The URL can be used to link to this page

13. GPA office allocationCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO C{7Y HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (4()8) 777-3333 Sumrnar~y Agenda Item No: ~ ,~ Agenda Date: Juiy 21, 2009 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider General Plan Amendments. Application Nos. GPA-2009-01, EA-2004-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from June 2, 200:3): a} Adopt a Negative Declaration b} Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the (:ity Council: 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration; and 2. Amend the General Plan to add an office allocation of 4$3,053 square feet analyzed in the 2005 General Plan; and 3. Add the new office allocation to the category of major companies in the General Plan. BACKGROUND: On June 2, 2009, the City Council discussed the office allocation item and asked staff to bring the item back for Council consideration after the Initial Study is completed and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). Please refer to Attachments A & B for the full office allocation discussion and background. DISCUSSION: Environmental Analysis The original General Plan Environmental Impact Report, adopted by the Council in 2005, was a comprehensive environmental analysis with mitiation measures associated with the maximum build out scenario. Even though the residual office: allocation (483,053sf) was included in the build out assumptions analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR, the preparation of an Initial Study for the office allocation is still necessary in order to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements (Attachment C) for the Initial Study. The subsequent Negative Declaration did not identify any additional impacts or necessary mitigations beyond those that were already part of the origina12005 General Plan EIR. 13-1 GPA-2009-01; EA-2009-03 JuIY 21, 2009 Environmental Review Committee (ERC) 2 of 2 On July 2, 2009, the ERC reviewed the office allocation Initial Study and found that the additional office allocation could not have a significant effect on the environment and recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration (Attachment D). Submitted by: A i Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Ap roved by: , David Knapp City Manager Attachments: __: l~ ~~ t G. ao City Planner Attachment A: June 2, 2009 City Council staff report Attachment B: June 2, 2009 City Council meeting minutes Attachment C: Office Allocation Initial Study prepared by DCE Attachment D: Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee 13-2 G:~Planning~PDREPORT'~CC~20091GPA-2009-01(off~ceallocation)ccREVISED.doc Attachment A ~ si~i~ ~ CUPER-I'INQ COMMUN]TY DEVELOI~MENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE: • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (Q~0$) 777-3333 Surnmar Agenda Item No: APPLICATION SUMMARY: Agenda Date: Tune 2, 2009 Consider General Plan Amendments, Appli~~ation Nos. GPA-2009-01, EA-2009-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from May ~~}: b) Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the 2005 General Plan to add an office allocation of 4$3,053 square feet analyzed in the 2005 General Plan Environmental Impact Report {EIR). The ne`~v office allocation should be reserved for major companies. The Council will need to decide on the following acfions: 1. Approve the General Plan Amendment for the additional office allocation in July when the Initial Study is complete. 2. Approve the General Plan Amendment for the additional office allocation along with the Housing Element after Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD} review (tentatively expected in September/ October 2009). BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2008, the Council authorized. staff to proceed with the review of increasing the office allocation including the following components: 1. Review additional office allocation ul~ to 400,000 square feet, on a parallel track along with the Housing Element update, provided that the final amount does not impact the City's overall housing demand {for the 2007-2014 Housing Element period). 2. Review additional office allocation in addition to 400,000 square feet on a parallel track with the Housing Element update. 13-3 CP-2009-01; EA-2009-03 2 June 2, 2009 The potential shortage of available office allocation in the 2005 General Plan was raised by Apple and HP at the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting when the South Vallco _ _ _ _ _.Mast_~r~an was approved (Attachments A & B). At the time, staff noted that a total allocation of 800,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of total office space would be required in the General Plan to meet these and future needs. Currently, the remaining allocation fox office development in the 2005 General Plan i.s 355,612 square feet of which 150,000 square feet is reserved for major companies. Any future office projects will further draw down on the total remaining allocation. Please refer to the attached April 14th Planning Commission staff report and the October 21St City Council staff report and their respective minutes {Attachments C - F) for the detailed background discussions. DISCUSSION: Residual O, ff ce AIlocation from the 2005 General Plan Staff reviewed the 2005 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and found that there is 483,053 square feet of residual office allocation available that the City previously analyzed but decided not to. put into the 2005 General Plan (Attachment G). This remaining office allocation is critical to satisfy the current market demand and allow for future growth. Given the fact that a comprehensive environmental analysis was done previously and alI of the mitigation measures associated with the most intense scenario have been included in the certified EIR document, the City now has the option to add the residual office square feet back into the office allocation. Currently, there is a total of 345,612 square feet available including 195,612 square feet in the various planning areas, 150,000 square feet as the pool for major companies (Attachment H). Adding the office allocation of 483,053 square feet will increase the total pool to 828,665 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended adding all of the additional 483,053 square feet to the pool for major companies. This would increase the total available for major companies to 633,053 square feet. Staff agrees with this recommendation since this would reserve office allocation on a City-wide basis for companies that provide a substantial benefit to the City in terms of employment and revenue. Relationship to the Housing Elemenf The City is updating the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2007-2014 planning period. By utilizing a complex projection modeling system including Iand use, transportation, demographics and other factors at a regional level, ABAG has already determined the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (ItHNA) allocation towards meeting the regional housing needs for the 2007-2014 planning period. The City expects to meet the goals set by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and RHNA allocation provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Adding the residua1483,053 square feet of office square feet back into the General Plan will not affect the City's RHNA requirements for this planning period. 13-4 CP-2009-01; EA--2009-03 3 June 2, 2009 ABAG is looking to revise their Projections~rnodeling system and will be providing cities with new RHNA numbers for the next plaruung period. While staff expects the City's land use pattern to be a factor in the next RHNA ~a].location, it will be one of many factors that will be included in ABAG's future modeling;. ABAG's new modeling has not been decided at this time and staff will continue to monitor the process. Environmental Considerations It is common for EIR documents to analyze multiple alternatives, allowing decision-makers the flexibility to choose from a range of options. The most recent example was the EIR for the Main Street Cupertino project, where two alternatives were evaluated. The Council was able to pick from both alternatives, while staying within the scope of the EIR. Likewise, the 2005 General Plan EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of various major land use categories in the City {i.e., commercial, office, residential and hotel). More specifically, the EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts of a maximum office build-out at 9,320,005 square feet. However,, at the time, due to efforts to improve the job/1lousing balance and weak market dem~cnd for office developments, the City Council approved a maximum office build-out of 8,83b,952 square feet. Consequently, there is a residual office allocation of 483,053 square fE~et that could potentially be added into the General Plan {see Attachment G). The Housing Element environmental consultant, DCE (Design, Community & Environment), is also preparing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the additional office allocation. Although no additional or significant environmental impacts are anticipated, an initial study is still necessary in order to comply with CEQA regulations. The initial study is expected to be completed. in June/July 2009 and could be presented to the Environmental Review Committee and the City Council for consideration as early as July 2009. Alternatively, the Council may elect to review the environmental documents for the Housing Element and the office allocation at the same time after HCD has reviewed the Housing Element proposal in September/October 2009. Hotel Allocation Staff originally recommended that the Council also consider adding hotel allocation. However, since the Council did. not provide clear direction on whether the hotel allocation should be reviewed, the environmental reviE~w currently being completed for the office allocation does not include increasing the hotel allocation. Please refer to Attachment C for previous discussions. Similar to the office allocation studied in the 2005 General Plan EIR, the City Council approved a maximum hote:~ build-out of 1,429 rooms, which was 149 rooms short of the 1,578 rooms analyzed for environmental impacts. If the City Council wishes to add the residual hotel allocation oil 149 rooms into the General Plan, the environmental review will have to be revised. 13-5 CP-2009-O1; EA-2009-03 4 June 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On Apri114, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed this issue and recommended (4-1, Miller voting no) that the City Council amend the 2005 General Plan to add back the residual office allocation (4$3,053 square feet) analyzed in the 2005 General Plan. The Commission also recommends that the new office allocation be reserved for major corporate campuses in the City. Please refer to the Apri114, 2009 Planning Commission minutes (Attachment E) for the detailed Planning Commission discussion. Submitted by: ., ,, ~C~'y Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director Approved by: David Knapp City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attaclunent A: Letter from Apple -October 7, 2008 Attachment B: Letter from HP -October 2, 200$ Attachment C: Planning Commission staff report - Apri114, 2009 Attachment D: City Council staff report -October 21, 2008 Attachment E: Planning Commission meeting minutes -April 14, 2009 Attachment F: City Council meeting minutes -October 21, 2008 Attachment G: Table of Alternatives studied in 2005 General Plan EIR Attachment H: Remaining Office Development Allocation G: ~ Planning ti PDIZEPORTI CC ~ 2009 ~ GPA-2009-OT Office Allocation CC 6-2.doc 13-6 Attachment B CUPERTINQ DRAFT 11~INUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL. Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, Jame 2, 2009 ROYAL CALL .` At 4:04 p:m. Mayor Orrin Mahoney called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre~Avenue, Cupertino, Califarnia_ Present: Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice-Mayor Kris Wang, and,Council members Dolly Sandoval, Mark Santoro, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. STUDY SESSION .`•\ Study Session ou the proposed 200911-0 Budget. (Contir~~ted from May 27) ~~ ,. Staff members from different departments reviewed a packet of materials which included: • A list titled 2009/10 Budget Study sessio::~, Council Follow Up Items • The School Safety staff report (Mai 20,._item No. 17) • A listing of federal stimulus grams, • An interoffice memorandum regarding budget for the Heart of the City Specific Plan • A staff report regarding the ~ireakdown o~ election and potential Utility User Tax measure • An update on digital technology and Comcast sigzial quality • The status of the digitalJandwidth project and budget.. • A list of the City's op~ating budget expenditure trends '• - • An update on the Housing Element budgf;t • An update on tl~ cost sharing agreement for the traffic study fox new hotel and office square footage , • PowerPoint sifdes regarding preliminary bud-get estimates • Compariso~of Capital Improvement Pro~;ect budget items f AdministrativefServices Director Carol Atwood provided information on items~requested at the previous bu~~et discussion of May 27, includin;;: f • Rap of the last two years of School Re:;ource Officer costs • ~ootnote Retiree Medical Trust activity i~ the budget document Denote any deadlines an Stimulus Grant ~~pplications • Description of what $130,000 can provide for the Heart of the City • Breakdown of General Election versus Utility User Tax costs 13-7 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 2 • What's happening with Cupertino Channel broadcasting regarding quality improvement and update on digital status • Status of bandwidth project and budget • Community Development budget regarding Below-Market-Rate housing projects, fox two years; mid- to long-term planning projects for two years; affordable housing projects for two~years; total project to date Housing Element budget • Any cost sharing agreement for traffic study for new hotel and office squares • Capital`Improvement Projects regarding a list of wish items and reconciliation between Public Works Director's and Administrative Services Director's PowerPoint presentation's:, • Rental revenue~from the Simms property • 09/ 10 expenditure arends Public and Envirorunental~.Affairs Director Rick Kitson explained the need for infrastructure updates (I-NET) to the cable,system's fiber insertion point of Imperial Avenue, and said the estimate of creating afiber=based I-Net connection ranges from $50,000 to $100,000, depending upon the extent of exiting easements and construction costs, primarily trenching. Councilmeinber Santoro asked staff to explore the possibility of obtaining data service over a fiber connection to Comcast. Mr. Kitson also noted that the City Attorney was reviewing the local telecommunications ordinance ~to make it more compliant with the new State franchising law. This State law may provide some new revenue that could be used to offset the cost of fiber to improve the picture quality'of the City's television programs Jessica Garcia-Kohl, Associate Director of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, thanked the Council for past financial support totaling $275,000, and urged the Council's support for $25,000 for the Housing Trust in fiscal year 2010. She said the Trust is a sustainable agency with a proven record of investing iri the community; it`has raised $38 million, of which $30 million has already gone back into new housing and first=time home buyer loans, and another $4 million has been earmarked :for the county. The Trust has invested $500,000 directly back into Cupertino. She said if the City has future affordable housing projects, the Council might wish to consider increasing their investment in the Trust, which can double the value. Jennifer Griffin said that" the last time City Council discussed the budget, they talked about no longer maintaining residential sidewalks and instead making that the•,responsibility of the homeowners, and she strongly objected to that proposal. Mayor Mahoney,,said that idea was raised as an optionin the fiscal strategic plan, but it was not being considered~at this time. -.~ Council requested the following information to be provided at the next meeting: - _` `_. • Website usability assessment • Recorimmendations for COPS monies, and how do other cities spend those funds • What does a School Resource Officer (SRO) do `~'~, • Footnote SRO and School District information in the budget • What does the City do for the school districts • Prepare a memorandum regarding school crossing guard schedules • Housing Element budget breakdown 13 - 8 June 2, 2009 Cupertino Cay Council Page 3 • Estimate of staff time fox traff c study anti new hotel • Impacts and options regarding the state loan/take away CLOSED SESSION Mayor, Mahoney said that the previous evening the City Council went into closed session pursuant.~to Government Code Section 54957{i~)(1}, Appointment, Employment, Evaluation of Performance, Discipline or Dismissal of Public Employee) regarding the Interim City Attorney, and no action was taken. RECESS - Council•,recessed from 6:20 p.m. to E:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Orrin Mahoney called the rf;gular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino; California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Onin Mahoney, Vice-Mayor,Kri s Wang, and Council members Dolly Sandoval, Mark Santoro, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none.., .~ CEREMONIAL MATTERS --PRESENTATIONS 1. Receive annual report from the Robert Harrison, Fine Arts Commission Chairman, acknowledged his fellow commissioners and noted the commission's mandate which..,was to advance the arts in the City through a number of activities aazd programs. He reported on their completed projects, on their review of public art applications, on grant applications, on the selection of a distinguished artist and an emerging artist of the year and.,on the commission's support of the arts throughout the community. Mr. Harrison ''specifically thanked Commissioner Nancy ,Canter, a former :Fine Arts Commissioner and`~Dean of Creative Arts at DeAnza College, and City Staff Liaison Kimberly Smith, City`~Clerk, for their major contributions toward the completion of the "Quarter Percent for Art"'documents. POSTPONEMENTS City Clerk Kimberly Smith requested that item No. 6 be deferred to a later date, so that the City Council can discuss potential improvements to the teen commission appointment process. Council member Kris Wang noted that when th~~ resolution is adopted, the current membership will be changed to 11 members, not 13 members. 13-9 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 4 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The City Clerk distributed the following written communications at the meeting: • Email from Marshall and Nancy Wang in support of teen vglunteer programs, Linda Vista Park renovation and Regnart Road repair (Item 14} • Emai~ from Alex and Irma Vayner, Eric Wilson, Sherri Stein, and Joseph Maggiolino advocating both fenced and unfenced off-leash recreation areas for dogs; Bryan and Carol Miller and Eric Wilson were also in favor of both types of dog areas for asix-month trial period (Iteii~ 14) • An interoffice. memo from Public Works to Planning recommending that. some project design features~r~emain in force (Item 15) • Copy of the staff s .PowerPoint slide presentation (Item 15) • Copy of the staff's PowerPoint slide presentation (Item 16} • Email from Keith Murphy objecting to the housing allocation update process (Item 17) • An updated Table F.2 Ties 2 Sites inventory (Item 17a} • Copy of the staff s PowerPoinfi slide presentations (Item 17a and 17b} ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ruby Elbogen noted that on July 25-26 the' American Cancer Society's Relay for Life would be held at DeAnza College. She urged everyone {to, participate. Lin Lee urged Cupertino to work with neighboring Los Altos on the issue of establishing dog parks. Daniela Topham commented on the off leash dog issue. Sl~,e stated that large dogs needed an area in which they could i-un and elderly residents needed a safe`place in which to run their dogs. She stated they now had nowhere to go and urged Council to correct. this situation. CONSENT CALENDAR Wong/Santoro .moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of Item No. 6 which was deferred to a~later date at the request of staff. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. ~~Abstain: None. ._ 2. Approve the minutes from the May 5 City Council meeting. 3. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for May 1, 8, 1 S, and 22, Resolution Nos. 09-072 through 09-075. . 4. ,~` Adopt resolutions accepting Payroll for May 1 and 15, Resolution Nos. 09-076 aid~09- 077. 13 - 10 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 5 5. Accept the Treasurer's Investment and E~ud~et Report far April 2009, including a report on General Fund Revenues and Expendit~.ires. 7. Accept an application for an Alcoholic Beverage License for Longs Dru Store 9894, 10455 S. De Anza Blvd., Off-Sale General (21). ,~ 8. Accept municipal improvements, Reza. Development, LLC, a California Lunited Liability Company, 10484 Byrne Avenue, APN 357-14-078. The applicant has completed City-specified improvements in the City right-of--way including sidewalk and curb/gutter work as required by the improvement agreement with the City. 9. Adopt a resolution approving a Grant of Casement for Streetlight Purposes, Samir Khosla and Monica Khosla, and'Jivan Kumar Kl-_osla and Renuka Khosla, 18760 Tilson Avenue, APN 375-17-040, Resolution No. 09-079. The owners of this property agree to grant to the City the right to enter and use an easement to construct, repair, operate and maintain improvements necessary for the operation of a streetlight. 10. Adapt a resolution accepting a uitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Samir Khosla and Monica Khosl~i, and Jivan Kumar Khosla and Renuka Khosla, 18760 Tilson Avenue, APN 375-17-040, lZesolution No. 09-080. The property owners of this residential development'agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property. 11. Adopt a resolution accepting. a~ uitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Mary E. Bemiett, 18848 Loree Avenue, APN 375-15-018, Resolution No. 09-081. The property owner of this residential development agrees to grant to the City the right to . extract water from the"basin under the overlying property. ;' r 12. Adopt a resolutions accepting a uitclaim .Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Cha Eur1 Park and David Chon, ~~nd Young Bin Park and In Sung~'Park, 1151 S. Stelling Road.; APN 362-22-016, Resoluti~~n No. 09-082. The propErty owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the-right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property. I3. Award a construction contract for the Monta Vista Roof Project, Project No. 2009-01, to,. ,P'etersen Dean Roofing and Solar Systems, Inc., in the amount of $177,000, and approve '•~. a construction contingency of $20,000 to cover any unforeseen work required to complete '~~ the project, for a total of $197,000. 13 - 11 June 2, 2009 ,Cupertino City Council Page d ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above} '` b. Adopt a resolution amending the Teen Commission composition to decrease the membership from 13 members to 9 members by the year 2010, Resolution ~To. 09-078. This item was deferred to a later agenda so that the City Council could discuss ways to improve the Teen Commission appointment process. ' ``~ Mayor Mahoney re-ordered the agenda to consider item No. 18 next. NEW BUSINESS 18. Consider `objections to the proposed removal of brush, and~adopt a resolution ordel7ng the abatement of a public nuisance {city-wide brush abatement) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 09-Ob4, Resolution No. 09-084. Julie Linney from tfi~e Santa Clara County Fire Marshal's Off ce explained the notification process for brush abatement. She said that there were five properties which had not yet removed brush at the tune the report was :written, but since that time two of those properties had been abated:`.,The Council members agreed to defer action until later in the evening in case interested property owners had not yet arrived at the meeting. `;. Later in the meeting the issue was `raised again, and there were no speakers. Wong moved and Sandoval seconded to adopt':;Resoiution No. 09-084. The motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNTY AND REDEVELOPMTNT AGENCY JOINT MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Mahoney announced %that Council and the Red~.velopment Agency were meeting concurrently to discuss the 2009-10 budgets. At 7:55 p.m., Chairman'Orrin Mahoney called the Redevelopment Agency regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California and opened the public hearing on both budgets. Present: Chairman Orrin Mahoney, Vice-Chair Kris Wang, and Agency Members Dolly Sandoval, Mark Santoro, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none.. 14. Conduct the first of two public hearings on the 2009-10 budget. Review the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Operating Budget for 2009-10.'~~~,. _ •` The City Clerk distributed email from Marshall and Nancy Wang in support of.. teen volunteer programs, Linda Vista Park renovation and Regnart Road repair; email from Alex and Trina Vayner, Eric Wilson, Sherri Stein, and Joseph Maggiolino advocating both 13 - 12 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 7 fenced and unfenced off-leash recreation areas for dogs; and email from Bryan and.Carol Miller and Eric Wilson who were also in favor of both types of dog areas for asix-month trial period. Director of Administrative Services Carol Atwood stated that staff was presenting Council with a balanced budget for the year 2009-10. She underscored the importance of proactive financial planning, the establishment of a Fiscal Strategic Planning Committee and annual budget revie~~vs. Ms. Atwood presented an overview of general fund revenues and operating expenditures, the five-year capital improvement program, federal stimulus g~~1t applications, department budgets and new budget items ,for consideration. These nevw~.*items included: minor changes to existing staff positions, contribution to the Hous%i~~ Trust Fund, completion of the Dousing EIement and the Heart of the City Plan. It was alto noted that there was a slight increase in Sheriff s costs due to cost of living and the Sli'eriff s service levels would remain the same in the city. Jennifer Griffin commented that she did not believe public sidewalks should be maintained by the~residents. Council stated that this. issue was not being proposed in this budget. It was an item that at some point would be reviewed by the Fiscal Strategic Planning Committee. '~ In addition to the proposed.budget document under consideration, Council noted the following items should be included in tli~; budget discussions: $85,000 for a fiber cable to increase television reception and perhaps a higher bandwidth, a skate park (for this year's budget or some future date) and Leadership Cupertino. City Council concurred to hold" an additional study session on the City Council and Redevelopment Agency budgets on Wed::esday, June 1Q, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. 15. Consider an appeal of a` Planning Commission .decision to approve a Use Permit and Architectural and Site;Approval to allow the construction of a new automated carwash tunnel, a new trash enclosure and enhancements to the parking lot, and new landscaping features at an existing gas station. Application Nos. U-2009-02 and ASA-2009-02, Muthana Ibralum' (Atam Sandhu), 1699 South De Anza Boulevard, APN 366-10-120. . (Continued fronf May 27). The City Clerk distributed an interoffice memo from Public Works to Planning recommending that some project design features remain in force, and a copy of staffs PowerPoint slide presentation. ring Intern George Schroeder stated that on April 14, 2009 the Planning Commission approved the above-referenced appli~:ation and on April 27, 2009 an appeal had been ~. This appeal was based in part on. loss of revenue for the Coach House Center, aiazardous conditions for customers and employees due to increased auto traffic, ,~'~~ unnecessary congestion, noise concerns, not enough parking and insufficient access for '-~ 13 - 13 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 8 emergency vehicles. Staff addressed each of the concerns and determined that these issues had been addressed in the Planning Commission's review and approval of the application. Harvinder Singh and Jyoti Rekhi, tenants speaking on behalf of appellant Paul Rekhi, the owner of the Coach House property, presented an overall picture of the properties under discussion and commented on the access issue. They noted that no studies had been done on\traffic or consumer behavior patterns. An agreement had not been reached on the easeir~ent issue and they were asking that the access be left open to their property off Prospe~. In addition they commented on the noticing procedure and stated that they had not receiv>~d notices of the hearings on this matter. Larry LaBarb~g, Coach House property owner, said that the plan was beneficial to the gas station but ~l~ey would Lose a driveway on the northwest side at the Coach House property. He had hoped there could be some sort of compromise but he had tried to talk to the gas station owners and no agreement had been reached. Mr. LaBarberg also noted that twice he had received a mailing with no notice in it and had to come to the planning department to get it. Muthana Abrahim, applicant's~~prchitect, stated that they had worked with the Planning Commission to arrive at the layout for the-"Coach House and Prospect access issue. He also noted that the access off DeAuza lied been closed at the recommendation of the Public Works Department because it dyes too close to the intersection. Adam Sandhu, applicant (owner of the gas station), stated that over the years there had been verbal agreement for two driveways but,no easement had been recorded. He further stated that he would rather have no driveway.\rather than just one. Mr. Sandhu also commented on hours of operation, his recycling plan, the relocation and landscaping of the propane tank and the landscaping plan for the property. /. Ting Kao, a neighbor adjacent to the gas station, asked that an engineering study be done to make sure that the noise levels would not be increased as..a result of the new car wash. Phil LaBarberg, part `owner of the Coach House Center, urged that both driveways be kept open as it was advantageous to both parties. However, he stated that rather than have just '•. one driveway he;would prefer none. Gersten Hughes, a vendor to the Coach House, stated that without having access to get onto DeAn~a Blvd north it would be virtually impossible to get across.. three lanes of traffic to get into the left-hand lane to make a U-turn. Suzi $~ackman, Chief Executive Officer of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, asked that the City Council deny the appeal. She noted that this had not been reviewed ~by the Chamber's legislative action committee but the Chamber's position was to support a property owner's right to develop his property. , 13-14 June 2, 2009 - Cupertino City Council Page 9 Dennis Whittaker spoke in favor of the appellant. He stated that the Coach House was a small, successful business in the community and should not be burdened by the adjacent owner's wish to open a car wash. Barry Chang noted that an easement with public use for more than five years was an easement. - S'~ndoval moved to uphold the appeal with the following modifications: \\ • A`c~cept staff s recommendations regarding landscaping, egress and ingress, .parking • Chai~~e item 11 to read: "the property owner shall record an access easement with the County.,, of Santa Clara for ingress and egress access an the northeast driveway between't~ie property {APN 366-10-120) and the Coach House property {APN 366- 10-061)." '`~..- • Add a new condition that states: "Until the above access easelrient is reciprocated by the adjacent Coach House property owner, that boundary shall be landscaped by the gas station property owner." - • Store and gas station will open at 6:00 a.m. and car wash at 8:00 a.m. • The southern southeastern driveway along South De'Anza Blvd. is restored as exit only `•, Santoro seconded for purposes of clscus~:ion. City Planner Gary Chao stated the City wanted the owner to offer an access easement recorded on his property for future pol:entials. In addition, he noted that in condition eleven the word reciprocal should be deleted as the City was not Iegally able to require such an easement. - Wong offered a friendly amendment to make the Prospect curb cut both ingress and egress. The amendment was not accepted. Wong offered a substitute motion to make the Prospect -curb cut both ingress and egress. The motion died for Iack of,a second. Sandaval's original motion cazxied unanimously. RECESS -Council recessed film 10:15 -10:2;> Mayor Mahoney re-ordered: the agenda to discus s item No. 19 next. 19. Approve the txansfer of approximately $29,000 in unspent funds in the "Law Enforcement Santa Clara County Sheriffs Contract" account to fiscal year 2009-10 for funding sehobl safety incentives. ,~ Santa County Sheriff Captain Terry Calderone recommended that the approximately $29,OQD- remaining funds for the Traffir, Safety Consultant Study be rolled over to the 200Q!10 fiscal year budget to fund walk~bike/carpool programs. He noted that the traffic consultant had been unable to complete ;several of the scheduled objectives. However, he 13 - 15 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 10 lb did evaluate the safety issues at the fourteen schools in the City and this report as well as other data and project ideas had been presented to the Public Safety ,:Commission. Recommendations were made for specific safety measures at five of the schools (Collins Elementary, Eaton Elementary, Garden Gate Elementary, Sedgwick Elerizentary and Hyde Middle School). In addition to this report an initial survey had been completed of the schools regarding current use of the walk/bike/carpool program..:~It was also noted that the, motor unit enforcement around the schools had' been very +effective on traffic and driver education and the goal was to keep this program in placer Nina Dantwalla, member of the Garden Gate Elementary PTA, noted that there were parent volunteer crossing guards at Garden Gate Elementary School on three crosswalks. Jennifer Griffin.:supported the recommendation for the addition of an overhead flashing amber signal at `the crosswalk at Sedgwick Elementary. She noted this was a very congested area and'any additional safely measures would be helpful. Tamara Pow, Public Safety Commission`Chairman, stated that the commission was working diligently with the schools on the safety incentive programs and considering several ideas for encouraging participation in these programs. The commission supported the recommendation to designate. these funds for the incentive programs. Council member Wong referred tolt~he five schools specifically mentioned and suggested that the schools and particularl~~the neighbors be notified of the proposed installation of certain safety measures. Thy City 1Vlanager noted that a public hearing could be scheduled. Council discussed this and it was decided that it would be sufficient to send out notices to the schools ,and neighbors notifying them of the proposed ideas and giving tliem the opportunity to comment. - . Sandoval moved and~'Wong seconded to roll over the remaining $29,000 to Fiscal Year 2009/2010 to fund ~Valk/Bike/Carpool programs. The-motion carried unanimously. Consider adopting a resolution amending the 2008 Annual PIan to award $105,013 in Community Development Block Grant Recovery (CDBG-R} funds appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and authorizing the City Manager to submit the amended plan, project proposals and funding application to HUD, Resolution No. 09-083. The Ci~fy Clerk distributed a copy of the staff's PowerPoint slide preserxtation. Senior Planner Vera Gil reviewed the staff report and discussed the ARRA stimulus fufids from the federal government that are available in addition to the CDBG funds that ,,the city usually receives each year. Sandoval moved and Wong seconded to adopt Resolution No. 09-083. The zx:otion carried unanimously. 13 - 16 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Mayor Mahoney re-ordered the agenda to discus~~ item Nos. 18 and 20 next. NEW BUSINESS -continued 18. Consider objections to the proposed removal of brush, and adopt a resolution ordering the abatement of a public nuisance (city-wide brush abatement) pursuant to provisions of Ord canntOrd ~,No. 724 and Resolution No. 0~)-064, Resolution No. 09-084. This item was o~.ginally discussed after the Consent Calendar. ~~ At 11:10 p.m. Wong~noved and Sandoval seconded to adopt Resolution No. 09-084. ,,' The motion carried unani~ously. `~ 4 •:. ORDINANCES '"~ '~. 20. Conduct the second readiii~ of Ordina»~e No. 09-2042: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino adding Chapter 16.74 to adopt the Wildland Urban Wong moved•and Sandoval seconded to :°ead the ordinance:by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof.`A~es: Mahaney; Sandoval, Santoro•Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. `\ V~ong moved and Sandoval seconded to enact Ordinance No. 09-2042. Ayes,; Mahoney, ~ Sandoval, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. ~°•--~-09- 17. I7. Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. GPA-2008-01, EA-2009- O5, GPA-2009-01, EA-2009-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide (contuiued from May 5): a) Adopt a draft 2007-2014 Housin Element and forward to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) b} Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan The City Clerk distributed email from Keith Murphy objecting to the housing allocation update process; an updated Table F.2 Tier 2 Sites inventory for Item 17a; and copies of the staff PowerPoint presentations for items 17a and 17b. Consultant Paul Peninger, Vice President: of Bay Area Economics, stated that at this time they were asking Council's permission to forward the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community _Development for their review and comment. Mr. Peninger gave the Council an update on the following: the Housing Element update process, the certification process, the components of the Housing Element, the Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Allocation (R~INA) 2007-14, the RHNA Planning Goals 2007- 14, the site inventory process, sites to accommodate RHNA and potential sites for discussion. Mr. Peninger noted that the RHNA planning goals included the following: 13 - 17 June 2, 2009. Cupertino City Council Page 12 allocation, 1,170; already approved, 533; new construction, 717. He said that low- and very-low-income housing was still needed. Mr. Peninger also reported on the following key zoning and land use changes and policy changes: 1) Adopt changes to the zoning code to pennit residential uses on designated parcels in the following districts: Heart of the City, Homestead Road, South Vallco Park, North DeAnza Boulevard and Non- Designated Areas. Zoning and land use changes would add residential uses to existing uses and would nat preclude existing uses from continuuig operations. City-initiated re- zoning would not trigger reassessment of property or result in any fees for the owner.; 2} Increase residential allocations in the following areas: Heart of the City, North DeAnza Boulevard and Vallco Park South; 3) In order to comply with State law, the City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to pennit permanent emergency shelter facilities in "BQ" Quasi-Public Zones and 4) Coordinate with the local school districts to discuss city planning initiatives, the development process and school capital projects and operating plans. Senior Planner Vera Gil and Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava responded to questions raised by Council on the site inventory process, the sites recommended to accommodate RHNA and the allocation numbers. Staff noted that in order to meet the allocation needs, the City did not need to build the units but must show that the sites were there. Staff also noted that Council could send the draft Housing Element to the State before taking action on the key zoning and land use changes and policies as noted by the consultant. Additionally, staff explained why the proposed sites yielded more units (1,059) than the required 717, stating that it was expected the State may reject some of the sites. Concerning granny units, staff stated that they could only be counted if built and subdivisions could be counted only if they met the twenty units per acre requirement. Jennifer Griffm agreed that there were housing needs but she also noted the current high rate of unemployment in the county. She did not agree that retail spaces should be turned into housing. Furthermore, she strongly believed that affordable housing should also include park areas. Suzi Blaclunan, Cupertino Chamber of Corrunerce CEO, stated that she had participated in the focus meetings on this issue and the consultant had done an excellent job of obtaining comments from the community. Ms. Blackman noted the importance of keeping local sites available for the continuing growth of the community and stated hex support of the draft Housing Element. Keith Murphy commented that he wished there had been a map that showed the housing sites and stated what the city needed to provide. Mr. Murphy believed that the community had not been sufficiently engaged in this process. Beni Steves noted that a lot of money had been spent on a consultant that he felt was uru~ecessary. He also referred to the statement that every city was required by law to have an approved Housing Element in place and questioned what the consequences were if a city did not have one. He encouraged Council to reconsider the numbers and proposals 13 - 18 June, 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 13 before them, and to consider suitable options such as granny units and plot partitions. Mr. Steves also urged Council to preserve the character of the city. Tom Hugunin and Robert McKibben di:>txibuted and discussed a copy of Table F. l : Tier I, Site Inventory, with a column :marked CCC/CARe Proposed Yield. They recommended looking at other options when considering high density development such as granny units, parcel splits and the infilling of existing apartment complexes. They also stressed the importance of maintaining the tax base with commercial, retail areas. For example, the frontage along the Stevens Creek Corridor could include retail in front with residential in back. The chart they had prepared and distributed to Council showed their recommendations for sites and numbers. Barry Chang stated that higher density in housing resulted in higher density in the schools. He also recommended looking for park areas when considering the housing issue. Mr. Chang commented that he did not think this important discussion on housing should take place at such a late hour. Darrel Lum supported the comments made earlier by Tom Hugunin and Robert McKibben. He also agreed with Mr. Ching that it was much too late in the evening to be discussing this matter and comments b}• the community were minimized because of the late hour. Council agreed that they wanted additional time to examine the allocations and sites proposed in the draft Housing Element as well as the information and suggestions provided by residents at this meeting. In addition, Council agreed to look at any properties that may have been left oi:f the list and to bring to the discussion any suggestions for possible sites. Council also agreed that additional units would not be submitted to the State in the draft Housing Element. Council stated that they would discuss these options to arrive at their beast recommendation for 717 housing units at their next meeting. Wong moved and Sandoval seconded to continue Item No. 17A to June 10. The motion carried unanimously. Senior Plamier Gary Chow reviewed the staff report on the issue of a General Plan amendment to increase the office allocation. He referred to the development allocation table and noted that currently there were 345,612 square feet of office space remaining in the General Plan. Mr. Chow also noted that there were 483,053 square feet of residual office allocation available from the 20t~5 General Plan. The Council had the option of adding the residual office allocation hack into the office allocation. The Planning Commission's recommendation was that the Council amend the 2005 General Plan to add back the residual office allocation and further recommended that this new office allocation should be reserved for major companies. 13 - 19 3une 2, 2009 ~ Cupertino City Council Page 14 Keith Murphy stated that he had hoped the committee formed to provide input on the housing element would have had an opportunity to meet with the business community to discuss proposed office allocation needs. The committee believed that there was a link between the housing element and office allocation needs. However, this dialogue had not taken place. Suzi Blackman, CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber supported a General Plan amendment to increase the office allocation. It was important to allow Apple and Hewlett Packard to grow and expand. Both of these companies not only made many signif cant contributions to the city but also provided revenue and a positive visibility. Ms. Blackman also urged Council to allow these companies strategic flexibiliTy to explore a variety of land use decisions. . Tom Hugunin stated his support for an increase in office allocations but did not support a General Plan amendment at this time. Apple and Hewlett Packard had not shown any plans for what they proposed to do. Mr. Hugunin supported a letter of intent or a development agreement that would not result in any additional housing needs. Jeruufer Griffin agreed that Apple and Hewlett Packard were important to the city but she did not support a General Plan amendment. She supported an increase in office allocations but urged Council to proceed carefully. Ms. Griffin commented that presently there was a high rate of unemployment in the county and there was ajobs/housing imbalance. Barry Chang referred to the issue of fairness and asked if other companies would be able to come in for a General Plan amendment. Apple and Hewlett Packard needed a plan and he did not think it was prudent planning to increase their office allocations without one. In addition he noted that these increased office allocations would have an impact on housing, traffic and schools. Marty Miller, Planning Commissioner, stated that he was not opposed to giving Apple and Hewlett Packard the additional square footage but the city had a responsibility to plan for the housing needs that would come as a result of these additional allocations. Mr. Miller referred to the North Vallco Master Plan Study and believed this issue before Council affected North Vallco. He raised the issues of housing requirements, green house gas requirements, traffic and the needs of future tenants. Mr. Miller also referred to the General Plan which required housing for commercial development and believed the key to controlling housing in the city was the office square footage. Mr. Miller suggested several Iocations that had not been included in the list of key sites for housing. Norm Hackford did not support giving out an increase in office allocations without a plan. 13-20 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 15 Kelly Kline, Redevelopment/Economic Development Director, commented on the issue of housing in industrial areas and not~:d that hou-sing cannot be located near certain industries, such as those using chemical-s, hazardous materials, etc. She also referred to the current office allocations under discussion and the future diversification of office allocation needs. Michael Foulkes, Apple's Senior Manager for State and Local Government Affairs, noted that Apple had come to the Council in 2008 with their concept of a world-class campus for Apple. Meetings had been held and both Apple and the city had worked together on this concept. Today the critical issue wa:; timing. Apple needed to know what their office allocations were in order to proceed witYi their plan. If this General Plan amendment was not approved now it could result in a serious delay for the project. Mr. Foulkes stated that Apple worked within the regulations of t;ne city and would not prepare a plan based on speculation that a General Plan amendment would later be approved. He also stated that they saw this as a project to complete their world-wide headquarters but not a project that would result in additional housing nf;eds. Senior Planner Vera Gil and Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava addressed several issues raised by Council. They noted that this office allocation issue was not a part of the housing element that would be submitted to the State. Council had directed staff in 2008 fio review the additional office allocation on a parallel track with the Housing Element update. The city wasp allowed four General Plan amendments a year and this amendment could be included with any General Plan amendments related to the Housing Element as well as to the Heart of the City. Regarding Apple's proposed campus Council refereed to several elements such as a gym and cafeteria that were really separate from office spaces. At Council's direction staff agreed to contact ABAG regarding the formation of a new amenities based cate;;ory. It would be pointed out that such amenities would not increase housing needs. Staff' commented on the issue of who would pay for the General Plan amendment. Regarding housing Council asked that the city be proactive when considering the housing needs fo:r the next Housing Element. Staff stated that it would be difficult to determine such future needs but they would contact ABAG for a best guess estimate. Sandoval moved to direct staff to move forward -with the project and bring the environmental review back for discussion in July. Wang seconded for discussion. The motion carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None NEW BUSINESS -continued -._~~ 19a. Review s'unime~r schedule of Council meetings. (Continued from May 27). -. This item was continued to June 10. ... 13-21 June 2, 2009 Cupertino City Council Page 16 STAFF REPORTS -None COUNCIL REPORTS -None REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ROLL A. Approve~the minutes from June 17, 2008. Wong moved and Wang seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. B. Review the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Operating Budget for 2009-10 This item was discussed at 8:35 p.m. concurrently with the public hearing on the City of Cupertino budget. ADJOURNMENT At 2:18 a.m., the joint meeting of the City Coilncil and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency was adjourned. There is a budget study session scheduled at 4:00 p.m. on..Wednesday, June 10, 2009, as a special joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agirlcy. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers. . There is an additional public hearing on the City Council and Redevelopment Agency budgets scheduled on Tuesday, 3une 16, 2009 as a part of the regular meeting.'~~., Kimberly Smith, City Clerk Staff xeports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and. also on the Internet at wwva.cupertino.or~. Click on Online Services, then Watch City Meetings. Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your convenience on the web site: Visit www.cupertino.org ,then click Online Services and Watch City Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City;Channel, 777-2364. 13-22 Attachment C CITY OF CIUPERTINO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment -Residual Office Allocation 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: G~~ry Chao, (408) 777-3200 4. Project Location: The proposed project: applies to all land within the City of Cupertino ("Cupertino"). Cupertino is located on the southern portion of the San Francisco penin- sula in Santa Clara County. Figure 1 identifies the regional location of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino is accessed by Interstate 85 and the U.S. Highway 280. The city boundary is illustrated in Figure 2. The 2007 population of Cupertino was approximately 53,293, with 18,753 households and an average household size of 2.99 pe+~ple.l The City consists primarily of single- family residences, but other main uses inc;Iude office, retail, and light industrial. 5. General Plan Land Use Designation: T'he project area consists of the entire General Plan area, which contains various land use designations. 6. Zoning: The project area consists of the entire General Plan area, which contains various zoning designations. 7. Background and Description of Project: The City of Cupertino proposes an amend- ment to the 2005 General Plan. The proposed amendment would add 483,053 square feet of residual office uses back into the city':; General Plan build ou.t assumptions? The adopted General Plan includes a development allocation for different land use types. These allocations are shown in Table 2-A of the 2005 General Plan. The adopted General Pian would allow u~~ to 511, 640 square feet of new office space. Approximately 156,028 square feet of ofi:ice has already been built under the General Pian. Therefore, the remaining aliocatiori for office development is 355,612 square feet. Of this space, 205,612 square feet is allocated to the City's identified planning ar- eas and 150,000 square feet is reserved for major companies. ~ US Census Bureau, American Factfinder. Accessed online http://factfinder.census.gov/servledADPTable? bm=y&- geo_id=160000506176108.-qr nan~e=ACS 2007_3YR G00 DP3YR28-ds_nanie=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang~n&- _sse=on May 26, 2009. z A build out scenario that would allow 9,320,005 square feet of office uses was included in the Draft General Pla~~, but the Cupertino City Council selected a build out scenario that included a reduced aunount of office that better reflected the market demand for office uses at the time of the General Plan's adoption. 13-23 CITY OF CUf'ERTINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY ~.~~- ~~ Marin ~Y` ~'~ Stockton ,~ t~ 'chmond ~ ~ ,_,"'~, ~ti N~ Contra Costa ~~1 ~ t^I ~ ~ ~ J .~~ ~~`~'~_ f ~~ ~~°__~..~ / ~ San Jo uin ~2}n I ran I ~o ..1 _ ~- ,-~ ~; r-~~~ Alamed ~ ~ _ 1-- i - ~ , ` `~jy~ ~-, ~_ _ r~ y r ^~ ` f ~ ~ _ ) L ~~~ 1 '<l ^~ ' F --- ~ ~ rem nt ~ ~1 l ~~ ~ 1 ~~ -- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~1 San Mateo i Pa Aito ~ ~ ~ t` 1 • ?,.~ 5tanislaus 7 l {~ an Jose t • erfi C i ;~ - , ~ 65 ~ ~_ ~ Santa ara ~~ f ~`ti ~ r__J ~ t t f~ ci ~ I ' I ~. ~` \ I` ;r ~1 `~ {_ ~. C7 f1 ` t C t ,\ C ruz ~ an ~ ~~ ~ '~ Merced ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~~` f \ 7 I ~ San Benito onterey r j ~ n ~ , ~ i / \ ~,~ ~ W 5 NaRTN O 10 MACS ` \~/ `~ Source Design Community & Environment 2009 FIGURE I REGIONAL LOIf~A2~lON CITY OF Cl1PERTINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY "' ~ ~ r ,, _ f 5unny~rale ~~~~ ... I Los Altos ~ ~' ~ ~ r ~ t .. ~ R ~ ~ ~ ::~ c G. ~ ¢ ~ • rnwalr A ~ ~~ t.llisrl. _, ~ r y ~~ `r \ 7J[[ ,. ~~ t ~ r. ~4r ~~u ` w r ._..... __. t ~~ ~ . f~ + 1 r - ~ r ) ~r ~,ar r t I I ~~ ~ g+ < E , , ~ ~ j ,~ ; t r ,.: L ~ ,'3 ..__.. ~ ; f:'~~~_r?cif Cuj s unr r~ ~_ .._.__.,d~1/w.,l.llwllr6~l~ ,tier t ~; ,..}L -~- . .._ I ~ i. • ~ j ..: ~,__ . __. i r E ._ . __ - . __ I ,I I 1 i , r- i - ~nwrlrnruwurrllNiurpalu~l -~- r ~., 4: _:_._I ~, t _ f j I e r r ~.,. ,~ Iry,t ~ ~..~f ..- ~ r:~~i .. i w, ..._.._ .. ~_.. ~ 3/ y 1 ( ~ <: ,. ,_ . s t = .,, I i ci 1 "pnr~ l~q.. J ~ *_• ~ I t,f i s , - . ..._.. ... _..._..._ e ........ ...... ... ! ~ .... 3 '. ........ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ,, \ ~. •. :.dry Musa i "1 •.1 ~,,. 1 +~ ~ ~~r .._,., .;;.tic i"""~.~ ,~•, Na..w 0 0.5 I Miles ,,;; 1 Santa Clara. d,w 114~41s~ " _. I ~ ~, t - r s ^1+ n ?~rs,rw:<a+lls~~ly~~~ ~~cl~ul~cs<aliraai>!11'~.~_... T a' P 'I ~y-~ ~ tt r 7 i~ 1~`f ~ ~~ i r 3 I h iR.. .~ l~.a i iii I ~11~~,1, i 1 .d ` r . i call ~ I _ ~ t ! I ~ L s r I~ .. I 1 +~ al :'},~ ~ ~ } i i 1 ,.a ~~~s~s. IFS 7 Issil .q,s _ ~I I~ ~. y,~ ` 1 I i~ai~ ~~~,, r 114iFr sl L1 ~- ICI ~ r jl.' ~ ~~ ~a.}2_Fa:`'. _-"~ k~81vt~ t 1 I = ~~ tl 4.ii t#,I k y II ti~u ~" ~ r ` ~ a +`afvr ! r,i ,~ `~r+~+lr~tt x .} ~ 't a t Yt . F >`ilf-f Gt4r yc, } . is .sJ ,[ t q,, r ~ w° „r a.r} S.s pp ~,Me ys ,J~,}~ ~'r ~ ,~ •Y i ~'~ ~,'{1ia. E :.i?_ S ~,r.. +".' ~ R63:.v~4-„t t.9. s-t'N~~~sl~i{.:~ ~~~s'~~ i r } .r 4, SE -~ Ans w , i r~r 7 y . - r - ~ T~y. rrh ~ r - ,fi '~ c; 3. ~r ~ ~ ~.. t3 I1 F ~ .; , P 1+- ., r~ - r .: L.- ~... ii I~'Y y„'r a t sr Q `'~'- +tr , te~in Yr t!{'! Li ~ r ~ _ ~ iy~ ~ 4r,J~~ is~, \ rf ~, R ,_ ~ ,~ ~rrr ~ , ~ ,~, ~ ~'i`P=rrrt ~.~~~ San Jose v ~ !}'~ ~~= r r`.I ,~-q„~Ja~iti~ ~; a s ~ 4 13: If t7° Y+C ~~ £JR~Cm::t t+{ ~~JV t5~ ~, i5 s "_ = 4 lsk ~i--~..~d"`~'~i'trit"1 h2 s-J ,. N..x,;;r4.ys ~ 1'x try " - L; ,.~ t a ,,,,-.i r ,dye >. 1 ~... ~; qii J~~Hf I ~l ~ ~~". J~ ~~~' ~~ f ii ,f' t rl~. c`~}rri t'rsl~i ~r ref ~~>a~>'~h ~ a rt` car 7 Z~'Nox ~'tl eiij?s ~'r ~~31b!{ F~~ y' ~ t l~ ~f~itNy I~ Ohl t g ti---'"x^'.-. xl,~x~' ~ Y x 1_: tX fnwli~n~l..'`4fiSU +~„ t.;. ~r ~~''s~ `~~ !; ~F ~ ~rili~~1~~T~A Rt/1li}atrfawl u 'y~ r •; `r' i ' Saratoga I.._l_ ~%~ ..1_L~ ~ ~ ~ City Boundary Irlrrl ~',J Source: Design, Community & Environment 2009 N Ut FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP The City is proposing to amend the General Plan to allow an additional 483,053 square feet of office space, for a total of 838,665 additional square feet of office space in addi- tion to what currently exists in the City. All of this would be added to the pool for major companies. This would increase the total available for major companies to 633;053 square feet. This additional square footage would bring the total amount of office space allowed up to the total already analyzed in the GP EIR, which analyzed a build out scenario that in- cluded atotal of 9,320,005 square feet of office space. Therefore, the addition of 483,053 square feet of allowable development for office space would slot exceed the amount of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR. A breakdown of off ce uses allowed by the General Plan, analyzed under the General PIan EIR, and proposed in the General Plan amendment are included in Table 1, below. The General Plan EIR found that no signifi- cant impacts would result from development of this office space. TABLE I OFFICE USE BREAKDOWN, CITY OF CUPERTINO Additional New Square Footage of Office Tofal Square Footage of Space Allowed Office Space A[Iowed Included n~ Gene~$1 Plan 511,640 8,836,952 Already Analyzed in General Plan EIR 994,693 9,320,005 Proposed for General Plan Amendment 483,053 9,320,005 Accordingly, the project does not include an action that would physically affect the envi- ronment. This amendment does not include a specific proposal to construct one or more office uses. However, during the course of the General Plan planning period, the amend- ment would allow for an additional 4$3,053 square feet of office development to be con- structed. Relationship to the City of Cupertino 2005 General Plan EIR Because the amount of residual office was included in the build out assumptions analyzed in the General Plan EIR, this Initial Study draws on analysis and conclusions from the General Plan EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 Incorporation by Reference. CEQA Section 15150 states that a previous CEQA document can be refer- enced in full or in part. The General Plan EIR referenced in this Initial Study is available at the City offices for review. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Cupertino is located in the area of Northern Santa Clara Valley known as Silicon Valley. Cupertino and its surrow~ding areas host many technological industries, as well as resi- dential and commercial uses that in part, serve the technological industry. 10. Agencies Whose Approval is Required: X City of Cupertino City Council 4 13-26 Envi~•onmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at le~a.st one impact that is a Potentially Significant Im- pact, as indicated by the checklist on the following; pages. _ Aesthetics _ Biological Resources Hazards/ Hazardous Materials _ Mineral Resources _ Public Services _ Utilities/Service Systems - Air Quality _ Cultural Resources ,^ Hydrololry _ Noise _ Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance _ Transportation/Traffic Geology/Soils Land Use and Planning - Population and Housing Determination: (Lead Agency to Complete) O~i the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and the proposed project is exempt under Categorical/Statutory Exemption X I find that the proposed project COITLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wil l be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA- TIONwill be prepared. _ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially sig- nificant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been ade- quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but St must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects {a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EII2 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, includ- ing revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing fur- ther is required. Signature Date 13-27 ISSUES AESTHETICS. WOUId the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact With Mitigat'son a} Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 7{ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, X trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: Potential visual impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment were analyzed under the 2005 General Plan EIR. As concluded on page VI-17 and VI-18 of the General Plan EIR, General Plan Policies 2-i 3, 2-14, and 2-17 would be adequate to reduce potentially significant vis- ual effects associated with build out of the residual office uses. While potential visual impacts could occur due to the construction of residual office space, the aforementioned General Plan policies would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The General Plan EIR also states that fur- ther Instigation may be identified and implemented on acase-specific basis during the design review process for specific projects. Because potential impacts regarding the allocation of the residual of- fice uses have already been analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those impacts, no addi- tional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-significant visual impact would occur. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria es- Potenriaiiy Less Than Less Than No tablishtsd by the applicable air quality management or air pollu- significant Significant With Significant Impact tion control district may be relied upon to make the following Hrisgation determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any cri- X feria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresh- olds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra- X tions? e} Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? 13-28 DISCUSSION: Potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed General Plan amendment were analyzed on page VI-19 of the 2005 General Plan EIR. Temporary site preparation activities such as grading and earthmoving would generate exhaust and air borne pollutants. Additionally, emissions would be generated by new vehicle trips during the operational phase of the residual office uses. As con- cluded on page VI-20 of the General Plan EIR, (Jeneral Plan Policies 5-4, 5-4, 5-7, and 5-8 would reduce potentially significant air quality impacts to a less than significant level. The analysis con- cluded that through policy implementation, ales-than-significant impact to air quality would oc- cur. At the tune when the General Plan EIR was colripleted, the adopted CIean Air Plan was the Bay Area '97 CIean Air Plan. Because the regional (lean Air Plan has been updated since adoption of the General Plan, this discussion examines whether the amendment to the General Plan would be consistent with the current Clean Air Plan (the 2005 Ozone Strategy). For a plan to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan under CEQA, it must be consistent with the population projections as- sumed in the current air plan, consistent with VP/IT assumptions in the Clean Air Plan, and consis- tentwith the traffc control measures in the Clean Air Plan. In addition, the Plan must include pro- visions for buffer zones around existing and pro;~osed land uses that would emit odors and toxic air contaminants. Each of these issues is discussed separately below. 1~uIation Growth The growth projections in the currently adopted Clean Air Plan are based on ABAG Projections 2003. As documented on page 213 of ABAG Projections 2003 and shown in Table 2, the estimate and current projections for Cupertino and its Spllere of Influence (SOI) are as follows: TABLE 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS, CITY OF CUPERTINO Year Population 2005 57,600 2010 60,200 2015 60,600 2020 60,600 2025 61,00 2030 61,900 Source: ABAG Projections 2003. Based on a review of actual population estimate;; compiled by the Department of Finance (DOF), the ABAG Projections 2003 population estimates are substantially higher than the DOF estimates. For example, the City's population in 2005 was approximately 52,900 according to DOF and the ABAG projected population for that year was 57,600. Similarly, The DOF reported population for Cupertino in 2409 is 55,840 and ABAG projected that the 2010 population would be 60,200. Ac- cording to the U.S. Census bureau, in the event that an estimate and a projection for a jurisdiction are mutually available, the estimate is the prefen•ed source of data.' Population estimates are con- sideled to be more accurate than ro'ections bec;~use estimates use existin s m tomatic data to 3 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Concepts. Accessed online, httpJ/www.census.gov/popest/topics/temvs/. .~ 13-29 determine population. City data collected for estimates from the DOF have a margin of error of ap- proximately 5.6 percent.' Based on the comparative analysis of DOF estimates in relation to ABAG projections, the rate of population growth in Cupertino is not in excess of the projections assumed in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Vehicles Miles Traveled Additionally, for a project or plan to be consistent with the Clean Air Pian, the rate of increase in VMT for the jurisdiction must be equal to or lower than the rate of increase in population. The travel data provided in the Draft General Pian EIR is Daily Vehicle Trips (DVT). Based on consul- tation with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), a comparison of projected DVT increase to population increase is a valid method of comparison 5 Table 2-4 on Fage VI-9 of the General Plan EIR estimates that between 2000 and 2020, daily vehicle trips will increase from 395,000 in 2000 to 462,000 in 2020, which is a 17 percent increase. Based on information pro- vided above, the City's estimated population in 2000 was 50,546. The estimated population for 2009 is 55,840. This represents an increase of 5,294. Assuming a similar rate of growth for the next 10 years (2010-2020} and based on a conservative estimate, the City's population can be ex- pected to grow by another approximately 6,000 people. Therefore, between 2000 and 2020, it is estimated that the City's population will increase by 11,294 people, or 22 percent over 20001evels. As a result, the projected rate of increase in DVT between 2000 and 2020 (0.85 percent a year) is, on average, lower than the projected rate of increase for population (1.1 percent a year). Transportation Control Measures The General PIan also contains goals and policies that are consistent with transportation control measures (TCMs) identified in the 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. For example, Goa12 of the Circulation Element encourages increased use ofpubIic transit, carpools, bicycling, walking and telecommunicating. Goal C of the Circulation Element supports a comprehensive network of pedes- trian and bicycle routes and facilities, and contains Policy 4-3, regarding Citywide bicycle and pedes- trian transportation plans.b Additionally, the following General Plan Policies, identified an page 2-42 of the General Plan Final EIR are in alignment with the intent of BAAQMD TCMs: Policy 4-3, 4-4, 4-8, 2-1, and 2-7. Taken together, these policies demonstrate that the General Plan makes a reason- able effort to implement BAAQMD TCMs. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially I rec Than Ixss Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X 2009. e Department of Finance website, http://www.dof.ca.govhesearch/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2009/_ Accessed June 4, s Personat communication with Greg Tholen, Senior Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 29, 2009. e City of Cupertino, City of Cupertino General Plan 2020, page 4-6 through 4-7, 13-30 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other X sensitive natural community identified in local or region~d plans, poli- cies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as X defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including;, but not lim- ited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through dvect removal, filling, hydrologica3 interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or X migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurs- ery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, re- gional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: Potential impacts to biological resources from l:he proposed General Plan amendment have been previously analyzed under the 2005 General Plan EIR. Cupertino contains many biological resources including oak woodlands, riparian communities, grasslands, brushlands, and foothills. Because urbanized areas of the city were found to be poorly suited to host or support biological re- sources, most biological resources in Cupertino are limited to the western foothills and along creeks. As concluded on page VI-28 of the General Plan EIR, implementation of General Plan policies 5-8, 5-4, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13 and 5-14 would be adequate to mitigate potential impacts. Because the General Plan EIR has already anal}zed the potential impacts of the residual off ce uses on biological resources, conclusions from the General Plan EIR still apply and no additional CEQA analysis is required. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in aless-than-significant impact. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant wirh Mitigation a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of'a historical X resource as defined in Sec 15064.5? b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance oi'an ar- X chaeological resource pursuant to Sec 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or X site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X fom~al cemeteries? DISCUSSION: Potential impacts of the proposed General Pian ;rmendment on cultural resources have been ana- lyzed on page VI-35 of the General Plan EIR. 7'he General Plan contains policies 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, and 2-62, which are intended to preserve cultur~:l resources within the City during the course of General Plan build out. As concluded on a e ~JI-35 of the General Plan Draft EIR, im lementa- 13-31 tion of these policies was found to be adequate to mitigate potential impacts associated with new construction, including the residual office. Therefore, no additional CEQA analysis is required and the proposed General Plan amendment would result in a less-than-significant impact. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. would the proposal: Poteatialiy Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant S[gnifipnt With Mitigation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ef- g fects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map is- sued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other sub- X stantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? x iv) Landslides? R b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in g on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as de£ned in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to Iife or X property? e) Have soils incapable of adequate]y supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative: waste disposa( systems where sewers are not X available for the disposal of wastewater? DLSCUSSION: Geologic impacts associated with the proposed 483,053 square feet of residual office space were analyzed on page VI-30 ofthe General Plan EIR A portion of the San Andreas Fault runs through Cupertino, therefol•e, the city could experience ground shaking and associated hazards in the event of an earthquake. As concluded in the General Plan EIR, the implementation of General Plan policies 6-1 and 6-2 were adequate to mitigate potential geologic impacts to a less than signifcant level. Additionally, all projects generated under the proposed General Plan amendment would be required to adhere to standards established in the 2006 International Building Code. Because po- tential impacts have already been identified and addressed through mitigating policies, the General Plan amendment does not require additional CEQA analysis and aless-than-significant impact would occur. 10 13-32 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the proposal: Potent;auy Lest Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant With Mitigation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly R that my have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of t~eenhouse g gases. DISCUSSION: Overview Greenhouse gas (GHG} emissions associated with General Plan build out were not analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR. However, since the General Plan was adopted and the EIR certified, the is- sue of GHGs and their relationship to climate change has gained substantial importance in the con- text of CEQA. As a result, this issue is discusse~3 in more detail than other topics in the checklist, each of which was previously analyzed. The following analysis provides an overview of the regula- tory environment relating to GHGs, pertinent baseline information, an assessment of impact, and policies enacted by the City that will help reduce: the generation of GHGs over the course of the General Plan build out. Regulatory Setting Air quality in the United States is regulated at local, regional and federal levels. The following is an overview of regulations and initiatives relating to GHGs at the federal, State and regional level. Federal The United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) enforces national air quality standards through its authority of the Federal Clean Air Act and National. Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The jurisdiction of the EPA include, emission sources which are under the exclusive control of the federal government such as aircraft and ships. At this point in time, there are no spe- cific federal policies related to GHG emissions. Though it is not a metxiber of the Kyoto Protocol, in 2002 the United States declared a strategy to reduce the GHG intensity of the American economy by 18 percent over a 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. Most recently, President Obama announced that he intends to adopt new federal fuel economy standards to reduce GHG vehicle emissions. Stringent standards have already been set for in-;Mate automobiles by the California Air Resources Board (GARB). State In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-O5, which established aggressive emissions reduction goals. By 2010, GHG emissions must be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, GHG emissions lnust be reduced to 19901evels; and by 2050, GHG emissions must be re- duced to 80 percent below 1990 levels. A multi•~agency group of State agencies, the "CIimate Action Team," was set up to implement this executive order. Assembly Bi1132 (AB 32), passed in 2006, further strengthened the GHG emissions cap and. required the GARB to establish a program for monitoring and reporting on air quality related to GHGs. Most recently, California enacted SB 375 to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by different types of urban develo went atterns, most s ecificalI s crawl. As a result of the new le islation, local ov- ~ These thresholds were developed by the Office of Planning and Research, as presented in the Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Apri12009. 13-33 ernments and developers are incentivized to implement new growth patterns that create compact, walkable and sustainable communities, and revitalize existing towns and city cores. Regional The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for enforcing the State and federal standards in the nine county Bay Area. To accomplish this, it inspects and issues permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, and monitors ambient air quality and meteorological condi- tions. In 2005, the agency initiated a Climate Action Program to integrate additional climate protec- tion activities such as comments on CEQA documents, grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and public education campaigns. In 2007, BAAQMD produced a regional inventory of GHG emissions which provided an overview of emission sources in the Bay Area. The agency is currently in the process of developing effective models for identifying numerical thresholds for GHG emissions as they relate to new development and CEQA analysis. Local Cupertino does not have aCity-wide GHG reduction strategy, such as a Climate Action Plan. How- ever, its General Plan does contain several policies that will serve to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions associated with GP build out, including the residual office. Many of these polices are identi- fied in the impact discussion below. Environmental Setting Overview According to recent projections from the California Climate Change Center, temperatures in Cali- fornia are expected to rise between 3.0°F and 10.5°F by the end of the century.g This warming trend will likely have an adverse effect on naturally-occurring resources within California. Increased pre- cipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion (a particular concern in the low-lying Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where potable water delivery pumps could be threatened) and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health in- cludemore extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes artd drought; and increased levels of air pollution. To date, the primary impact of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropo- spheric temperature of 0.2°C per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005 9 Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming could occur, which would cause additional changes in the global climate system during the 21st century. a California Climate Change Center, Dur Changing Climate..4ssessing the Risks to California, 2006, page 3. 9 The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor, weather, winds, and decreasing temperature ~vitli increasing altitude. 10 Carbon dioxide equivalent The C02e is a quantity that describes the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same global wanning potential when measured over a specified period, generally 160 years. The carbon dioxide equivalency for a gas is obtained by multiplying the mass and the GWP of the gas. " All information in this section is based on Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 2008. 12 Residential and Nonresidential Compliance Manuals for California's 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards can be found at http://www.energy. cagov/title24/2605standards! 13 http://www.calcleancars.org/factsheets/staffpiroposal.pdf 12 13-34 State Wide Inventory California GHG or CO2e emissions were estimated at 484 million tons of CO2e,1° which is about six percent of the emissions from the entire United ;Mates. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California, contributing about 40 p,~rcent of the total emissions. Electricity generation is second, at over 20 percen#, but California also imports electricity during the summer, which brings energy sources up to about 25 percent. Industrial activities account for about 20 percent of the State's emissions. On aper-person basis, GHG emissions are lower in California than in most other states; however, California is a populous state acid the second largest emitter of GHGs in the United States and one of the largest emitters in the world. Under a "business as usual" scenario, GHG emi:~sions in California are estimated to increase to ap- proximately 600 million tones of CO2e by 2020. CARB staff has estimated the 1990 statewide emissions level to be 427 million tons of CO2e, therefore requiring a reduction of almost 30 percent in emissions by 2020 to meet the AB 32 goal. Regional Inventory In 2007, 102.6 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent {MMTCO2E) GHGs were emitted by the San Francisco Bay Area." The transportation sector accounted far over 40.6 percent of the total, which includes on-road motor vehicles, locomotives, strips, boats, and aircraft. The industrial and commer- cial sector was the second largest contributor wish 34 percent, followed by energy production activi- ties with i4.8 percent, and residential fitel cornb:.rstion with 6.6 percent. Of the nine counties that comprise the BAAQMD, Santa Clara ranked second in terms of its share of GHG emissions to the total area. This equated to 18.3 percent of total GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Impact Discussion Projected greenhouse gas emissions from implementation of the General PIan amendment, combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, when taken together, could contribute to global climate change impacts. Construction and operation of the residual office space would directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions due to energy use associated with the manu- facture and transport of construction materials acrd on-site construction activities. Development of office uses may also directly result in increases in energy consumption associated with buildings and motor vehicle use. Cumulative volumes of greenhouse gas emissions generated, in part, by devel- opment of the residual off ce, could have a signi:F cant impact on the environment. The City has included several policies in its General PIan that will help address the amount of green- house gas created by the construction and operation of the residual offtce uses. These include Poli- cies 5-2 and 5-3, which are intended to reduce energy consumption of new construction. Through the conservation and efficient use of energy resources and stricter green building design standards. Policies 5-4 and 5-5 address the air pollution effi;cts of new and existing development. Mitigation strategies include environmental reviews, public education programs, tree planting, and allowance for additional home occupations in residential neighborhoods so that people can work from home instead of commuting. The City has also adopte~j policies to increase walking and bicycling amongst its residents, and discourage the use of high-poll~~rting fireplaces. The City adopted a number of key strategies to support these policies related to GHG emissions. These include: • Reduction of energy consumption. • Reduction of fossil fuels. 13 13-35 • Use of renewable energy resources whenever possible. • Installation lighting and/or retrofitted energy efficient lights for all street lights • Retrofits of all overhead lights in City Offices. • Reducing lighting and equipment use where possible in all City facilities • Acquiring several electric vehicles. • Alternating energy sources. • Developing a comprehensive Energy Management Plan. • Establishing solar access standards. • Developing a "Green Building" program. • Conducting building energy audits. In addition to these policies, regulatory changes and technological advances outside of the City of Cupertino would help further reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development of the residual office space. These include the following: • In 2005, the State implemented Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, which require implementa- tion of energy efficient technologies that result in lower average energy consumption acxoss resi- dential, commercial and industrial sectors. The largest percentage reduction from Title 24 Stan- dards will occur in residential sector energy consumption. Title 24 is estimated to reduce overall household electricity consumption by 20.4 percent and natural gas consumption by 8.3 percent. Nonresidential electricity consumption is estimated to decrease 8.3 percent.12 • AB 1493 directed CARB to adopt regulations that would decrease GHG emissions from new pas- senger vehicles by 30 percent by 20I6. This is estimated to result in an 18 percent overall GHG emissions reduction from the passenger fleet.13 This combination of policies and mitigating factors would reduce the emission of greenhouse gas emissions over time and the potential contribution to climate change. A less than signifrcant impact would occur. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Potentfapy T,escs Than IpCC Than f\'o Impact proposal: Significant Significant wfth Significant 1l4itigation a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involy- ingthe release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazard- X ous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous mate- X rials sites compiled pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signiflcant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where X 14 13-36 such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety Hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a priva#e airstrip, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildland:~ are adja- X cent to urbanized area or where residences art: interniixed with wild- lands? DTSCUSSTON: Hazards and Hazardous Materials are analyzed ~~n page VT-34 of the General Plan ETR. As stated in this section, General Plan policies 6-28, 6-34,. 6-31 and 6-33 would be adequate to reduce poten- tial impacts to a less than signifcant level. Hazardous materials used during construction typically include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, hydraulic fluid, solvents, caulking and paint. Hazardous materials involved in the long-teen ttse of office units may include usage or storage of cleaning materials and other supplies used in daily operations. Because potential impacts associ- ated with these office uses have already been analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Potentialip Less Than tress Than No Impact proposal: Significant Significant Significant With Mitigation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge re- X qu irements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sub- X stantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net defcit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not supp~~rt existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a sb•eatn or river, in a way that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or ofj=site? e) Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed :he X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional source of polluted runoff? f) Substantially increase the amount of impervious surface X 15 13-37 coverage? g) Result in discharge, directly or through a storm drain sys- X tem, into surface waters? h) Introduce storm water pollutants into the ground or surface X water that would have an impact on the beneficial uses of the surrounding water bodies? i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as X mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insur- ance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? j) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that X would impede or redirect flood flows? k) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, in- X jury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X nzscusszorl: Potential flooding, drainage, and water quality impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment have been analyzed under the 20Q5 General Plan EIR. Build out of the General Plan, including the residual office, could result in flooding in areas without adequate drainage systems and in areas located within a floodplain. Construction related to build out could also degrade water quality due to the erosion of exposed surfaces and the transport of sediment into receiving water bodies. As concluded on page VI-31 of the General Plan EIR, General Plan policies 6-42, 6-43, 6-44, 6-45, b- 46, 6-48, and 6-49 would reduce or avoid potential impacts related to flooding and water quality degradation to less than significant levels. All development would be required to comply with the California Water Code, as regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board. Because poten- tial impacts stemming from the allocation of the residual office uses have already been analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Im- plementation of the aforementioned General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Significant Signifirant with Significant Mitigation a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regula- X tion of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? 16 13-38 DISCUSSION: Potential land use impacts of the proposed Gene;ral Plan amendment have been analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR. As concluded on page VI-3 ;and Vi-4 of the General Plan EIR, General PIan Poli- cies 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-10, 2-13, 2-14, 2-17, 2••18, 2-20, 2-21, 2-24, 2-25, 2-16, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2- 30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, and 2-36 would be adequate to reduce potentially significant land use impacts associated with General Plan build out. While potential impacts could occur due to the construction of the 483,053 square feet of residual office space, the aforementioned policies would reduce these impacts to a less [halt significant level. Because potential impacts regarding the allocation of these office uses have already beer.[ analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Significant Significaot with Significant Mitigation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ex- X cess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground- X borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise leve s in X the project vicinity above level existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicniity above levels existing with- outthe project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project are to excessive ;noise levels? ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working the project :area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed General Plan amendment have been previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As concludes[ on page VI-29 of the General Plan EIR, General Plan policies 6-51, 6-52, 6-53, 6-54, 6-55, 6-56, 6-57, 6-58, 6-59, 6-60, 6-61, 6-62, 6-63, 6-63, 6-64, 6-65 would be adequate to mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposed General Plan amendment. Noise impacts that could occur would include temporary noise increases during periods of heavy construction, noise increases associated. with the operation of 483,053 square feet of office uses such as HVAC equipment and increases in l:raff~c noise. Because these potential impacts have already been analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate potential noise impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-srgnificeznt impact would occur. 17 13-39 Potentiatfy Less Than Less Than No Impact POPULATION AND ROUSING. Would the proposal: Significant Significant ~y;0, Significant Mitigation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and busi- nesses) or directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ne- X cessitating the construction of replacement housing else- where? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: Potential impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment on population and~housing have been previously analyzed under the 2005 General Plan EIR The proposed General Plan amendment would result in 483,053 square feet of additional office uses. This new office use would have the potential to generate additional jobs, which could indirectly generate additional residents in the City of Cupertino. However, office uses associated with the General Plan amendment were previously analyzed under the build out scenario used for the General Plan EIR analysis. Therefore, the popu- lation and housing findings contained in the General Plan EIR remain accurate, and no new analysis is necessary. As concluded on page VI-33 of the General Plan EIR, General Plan policies 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, and 3-1 lwould be adequate to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with build out of the residual office uses. The aforementioned General Plan poli- cies would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Because potential impacts regarding the allocation of the residual office uses have already been analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact PUBLIC SERVICES ~ Significant Signircant with Significant Mitigation a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govern- X mental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, re- sponse times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X 18 13-40 DISCUSSION: The General Plan EIR discusses school services on page VI-25. The City of Cupertino School Dis- trict assesses $0.34 per square foot of commercial development." At this rate, development allowed under the proposed General Plan amendment would generate up to approximately $164,238 for the School District. In addition, page 2-33 of the G~:neral Plan Final EIR states that the City will review the impacts of development on schools within both the Fremont Union High School District and the Cupertino Union School District on a case-by-case basis. The General Plan EIR discusses fire and emergency services on page VI-26. The EIR states that growth generated from build out of the General :Plan would not substantially increase demands on the existing fire services which could otherwise require expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities. In addition to adherence to Building Codes and a Weed Abatement and Brush Clear- ance Ordinance, the following General Plan policies would adequately reduce potential impacts to fire services: Policy 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, b-I 1, 6- l2, 6-13, 6-14, 6-15, 6-16, 6-I7, 6-18, 6-19, b-20, 6- 21, and 6-22 The General Plan EIR discusses police services ~~n page VI-26. The need for police services could increase due to the direct and indirect growth ge::zerated by the General Plan amendment. The Santa Clara Sheriffwould be involved in project revie~N on a case-by- case basis to determine if police ser- vices would be adequate, or if additional staff or facilities would be needed. However, this growth has already been planned for and adequately mitigated under the General Plan EIR. Policies con- tained in the General Plan related to police servi~;es in Cupertino include Policy b-23, 6-25, and 6-27. While potential impacts to public services could occur due to the construction of the 483,053 square feet of residua] office space, the aforementioned General Plan policies would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Because potential impacts regarding the allocation of these office uses have already been analyzed and policies are in p:!ace to mitigate those impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-significant impact on public services would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact RECREATION. Would the proposal: Significant Signirrcant with 5igniticant Mitigation a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional barks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deteriora- tion of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction of expan- X sion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: Potential impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment on open spaces, parks and trails have been previously analyzed under the 2005 General Plan EIR. As concluded on page VI-lb of the General Plan EIR, the following General Plan policies would be adequate to mitigate potential im- pacts associated with open spaces, parks, and trails: 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2- 72, 2-73, 2--74, 2-75, 2-76, 2-77, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81. The addition of 483,053 square feet of re- sidual office uses back into the ci 's General Plum build out assum tions would indirectl afTect rec- 14 City of Cupertino, City of Cupertixo Ge~reral Plan EIR page VI-25. I~ 13-41 reational facilities in Cupertino if new employees generated by the General Plan amendment utilized the City's open spaces, parks and trails. However, the proposed office uses were planned and ana- lyzed under a build out scenario assessed in the Draft General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR found the aforementioned General Plan policies to be adequate to mitigate potential impacts to rec- reational facilities and parks. Implementation of existing General Plan policies would reduce poten- tial impacts to less than significant levels. No additional CEQA analysis required. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant TRANSPORTATION Would the proposal: with Mitigation a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on road, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an in- X crease in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substan- tial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm e ui ment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? - X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting al- X ternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? DISCUSSION: Potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment have been pre- viously analyzed under the 2005 General Plan EIR. As concluded on page VI-14 of the General Plan EIR, build out of the General Plan would result in an unacceptable Level of Service {LOS) at two intersections within the City; De Anza Boulevard at Homestead Road and Stelling Road at McClellan Road.ls However, implementation of Genera] Plan Policies 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4- 7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-1 1, 4-12, and 4-14 were found to be adequate to reduce traffic impacts associated with General Plan build out. These policies would also ensure that the two aforementioned intersec- tions operate at LOS D or better under build out condition. Because potential impacts resulting from the allocation of these office uses have already been analyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those impacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. Aless-than-significant circulation impact would occur. is TTie City of Cupertino considers intersections with LOS of 1; or F to be unacceptable. 20 13-42 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the pro- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact posal: Significant Significant Significant With Mitigation a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the appl'. cable Re- X gionaI Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansions of existing facilities, thf; construe- X tion of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage X facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitle- xnents needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projects demand in addition to the pro~~ider's ex- isting commitments? #} Be served by a landfill with sufficient pernitted capacity to ac- commodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations re- X fated to solid waste? DISCUSSION: Potential impacts to utilities and service system; associated with the proposed General Plan amend- ment were previously analyzed on page VI-23 of the 2005 General Plan EIR. As concluded on page VI-23, General Plan Policies 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-25, 5-2b, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, and 5-33 would be adequate to reduce potentially significant effects on water supply to a less than significant level. Regarding wastewater conveyance and treatment, page VI-23 of the General Plan EIR concludes that General Plan policies 5-45, 5-46, and 5-47 would be adequate to reduce potentially significant im- pacts to less than significant levels. These policies state that necessary wastewater infrastructure up- grades would be financed by developers who prt~pose additional growth. Page VI-23 of the General Plan E1R states that potential impacts to older sections of the storm water system would he mitigated to less than significalit Ievels through funding from a City Capital Im- provement Program. The following General Plan policies identified on page VI-25 of the General Plan EIR would reduce potential impacts related to solid waste to less than significant: Policy 5-38, 5-34, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, and 5-44. Additionally, as stated in the General Plan EIR, all development would be required to comply with State solid waste requirements. Because potential impacts have already been an~.lyzed and policies are in place to mitigate those im- pacts, no additional CEQA analysis is required. A less-than-significant impact on utilities and ser- vice systems would occur. 2i 13-43 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentiauy Signit-cant Less Than Signircant Less Than Significant No Impact With Mitigation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment, substantiatly reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that individually limited, but cumu- X lative]y considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause sub- X stantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indi- rectly? DISCUSSION: a.) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop be- Iow self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impor- tant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As stated in the Biological and Cultural Resources discussions contained in this Initial Study, no significant impacts were found under the General Plan EIR, and no significant impacts to cultural or biological resources in Cupertino would occur due to growth generated from this General Plan amendment. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. b) Does the project have impacts that individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? {Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) The General Plan EIR did not identify any significant cumulative impacts. All impacts identified in this Initial Study are less than significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not be consid- erable. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed General Plan amendment would not result in direct or indirect impacts that would be adverse to humans, as discussed in each relevant topic above. Aless-than-significant impact would occur. 13-44 Attachment D CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE July 2, 2009 As provided by the Environmental Assessrr~ent Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on July 2, 2009. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATIC-N Application No.: GPA-2009-01 (EA-2009-03) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST General Plan Amendment to increase the office development allocation to a maximum of 483,053 square feet FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. / s / Aarti Slu-ivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/erc~IZEC EA-2009-03 13-45 EXHIBIT S BEGIN HERE C~ ~ ~ ~ l ~~~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408; 777-3333 CUPERTINO SUMN[ARY Agenda Item No. 13 Application: GPA-2009-01; EA-2009-03 Applicant : City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide Meeting Date: July 21, 2009 DISCUSSION: Several Council members inquired about tree following: • How much office allocation currently exists in the General Plan for major companies and other businesses/companies? • What are HP & Apple's future office needs? • How much cost has the City incurred to perform the office allocation analysis? Please find the following supplemental date as requested: General Plan Office Allocation available for Major Companies: 150,000 s.f. General Plan Office Allocation available for other areas in the City: 205,612 s.f. Future Office Demands: Apple/HP have i~ldicated that +/- 400,000 s.f. would allow them to plan for their facility expansion projects. However, they have not come forward with definite plans for expansion. Project Cost: Consultants 1. Design, Community and Environment (DCE): $14,000 (environmental assessment + preparation of initial study). 2. Michael Fornalski: $5,000 (General flan Document Formatting and Graphics). Sta Time 3. Total staff: $21,672 (172 hrs @ $126/hr.) Staff time includes preparation and staffing of the numerous public hearings (October 21, 2008, Apri114, 2009, June 2, 2009, July 21, 2009). In addition, miscellaneous hours spent coordinating the project with consultants, attending meetings, researching archived documents and reviewing technical documents. Total Cost: $14,000 (DCE) + $5,000 (Fornal:~ki) + $21,672 (staff) _ $40,672 Submitted by: Gary Chao, City Planner ~~~ cc.-~-~~-~~ #l ~ Linda Lagergren From: Aarti Shrivastava Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:00 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly ;>andoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Cc: David Knapp Subject: General Plan Office Allocation information As requested by a Councilmember, the following is the General Plan language related to office allocation for major corporations: "Major companies. Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies in Cupertino. Retain a pool of 150,000 square feet to be drawn down by companies with Cu~~ertino sales offices and corporate headquarters. New office development must demonstrate that the development i~ositively contributes to the fiscal well being of the City." The pool of 150,000 square feet is currently available. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Thanks. Aarti