Loading...
Desk Items'J L� � •J d t: i 6-25-2019 i� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CUPERTINO CITY COUNC -STAFF � IOI�T MeetiMay 19 2015 \ SUBTECT Item 7B: General Plan Amendment to consider changes to citywide development allocations for office, commercial, and hotel uses, building planes, height limits. Recommend that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: I. Make no further amendments to the General Plan (Community Vision 2040) adopted on December 4, 2014 (GPA -2013-01); and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 15-043 adopting a policy establishing procedures for authorization of General Plan amendments (Attachment 131). DESCRIPTION Application No.: GPA -2013-01 (EA -2013-03) Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: City-wide BACKGROUND On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare draft General Plan amendments to replenish office and hotel allocations; inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan; consolidate individual requests from property owners; and address State law, and text clean-up. In addition, in November 2013, a State -mandated update of the Housing Element of the General Plan was initiated. The Housing Element Update was combined with the General Plan Amendment process so that the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss issues in one comprehensive outreach and planning process. Please see the staff report for Item 7A. for additional detail on the 2014-2022 Housing Element. The General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update process has involved over 21 months of extensive community discussions and input provided during 27 public meetings, workshops, online comment surveys, and study sessions and hearings with the 0 GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. For a detailed listing of the public input meetings leading up to the December 2, 2014 Council meeting and for recommendations previously made, please refer to the December 2, 2014 City Council staff report (Attachment B.2.) Copies of the staff reports from past study sessions and public hearings are available on the project website at www.cupertinogpa.QLg and at www.cul2ertino.org/records. On December 4, 2014, the City Council reviewed three General Plan alternatives (Alternatives A, B and C - See Attachment B.3), including various Housing Element sites, and made the following decisions: ■ Authorized staff to send the Draft Housing Element to HCD with amendments to the priority Housing Element sites for HCD's review (See Staff Report for Item 7A for details.) ■ Adopted Community Vision 2040, the City's updated General Plan (available online at: wwwxupertino.org/9P), ■ Authorized processing of a Specific Plan for the Vallco Shopping District as follows: o Development allocation of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail, up to 2 million square feet of office, 389 units in the Housing Element with building heights, building planes and setbacks to be decided in the Specific Plan. ■ Deferred the decision on the following General Plan items to a meeting in 2015 after receiving community input: o Development allocations for commercial, office and hotel uses, building heights and building planes, o Community Benefit program, and o Site-specific land use designation amendments and associated re -zoning for two properties - PG&E site located at 10900 N. Blaney Avenue and the Mirapath property located at 10950 N. Blaney Avenue. The Council also directed staff to conduct more community input on the proposed Geneal Plan amendments and research community benefit programs. The December 2, 2014 City Council staff report (Attachment B.2) provides a detailed discussion on the issues listed above. DISCUSSION Community Workshop & Survey In order to gather additional input on key issues related to the General Plan, the City hosted a community workshop and made an ine survey available to the public. GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 The workshop was conducted on February 4, 2015 and included over 80 participants. Attendees at the workshop gathered in small groups and discussed what they considered to be appropriate building forms and heights (including building planes) within different Special Areas, nodes and gateways in the city. The groups also provided input on whether or not the City should establish a community benefits program, and the types of benefits that should be required if a program were to be created. Attachment B.4 provides a summary of the feedback from the workshop. Additionally, an online survey was made available to the public using an outreach platform called Peak Democracy, also used by other local agencies. The online survey consisted of two parts. The first part of the survey focused on building heights at the Special Areas, gateways and nodes. The second part focused on building planes and community benefits. Responses from participants who registered on the Peak Democracy platform are called "on forum" responses. Registration ensures that each response is from a discrete participant and is not a multiple response from the same source. There were 382 on forum Ahbv,4 responses for Part A of the survey and 300 on -forum responses for Part B of the survey. The on forum r�ens�e the results for Parts A and B of the survey are briefly summarized below tt� achment B.5 provides a detailed report): ■ Over 80% of respondents stated that they were Cupertino residents. ■ Over 55% of the respondents stated they do not want to see an increase in building heights for six of the seven areas identified. ■ Over 50% of the respondents stated they do not want to see a change to the existing 1.5:1 building plane requirement along the south side of Homestead Road (between Linnet Lane and Swallow Drive) and the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue). ■ Over 65% of respondents think a community benefits program would be beneficial, but do not think ground floor retail should be required as part of a Community Benefits Program. ■ The average priorities were ranked as follows but there was support for amenities in all the categories: o Parks/Recreation o Transportation enhancements (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) o Community services (e.g. teen center, library branch, etc.) o In -lieu fee to City (e.g. contribution towards school improvements or affordable housing) GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 Peak Democracy also allows participants that do not want to register to provide feedback. However, since it is difficult to ascertain whether the feedback is from discrete individuals or repeat responses from the same individuals, these are summarized separately as "off forum" responses. 429 off forum responses were received for Part A and 182 off forum responses for Part B of the survey. These are provided separately in Attachment B.6. Research on Community Benefits and Growth Allocation programs The Council also directed staff to research implementation of a community benefits program for projects that required additional development above a base height. Extensive research was conducted into development models tied to community benefits in various communities (see Attachment B.7 for a white paper about Development Management). These included three basic approaches: ■ Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) Programs - In these programs, the zoning allows additional development or height based on community amenities provided by a project. These range from formulaic approaches where projects are given additional development (floor area or height) if they provide items based on objective criteria and requirements such as green buildings, traffic reduction programs, etc. (e.g. Santa Monica and San Diego), to discretionary, non -formulaic models where maximum heights or development allocation may be set out in the General Plan but are not tied to a pre -determined checklist and the community amenities would be negotiated through a development agreement (e.g. Palo Alto and Berkeley). ■ Growth Allocation Programs — These are programs that meter development to allow infrastructure improvements to keep up with development. These programs are adopted by cities of Morgan Hill, Brentwood, and Livermore. In each case, growth is already planned in the General Plan and it requires a meticulous and time- consuming process to score developments based on pre -determined objective criteria, decide which ones are allowed to proceed and then review them. ■ Land Use Regulation - A community benefit model in Vancouver, Canada, was also briefly reviewed, that required the payment of specific dollar amounts for projects that were approved for rezoning. However, that program is not legally feasible. The white paper also notes that cities can implement, and control, growth and development through their General Plans, Specific Plans and zoning. In California, State Planning and Zoning Law allows the local legislative bodies the authority to establish their own procedures for the processing of amendments to its General Plan. Cities can also implement additional nexus fees (such as community facilities fees, transportation impact fees, utility impact fees, etc.) and additional design review guidelines to address the impacts of development. Cities can also enter into GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 negotiated Development Agreements with developers, which allow for developers to obtain vested rights and for the City to negotiate desired community amenities to address the impacts of development. The following is a summary of pros and cons of the models based on the review of the various Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Allocation models: ■ Requiring community benefits (or in -lieu payments for community benefits) as an absolute condition of development, may constitute an exaction under California law, and thus the City may need to demonstrate a proportional relationship between the community benefit payment and the impact of the project. ■ Formulaic zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of San Diego Downtown Community Plan) provide very little discretion since the development incentives and community benefits are predetermined and codified by zoning. ■ Discretionary zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan) require protracted negotiation and discussion before the City can determine that a project applicants offer of "substantial community benefits" warrants granting of a bonus in height or floor area ratio. Also, the lack of specific criteria can lead to lack of transparency, difficulty in administering the program and lack of consistency between projects. A discretionary CBIZ program would also require updates to the City's zoning code. ■ Metering residential development annually (e.g., Morgan Hill, Brentwood, Livermore, etc.) would require changes to the Housing Element and is not advisable given the May 31, 2015 deadline for its adoption. The City would also need to ensure that any metering program would still allow its housing obligations to be met. Even if the process is implemented only for non-residential development, the program provides much less flexibility and is cumbersome to administer since it involves detailed criteria, scoring, a specific checklist of community benefits and deadlines for processing and building of development. ■ A metering approach can create a competitive process where projects can showcase community benefits in order to be considered for processing. Morgan Hill is a good example of this process. A newer example is the City of Mountain View, where proposals for a limited amount of development are being reviewed along with a community benefit approach in the North Bayshore area. ■ Growth allocation metering programs require an additional amount of planned growth in the General Plan (e.g. Brentwood and Morgan Hill). However, these programs can work well in years in which there are projects competing for development, since the quality of site plans and community benefits would be high. In years where there are fewer projects competing for an allocation that is GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 built -into the zoning or General Plan, quality of the development and/or community amenities may not be of the same quality as in competitive years. ■ A process that provides procedures for General Plan amendments can provide the most flexibility since development assumptions are not already built in and cities have more discretion about amending General Plans, except with respect to legal requirements for Housing Element sites. Staff Recommendation Related to the General Plan The community survey and community input indicated the following concerns and wishes: ■ Concern about additional growth and heights being built into the General Plan. ■ There continues to be interest in community benefits/amenities being provided by development to improve transportation and transit, parks, facilities and schools. ■ Staggering or metering growth instead of allowing it all at one time. ■ There is a preference to see more detail about projects before any changes to the General Plan are contemplated. ■ That the process should be more transparent and provide more information up front. Based on Council direction, community input and research on community benefit models, staff is recommending that: ■ No changes be made to Community Vision 2040 adopted in December 4, 2014 including: o No increase in existing General Plan building heights and building planes, o No increase in residential, commercial, office or hotel development allocations, or o No change in land use designations to any property. ■ Council adopt a procedure to review General Plan amendments and authorize staff to process a limited number of General Plan amendments using a specific set of criteria (See Attachment B.1 for a description of the policy). The process is described in greater detail below. Proposed Process for Authorization of General Plan Amendments The recommended approach would establish clear community expectations that in order to be considered for General Plan amendments, projects would have to make a specific project proposal including a detailed description of voluntary community amenities offered, if any. This process would not apply to City -initiated General Plan amendments (such as the Housing Element, etc.). GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 The process would work as follows: ■ The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments once every year. ■ As part of the annual cycle for applications, projects would provide conceptual plans for a brief preliminary review (site plan, project plans, elevations, perspectives, project description, etc.), the General Plan amendment(s) requested and a term sheet with a list of voluntary community amenities to be provided, if any. ■ The list of voluntary community amenities could include: support for (i) school resources, (ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails (e.g. land and/or improvements, (iii) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility, and (iv) transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, transit center/stations, etc. ■ Each cycle, staff would conduct a preliminary review of the proposed projects using the following criteria. o General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the following: ✓ Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility, ✓ Brief description of net fiscal impacts (revenue such as sales tax, transit occupancy tax or other revenue, a diverse economic base, etc.), ✓ The provision of affordable housing, ✓ Sustainability. o List of General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested. o A list of voluntary community amenities as discussed above. o Staff time and resources required to process the project. ■ The process would include city-wide notification. ■ The Council would conduct a public meeting, take public input and make the final decision on which projects would be authorized for processing of a General Plan amendment(s). ■ Only projects that were authorized by the Council for processing of a General Plan amendment(s) would move forward for environmental and entitlement review. The subsequent project applications would have to be substantially similar to the project authorized by the Council in order to move forward for processing. GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 ■ Projects that were not authorized for the annual round would have to re -apply for the next annual round in order to be considered for processing. This would allow them to modify their project for the next cycle. In addition to achieving both Council and community goals, the process would also have the following benefits: ■ It would allow the City to manage the process of General Plan amendments in a more orderly manner (General law cities, such as Cupertino, are only allowed four General Plan amendments every year), ■ It would create a more competitive process when compared to the current ad hoc approach to processing applications as they come in, ■ It would allow applicants to showcase their projects and their voluntary community amenity program to the Council and the community, ■ The Council, public and staff would have a better preview of projects before the Council made a decision on which projects would be processed. ■ It would create an upfront and transparent process before projects were authorized to move forward for processing. The Council decision would only authorize staff and other resources for processing of the projects. It would not guarantee approval of projects. Each project would be reviewed in a manner similar to the City's project review process including a review of environmental impacts per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adherence to applicable codes and laws, etc. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this General Plan Amendment is considered a project that must be reviewed for potential environmental impacts. The environmental review was completed along with the Housing Element project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the two projects was made available for public review and comment for a 45 -day period ending on August 1, 2014. As required by CEQA, subsequently, a Response to Comments document (RTC), to respond to comments received regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, including corrections necessary to the Draft EIR, was prepared. The Final EIR, comprising of the RTC document and the Draft EIR was certified by the City Council on December 4, 2014. No actions related to environmental review are required by the City Council. GPA -2013-01 PUBLIC NOTICING, OUTREACH AND COMMENTS City Council -May 19, 2015 The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting: May 19, 2015 Notice Agenda ■ Courtesy email sent to all interested parties ■ City's official notice bulletin board signed up through the project website (6 days prior to the hearing) ■ Newspaper Display Ad (at least 10 days prior ■ City of Cupertino's website (6 days to hearing) prior to the hearing) ■ Newspaper Display Ad (at least 10 days prior ■ Project website (5 days prior to to hearing) hearing) The complete list of public outreach meetings leading up to the D m 2014 City Council meeting is provided in the December 2, 2014 Staff Repor (Attachment B.2) - In addition to the public input collected at the February 4, 2015 workshop and the online survey, public - rnm-ieents-Jiave been sent by members of the public. These have been compiled ir o Attachment B.B. NEXT STEPS Community Vision 2040 Clean-up Edits As part of General Plan Amendment process, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) recommended minor edits to certain General Plan policies and strategies. Due to the lateness of their comments, their recommendations could not be incorporated into Community Vision 2040 in time for the December 2014 adoption. Should the Council wish to incorporate these changes, they can be brought back to the City Council in conjunction with a future General Plan amendment. Staff Recommendation Summary If Council adopts the staff recommendation: ■ There will be no changes to the General Plan - Community Vision 2040, except for adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element. ■ The final General Plan including text, maps and graphics will be formatted and prepared for posting online and printing. ■ As noted earlier in this report, staff will not make General Plan clean-up edits suggested by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Instead they will be brought for Council consideration in conjunction with a future General Plan amendment. GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 ■ Applications for General Plan amendments will have to follow the newly adopted Council policy and will require authorization from the Council for processing. General Plan Fee Since this will conclude the General Plan Amendment process, staff will compile the cost of the preparation of the General Plan and EIR and bring back a General Plan fee for the Council's consideration in June 2015. The fee will be charged on a square foot basis for projects that will tier off the General Plan EIR. Projects that paid into the General Plan process will not have to pay the fee. ALTERNATIVES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION General Plan Amendment Project Components If the Council wishes staff to process amendments to the General Plan in specific areas, it can provide direction to staff to bring back the specific amendments to be heard at a future public hearing after Planning Commission consideration. Attachment B.2 provides a detailed description of issues that were presented for Council consideration at the December 2, 2014 public hearing on the General Plan amendment. These are briefly listed below: ■ Development allocations ■ Building heights/building planes ■ Land use designation and zoning changes for the PG&E site at 10900 N. Blaney Avenue and the Mirapath site at 10950 N. Blaney Avenue. While staff does not recommend bringing the application for PG&E back for the City Council's consideration, staff recommends that the Mirapath site be brought back for consideration at a later date. Default Process for General Plan Amendment Applications If the Council does not wish to authorize the policy for authorization of General Plan amendment applications, the City would continue with the current process of taking in General Plan amendment applications as they came in. While this process continues to involve the community on a project -by -project basis, it would not have the same benefits as the proposed process where all the applications and voluntary community amenities programs could be preliminarily reviewed at the same time on an annual basis. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner Reviewed by- Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager GPA -2013-01 May 19, 2015 Attachments: B.1. Resolution No. 15-043 adopting a policy for Procedures for Authorization of General Plan Amendment applications B.2. December 2, 2014 City Council Staff Report B.3. Concept Alternative Maps (Alternatives A, B and C) B.4. February 4, 2015 Workshop Feedback Summary B.S. Peak Democracy Survey On Forum Responses Summary (Part A and B) B.6. Peak Democracy Survey Off Forum Responses Summary (Part A and B) B.7. White Paper on Development Management Programs B.B. Public Comments _v 0- X kh-(�oh ((V_tn Peak Democracy Recommendations for Interpreting Cupertino Town Hal Survey a Results — On Forum Responses Prepared for the City of Cupertino Introduction Participation in Cupertino Town Hall is a voluntary public comment process. As with any self-selecting, non-scientific survey process, (e.g., city council meetings, informal communications with decision makers, etc.), the responses are not necessarily representative of the entire Cupertino population. We recommend that these responses be considered along with public input expressed in all available channels for participation. The report summarizes the results for the 382 On Forum responses from Part A of the survey in figure 1 below, and the 300 On Forum responses from Part B of the survey in figure 2. "On Forum" versus "Off Forum": Registered versus Not Registered There were 382 "On Forum" responses and 429 "Off Forum" responses in Part A: Building Heights within Nodes and Gateways portion of the survey and 300 "On Forum" responses and 182 "Off Forum" responses in Part B: Community Benefits Program and Building Planes portion of the survey In order to maximize the quality of participation, we encourage participants to register with their full name and address. Registration enables us to identify the neighborhoods from which the responses originate, verify that authors do not post multiple responses, and contact the author in case of any problem. Responses from those who complete their registration are called "On Forum" and are displayed to the general public In order to broaden participation opportunities, we do accept responses from participants without registering. Responses from users who do not complete their registration are called "Off Forum" because we are not able to identify the geographical location of these responses and/or verify multiple posts from one user. Occasionally responses that do not comply with our published civility guidelines are also moved to the Off Forum category. The "Off Forum" responses should be considered as a separate channel of feedback, much like feedback via anonymous emails and letters to government staff and elected officials. Information for both On Forum and Off Forum responses are provided separately for consideration, but it is important to keep in mind that the Off Forum responses are similar to an informal online survey: They are more likely to contain responses from users outside Cupertino and/or a user who posts multiple responses. The Off Forum responses are summarized in the report titled "Peak Democracy Recommendations for Interpreting Cupertino Town Hall Survey Results — Off Forum Responses." Compliance with Guidelines for Civility Peak Democracy monitors responses for compliance to our published Guidelines for Civility fhttp://peakdemocracy.com/portals/213/db message/statement standards]. In both Parts A and B of the survey (Building Heights within Gateways and Nodes, and Community Benefits Program and Building Planes), we discovered 13 responses from one user who registered under 13 different email addresses. We discovered another 3 responses from another user who registered under one name and 3 different email addresses. Those responses are not consistent with our Guidelines for Civility. We move responses that do not comply with our Guidelines for Civility to the Off Forum page, and invite the authors to bring their responses into compliance. In these two cases, the responses were moved Off Forum, and the authors were invited to update their responses. Neither author has responded to our invitation; their responses remain Off Forum. Figure 1: Part A - Building Heights within Nodes and Gateways 382 On Forum Responses (:�fric of the following best describes you? (select all that Response Response `Other' responses: 1. parent of CHS 2. Concern Cupertino future 3. concerned about the future of Cupertino 4. Frequent visitor to businesses in Cupertino. 5. i shop there 6. for the future of Cupertino 7. 1 shop in Cupertino a lot, and concern the future of Cupertino 8. I've been a resident in Santa Clara for 35 years. My residence was in San Jose, and Mountain View. I come to Cupertino shopping often. 9. live near by cupertino and interest in architecture of buildings 10. My interest in Cupertino developments 11. 1 care about Cupertino and Silicon Valley 12. Resident of Santa Clara who shops in Cupertino frequently. 13. live at the boarder of cupertino Percent Count I ar a residen�of(Cu�pertino�.- _--. E31.506 309 I work/study in Cupertino ® 19.3% 73 1 own a business in Cupertino , �.�`� 31 1 own property in Cupertino ® 28.3% 109 1 ani/represent a developer 1.3% 5 Other l 4.59% 17 `Other' responses: 1. parent of CHS 2. Concern Cupertino future 3. concerned about the future of Cupertino 4. Frequent visitor to businesses in Cupertino. 5. i shop there 6. for the future of Cupertino 7. 1 shop in Cupertino a lot, and concern the future of Cupertino 8. I've been a resident in Santa Clara for 35 years. My residence was in San Jose, and Mountain View. I come to Cupertino shopping often. 9. live near by cupertino and interest in architecture of buildings 10. My interest in Cupertino developments 11. 1 care about Cupertino and Silicon Valley 12. Resident of Santa Clara who shops in Cupertino frequently. 13. live at the boarder of cupertino 14. 1 patronize Cupertino businesses, particularly in Vallco area and Bluelight Cinemas/Oaks plaza 15. 1 live on the border and frequent many businesses in Cupertion 16. Child attends cusd & fuhsd 17. Parent of CHS Q2. How did you first hear about the jenerai Plan Amendment project? (select one) Response Response `Other' responses: 1. we chat 2. a friend 3. we chat 4. Friends 5. radio 6. From Lawson middle school group email 7. NextDoor 8. family 9. FRIENDS 10. Cupertino Scene (A monthly publication of the city of Cupertino) 11. Cupertino scene Percent Count Postcard in the mail 19.0% 72 Project newsletter 2.1% g Email from the City of Cupertino . 11.1%i 42 Newspaper article ■ 12.7% 48 From a neighbor/friend 43.5% 165 Other ■ 11.6% 44 `Other' responses: 1. we chat 2. a friend 3. we chat 4. Friends 5. radio 6. From Lawson middle school group email 7. NextDoor 8. family 9. FRIENDS 10. Cupertino Scene (A monthly publication of the city of Cupertino) 11. Cupertino scene 12. NextDoor posting 13. Nextdoor.com 14. Nextdoor Monta Vista 15. Cupertino Chamber email 16. Nextdoor 17. postings from children's school info websites i.e. school loop 18. Planning Staff 19. Nextdoor.com 20.Attended a previous community meeting held by city staff 21. Nextdoor.com 22. We heard about it from the Planning Director 23. NextDoor 24. nextdoor.com 25. NextDoor.com 26. Through NextDoor Neighborhood website 27.xyz 28.wechat from firend 29. Nextdoor 30. nextdoor.com 31. block leader program 32. Gary Jones, Next Door Cupertino web site 33. Next door 34. nextdoor app 35. Northpoint HO Assoc Group 36. Neighbor website 37. Nextdoor 38. Nextdoor Neighborhood 39. Nextdoor website 40. Nextd000r 41. NextDoor.com 42. Next Door Monta Vista app 43. Block Leader meetings 44. Nextdoor.com Q,3. In genera(, are there areas in Cupertino where increased heights would be acceptable? Response Response 1 don't understand the question ©.5% 2 Other , 7.2% 27 Other' responses: 1. Only when area is next to a freeway and there is no residential around 2. Cupertino residents don't want "urban canyons" of tall buildings & hi -density housing. Housing advocates & developers push this agenda. An initiative (nearly adopted) & a referendum (successful) show this. DON'T AMEND GP TO RAISE HEIGHTS & DENSITY! 3. building heights may be relaxed in existing, largely commercial areas, as long as it makes economic sense, and the residences in the area are not impacted. provision must be made for parking and traffic management. 4. Near office parks away from single family neighborhoods 5. No Change.. leave building heights as per the current city rule 6. No high rise please 7. Only in North De Anza Special Area, City Center Node and North Cross roads Node (described in map above) 8. Near vallco and city hall, also apple Percent Count Near freeways ■ 13.0% 49 Appropriately setback from ' 4.0% 15 single fatuity neighborhoods Near office parks , 7.7% 29 Near pubtic transportation . 13.0% 49 Alt of the above 29.4% 111 None of the above 25.2 95 1 don't understand the question ©.5% 2 Other , 7.2% 27 Other' responses: 1. Only when area is next to a freeway and there is no residential around 2. Cupertino residents don't want "urban canyons" of tall buildings & hi -density housing. Housing advocates & developers push this agenda. An initiative (nearly adopted) & a referendum (successful) show this. DON'T AMEND GP TO RAISE HEIGHTS & DENSITY! 3. building heights may be relaxed in existing, largely commercial areas, as long as it makes economic sense, and the residences in the area are not impacted. provision must be made for parking and traffic management. 4. Near office parks away from single family neighborhoods 5. No Change.. leave building heights as per the current city rule 6. No high rise please 7. Only in North De Anza Special Area, City Center Node and North Cross roads Node (described in map above) 8. Near vallco and city hall, also apple 9. One of our assets is a beautiful view of mountains on all sides. Taller buildings occlude the sense that we are even in a valley. Standing next to a tall building in Cupertino, one might as well be in downtown LA. Keep our natural beauty! 10.1 would say all of the above, but I'm not sure what "appropriately setback" means. Everybody's definition is different. 11. Near freeways, but not if it impacts neighborhoods, and only if adequate parking is provided 12. City center 13. In general, no. We used to have such a beautiful view of the foothills from most of Cupertino. Increased heights that take away that view are unacceptable, in my opinion. 14. Only City Center node, North Crossroads node, N. De Anza Special area 15. Near freeways and office parks 16.1 am unable to select more than one from above list. I would accept near freeways and office parks. 17. near freeways and near office parks. not near residences. (survey did not allow for picking multiple choices). i believe public transportation should be near residences and businesses. 18. Survey only allows one response - I want near freeways and setback 19. Near freeways - only in the gateways indicated above, please no new gateways or nodes for high raise buildings and commercial activities. buildings. 20.Yes, when not in single family neighborhoods (or even multifamily). More important though is that tall buildings be set back from the street where they are. A tall building flush with the sidewalk has a strong negative impact vs. one set way back. 21. near freeways, pub transportation- question would not let me check more than one box 22. Near freeway,office parks and public transport. Couldn't choose more than one on survey. 23. not possible to check more than one box 24.All of the above MAY BE acceptable -- not WOULD BE. 25. Cupertino needs to move into teh 21 st Century with the rest of Silicon Valley and provide support for the 20,0000 new employees coming over next 5 to 10 years. I say go higher where ever you are able. 26. Depends on project; Hamptons as tall/dense as neighbors support; all other height/density minimized. Office stay within surrounding envelope; 60' on N. DeAnza, 45' other, disregard City Center height; bad mistake. No impact to single family neighborhods 27. Near freeways and near office parks, but not near single family neighborhoods Q4. Which height(s) do you feel are most appropriate for the Melling Gateway? (select one) Response Response Percent Count Option A: up to 45 feet (3-4 stories) _- 59.6% 218 Option B: up to 60 feet (4-5 stories) - 26.0% 95 None of the above , 6.8% 25 1 don't understand the question 0.8% 3 Other , 6.8% 25 they' res orise§ 1. Up to 2 stories 2. Low height, more open space and trees would make Cupertino a great place. Drawings in Option A and B make Cupertino look like a slum. 3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 4. Lower heights 5. Use existing zoning. 6. No Change.. leave it just commercial 7. too close to the road 8. Taller buildings here would dwarf the residences around the Gateway, obliterate views, even with a larger setback. 15 feet? Really? 9. Option B would be fine if there is a greater setback and greater emphasis on landscaping and trees. The example shown is not attractive. To much asphalt and cement, not enough greenery. 10.1 guess A would be best but would require underground parking to be built. Many shopping centers now don't have enough space and parking. I am also concerned about the future of the bowling alley. 11.2-3 stories 12.30 feet or less 13.Two stories only 14.2 stories 15. any height 16. What is the plan for Stelling road? It is a narrow 30mph street. Will it be able to handle anymore traffic? Even now, it is congested during peak hours. 17.1 feel that 45 or 60 feet tall with a 30 FOOT SETBACK would be more acceptable. 15 foot setback is not enough. 18. both A and B mixed use would be OK as long as ther is ADEQUATE parking and no other 60 foot ht buildings nearby and the is no 1:1 plane 19. It's not just the height but the design. I might prefer even higher if the design for residential was more like option A. Both office building designs are unattractive. 20. any plan must provide adequate parking (2 cars/residence) 21.35 feet 22.35 feet would be about right 23.45' max, less preferred; no mixed use, too much already, open retail space on NW corner of intersection, 2-3 story, moderate density housing; walkable to Homestead, builder funds 2 shuttles; one to Middle school, one to elementary; fits all needs 24.1 don't support residential mixed-use development (the space would be better suited for sole commercial use), and two stories is most appropriate for this area. I strongly oppose 4-5 stories for the building. 25. limit existing buildings to their current height, all additional buildings limited to 45 feet Q5. Which height(s) do you feet are most appropriate for the North De Anza Gateway? (select one) Option A: up to 45 feet (3-4 stories) Response Response Percent Count 54.65 203 Option 8: up to 95 feet (6-7 - stories) 20.4% 76 Option C: up to 145 feet (10- . 11 stories) 16.7% 62 None of the above ' I don't understand the question 3.8% 14 0.3% 1 Other i 4.3% tE (OtherLr7es��j�se: 1. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 2. Use existing zoning 3. 1 don't understand: as you point out, there are already two appropriately -sized and set back buildings there. Are you proposing replacing them with buildings over 45 feet, totally obscuring views esp. with minimal setback. Not appropriate! 4. Again, all examples put little value on landscaping and setback, they are too dense for the lot space. Going higher is better if it means the building footprint is smaller and we can have wider sidewalks and more greenery and landscaping. 5. 2-3 stories 6. Any height 7. up to 80 feet 8. A or B seem reasonable for that location. For B I feel that a larger setback would be appropriate. 9. Could go higher here depending on design. Need setbacks for interest, character. 10. adequate parking must be provided (not shared parking) 11. Up to 95 feet for a Hotel Expansion otherwise 45 feet. 12.35 feet 13.35 feet would be about right 14. Phase 1; build "replacement" Cupertino Inn on "Goodyear" site; 3-4 stories up to 45'; once open, serve existing customers and keep workers employed; phase 2, demolish existing, build new up to -- 95', with height pushed toward the 280 of lot 15. Option A but again, I would rather see only two stories at most. 16. If the setback from DeAnza is minimal as in these images, then 45'. With greater setback, I would consider 95' Q6. Which height(s) do you feet are most appropriate for the North De Anza Special Area? (sated one) Response Response Percent Count Option A: u to 45 feet (3-4 P P 43.940 163 stories) Option B: up to 60 feet (4-5 stories) Option C: up to 75 feet (5 z9.4� stories) None of the above ® 7.3% 27 1 don't understand the 0.5% 2 question Other 4.3 tb 'Other' responses: 1. Up to 2 stories 2. Keep it as is today. 3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 4. Option B but ensuring proper setback from residential area (no views into backyards) 5. Again, greater setbacks needed for trees and landscaping, Go high to preserve or enhance green space and require underground parking as apposed to huge asphalt lots that are a major heat sink in cities and an eye soar. 6. 2-3 stories 7. maintain same building heights. 8. Any height 9. Up to 60 feet seems reasonable as long as the street trees are not cut down! Street trees change the whole character of a neighborhood. And again taller buildings should have larger setbacks. Setback equal to building height ideally! 10.1 think it should be a mix. the more set back and green space the taller it could be 11. Depends on the design. Need setbacks. 12. adequate new parking;i.e. underground garages 13.35 feet 14.45' east of DeAnza; 35' west of DeAnza 15.60 feet; i.e., nothing higher than Apple 1 at Infinite Loop; West side of DeAnza should be Office/retail only; housing does NOT work here. East Side of DeAnza can have housing as this side can be safe for biking/walking 16.1 would like to see this be zoned for commercial use, and Option A seems best. Q7. Which height(s) do you fee► are dost appropriate for the North Vallco Gateway? (select one) Response Response Percent Count Option A: up to 60 feet (4-5 _■ stories) 50.1% 185 Option B: up to 95 feet (6-7 - stories) 19.2% 71 Option C: up to 130 feet (8-9 ■ stories) 13.0% 48 None of the above , 7.6% 28 1 don't understand the question 0.8% 3 Other 0 9.2% 34 `Other' responses: 1. Up to 2 stories 2. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re -zone. 3. up to 45 feet, no -rezone. 4. Keep the current height if you can not make it lower. 5. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 6. up to 45 feet 7. Lower heights 8. 1 don't understand why my options were 45 feet and this is the only question that had 60 feet as the first option. Why do you feel this is appropriate? It should be kept at the same or lower height as existing buildings. 9. Use existing zoning. 10. No change.. leave it the way it is now. 11. Not more than 45 ft 12. up to 45 feet (3-4 stories) 13. Option B with setback from residences (no views into backyards) 14. Up to 8 stories but ONLY along 280. Otherwise 4-5 stories in rest of zone. 15. up to 45 feet 16.1 have no problem with 130ft in this section, if the overall building footprint is smaller than the examples shown and setbacks remain 55ft or great and is dedicated to wider sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping and not parking spaces. 17. Up to 3-4 stories 18.2-3 stories 19. below 45 feet. 20.45 feet should be the maximum height 21.45 feet 22.45 feet 23. Up to45ft 24. already congested. preferred to maintain the same building heights. 25. up to 45 feet 26. Any height 27. max 45 ft ht, minimum 75 ft setbacks 28. a mixture of A and B 29. Can go higher here too but need setbacks and open space. 30.45' 31.45 feet would be about right 32. Strange question; there is a thriving Asian retail complex here now; City should explain why they would mess with that first; Much of this borders neighborhood, so 30' max next to homes, 45' max next to existing retail; corner near 280, 60-95' might work 33.1 don't support the rezoning of the Vallco area. But out of all the options, option A is the best. 34. limit existing building locations to current height. New construction limit to 60 feet Q8. Which height(s) do you feet are most appropriate for the City Center Node? (select one) Option A: up to 45 feet (3-4 stories) Option B: up to 90 feet (6-7 stories) Option C: up to 1 10 feet (9- 10 stories) None of the above I don't understand the question Other 'Other' responses: Response Response Percent Count 49.1% 181 - 23.8% 88 . 16.3% 62 ' 5.71b 21 0.85% 3 1 3.8% 14 1. Up to 2 stories 2. No more increase to the building height. 3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 4. Use existing zoning. 5. No change to the current height for that area 6. The artist rendering of the 110 ft option is the same as the 90ft option above. Is this correct? 90ft be would be fine if the heights are staggered like the rendering and not like the big -box building on the right, which dominates the skyline. 7. 2-3 stories 8. Keep height similar to heights around city hall/library area so buildings don't loom over city hall area 9. Any height 10.A.This is aready a mess with park space that not usuable. I 11.Area already packed; don't remove parking 12.35' 13.35 feet would be about right 14. City Center is the most unpleasant section of town today; too high, too dense, too cold, too dark; it needs more Green spaces and better connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians and buses. t . ' Ich height(s) coo you fee( are most appropriatte for the } Morth Crossroads Node? select one) Response Response Percent Cent Option A: up to 45 feet (:3-4 31.6 120 stories) Option B: up to 60 feet (4-5 . stogies) Option C: up to 75 feet (5-6 51.1% 114 stories) None of the above 4.2% 16 Other 3.7% 14 `Other' responses: 1. No more increasing height(s). 2. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 3. Use existing zoning. 4. No change to heights. Leave it the way it is. 5. This is one of the most charming, archtecturally speaking, areas of Cupertino. Don't mess with it! 6. A 35ft setback might be appropriate for a 45ft building, but is too small for a 75ft building. As the height of the building increases so should the setback to create balance. 7. 2-3 stories 8. 200 feet 9. Any height 10.45-75 feet would be fine in that already urban area. But bigger setbacks and new street trees could transform the character in a positive way, even while allowing much taller buildings. 11.3-4 but need setbacks. 12.35' 13.35 feet would be about right 14.30' max; no housing; this node cannot support height/density beyond existing regardless of usage; Marina is an example of a "shoehorn" project where someone tries to force something in where it does not belong. You do NOT want any children in this area. Q10. Which height(s) do you feet are most appi,- priate for the Oaks Gateway? (select one) Response Response Percent Count Option A: up to 45 feet (3-4 -. 88 stories) 51.4% 1 Option B: up to 60 feet (4-5 stories) . 16.1% 59 Option C: up to 75 feet (5-6 stories) - 23.0% 84 None of the above ' 5.5% 20 1 don't understand the question 0.8% 3 Other ' 3, 3::,o 12 `Other' responses. 1. up to 2 stories 2. No more increasing height(s). 3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS! 4. Use existing zoning. 5. If we create greater setbacks and increase space for pedestrians and bikes, residents will be more likely to get out of their cars. Go high to make room for strolling, and biking, 6. 2-3 stories 7. Problematic area for retail, other than college students. I'd limit it to two stories, residential only. 8. any height 9. Before development here need better access to 280 and 85. Still need setbacks. 10.35' 11.35 feet would be about right 12.45' max but ONLY along the 85 side; underground parking is a must; 50% of units for seniors; i.e., do what makes sense here; minimal retail for Deanza students and seniors live next to senior center; need better access than today's in/out nightmare Q1 I, Do you have any additional thoughts, ideas or comments about height limits within the Nodes and Gateways? Answered :104 Skipped :278 don i want, , Cupertino ;e�c� �;tiona� et6=.�4`s taf.€ b ui td'i n gs All e;{i s M ti'-;, b- Ui l��yl�yi I c,( I`CJeig Ie, -new Ec nation I l,ei(Qh l 1, nky structures zone kinilts Pte-asePte-aseaks imThey 1 he�' O 4 than luut Hke s a -Is v;h�!t Ot."ir_Y-r'Vt }t�"tlt iit�r into -,residents-,residents 5U_i't j t(�.lE' Oaks u r- 'Ai o it S' vl s do use commercial residentid( scl' oiDt!(lood On - Pkan being increased from 4 feet incEea. } ;,'int ,scar ert, rie." higher traffic:, -,crease out sr hoo s Vdktlt_' Why peopa rna e kess dsLl area ri +:t akso needs Ve€'r j ,tut::of!I }r?t}t ft ill^F `rlut�k -`Jt}tit 11 t;`. _80 So �7� r Y1z3 get SDcZt_e parking k 't'3eR' de, -it.. Stevens ct,eeP areas set' trees atty office Kee p�JefGle ftiti5i e€' ijlla:kti ' ;'Jlti"IGllt iltltkc� Text responses: 1. If you don't want to create a concrete canyon (and radically change the feel of Cupertino), you need additional setback - the 15' setbacks with tall buildings are ridiculous. 2. All existing building should be limited to their existing heights. In the event of removal of the structure and new building on that location, heights should be limited to the height of the structure removed. Only new structures should be allowed to be built to zone limits 3. Please don't tear down the shops in the Oaks Gateway, as well as Vallco. As a student and resident of Cupertino, I've seen the impact of these establishments on students' lives. They are more than just shops -- they are places that define Cupertino. Taking away these places (like the Vallco Ice Skating Rink or JC Penney's) means taking away Cupertino's identity (what makes Cupertino unique compared to other cities like Mountain View or San Jose) and dulling the lives of students here. 4. 1 hope that when deciding heights for buildings in cupertino in the future, the overall feel of the community will be taken into account. These tall buildings will look extremely odd to cupertino and are not desirable to the residents that have made this such a wonderful place to live. 5. Cupertino should stay as closely as possible to its small town vibe and avoid too much large building construction. Having lived here for over 30 years, I still remember when it was rare to have buildings over 1 story. I do not feel mixed use commercial/residential buildings best serve the school districts and existing residents of Cupertino. 6. Emotions vs The Greater Good City of Cupertino community's issues understandably are powerful drivers of emotions running deep in the fiber of our neighborhoods, this is completely reasonable and to be respected. One current issue is the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and height limits for certain properties being increased from 45 feet to anything from 75 to 110 feet. There are individuals who oppose increasing these limits, which is their right. This opposition in part is driven by fear that nearby neighborhood property values will decline from views being blocked, residences being shadowed from higher buildings, increased traffic and more school children from added apartments. These are compelling arguments and in some regard the inevitable outcome of higher height limits. In dispute is the decline in property values, it is undisputable that longer shadows will be cast, there will be an increase in traffic as well as more school aged children. The dilemma is the emotion that runs deep versus the "Greater Good," herein lay the frustration. No, we would not like our homes shadowed out or views blocked, no we would not like more traffic, no we do not want over -crowded schools and no we do not want our neighbors homes to decline in value; we are human beings just like the rest of you and we share the same feelings if this was happening to us. Why then are we writing this post not to the survey? Because people make choices and those choices are made for reasons that later are not forthcoming in arguments presented as emotional objection to change for the Greater Good. What is the Greater Good? When people purchase property in a less than desirable location the price will most likely reflect the risk associated with it, for example being on a busy street, a major intersection, commercial/retail, a flood zone or on the San Andreas Fault for that matter. This risk is normally represented buy a discount from market value of similar properties near the risk area. In other words they may have purchased the less desirable location because it was less expensive. What happens next? When the risk or threat of change becomes a reality, the current owners in this hazard zone naturally attempt to argue against the other property owner improving their value. That is understandable and many will be sympathetic to the cause of the less fortunate property owner. I am not trying to be negative, only factual. I understand fully the emotional argument. I also understand the argument for a property owner trying to improve the value of their commercial, retail or multi -unit property. Cupertino desperately needs new housing units. Future residents of Cupertino have a right to live her too. There has and never will be a right for the current residents to exclude others from having the opportunity to live in Cupertino, that might be unconstitutional or at least very selfish. The City also has an obligation/right to improve the economic opportunity for the other residents of Cupertino who did not take the risk of purchasing property in a less desirable location. I was upset when the Cupertino Inn development took out the lumber yard. Well, too bad for me. The example of a new 110 ft high hotel going where my favorite tire store is now; well, too bad for me. People who purchased condo units across from proposed location of the new hotel at 110 ft was a risk they took knowing the property across the street was zoned commercial. They live with one of the busiest intersections in the county and a cross section of Hwy 280 and So De Anza Boulevard. In fact, I believe the addition of the hotel may increase the value of those condos. Let's get a favorable community benefit agreement from that tire store property owner to go up to 110 ft and we'll all enjoy a new 5 star hotel, we need the banquet space for local events. 7. 4-5 story buildings with adequate underground and side parking might still allow light and air and the ability to not feel choked off by high rises. Adequate parking is a priority. 8. It all depends on the setback. I am open to larger height increases if it improves the design and overall aesthetics of the site. Very much site specific. 9. Transportation access is critical to determining proper density. Maybe DeAnza college needs a separate flyover to get onto campus. Gridlock is already an issue coming off 85 to Stevens creek. 10. Mixed use and mixed heights is the way to go with adequate partking and pockets of green and areas for future puplic transit. Having all the building be one height is not a good idea 11. One area in Cupertino should be the tallest. It would really detract from the beauty of the city if there were many tall buildings. It would look too city -like. Please maintain all but one area within Cupertino semi -rural looking. 12. In general, larger setbacks make tall buildings much more palatable. I'd like to see larger setbacks being considered. Similarly, presence of street trees (and even additional trees in aforementioned larger setbacks) can make any area more comfortable for residents. An example of how tree removal changes the character of an area: Highway 280 between Lawrence and Wolf, on the 280 -South side of the highway: A very very large office building and parking garage were erected within the last year or so. Trees were removed, greatly detracting from the driving -through - the -woods feeling that much of 280 provide3. Keep the trees and we can still have a beautiful city, even with taller buildings. 13. No new gateways or nodes. Please keep in mind - building more office/commercial space than what is already available in Cupertino is not a good idea. Empty commercial space is not only a huge waste of resources but will encourage owners to rent/lease/loan them cheap for business that are better elsewhere but not Cupertino. 14. We don't need such high rise buildings, there are other ways your can increase the city revenue. 15. The traffics on steven's creek won't be able to handle the increase loading from both areas. PIs don't add more to the problem. 16. Minimum 75 ft setbacks, maximum 1:1 building planes on all sides 17.1 think taller commercial buildings are fine next to shorter commercial buildings. I think it is not appropriate to have 6 story commercial buildings next to 1-2 story private residences. 18. We should plan for more greed land that come along with the new buildings 19. Why does everything have to be high? 20. Basically we need to have a solution for traffic, school, safe/clean environment and etc before we consider increasing building heights with combined commercial and residential. 21. In general, commercial buildings should not overpower existing residential areas. Ideally, higher commercial buildings would be clustered and surrounding areas (commercial/residential apts) would "step down" to residential home heights. Goal: avoid patchiness and commercial buildings that loom starkly over much lower height residential/civic center areas. 22. I'm very concerned about Cupertino losing it's charm by building high rise structures. 23.1 do not want the character of our town to change to a higher one than it is. Many areas with 45 foot height limits are only built now to 1 and 2 stories, and I don't want those built any higher than they are now, so they should have reducted ht limits as developers tend to go to max height limits. Resident views should have more weight than other stakeholders, as we live here nights and weekends and for our lifetimes. Only resident votes should be counted, and other views should be advisory only. For planning staff, this is a work product. For residents it seriously affects quality of life. 24.1 have lived here for 30years and I've seen lots of growth with zero progress. Our infrastructure is in decay and our safety is being jeopardized. 10lbs does not fit in a 51b bag without hemorrhaging. If I wanted skyscrapers I'd move to a large city. Cupertino offers little I can't get elsewhere. 25. The proposed Community Benefits is far too small to compensate for the negatives associated with the increased high limits. You are selling out our schools, roads, parks for a fraction of their value. 26. How will all this increased traffic be handled? 27. Gateways projects especially along major transportation corridors are perfect locations to allow increased heights. This will allow projects to be creative and create vibrant mixed use developments serving new residents/employees of Cupertino. 28.Allowing higher building limits would bring more congestion, traffic, and noise into Cupertino. It would also downgrade the character and quality of life for residents of Cupertino. 29.1 appreciate the careful approach to this discussion. Lets face it, this is one of the greatest places on the planet, these heights in these locations will not diminish the greatness, but will only enhance our quality of life ... Keep Cupertino at the leading edge. Go Up Selectively! 30. Please ensure the use of plenty of landscaping, which will soften the hard surface of buildings and make the area more attractive. 31.Allowing additional height will give the developers the best oppertunity to create value for the project, the community and the city. 32. Over all maximum height should be 45 feet or less. To my knowledge, there has been no plan to address the increase traffic and congestion that more office buildings and housing units will create. 33. Please don't expand the city like crazy 34. Generally, it is not a possible to consider increasing the building heights without any other context, such as what is the expecting plan for the land use, what is the setback expected, what is slope of the building. The building heights increase inevitably going to increase the density of the land use, it is not just a question of how the building looks. Without proper assessment of the environmental impact on traffic, school and public services, it is improper to just talking about building heights alone. This is why I don't support any building height change at this point. 35. We don't want high density buildings in this area. Local schools can not afford that many new students. The traffic has already been terrible nowadays. Crime rate will increase too. We need a more quiet and peaceful neighborhood. 36.1 have developed major concern over the high desity plan that Cupertino City Council is considering over the past a few months. I understand that the city needs development, but the pace and the direction of the development should be right. We should consider the impact of the high density office and residential development to the education and traffic, safety of the current residents, or the life quality of Cupertino residents. In the end, we do not want the development hurt us after all. Without proper assessment of the environmental impact on traffice, school and public services, it is improper to just talking about building heights alone. Therefore, I do not support any building height changes at this time. 37. As long as the traffic is managed properly, the height should be maximised as this is already in a office development zone 38. Keep it low enough that the neighbors are Boyle impacted by looking at the new buildings rather than the sky. 39. The tall buildings should all be at the cross roads. There should be no tall buildings east of De Anza Blvd. 40.Apple is here to stay, and the resulting business environment means that Cupertino needs more office and hotel space. If such development does proceed, I'd much rather see vertical construction in freeway -adjacent locations across the city (e.g., the Oaks near 85; the Cupertino Inn area on De Anza north of 280; North Vallco gateway on Wolfe north of 280) than along Stevens Creek Boulevard (or anywhere else not immediately adjacent to a freeway). Other than at the Oaks, height limits should remain as they are along Stevens Creek. Stevens Creek is the primary transportation corridor for residents. That should be kept as open as possible. Otherwise, build wisely for the future and don't get misty eyed about a long -gone rural past. 41. Caution at traditional residential areas such as Homestead , Stelling, the Oaks, the DeAnza/Stevens Creek are should be very limied. There is the danger of creating the Manhanttan corridor effect where high density buildings create not only increased traffic , but also created poor visibility around corners, lack of privacy for residents, church congregations and provide additional risks for pedestrians, and cyclists. concerns for school children, the elderly , and resident. 42.1 don't want to see Cupertino look like Downtown San Jose. 43. Try to align housing density (height) and jobs (offices) to encourage walking to work. Second, also align density with mass transit routes. 44.1 think all heights should be restricted to no more than 45 feet. The designated areas will already be heavily congested with the new Apple building, and there is already considerable development. I would prefer not to have any more construction in these areas. 45. The building heights need be limited to 3-4 stories and less than 45 feet at most. 46. Traffic in all these areas is already horrible, with inadequate parking for many of these new, large structures that are right on the street and look terrible [e.g., the construction near Target took away what little parking Panera was using, and building right on the roadway is very very ugly --are users of these new buildings all going to park at Target????]. Ingress/egress for the Oaks is heinous, with people vying to get into the lane to get onto 85 but waiting until the last minute due to the poorly designed entrances to the Oaks which slow traffic in that lane. The buildings at the SE corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek are way too big. Cupertino is a small town and should retain its charming character, not build huge buildings that tower over the streets and clog our roadways with traffic. 47. Density is going to happen as more people move to the city. I'm in favor of increasing heights, but in a way that is balanced and attractive. Most of the example presented, show huge buildings, with a small sidewalks and very little landscaping. This is not aesthetically pleasing. Setback should be increased as heights increase so there is additional room for landscaping, pedestrians and bikes. Not for more surface parking and extra traffic lanes. We need to draw a line on vehicle traffic. Lets do all we can to encourage alternative transportation. We have room on Stevens Creek and De Anza to place bike lanes next to the sidewalk and place parking next to traffic lanes so the parked cars protect bicycles and pedestrians from traffic. All new development should be forced to build underground parking. I know this is expensive and developers will push back, but land is at a premium and we must protect it now while we can. 48. Cupertino needs to grow upwards. Urban infill can support our growing economy and resist sprawl. I support smart growth and transit oriented development. 49.1 am very much opposed to these nodes and gateways becoming the looming structures depicted in the sketches, devouring what little green space there now is, and eliminating the beautiful views that give Cupertino its quality of being nestled in the foothills. It's fine to do this in areas where they do not share this proximity to beauty, but why would anyone want to make Cupertino streets a maze of corridors through walls of tall buildings with minimal setbacks. As the Merc pointed out yesterday, Palo Alto is weighing the same options: do we limit office space, increase height, increase density? It is my understanding that increased office space means more jobs in Cupertino, which means a requirement of more housing. I already see office and retail space for rent everywhere. Let's stop increasing the office space/jobs NOW, and concentrate on preserving our city's beautiful views and character before it turns into another Los Angeles. 50.1 do not want to see any changes to the existing General Plan. Cupertino does not need additional building with associated taxpayer cost and inconvenience. Traffic is miserable now and would only get worse with additional construction. And where will the water come from in this drought? 51. higher the better. more homes. more businesses. higher revenue. 52.45 feet should be maximum height in all areas. Less than 45 feet is ok too. 53. Increasing building heights means more people coming in/out of Cupertino every day, our 85 and 280 freeway entrances / exits are already like parking lots at peak hours. Do we have plans to improve that and other infrastructure to support the growth? 54. Would love a Cupertino downtown. Change is difficult for many, we need to come into this century with the rest of the Valley. 55.1 don't see the reason why Cupertino wants to rezone and increase height limits. It destroys the small-town feel of Cupertino. 56.30 to 35 feet should be tops. We are humans who need space and comfort. 57.1 prefer lower the height the better. We don't need to have too many tall buildings in the city, there are already too many MONSTER, UGLY building in the city, especially the one at the cross section of De Anza and Steven Creek Blvd. It gives us a too crowded feeling of City of Cupertino. 58. Cupertino should maintain its beauty and suburban atmosphere by not building high rise buidling 59. You ask about height. What about density and traffic impact? I don't think you can separate these issues. You can't treat these areas independently without considering the cumulative impact. Today you can't drive down DeAnza at rush hour. 60. Traffic and traffic control will be major issues in the suggested areas. 61. Tall buildings grouped together with good public transport and separation from residential should work fine and allow Cupertino to expand both office and residential spaces upward. 62. Please allow enough parking spaces for the new buildings. Use a raised parking structure if necessary. Also please allow for large enough spaces for large cars and adequate access ways. 63.1 am assuming that the plans for all new buildings will include additional and adequate parking, so as to not interfere with current businesses. 64. If the max height regulation is raised, the setback regulation should also be raised. Cupertino city planning department should announce city's countermeasure of residential unit increase like sewer, electrical and school capacity before any max height change. Cupertino city planning department should also warrantee no traffic jam by so many residential unuts 65.1 didn't answer most questions - too complicated and needs study. However, a main concern is traffic and parking. Increased height means increased traffic and parking problems. Last week. I could not drive through the center between De Anza & Stevens Creek, from the Chevron past Sprouts, to access the stop light on Stevens Creek - wanted to turn left to get to Stelling. Traffic at a standstill in front of Sprouts, people looking for parking. I gave up and turned around and exited to Stevens Creek in the opposite direction I wanted to be in, then took a different route. I avoid that center because parking is so difficult. Seems like the plan emphasizes bike and pedesterian (sp.?) use - where would you bike/walk to from the Monta Vista South area, when you are in your 70's??? Even our VTA bus route was discontinued a number of years ago. Also affected by increased height thus increased occupancy would be the schools - can CUSD handle it? 66. Don't build over 45 to 60 ft. buildings. Keep Cupertino a town, not a metropolis! 67. Traffic, parking, and Population density a major concern to me 68. In general, I do not want more high rise buildings in cupertino. Having said that, would prefer the lowest height. 69. No high rise.. 70. Heights of commercial and mixed-use properties should be a mix of, with higher structures next to freeways and lower structures inside "core" areas. Higher structures presumably will have increased traffic (e.g. employees, residents) thus making them close to freeway exits makes all the sense in doing what we can to manage traffic. 71.The current heights are appropriate for a non -urban city. They nicely retain the beauty of our trees and the views of the surrounding hillsides. Allowing larger, more densely located buildings will only exacerbate issue with traffic congestion, noise, air quality and generally place a higher demand on other resources, such as water. Every single development in Cupertino in recent years has resulted in the removal of large, mature trees, and replacement with scrawny saplings that will not reach maturity for years and years. Rezoning to permit larger, more dense building only makes this worse. Finally, increasing the zoned building heights in large areas makes it more likely that developers will demand that they be allowed to build to the zoned heights, regardless of specific project review. And if they don't feel like they are getting what they want if it is within the zoning guidelines, they only need to threaten the City and City Council with a lawsuit (as the Biltmore II project did). It is far simpler to keep the current zoning heights and do a voter -approved exception when needed. 72. Keep them no more than 45 ft would be the best considering the environment impact and beauty of the city, 73. keeping the existing height, no increased height!!! 74. None for the time being 75. No 76. No 77. No 78. no 79. It would be nice to have a residency building near the marina market for the students that do come from out of state. 80. Do the best to help people make people livable in Cupertino 81.no 82.1 don't want Cupertino to become a canyon of tall buildings, like parts of San Jose. Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Gatos are unique in Santa Clara Valley --let's keep it that way. 83.1 do not want to see any changes to the General Plan. Commercial and residential building is out of control and making Cupertino a less desirable place to live. Our schools are going to become overcrowded and taxpayers will be on the hook to expand them. And we certainly do not need any more traffic. 84. Before we start changing the city's height limit at the blanket level, we need to first address the traffic impact and then dedide what kind of building will be built at the location. Height limit given for a hotel may rot be applicable for the residential building. Without knowing what kind of builc,ing will be there, height limit discussion is meaningless. 85. Please consider the appeal of Cupertino. I have enjoyed living here for 24 years and I don't want Cupertino to become like Los Angeles. Please don't trade community benefits for increased height limits. The existing limits allow a lot of growth. 86. Use existing zoning. 87. Please consider existing buildings and businesses before planning and building new buildings. I don't understand why areas with existing and successful businesses are including in areas being considered to knock down and build new buildings. I also do not understand why all these areas are condensed in one area of our city. 88. SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than 45 feet heights ANYWHERE near single family homes. Heights not to exceed existing heights of surrounding buildings. 89. Because the limitation of the heavy traffic in cupertino, the height limits should not increase in those areas. 90.1 would keep the Wolfe Rd. area no higher than 4 stories because it's already so crowded and the streets are so congested there. And brand new streets, a parking garage and sidewalks were put in just a few of years ago. 91.a) I don't see any reason to restrict under -ground depth of buildings. If people need another story, they can always go down. b) I think its ok to allow open air roof -top terrace or beer gardens, where you get floor space for activity, which out needing extra building height. 92. Overcrowding schools. Increased traffic. 93. Buildings at corner of Stevens Creek & Deanza (Hotel corner) are too tall. They obscure the previously beautiful view Cupertino had of the foothills. Because of that building fiasco, I am against increasing heights anywhere in Cupertino. 94. If there is proposed project that is more dense, taller, and/or closer to street than GP. The council should put the approval on the election ballot to see if it should be approved. 95. Up to 45 feet should be the max, since the city can not control the building design of the developers. In most cases they try to make full use of even single inch instead of making the building looks inviting. The lower the better, then we can have more trees and open space to make Cupertino look great. I like Cupertino and I want it to remain a place where I can be proud of. 96. no re -zone. protect the environment and quality of life of Cupertino residents 97. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re -zone. 98. No rezoning and no changes to building heights 99.1 would like to keep the height limit as minimum. 100. no 101. n/a 102. Develop the public transit before consider squeezing more people into such a small town. It is not Manhattan or Tokyo! 103. Unclear from this survey whether existing setbacks would be maintained with taller building limits. I object to Cupertino having the big city feel of streets as narrow canyons between tall buildings. Strong setbacks make taller buildings ok. 104. no high density housing before we have solution fot traffic, environment, school. Figure 2: Part B - Community Benefits Program and Building Planes 300 On Forum Responses Q1. Which of the following best describes you? (select all that apply) I am a resident of Cupertino -_ I work/study in Cupertino . I own a business in , Cupertino I own property in Cupertino _ I am/represent a developer I Other ' 'Other' responses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Response Response Percent Count 83.9% 250 17.4% 52 7.41* 22 29.2% 87 1,011% 3 2.3% 7 parent of CHS my home is in CUSD Neighbor Resident of Santa Clara who visits Cupertino frequently live at the boader of cupertino I patronize Cupertino businesses (particularly in Vallco area and Bluelight Cinemas/Oaks plaza) Child attends cusd & fuhsd Q2, Which building plane do you prefer for the south side of Homestead Road, between, Linnet Lane and Swallow Drive? Response response Percent Count I prefer a 1:1 building plane (similar to other areas in 31, 3% 93 the City) I pref a 1.5:1 building ®� 53,9t' 160 plane (curr ' enie e nt) None of the above 1 5.496 16 1 don't understand the I question I prefer not to answer the 8.8% 26 question 3. Which building plane do you prefer for the north side of Stevens Creep Boulevard, between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue Response Response I prefer a 1:1 building plane I pref a 1.5:1 braildirig ®® plane None of the above I dorsi understand the question I prefer not to answer the question's Percent Count 30.49,6 89 51.5ti 151 7.20 21 0.7% 2 10.2% 30 t�4. Do you have additional thoughts, ideas or comments about building planes along Cupertino's major streets? Answered :54 Skipped :246 Stevens Creak 1 5 - 7.r,_; build�n� t at€. s;dz H��',esterj Sid €dopZt think street kanc---, more � = � -- - s,_:acK�ree, ia¢-gerset back parking setback.. hi4h Text responses - 1 - esponses•1. no high density building.... more trees 2. No high density buildings at all 3. No 4. 1 prefer a larger setback so the street won't look too crowded. 5. For all Cupertino's major streets, there needs to be AT LEAST1.5:1 building plane and plant more trees. 6. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re -zone. 7. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. 8. The setback of the building from street is very essential to maintain a suburban style. Rosebowl is one example of how the building should not be approved. There is no patch of green or setback in the Rosebowl complex.. how was it even approved? Any mixed used development needs to have enough parking and green space. People live in California to enjoy the natural sun all year around and not to get cooped inside a building. 9. 1 think the wide boulevard, with large set -backs and large mature trees is important to the Cupertino feel and experience. That makes sidewalks also well set -back from the street for a more pleasurable walking experience. 10. With all the constructions (apartments and office buildings like apple) areas in and around the Wolfe and Stevens Creek, near Cupertino High School is becoming very crowded during school start and end hours and traffic is becoming very bad. We should not be concentrating all development around the same place. 11. 1 think that current building planes are suitable for Cupertino to reduce the intensity of the development 12. Please be considerate of the surrounding neighbors when thinking about heights and planes. We all have the right to conserve the privacy that we bought our houses with. Please don't make our city look like a concrete jungle. 13. Street -side buildings should be well set back so they do not appear so monstrous. 14. 50 feet setback definitely desired. 15. No 16. No 17. No 18. Keep all existing building plane ratio. No increased and changed! 19. More setback is preferred. Otherwise, the street will look too crowded and really ugly. 20. 1 like the 1.5:1 because it opens up the sidewalk, and seems to allow for both walking and room to landscape, or place benches or patios. 21. 1 view these as more "core" areas, meaning they are further away from freeways and nearer residential areas. 22. 1 don't understand how there could be an advantage of a 1:1 plane over the 1:5:1. The 1:5:1 plane has a larger setback, permitting more vegetation, and does not rise as steeply, avoiding the feeling of being inside an "urban canyon". 23. My response assumes adequate (preferably underground) parking is included in all plans so as to have a zero impact on existing businesses and residences. 24. No more commercial buildings! 25. please keep Cupertino's charm and beauty by not over built 26. no 27. 1 don't find that the 1.5:1 Building Plane Example matches the Building Plane Diagram. The Example shows the building straight up, there is no slope as shown in the diagram. 28. Buildings should be as unobtrusive as possible. 29. The taller a building the great the setback needs to be. A wider setback would accommodate dedicated sidewalks and bike lanes as well as landscaping. All our setbacks on commercial roads should be 1.5.1 in my opinion. 30. 1 did NOT buy my residence in Cupertino hoping that the city would change from a quiet suburban residential area into a high populaiton-density city of high-rises. 31. 1 don't think we need more congestion in Cupertino. 32. How about a 1;1 building plan with a 50 foot setback so people can walk or cycle? Be sure to provide plenty of parking both onstreet and on lots. Be especially sensitive to the Sunnyvale homes on the North side of Homestead. My concern is there little concern concer,ning residential homes, churches, or other room for the fulfilling our human needs other than shops, restaurants, work . No recreation, privacy, worship places,or non commercial areas. 33. Safety first for pedestrians, bikes, enough space for parking. Easy access for emergency personnel 34. 1 think that building planes along Stevens Creek Boulevard should be allowed to be more steep (e.g., 0.75:1) to allow for a more urban, pedestrian -friendly feel. 35. Add additional space for more parking and turn in space 36. 1 think more set back is needed, and space for side road, trees and greens are much appreciated. 37. 1 wish to preserve & extend the tree avenues as well as the large offset between the sidewalks and the street. Where building densities will greatly increase I would to see sidewalk widths increased. 38. Generally, more set back is preferred. 39. In order to allow for design flexibility, Vallco should not be subject to either of the 1.5:1 or 1:1 building plane standards. 40. The taller the building, the larger the set back should be. I chose 1.5:1 because I think that generates the larger set back. If I mis understood and the 1:1 creates the larger set back, then I would change my answer to 1:1 41. The best of Cupertino major streets was used to be Wolfe street between Homestead and Vallco Mall. The nice part was the big beautiful trees a long sidewalk and green&decorated divider. 42. From the photos, the 1.5:1 building plane dust looks so much more pleasant and aesthetically pleasing. 43. Do not build on North side because it will block the sun on the homes to the north. 44. The city appears to be allowing substantial increases in residential units. Commercial space would provide more tax revenue with a lesser impact to our schools and city services. Adding too many apartment units as opposed to town homes or even condominiums also degrades the city. 45. 1 prefer a suburban look to a more city look. 46. Allowing taller looking buildings (1:1 buildirg planes) along specific main streets will give Cupertino a more impressive look. As it stands right now, the low profile look of the city makes it incredibly unmemorable for visitors. 47. The south side of Homestead Road is across from private residences, and I think 1.5:1 is a better balance visually to the homes across the street when traveling along Homestead Rd. The north side of Stevens Creek Blvd is across from other businesses of similar height. 48. And miminum 75 ft setbacks 49. What are your plans for extra schools and parks? I see only more business buildings, remember Cupertino is not an industrial estate, it's home to many. Apple and few companies around which is now there is enough. 50. The building planes should be varried otherwise everything looks like building blocks 51. 1 think it really depends on the project. Overall, given Stevens Creek is a major thoroughfare, I would be ok with 1:1 given the objective in improving street presence and incorporating sidewalks and projects. 52. In some cases the 1:1 would be appropriate 53. First, the pictures were poorly chosen, which causes confusion. It would have been better similar type buildings for both cases, rather than a stairstep building in the 1:1 example and a shear building in the 1:1.5 example. Second, wouldn't it have helped if you had provided some background as to why you are even asking these questions in locations that already have approved building plans and will be completed as designed within a year. Le, most all of us assume that the south side of Homestead Rd. in the section indicated is part of Apple Campus 2; has existing, approved design, so why would you be asking about this stretch at all? Very confusing. Similar comment for the North side of Stevens Creek between Wolfe and Tantau, which once Main St. is completely will be fully developed. I assume that I am not the only one confused here; so I would hope you will clarify the confusion, improve the questions/explanation/examples and give us another chance to provide feedback. 54. On Stevens Creek the plane should be kept at 1:5:1 to be in line with the area you showed as an example. That area is very nice and especially walkable and family friendly. 5. Do you think a Community Benefits program o f b beneficial to the City and community? Response Response Percent Count Yes -® 65.2% 195 No 31.8% 95 1 don't understand the I question I would prefer not to 2. 3'`0 7 answer the question Q6. Should the City require ground floor retail stores as a required component for any building requesting additional height under the Community Benefits Program? Response Response Percent Count Yes 21.7% 65 No 61.2% 183 I don't understand the question 2.796 d 1 prefer not to answer the ■ question 14.496 43 Q7. Please rank the following categories of community benefits in order of preference. Average priorities over 300 responses 1. Parks/ Recreation 2. Transportation enhancements (sidewalks, hike lanes, etc.) 3. Community services (e.g., teen center, library branch, etc.) 4. In -lieu fee to City (e.g. contribution towards school improvements or affordable housing) 0_8• Which parrs and recreation amenities are the most needed in Cupertino and can be included in a community benefit program? Response Response Percent Count Regional parks and trails ® 15.6% 46 Neighborhood parks 24, .1 ,lb 71 Organized sports 4.4% 1:3 courtslfacilities Pocket parks /tot lots ' 3,1% 9 ALL of the above ® 27.2% 80 None of the above 9.2% 27 I don't understand the I [i.7%, 2 question I prefer not to awiver the 15.6% 46 question Q9. Which transportation amenities are the most needed in Cupertino and can be included in a community benefit program? Response Response Percent Count A new community bus shuttle . 9. 1 ` 27 Better citywide traffic management . 16.9 50 More bike lanes , 6.3 20 More parking near stores , 6.816 20 Better sidewalks and ' 6.456 19 crosswalks Trails ' 4.7% 14 All of the above 26.0% 77 None of the above , 8,45y 25 1 don't understand the question 0.3% 1 I prefer not to answer the question ■ 14.5'% 43 Q10. Which community services are the most needed in Cupertino and can be included ire a community benefit program? Response Response Percent Count Pubtac art centers/Museums E 11.0% 32 Recreation Center j`� 11.0% 32 Llbran7 branch _ _� 11.{a51 . 3 Teen center 1 2.7, 8 Senior center 3.4% 10 ALI of the above 23,6% 69 None of the above 18.8% 55 1 don't understand the 0.7% 2 question 1 prefer not to answer the 17.1% 50 question Q11. Which of the following options could be included in a project as part of a community benefit program? 'Other' responses - 1 1 really don't like the idea of community benefit, which is quite a misleading name. I don't see any way to measure or foresee whether the benefit will cover the negative effect of increasing maximum height limitation. 2. 1 like the 'land for a park' idea, but extend it to a central farmers market, and welcoming places for people to meet and interact. 3. Set aside land for places to be developed for schools medical centers, and small services such as dry cleaning, shoe repair.and places of worship. 4. Perhaps besides all the development is to save land for further development/expansion, public use such as library or park, or recreation as needed Response Response Percent Count Land set aside for uses such as a park or other public 27,4{, 80 facility Providing building space in a project for a public facility such as space for a City , 7.95 23 program, school program, etc. All of the above 28.1% 82 None of the above ■ 15,1% 44 1 don't understand the question I 1'0' 3 1 prefer not to answer the ■ 15, 46 question Other 4,:- - 14 'Other' responses - 1 1 really don't like the idea of community benefit, which is quite a misleading name. I don't see any way to measure or foresee whether the benefit will cover the negative effect of increasing maximum height limitation. 2. 1 like the 'land for a park' idea, but extend it to a central farmers market, and welcoming places for people to meet and interact. 3. Set aside land for places to be developed for schools medical centers, and small services such as dry cleaning, shoe repair.and places of worship. 4. Perhaps besides all the development is to save land for further development/expansion, public use such as library or park, or recreation as needed 5. We need more baseball fields. Cupertino National Little League Major teams only practice 3x/week due to lack of fields. Most other communities allow their little league teams to practice 4x/week. Please build more baseball fields. 6. All these should be specified in GPA as ordinance, not as bargain point for the developer 7. All these should be specified in GPA as ordinance, not as bargain point for the developer. 8. Money for schools 9. All of the above plus open space, low income senior housing, and low income family housing. 10. No exceptions to building heights, no public benefits 11. In the project unless community decides something needs to expand nearby 12. You are using assumptions and leading questions in above items. None of above because I disagree with your assumption that we need to have community benefit program in lieu of bldg. heights. 13. Donation to the school system 14. wording of 1st 2 responses is poor. In general, I do not support the program as proposed, but if implemented land set aside for schools and parks is reasonable but NOT for other public facilities; i.e., you blurred the responses to ones I cannot support a Should developers have the option of paving an in -lieu fee for community benefits? Response Response Percent Count Yes ®� 55.7% 166 No 36.2% 108. f don't understand the 1.3% 4 question I prefer not to answer the 6.7% 20 question Q1 3. Do you have any additional thoughts, ideas or comments about the potentia( Community Benefits Program? Answered :90 Skipped :210 0 m m U n 1 ty benefits =onino Developers arks sei-- icesqtr_-: ,e,,t general build Cupertino �nar,additionA ieu fees abbe building tn,an residents v, -ant area The'_, around more height parb:ingr-:ne,',.hich Lilo traffic program _.uch ::h, -at tdeed benefit"do above d,110— AkkOut cuo-ent people auitdings hett� -=nook don t so pkan exceptions increased think good housing filet frori fee+ v,a b`et's bu,.j an'r s ---mch soave 7teISe ta."JS Text responses: 1. Fix the problems first. Don't keep building and building. We, the tax payers, have to pick up the pieces later. 2. 1 don't want a crowded city. I would live in San Jose if I want to live near taller buildings. 3. q7 is misleadung. I wont select any of them since I wint vote for high density building. 4. This questionnaire is very misleading. 5. Q7 is misleading question. I against the benefit program since it eventually will build more high density community which will ruin our environment, traffic, safety, increasing school population. 6. Don't sell our city to the developers for fake Community Benefits. 7. No Community Benefits. It only benefits developers. Increased height will bring MORE traffic! MORE traffic accidents! MORE crowded schools! MORE portable classroom modules! MORE toilets, sinks and water restrictions! MORE air pollution (spare the air days)! MORE asthma and health problems! MORE demand on parks and recreation services and city services. MORE problems in public safety. Who will pay for fixing these problems? The tax payers. We will deal with these problems for years to come while the developers are long gone with their profit. 8. No Community Benefits Program at all 9. No community benefit program! No exceptions to our current zoning laws! 10. Q9 did not allow the selection of multiple items. I would select all of the following: parking near stores, traffic management, trails. Even better than parking near stores is to NOT build so many stores on a lot such that the parking becomes inadequate. e,g, Crossroads at Stevens Creek & DeAnza Blvd. redevelopment, which now has insufficient parking. 11. Community benefit may out outweigh the negative effect of increase building height limit. I prefer to keep the building height limit as current and do NOT bargain with developer on any community benefit. It's way too tricky! 12. The so call "Community Benefits Program" is not well defined, it may potentially bring more issues to the city due to additional request from developers. 13. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re -zone. 14. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. 15. Community Benefits would be good. 16. Your choices of community benefits are not enough to compensate for the proposed change in height requirements 17. Community Benefits program is a way of giving developers a blank check to building taller buildings. Why have we seen so much traffic congestion recently if the impact from traffic of the new buildings and office occupants not shown much impact in the past. Is the traffic impact report accurate? We still dont have the new Apple campus or MainStreet opened for business yet. What measures have be taken to resolve the traffic congestion that is bound to happen in 2016 when both these projects open up? City should not let developers do anything in the name of Community Benefits.... period!! 18. In general, I am against community benefits because it represents the laws as slipery slopes, in which one can "buy themselves" right to break the law. The richer a developer, the more he can "bend the law" by offering community benefits. This is not the American way, which is equal applicaiton of the law to all people. 19. It is not clear as to what all community the benefits are for. Is it for the community surrounding the area of development or whole of Cupertino? Also I think it will be wise to reduce traffic congestion around the school areas, which given the current set of development at least around Cupertino High School, will increase a lot. Not sure if any of the above community benefits can address any of that. 20. No community benefit program please! No exceptions to our current zoning laws 21. NO EXCEPTIONS TO CURRENT ZONING LAWS. NO COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM. DEVELOPERS MUST ABIDE BY THE ZONING LAWS. NO EXCEPTIONS BOUGHT WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM. 22. 1 answered that I feel that we would not benefit from a community benefits program. Why was I asked to answer question about a program I do not feel should be in place? I answered with things I do feel would benefit our community, but I do not believe they should be part of the program described above. Please do not make exceptions to current zoning. 23. No Community Benefit program. No exceptions to current zoning laws. 24. When people live in dense housing, they need open space like parks to decompress. Please require open green space for each dense housing building that you approve. 25. 1 don't like any of the choices in Q7 and w , uld prioritize all of them 4/4 if I were given the option. I should have been able to check "None of the above" for this question. Developers should not be able t : buy their way into changes in the General Plan, no matter how much mone,, they throw around. We still have to live in this city. 26. No 27. No 28. Follow existing zoning laws, no community benefit program in exchange to increased height! No exceptions to our current zoning laws! 29. Community benefit is quite a misleading name. It will finally turn into developer's benefit. I hope city council to think it over and be very cautious about using so- called community benefit. There is no way to accurately measure the negative effect of relaxed maximum height limitation, and ask for a "community benefit" as return. 30. 1 feel strongly that a formal Community Benefits program simply allows developers to buy their way into more height and density, even if the community doesn't want it. It encourages abuse. The City can still have development agreements that include benefits to the community without succumbing to the demands of developers to allow higher, denser construction because the City has already agreed to let them buy it in exchange for "Community Benefits". I AM NOT ACCEPTING THE DEFAULT PRIORITIES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT A COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM IN CUPERTINO. I AM DIAPPOINTED THAT THE BIAS OF THESE QUESTIONS IS IMPLYING THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM, PERIOD. 31. I'm a bit concerned that an in -lieu fee would get lost, and not directly benefit the residents of Cupertino in a way that would really offset the problems associated with growth and increasing density. 32. Although in -lieu would give the Council mucch flexibility in using this income, I fear fund $$ dilution. Better to have the developer BUILD whatever we agree is important to us as beneficial to the community. 33. Think seriously about water use, traffic, school overcrowding, over population. Traffic from Apple is already an undesirable reality. Yes to water wise walking trails, public safety, and our precious nature protection. Don't let money be your guiding light. Don't be like the city of Sunnyvale. Follow the example of Saratoga. 34. 1 would rather not have the city overcrowded. 35. The community benefits I checked above - parks, transportation amenities, etc. - are things I believe the city needs, and I think the city should insist on these as a condition for being permitted to build here: period. They should not be received as a reward for compromising on additional height of buildings or reduced setbacks. That is saying, "We're fine with you building oversized urban canyons in our city, as long as you pay us for it." What is that worth, if we are left with a city that has lost space for parks, gardens and views of the surrounding mountains? New construction near the Apple campus should be required to emulate and reflect what Apple is trying to do with its restoration of natural habitat, walking trails, and trees. 36. we don't need community benefits. We don't want developers to develop any more than currently allowed by the city code. We need to stick to existing zoning as much as possible. 37. Trading height for retail in Cupertino has provided dubious benefits to the residents, but has been profitable for developers. Palo Alto's version of "community benefits" ("planned community") have been halted because of concerns of abuse. So-called "community benefits" are a way for buildings to grow higher than the zoned height, and the benefit to the community is subject to the weak negotiations of the City. 38. Should not allow deep pocket developers to work -around the city plans approved by citizens and their representitives. 39. These surveys are poorly done. Some are single select as above, can't chose 2 areas of parks that need the most improvement, only "all" "none" or a single. Crazy survey - did any one test it first? Did you have a statistician look at it? I don't trust our city to make good decisions about changing the height limits in return for community benefit. 40. Please do not extort money from builders or developers who are willing to invest in Cupertino by using their own resources to create housing and businesses in Cupertino. 41. One of the requirements should be that the community benefit program needs to be done first before any development starts, e.g if the community benefit program is "more bike lanes, better citywide traffic management etc." then this should be implemented and demonstrated that traffic is better before any development starts. 42. Can Cupertino be bought? 43. These usually benefit the developers, not the residents (and certainly not the residents of the surrounding cities) 44. Parking spots need to be wider. Also, please do not allow the planting of any more Society Garlic (Tulbaghia violacea). It's low -maintenance and pretty, but absolutely unacceptable because it makes it surroundings smell like skunk! 45. please secure public library, park, additional school site if Cupertino wants to expand more residential housing plan. Developers focus on their profits and they will go once their profits in the pocket. City and residents have to live here forever. Please consider residents' benefits prior to developers. 46. As a Cupertino residence, I care more about whether we would still enjoy living in this city after 10, or 20 years, instead of how much the developer would pay in exchange of making more profit. 47. 1 voted NO on question #5 because no flexibility is mentioned in allowing the height limit to be raised in certain of the listed areas BUT not allowed in some of the areas. The danger of raising the limit in ar area is making living conditions worse in that area; but if benefits (i.e. mitigation) is allowed in another area, there is a disconnect there. 48. Cupertino gets a lots of funding from Apple, we should not exchange the building height for the developer's money. There are way too many tall & ugly buildings in a small city like Cupertino. We DON'T LIKE MONSTER BUILDING, We DON'T WANT MONSTER BUILDING. 49. In -lieu fees are a cop-out for the developei and often are not used appropriately. 50. 1 do not approve of a Community Benefits Program and do not think developers should be able to buy their way into General Plan changes. 51. 1 answered "I prefer not to answer the question" for several questions because I don't think community benefits are a good idea. If there are no community benefits then the questions are irrelevant. 52. Cupertino, on the far east side, between Miller / Lawrence, Steven's Creek / Bollinger, has far less amenities than rest of the city. Would like to see some improvement here. 53. It should be a straight trade... the higher your development the more land you have to dedicate to open space, wider sidewalks, bike lanes, underground parking as apposed to surface parking, and alternative transportation options. When funds go into the general fund unrestricted, there's no telling what they will be use for. 54. Do not allow exceptions to the height requirements. Restrictions are there for a reason --to enhance the livability of a community. Providing developers the option to "buy out" just diminishes the atmosphere of the region and degrades our quality of life. By all means, charge developers fees for any negative impact their construction will have, but don't let them get around the rules just because they have money to buy the city off. Any funding to schools should be to help citizens of CUPERTINO, not to the general student population, since many students are residents of other cities that build housing in our school districts without regard to its impact on our ability to accommodate those additional students. 55. For affordable housing would be good. 56. 1 would recommend talking to the Cupertino Librarian about stand-alone automated check-out machines in lieu of an additional branch due to limited funding to staff a branch. 57. Cupertino development can develop by hindering fast development. Instead solve the transportation problems such as a community wide shuttle that can take residents, employees and visitors to all places such as light rail, Kaiser, Cal Trans, medical facitities, grade and high schools, library, employers,as well as shopping such as Valley Fair. Solve school site expansion problems while the land exisits. Think qualify of life. I feel developers find it easier to develop fast and get out rather than see how the people develop the uses. Planning details can hinder unintended consequences. 58. 1 suppose the city may already charge propriety tax, any additional fees may be a burden, should be viewed as optional or part of special call for donations or funding (hopefully short term as needed) 59. We need adequate, affordable housing for non -tech middle class people who make the city run: teachers, retail/foodservice employees, bankers, librarians, sheriff/fire, city employees. We need more parking in retail areas! 60. Cupertino needs more office and hotel space. If such development does proceed, I'd much rather see vertical construction in freeway -adjacent locations across the city than along Stevens Creek. Community Benefits should obviously result from any such vertical construction. At the February 4 workshop, our table stated the following priorities: (1) funding to schools, (2) traffic mitigation, (3) park space. 61. improve access to freeways 62. It is not right for them to be able to get a special deviation because they can pay their way out. The residents have spoken already about the height restrictions and set backs. 63. 1 am not very familiar about the communicty benefits program in terms of what cost we need to pay to get some benefits from the developers. But I do want to share my thoughts about it that we all want living in Cupertino to be pleasant and worthwhile, develop a high density office and residential around Valco area is not what I consider a good development plan for this area. Valco area should remain as retail space, and that is much needed function for Cupertino residents. 64. Increased building heights affect residents' quality of life in several ways: - Increased enrollment in a fixed number of school campuses - Increased traffic and decreased air quality - Increased consumption of natural resources like water - Increased strain on city services like sheriff and Parks and Recreation services - Decreased views of sky, trees and hills as the main roads becomes "concrete canyons" with walls of tall buildings. We don't want increased building heights for all above concerns. In addition, there should always be a transparent process for any General Plan exception, and public hearing/input required.. 65. Community Benefits program has been proven to be Developer Benefits program. GPA should be rules and guidelines to be respect and followed, not something for sale. It is city's job to enhance city's infrastructure and fund these projects through proper venue. Expecting developer to do the right thing is naive and irresponsible. 66. The questions are not framed clear enough. Our concern is the overbuild of the city. To be clear. We against plans for multi units in the area 67. None of the community benefits programs offer enough details for Cupertino residents to understand the long-term cost of allowing developers to bypass the current zoning/building requirements. I attended the workshop regarding community benefits in February and was very disappointed that there was very little information in that workshop about the long term impact on traffic, school, and overall infrastructure. Until those details are made very clear to all the Cupertino residents, it's much better to not to have such Community Benefits Program. 68. 1 am not in support of a Community Benefits Program so I did not wish to answer many of the questions. 69. Community benefit programs and in -lieu fees sound like ways for deep -pocket developers to circumvent existing height limits. This would cause more congestion, noise, and traffic for Cupertino, aspects which the "benefits" and "fees" cannot undo. 70. Cupertino is a prosperous city - does not need any additional services or facilities or funds couched as 'Community Benefits'. There should be no zoning changes or building code exceptions traded off for such benefits. Period. 71. The proposed community benefits is a pittance. The value of our community schools, roads, parks, library, and community services are far higher than any combination of the benefits listed above. I entered "I prefer not to answer the question" in places that I assumed my answer would be miss represented. 72. Set the height restrictions and stick to them. Don't allow developers to "buy" favors 73. 1 do not believe that developers should be able to trade community benefits in exchange for additional heights. It was clear at the community meeting that most folks feel that way too, so this is a very leading survey. I only weighed in to the choices to have a say if the end result is to allow such manipulation of the general plan. 74. More building equates to more traffic and congestion. Get people off the road with better transportation exclusive for Cupertiro. Mountain View is offering shuttle services to various places such as supermarkets and restaurants and shopping centers, not just shuttle stops. Wlth the influx of money Cupertino is getting from new development and Apple, why can't we get the same? Add better bike lanes so people feel safe with the increased traffic and cars on the road. 75. Think Cupertino needs to look more closel°v at what other neighbor communities are doing in this area. We should not be in competition with our close neighbors. A more integrated approach would be helpful. 76. 1 think it would be good to add low income senior housing and low income family housing. Student housing near De Anza College would be good too. 77. No building height exceptions, make developers stay within the current requirements. No public benefits for increased heights. 78. In lieu of fees but at a higher rate so the developer will not always choose in lieu fee. The city would be able to handle the additional cost to plan and build 79. Q8-11 should be something we can multi select on rather than one or all. For example, with Q9 I don't want more parking near stores -- but I want everything related to better pedestrian and bike options. 80. Yes they should and these fees should be used to increase/improve impacted schools or to purchase land to open a new school. 81. The business buildings that we have in Cupertino is enough and lets make it better by making it more livable rather than into a concrete jungle 82. No 83. We will vote out current council people if they assume we agree with adding height to buildings. Keeping growth down when we have water issues is also important. We have limited natural resources and did not move here to live in a city! 84. The questions above did not allow for multiple choices other than All of the above. On Q12 there should be an option for an in -lieu fee but it should be at the discretion of the city not the developer. 85. Need to ensure community benefit actually does improve or provide a benefit to the Community. I do not view'for profit' retail stores as a benefit to the community. It should be something the community needs and wants. 86. 1 answer yes to #12 only if city council/staff identifies what the fee is directed towards prior to approval. 87. I'm uncomfortable with this whole idea. It feels like an "official method" for developers to "bribe" the City for entitlements/approvals that they would not otherwise be able to gain. Without a sound, forward looking traffic improvement program, the City should resist developer desires for greater employment and/or residential densities. Community Benefits Programs make such resistance potentially more difficult. 88. Not sure about in -lieu fees, but I believe they tend to be an easy fix for developers who want more height nor no parking and money can be put into a slush fund which is hard to track 89. For Q12 and in general, at this time it seems that most developers are drooling at the chance to build in Cupertino. Before discussing community benefits, the bar for entry into discussion needs to be raised. i.e., the developer should pay additional in -lieu fees just for being able to develop here not for building higher than the majority of residents want in this area. These in -lieu fees should begin at seven figures and scale with the size of the project. They should be prioritized toward improving public safety in/around our schools. 90. Community benefits are kickbacks for violating zoning codes. Developers must be required to meet codes - no negotiation after the fact. The city should negotiate parks and community services as part of the development agreement for development within existing codes. Am 0 AL. COMMUNITY -WIDE WORKSHOP #4 SUMMARY February , 4i 2015 I Cupertino Community Hall f t ' !I T _ r r -y • Workshop Overview On December 4, 2014, the City Council formally adopted an amendedGeneral • lan known as Community Vision 2040. The City Council; however, did not a a rove increases to eve opment allocations (other than Housing Element sites and office allocations for Vallco), increases to existing building hei hts or the, proposed Community Benefits Programa The City then hosted a community -wide workshop on February 4, 2015, to continue the discussion on these important topics. Over 100 people attended the workshop and provided extensive feedback, which is summarized on the following Introduction and Presentation The workshop was intended to include an interactive polling exercise to solicit community input; however, due to technical issues the survey was not able to be conducted live during the workshop. (Note: Following the workshop City staff and the consultants developed an online version of the survey that was available between 2/13/15 and 3/3/15 at www. cupertinogpa. ora) Q5. Which heights) do you feel are most appropriate for the Ilorth De Anza Gateway? (select one) Option A: up to 45 feet (3-4 stories) Option B: up to 95 feet I6-7 stories) Option C up to 145 feet (to - I I stories) None of the above don't understand the question Other Enter other text here Characters left: 255 ` Following -the presentation, community members wer(� divided into groups and asked to discuss and provide'. comments on two key policy topics: What building height maximums are most ,types of benefits wouId be acceptable or needed'i, Groups were provided large maps to mark up with ideas and thoughts, as well as a handout with prototypical buildings and heights. City staff facilitators were available to record comments. OOWNEOWN DOWNTOWN DOMITOWN RESAR RETAN PLAZA ML I J IOW DISE NIGNRISE MIDRISE 11MOUSE MXED USE MIXEDUSE mom Yp Y[ MID RISECOMM[FILIAL mom us[ MIMED USE RETAIL �[K[ OFFICESMALL OFFICE cOMK[Y COMPEER CONIPLEA VI 1 E NfrEPr Ynl'.c� GaEc�w�.p t —th D. Arca Spv,,A Ar.. 1 [ ' ' Nodes and Gateways Each group provided a wealth of ideas, input and perspectives that are summarized on the foHowing pages. The first section provides a general summary of major ideas gathered under each question. This is followed by specific input and comments from each of the 13 groups. Overall Community Input When asked what height maximum is most appropriate in the Stelling Gateway, the groups answered as follows: ■ Less than 45 feet: one group 45 feet: seven groups, ® 60) feet: our groups ® 75 feet: one group Y }nt I I r 7 I .. :ia i �I i tui clue Cl 1 �d r'' When asked what height maximum is most appropriate in the North De Anza Gateway, the groups answered as follows: ■ !45 feet: five groups ■ o feet: five grou ■ 75 feet: one group ■ 90 feet: two groups ■ 145 fee . no grou moi. . �--�► :M v rail Community Input r _TM fig, AFI,y d All • •"� -fir� I Y, _ _ , _ _ Y -• _ e �4. When asked what height maximum is most appropriate in the North Vallco Gateway, the groups answered as follows: m/-_45 feet: six groups \ 60 feet: five groups ■ �75eet: no groups ■ 90 feet: one group ■ 145 feet:T6 \ psi., ■ No answer: one group 1% overlalli When asked what height maximum is most appropriate in the North Crossroads Node, the groups answered as follows: ■ 0 f feet: six-g-roups-----_ t- 6 feet.: three groups ■ 60 of 75 feet: 6n&grbup 0 75 feet: two groups ■ 90 feet: one group ■ 110 feet(�no grO6 When asked what height maximum is most appropriate in the oaks Gateway, the groups answered as follows: ■ 45 feet: three groups ■ 45 or 90 feet: one group ■ 60 feet: seven groups ■ 75 feet: one group 90 feet: one group When asked whether or not they supported the concept of a Community Benefits Program, the groups answered as follows: ■ Five groups supported a Community Benefits Program ■ Three groups were divided on whether or not to support a Community Benefits Program ■ Five groups did not support a Community Benefits Program 4wd 'W4 Individual Group Input Group #1 Im 5 [-I-:) fld'ng He'ghts Lg) u d � d Sty llinql, 45 feet L North L)ka-1- U)'a-teway: 45 feet m North De Anza Special Area: 45 feet North Vallco Gateway: 60 feet City Center Node: 45 feet u Oaks 6at"e'Way: 45 feet Building Heights (continued) Other comments: ■ Set backs are an important consideration that need to be factored in along with building height ■ The City should respect the carrying capacity of Cupertino ■ The community should review requests for exceptions to height standards on a case-by-case basis Community Benefits Program ■ This group was not supportive of the proposed Community Benefits Program ■ If a Community Benefits Program was established and the group was required to identify acceptable benefits, then the group would recommend street improvements Group #2� ---------- *11'1161�, oFo� fldnq He'ghts u � I Stelling Gateway: 45 feet 1�Jorth De Anza Gateway: 60 feet �Aorih L-�e Anza Special Area: 90 feel, A North Vallco Gateway: 45 feet A City Center Noc]'e-. 60 feet m North Crossroads Node: 75 feet 1, Oaks Gateway: 60 feet Building Heights (continued) Other comments: ■ The City needs to consider traffic pressures associated with mixed-use housing Community Benefits ■ The majority of the group supported the Community Benefits Program ■ Acceptable Community Benefits components could include: — Bike facilities, particularly around the Apple Campus — Parks Group #3 01 low— 41 Pj LA � Hdojng He"gMs [ d ��Pu'c 6Y a�ea Stelling Gateway: 45 feet North De Anza Gateway: 45 feet North De Anza Special Area: 45 feet * North Vallco Gateway: 60 feet * City Center Node: 45 feet 3m M* 111�, m Oaks Gateway: 45 feet Building Heights (continued) Other comments: ■ No changes to existing zoning (height standards) ■ Setbacks are an important consideration ■ The City needs to respect the carrying capacity of Cupertino ■ The community should review requests for exceptions to height standards on a case-by-case basis ■ With additional height comes more density and more traffic CommunKy Benefits m The group was not supportive of the Community Benefits Program * Desire to solicit community input on a case-by-case basis * Share examples of successful community benefit programs in other cities Community Benefits are a switch and bait as far as the idea vs. implementation im Historically, Community Benefits Programs have not been transparent processes — the community was not included in the discussion of how the benefits were allocated Community Benefits (continued) ■ The group identified acceptable benefits as listed below; however, in the end agreed they did not want any community benefits: — Parks: build large, dynamic parks with limited paths/pavement — Library enhancements Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: 45 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 60 feet ■ North De Anza Special Area: 90 feet ■ North Vallco Gateway: 45 feet ■ City Center Node: 60 feet ■ North Crossroads Node: 60-75 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: 60 feet O MD u � Hong Heoghts (continued) L a Keep all heights same as existing LLj Lower height maximums at the Oaks Shopping Center and near residential properties • High-rise development needs access points along freeways • North De Anza Special Area should be split into East and West Community Benefits ■ The group was supportive of a Community Benefits Program on a case-by-case basis ■ Acceptable Community Benefits components could include: — Public easements throughout new projects — Maintaining existing mature trees and planting more new trees — Providing enhanced bike and pedestrian pathways and bridges — Exercise equipment for seniors in parks — Promoting alternative modes of transportation — Providing more public parks, recreation centers, and health clubs — Requiring developers to work with schools to provide benefits to the student body — Additional fire and Sheriff stations — Increased parking supplies D Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: 75 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 45 feet ■ North De Anza Special Area: 45 feet ■ North Vallco Gateway: 45 feet ■ City Center Node: 60 feet ■ North Crossroad Node: 45 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: 60 feet fld'nq HeiqMs (continued) Concerns regarding increased traffic and -the loss of pertino's suburban character ® not allow developers to influence how Cupertino is Community Benefits ■ The group was divided on supporting the Community Benefits Program ■ Acceptable Community Benefits components could include: — Street beautification as a priority — Parking — Bike Lanes — Accessibility — Schools Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: 45 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 60 feet ■ North De Anza Special Area: 45 feet ■ North Vallco Gateway: 45 feet ■ City Center Node: 45 feet ■ North Crossroads: 60 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: 60 feet RWM d n g He '�g h (continued) Considered traffic pressures associated with mixed-use housing Half the table wanted to allow for increased heights along D Anza Boulevard, the other half did not want to increase I Community Benefits ■ The group was divided on supporting the Community Benefits Program El Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: 45-60 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 45 feet (max out building heights when a hotel) ■ North De Anza Special Area: 45 feet (high rise office with some commercial/restaurant areas on the first floor. Group felt this was the most appropriate area for dense office) ■ North Vallco Gateway: 45 feet ■ City Center Node: 90 feet ■ North Crossroads Node: 45 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: 60 feet oU'n H(M hts (continued) Other comments: FE Concern.over incre• . height and _ ■ Younger participants wanted something supportive of De Anza College and students ■ North ®e Anza Special Area was identified as the most appropriate area for dense office development Building Heights (continued) Other comments: ■ Recommendations included focused high-rise with a small footprint ■ Provide space for mass transit ■ Mixed-use throughout Cupertino ■ Concerns regarding increased housing density and increased traffic CSO MMuMty Bene�F�S ■ The majority of the group was supportive of the-, Ccr-nrnuniicy Benefits Prograrn ■ The group suggested the entire developer paymen"i up front, and that a recurring payment may not work for developers that end up selling the development ■ If a community benefit is considered, the group desires the developer to pay the City directly and allow the City to manage the funds Community Benefits (continued) ■ Benefits should be spread around the City, not necessarily in the project area with the exception of transportation improvements which should be closer to the project ■ Acceptable Community Benefits components could include: — Open space — Walkable areas, including sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure (benches, trash receptacles, landscaping) — Transportation Improvements, including mass transit and bike lanes — Senior Housing — Affordable Housing �`3'�� ,, z.��._._. � ��'` � � --� .. ...�..rw 1 _ �_ J -r_ � i;' e, i � , •.: --->� � ti�FP.THdU � � ��: _.. _ i '" i Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: 45 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 60 feet ■ North De Anza Special Area: 90 feet ■ North Vallco Gateway: 60 feet ■ City Center Node: 45 feet ■ North Crossroads Node: 60 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: 60 feet o ��fldnq HeoghtrS (continued) Other comments ■ Concerns about increased volume of traffic and school ove rc'rowd i ng ■ Concern over maintaining Cupertino charm if allowing live density Community Benefits ■ The group was not supportive of the Community Benefits Program Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: Less than 45 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 90 feet ■ North De Anza Special Area: 60 feet — East side of De Anza: 60 feet — West side of De Anza: 45 feet ■ North Vallco Gateway: 45 feet ■ City Center Node: 90 feet ■ North Crossroads Node: 45 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: Split between 45 feet and 90 feet MO OUndg He'qMs L:D) u j 0-, M M e n t S 00 * Recommend I height standard for Stelling Gateway because it is near high school * Concern that taller buildings will bring more traffic Community Benefits ■ The group was divided on supporting the Community Benefits Program Building Heights Input by area: ■ Stelling Gateway: 60 feet ■ North De Anza Gateway: 90 feet ■ North De Anza Special Area: 75 feet ■ North Va I I co Gateway: 90 feet ■ City Center Node: n/a ■ North Crossroads Node: 60 feet ■ Oaks Gateway: 90 feet Community Benefits ■ -A majority of the group did not support the Community Benefits Program ■ Acceptable Community Benefits components could include: — Helping schools accommodate more students and maintain a good student/teacher ratio — Expanding alternative modes of travel to help mitigate traffic congestion — Enhancing parks with additional amenities — Mitigating noise from traffic and construction — Adding parking — Enhancing bicycle facilities and infrastructure — Allocating more money for banquet hall improvements Group #11 .z� 0 11 FD-) fldnq He'gMs • Stelling Gateway: 45 feet • North De Anza Gateway: 45 feel 7 North De Anza Special Area: 45 feet North Vallco Gateway: 60 -- O . e Oaks Gateway: 45 feet Building Heights (continued) Other comments: ■ There is a strong connection between height requirements and setbacks - setbacks are more important than height ■ Dense housing will increase the parking problem ■ Keep large amounts of housing from being built COMMUMley Benaiits The group was supportive of Community Benefits Program if benefits fall within "the norm" The uested examples of what other cities have grouI req done with community benefits (lessons learning and results) and that the City provide a legal framework that guides the developer through the community benefits program 1�j Acceptable Community Benefits components could inc�ude-. M Group #12 I& w Fg� u d � Hdong Hs"gMs Do SteHing Gateway: 60 North De Anza Gateway: 60 feet North De Anza Special Area: 60 feet Lj North Vallco Gateway: n/a City Center Node: n/a & Oaks Gateway.- 60 feet Building Heights (continued) Other Comments ■ Med/high rise concentrated near Apple II campus 0 oommun'Ky BenefKs ■ The majority of the group did not support the Community Benefits Program; however, the two business owners in the group would accept Community Benefits Program Group #13 -) Luo0c�o�c C=CoogG�s Dnput by aroao Ei Ste H i nGateway: 60 feet ii North De Anza Gateway: 75 feet • North De Anna Specia0 Area: 75 feet • North VaHco Gateway: 60 feet Ei City Center Node: 75 feet North Crossroads Node: 75 feet Oaks Gateway: 75 feet Building Heights Other Comments ■ Med/high rise concentrated near Apple II campus Community Benefits ■ The majority of the group supported the Community Benefits Program ■ Acceptable Community Benefits components could include: — Parks — Recreation — Pools — Road Maintenance — Parking FM 40 Next Steps Community input from this workshop and input from the online survey will be presented to the City Council in Spring 2415. Stay informed! The City has developed a website that will be the community's portal for all project -related information, including recent news, upcoming events, schedule, maps and documents. Please visit the website at: www.cupertinogpa.org