CC Staff Report 12-2-2014
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 2, 2014
Subject
General Plan Amendment, 2014-2022 Housing Element, associated Rezoning, Zoning map and text
amendments and Specific Plan Amendment, and related actions for environmental review to
consider citywide amendments to the City's General Plan, including the Housing Element, Heart of
the City Specific Plan, Vallco Shopping District, heights, densities, commercial, retail, residential
allocations, and recommendations on the Housing Element sites, and to rescind all actions taken on
these issues during the November 10, 2014 Council meeting.
Recommended Actions
A. Rescind all actions taken on November 10, 2014 and consider the issues anew, disregarding
prior votes and directions; and
B. Conduct a public hearing and take actions on the recommendations of the Planning
Commission which recommends that the City Council take the following actions in accordance
with the Draft Resolutions (Attachments A – F) with the exceptions noted in Attachment G:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 14-210 for Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, adoption of
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of Mitigation Measures
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03), in substantially similar
form to the attached Resolution (Attachment A);
2. Adopt Resolution No. 14-211, GPA-2013-01 in substantially similar form to the attached
Resolution (Attachment B and as amended by Attachment G), for:
a. Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040); and
b. General Plan Map Amendments.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 14-212 to authorize staff to, in substantially similar form to the attached
Resolution (Attachment C and as amended by Attachment G):
a. Forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD); and
b. Use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (in case one or more of the
adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites).
4. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2124, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino Rezoning Certain Sites in the City for Conformance with the General Plan and
2
Housing Element Zoning Map Amendment,” Z-2013-03 (Attachment D and as amended by
Attachment G);
5. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2125, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino amending various Chapters in Title 18 and Title 19, including the amendment of the
Density Bonus Ordinance, the addition of a Chapter in Title 19 to implement policies in the
General Plan, the addition of a Chapter in Title 13 to improve readability,” Municipal Code
Amendment, MCA-2014-01 (Attachment E); and
6. Adopt Resolution No. 14-213 approving Specific Plan Amendment, SPA-2014-01, in
substantially similar form to the attached Resolution (Attachment F).
The Balanced Plan is reflected in Attachments B – F. The Planning Commission’s changes to the
exhibits to Attachments B – D are reflected in Attachment G. These changes are discussed in detail
later in this report. CEQA Findings for adoption of the Balanced Plan and Housing Element sites
recommended by staff are in Attachment H.
Description
Application No.: 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
Background
Rescission of prior votes and actions on November 10th
Due to noticing errors pertaining to the Council’s November 10, 2014 Special Meeting and
continuance, the public hearing for this item has been re-noticed for December 2, 2014, and it is
recommended that the City Council rescind all actions taken at the November 10, 2014 public
hearing and hear and decide the items anew. E-mail notification to interested members of the
public and new notices advise the public that the hearing has been re-noticed and that a
recommendation would be made to rescind the Council’s prior actions.
While it is recommended that the City Council’s actions from November 10, 2014 be rescinded, the
public comments received during public hearing have been preserved as part of the City’s record of
these proceedings. A video of the public comments is available online at:
www.cupertino.org/Nov_10_2014_CC_public_comment. Notification to the public indicated that
members of the public who had provided their comments at the public hearing on November 10,
2014 and wished not to provide public comment on December 2, 2014, need not do so ; but if they
wish to, they may still comment at this public hearing.
The succeeding staff analysis embodied in this report replicates the substance of the November 10,
2014 report. Staff’s presentation from that meeting is available online at:
www.cupertino.org/Nov_10_GPAHE_StaffPresentation. However, the report also contains a
summary and analysis of the major themes which emerged in public comments on November 10th
and a November 20th community workshop.
3
Project Background
On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan amendment in order to:
Replenish office and hotel allocations (since the office allocation was reduced to under 18,000
square feet when the Main Street project received most of the remaining office allocation in the
city-wide allocation pool);
Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan;
Consolidate individual requests from property owners; and
Update to address State law, and address clean-up.
In addition, in November 2013, the City initiated a State-mandated update of the Housing Element
of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan,
identifies policies and appropriate locations for future housing in Cupertino. The Housing Element
Update was combined with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community
could fully evaluate and discuss issues in one comprehensive outreach and planning process.
The General Plan Amendment process has involved over 18 months of extensive community
discussions and input provided during 24 public meetings, workshops, online comment surveys,
and study sessions and hearings with the Housing Commission, Planning Commiss ion and City
Council. A detailed listing of the public input meetings is provided later in this report. The staff
reports for the following study sessions and public hearings: January 23, 2014 Housing
Commission, February 12, 2014 Housing Commission, February 19, 2014 Planning Commission,
March 4, 2014 City Council, and April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City Council are attached
for both the General Plan and Housing Element projects (Attachment I).
This report provides a summary of key issues, recommendations by the Planning Commission and
staff comments where appropriate. A detailed discussion of issues is provided in the Planning
Commission staff report dated October 14, 2014 (Attachment J).
Alternatives
After extensive input from the community, property owners, the Housing Commission and the
Planning Commission, the City Council authorized studying the following alternatives in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the project. A brief discussion of
alternatives is provided below (see Attachment K for Concept Alternative maps). The EIR has a
detailed description of each alternative. A table showing specific allocations is provided later in the
Development Allocations discussion later in this report.
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of the following themes and reflects minimal changes as follows:
Maintains the policies of the 2005 General Plan
Increases office and hotel development allocations
Combines the South De Anza and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Special Areas
Streamlines General Plan area boundaries
4
Alternative B
Alternative B is derived from the following themes and reflects moderate increase in heights and
densities in key areas:
Focuses new growth along major mixed-use corridors
Revises height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major mixed-use corridors
Increases office, hotel and residential development allocations
Supports redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating allocation to other areas
Streamlines General Plan area boundaries
This alternative also envisions the transformation of the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail,
employment, housing and entertainment destination.
Alternative C
Alternative C is derived from the following themes and reflects the property owners’ requests and
reflects the most increase in heights and densities in key areas:
Supports redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating allocation to other areas
Revise density and height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major
mixed-use corridors
Increases office, hotel and residential development allocations
Streamlines General Plan area boundaries
Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping District into a locally and
regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and account for a
large portion of the City’s RHNA.
Planning Commission Public Hearings
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan, Housing Element, associated
rezoning, zoning text amendments and specific plan amendments and the EIR on October 14, 2014
and October 20, 2014. While some members of the Planning Commission felt that some amount of
development (especially office) would help to achieve the City’s economic and fiscal goals, the
majority felt that additional office growth would exacerbate the regional imbalance of jobs and
housing and contribute to traffic. They did, however, agree that hotel rooms could be added since
they provided a source of revenue to the City, were beneficial to nearby restaurants and businesses,
and would be needed to serve existing and planned office in the City. The Commission
recommended removal of the residential allocation since densities in the General Plan and zoning
already regulate development on the sites.
A summary of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is provided in the discussion on each
key issue in the staff report. About eleven members of the public spoke at the meeting. They
included property owners of Housing Element sites and study areas in the General Plan as well as a
few residents. Attachment L is the minutes of the Planning Commission public hearings and
includes detailed comments from the speakers.
5
The following is a brief summary of comments:
Prefer the No Project alternative or Alternative A
Plan Bay Area doesn’t fit Cupertino residents’ needs
Vallco should not be a Housing Element site but should stay as retail only
Additional heights and community benefits should not be approved
We should not be afraid of additional heights if buildings are attractively designed
A residential allocation of close to 4,500 is too high. The Housing Element should only include
1,002 units to meet the RHNA
Do not add more office. Applicants who want more office should apply for amendments to the
General Plan
Growth should not be focused only on Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard
Excited about the Balanced Plan
Cupertino should plan for its share of additional growth in the Bay Area
Applicants reiterated their requests for additional office, residential and heights based on
Alternative C. Additional discussion about specific requests is provided later in the report.
Minor, non-substantive edits have been made to the General Plan (Attachment B) and Housing
Element (Attachment C) documents that were presented to the Planning Commission to correct text
errors, grammatical and syntactical errors and to add updates to language. An errata sheet
identifying the changes made since the Planning Commission saw the documents is attached as
Attachment M.
Discussion
Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040)
The General Plan is a State-mandated document and provides the vision for Cupertino’s future It
sets the City's policy direction in a number of areas including land use, mobility, housing, open
space, infrastructure, health and sustainability through goals, policies, and strategies. The following
is a discussion of state and regional laws, best practices and community input that have shaped the
draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
Community Vision 2040 has been informed by changes in Federal, State and regional regulations,
best practices and community input, and achieving the community-building, sustainability and
economic and fiscal goals in the Guiding Principles. The following section is a discussion of items
that have been informed the Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
State and Regional regulations and best practices
1. Climate Change - The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) set a target to reduce
California greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020. In addition, the Governor
signed Executive Order S-3-05 to further require California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050 (EO, 2005). The policies in Community
Vision 2040 are consistent with these regulations.
6
2. Land Use and Transportation - The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (SB 375) calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a Sustainable
Communities Strategy to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area, jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is
the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the requirements of SB 375 through
the year 2040. Community Vision 2040 is consistent with the principles of SB 375 by focusing
growth along major transportation corridors and the City’s Priority Development Area (PDA)
along Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards defined in Plan Bay Area.
3. Complete Streets and Connectivity – The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the
planning, designing, and building of complete streets into the larger planning framework of the
General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to amend their Mobility Elements to plan for
multimodal transportation networks.
4. Performance Measures for Mobility - Senate Bill 743 (2013) creates a process to change the way
that transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related
air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and
providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Specifically, SB 743 requires an alternative to
automobile level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. The Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research is in the process of preparing new CEQA Guidelines to implement SB
743.
5. Sustainability – Various elements in Community Vision 2040 incorporate goals and policies
related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions targets set by AB 32, SB 375 and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Land Use and Community Design
element focuses future growth along major transportation corridors consistent with past
practice and SB 375. The focus on multi-modal transportation and complete streets in the
Mobility element is consistent with past practice and recent State and regional regulations and
guidance. Community Vision 2040 is also compliant with AB 162 with requirements for ground
water recharge and storm water management among other matters related to water supply.
The Sustainability Element has been updated to comply with regional requirements and to
reflect the City’s current policies. In particular, three strategies have been identified to
implement Principles of Sustainability. Strategies include the adoption and maintenance of a
Climate Action Plan (CAP) to attain reduction targets consistent with state law and regional
requirements, periodic reporting on and review of the effectiveness measures in the CAP,
including assessment of lifecycle costs and preparation of a climate vulnerability assessment to
safeguard human health and safety and community assets. Preparation of the CAP
implementing these strategies is underway and will be presented to the City Council,
tentatively, on December 16th, 2014.
6. Housing Element – recent changes in Housing Element law have been incorporated in addition
to the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. This section is
discussed in greater detail later in this report.
7
Community Ideas and Best Practices
1. Community Benefit – The idea was first discussed by a community member and the Council
was interested in exploring the possibility. The concept includes allowing additional specified
heights in certain location if community benefits are provided as part of a project . The concept
is discussed later in this report.
2. Walking and biking to schools, parks and shopping – This idea was discussed by several
community members in public workshops and is consistent with SB 375, AB 32 and Complete
Streets and best practices.
3. Design of mixed-use projects – A “mixed-use village” concept is recommended for mixed-use
projects that include residential development. The concept was developed from Council,
Planning Commission and public input and best practices regarding mixed-use projects. These
include provision of viable retail, gathering places, pedestrian-oriented architecture and
streetscape improvements, improving connectivity and neighborhood buffers. A similar but
limited discussion is provided for “neighborhood center” redevelopment.
4. Vallco Shopping District –Public input from workshops regarding the transformation of the
Vallco Shopping District into an active community gathering place and regional destination
have been included. A detailed discussion is provided later in this report.
5. Calculation of residential density – The City Council and a member of the public requested
changing calculation from density of the gross lot area (which includes portions of adjacent
streets) to density of the net lot area (which does not include adjacent streets, driveway and
drainage easements, etc.). This change has been made to the Zoning Ordinance. The density
and residential yield of Housing Element sites reflects this change.
Balanced Plan and Planning Commission Recommendations
Development Allocation
Community Vision 2040 is a 25-year plan for the City’s future that considers community goals for
active gathering places, health, sustainability, economic development and fiscal reliance, as well as
regional requirements and mandates, while balancing residents’ need for minimizing traffic, air
quality, and other environmental impacts.
As noted earlier, the Planning Commission had recommendations that were different from the
Balanced Plan. Maps to reflect the development allocations, heights and densities in the Balanced
Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation have been attached as Attachments N & O.
The Commission’s recommendations in each category are provided in the discussion below.
Economic and Fiscal – the City’s goal for the next 25 years is to ensure that companies and
businesses thrive and new businesses are attracted to the City and that property owners have
incentives to maintain and enhance property. The City Council recognized this when they
authorized the increase in development allocation as part of the General Plan process.
Maintaining an adequate allocation for development will help revenues grow so that the City
can continue to provide excellent community services. A Market Study was conducted to see the
realistic economic demand for various uses through 2035 (Attachment P). It notes that existing
8
commercial space in the City’s General Plan Allocation pool is adequate to meet the high end of
demand through 2035 and indicates market support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet
for office space, 985 net hotel rooms and 4,420 residential units for the same period (close to
Alternative C).
o Office – Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down about 525,000
square feet through Apple and Main Street and other office development in the City, and
currently only has a balance of 17,113 square feet remaining in city-wide office allocation. To
account for redevelopment at the Vallco Shopping District and new office develo pment for
the next 25 years, an increase of 2,000,000 square feet is proposed (consistent with Alternative
B). In the Balanced Plan, office allocation is balanced with other land uses to reduce
environmental impacts while recognizing the City’s economic and fiscal goals.
Request from a potential applicant and consultant response – On October 13, 2014, the City received a
letter from a potential developer of the Vallco Shopping District generally stating that the costs of
assembling the site, providing a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail in a high quality mixed -use
“Town Center” envisioned for the area, community benefits and off-site infrastructure costs, would
require at least 2,000,000 square feet, or 1,000,000 square feet more than was recommended in the
Balanced Plan (see Attachment CC). The City’s retail consultant reviewed the request and noted that
given the high cost of site assembly and construction, an office allocation of up to 2,000,000 could
potentially be necessary to make the project economically viable. However, it could not be verified
without a proforma review.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission felt that the regional growth in
jobs and lack of housing had exacerbated traffic conditions. In addition, by approving the Apple
Campus 2, the City had added to this growth. Therefore, the City should only add 500,000 square feet of
additional office growth above the 2005 General Plan for the next 25 year horizon. They also
recommended moving the office allocation in the “Major Company” category (about 523,000 square
feet) into the city-wide allocation pool.
o Hotel – Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down 303 hotel rooms
from the allocation leaving 339 rooms at time of project initiation. Hotels bring in considerable
revenue, which will help realize community goals of economic and fiscal stability. Consistent
with the Market Study, the recommendation is to add 1,000 more hotel rooms to the
allocation. This is also consistent with Alternative C.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission felt that hotel rooms generated
revenue, and were beneficial to nearby businesses and necessary to serve existing and planned office in
the City. The Commission, therefore, recommended adding 1,000 hotel rooms consistent with the
Balanced Plan and Alternative C.
o Residential – The State-mandated RHNA requirement is 1,064 units with about 1,400
recommended by the Housing consultant after consulting with the HCD. Subtracting 1,400
units from the remaining allocation of 1,895 units leaves 495 units through 2040, which will
not be enough to meet RHNA targets for the two additional housing element cycles through
2040 per Plan Bay Area. Alternative A, which is consistent with the 2005 General Plan, and
9
Alternative B, which only meets 75% of the Plan Bay Area targets, do n ot achieve the regional
target. However Alternative C meets 100% of the targets set by Plan Bay Area. To ensure that
the City is consistent with these regional targets, the recommendation is to increase the
residential development allocation by 2,526 units (to 4,461 units which includes the 1,400
required for 2014-2022 cycle). The residential development allocation is a City legislative
policy aimed at promoting the public welfare which tracks growth by monitoring permits. It
cannot restrict growth in such a way as to conflict with State housing element requirements or
regional needs. However, the Balanced Plan recommends strategies for managing the amount
and form of housing growth as follows:
Selecting Housing Element sites for up to 1,400 units to meet the demand for the 2014-2022
RHNA period.
Revising the General Plan so that on sites with a mixed-use residential designation,
residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites. Conditional use permits will
be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in
the Housing Element, and on Non-Housing Element mixed-use sites. Related changes will
have to be made to the Municipal Code, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans.
Form - The General Plan includes a “mixed-use village” strategy so that mixed-use
residential sites provide substantial and viable retail, and also create a livable environment
for residents, shoppers and workers on and around the site.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Commission discussed the relevance of residential
allocations, when densities were already noted in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. There was
additional discussion about whether the number could be perceived as a growth control measure and
whether a number, if any, should be generally consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region’s Sustainable
Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan). Ultimately, the Commission decided that the
residential allocation number should be removed and that the Housing Element, lot densities and policies
were sufficient to guide residential development in the City.
Comments - While the City is not required by State Law to have a residential allocation in the General
Plan, the City’s environmental consultants recommend retaining the allocation system for environmental
review purposes. Removing the allocation would require additional CEQA analysis on the maximum
capacity of residential development in the City, which would require additional time and budget. An
allocation of 4,421 units is recommended to be consistent with Plan Bay Area estimates for the 25-year
horizon through 2040 and to prevent an impression of growth restriction.
Table 1 below is a comparison of the Planning Commission recommendation, the Balanced Plan
and alternatives studied in the EIR. The numbers in the General Plan differ from the numbers
reflected in Table 1 because there have been minor changes to the allocation balances since project
initiation. These changes include allocation granted to projects approved and allocation returned to
the pool due to projects expiring.
10
Key Question 1: Development Allocation
1. What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office, commercial, hotel
and residential units through 2040?
Community Benefits Program
As the City’s resident and worker population increases, additional amenities will be necessary to
maintain and the livability of the community. The Community Benefit Program is one of the key
tools to help finance and achieve those amenities that maintain and increase the community’s
quality of life. The Program enables the community to get amenities in return for allowing
additional specified heights within specified areas in the City. It also provides certainty as to what
those additional heights might be and where they can be placed. It requires a Development
Agreement, which means that the applicant may propose benefits and amenities to which the City
may agree with. Key elements of the program include:
1. The proposed level of benefit is equivalent to at least 15% of the project profits attributed to the
increase in height (decided through preparation of a project proforma).
2. Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following
benefits:
a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements (bike, pedestrian facilities, participation in a
community shuttle program, etc.)
b. Public Facilities (land or space).
c. Senior Housing- 15% of housing that is not already targeted towards seniors.
d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities (new or expansion to museum, teen center, etc.)
e. Parks and Open Space (land/improvements within project or off-site)
Table 1 - Development Allocation Per Alterna tive (through 2040)
Use Built/
Approved
No Project/
2005 General
Plan
Alt. A PC Rec. Alt. B Balanced
Plan Alt. C
Office (sf)
Net Increase
8,929,775 540,231 1,040,231 1,040,231 2,540,231 2,540,231 4,040,231
0 500,000 1 500,000 2 2,000,000 1 2,000,000 1 3,500,0001
Commercial (sf)
Net increase
3,729,569 701,413 701,413 701,413 3 701, 413 3 701,413 3 701,413 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
Hotel (rooms)
Net Increase
1,090 339 600 1,339 839 1,339 1,339
0 261 1,000 500 1,000 1,000
Residential (units)
Net Increase
21,339 1,895 1,895 Eliminate 3,316 4 4,421 4 4,421 4
0 0 N/A 1,421 2,526 2,526
Notes: 1. Office – includes Major Company allocation of 523,118 sf.
2. Office sf. in Planning Commission recommendation does not retain a Major Company allocation pool.
3. Commercial - assumes that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601 sf) will be demolished and 600,000 sf min.
will be built at site, with the remaining (625,335 sf) moved to the City -wide pool.
The EIR conservatively analyzed 1,343,679 sf of commercial square footage due to the demolition and reconstruction of the
Vallco Mall square footage.
4. Residential - includes the 1,400 units recommended for the 2014 -2022 Housing Element.
11
In lieu of the benefits outlined in Item 2, a “Cash-in-Lieu Contribution” may be made to the City for
purchase of land, capital improvements or operations related to items a, b, d, e, and towards the
construction of affordable housing.
An edit has been made to the Community Benefits program. The proposed level of benefit was to
be “equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed to the increase in height” earlier
but has been changed to “equivalent to at least 15% of the project profits attributed to the increase in
height.”
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Commission was split on the issue of community benefits.
Some felt that the typical negotiation process used in most communities could potentially result in difficult
situations at the project level, while others felt that the process could be improved if there was public
involvement in the process. Some felt that community benefits could provide public amenities that would not
otherwise have been obtained through a regular permit process. One commissioner felt that the developer
should not have the option of paying the “in-lieu” cash payment and should be obligated to provide
community benefits. Ultimately, the Commission decided not to recommend the Community Benefits
Program and recommended eliminating all policies and strategies associated with Community Benefits from
Community Vision 2040.
Key Question 2: Community Benefits
1. Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program?
2. If yes, does the should there be any revisions to:
a. Value of the community benefits?
b. Specific program items – retail requirement or other items?
Heights
Community Vision 2040 envisions keeping heights and development standards in most of the City
consistent with those in the 2005 General Plan. However, recognizing that the City needs to achieve
regional housing goals, economic reliance and fiscal goals, while ensuring that adequate sites are
reserved for future housing element cycles, the Balanced Plan recommends targeted growth in
certain gateways and nodes. Additionally, in order to achieve sustainability and connectivity
principles, the plan recommends focusing growth in major transportation corridors.
A visual preference survey was conducted at Community-wide Workshop #2, which was attended
by 59 participants. The purpose of the visual preference survey was to collect information from the
community on urban design concepts related to streetscapes, mobility enhancements, parks and
plazas, buildings (including heights), and land uses (including residential densities). The visual
preference survey was also provided in an online format and received 78 individual responses (137
participants total). The results of the visual preference survey indicated a wide range of opinions
ranging from no/controlled growth to some tolerance for growth along the major corridors targeted
in the study. The majority of workshop and online participants (65 percent or more) preferred
either mid-rise office or mixed use buildings (2-6 stories) or low rise commercial buildings (1-2
stories), and a mid-rise commercial district on the Vallco site (2-6 stories). Through the outreach
12
process, community feedback indicated that a certain level of comfort existed with taller heights in
certain areas in the City.
Heights in the Balanced Plan are generally lower than those studied in Alternative B. Additionally,
consistent with the practice in the 2005 General Plan for the Vallco area, heights above the base
height in key gateways and nodes require retail on the ground floor. Additional heights above that
are specified in three nodes – N. De Anza Gateway (Cupertino Inn), N. Vallco Gateway West
(Kimco and hotel area near Hwy 280), and the Vallco area (Vallco Shopping District to the east of
Wolfe Road and South Vallco - north of Vallco Parkway) with the provision of community benefits.
In addition, the recommendation is to keep the Building Planes along all arterials at 1:1. Currently,
the only area not consistent with this is in the South and North Vallco areas along Homestead Road
and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The recommendation will keep a consistent building streetscape
along the street. No changes are recommended to the 35-foot setback in the Heart of the City
Special Area.
Table 2 below provides a comparison of heights in Special Areas only where they are recommended
to be changed. Densities are discussed in the Housing Element sites discussion.
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C
Heart of the City Special Area
Oaks Gateway − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 30 ft. for
Glenbrook
No change No change Same as Alternative
B
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE
site
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE
site
Glenbrooks site − 30 ft.
− 20 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.
− See HE topic
for density
No change No change No change
North Crossroads
Node
− 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change Same as
Balanced Plan
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft. with
retail
− 25 du/ac
− 35 du/ac if HE site
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 40 du/ac
City Center − 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change No change Same as Alternative
B
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 90
ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits on
specific sites
− 25 du/ac
South Vallco Park − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with
retail
− 35 du/ac
No change No change No change − 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 75 ft. or 90 ft.
with retail; or
160 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
13
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
East of Wolfe Road − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with
retail
− 35 du/ac
No change − 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft. with
retail; or 90 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
110 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 75 ft.; or 90 ft.
with retail; or
160 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
West of Wolfe Road − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with
retail
− 35 du/ac
No change No change − 45 ft.; or 60 ft. with
retail; or 75 ft. with
community benefits
for a 200 ft. depth
along the Wolfe Rd
prop. line and set
back 200 ft. from
Stevens Creek Blvd
prop. line
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail; or 75
ft. with
community
benefits along
Stevens Creek
and Wolfe
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
85 ft. with
community
benefits along
Stevens Creek
and Wolfe
− 35 du/ac
N. De Anza Blvd
Special Area
− 45 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change Same as
Alternative B
Same as Alternative
B
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 75 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Homestead Special Area
North De Anza
Gateway
(Cupertino Inn)
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
No change − 45 ft.; or 60
ft. with retail;
or 90 ft. for a
hotel and
500-person
convention
center
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft. with
retail; or 90 ft. for
hotel and major
convention center
with community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 95
ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
145 ft. with
community
benefits
− 35 du/ac
Stelling Gateway
(east of Stelling)
− 45 ft.
− 35 du/ac
No change No change Same as Alternative
B
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
− 45 ft.; or 60 ft.
with retail
− 35 du/ac
North Vallco Park Special Area
N. Vallco Gateway
(west of Wolfe Rd.)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change No change − 60 ft.; or 90 ft. for a
200 ft. depth along
Wolfe Rd prop line
for hotel & major
convention center
with community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 95
ft. with
community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
145 ft. with
community
benefits
− 25 du/ac
14
Table 2– Heights & Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative
Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C
North Vallco Park Special Area (contd.)
N. Vallco Gateway
(east of Wolfe Rd. –
Hamptons site)
− 60 ft.
− 25 du/ac
No change Same as
Balanced
Plan
− 99 du/ac if
HE site
− 75 ft.; 60 ft. for
buildings within
50 ft. of prop. lines
abutting Wolfe Rd,
Pruneridge Ave &
Apple Campus 2
site.
− 25 du/ac
− 65 du/ac if HE site
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or 95
ft. with
community
benefits
− 65 du/ac
− 60 ft.; or 75 ft.
with retail; or
145 ft. with
community
benefits
− 110 du/ac
South De Anza
Boulevard
Special Area
Two parts: S.
De Anza
Blvd
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
S. Sunnyvale-
Saratoga
− 30 ft.
− 15 du/ac.
Merge into
one area
for South
De Anza
Boulevard
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
Same as
Balanced Plan
(see HE for
density for HE
site)
Same as Alternative
A
Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
Summerwinds HE
Site
− 30 ft.
− 5-15 du/ac
− 30 ft.
− 25 du/ac
− 45 ft.
(see HE for
density)
No change Same as
Alternative A
Same as
Alternative A
Building planes
along arterials
1:1 along all
arterials
1:1.5 (S.
Vallco along
Stevens
Creek Blvd &
N. Vallco
along
Homestead
Rd.)
No change Same as
Balanced Plan
Same as Alternative
B
1:1 along all
arterials
(No change to
Heart of the City
landscape
easement setback
of 35 ft.)
Same as
Alternative B
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission recommended changes in the North
Crossroads Node, North De Anza Special Area, Vallco Shopping District (E. of Wolfe Road), North De Anza
Gateway (Cupertino Inn), and at the Hamptons, Glenbrooks Apartments and Summerwinds/Granite Rock
sites. Details are provided in the table above.
Key Question 5: Building Heights
1. What should building heights be in the Special Areas?
Vallco Shopping District
The Vallco Shopping Center has always been envisioned as a regional shopping destination and a
key revenue generator for Cupertino. The mall, which was originally constructed between 1974 and
15
1979 functioned as a regional shopping destination and a source of revenue for the City. As
discussed in the Retail Strategy Report (Attachment Q), the emptying of the mall continued from
the 1990’s into the mid 2000’s. Due to reasons including the fractured property ownership,
operating restrictions easement agreements, and the competitive nature of regional mall operation,
leasing, and management, Vallco Mall was unable to compete with the larger and more
sophisticated operators of Stanford and Valley Fair. Incomplete development, defaults from prior
ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes, and other
setbacks have exacerbated the situation.
To solicit community input and ideas about the future of the Vallco Shopping Mall site, the City
developed an interactive mapping exercise that allowed participants to create future designs for the
area. A total of 24 groups developed a plan for the future of the Vallco Shopping District during
four workshops and meetings (Community-wide Workshop #2, a Neighborhood meeting,
a Chamber of Commerce meeting, and a Neighborhood Block Leaders meeting). In addition, an
online survey included the Vallco mapping exercise, which was completed by 78
people. Throughout the outreach process, there was a consistent message from the community - to
make Vallco a shopping, entertainment and dining destination and gathering place. Ideas for the
area ranged from a re-tenanting and façade improvement program to re-imagining the site as a
mixed-use pedestrian-oriented "town center-style" project.
The "re-tenanting with minimal change" option was preferred by neighborhood groups near the
shopping center due to concerns related to height and traffic impacts. However, a majority
of groups (15 of the 24) at the workshops felt that it would be acceptable to add a mix of uses,
including residential, hotel and office in the shopping district. In addition, a majority of the
individual responses (50% or higher) from the online survey indicated a desire to add a mixed of
residential, hotel and office uses in the shopping district so long as they were away from existing
residential neighborhoods (e.g., on areas of the Vallco site closer to Interstate 280). Overall, the
majority of participants (workshops and online) wanted parks, plazas, art exhibits in attractive
outdoor areas, and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, traffic and safety improvements to the area given the
potential increase in traffic to the area.
At the November 20, 2014 community workshop hosted by the City, the majority of residents
expressed concern related to traffic and school impacts on the east side of the City. They felt that
the area has had a lot of new development with the Main Street project, the adjacent Rosebowl
(Nineteen 800) apartment complex and the Apple Campus on the north side. The majority wanted
to leave Vallco as a retail shopping center. Others commented that any redevelopment o n the site
should be delayed until the Main Street and Apple Campus were in place.
The Retail Strategy outlined options for the Vallco Shopping Center including re-imagining the site
as a “downtown” or “town center” with a mix of retail, hotel, office and residential uses. The other
option included reducing and relocating the retail portion to the west side and opening the east
side up to redevelopment with office, hotel and residential uses. The City has two basic options for
the Vallco Shopping District with a variety of options in between.
16
1. Keep Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning – The 2005 General Plan encourages
redevelopment as a mixed-use site with residential and retail uses. However, the zoning, which
is a combination of General Commercial (CG) and Planned Regional Shopping does not
currently allow residential or office uses. As discussed in the Retail Strategy Report, retail rents
alone will not attract the kind of investment needed to adapt the center to the changing nee ds of
today’s retail environment. Therefore, without the introduction of other more profitable uses,
such as office or residential, the center will most likely continue to deteriorate. The City’s goals
of economic and fiscal stability and providing a cohesive and vibrant, shopping, dining and
entertainment destination are not likely to be met.
2. Revising the General Plan Land Use to add office use and Zoning to add office and residential use – the
inclusion of office and residential uses along with a substantial retail/entertainment component
would help to create a vibrant, high-quality, community gathering place, and entertainment
and lifestyle shopping destination. However, partial redevelopment has not been successful in
the past. Therefore, a successful development strategy for the site will have to include:
complete redevelopment of the site, a Master Developer, and adoption of a Specific Plan with
phasing and infrastructure improvements, and a “Town Center” format. Based on the Retail
Strategy Report, a successful mix of uses would include 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail
with a mix of residential, hotel and up to 2,000,000 square feet of office use.
The Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040) recommends a minimum of 600,000 square feet of
retail (30% of which can be entertainment use), 600 units, 375 hotel rooms and about 1,000,000
square feet of office space for the Vallco Shopping District (as noted earlier, the Retail consultant
acknowledges that up to 2,000,000 square feet of office could be necessary to acquire and develop
the site). Consistent with community feedback in the workshops, it recommends retaining current
height limits on the portion of the site west of Wolfe Road, mid-range building heights closer to the
freeway and away from neighborhoods, retention of trees along the perimeter, and neighborhood
buffers in the form of setbacks and landscaping. Additionally, in order to address neighborhood
concerns, the proposed Community Vision 2040 requires a Specific Plan for the area which will
allow a robust community participation process prior to approval of a development project. This
would allow the City to achieve community goals for a shopping and dining destination, economic
and fiscal goals, and a portion of the City’s Housing Element requirement, while addressing
neighborhood concerns related to development.
Planning Commission recommendation – The Planning Commission agreed that Vallco Shopping District
could be developed as a regional shopping destination with a mix of retail, entertainment, residential, office
and hotel uses. However, they felt that a Specific Plan process with public input should be required before the
final development allocations and uses on the site were approved. They liked the “Town Center” concept.
They recommended the following changes to the policies in the proposed General Plan related to the Vallco
Shopping District:
Remove minimum and maximum allocations; and
Include a mix of major retail with entertainment, residential, office, and a five-star hotel with a major
convention center.
17
Key Question 4: Vallco Shopping District
Should the Vallco Shopping District continue to be envisioned as “town-center” with a mix of
retail/entertainment, residential and office use in the General Plan?
Other Revisions to the Land Use Designations
The following other changes are being recommended related to Land Use designations
PG&E site (Homestead Road east of Blaney Avenue) – The General Plan Land Use designation
is recommended to be amended from Quasi-public/Institutional to Commercial/Quasi-
Public/Institutional. While PG&E does not currently anticipate any changes to their current
operations, they are not opposed to the change as long as it allows them to continue the use at
the current site. The revised designation would allow PG&E to continue the use at the site,
while allowing a future commercial opportunity, if PG&E chooses to sell it in the future.
Mirapath (Blaney Avenue) – As requested by the applicant and property owners, the General
Plan Land Use designation on this site has been revised from Industrial to
Commercial/Industrial. The amendment is being requested since the site is small and can’t
incorporate industrial uses successfully. The amendment will allow the site to be used for
commercial office and continue to allow light manufacturing uses.
Other Minor changes: Revisions to sites to ensure that the General Plan Land Use designations
and zoning are consistent.
Planning Commission Recommendation – Planning Commission recommended approval of these changes.
Housing Element
Context
In accordance with State law, General Plans in California cities must contain a Housing Element.
For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a
120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends
from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing
Element again in 2019 (every four years).
Housing Element Content Requirements
The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per State
Housing Element law, the Housing Element must be periodically updated to:
Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations (Needs
Assessment)
Analyze potential constraints to new housing production (Constraints Analysis)
Describe goals, policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing objectives
(Housing Plan)
Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional
growth projections per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify
18
adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels (Housing
Resources)
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements (Consistency
with General Plan)
Evaluate accomplishments in implementing programs in the previously adopted 2007-2014
Housing Element, and evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of continuing these
programs in the 2014-2022 Housing Element (Review of Previous Housing Element)
A detailed discussion of these topics is provided in Attachment R – Housing Commission staff
report dated August 28, 2014
Housing Resources & Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
One of the primary requirements of State Housing Element law pertains to the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Cupertino’s RHNA allocation is 1,064 new housing units
between 2014 and 2022. The City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units approved and 32
second units anticipated). As a result, the City has to identify sites for the construction of the
balance or 1,002 units. HCD typically requires jurisdictions to provide a moderate surplus of units
in case sites are not developed, or are developed at densities lower than those expected in the
Housing Element. This is more so the case, when a good portion of a jurisdiction’s sites are in
mixed-use zones that could be developed without residential uses or on developed sites. In the
past, three of the 2007-2014 Housing Element sites were developed with non-residential uses
(portion of Apple Campus 2, Kiddie Academy, and Saich Way Station). Based on past discussions
with HCD and experience with Housing Elements for other jurisdictions, and since the majority of
the City’s sites are in mixed-use zones (approximately 68%), the City’s consultant recommends an
additional 25-40 percent above the City’s remaining housing need or a total of 1,250-1,400 units.
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element
The Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element (see Attachment C) draws strongly from the 2007-2014
Housing Element (see Attachment S). The input received after several community meetings
(including stakeholder interviews in 2013, three community workshops/open houses, and four
study sessions—outlined in more detail below under Public Noticing and Outreach), very closely
reflects the input received during preparation of the previous Housing Element. As a result, the
draft 2014-2022 Housing Plan reflects minimal changes from the 2007-2014 Housing Plan. A
number of changes are recommended (most are for compliance with State and regional
requirements). A detailed discussion of these is provided in the Housing Commission and Planning
Commission staff reports (Attachments I and R). Items that may be of particular interest include:
Programs have been revised to ensure that the 2014-2022 Housing Element complies with
State law. Specifically, programs were added to reflect amendments to the zoning ordinance
related to density bonuses, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing to
comply with State law and to amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to revise the method
in which residential density is calculated in mixed-use developments;
Housing Mitigation Program: The City’s affordable housing program—the Housing Mitigation
Program—has been amended to comply with recent litigation. A 2009 court-case (Palmer vs.
19
the City of Los Angeles) has resulted in cities suspending or amending the portion of their
Housing Mitigation program requiring affordable units to be included in market-rate rental
developments.
Housing Preservation Program: The existing Rental Preservation Program has been amended to
provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants in developments with four or more units.
Housing Sites
The Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have conducted multiple study
sessions and community workshops to review potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. On April
1, 2014, the City Council authorized staff to prepare environmental review for three alternatives (A,
B and C) for a maximum of nineteen (19) sites based on the criteria outlined below . On August 28,
2014, the Housing Commission recommended adoption of the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element
and the Low-High priority listing for the sites.
HCD Criteria for Site Selection
HCD reviews each Housing Element’s sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been
identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a “site suitability analysis” is an important step in
addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must demonstrate that identified sites can
accommodate the housing needs—by income level—within the current planning period of the
element (2014-2022). The criteria are listed below and discussed in detail in Attachment R –
Housing Commission staff report dated August 28, 2014. Criteria include:
Existing Use on the Site
Realistic Potential for Recycling
Site Size and Ownership Patterns
Development Density (to meet the minimum affordability criteria of 20 units/ac at 85% of
maximum density)
Other Criteria for Site Selection
In addition to the State-wide criteria, Plan Bay Area – the region’s Sustainable Communities
Strategy (discussed earlier) contributes additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable
housing site in the ABAG region. The City’s General Plan policies are generally consistent with the
strategies in the Plan. In addition, criteria, consistent with the City’s 2005 General Plan, have also
been identified in order to ensure functional and attractive development occurs on the sites
selected. Key themes include:
Locate development along major transportation routes with access to transit or within ½ mile
of a VTA Priority Development Area (PDA).
Locate higher density housing in closer proximity to employment and activity centers
Corner lot(s) with large frontage preferred – such parcels provide the most flexibility to
accommodate mixed-use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity
between mid-block parcels
Incentive for redevelopment –Sites with older, under-performing retail shopping centers have
also been evaluated as to whether housing or office would be necessary to provide an
incentive to improve higher-quality retail.
20
Housing Element Sites
While all 19 sites have been studied for potential impacts in the EIR, 1 8 sites were available for
selection for the Planning Commission. This is because the largest property owner, Valley Church,
associated with Site 17 (IntraHealth/ Office/Tennis Courts) sent the City a letter expressing their
desire to not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory shortly after the City authorized study of
the 19 sites. The remaining sites were prioritized by how well they meet the criteria outlined above.
After the Planning Commission meetings in October 2014, the City received letters, from the
property owner for two parcels, which comprise the bulk, of Site 19 (Cypress Building/Hall
property), the property trustee for China Dance, which constitutes a small portion of EIR Site 1
(Shan Restaurant, Q-Mart and China Dance) and the property owner of Arya Restaurant,
representing approximately 40% of EIR Site 2, requesting removal of their parcels from
consideration for the Housing Element. Staff recommends removal of Site 19 from the Housing
Element Priority List due to the reduced size of the resulting parcels; recommends reducing the size
of Site 1 by eliminating the China Dance parcel since the size of the resulting site is not greatly
reduced. EIR Site 2 was already recommended for Removal in the Balanced Plan (see Priority No.
15 below) and is also not part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation (see Table 4.)
Table 3 below shows the Recommended (High priority) and alternate Housing Element (Moderate
and Low-Moderate priority) sites listed in the Balance Plan. Sites that score low in meeting the
criteria are recommended to be removed from the Alternate Housing Sites list. A detailed table of
all sites is provided in Attachment T. It should be noted that the density of the sites in Alternative
A, even if all of them were included, does not meet the upper end of the 25 -40% surplus (1,250-
1,400 units) recommended to meet the remaining RHNA. The densities recommended in the
Balanced Plan are based on the following goals:
Provide densities for existing sites that allow enough of an incentive to assume that the sites
would be developed in the 2014-2022 period (HCD criterion).
Meet affordability HCD criterion (minimum 20 du/ac at 85% of maximum density; ~ 25 du/ac).
Ensure that there are enough sites for future housing elements.
TABLE 3
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density & Capacity at 85% & 100% & Proposed Zoning
Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C
Recommended Housing Element Sites
1.
The Oaks
P(CG) High
25 du/ac
0 du
No change
35 du/ac
235 du @ 85%
276 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
235 du @ 85%
276 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
35 du/ac
235 du @ 85%
276 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
2.
Vallco Shopping
District (west)
P(CG), P(Regional
Shopping)
High
35 du/ac
0 du
P(Regional
Shopping)
35 du/ac
600 du
1,179 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
600 du
1,179 du @ 100%
P(Regional
Shopping, MP, Res)
35 du/ac
800 du
1,179 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
21
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density & Capacity at 85% & 100% & Proposed Zoning
Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C
3.
Hamptons
342 du existing
P(Res – 70)
High
25 du/ac
0 du
Same as Alt B
65 du/ac
344 du add @ 85%
404 du add @ 100%
Same as Alt B
65 du/ac
344 du add @ 85%
404 du add @ 100%
P(Res)
110 du/ac
820 du add @ 85%
1,026 add @ 100%
Same as Alt B
4.
United Furniture
+ other
P(CG, Res)
High
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
No change
5.
Barry Swenson
P(CG, Res) High
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
No change
6.
Glenbrooks Apts
517 du existing
R3(10-20)
High
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac**
93 du add @ 85%
109 du add @ 100%
No change
Recommended Sites Total at 85% 207 du 1,386 du 1,386 du 2,062 du
Alternate Housing Element Sites
7.
Marina Plaza
P(CG, Res) Mod.
25 du/ac
145 du @ 85%
171 du @ 85%
No change
35 du/ac
204 du @ 85%
240 du @ 100%
No change
35 du/ac
204 du @ 85%
240 du @ 100%
No change
40 du/ac
232 du @ 85%
274 du @ 100%
No change
8.
Stevens Creek
Office
P(CG, Res)
Mod.
25 du/ac
134 du @ 85%
157 du @ 100%
No change
35 du/ac
187 du @ 85%
220 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
187 du @ 85%
220 du @ 100%
P(CG, OP, Res)
40 du/ac
214 du @ 85%
252 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
9.
Cypress @ Finch
Ave.
P(CG, Res)
Mod.
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
105 du @ 85 %
124 du @ 100%
No change
10.
Loree Center
P(CG, Res)
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
No change
11.
Homestead
Lanes+ Adj.
P(CG)/P(Rec,
Ent)
Low-
Mod.
35 du/ac
0
No change
35 du/ac
151 du @ 85%
178 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
35 du/ac
151 du @ 85%
178 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
35 du/ac
151 du @ 85%
178 du @ 100%
Same as Alt B
12.
Summerwinds/
Granite Rock/
Jack in the Box
P(CG, Res 5-15)
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
Same as Alt A
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
Same as Alt A
40 du/ac
154 du @ 85%
182 du @ 100%
Same as Alt A
13.
Shan and Q
Mart**
P(CG, Res)
Low-
Mod.
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
33 du @ 85%
39 du @ 100%
No change
Alternate Sites Total at 85% 435 du 698 du 698 du 811 du
22
Planning Commission recommendation - see Table 4 below
TABLE 4 Planning Commission Recommended Housing Element Sites & Alternates
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning Priority Density & Capacity at 85% &
100% & Proposed Zoning a
Comments
Recommended Housing Element Sites
1. The Oaks
P(CG) High
150 du maximum
recommended – results in
approximately 19 units/ac
19 units/ac does not meet HCD’s
affordability criteria. The density may
not be adequate to revitalize the site
with a large retail component.
However, a density of 25 du/ac may
allow provision of a retail component.
167 du @ 85%
197 du @ 100%
2.
Hamptons
(342 units existing)
P(Res)-70
High
748 du add. @ 85%
889 du add. @ 100%
99 du/ac - P(Res)
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning
Priority
(meets
criteria)
Density & Capacity at 85% & 100% & Proposed Zoning
Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C
Sites Recommended for Removal
14.
Villages
468 du existing
R3
Low
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
20 du/ac***
62 du @ 85%
74 du @ 100%
No change
15.
Arya/
Scandinavian
P(CG, Res)
Low
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
58 du @ 85%
68 du @ 100%
No change
16.
Foothill Market @
McClellan
P(CG)
Low
15 du/ac***
0
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
Same as Alt C
15 du/ac*
0 du
No change
25 du/ac
27 du @ 85%
32 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
17.
Bateh Bros.
P(CG) Low
15 du/ac*
0 du
No change
25 du/ac
14 du @ 85%
16 du @ 100%
Same as Alt C
15 du/ac*
0 du
No change
35 du/ac
19 du @ 85%
23 du @ 100%
P(CG, Res)
18.
Carl Berg
P(CG, ML, Res) Low
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
No change
Removed Sites Total at 85% 231 du 272 du (Remove) 231 du 277 du
Total Units on All Sites 873 du
2,356 du
(2,084 du not incl.
Low priority)
2,315 du 3,150 du
23
TABLE 4 Planning Commission Recommended Housing Element Sites & Alternates
Priority
No.
Site Name
Existing Zoning Priority Density & Capacity at 85% &
100% & Proposed Zoning a
Comments
3. United Furniture + other
P(CG, Res) High
Same as Balanced Plan
25 du/ac
103 du @ 85%
121 du @ 100%
4. Barry Swenson
P(CG, Res) High
Same as Balanced Plan
25 du/ac
11 du @ 85%
13 du @ 100%
5.
Glenbrooks
(517 units existing)
R3(10-20)
High
28 du/ac (300 additional
recommended)
306 du @ 85%
360 du @ 100%
Increase building heights
from 30 feet to 45 feet
Building an additional 300 units will
require tearing down existing units.
The increase in density from 20 du/ac
to 28 du/ac will likely not be sufficient
incentive to do so.
The current R3 zoning district allows
a maximum density of 20 units/acre
for the site. A density of 28 units/acre
will require a new zoning district,
with increased density and height,
and potentially reduced setbacks.
See additional staff comment on EIR.
6.
Summerwinds/Granite
Rock/Jack in the Box
P(CG, Res 5-15)
Low-
Mod
25 du/ac
96 du @ 85%
114 du @ 100%
Increase building heights
from 30 feet to 45 feet
P(CG, Res)
Recommended Sites Total @ 85% 1,408 du
Alternate Housing Element Sites
7.
Villages
(468 units existing)
R3
Mod
Same as Balanced Plan
20 du/ac
62 du add. @ 85%
72 du add. @ 100%
8. Marina Plaza
P(CG, Res) Mod
Same as Balanced Plan
35 du/ac
204 du @ 85%
240 du @ 100%
9. Carl Berg
P(CG, Res)
Low-
Mod.
Same as Balanced Plan
25 du/ac
169 du @ 85%
199 du @ 100%
Alternate Sites Total @ 85% 435 du
Notes: a. Projects up to 100% of the maximum density may be proposed. Any units above 85% of the maximum density would
have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.
24
Comments – The Planning Commission recommended 300 units be assigned to the Glenbrook Apartments
site and 150 units to the Oaks site. However, upon consultation with the EIR consultant, it has been
determined that a maximum of 50 units over and above the maximum units studied in the EIR can be added
to the Oaks and Glenbrooks area without triggering additional traffic analysis and environmental review.
Based on the Planning Commission recommendation of providing 150 units to the Oaks site, the most that
could be added to the Glenbrooks area would be an additional 228 units (max studied in the EIR +50 = 378-
150 for Oaks). In addition, the site would need a General Plan designation and zoning change to ensure that
the units proposed for the site can be accommodated. The current General Plan designation of Medium
Residential (10-20 du/ac) would have to be changed to Medium/High (20-35 du/ac) and a new R3-type
zoning district would have to be created to accommodate a higher density and taller heights. This would
require additional time and analysis. Therefore, the findings for the Planning Commission recommendation
can only support a maximum of 228 units without additional environmental review. This number falls short
of the desired Housing Elements sites count by 72 units.
The final list of recommended Housing Element sites will be incorporated in the Draft Housing
Element prior to forwarding to the HCD. In addition, the alternative Housing Element sites list will
be maintained, in case, one or more of the sites are not approved by HCD after discussions with
them. If sites have to be replaced in the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element with sites from the
Alternate Housing Element Sites list, any necessary amendments to the General Plan Land Use
designations and zoning will be presented with the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element in Spring
2015.
General Plan and Zoning Approach for Housing Element sites
General Plan Land Use Designation – The General Plan Land Use Map will identify the base land use
standards recommended in the Balanced Plan. Housing Element sites will have an overlay with the
higher densities and height standards on the General Plan Land Use map. The development
standards will be effective per the zoning schedule described below. Recommended Housing
Element sites that require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation include: the
Hamptons, and the Oaks (increased densities). Housing Element sites recommended by the
Planning Commission that would require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation
include: Glenbrooks, Summerwinds etc. and Hamptons (increased densities and heights, as
previously discussed).
Zoning Map Amendment – The Zoning Map amendments are scheduled to go into effect on the date
the Final Housing Element gets adopted. If changes are needed to the Housing Element sites list
based on HCD review; revisions to the Zoning Map will be presented concurrent with the adoption
of the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element in Spring 2015. Recommended Housing Element sites in
the Balanced Plan that would require a zoning change to add residential use include: the Oaks, and
Vallco Shopping District. The Hamptons will require a rezoning from P(Res)-70 (unclear how this
differs from Planned Residential) to P(Res) or Planned Residential. Housing Element sites
recommended by the Planning Commission that would require zoning changes include: the Oaks
to add residential use, and Glenbrooks, Summerwinds and Hamptons (increased densities).
25
Key Question 5: Housing Element Sites
1. Approve a list of Housing Element sites and densities to meet RHNA and HCD requirements.
2. Approve a prioritized Alternative Sites List.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
A summary of General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations and Municipal Code text
amendments is provided in Attachment U. The attached resolutions (Attachments B – E) provide
additional details on the changes to General Plan Land Use, Zoning designation, the Municipal text
and Specific Plan Amendments.
Attachment V is a redlined version of the zoning text amendments. It contains minor edits in
Chapter 19.12, Administration, to conform to the California Government Code, and edits to
Chapter 19.80, Planned Development (P) Zones to ensure implementation of the Housing Element
of the General plan which were not reflected in the Planning Commission resolution but are
reflected in Attachment E (Municipal Code Amendment Ordinance).
Attachment W is a redlined version of the Specific Plan Amendments to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan to reflect conformance changes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
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. 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 significant environmental
effects, along with other factors. The attached Planning Commission Study Session staff report
(Attachment X) and City Council Study Session staff report (Attachment Y) provides a detailed
discussion of the EIR. A brief discussion of the issues is provided below.
Proposed Project
Alternative C was identified as the CEQA “project” because it was the alternative with the greatest
development potential and therefore, the possibility of the greatest environmental effects. CEQA
requires that alternatives to the Proposed Project should avoid or substantially lessen one or more
significant impacts of the project. A discussion of Alternative C has been provided earlier.
EIR Alternatives
CEQA requires the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project that would
feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. As noted earlier, the following alternatives were studied.
No Project Alternative - The CEQA-required No Project alternative assumes that the Draft
General Plan would not be adopted or implemented and assumes the full implementation (by
2040) of development envisioned under the 2005 General Plan.
26
Alternative A – Discussion provided earlier in this report.
Alternative B – Discussion provided earlier in this report.
Impacts
The following environmental topics are addressed in the EIR. The EIR and the Planning
Commission and City Council staff reports on the EIR study sessions discuss the impacts related to
the CEQA Project (Alternative C) and the other alternatives in detail. Table 4 below outlines the
impact in each environmental topic for the Proposed Project and alternatives.
TABLE 4
Topic Proposed Project
(Alternative C)
No
Project Alternative A Alternative
B
Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS LTS
Air Quality SU SU SU SU1
Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Cultural Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS
Geology, Soils & Mineral Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS
GHG Emissions LTS LTS LTS LTS
Hazards & Hazardous Materials LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Hydrology & Water Quality LTS LTS LTS LTS
Land Use & Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS
Noise SU SU SU SU
Population & Housing LTS LTS LTS LTS
Public Services & Recreation LTS LTS LTS LTS
Transportation & Traffic SU SU SU SU
Utilities & Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M
Notes: LTS - Less-than-significant impact; LTS/M - Less-than-significant with mitigation; SU - Significant
and unavoidable.
1. In Alternative B, one impact (AQ-1) is LTS.
As noted above, the level of impacts in the Proposed Project as well as all three alternatives
analyzed show the same level of impacts within each resource category as a whole, but in varying
degrees. This is partly due to the fact that the EIR studied impacts of the buildout of the Proposed
Project and alternatives over a 25-year period as well as the cumulative regional build-out plans.
The results indicate that the difference between the impacts of the various alternatives is not very
significant, in the context of the cumulative impacts of regional plans over a 25-year period.
In general, the EIR finds significant and unavoidable impacts to Noise, Air Quality and
Transportation and Traffic related to the Proposed Project and alternatives. In some cases, the
significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation
measures require approval from a governmental agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g.
Caltrans), are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City, and need approval from the
other agencies for implementation. In other cases, a significant impact is unavoidable because the
27
significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though mitigation measures have been
identified and would be implemented.
Draft EIR and Final EIR
The Draft EIR was released on June 18, 2014 and was circulated for 45 days until August 1, 2014. A
meeting was held on June 24, 2014 to solicit written comments from the public related to the EIR.
Responses to comments received during the 45-day public review period were included in the
Responses to comments (RTC) document published as part of the Final EIR on August 28, 2014. The
Final EIR comprises of the Draft EIR (Attachment Z), the Response to Comments (RTC) Document
(Attachment AA), and the Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated November 3, 2014
(Attachment BB). The Response to Comments must be made available to all agencies that
commented during the public review period of the Draft EIR for at least 10 days before final action
is taken per CEQA requirements. The City will meet this obligation since final action on the project
will not take place until November 2014.
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 has been and will continue to provide responses to these comments. As
of November 22, 2014, 64 late comment letters (and attachments) were received. Responses to these
have been compiled in a late comment memo (Attachment BB.) The comment letters received
during and 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. Comments received after November 22, 2014 will be provided as a desk item for the December
2, 2014 City Council meeting.
The Planning Commission and City Council held EIR study sessions on September 9, 2014 and
October 7, 2014, respectively. The study sessions were a forum for questions related to the EIR and
no decisions were made. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the EIR at its meeting on
October 2, 2014, determined that it was adequate, and recommended that the City Council certify
the Final EIR (Attachment CC).
Balanced Plan
The Development Allocation recommendations in the Balanced Plan are generally between
Alternatives B and C. However the recommended heights are similar to or lower than those
studied in Alternative B. The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the
Proposed Project or any of the other alternatives due to the fact that the (office/commercial to
residential) balance is better than that in Alternative B, which had the lowest VMT of all of the
alternatives studied in the EIR. However, it will continue to have significant avoidable impacts for
traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
Planning Commission Recommendation – The Planning Commission recommended Certification of an
Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
28
adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, per Planning
Commission Resolution (Attachment A).
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the lead agency to make certain specified findings when it approves a project for
which an EIR has been certified that identified one or more significant effects on the environment.
Public Resources Code § 21081. CEQA Findings that address approval of the Planning Commission
Recommendation, as modified to address feasibility, are Attachment A. Alternate CEQA findings
that address approval of the Balanced Plan Project are reflected in Attachment H.
As part of the CEQA findings, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when
determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects
may be considered acceptable and the agency may determine that the significant unavoidable
impacts are outweighed by the proposed project's benefits. CEQA requires the agency to support,
in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not
avoided or substantially lessened.
The Balanced Plan (Community Vision 2040) would result in significant unavoidable impacts
related to transportation, air quality and noise, even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures. However, it would achieve community goals related to a balance of land uses, providing
active and vibrant shopping and entertainment destinations, and economic and fiscal stability. In
addition, the Plan would help ensure that regional targets for greenhouse gas emissions and
housing are met, encourages sustainable planning and practices, and would concentrate growth in
major transportation corridors and in employment centers and key Nodes and Gateways, while
maintaining community goals of neighborhood preservation and connectivity. These significant
unavoidable impacts and project benefits are discussed in the CEQA Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment H).
The Planning Commission recommendation would result in reduced VMT beyond that in
Alternative A but slightly lower than the Balanced Plan. However, it would continue to have
significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality, traffic and noise, generally between that in
Alternative A and the Balanced Plan. It would also not help to achieve the City’s economic and
fiscal goals since allocations (housing and office) would not be sufficient allow redevelopment of
the Vallco Shopping District. These significant and unavoidable impacts and project benefits related
to the Planning Commission recommendation are discussed in the CEQA Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A).
PUBLIC NOTICING AND WORKSHOPS
Noticing for the General Plan and Housing Element project has been extensive, including the
following:
Three postcards sent to every postal address in the City
o One for General Plan Amendment
29
o One combined for General Plan Amendment and Housing Element
o One announcing availability of the Draft EIR
Newspaper notices
Notices sent to prospective housing element site property owners
Creation of a project website - notice of website updates and Workshop/meeting reminders e -
mailed to about 300 website subscribers
E-mail list with close to 400 email addresses for interested parties maintained by City staff
The following is a list of public meetings.
General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #1 – July 18, 2013
General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #2 – October 23, 2013
General Plan Amendment Neighborhood Meeting – December 5, 2013
Chamber of Commerce and Block Leader meetings – January 29, 2014
Meetings with Study Area property owners/representatives
Meetings with interested Housing Element site property owners/representatives
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee –December 6, 2013 & February 7, 2014
Commission Meetings, Open Houses, Meetings and Study Sessions
o City Council Meeting for the initiation of the General Plan amendment project & contract –
February 19, 2012 and March 5, 2012
o City Council Meeting for initiation of the Housing Element project, consultant selection and
contract – November 4, 2013
o Presentation at Teen Commission Meeting – October 2, 2013
o Presentation at Bike and Ped. Commission Meeting – January 15, 2014
o Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission Study Session and Community
Workshop for Housing Element sites #1 – January 23, 2014
o Housing Commission Study Session and Community Workshop for Housing Element sites
#2 – February 12, 2014
o Open Houses #1 and #2 – February 19, 2014 and September 16, 2014
o Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Sites for Draft EIR – February 19, 2014
o City Council Study Session on Housing Sites and land use alternatives for environmental
review – March 3, 2014
o Housing Commission meeting on housing policy – March 19, 2014
o Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on housing and draft General Plan policy
direction – April 1, 2014
o Public meeting for EIR – June 24, 2014
o Housing Commission Meeting – August 28, 2014
o Planning Commission Study Session on the EIR – September 9, 2014
o City Council Study Session on the EIR – October 7, 2014
o Planning Commission public hearings - October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
o City Council meeting (public comment) – November 10, 2014
o Community Meeting – November 20, 2014
30
Public Comments
Comments related to the Draft EIR have been discussed earlier in this report. In addition to
comments received regarding the adequacy of the EIR, several comments were received on the
project. The comments are briefly discussed in Attachment EE.
November 10, 2014 City Council meeting (public comment)
Although Council’s action and direction at the November 10, 2014, Council meeting are to be
rescinded under the first recommendation, the public comments are summarized in case a member
of the public does not attend this re-hearing. The comments received at the meeting are
summarized in Attachment FF.
In general, the majority of speakers felt that the eastern part of town had a lot of ongoing
development including Main Street, Rosebowl (Nineteen 800) apartments and the Apple Campus 2
to the north. They felt that focusing the majority of Housing Element sites and development on the
eastern part of town was not equitable and that some development should be placed on the west
side of the City. Some speakers felt that existing retail sites such as the Oaks, Vallco, and Marina
Foods should not be converted into housing. Speakers were also concerned about the traffic and
school impacts of additional units due to the Housing Element as well impacts on parkland and
water supply. Some questioned the student generation rates assumed in the School Impact Study
and asked if the City had coordinated with the school district. In response to the questions about
the student generation rate, it should be noted that the study was done by the school district
consultants and that the student generation rates are from surveys conducted of similar unit types
in the City.
Since several commenters discussed school impacts, a memo discussing the limitations imposed on
agencies regarding impacts of development on schools is attached as Attachment GG. The memo
concludes that the CEQA process is essentially ministerial when it comes to arguments about the
impact of development on existing school facilities and their ability to accommodate more students.
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, through a
Development Agreement process, a developer may propose, and the City may accept, community
benefits for improvements to community facilities including schools.
The Chamber, and business and developer community comments from the November 10, 2014
meeting indicated general support for the development allocation up to the amounts studied in
Alternative C, support for retention of the major employers category and interest from property
owners of the Cupertino Inn, Stevens Creek Office Center, Oaks, Marina Pla za, Irvine Company
and Vallco (Sandhill) for additional heights and/or increased allocation.
November 20, 2014 Community meeting
In response to requests from the community, the City organized a community workshop on
November 20, 2014. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting. The comments and questions
gathered during the workshop have been summarized and are attached as Attachment HH. The
31
data collected from the meeting is available at the project website. Responses to the questions
collected are currently being prepared and will be updated in the FAQ page of the project website
and will be provided to the Council as a desk item for the December 2, 2014 meeting.
The majority of comments were related to distributing development equitably on the west and east
portions of the City. Speakers also expressed concerns about traffic and school impacts as well the
safety of school children walking and biking to schools on the east side. Some speakers questioned
why the City had to adopt a Housing Element and accept additional housing. Concern was also
expressed that impact fees paid by new development did not cover the entire cost of additional
school facilities generated by the development. In addition, concerns were expressed that multi-
family developments do not pay an equitable share of the parcel taxes paid by single family home
owners. Regarding Vallco, a number of speakers expressed a preference for keeping it as a retail
shopping center with expanded entertainment options and a public park, while a few expressed
interest in waiting until recent developments were completed before processing an application for
the site. Similar to the meeting on November 10, 2014, some expressed concerns about the validity
of the school impact analysis.
Some members of the community felt that only the Housing Element should be approved and that
all other developments should have to process their own General Plan Amendment on a case by
case basis. In response to the above question, staff would like to note that the intent of processing
the General Plan Amendments together were specifically to review the impacts of all the
development on a city-wide basis instead of reviewing them on a project-by-project basis.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the City Council’s decision on December 2, 2014, necessary changes will be made to the
findings for certification of the EIR, adoption of the General Plan (Community Vision 2040), and the
zoning ordinances. In addition, conforming changes will also be made to the Draft Housing
Element and alternative sites list prior consultation and review with HCD. A second reading for the
zoning ordinances related to the General Plan and Housing Element is scheduled for December 16,
2014. The Community Vision 2040 General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment
will go into effect upon adoption, however, the zoning ordinance text and map amendments will go
into effect 30 days after the second reading.
The final General Plan document text, maps and graphics will then be formatted and prepared for
posting by staff and the consultants.
The Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for their review, which is expected to take about 60 days. Staff will discuss
outstanding items with HCD and discuss any necessary changes related to the Housing Element
sites based on the prioritized and alternate sites list. Upon conclusion of HCD review, staff will
present the Final 2014-20122 Housing Element for adoption to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
32
The density bonus law has recently been amended to provide, for applications received after
January 1, 2015, that before a site can be considered for a density bonus, the project must include
the replacement of all affordable rental housing and housing occupied by lower income households
at any time in the five-year period preceding the density bonus application. In addition, the
amendments require 55-year, rather than 30-year, affordability for rental housing receiving a
density bonus and allow use of equity-sharing for lower income for-sale housing. These revisions
will be included in the Housing Element and zoning ordinance prior to adoption of the Final 2014-
2022 Housing Element.
Any related General Plan amendments or zoning map or code amendments related to the revised
Housing Element sites list will be brought at the same time. State law requires agencies to adopt
their 2014-2022 Housing Elements by May 31, 2015.
____________________________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
A. Draft Resolution 14-210, Recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact Report,
adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of
Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03)
B. Draft Resolution 14-211 adopting General Plan and Land Use Map Amendments (GPA-2013-
01)
C. Draft Resolution 14-212 to authorize staff to forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and use the prioritized
list of Alternative Housing Element sites (GPA-2013-02)
D. Draft Ordinance 14-2124 to approve Zoning Map Amendments (Z-2013-03)
E. Draft Ordinance 14-2125 to approve Municipal Code Amendments (MCA-2014-01)
F. Draft Resolution 14-213 to approve Specific Plan Amendment (SPA-2014-01)
G. Planning Commission resolutions 6760 – 6765 (The exhibits attached to the Planning
Commission resolutions have not been attached to Attachment G. These are available online at
www.cupertino.org/records under Planning Commission Agenda Packet for October 14, 2014.)
H. Alternate CEQA Findings for Balanced Plan Recommendation
I. Planning Commission staff report dated October 14, 2014
J. General Plan Amendment and Housing Element staff reports for: January 23, 2014 Housing
Commission, February 12, 2014 Housing Commission, February 19, 2014 Planning
Commission, March 4, 2014 City Council, April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City
Council
K. Concept Alternative Maps
L. Planning Commission public hearing minutes October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
M. General Plan and Housing Element errata since Planning Commission recommendation on
October 20, 2014
N. Balanced Plan Allocation, Heights and Density Map
33
O. Planning Commission Recommended Allocation, Heights and Density Map
P. Market Study dated February 13, 2014 prepared by BAE Urban Economics
Q. Retail Strategy Report dated March 6, 2014 prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate
LLC
R. Housing Commission staff report dated August 28, 2014
S. 2007-2014 Housing Element and Technical Appendix
T. Site Priority List with criteria
U. Summary Of Land Use Map, Zoning Map And Zoning Text Amendments
V. Zoning text amendments – Redlined version
W. Specific Plan amendments – Redlined version
X. Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated September 9, 2014
Y. City Council Study Session Staff Report dated October 7, 2014
Z. Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 18, 2014
AA. Response to Comments Document dated August 28, 2014
BB. Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated November 3, 2014
CC. Updated Late Comments memo dated November 22, 2014
DD. Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee
EE. Public Comments Related to the General Plan and Housing Element
FF. Summary of comments received at the November 10, 2014 Council Meeting
GG. Memo re: Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications dated 02/25/14
HH. Summary of Questions and Comments received at the November 20, 2014 Community
Meeting