate Growth 265 11,877 �743 �412.355 C-Most Growth 498 12,110 �901 �1�12.512 *Totals do not include enrollment from new units outside of the City of Cupertino,about 62 students. Sources:City of Cupertino,Enrollment Projection Consultants,and Schoolhouse Services 31 Table numbering Table 4-3�14 correction only Middle Schools Located in the City of Cupertino 32 CUSD total students Table 4-3-0��5 by alternative Enrollment Capacity Compared to Enrollment by School Attendance Areas from New Units in the City of Cupertino and Existing Units Enrollment Enrollment By 2023 Enrollment Total Capacity From New Total From New Total *District Total Existing Conditions 4,898 80 6,388 129 6,437 A-Minimal Growth 80 6,388 129 6,437 B-Moderate Growth 74 6,382 �98209 �6.517 C-Most Growth 140 6,448 �253 �A6,561 *Totals do not include enrollment from new units outside of the City of Cupertino,about 62 students,and students who do not resided in the District,about 120 students. Sources:City of Cupertino,Enrollment Projection Consultants,and Schoolhouse Services October 1,2014 � Page 26 � � � �'�� - Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 34 Table numbering Table 4-3§16 correction only Campus Sizes Compared to State Standards 37 CUSD total student Table 4-�17 and costs by Per Student and per Alternative Capital Costs of Additional Capacity-CUSD alternative Students Costs Total Costs by 2023 (in millions) Students (in millions) Elementary School Existing Conditions 285 $8.49 461 $13.73 A-Minimal Growth 285 $8.49 461 $13.73 B-Moderate Growth 265 $7.89 �749 �-�0 22.31 C-Most Growth 498 $14.83 �9901 c"'� 26.83 Middle School Existing Conditions 80 $2.61 129 $4.21 A-Minimal Growth 80 $2.61 129 $4.21_ B-Moderate Growth 74 $2.42 �98209 �-�9 6.82 C-Most Growth 140 $4.57 �253 �� 8. 6 CUSD Total Existing Conditions 365 $11.10 590 $17.94 A-Minimal Growth 365 $11.10 590 $17.94 B-Moderate Growth 339 $10.31 �58952 �F�9 29.13 C-Most Growth 638 $19.40 �,3�1 154 �99 35.09 Source: Schoolhouse Services 38 CUSD total fees by Table 4-3�18 alternative Development Impact Fee Revenue-CUSD Units Fee Revenue Total Fee Revenue by 2023 (in millions) Units (in millions) Existing Conditions 1,140 $2.34 1,845 $3.79 A-Minimal Growth 1,140 $2.34 1,845 $3.79 B-Moderate Growth 1,060 $2.18 �2.972 �-�8 6.11 • C-Most Growth 1,993 $4.10 �3.601 �9 7.40 Source: Schoolhouse Services October 1,2014 � Page 27 �� " Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 38 CUSD total Table 4-3�19 fees/costs by Development Impact Fee Revenue Versus Facilities Costs(in$millions)-CUSD* alternative Units by 2023 Total Units Cost Revenue Deficit Cost Revenue Deficit Existing Conditions $11.10 $2.34 $8.76 $17.94 $3.79 $14.15 A-Minimal Growth $11.10 $2.34 $8.76 $17.94 $3.79 $14.15 B-Moderate Growth $10.31 $2.18 $8.13 $28.89 �-�&56.11 r,� 22.78 C-Most Growth $19.40 $4.10 $15.31 $35.00 �9 7.40 r,� 27.60 *Both fee revenue and facilities costs are one-time,rather than annual,estimates. Source: Schoolhouse Services 39 Table numbering Table 4-3�}20 correction oniy Operating Costs-CUSD 43 FHUSD total housing Table 5-1 units by alternative New City of Cupertino Housing Units-FUHSD Most Existing Minimal Growth Moderate Growth Growth Alternatives Conditions A B C By 2023 1,140 1,140 1,060 1,993 Total Allowed in FUHSD 1,845 1,845 �,972 �3.601 Total in City of Cupertino 1,895 1,895 3,316 4,421 Source:City of Cupertino October 1,2014 � Page 28 � � Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 44 FHUSD total Table 5-2 students units by Enroliment from New Units*-FUHSD alternative Alternatives Minimal Moderate Most Existing Growth Growth Growth SGRs Conditions A B C By 2023 High school(grades 9-12) 0.07 80 80 74 140 From Total Units Allowed High school(grades 9-12) 0.07 129 129 �209 �253 *In the Cupertino Union School District Sources:Enrollment Projection Consultants and City of Cupertino 45 FHUSD total housing Table 5-3 units by alternative Enroliment by School Attendance Areas-FUHSD New Housing Units in the City of Cupertino By 2023 Total Units Enrollment Units Enrollment District Total Existin Conditions 1,140 80 1,845 129 A-Minimal Growth 1,140 80 1,845 129 B-Moderate Growth 1,060 74 �-9£�2.972 �85209 C-Most Growth 1,993 140 �3 601 �253 *Enrollment capacity is equal to the number of classrooms times the average student generation rate of recent projects. The totals are not always exactly the numbers in the priortable due to rounding. Sources:City of Cupertino and Schoolhouse Services October 1,2014 � Page 29 �..� ��^9��"wu�`��n�� t"�,�"�� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 51 FHUSD total costs Table 5-8 by alternative Costs of Additional Capacity perAlternative-FUHSD Students Costs Total Students Costs by 2023 (in millions) (in millions) Existing Conditions 80 $5.57 129 $8.98 A-Minimal Growth 80 $5.57 129 $8.98 B-Moderate Growth 74 $5.15 �209 r,� 14.55 C-Most Growth 140 $9.75 �253 c�� 17.61 Source: Schoolhouse Services 5Z FHUSD total fees by Table 5-9 alternative Development Impact Fee Revenue-FUHSD Units Revenues Total Revenues by 2023 (in millions) Units (in millions) Existing Conditions 1,140 $1.55 1,845 $2.51 A-Minimal Growth 1,140 $1.55 1,845 $2.51 B-Moderate Growth 1,060 $1.44 �2.976 �4-94 4.06 C-Most Growth 1,993 $2.72 �3,601 r . 4.91 Source: Schoolhouse Services 53 FHUSD total Table 5-10 fees/costs by Development Impact Fees Versus Facilities Costs(in$millions)-FUHSD* alternative Units by 2023 Total Units Cost Revenue Net Cost Cost Revenue Net Cost Existing Conditions $5.57 $1.55 $4.02 $8.98 $2.51 $6.47 A-Minimal Growth $5.57 $1.55 $4.02 $8.98 $2.51 $6.47 B-Moderate Growth $5.15 $1.44 $3.71 �4-4� 14.55 �4-94 4.06 c'� 10.49 C-Most Growth $9.75 $2.72 $7.03 t'� 17.61 �4-98 4.91 c'� 12.70 *Both fee revenue and facilities costs are one-time,rather than annual,estimates. October 1,2014 � Page 30 " � �� Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change Source: Schoolhouse Services 53 FHUSD total costs Table 5-12 by alternative Annual Operating Costs—FUHSD U n its Costs Tota I Costs by 2023 (in millions) Units (in millions) Existing Conditions 80 $0.86 129 $1.39 A-Minimal Growth 80 $0.86 129 $1.39 B-Moderate Growth 74 $0.80 �209 �-� 2.26 C-Most Growth 140 $1.51 �253 �2� 2.73 Source: Schoolhouse Services 54 FHUSD total taxes by alternative Table 5-13 PropertyTax Revenues-FUHSD Units Revenue Total Revenue by 2023 (in millions) Units (in millions) Existing Conditions 1,140 $1.16 1,845 $1.88 A-Minimal Growth 1,140 $1.16 1,845 $1.88 B-Moderate Growth 1,060 $1.08 �€2 972 $3.03 C-Most Growth 1,993 $2.03 �3.601 $3.67 Source: Schoolhouse Services October 1,2014 � Page 31 � �.�� _�� , � Table 1:Supplemental Text Revisions to the Final EIR Page No. Issue/Topic Revised Text/Change 55 FHUSD total costs Table 5-15 by alternative Total Annual Operating Revenues versus Costs(in Millions)—FUHSD Units by 2023 Total Units Revenue Costs Net Revenue Costs Net Existing Conditions $1.33 $0.86 $0.47 $2.16 $1.39 $0.77 A-Minimal Growth $1.33 $0.86 $0.47 $2.16 $1.39 $0.77 B-Moderate Growth $1.24 $0.80 $0.44 $3.48 �?�5 2.26 �' "�' " �1Z��1Z_Z C-Most Growth $2.34 $1.51 $0.83 $4.21 �� 2.73 ��49 1.48 Source: Schoolhouse Services October 1,2014 � Page 32 ',.� OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 408 777-3308• FAX(408)777-3333 CURERTINt) ( ) - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.1 Agenda Date: September 9,2014 Application: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02,Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-03) Applicant:Cify of Cupertino Properfy Location:City-wide � SUBJECT Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive this report and comments on the Final EIR. The Final EIR consists of the Response to Comments (RTC) Document, published in August 2014(Attachment 1), and the Draft EIR published in june 2014 (Attachment 2). This is a study session and no action is required at this time. DISCUSSION Background On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate replenishing citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocation. During the same time frame, several property owners,including some owners within the Vallco Shopping District, approached the City about potential General Plan amendments to allow future development of their properties. In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, in early 2013, the City Council directed staff to combine these individual requests into one comprehensive General Plan Amendment. In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan, identifies appropriate locations and policies for future housing in Cupertino. General Plan Amendment,Housing ElemenE Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 2 The City Council decided to combine the Housing Element Update process with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss mobility, urban design, economic development, and housing options in one comprehensive outreach and plaruzing process. The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussions and input provided during several public meetings, workshops, sfudy sessions, and through online comment forms and surveys. The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City's 2000- 2020 General Plan. � Environmental Im�act Report The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have discretionary authority. A Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project but to provide information.to be used in the planning and decision-making process. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the environmental effects, along with other factors. The EIR for the proposed Project evaluates three land use alternatives (Alternative A, B and C) , for a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives consist of options for city-wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for Major Mixed-Use Special Areas, seven Study Areas, and Other Special Areas. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the General Plan goals, policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005. CEQA Project Alternative C includes the maximum developmenf ultensity considered;therefore, for purposes of studying the significant environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update, Alternative C is the proposed Project for purposes of the EIR. In this Alternative, the new growth for the 2040 horizon year studied is 4,040,231 square feet of office space, 1,343,679 square feet of commercial space, 1,339 hotel rooms, and 4,421 residential units.The proposed Project could result in up to 12,9981 new residents and 16,855 new jobs.z 1 Population is calculated by multiplying the number of residential units times 2.94 persons per household,which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. 2 jobs are calculated applying the City's generation rates as follows; C4040231 sc�.ft. 1 ( 1343679 sc�.ft. 1 1339 rooms 300 sq.ft./employeeJ+\450 sq.ft./employee/+�0.3 employee/room -13,467+2,986+402=16,855 Jobs General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 3 Under the proposed Project, the total 2040 buildout (existing conditions plus proposed Project) would be as follows: ■ Office: 12,970,005 square feet ■ Commercial: 5,073,248 square feet ■ Hotel:2,429 rooms ■ Residential:25,820 units ■ Population: 71,300 ■ Jobs:44,242 Table 1 provides a summary of the total development allocation projections in Alternative C. TABLE 1 ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED PROJECT)SUMMARY—ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS ------------------ ---- ----.._._._._..__........-------- --._.......--........- -- I�emaining Proposed AllocaEion Project Difference Special Areas including Gateways/Nodes along major transportation corridors,Study Areas and Housing Element Sitesa _...-------------- --.—........._......................---- — Office 17,113 sf 3,290,000 sf +3,272,887 sf Commercial 695,629 sf 1,250,000 sf +554,371 sf ---..._..-----------....------ --------�-------�—��--------------�- -- Hotel 339 room 1,339 rooms +1,000 rooms . Residential 1,416 units 3,900 units +2,484 units Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas and Housing Element Sitesb Office 523,118 sf 750,231 sf +227,113 sf ------------------ --------------- Commercial 5,784 sf 93,679 sf +87,895 sf ---......._........................._._...._........._......................._...................__....--------.._..._........-----...------.._..----�--�---�--------------�----------- ---._................_.......--....... Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms Residential 479 units 521 units +42 units --._...------------ -----------------�-------- Total Built/ Approved —.._....---------------...------.._..---- Office 8,929,774 sf 540,231 sf 4,040,231 sf +3,500,000 sf Commercial 3,729,569 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf +642,266 sf� - — -- ---------------------- ------ Hotel 1,090 rooms 339 rooms 1,339 rooms +1,000 rooms -_ _-------------._.....__._...._........_....._..---........_...._..._._......_..----........._..........._.........._..............._...--......--- ----.._......---...--------------- Residential 21,399 units 1,895 units 4,421 units +2,526 units Note:sf=square feet a. Includes Homestead,North Vallco Park,Heart of fl1e City,North De Anza,and South De Anza Major Mixed-Use Special Areas. b. Includes Bubb Road Mixed-Use Special Area,Monta Vista Village,Other Commercial/Mixed-Use Special Areas,Other Neighborhoods,Major Employers Category,and Housing Element Sites. c. Net new commercial is not proposed.This number assumes that the existing Vallco Shopping Mall square footage(1,267,601 s fl will be demolished and will go back into the City-wide commercial allocation pool.A total of 625,335 sf would be reserved for a future project in the Vallco district. Source:City of Cupertino,2014. General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 4 The EIIZ also studies an update to the General Plan's Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period and meet the City's fair-share housing obligation of 1,064 units. As part of this process, the following zoning amendments wottld be made: ■ Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) will be amended to be consistent with the 2007-2014 Housing Element Program 12 (Density Sonus Program); ■ Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.76 (Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building(BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones), and Chapter 19.92 (Park and Recreation Zones) will be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertauling to the permanent emergency shelters; ■ Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones) will also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to farmworker housing and employee housing. Changes proposed to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zonuzg text and Zoning map are proposed to achieve internal consistency as a result of changes to the following: ■ Housing Element policies that are (1) required by State Law or (2) adopted by the City Council as a result the Project, ■ Changes to General Plan Policy to address changes required as a result of recently adopted State Law(such as Assembly Bi111358, Complete Streets) ■ As a result of bringing non-conforming land use into conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance or for formatting or reorganizing the text. Alternatives In addition to the CEQA-required No Project alternative, the EIR also includes an analysis of two land use alternatives to the Proposed Project described above. These alternatives analyze the significant environmental impacts for lesser development ultensities than the Proposed Project. ■ The No Project alternative envisions no change to the current General Plan and no changes to the remaining development allocation. No changes to the residential density would be allowed on any property. ■ In Alternative A, the proposed development intensity includes an increase uz the office and hotel allocations but no increase in residential allocation. No increase in commercial allocation is proposed in Alternative A. In Alternative A,it is expected that some portions of the Vallco Shopping Mall may be re-tenanted or re-purposed. In addition, no maximum height increases are proposed under this Alternative. Residential density would be increased in the South De Anza Specific Plan area(south of Highway 85.) ■ In Alternative B, increases u1 office, hotel and residential development allocations are proposed more than those studied in Alternative A. It is expected that the existing Vallco General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 5 Shopping Mall would be demolished and returned to the commercial allocation pool. No increase in commercial allocation is proposed in this alternative. Under this Alternative, the proposed maximum height limits are less than those of the proposed Project. Residential density would be increased in certain areas of the City but to densities less than those proposed in the Project. The proposed development intensity in the alternatives to the proposed Project are presented in Table 2 below. TABLE 2 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON SUMMARY BY PROPOSED NEW I�EVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS Proposed Project No Land Use Land Use Category (AlternaEive C) Projecta Alternative A Alternative B Office 4,040,231 sf 540,231 sf 1,040,231 sf 2,540,231 sf Commercial 1,343,679 sf 701,413 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf Hotel 1,339 rooms 339 rooms 600 rooms 839 rooms Residential 4,421 units 1,895 units 1,895 units 3,316 units Populationb 12,998 5,571 5,571 9,749 Jobs 16,855� 3,461d 5,206e 11,705f Notes:sf=square feet a.No Project represents remaining development allocation under the existing 2000-2020 General Plan. b.Population is calculated by multiplying the number of residential units studied in each alternative by 2.94 persons per household,which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate. c.Jobs are calculated applying the City's employee generation rates for each category as follows; C4040231 sq.ft. 1 1343679 sc�.ft. 1 ( 1339 rooms 300 sq.ft./employee/+�450 sq.ft./employee/+`0.3 employee/room —13,467+2,986+402=16,855 Jobs d.Jobs are calculated applying the Cify's employee generation rates for each category as follows; C540231 sq.ft. ( 701413 sq.ft. 1 ( 339 rooms 1 300 sq.ft./employee)+\450 sq.ft./employeeJ+\0.3 employee/room/—1,801+1,559+101=3,461 Jobs e.Jobs are calculated applying the City's employee generation rates for each category as follows; ( 1040231 sc�.Et. 701413 sc�.ft. 1 r 600 rooms 300 sq.ft./employee)+(450 sq.ft./employee/+`0.3 employee/room —3,467+1,559+180=5,206 Jobs f.Jobs are calculated applying the City's employee generation rates for each category as follows; 2540231 sq.ft. 1343670 sc�.fE. 839 rooms 300 sq.ft./employee + 450 sq.ft./employee + 0.3 employee/room —8'467+2,986+252=11,705 Jobs Source:City of Cupertino,2014. Program EIR As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria. In this case, this proposed Project consists of long-term plans that will be implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City General Plan Amendment,Housing ElemenE Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 6 actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level EIR that analyzes the potential significant environmental effects of adoption of the proposed Project. As a program EIR, the EIR prepared is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed under the General Plan. However, if future, proposed activities are within scope of the effects examined in the program EIR, then additional environmental review may not be required for those future projects. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c] and CEQA streamlining provisions.) If a subsequent activity,which is not exempt from CEQA,would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, then the City will prepare an environmental checklist or I�Zitial Study to determine what form of environmental review is required by CEQA,which could be a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or an Addendum, to secure the necessary development permits. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this Program EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis. The program EIR can also serve to streamline future environmental review of subsequent projects. Therefore,while subsequent environmental review may be tiered from this EIR,this EIR is not intended to address project-specific impacts of individual projects. The growth and development studied under the proposed Project would be gradual over the 26-year buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore,while the unpacts identified as a result of implementation of the proposed Project may be significant and unavoidable in the cumulative scenario (2040), even if no action is taken or no additional growth is contemplated, regional growth, growth permitted under the provisions of the current 2000-2020 General Plan, and the associated environmental effects linked to this growth, would continue to occur resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Future growth under all of the land use alternatives studied in this program EIR would occur incrementally over approximately 26 years and would be b ided by a policy framework that is generally consistent with many of the pruZcipal goals and objectives established in regional plaruling initiatives for the Bay Area, which concentrates new development within infill sites and near major transportation corridors. The EIR created as a result of review under CEQA must disclose the significant environmental impacts of the project and,in addition,identify the following: ■ Sib ificant cumulative impacts of the project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable fufure projects; ■ Mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce these effects; ■ Significant impacts that cannot be avoided; ■ Growth-inducing impacts; and ■ Effects found not to be significant. Prior to approving the proposed Project, the Planning Coinmission must decide whether to recommend that the City Council certify that the Fuial EIR was prepared in compliance with General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 7 CEQA and whether to recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Since this is a study session, an action is not required at this time. The City Council will review the Final EIR for adequacy and will exercise its independent judgment regarding certification. If the Council certifies the Final EIR, it will then consider whether to approve the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. As part of this approval, findings on the feasibility of reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects will be made, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project against is unavoidable environmental risks. EIR Process and Public Outreach The EIR process started with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse, interested agencies and persons on March 5, 2014 for a 30-day review period. A public Scoping Meetulg was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. at the Cupertiilo Community Hall. The NOP and scoping process solicited comments from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties regarding the scope of the Draft EIR. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, of the Draft EIR contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City in response to the NOP. 'The City also established a website for the Project in early 2013 where all project-related documents including the Draft EIR and comments on the Project and the EIR were posted for public review. Following the preparation of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was issued to the OPR State Clearinghouse, interested agencies and persons, as well as the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder for a 45-day review period from Wednesday, June 18, 2014 through Friday, August 1,2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for review to interested parties at: ■ 10 public libraries in Cupertino and the surrounding area, ■ Cupertino City Hall at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, and ■ Project's website at:htt�://www.cu�ertinog�a.or� Postcards were mailed to all postal customers in the City of Cupertino and a notice was also published 'u1 the Cupertino Courier. A public meetulg was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. at the Cupertino Community Hall to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The public was encouraged to provide written input regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Several comment letters were received durulg the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR. Responses to the written comments received during that period regard'u1g the adequacy of the Draft EIR have been prepared and compiled in the RTC document along with minor text revisions, corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. The RTC document together with the Draft EIR is considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project. General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 8 The RTC document was posted on the Project website on August 29, 2014. The NOA for the Final EIR has been made available at the Ciiy Hall, sent to 10 local libraries and to the agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. A notice was also published in the Cupertino Courier and an email was sent to all interested persons who had signed up through the website. Ke�Si�zificance Findin�s And Miti ations Revised Table 2-2, Suinmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the RTC document, along with Table 2-2 of the Draft EIR summarize all significant Project impacts and mitigation measures. The list of mitigation measures does not include existing requirements (such as compliance with mandatory regulation (e.g. General Plan policies, zoning regulations) that are routinely applied to new development. This staff report highlights key findings only. The EIR has identified mitigation measures for all significant impacts. However, even with mitigation, some significant impacts would remain significant and have been determined to be significant and unavoidable. In some cases, the significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation measures require approval from a public agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g. the City of Sa�.1ta Clara, Caltrans, etc.) and are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. If approval is not granted by that agency for implementation of the mitigation measure, the significant impact would remain and would, therefore, be considered significant and unavoidable. In other cases, a significant impact is unavoidable because the significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though mitigation measures have been identified to minimize/reduce the impact. A detailed discussion of the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, as well as significant and unavoidable impacts, and mitigation measures and alternatives identified to lessen or avoid these impacts where feasible is provided in the Draft EIR(Attachment 2). This section highlights key findings for cumulative impacts of the development proposed. Details are provided in the EIR. 1. Aesthetics The land use or intensity changes proposed under the Project do not represent a substantial reimagining of the character of the Project Component locations including those within the I- 280 viewshed. This is primarily because the existing conditions at these locations are largely urbanized and built out. The potential future development under the proposed Project would primarily ulvolve gradual changes in development ultensity similar to existing buildings, albeit with increased building height potential in limited locations. New and/or intensified uses as a result of the proposed Project would be dispersed within the Project Component locations and would occur gradually throughout the 26-year buildout horizon of the General Plan. The General Plan policies are an integral, inseparable component of the proposed Project, and amended policies under the proposed Project would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic unpacts in Cupertino. I�Zdividual developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions. General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014� Page 9 Additionally, the increases in heights are proposed in Planned Development areas where individual projects would also be subject to the Architectural and Site Review process as well as the Design Standards outlined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the South Vallco Specific Plan, and other applicable Conceptual Plans to ensure that the development is aesthetically _ pleasing and compatible with adjoining land uses with appropriate setbacks. With fhe development review mechanisms in place, approved future development under the proposed Project is not anticipated to create substantial impacts to visual resources. Moreover, certain policy changes would serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing developments. Therefore,the General Plan policy amendments under the proposed Project were determined to result in less-tlian-significant impacts to aesthetics. 2. Air Quality Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts. The proposed Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan; � however, the buildout of the proposed Project would conflict with the Bay Area Air Qualify Management District (BAAQMD) Bay Area Clean Air Plan goal for community-wide vehicles miles traveled (VMT) to increase at a slower rate compared to population and employment growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of population and employment growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria air pollutant emissions in Cupertino. The Plan Bay Area aims to improve transportation efficiency and reduce regional infrastructure costs in the region. Policies and development standards in the proposed Project would facilitate continued City participation/cooperation with BAAQMD and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promote energy conservation design and development techniques, encourage alternative transportation modes, and implement iransportation demand management strategies. In addition, future projects under the proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions during operation and construction phases that could exceed SAAQMD's significance criteria. a. Operational Emissions: Future development under the proposed Project would (result in a substantial long-term increase in criteria air pollutants over the 26-year General Plan horizon. Criteria air pollutant emissions would be generated from on-site area sources (e.g. fuel used for landscaping equipment, consumer products), vehicle trips generated by the Project, and energy use (e.g. natural gas used for cooking and heating). While the General Plan includes policies and strategies that once adopted would reduce operational emissions from development under the proposed Project to fihe'maximum extent practicable, there are no additional measures available to mitigate this impact due to the level of growth forecast in the city. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a, for new sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), would also reduce criteria air pollutants associated with light industrial land uses within the General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 10 city. Operational emissions from future development would be determined during project-level CEQA review for future projects. The total criteria air pollutant emissions from operation of future development projects under the proposed Project would be substantial and would contribute to increases in concentrations of air pollutants, which could contribute to ongoing violations of air quality standards. Therefore,the impact would be significant and unavoidable. b. Construction Emissions: Future construction emissions associated with individual development projects under the proposed Project would generate an increase in criteria air pollutants and TACs. Existing federal, State, and local regulations, and policies and strategies of the proposed Project described in the Draft EIR, protect local and regional air quality. Continued compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan policies and strategies, would reduce construction-related impacts to the extent feasible.However,if uncontrolled, fugitive dust(PM�o and PMz.$) levels downwind of actively disturbed areas during construction or overlapping construction activities could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of pollutants during construction activities. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2a would require adherence to the current Say Area Air Quality Management District's basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM�o, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2b would require adherence to BAAQMD's basic control measures for fugitive dust control and would ensure impacts from fugitive dust generated during construction activities are less than significant, applicants for future development in Cupertino could generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of, the BAAQMD significance thresholds. An analysis of emissions generated from the construction of specific future projects under the General Plan would be required to evaluate emissions compared to BAAQMD's project-level significance thresholds during individual environmental review. It should be noted that the identification of these program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criteria or meet applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the due to the level of growfih forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the proposed Project, no additional mitigation measures are available and air quality impacts are considered sig�iifica�it and u�iavoidable. 3. Cultural Resources There are 22 recorded cultural resources within the City of Cupertino and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) that are documented on the California Office of Historic Preservation's (OHP) recording forms. As of March 2011, there were 13 properties listed in the OHP's Directory of Historic Properties. Additionally, the City has identified 371ocally important cultural resources in the current General Plan. Although, most of the 37 sites have not been evaluated for listing on the National Register or State Register,they are still recognized as sites to be protected Lulder General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 11 the current General Plan. The properties considered locally important are unique to the lists where they appear, which include Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks, and Sites of Historic Mention. The sites of Historic Mention are sites outside of the City's jurisdiction, but still recognized as locally important to Cupertino. As part of the General Plan Amendment, the Seven Springs Railch, built ii1 1866 and located at 11801 Dorothy Anne Way uz Cupertino, and listed on the Office of Historic Preservation Directory Listings,would be added to the City's list of Historically Significant Resources. This site has been nominated for inclusion in the National Register; however, it is not currently listed in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. As discussed in Chapter 4.4,Cultural Resources,several of the identified historical resources are within the boundaries of some Project Component locations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources, by increasing commercial, office, hotel, and residential development allocations and providing for potential new development. However, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize potential impacts to historic resources. Impleinentation of these General Plan policies and strategies, as well as compliance with federal and State laws, would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property with cultural resources or improvements in the vicinity of pro�erty with cultural resources, and impacts were found to be less thafi significant. 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As explained in Chapter 4.6 of the EIR,the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change are evaluated on a cumulative basis, because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of greenhouse gases. The EIR uses the methodology recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for evaluating the impacts of plan-level projects like the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update. The General Plan includes polices and strategies that encourage use of alternative modes of transportation and focus new growth in mixed-use areas. The proposed Project is consistent with the objectives of Plan Bay Area for growth within the Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Plan - Plan Bay Area. In addition, a General Plan is a regulatory document and does not directly result in development without further approvals. Any development in the city is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that the City is on a trajectory that is consistent with sfatewide greenhouse gas reduction goals. Accordingly,impacts were found to be less than significant. General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 12 5. Noise As a result of implementation of the proposed Project and ongoing regional growth, it is anticipated that there would be substantial permanent increases to the ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino, and that these increases would primarily result from uzcreases to transportation-related noise, especially that of automobile traffic. The impact analysis found that there would be multiple major road segments that would experience substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels,including at sensitive land uses. While the General Plan contains numerous policies to address excessive roadway noise at existing sensitive land uses, which could in certain cases reduce or prevent significant increases in ambient noise at sensitive land uses due to the proposed Project, the measures described in these policies would not be necessarily be feasible in all locations or contexts. For example, some of the most effective noise-attenuation measures, including sound walls and berms, are inappropriate along streets with commercial or residential street frontage (due to financial and aesthetic considerations, and negative impacts to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity), and therefore would be infeasible or inappropriate u1 a majority of locations where sensitive land uses already exist. For these reasons, there is no feasible mitigation that would substantially reduce or avoid significant increases in ambient noise levels, because in most cases all identified mitigations would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable, outside the City's jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City plaiuzing goals and objectives. Therefore, the noise impacts of the Proposed Project would remain significant and u�zavoidable impact. 6. Population and Housing The proposed Project would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Growth under the proposed Project would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 26 years and would be guided by the policy framework in the proposed Project that is generally consistent with most of the principal goals and objectives established in regional plaruzing initiatives for the Bay Area. One of the key concepts of Plan Bay Area is the idea of focusing future growth into transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within exisfing communities that are expected to host the majority of future development. These areas are called Priority Development Areas (PDA). The PDAs in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa Clara, and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Soulevard and the City of Sunnyvale. These coincide with the Heart of the City and North De Anza Special Areas, portions of the Homestead and South De Anza Special Areas, and include three Study Areas and eleven potential Housing Element sites. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate infill growth and support regional plarululg efforts. Growth due to the proposed Project together with cumulative growth General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 13 would be consistent with regional planning efforts, and would not exceed regional growth projections, displace substantial numbers of people or housing, or exceed planned levels of growth.Therefore,the impact would be less than significant. 7. Transportation and Traffic a. Intersection Analysis ' The EIR included an analysis of forty-one (4lstudy intersections, all of which are signalized. Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, describes the traffic conditions that would result with the addition of the frips generated by the development under the proposed Project on the local roadway network, compared to traffic conditions with the 2040 No Project scenario. The roadway network is assumed to be the same as under the 2040 No Project scenario. The results of the Level of Service (LOS) analysis show that, of the forty-one (41) study intersections, twenty-five (25) intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under the proposed Project and sixteen (16) intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM peak hour (7:00 a.m. —10:00 a.m.), the PM peak hour (4:00 p.m.— 7:00 p.m.),or both peak hours. Eleven(11) of the sixteen(16) intersections expected to operate at unacceptable LOS are included in Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program � (CMP). Five (5) of the sixteen (16) intersections (shown with an asterisk[�']) that would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least one peak hour under the proposed Project were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service under the No Project scenario. The following is a list of the sixteen (16) intersections that would result in a significant impact during at least one of the peak hours: Intersection(#) LOS Peak Hour 1. SR 85 Northbound Ramps&Stevens Creek Blvd (#2) (CMP) E AM 2. Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd(#3) (CMP) F PM 3. "'Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd/De Anza Blvd&Homestead Rd(#5) (CMP) � F AM and PM 4. *De Anza Blvd&I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6) (CMP) F AM and PM 5. De Anza Blvd&I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7) (CMP) F AM and PM 6. *De Anza Blvd&Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8) (CMP) F PM 7. De Anza Blvd&McClellan Rd/Pacifica Dr(#9) F PM 8. Wolfe Rd&Homestead Rd (#16) F PM 9. *Wolfe Rd&I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18) (CMP) F AM 10. Wolfe Rd&I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19) (CMP) F AM and PM 11. *Stevens Creek Blvd&Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave(#21) (CMP) E+ AM 12. North Tantau Ave/Quail Ave&Homestead Rd(#24) ' E(E+) AM(PM) 13. Stevens Creek Blvd&Tantau Ave(#27) F PM 14. Agilent Tech Drive Way&Stevens Creek Blvd (#30) . F AM 15. Lawrence Expy Southbound Ramp &Stevens Creek Blvd(#31) (CMP) F AM 16. Stevens Creek Blvd&Lawrence Expy Northbound Ramp (#32) (CMP) F AM General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 14 b. Freeway Segment Analysis Ten (10) freeway segments were analyzed for impacts due to implementation of the Project. If the existing level of service is LOS F and the number of net new trips added by the project is more than 1 percent of freeway capacity in that segment,there would be a significant impact. Under the proposed Project, one (1) of the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lane segments and the following five (5) mixed-lane freeway segments would have significant impacts: 1. SR 85 Southbound between I-280 and Stevens Creek Blvd (+2.7%). 2. I-280 Southbound between Lawrence Exwy and Saratoga Ave (+2.2%) 3. I-280 Northbound between Saratoga Ave and Lawrence Exwy (+1.3%) 4. I-280 Northbound between Wolfe Rd and De Anza Blvd(+1.7%) 5. I-280 Northbound between De Anza Blvd and SR 85 (mixed-flow lanes &HOV lane) (+1.2%) A mitigation measure has been identified to reduce impacts at these intersections and freeway segments. The mitigation measure requires the City to prepare and implement a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the preparation of the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a "nexus" study to establish nexus between the improvements identified and the fee established. The EIR identifies examples of transportation improvements and facilities that would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service standards and these, among other improvements, including multimodal improvements that reduce automobile trips and relieve congestion that could be included in the development impact fees nexus study. ■ SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): An exclusive left-turn lane for the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off-ramp) at fihe intersection of SR 85 a�zd Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left=turn lane, one all-movement lane, and one right iurn lane. The additional lane could be added within the existir►g 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 tunl 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 , General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 15 be required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlled by the traffic signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights. The pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience. ■ De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/1'acifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection that is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timuZg 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-tum 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, ai1 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 Hoinestead Road.An additional eastbound through lane for a total of three through-movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead eastbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of an eastbound exclusive left-turn lane for a total of two left-turn lanes may be required. These improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas. ■ Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General Plan development. This could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing.Right- of-way acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report (PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which may include widening the overcrossing and may include redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the right lane,which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency. ■ Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbotuld 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 General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 16 separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance the bicycling experience. ■ North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): Restriping of the southbound leg of the intersection(Quail Avenue)to provide a separate left turn lane may be required. This will require the removal of on-street parking near the intersection. The level- of-service calculations show that with implementation of these improvements, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D. ■ Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): The addition of a separate left-turn lane to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolition of existing commercial buildings would be required. ■ Stevens Creek Soulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): The restriping of the westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance the bicycling experience. ■ Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#31): The addition of a second right-turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required. Soth lanes would need to be controlled by the signal, and disallow right turns on red. Right- of-way acquisition may be required. ■ Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through-movement lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane may be required. Right-of-way acquisition would be required. The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The City shall use the transportation mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate transportation impacts. While implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on then current standards, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable,because the City cannot guarantee improvements at these intersections at this time. General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 17 The exact type and timing of required transportation improvements are pending the timing and phasing of future development projects in Cupertino. 8. Utilities and Service Systems a. Water Su�}�lv A Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project on May 20, 2014 concluded that there would be adequate water within the water utility service areas of Cal Water and San Jose Water Company for the proposed project during a single-dry year and multiple-dry years with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. Thus, water supply impacts were found to be less t]ian significant. b. Wastewater Treatment While the current General Plan recognizes existing system deficiencies in both the Cupertino Sanitary District(CSD) and City of Sunnyvale wastewater service areas and includes policies to address this issue, potential future development under the proposed Project would exceed the current contractually available treatment capacity at San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP) by 0.85 million gallons per day. Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6bhave been identified to ensure that CSD has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Implementation of these mitigation measures requires the City to work with the CSD to increase the available citywide treatxnent and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying reduced wastewater generation rates are completed and accepted. With implementation of these mitigation measures, wastewater treatment impacts were found to be less than sig�iificant. c. Solid Waste Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-tlian-sigrzifica�it impact on the achievement of the City's target disposal rates, and the City would continue its current recyclulg ordinances and zero-waste policies. Nevertheless, the 2023 fermulation of the agreement between the Newby Island Landfill facility, as well as the facility's estimated closure date in 2025 would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at buildout of the proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, which requires the City to continue its current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies in an effort to further increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate, monitor solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate fufure growth, and seek new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed, would result in less-tlian-significant impacts to solid waste disposal capacity. d. Ener�,v Future new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, use new modern appliances and equipment, and would comply with the current CALGreen Building Code, which requires the use of recycled General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 18 construction materials, environmentally sustainabTe building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems. In addition, there are several General Plan policies and strategies �11at once adopted would ensure energy conservation is practiced in Cupertino. Buildout of the proposed Project would not significantly increase energy demands in the context of the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for elecfricity and natural gas generation, transmission and distribution. As a result, new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastrucfure, or capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities,would not be required and impacts would be less tlian significant. Project Alternatives In addition to the proposed Project, the Draft EIR evaluated three Project alternatives, including the CEQA-mandated No Project Alternative as previously discussed. T'he alternatives were intended to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project while avoiding or lessening any of the significant effects of the Project. Each of the Alternatives was analyzed at the same level of detail, independent of the proposed Project. Recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would apply to all alternatives.Furthermore, compliance with mandatory federal, State and local regulations, including both existing and proposed General Plan policies, designed to reduce environmental impacts would also apply to all future development in Cupertino. The Table 3 shows a comparison of impacts from the Project Alternatives in each of the areas of study in the EIR. Within each area of study, specific impacts have been studied. Even if one impact has been identified as significant and unavoidable, Table 3 identifies the impact in this entire area of study as significant and unavoidable. TABLE 3 COMPAliISON OF IMPACTS FROM PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Proposed ProjecE No Land Use Land Use Topic (Alternative C) Project Alternative A Alternative B -- �-�--------------------------- -----------....._.....-..._ Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS LTS ------ — ------------------ — - Air Quality SU SU SU SU Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Cultural Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS �- --------------------------...................................._............._.._..__.._..-------- --------------- ------------- Geology,Soils,And Mineral Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS --------......._..-- ------.._.__._...._.............................._.................._........------- -------------- — Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS LTS LTS LTS --- ----...---..._....--------.._........_....__....._......._._.............__..........-...._...__...- ---- Hazards And Hazardous Materials LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M ------...._...._....._._......_..._.._..._...._.._............................_...._.........__......._.._._............_....--....--- -- Hydrology And Water Quality LTS LTS LTS LTS � -- --- -- ------ --------------- --- Land Use And Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS ----...._.........._...---- -- --- - Noise SU SU SU SU Population And Housing LTS LTS LTS LTS Public Services And Recreation LTS LTS LTS LTS ---------------- ------------ ---------- -- ---- Transportation And Traffic SU SU SU SU -------....._..........._.._.......__............_................_....._......_.._.........._....._..._...._....._......._..........._..----.......---._._....--------- UtiliEies And Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Note:SU=Significant and UnavoidaUle;LTS=Less Than Significant;LTS/M=Less Than Significant with mifigation General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 19 A comparison table of the specific impacts within each area of study is provided in Attachment 2 (Draft EIR Volume II Chapter 5.0 Page 5.7—5.15.) Table 5.3 u1 the Draft EIR indicates that future development under Land Use Alternative B would result u1 a less-than-significant conclusion under Impact AQ-1 (Air Quality), whereas under the other three alternatives were found to be significant and unavoidable. This is because development anticipated under Land Use Alternative B would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan based on the outcome of the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis.3 The VMT estimates in the VTA model are sensitive to changes in land use. Generally, land uses that reflect a more balanced jobs- housing ratio in the VTA model result in lower per capita VMT. The BAAQMD's 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan requires that the VMT increase be less than or equal to the projected population increase and of the proposed Project. The analysis indicates that daily VMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slower rate (22.3 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study Area (25.0 percent). Whereas in the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative, and in Alternative B, daily VMT would increase at a slightly greater rate between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study Area. The potential impacts of future development under the No Project Alternative would be substantially less than the proposed Project (Alternative C) followed by Alternative A and then Alternative B. This is because Alternatives A and B would reduce development allocations, population and jobs when compared to the Proposed Project,which would reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, production of waste and pollutants, and decreasing the demand for public facilities and infrastructure compared to the Proposed Project in proportion to the reduction in development proposed for Alternative A and Alternative B. However, the Draft EIR indicates that Significant and Unavoidable Impacts would occur even under the No Project Alternative with the growth assumptions in the current 2000-2020 General Plan. The EIR identifies Land Use Alternative A as the environmentally superior alternative,4 because less development would occur compared to both the proposed Project and Land Use Alternative B. Under Land Use Alternative A, no new office, commercial space or residential units would be permitted beyond what is approved in the current General Plan. Therefore, Alternative A is considered the environxnentally superior alternative. Subsequently, less development would result in the reduction of the consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources, and would place fewer demands on public service providers which could require new facilities, require fewer road, sewer, water, and energy infrastructure improvements, and generate less waste. 3 The vehicles miles traveled(VMT)refers to Cupertulo trips multiplied by the trip distances.See Section 4.13.4.9 in Chapter 4.13,Transportation and Traffic,of this Draft EIR. 4 CEQA requires that an alternative other than the No Project Alternative be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update,and associated Rezoning September 9,2014 Page 20 Res�onse to Comments and Text Revisions Six comment letters were received from public agencies and 19 comment letters were received from members of the general public during the 45-day review period of the Draft EIR. A majority of the comments were either in support of or opposition to the Project or concerned the merits of the Project itself, and did not address a significant environmental issue implicating the adequacy of the EIIZ. Comments received included comments on traffic, aesthetics and the impacts on utilities and public services (sanitary/sewer facilities and schools.) All comments received during the public review period and that raised a significant environmental issue have been addressed in the RTC document. Text revisions to clarify text in the Draft EIR and updates in response to comments have also been made. The revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft EIR. The RTC document and the Draft EIR together are considered to be the Final EIR for the proposed Project.Because no new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project were identified after circulation of the Draft EIR,recirculation of the EIR is not required. Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period. While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the public review period, staff will continue to provide responses to these comments. As of August 31, 2014, two comment letters were received. The comment letters received after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft EIR(see Attachment 3.) Next Ste�s Staff will present the Final EIR to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for review and recommendation on October 2, 2014. The Final EIR and General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on October 14,2014. The City Council's review on the certification of the EIR, General Plan Amendment, Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element, and associated rezoning is expected to be on November 3,2014. Pre�ared b�Piu Ghosh,Senior Planner Reviewed bv: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development A�proved for Submission b�Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1 -General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Response to Comments Document,August 29,2014 2- General Plan Amendment,Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report,June 18,2014 3—Late Comments Memo from P1aceWorks dated Sept. 4,2014 PAPER COPIES OF ATTACHMENTS 1 &2 WERE DELIVERED ON JUNE 18,2014 AND AUGUST 29,2014 RESPECTIVELY. THESE ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: � www.cu�ertino�a.or�and www.cu�ertino.org/records. ATTACHMENT 1: Response To Comments (RTC)Document: Click here. Appendix A To RTC Document Click here. A'TTACHMENT 2: Draft EIR Volume I: Click here. Draft EIR Volume II: Click here. Draft EIIZ Appendices: Click here. SHUTE� MIHALY �UEINBERGER �Lp 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 ELLEN J. GARBER T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 Attorney www.smwlaw.com garber@smwlaw.com � MEMORANDUM TO: Carol Korade, City Attorney FROM: Ellen J. Garber DATE: February 25, 2014 RE: Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 ("SB 50")1 preempts the issue of impacts of new development on school facilities. Therefore, if a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB 50, the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),2 no mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required, and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools or due to the inadequacy of school facilities. Hence, state law limits the City's discretion to (i) consider the effects of new development on the ability of schools to accommodate enrollment, (ii) require mitigation, and (iii) deny projects. A relatively recent case, Chawanakee Uiaified School DistYict v. Cou�zty of Madera (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1016, holds that development applications may be analyzed under CEQA, and mitigation may be required, if the potential impacts are indirectly caused by the operation or construction of schools on the non-school physical environment. 1 Gov. Code §§ 65995-65998 and Educ. Code §§ 17620-17621. , 2 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION I. SB 50 Pursuant to SB 50, which was enacted in 1998, impacts on school facilities are not to be considered in an EIR, and SB 50 fees constitute adequate mitigation of those impacts. As SB 50 states, payment of fees "shall be the exclusive method[] of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities," and"are . . . deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Gov. Code §§ 65996 (a) and (b). See Part II, below. In addition, A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable. Gov. Code § 65995(i). Even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, however, if the proposed development, including the school expansion it requires, would cause other environmental impacts—traffic or construction impacts, for example—then those impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA. This is discussed in Part III, below. II. Impacts of New Development On School Facilities SB 501imited the scope of CEQA analysis of impacts on school facilities, making the fees set forth in Goveinment Code section 65995 "the exclusive means of both `considering' and `mitigating' school facilities impacts of projects. The provisions of [S.B. 50] are `deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation."' Kostka &Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2012), § 14.28 (citations omitted). According to the Kostka&Zischke treatise, SB 50 appears to transform CEQA review of impacts on school facilities into a ministerial function after the applicant agrees to pay the required mitigation fees. Id., § 14.28 (concluding that the law limits not only mitigation but also the scope of the EIR).3 No case expressly reached 3 Cf. 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25.49, 25-213 to 25-214, fns. omitted ("SB 50 employs three primary means to preempt the field of development (footnote continued) S H U T E, M f H,�LY �>`-�WEINBERGER�� Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney . February 25, 2014 Page 3 this conclusion until the Chawanakee Unifced School District case, discussed below, but logic seemed to dictate this outcome based on the statutory language. Therefore, if a project applicant has agreed to pay school mitigation fees, the lead agency may not consider the following items in an EIR, nor deny the project based on these considerations: � • impacts on the physical structures at the school (on school grounds, school buildings, etc.) related to the ability to accommodate enrollment; • mitigation measures above and beyond the school mitigation fee ; • other non-fee mitigation measures the school district's ability to accommodate enrollment. � 3. Physical Effects on the Environment Because of School Facilities Despite the restrictions on environmental review and mitigation discussed above, SB 50 also states that"[n]othing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of land use approvals other than on the need for school facilities, as defined in this section." Gov. Code, § 65996(e). This leaves the agency free to reject a project based on impacts other than impacts on the need for "school facilities."4 Any number of impacts could fall outside of this definition; for example, impacts on wildlife in the development site, impacts on air quality, or inadequate water supply. fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities and to overturn [Mif�a and its progeny]. First, it provides for a cap on tlze a�nount of fees, clzarges, dedications oY otlzer requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 Yemoves denial authoYity from local agencies by prohibiting refusals to approve legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fee amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits nzitigation measures which can be required, under the California Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts `to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation [.]"' (emphasis in original). 4 SB 50 defines "school facilities" as "any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." Gov. Code § 65996(c). SHU,TE1 MIH.�LY �;'`�WEINSERGER��P Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 - Page 4 ' In 2011, the court in Chawanakee Unified Scliool Distf�ict carefully interpreted the statutory language of SB 50 and held that while an EII2 need not analyze the impacts on school facilities as a result of accommodating more students, the document must consider the impacts on traffic of additional students traveling to the school and consider other impacts to the non-school physical environment from construction of additional facilities. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028-1029.5 Courts have found the physical activities caused by school growth to be outside the definition of"school facilities," and therefore not shielded from review by SB 50. For example, as discussed above, Clzawa�zakee Unified School District interpreted the traffic associated with more students traveling to a school to be something other than impacts on school facilities, and therefore subject to review and mitigation under CEQA. Accordingly, traffic impacts resulting from more students traveling to the school, dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities, and any other impacts to the non-school physical environment were not impacts on "school facilities," and must be addressed in an EIR. According to the court in Clzawanakee: Consequently, the phrase `impacts on school facilities' used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory inteipretation . . . the prepositional phrase `on school facilities' limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical changes to the school grounds, school buildings and `any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment.' Therefore, the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 (internal citation omitted). Hence, the lead agency must determine whether impacts fall outside the definition of"school facilities," thereby making them subject to environmental review. In light of the Chawanakee case, however, the agency's discretion to conduct environmental review, to require mitigation, and to consider denying the would be limited to physical effects on the non-school environment. 5 While SB 50 was not at issue in this case, in City of Long Beaclz v. Los Angeles U�2ified Sclzool Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889 the court held that an EIR prepared in connection with the construction of a new school properly analyzed health and safety issues, air quality, traffic impacts, and land use issues. SHUTE, NIIHaLY �,'�-��X�E 1 N B E R G E R��P Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 5 I � Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction: � _ • traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school; • dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities; • effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on wildlife at the construction site; • effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality; • other "indirect effects" as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2) (growth-inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density, related effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Cliawa�iakee U�zified Scliool District, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029. CONCLUSION When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities. However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50. � 567716.2 ' S H U T E, Nl I H,�LY �;,`�--�K/E 1 N BERGER��P �� DATE September 30, 2014 To Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino FROM Steve Noack, PlaceWorks SUg1ECT General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)—Updated Late Comments Received after the 45-Day Comment Period Table 1, below, lists and provides a brief response to written comments that were received by the City on the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR after the close of the public comment period.The 45-day public comment period ended on August 1, 2014. This memo responds to comments received between August 2 through September 23, 2014.� These comments are reproduced at the end of this memo. No other late comments on the Draft EIR have been received as of the date of this memo. These comments do not contain "significant new information," as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5,which includes new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or information indicating that the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. No revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR. � This memo updates our September 3, 2014 memo that addressed late comments received through August 25, 2014. _i�2�5�at��r1�r��r'jc��, S�si�c��. [ t�erk�`�� I��f�rC��7�� #..�4�.'��.� � �I�c��u�ark�.c:c�rr� ' �� - ��'�� TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Type� Numberz Name Date Received Topic Response3 1 B LC-01 John Frey 818/2014 Traffic,Emergency Response,Schools, Impacts to traffic congestion are discussetl in Chapter Aesthetics(increasetl height) 4.13,Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional Growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5. Impacts to fire protection services,police services and schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services antl Recreation,beginning on pages 4.12-1,4.12-8 and 4.12-18,respectively. Impacts to public service providers were found to be less than significant. Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are discussetl 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. See Response to Comment B11-01 in ---.---- —.---.---..____.__._.______._._.---_..____.._.__.. _ . Chapter 5 of the Response to Comments Document. 2 B LC-02 Barbara Rogers 8/25/2014 Senior Housing:Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged. 3 B LC-03 Carlene Matchniff 91912014 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowletlged. 4 B LC-04 Dan Whisenhunt 9/8/2014 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.Please see the responses to letter B-16 in the August 28,2014 Response ta Comments Document. 5 B LC-05 Ruby Elbogen�� 9/12/2014 Water supply,schools Impacts schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services and Recreation,beginning on page 44.12-18. Impacts to schools were found to be less than significant. Impacts to water supply were tliscussed in Chapter 4.14, September 30,2014 � Page 2 �� : � TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Utilities and Service Systems,beginning on page 4.14-1. Water supply impacts were fountl to be less than significant. _ _--...---__.__----____ ---- ------..._--------�--------------._....._..______ _.__----...._________...__._.—._..___....-------�-----�----�--�------- 6 B LC-06 Ruby Elbogen 9I1612014 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged. 7 B LC-07 Sabrina Risk 9/16/2014 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged. ------ ------___ _ _ __ ___------�--------------- ----__.----- -....---- 8 B LC-08 Trish McAfee 9/1612014 Traffic Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13,Transportation and Tra�c,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5.With respect to parking,future development would be required to provide sufficient parking as required in Title 19,Zoning,Chapter 19.124, Parking Regulations of the Municipal Code. --------�..__..._ . _ —. _..._..._.._.......__.,.._..._..___..—._---�----- ---�-------------------- 9 B LC-09 Steve Hill 9/1612014 Traffic Impacts to all modes of transportation are discussed in � Chapter 4.13,Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5. Notes: 1.The comment"type°pertains lo the categories used to organize the comments submitted on the Draft EIR in the Response to Comments Document.Type A=Agencies and Service Providers and Type B=Private Individuals and Organizations; 2.The comment number LC=Late Comment. The Late Comment letters are attached to this memo. 3.The"response"column references responses provided in the Response to Comments Document,pubiished on August 28,2014. September 30,2014 � Page 3 . , c . ., . a� �� -.. ��. From:John Frey[mailto:johnfreyca a�comcast.net] Sent: Monday,August 18, 2014 9:58 PM To: City Council Subject: Growth and the straining of our services. Dear Honorable City Council Members, I am writing you on my concerns about our growth and strauung of our services. I have lived in Cupertino for approximately 22 years and grew up in Mtn.View/ Palo Alto. I have firsthand witnessed how Silicon Valley changed from the orchards I rode my bike though to the concrete jungle we now live in. I truly understand businesses need to grow and that they provide valuable tax revenue to Cupertino. But when I see our businesses being bulldozed then replaced with buildings��ith businesses on the bottoin and APARTMENTS / CONDOS above them,it is a bit upsetting. Is our City Planninb strategy to become like San Francisco or San Jose? Or are we going to make Cupertino one of the most balanced Cities in Santa Clara? Where businesses are welcoined and residents have a safe beautiful neighborhood to raise their children in. When we approve plans to build these high rises we take away fi-om this.We put more cars on our roads,more calls for service fi•om our Deputies and Fire / Paramedics,and more children in our schools.All but one of �rhich,I have not seen any browth in. Our roads have not gotten wider,there are no more Deputies patrolling though their beats have increased. This also can be said about our Fire / Paramedics too. We do have construction on new classrooms (etc.)in our schools but these school are in established neighborhoods tliat�vere designed for single family homes back in 60's,70's, and part of the 80's. Traffic around these schools are becoming a parlcing lot. Blocking city residents from beinb able to exit their neighborhoods and sometime their own driveways. I have personally talked to Deputies who have stated to me that if they�rork in the west end of Cupertino and a call comes out on the east end of Cupertino,they know it can talce up to 30 inins. or more depending on the time of day. When you approve apartments / condos above old businesses,you indirectly create a whole new beat for each floor added. This adds many more calls for service with the same amount of Deputies we have had since I moved here back in 90's with no one to replacing the vacuum. We need more Deputies! I know we are building a"new dovvntown" off of Stevens Creek Blvd. I also know we are building the ne��Apple 2 Uuilding off of Wolfe. These are hugh projects and will bring more strain on our services azid way of life here in Cupertino. Some for the good and i feel more for the bad. The bad is the high density housing and traffic! It really has to stop,we cannot support any more of September 30,2014 � Page 4 these projects without destroying our way of life here in Cupertino. If a single family home has to cost 2 million dollars,then unfortunately it is the cost of living here in Cupertino. We have no more room for this type of high density growth! Or are we going the way of being the San Francisco of the South Bay? I lcnow every one of my neighbors feel the saine��vay about liiniting the growth. I know a few years ago we had a petition passed that City Hall cannot approve any construction above 3 stories without voter approval(correct me if I am wrong). That was due to the big eye sore at the Crossroads (Stevens Creek and De Anza)being built with high density housing. Please,don't make the citizens of Cupertino have to speak up a�ain. All of you live here and represent us. Control the Planning Commission and preserve what is left of our city community! Thank you for your consideration to this matter! Respectfully, Jolin Frey September 30,2014 � Page 5 -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket�a,comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:04 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela Subject: Re: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting Hi, C.J. and thanks for your courtesy. I'm sorry I didn't see reference to senior housing in the staff report. But glad it was there--and not surprised that it would have been included. As the City is fortunate to have excellent meinbers of staff. Please accept my apologies for not reading�vell enough to find the staff reference. And extend my apologies, as appropriate. Thnx, abain, C.J. Love, BR On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Valenzuela <ChristopherV�a cupertino.org>wrote: Hi Barbara, I have for�varded your comment below to the Housing Commission as I didn't see the Housing Commission included on your prior e-mail. Thank you. Christopher "C.J." Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner City Hall Community Development Department ' 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3251 (Phone) christopherv@cupertino.orb(E-mail) www.cuperrino.org(Website) -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket�a comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:03 PM To: Christopher Valenzuela; City of Cupertino Fine Arts Cc: Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting To: Housing Commission Chair Raman and Members Wilson, Barnett, Chu, and Maroko— I am very sorry to not be able to attend your meeting this Thurs. Aug. 28 at 9:00. September 30,2014 � Page 6 I have a conflict on 2nd and also on 4th Thurs. mornings, unfortunately. Therefore, I'm emailing iny input which I hope you will adopt in some form in your recommendations to the Planning Coinmission. Specifically, I look at the Housing Element section of the staff report for your meeting this Thurs. morning. I find no reference to older adult(senior)housing an the need for it. Perhaps I may have overlooked somethixig in the long, well-written report. I did testify at several of the workshops where it seemed to me that my comments were�velcomed and would be included. I ask that you include some reference to the need for older adult housing in Cupertino, as well as housing for all segments of the population, in your recommendations to the Planning Coinmission. And not just below-market-rate and subsidized housing but also for-profit units. There is ample documentation of this need which exists all over the country and is growing. I've made available to staff material relative to successful for-profit and subsized senior housing projects constructed in the Bay Area, across the LI.S. and world-wide. This need for senior housing,both government-assisted and also for profit, is growing in Cupertino, as elsewhere, as the senior demographic is burgeoning. I hope that ui recognizing this need in Cupertino you will recommend for the City of Cupertino to increase the housing available in Cupertino for older adults. Thanks, again, for all you do to benefit our community and its residents--that you care euough to give of your time and expertise and make a difference for the better. I look forward to z�elcoming you to the Sept. 30 Forum Aging-in-Place. Thnx, again, Love, BR September 30,2014 � Page 7 �� irace:l.�i�$ Septef��i�er 4,?(l l� Ms.Pi�t�llash,Sei�i�r Plaxtraer City of Cupertinp . IOaf}0 Torre Avei�u� �upci�tino,CA 95014 lf�ear I��s. G�asli, Tfje i��e�zt of tlais l�tter is tca rei��orce�ha�The Irvine Com�any{TIC:) [tas a sirong d�sire to plan tiae ft�ttzre�edevelop�nent of t11e Harx�ptons iii fi�ll.coo�eratioi3�vitPi i4pple, including but�rat li��tited to securii�r; h.�ight,laticiscape bt�fferi��g, and arr�enit�es tlaat cvuld sen�e possiE��e fu�ure A}�gle e��plciyees tE�at may.choose to re�ide within ciose praximiiy of their ei�aploymen�, �t��n the.:E�e�;ii-�nin;c�f aur diala�;ue��ith.Apple,��re were eneauraged that 13rovidi�g addrtic�nal housiz��. near the Appte Campus 2(AC2}��rould create az�op�artuE�ity to reduce autc�trips for en3playees (iving. t�rithin walki��g and bicyclir�g distaitce fo AC2. In fact;the.AC2 EIK i:�iclu�les a►��itigaiion measur•e, ��hic,h requires Appie to expand tlie'i'r�ns�ortatia�.:Dema��d Managemet��(TDM)P�agra��a ta��educe; �ra��c inipacts:;Tliis T�M �ragrata� �xpa�ision,requ.ires in�pletnentation.of"I'!7M measu.3-es tEaaf.i�acrease Apple's non-sirlgie occi��atzt�ehicle n�ode to 34%a at fuil occupanc}��f tl�e site.The GI��'s prc+pos�d increase of.housing units forthe�-ianlptons site��ril[:prt�tride a.sig�ti�c�nt increas�it�.hc�cising��vithi��a S�'lQCt Z'�'&I�CEtlfi,l bic}'C�3i1�,dIStat]C0 t0 AC�, I�el�iing.Ap�le aeliiev�this'1'DM req�tirement, ltecently,��anagen�aent at`�'IC��ere surpriseci�o�ead the Iettex-A}7�Ie sent tc�tk�e.Ci€�, si€tce Wrior ta that, the t��a cari�panies.had.atl ath�rwise a�riicabte a�lc!caoperative re[ationship over t�e yeats. That caoperation began ti�rith a,sigiaifica��t anious�t of c.00rdrnation 1�etti�eei�TIC ai�d Appte duri��b tl�e }�eriod.in��hich t(�e AC2 DEIR��as bein�;preJ�ared,circulated for pUi�lic cosi�i�eili, �nd.c�ri;ified by the �it}f of C��pertir�o, T�is cc�az�dinatic�n�voEc}�Eac�:betweer.�2Q l l �nd.2013 aa�d culinin�teci wit}�tlis exee�it�c��t of t��a separate agreeznents between�p�3te,actcl `FIC(a I.�ar.�d S�a�/'+gre��nent a��d;.a: Consta-uctiQ�i Irti}�ac#Pvlikigafioii Agi•c��i��r�t): T)uri��th��vinter of 20I l,Appl�ap��roaclied TIC;rc�;ardin�tlie�x��ect�d ilecr�to initigat�t�e t�•af�c i�n�3acis ass�ciated tivitl�cGe�r�lQpment of AC2,Tlley expected�l�a��IR tt�itigatiot� fcsr tl�e�rojeei r�7t�ulcl i�clude t�e ti�rideiiirig ofNcirth V�dt�e Roacj Ge€weeii P�•�►nerid�e A��criue aiid 1-280,��equiri��g ri�ht o�i�Jay fro�n tlz�Hamptoais. In additio��,their�ro�osed AC2 developr�ie��t ificlud�d tl�e clasure crf Pru�ierici�;e. Atire�3�te b�ttv-een tl�e Ha�3ptan's access atid North Tantau Av.enue.A�pJe co�nm�anicated to fi�e Company th�t it wa�their de�ire,�s:.�irell as the Cit��f Cupertina's,ttta�tt�e Compan}�,a��c3�p�le r�acE�a�ree�t�ent cin iliis Nor�l� '4'w'olfe Rc�ad�Jid��ing;and �'cuneridgc�Lver�tie clasu�-e prio�•tn tli�Ci�y Coi�ncil's a�3�ci��7a1' of t��e AC2 projec�'ancl c�rtifcat�on bfth�ir project�IR, ��0 N. M�Carthy Bivti., Suite �00� Miipitas; CA 95035 Qt�er the coui-�e��f�iearly t��!o 4'�ars,Ap}�le�nci=TIC resa8��ecl a:��umli��'of isseaes to.addres"s tl�e i�li�aeta associate��,aritia the 1\�aa-tii��r'�If�Roa� ti��ideniiib a��d ttie��acatior�`of Prune�-idge�veiiue. These iriclucied Elt�clesign�ar�n�efers ofthe Nor�Ez ��olf��oadt�:a}j��{ideaait��;(i.e:.numb�r and��ititl� oF,ia�.�es),,the:dcsi�;��. parameters c�fthat�c�rtia��of Prutlerid,�e A�'�C�ilt�Clc3�.V4'QIII£�.T�tll�kil bB��V�E11��1�'H�TClptptlS 8CC0SS c'i11CI :�a�1�1�Jolfe.Rr�ad, re�-iewf a��U'f:lil'E;IriIi�SC��111��16�115�OT�Il��C�gC Ca[ICIIt]OIIS Stil'CQ1dRldttl�4�'iC Ham�ions,'trail ar�d""sidewalk reguii�eme3�ts,ac�d ri�lit of t��ay coin��}safiitin.Ti��sa d�scussivi�s caiiclucEed tvith exec€�fidli a�f a Land S«�ap A��e��nen�beti��een tl��parti�s:in I�!o�rernlier 2013 ar�d eli:rniiaated a�ry iieed far the Cit�F��Ce��ertirlo tv use ifs.par�ret�s flf eminent dos��ain to acqui��the�ieedeet r�ght of«�ay� �lo��No3-�iz Vi�olfe Rr�ad:I�t�ae end,TIC agreed to dedicate access To A}�ple, Tnc. irt�a Land St��ap for'ttze priGe of�1�JO. 4ur cr�a�erat�or�also��rent U�}Fc�nd the iss€,e of requ�reci access.In iV�ay 2013,tlie D�1R fot�AGZ�uas ��.reulaied to ifte p�b�i..c.��fter T1C':s re��iev�,-cif tlle D�I��1ve belie�red that a nuz�ii��ea•of'et�vi�enn�ental issues hac3 riot been ad�quately addressect:T�C i»fo�y�ied Apple af our ca7icerns t}at`ee t�reeks�riar to the close�f tl�e DEIR r�view periad. f�pp�e r�questeti thati°I YC and Appte cxecutc a side ag�-eexner�t tn address oar con.c�rns i.n :Eieu of subrnittin�a ft�rrnal.'DEIR cnm�nei�t_lefiter:tc�i�1e�ity of C�u.pet�ir�a. 4t�er�he neYt ti�ree��eeks,r��e�ngageci in a s�ries of coinr�ii�i�icatioEz�r��ittz Ap�Ee to discuss oiir issues.'I"his: , cooE•diiiation culmii�ated i.Y�tlie exeeu�ici�i of a Gonstr�fction Ietipact Mitig�tion Agreeme��i.bet�ve�n the }�artie�in Juty 20l 3. Tliis A�reei�3e��t dca1.E��it�a nu�nber of issuas ii�cluding:: e Coznr�ii�tne�rt b}T TTC to iiot tivrite a.bEIR comir3enf Ietter a Spillaver par�in�i�ito Hain��c�ns � Maintair�in�;einergei�c}�acc�ss to the Ha�nE�tan�si��ar aJi:ti�ne 0 Uses pertnitted i.t�.t�ea�•by La��dsca.�e. Maintena��e.BuiEd�fi�an.r'�C2 s"ite Q I�oise limits fra�n Ce��tra�Pla��t � Liilaitatior�s��r use a.f�'ru►�eriii,�e far.construciic�n traff'ic. � ��4Teeke��d canstructior� im��cts, Dust co�lti•ol � Desi�i�crf t�mporary noise��rali a��d Li�h�iitg slrields , i�espite 7`IC's general concei•�i�bc�uC 1I�e iiYc�easec�t�•affie assaciat�d�v't.tli�1��A.C2�roject a�td tlte izttpaot� associa�ed«it}�r�dGtced accessibilii:rr fa�I1e.�-Iain�t.n��s site�aiised by tlie closur�of a section of Prui�erid�e,T1C��Fas t�rilling�€i i�vo�•�ti�itli Ap�1e ta e(i�nii�ate tlie need t�r�ise ccit�cerns dui•in�thc DEIR anci hearin��-oeess. Eve�j though our reside.nts are,atica�:ive��ie��ced,,c�n a:c�aily�asis by the,��aise, irack tt•a�c, dust,and �cneral i.n�omrei�ier�ce c�f#1��.co�astructiQ�,«Te liave.l�ar�c�red alt�rior agreen�ents. No��,as�ve e�plc�re fut�i-e red�,�retc��ment of aur sit�,.aracl�r•it�r ta�ilin�pla��for a s�ecific�r�ject, A��31e. lias eapresseci concer�i in ��jritin�iQ�he Ciiy, ati�i a�so testif e�i against rectevelo�me�it of our site at a re�e��t Housin�Co�izmissioi�meeti�g. �fi�e��=isl�to ass�re t��.City that TIC is�v[lf,ing ta red�ice liei�lits to 60 fe�t alot�g the Appte bo��r�darv a��d��i�l desi�n tl�e futcare proposal��vitli�r�_a 60 t�75 foot range with taller heighi�s along.tlle fiee��ra;�at�d ste�p�ng do��n tlie hei�hts�it��c�Ife Road aa�d a�o��Appl�'s tiQunc�aryr. ��4'itl� respect tb App�e's pri�1acy e�itcet�ns,'I'IC; i�comn�itted to,incc��-�oratirig apprapriafe ,. seiEaa�k�,(at�dscape€�ufferin�,and design fe�tu�•es into il�e cies�gn of ihe I•�;ampto�ts red�.velc��xnet�t, in arcier to respect tl�e pri�-ac}J of AC2.Itt fact,«re liave already�i��aged Appl�'s Ianc�sca�e architect,Olin, l�rit�i�ppie's pern�issiori,'to ass€�re A�apie tfiafi:�v�g��ould ptant adequate ti•ees a�cl foliaae�o screen ai�cl buffer��ie��s frt�tn AC2 tc�tlie l��inpto�as site and vic�ver�a: Re�ardii�g�raffic, it is«�orih natin�, a positi�fe cai��muni�y be��eft af rederielo��inenL a�'�lie 1-I��i��ton�,is rel�tec�.ta SecCr'c�rt 3.l�-of tlie Apple D�v�lo��iieiit Agree�a�ent: This s�etion requires tlieir pa}Tme��t of �;1,000,{lOQ tor��rds a tra��spori�tion.study o�'�t�olfe Road between I��mest�ad a:ltt Ste��ras Greek including�videni►xg of th�t�'�t�lfe�oad�i�ererossing at I-28a..�APple totd ras that t�e�T had alr�a.dy pa'rd tlt� C�ty this study fundi��g). I��v�vever,subject to t�e oulcame of��e sh�d�Y,Ll�e Git}T a�id:4g�pte ar�ta cletc�•zi�i��fundir►.g o�tic�ris t� implernent"the reconiinended impro��enients ffroni'ihis#�•aY1s}3ortatian stud��. �}n�of tl�ase fiand'tn;opfic�ns �s recogr�i�ed in Sectioti i.1�.tb be:a.Mello-Rcios Con��r�uniiy Facili#i�s District{C.F.D).Furtl�er,S�ctia��3,t4�ives the.City so[e discretion in t�a.k'tnb#he_findi�igs wfitl�t�e sttady and the fuA�ding r�rtecfia�isr��s. li� li��t,a�this,require��ent,�ny�ievelo}�rnent in€he th�otfe corridor, `. ine�udirt�recie�Telc�prneiit of the��Iainptons will rlecessitate tlie preparat�on ufthe Va'cilfe iziterciian�;e stuc[}; and ��ri[1 kict�o�'f the�irc�cess fc�r f'or�t�ir�g tEic potential fiindirig mechanisaii f��-th�im�rcivements iii�is area;Tl�is is a positiv�lienef t for tlie co�nmunity as the'UValfe interciiatlge is i7i ne�c�of s�udy.TIC , rccogiiizes f(za�ot�r projec�;s�ould it�nove,far��ard;z�rauld be su�iject ta an a�prnpciate ea�i�ribuiiott.tc� this funding di�tric�: t�ur�;o�l 'rs'to co�i�inue ta work't��itl� ,��ple an a�nyriad bf issues#l�at rec��ire cooperation betu�ee�i aur t��vo adjacei;t�roperty or��ners,aiici io.ao so in a professional manner. �t�e_appreeiate tl�e cons�derable efforts'cift}�e City to�evelt�p tlie General Plan ATries�ciment, I-Iousinb Elerr�ent uj�date,related zonin� chanbes,and EIR,as t�r�El as yout•consideratiori nf tl�e facts preset�ted in t:l�is lei`ter: Please d�not�iesitafe to cc�ntact ime s}rould you req�lire additiottal infor�na�ion. �incerely, ,,�� z y�� , ��;�n�`��,,-��' �'`��y `J � t,�w-�.-��„°�"` .�„�.�f�' .,� s�C.. ��,`�"' Carle�ie IVlatalin��'f Vice Presidee�t�ntitlements 8c�ulilic Affairs T��irvine+Cnr��pany cc; Mayor and Gity�ouncil Qf Cupe�-tino I}at�icd I3r�n�t;Citjr 1Vian�ger �arti Shri��lsta�ra,Assista�it City I�'Ia�age�-��irector o#�om�nunity Development � September 8, 2014 Piu Ghosh Senior Planner City of Cupertino i 0300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 RE:Citywide Genera( P[an Amendrnent Propased Resolution- Hamptans Site. Dear Piu, . We were pleased to read the letter from The [rvine Company("TIC"� confirming its intent to respect App1e`s privacy and security needs in any future redevelopment of tlie Hamptons site. The language quoted beiaw from TIC's letter also confirms that TIC does not want the 85 foot height limit, with no setbacks, as currently drafted in the General Plan Amendment("GPA"): . "We wish to assrare the City that TIC is willing to reduce heights to 60 feet alang the Apple boundary arrd will design the future proposal with a 60 ro 75 foar range with taller heights alot�g the freeway and stepping down the heigh�s on Walfe Raad and along Apple's boundary. With respect to Apple's privacy concerns, TIC is commirted ro incorporating appropriate setbacks, landscaped bu�fering, and design features inro rhe then design of the Hamptons redevelopment,in order ta respect the privdcyof AC2." The bottom line is that Apple and TIC are on the same page, but this isn't yet reflected in the current draft of the GPA. As currently proposed,the GPA permits heights up to 85 feet with no requirement for setbacks or other buffers. This seriausly damages Apple, and doesn't benefit TIC, since T!C does not require the additional height to redevelop the Hamptons site. We appreciate that the City recognized.Apple`s multi-billion dollar investment in Cupertino and respected our security and privacy requirements during the approval process far AC2, as reflected in the EIR and projecfi approval findings. The City should continue to live up to that commitment by revising the GPA and adopting the specific language we previously proposed,and shown below. 'The height limit for the strucrures located within 50 feet of the parcel line abut�ing adjacent cornmerciaC properties or Pruneridge sha1J not exceed 60 feet�: The hefght limit shall no� exceed 60 feet� for the remainder of the Hamptons site, unless the City makes specia! findings that an increased height, up to a maximum af 75 feet, would not infringe on the privacy and security needs Qf adjacent neigtrbars,nor unreasonably impc�ct view corridors or s�nlight, or create light or gl�re trespass. This may require any fvture deue/opment of the site to include tra�tsitions; Iandscaping, ar orher mitigaCions,sa that the City can make rhe speciat findings specified above." Appie 9 itu`€nite C�flp f�iS 21-TRC2 Cttp�t#it�o:Ct'�95Ci4 T4t18��36-10i0 �408g96•0275 4Y•NYt.?t3�11�.C9'Y3 Piu Ghosh September 8,2014 Page 2 of 2 ... . . __._.,�_. t s vita or t e �ty to a ress t is issue now, therv�ise�tfie City�may�iave�unintentiona(ly��+" �" �,µ�� limited its discretiori to address project=leve( concerns after adopting higher density limits in the GPA. For example, California laviw provides that the density of a proposed �roject complying with the applicable General P(an, zoning and development poiicies cannot be reduced unl�ss the City makes specific written findings that a reduction in density is needed to avaid health or safety effects. Gov. Code sec. b5589.5(j). There is also a streamlined CEQA review for residential projects that are consistent with the General Plan, in which only impacts that are"peculiar"to the project are analyzed. Pub. Res. Code sec 2i 083.3. Therefore,the City should set forth in the GPA the key issues that need to b� taken into accour�t in considering potential redevelopment of the Hamptons site, si��ce deferring this step may unduly bind the City in the future. We believe the language we praposed daes that, and is consistent �vith T1C's statements regarding its p(ans for the Hamptans site. Kind regards, �� r� Dan Whisenhunt Senior Director Real Estate& Development App(e cc: Mayor and City Council of Cupertino Planning Commission of Cupertino David Brandt,City Manager Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Deve(opment 2 From: Ruby Elbogen<rgelbogen@aol.com> Date: September 12, 2014 at 8:06:04 AM PDT To: gwong212@aol.com Subject: Mr.Mayor- "Hell No,I Won't Go" Dear Mr. Mayor - As I watched the Planning Commission meeting last evening, and assumed the Irvine Company was pulling a prank on the Commissioners by telling them that the Company from The OC is planning to add 800-ish (give or take 3) apartments to whnt they already have here--I laughed and waited for the punch line. Little did I know the joke is on us. So, when this is approved--nre we expected to give up OUR water for them, as well ns for Apple--so they cnn flush their thousands of new toilets? If not, where will the water come from? And, where will their kids go to school--even though it's not the City Council's problem, so to speak, you will still be blamed for letting it happen. You could tell the Irvine Compnny to go back to Disneyland. Thanks, Ruby Thanks & Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & Cupertino-News.com 408/355-0575 From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,September 16, 2014 8:54 AM To:George Schroeder Subject:The Fence Between Vallco &Our Neighborhood Hi, George-Rumor has it that Apple,the City and/or some other entity wants to take down the fence between Vallco and our neighborhood. Our home is on No. Portal. I can only assume that all the people involved,who are fairly new to Cupertino are unaware of Propositions D& E--and the fact that our neighborhood fought a huge war to keep that fence up. And, does the City and Apple,etc. realize how dumb the premise is that in order to promote Walkability those who want to turn our area of Cupertino into what it doesn't want to be--a friggin' Pass Through for Apple employees--who profess Walkability, but who can't or won't walk around our very nice quiet area? We want to nip this in the bud early, but we can gather a crowd to make it an issue. What is your advice? Cheers, Ruby Thanks& Regards, Ruby Elbogen, Editor/Publisher The C Magazine&CMagazine0nline.com 408/355-0575 C�MMENT �ARC� Flease fill out tliis card`with any ca;mmerifs you f�ave related to th� Draft 204D Ger�eraf Plan and Housing::Element. The City wfJ( incfude all corn��nej�ts in upcomrng Planning Commission ai�.d Crty CounciP statf ceparts. You can also subr-nit comme»ts onlirre at wav�v.cupertinagpa.org or via email to:pla'nningC�cupertino:org. Contac� lnformation �.wo ��'��s�: �� a� ��'�� . Naii�e �� Pl�one#�or Ei�nails � � � � � , � 4 � , Address ��.� '��.;. �'�� ,`� �� City �,��``�.,RF�� State: ��-�'�� .,'�`� ��S�"�$�.M� �'��I t�'�t� �°,�,�4,�:.s', g�I� �x 4��`'�.4 �k g � � t.:�`',a�;r:1� �°��'�; ,S A�y�z:� - COITIt7i@{'1'�Si �.�---W �� .;°�" � � C�'�� `��C �Y�("l��`�; �=1�;e"'ar� $�',��'�� ,1��,t"�� ,��`� .�«� �t�-�'?'�1 W tl�r 4��c.�� .�.w� .w Y?x, j � . ��., ( ��'''�..a��„. ��%'�4 3;..�'.«�a,+''��.�'"�- ��'��: .F��.`..�„'s-..'�• a.,�,e,,,�, ��r�'.��t�"�.'�-�`",, ��t��g �.-�a a�b T��t:..�'�"�"2` �`'�`i ��t"`�L..,��.-C��.`�,==% � �t �'� �i; �W r �r'�S�;��`� �..r'��,'�`�� a '�,.��, �� `""��; "`� :°�, � ,,,�3�t� � �•�x . � ..._...g b §`�°t n �.::� *.,...'.;:.� ��F Y. ,..�a 'L� t.-.�� .� �� 'F:� � `"� x= '" � $ F .,a„� a:�: �"� '' ��e � j,t�, �5,:..._�.� -'�, � .. s �:,. 6 ;`.; .. �St3�� +�::. 3i'��..1��:;: x�� :x��' ,� �`'s`�y. � .::� �+ � $ x �`;. ,�� w'°:;:� �.�� ;�a ..s �: ��,�'��a cy��-�' ��3 s„� �, ;;,�{'��'�� :�� `l�"i� 4',�� ;'.t"a��t��,�.,:� i'��,�e�;"� ��. �� -�;�..�� __ .�,,. . � k �� $�..;,: � � ; � .✓€.��.� `�„�. ��. �"`°a'w�g `� `��` x 3 e `�.t'�, g� �:;��3`�� _`"` 4''ir��$C p ;7'� .� .::� .,� �� „ g * '•,,�,t: �a;�t «4,. �d '� �,.�`�� .., ��<. �� . . . d. . . . �4 .. .. °�r[F.� ' . . �.,w°�:;��4�'"l �.� ��_�� ,�,•�� +�t`""�.,`,' ,��} �''�3` `,`�� {Mf�,`�",.°� ��.�."`�s �� ri�� 1'�''� C`�: �, —�* c"`s ..��.v .�.s a� i,S�..., �1"��lyCb,,.. �''{��!� �'W'``,�r3� �.�,,,..�i�i� �.�a'��'r°r'''1�i.�G� �-:�<'.i i:,-�^ .�`�L�''..�� L�i�...�A�;•�O �:,,.,_�'�P��...&��"��. ��r•"+. �-`.� �,., • ��.L�''�.. �� ?�,.�1,��. ��.�«4�`�`.� C'��,;..3'�� .�t'� ��°��F Y�. �..,�ia�� `.�"��t,,��_..,��. �°�� Lxr� a� �«��• R' a �m, �f_ .�. r� .r�a 3 -^�� . ��i,,J,€��'SJ('�'��'. �,,��.g'��..-\ �..w4.�j""s f..��":��^��`*^�,'t.;��,., ��s� �j��`��..�~� �'��..��4 �,4...:..,�'�� $ ' r, - � �"'� tf $p �� y''��..... 'c¢��'? r�k `^^�."'� _;. q��"� s�-.•�.,.� F" gt �r.�,,��^-�,°�"f:;i� ^s �{ � � ��.F� $ i.'�.. �a�z�°vvt��. �'�';F,5:,. F�44��^'r��,�,,,., #... �3 e,� ',a�,a'S't'a'l 4 0....< y r•.; �•��'�-3�.C A��.,,�`.Z�a S , � . . � . ,. .. ..�:. .� � .�. � �+�£°� �� y'�y�g,y � <�,�,a„ ��•--..R �^-�,s„aL��G"'�?.4� �£�.;�"s,�,Yg��'s ..a,.. �-'T�"°'"1��,_a��E g�� ! �'�L.3��; � � ;�€ �� 4��t�-��.� ��'n„�#_ � ,.,t �'3 � '� i s � ��4»✓ '� TI> R.�&t�-W4 �-y a...'�y _„u Cm J�`� �g,,, .� .e-� /e �' ��" �.v ;g s;",� �-" �%��.. $�`��,�� S�,,.�,��:k `-'t,�'w%:3.d,.� �x+��w"f:., ,��"� For more infori�ation visit: uvv�r�r:eug�ertir�e�gp�.or� CC�NiME�IT CARD Please {il1 out this card withi ar�y comrnents you have related-to the Draft 2040 Genera� Ptan and Housing Element. 7fie City v��i(I include all comments i�i upcoming I'lant�ing Cot�r�missioti artd City Counc�l staff reports. You car� also sub�nit comments online at www cup�rti�ogpa.org or via email to:p/anningCcupertino.org. Contact Informatio� ,�� /1 !'��d�:;�-� �� - ��, �.-�'�j Nai-ne: Phone# or Ernail:�pY�'��-� �',��Y�.. ,��',,� j ;, _ _ , Acldress: f�� C� ��,�.�-�l ��'ry'1�-'� City: �.:....��:�t��.��%�� Stata: �� Comments: , �..�r� 1� �� —�`�v �� r� �' � � ��. /-� ..�=, �f'' Uv t !: t1;��,0 �; t�/1� � �` � �-�' L��`"-'�- l::J�i /`�:.z,G�-�' k��i/� �.% /� t . l{�=`�,� �-1��..� ��'t r�a'!�r � G��-.�<�-:"r��-=� �' �,��f'Y1 .� ("t C S�� " � r " f� �. � -� I Y �.'..l��G1 c� � s G G�l'S'/� ,1=:..> I�l. �','.?r:-C'f'�` G�v ��f.:��_...�� '�{ � � �.�17+�.• 1� ?...� .� � �� :`�� .�i,�n �'`�1 c=� ' � � �? r x r�r�,. `�--e:� C c?�n�,t"� � � Q�� - ��1�,y�� t�,�e,�� (��.�:2�.� t,��.�, ,� .�..�� i � r�.�,��.��.�� ~�►°��,'� �r.�r�i -�� 2.l�� t.�:.�'��.�r�� a t_ ; � �� t�� C`�" �.�- �n<c� ��..�1_��:/�:� ��J�;� L�� r.�,�� ) J / / � � 'L�1 4�•Tl.� (, � �'t"'..✓'d' " L 't"f 1.1 d"1 � , 4..�f r s 7�. .,:.,;•. _.f?A ' � . ,� �� /j P '\ � J ` � f �Cs' f(}c�`11f��.' ,y'� e:✓SC'...ii�` 3�d`l� ��.Y�1fL� �[�'.�fi }'(� ��d� f...8 1L 1 r�''...�'''_.�- ' f ti�/�� t/Lf l..� ! fi� ! � : � ��C"`i /�r�� 7�'J'�c� f=�r'r?,� '��1 � C.�� `1�'h.t t�'' J'�..!'r d�t.,3�w�,>'�`7 i`I ?a� �' t`� � _ _ � /_ /� . )� � ��.�.� T��7rx� l�'�.,��.� C�?�.a� Y*'t ' 7' �-!:�.'. I �'! `�'_,(`�.,�'...-�7" �? �"' ,�1�'.�:�1 f ��.1�..�;,•�' i f j / t r' ,�i t�tit.�)'l t l'..J 1�}'`�d�`}�''` L��e�!'1 'c-.��''!"II's--r:.•�?i �i�lr?... P�lW"'1 ,,.��;,�% � , ' l3 � r�..t\..J � �`� i�'� d`�E�.r ;'��'�� 1� .+.e .�''' 1.✓ � � �i'.,,�!i�a� !V ��t,E`l�`-� � N�-L�=••:,.L�. �"''.� j�) 1� f'f} /:f�:F�,f_�,l s� �-C.�� /L�- f��f^r� � /�1 �.�t �r.��1=.�.-- ��i._.:�::2::=_r�=:_..�'' � �L�:- ��!' �!.2.�� .�a�L�'b'}P�� 3� ii �n - �,v �( � S tB ;SJ�./! � } �;�.�';� d1 t�,./ �1i��.'��f' F u��'"�-''C�'"�d 1 t�%,�€7 ��- �'�?fi�. �",.7�l�1 4r�. �`'� t V"��f"p..r �i�'f �i.�.tA�d�.�f_-��}'�J. � � j f�� ,,,,,-`°�""'"'�, '1! ��-�' L�J��'I d"lrt} �-'�� .�.. �d?!'}'t.�K.. t't?__(� 1 1/1' ..�3�_,- G� 1`l t_�. ;+`'It".l' G'A��'�,�'?_.. �`�.'r ,P �„�? i.� �� (�,�f t�t c..� Yi �� ''''�'1 �'.} �i "#G�t � d ,�� .� /}`1 I C.��.�°.� e � ` �,.L�.;t•1�'� C�?._.t.��-�`}�/ �`r s�+�-� _. . ,t - , : . �,� �,�-----� C� ,.- � { � ,��. `� For rimare informatioi� visit: rr�rv��rv.cupertinog�a.vrc� CC)MMENT CARD Please frlf out this card<<vitFi any cornments}�ou 1�ave related to the Draft 2040 Generat P)an and Housing Element: The City�n+il! include a�(camnients rn u�camrng P(anning Commission and City Council staff reparts. You can �ls� submr�coi-�ri-ments oi�fine at www..cupertinogpa.or�c�rvia erriail to: pianning@cuper-tino.org. . Cantact In�armation - . � Name.', ��' �t�� Phone#orErnaiC: ��,� �:3 � ��.��t,�, G��-- , � `� � L� `'�f'`�"'�;i'1 t% Address:. ,��`� �� S)��i b � � City: �. '' State: �. l; ` � Comments: (�'uw� J,tiz�c., i`�,�-�� -c f I�� -��x, �;,�%�,�-��1� .T��'�1r`r� ��}��,� c�/ ��r��r, '�� ' i�. 6i,J" = (1'fif��'. �3 j-�("L1 v� J di.,y .S`7Lf_ig7.f �``" `�'�'°�c�� i"l�c,t� d� I�6'�i �JA�1� c' - G�'t�u't '� e�`aU+' . `�-� ,�, .��t'�!� C�v t��t}' �i�'7f•��.�c� �1�`' �� a�,�� -- �t�p� ��.c�E}�'i' �{� s�t•�eE�� Uu�(:... � I �s�-s - ' . .. . � //.f '. .� o ) � 1 .L' �f�{'��1 t4" �"a—`�(� ��''�'' "�^��J(P. ��YZ"�`r..� ��.� !°,Y'1- �(i��E.' L.J'�{-YG�(}�L'�,'� G�r�•:/C'f�. 7 �' �e7� � I g'r" . � .• d r •y. ! � '� �. .�.` t� �-��. �. ,� "Y�",/r�-�.rt `s,� �`I-'�' ��E�'�'}.c" �3�..�"" '�"��. �S S�'i I �. - � �a ;s S fir"�.e��. �� :� � t i f ��`��` t'�► �'�.5. � / ,( J / } f /�/Ij� 3 �� ='lAr�U�'Gf da,�.,fC' �F.i^�j��,` (U{�t 1�... fl'(�i�� a[,¢��! t C.a� �} � ��J -", f /`y�"�� !(� Y1�� -(-Z � , 7 .c�- � � ,r�ti"C 1�� .�" � . �1� f � v �1 C�� r��, 1��..�� a� �.�'s��+4� .�y�t�r�: ��t C�:-�.,`�- �,.�-_ �--1�-,,.w � �-. (,�-- i',s �{ 1/! p � ��,``� �Y'li�y��j "!/i,�,.�� Gs f`�' 1�1�"�`i��" ',,jz.'-e�.,(�"',(�_-=--� �,'��'j%.'1 �� ''��Y c� G',� �/�'C�!� 7 � �a,�.... �t�,�' : � �.... t�,:� e,�,,��t_.r '� S�,� €"; -r�1 L= C.l ti��v�a�c,"j.� �. r ) �� G r'��'�L�.�7 l��rT`� ktt 1�F'� {Vl t!�'�,� d,�. ,��/``-i t`-t��^ i T� ✓ e�""_ �� L � 1 J l_ �� i�.r��:!�{.'- �F�i�"�\ � dv�s r�lb `�d"�' � 1�!'(Vi_ �:d�. � GrA:l ds� 'l'�`�.'. L l•"��i��{ aG�f.,— -{�`��=��"�-' !R} i Y�,�y�r.., t t�� ="��y � f�v'f"S t cK. �� .�,�E`VTf'�fiLr" 1G� ��`� ��. '�'�i�JY`�-�� —�--,��','� .' a. + .. l V'7 G �7 Fa�r c�rfa.�d ��(�� G��.�- ( �"i:�s� p�`�t�f��' ;��t�-'-- L"�� i r� f�'' ' -- — Far more infarrr�ation visit: �rv�rvw.cug��rti n��p�.ai-�