APPENDIX A: COMMENT LETTERS

........................................................................................................................

APPENDIX A: COMMENT LETTERS

........................................................................................................................

COMMENT LETTER # A01

A01-01

A01-02

A01-03

A01-04

A01-05

A01-06

A01-07

A01-08

COMMENT LETTER # A02

A02-01

A02-02

A02-03

A02-04

A02-04cont.

A02-05

Page 1 of 2

VTA Development Review Program Contact List Last Updated: 4/22/2016

Please route development referrals to: Environmental (CEQA) Documents, Site Plans, other miscellaneous referrals Roy Molseed – [email protected] – 408.321.5784 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Reports and Notification Forms: Robert Cunningham – [email protected] – 408.321.5792 Eugene Maeda – [email protected] – 408.952.4298 Electronic/email referrals are preferred, but please mail any hardcopy documents to: [Name of recipient(s) as detailed above, depending on type of document] Planning & Program Development Division 3331 North First Street, Building B-2 San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Contacts for specific questions related to VTA comments on a referral are below by topic area: Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (General Questions) Robert Swierk – [email protected] – 408.321.5949 Robert Cunningham – [email protected] – 408.321.5792 Auto LOS Methodology VTA Highway Projects & Freeway Ramp Metering Shanthi Chatradhi – [email protected] – 408.952.4224 VTA Transit Service, Ridership & Bus Stops Rodrigo Carrasco – [email protected] – 408.952.4106 Nicholas Stewart – [email protected] – 408.321.5939 TDM Programs Congestion Management Program (CMP) VTA Eco Pass Program Questions Before Project Approval (e.g. when writing Conditions of Approval) Robert Cunningham – [email protected] – 408.321.5792 VTA Eco Pass Program Questions After Project Approval (e.g. Program Implementation) Dino Guevarra – [email protected] – 408.321.5572 BART Silicon Valley Extension Kevin Kurimoto – [email protected] – 408.942.6126 VTA Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects Lauren Ledbetter – [email protected] – 408.321.5716

ATTACHMENT # A02

Page 2 of 2

VTA Real Estate Kathy Bradley – [email protected] – 408.321.5815 VTA Permits (Construction Access Permit, Restricted Access Permit) Victoria King-Dethlefs – [email protected] – 408-321-5824 Cheryl D. Gonzales – [email protected] – 408-546-7608 Other Topics and General Questions about VTA Comments Roy Molseed – [email protected] – 408.321.5784

Hi Ms. Caliva-Lepe,

My name is Amrit and I am the owner-resident of one of the East Fremont facing units in the condominiums at

880 E Fremont Ave, Sunnyvale.

I am writing regarding the Butcher's Corner Project that came to my attention via a written notice. I am not

going to go over the Environmental Impacts that have already been identified in the notice. My major concern is

the construction noise from the project that will be nothing short of torture for my 3 year old son who has been

medically diagnosed with Autism. I am not certain about your awareness of Autism, but individuals afflicted

with Autism have heightened sensory senses that means the variable frequency noise from blender, vacuum

cleaner, drill and most noises coming from construction sites elicit an adverse, extremely painful reaction and

panic attacks in such individuals. Speak with any parent with children on the Autism spectrum and they will tell

you about the ways that they shield their loved ones from such noise even for a short time period. So you can

hopefully appreciate the massively adverse impact that a 8-10 hour construction noise over many months would

do to my son, and to us.

Could you please enquire from the builders how would they propose addressing this special situation in addition

to the other environmental impact that would have a less than positive impact on our lives if this project is

allowed? I will have to challenge any project that would cause massive pain to my family.

Please feel free to contact me for anything on this topic. Thanks a lot.

best,

Amrit Sinha

COMMENT LETTER # B01

B01-01

B01-02

B01-03

Re the development plans for 871 E.Fremont Ave - my comments : This area is mainly residential , populated with single family homes. I realize that it is close to some shopping areas but they are all low level buildings. 1. Removal of more trees especially in an orchard should not be allowed without some equivalent replacement. 2. High density residential units are not suitable for this area. The townhouses are dense but acceptable . 3. Five or seven story apartment/ office blocks are a horrible eyesore and completely out of place . Incredibly imposing. You do see this in a downtown area such as San Jose but not in a residential area. These are more suitable for industrial parks or crowded cities and even then the road system has be altered to accommodate them. 4. The amount of noise and traffic caused by this population will totally change the characteristics of the region . The junction of Wolfe and El Camino is already getting extremely busy at rush hour and cannot handle such an increase. Michael Pelham 1426 Firebird Way Sunnyvale CA 94087


B02-01B02-02B02-03B02-04

B02-05

Please accept this email as my written objection to the proposed development at 871 e. Fremont ave. I do not have a problem with developing the site but with the proposed density of residents. I also believe strongly that it will be dreadful to have such high story buildings at that location. At the most the apartment buildings should only reach the same height of other apartment blocks in the area already, anything higher will be much too imposing on the surrounding area. In addition, the number of residences will be incredibly detrimental to the amount of traffic in that area, the junction between el camino, wolfe and fremont avenue is currently bad enough without adding 153 additional residences and the resulting increased traffic amounts. Regards Joanne Pelham Sent from my iPad


B03-01

B03-02

Money, Money, Money!

What good does it do to object this insane Project, minds are mostly already made up. All green spots in

Sunnyvale are disappearing

even the old nursery is replaced by a 162 room Hotel. The intersection E El Camino/Wolfe/Fremont is the

busiest in Sunnyvale and 153 residential units on Butcher's corner will not help the traffic or environment!!

(Besides when "Apple" Bldg opens with 15,000

employees driving from all direction there will be gridlock)

I live in Sunnyvale 56 years, at that time we had beautiful fruit trees and open territory now we compete with

Cupertino and fill

the last spaces with cement, today, this is progress!!

A very disappointing Sunnyvale resident

Evelyne H Schmid

1343 Norman Dr.


B04-01

B04-02

B04-03

Thank you for inviting comments. We feel a real concern about adding more and more housing in Sunnyvale. Traffic is terrible, and more people and cars aren't going help our quality of life. Please be sure to look at the over-all balance of housing and other amenities, and don't just blindly add more because the market is favorable right now. Please think long term. What will contribute to a good quality of life in Sunnyvale. More housing = more cars and demands on infrastructure. Do you have to do this? When will be too much? Do you ever talk about this? When will be too much? Jane & Jack Kroll Sunnyvale, CA


B05-01

B05-02

To Whom it May Concern; Thank you for inviting me to comment on this project. I would like to say that I am against project. I have only been a resident in this area for the past 5 years, but in the past 5 years I have seen the development alongside Stephens Creek beside NASA that will take away a very large green space and abut right against very beautiful wetlands. I have seen Wolfe between Homestead and 280 road turn into a vehicular madhouse and drivers using side streets as drag strips to avoid using main roads. And now you are talking about taking down some of the last little bit of orchard that is the Sunnyvale history. For what? To add more concrete, more people, more traffic and less of a community, less green space and less of a place to call home. Thank you, Michael P. McHenry


B06-01

B06-02

To whom it may concern,

Noren, thank you for fielding various concerns throughout Sunnyvale and reading the torrent of emails.

I live at 1219 Robbia Drive, about 2000 feet from Butcher's Corner. Being a long time resident and former

renter of several apartments, I'm concerned over the build up of medium to high density housing in the area. I

care about protecting Sunnyvale's neighborhoods and its family friendly feeling even though it's a fairly large

(suburban) city. Speaking as a former renter and a person who has many friends as renters, renters do not care

about the city they are in nor do the land developers, only that it makes them money. While certainly an over

generalization, it does mostly hold true. That tax base (from the developer) doesn't care that the city is one way

or another, just that it has influence to keep its taxes low and rents high. It adds very little to the city's

community.

Another thing I'm noticing, are schools getting crowded. I have two children in one of the local schools, which

has over 1300 kids! It's an elementary school. Again, this is another case where people care about what school

but not the community itself. Homeowner's in the district care that our schools are getting over crowded, not

that they are just in the district.

On the plans themselves, both a 7 story and a 5 story building are just aesthetically unpleasing in that

area. There is nothing that high in the area. Given this height, it just advertises that they are

apartments. Again, lessening the sense of community. Further, I commute through that intersection - so I go

through it twice a day, at minimum. It's a terrible and long intersection - it can take up to 6 minutes or more to

get through it during rush hour and 4 minutes routinely. This makes people (cars) rush through the yellow

lights and given there is a bus stop very near by, I see close calls weekly.

On my commute to work in Santa Clara, I can throw a rock from new medium-high density housing all the way

to work. Only making the area feel heavily built up, not somewhere where you'd want to raise

families. Families, which usually strive to get homes, are what make the city and community. It gives the city

it's soul.

I used to say to people, "Sunnyvale is a great place for families and you'd be surprised it's a rather large city,"

now I say the same thing, but I qualify it with, "Well, I think it's also getting too built up with high density

housing. I hope it stops.". I am fully against anymore medium-high density housing in Sunnyvale. I am fully

against the build up of Butcher's Corner as the plan stands.

Thank you,

Richard and Karin Seis

1219 Robbia Drive


B07-01

B07-02

B07-03

B07-04

Dear Noren, You are probably too young to remember how the schools got into this mess. Simple, Prop. 13. After several years of property taxes increasing by about 33% per year, some concerned citizens put together an initiative to stop these increases. Prop 13 passed in 1978, forcing those with extra 'operations" to scale back. In Sunnyvale that also corresponded with a decline in school attendance and births. So SCUSD closed down Raynor and CUSD closed down Panama and Inverness schools, and combined Ortega and Stocklmeir. That worked for a while and the school districts didn't have to have as many principals and administrative staff. But when births increased again and attendance increased, the school districts really didn't have extra money to open new (or re-open old) schools. Sunnyvale had the opportunity to rent out Raynor School for $1 to SCUSD, but instead all they could see was dollar signs, not the well being or their citizens' children. And the City is back at it with Stocklmeir and developers. After all, what do our kids need with good education, anyway. Thanks for caring, Tap

From: Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]> To: Tappan Merrick <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:20 PM Subject: RE: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability Hi Tap, Thank you for your comments. I will continue to collect comments as part of the public review period of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Responses to comments will be prepared after May 23rd, which is the end of the public review period. School impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.10 of the Draft EIR. Please let me know if you think something is missing from the analysis. Regards, Noren _______________________________ Noren Caliva-Lepe, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Sunnyvale Phone: (408) 730-7659 [email protected] The Department of Community Development is innovative in promoting sustainable development while enhancing the economy, community character and quality of life in Sunnyvale. Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.


B08-01

From: Tappan Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 4:56 PM To: E S .Field; Noren Caliva-Lepe Cc: Trudi Ryan; Gerri Caruso; Andrew Miner; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Deanna Santana; Rebecca Moon Subject: Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability Laurelwood School was built for 350 students, now houses 700. Raynor School would have helped out providing a public school education for local children. Too bad the Council wants to import an additional 400 children from outside of the neighborhood instead of working to help solve the existing overcrowding in Birdland. We feel Ortega Park's pain. Thanks for caring, Tap Merrick

From: E S .Field <[email protected]> To: Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]> Cc: Trudi Ryan <[email protected]>; Gerri Caruso <[email protected]>; Andrew Miner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

B08-02

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Deanna Santana <[email protected]>; Rebecca Moon <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:01 PM Subject: Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability Hi, Folks, I'm really concerned that the City pays no attention to the impacted schools in this part of the city. Stocklmeir currently has 1200 students, and this development will undoubted add a few dozen more. Adding to the child population at this location is one more black mark against this daft project. E S Field On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Residents, You are receiving this email because you are on the interested parties list for the Butcher’s Corner project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is now available for public review and comment starting today, April 8 through May 23, 2016. Attached is the Notice of Availability. Electronic copies of the DEIR and appendices are available on the project webpage at http://www.butcherscorner.insunnyvale.com/. Hard copies are also be available for review at City Hall, the Sunnyvale Public Library and the Sunnyvale Community Center. The attached Notice of Availability also serves as public notice of the May 9, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing to gather input on the DEIR. Please feel free to contact me for additional information about the EIR process, or visit the following webpage http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/CDD/Planning/Planning%20Library/CEQAInfo.pdf. Regards, Noren _______________________________ Noren Caliva-Lepe, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Sunnyvale Phone: (408) 730-7659 [email protected] The Department of Community Development is innovative in promoting sustainable development while enhancing the economy, community character and quality of life in Sunnyvale. Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

B08-03

Hello Noren,

Please accept these comments on the Butchers Corner Draft EIR.

Butcher's Corner is located in an existing transit priority area, as defined in the Public Resources Code

§21099(a) (7): "“Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing

or planned,...". Butcher's Corner is located within one-half mile of the VTA route 22/522 bus stops at the

intersection of El Camino Real and Wolfe Road, which are existing major transit stops. The 22/522 route is

already the most heavily used route in the VTA system and is planned to become a Bus Rapid Transit Corridor.

The El Camino-Wolfe intersection is one of the most heavily used intersections in Sunnyvale. The VTA 22/522

bus stops are major transit stops.

PRC §21099(d) (1): "Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment

center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the

environment."

§21099 was added to Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) on September 27, 2013, Senate Bill

743, Steinberg. In view of these recent changes to CEQA cited above and Butchers Corner's location in a transit

priority area, it is inappropriate to include any analysis of aesthetics or parking in the Butchers Corner EIR.

Aesthetics includes density and building height. Parking includes auto or bicycle parking.

All references to aesthetics and parking should be removed, especially in Section 4 Environmental Analysis and

in Appendices A-K. Draft EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics should be removed entirely. Aesthetics or parking are

important and may be controversial, but they shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Any discussion of aesthetics or parking in the EIR is an unnecessary distraction and is counterproductive, as it

only complicates review of the EIR and fuels controversy. Aesthetics and parking are properly within the scope

of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and Council Policies. These topics need to be left to other venues, not

discussed in the EIR. Aesthetics and parking are irrelevant to an EIR for a project in a transit priority area.

Specific Comments

Appendix A Initial Study:

In Environmental Factors Potentially Affected, p.2, the "Aesthetics" checkbox should be unchecked, as

aesthetics are not a potentially significant impact.

The Environmental Checklist, I. Aesthetics, pp.7-8, should be removed. There should be no discussion of

aesthetics in the EIR.

XIII. Population and Housing, pp.23-24. This project provides a welcome, badly-needed addition to

Sunnyvale's housing stock, building 153 housing units. Many of these units should be affordable to workers in

the El Camino Real Corridor. The developer should be offered a density bonus in exchange for a 12.5% or more


B09-01

B09-02

B09-03

inclusionary housing agreement and the requested zoning concessions from the City, notwithstanding the fact

that these units are apartments. Affordable housing in a transit priority area would make the project potentially

eligible for subsidies from the State cap-and-trade fund.

XIV. Public Services, pp.25-26. iv. Parks. Check the box "Less Than Significant With Mitigation

Incorporated" and uncheck "Less-Than-Significant Impact." Sunnyvale Municipal Code requires the developer

to dedicate of 0.009 acres per unit (1.38 acres for this 153-unit project) for use as a Public Park, or pay in-lieu

fees of $96 per square foot, for a total of $5,758,283.52. The fees should be applied to public parks or

recreational facilities within one-half mile of the site, for use by residents of the project. This could be applied

to improvements at the nearby Sunken Gardens park, or the developer could dedicate land on the site for use as

a public park.

XV. Recreation, p.26. The discussion of parks here should be around dedicating land, not the Park Dedication

In-lieu Fees, which are covered in § XIV above. A $5 million, 1.38 acre park is significant; it is larger than

some existing City parks, all of which are significant.

XVI. Transportation/Traffic, pp.27-29. That fact that the site is in a transit priority area should be noted.

Appendix J Transportation and Circulation Data:

SB 743 (2013) mandates changes in the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of

projects within transit priority areas. Public Resources Code §21099(b). The Governor's Office of Planning and

Research is designating vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the principal criterion, replacing vehicle delay or

other measures of congestion, such as trips and level of service. This appendix addresses only trips, LOS, and

delay, not VMT, and should be revised to reflect the VMT impact of the project. Commuting distance traveled

is the most significant component of VMT, since it determines the peak demand on the transportation

infrastructure. Since so many trips are home-based, putting housing near jobs, retail and education minimizes

VMT and reduces the demand on freeways. Sunnyvale has jobs and retail; it needs housing and schools.

This project can best help lower VMT and emissions by including housing for people who earn 50% to 120% of

the area median household income, which is the predominant pay range of jobs in the El Camino Real Corridor.

The Grand Boulevard Initiative estimates that 59% of workers in the Corridor live outside Santa Clara or San

Mateo Counties. Providing worker housing in Sunnyvale can have a very positive impact on emissions by

reducing the average commute distance of workers in the Corridor and promoting transit ridership for those who

live and work in the Corridor in Sunnyvale. Over 60,000 people commute from the periphery of the region into

Sunnyvale each day, mostly by auto. Many would live in Sunnyvale if affordable housing were available.

Consider that each 20-mile roundtrip daily auto commute emits about 5 metric tons of greenhouse gasses each

year. The positive impact of this project can be significantly increased by providing housing for low- and

moderate-income people, many of whom would be able to walk, bike or take transit to their jobs in the Corridor,

and to nearby retail, schools and parks.

Thank you,

Stan Hendryx

Hendryx & Associates

505 S. Murphy Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086

B09-03cont.

B09-04

B09-05

Hi, Noren,

The report is really a fine piece of work. Your calculations project twice as many students as mine but are

undoubtedly more accurate. Absolutely no one sees Stocklmeir as under-enrolled. If my neighbors next door

have not been able to get either of their children into Stocklmeir over the past three years, I don't see that there

is any chance for a new resident (much less several dozen of them) to gain admission to the school. The three

tiers of schools together will need at least three new teachers (and new classrooms), which is not a negligible

impact.

Incidental to the school question, I looked at some of the details on traffic impacts in the report. I'm not sure it

covers one really common pattern: Fremont east to Wolfe south to El Camino west. It is very intricate, and you

have to be in a series of correct lanes to manage it. Even from a one-way exit onto El Camino (east) in order to

do a U and go west would be next to impossible, because of traffic that is rarely absent. Also, Fremont is

divided by islands, and it would probably need a light at Kingfisher to let new residents make a left. Travel to

Fremont High School is easy but it's a long walk, and there is no bus on Fremont.

Best regards,

Eleanor Field


B10-01

B10-02


B11-01

B11-02

B11-03

B11-04

B11-05

B11-06

Ms. Noren Caliva-Lepe, I am writing to express my strong opposition to Planning Project #2014-737 for 871 E. Fremont Avenue (Butcher's Corner). This project is proposed for a predominantly residential area composed primarily of single family homes and 2-3 story townhomes. A project of this scale - 5-story and 7-story - has no place in this area. I strongly oppose any development over 3 stories, which I believe to be the limit for R-3 zoning, and in keeping with the surrounding area. Buildings of greater height would not blend in with the surroundings, changing the aesthetics of the area and creating undo burden on already less than adequate infrastructure (roads and resulting traffic, environmental resources/green space, etc.). I would also like to suggest that whatever development takes place be subject to the same restrictions to which others are held (I believe obtaining a permit to remove a tree requires planting of another in some cases) and that trees be preserved and/or moved rather than destroyed so reminders of our agricultural history remain intact. We are rapidly losing all of our remain green spaces and I feel very strongly that any further residential/commercial development include a plan for accompanying green space. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and thank you for your consideration. Karen Promer 857 Carlisle Way #103


B12-01

B12-02

B12-03


B13-01

B13-01cont.

B13-02

B13-02cont.

B13-03


B14-01

B14-01cont.

B14-02

B14-02cont.

B14-03

Subject Butcher’s Corner DEIR –

I have several concerns about the Butcher’s Corner project. I would like mature trees preserved, I would like to see more alternative designs, and I would like the city and developer to follow established guidelines.

The project proposal of removing most of the trees and the city’s rules regarding tree preservation (Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan and others) are at odds. Trees are extremely important to the community. Research has shown that tree canopy not only produces shade, it can calm a neighborhood. Recognizing their value, the city has established guidelines to protect mature trees.

The Landscaping Plan for the Butcher’s Corner project calls for the removal of 84 landscape trees and 161 remnant orchard trees, while retaining one existing oak tree in the center of the project site. The arborist report shows that 50 existing trees are considered protected because of their size and are in good enough condition to warrant preservation. The project calls for planting 250 mostly ornamental trees. This, however, would not preserve the tree canopy. Tree canopy is not the number of trees, it is how broad the tree is and how much shade it can provide. A large oak could have the canopy of ten mature ornamental trees, so there is not a one-to-one correlation. Removing 250 established trees from the site and then putting in 250 new trees will not result in the same tree canopy. The mature trees should be saved and the project should be designed around existing features. The group of oaks at the corner of El Camino and Wolfe are of particular interest because of their age, location, and significance.

The city design guidelines emphasize that developments should preserve mature trees, provide walkable areas with attractive landscaping, and balance projects with community values. If the development were set back from El Camino Real, space would be available to widen the sidewalks, provide shade, provide public access to open space, and save the trees. Many of the goals of the project objectives, Municipal Code, Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan, and Grand Boulevard Initiative would be achieved. That would help the project achieve the goal of enhancing the community. The developer and city should follow the policies that have been established.

It was disappointing that the alternatives to the project in the DEIR were simply “no project” and a project with the identical building footprint and heights. Additional alternatives of use, size and location of buildings, and landscaping should be required. The land has not been re-zoned from agricultural, so additional zoning options should be explored. As for the overall design, the project is simply not appropriate for the location. A redesign would help preserve the trees and the neighborhood. The Precise Plan for El Camino states that there should be “no access to commercial uses from adjacent residential neighborhood streets.” The current project only allows access to the retail area from the residential street behind the development and through the residential portion of the development. Citing the Precise Plan for El Camino as the guiding document is disingenuous, as the project does not meet the requirements, and therefore should not be zoned with the Precise Plan guidelines. Given that the project does not meet the tree preservation or design guidelines, it should be


B15-01

B15-02

B15-03

B15-04

reclassified as an apartment or condo complex with no retail elements and the land should be zoned appropriately. Using several smaller buildings instead of two large buildings would allow a more flexible design and help preserve the mature landscaping and allow greater setback from surrounding roads. Eliminating the retail would also help reduce traffic on neighboring streets and within the development.

I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to honor the guiding documents regarding this property (Sunnyvale Tree Preservation Regulations, Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan, Sunnyvale General Plan, Precise Plan for El Camino Real, El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Initiative, Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.96 Heritage Preservation, Citywide Design Guidelines). A design which protects mature trees, widens sidewalks, provides continuity within the neighborhood, and preserves the identity of the corner is necessary.

Thank you, Mary Brunkhorst

B15-04cont.

B15-05

I'm concerned about all the building that's going on in Sunnyvale and neighboring cities. It seems an awful lot

of large projects have been approved and in the process of being built, however, our infrastructure remains the

same. Every project I hear it's not going to severely impact our schools, our roads, our water. Maybe one

project won't however, combine all the projects and there has to be some impact. Our schools if they're not

maxed out yet they're very close. Our roads have the same problem. We want people to get out of their cars but

don't have good alternatives by way of transit that really works. There have been suggestions to decrease

parking at these housing projects which will create other problems. People are not going to get out of their cars

if they don't have a good alternative. Has anyone noticed the trains around rush hour? They's so full that

people are standing on the steps by the doors. I agree that we need housing but we can't just keep building and

not take care of everything else that goes along with additional residents. I would hope that the City slow down

on approving these projects until our infrastructure is improved. Also we need to scale these projects back

they're too large. This project is too large for this area.

I'm concerned about all the building that's going on in Sunnyvale and neighboring cities. It seems an awful lot

of large projects have been approved and in the process of being built, however, our infrastructure remains the

same. Every project I hear it's not going to severely impact our schools, our roads, our water. Maybe one

project won't however, combine all the projects and there has to be some impact. Our schools if they're not

maxed out yet they're very close. Our roads have the same problem. We want people to get out of their cars but

don't have good alternatives by way of transit that really works. There have been suggestions to decrease

parking at these housing projects which will create other problems. People are not going to get out of their cars

if they don't have a good alternative. Has anyone noticed the trains around rush hour? They's so full that

people are standing on the steps by the doors. I agree that we need housing but we can't just keep building and

not take care of everything else that goes along with additional residents. I would hope that the City slow down

on approving these projects until our infrastructure is improved. Also we need to scale these projects back

they're too large. This project is too large for this area.


B16-01

TO: Noren Caliva-Lepe Planner, Butchers Corner project I appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on this proposal. My family and I have lived near Ortega Park for 33 years. Only once before have I felt compelled to voice my concerns to the Planning Department about a proposal. I believe the Butcher’s Corner proposal, as I understand it, warrants comment. I drive by this location several times a week, and have been trying to envision a seven-story building fronting Fremont Avenue. I’m hard pressed to think of anything close to a seven-story building anywhere in this neighborhood, or even anywhere in Sunnyvale south of the CalTrain tracks. To me, seven stories seems grossly out of proportion to the surrounding properties and the neighborhood at large. In my view, this proposed building simply is too tall for this small parcel in this neighborhood of primarily 1-3-story residences. I think the buildings fronting Fremont should be no more than 3 stories tall. Then there is the matter of the traffic impact the development will have. The intersection of Fremont, Wolfe and El Camino seems headed for gridlock, with the new Apple HQ, the new hotel on the old Summerwinds property and now this. I feel this project is too dense for this property and for this neighborhood. I urge the Planning Commission to revise the proposal to make it more consistent with the existing density and heights of the neighborhood buildings. Thank you. Lou Saviano Cormorant Court Sunnyvale, CA 94087


B17-01

B17-02

B17-03

B17-04

The job of the developer is to make money. The job of the Planning Commission and City Council is to create conditions for a good quality of life in Sunnyvale, to see the big picture and act for the well-being of the whole city. More traffic, more water use, and more congestion can't be good for us. How much is enough? Don't be afraid to push back with developers. That's your job! Thank you. Jane Kroll Lusterleaf Drive


B18-01

I have seen the draft EIR report for the Butcher’s corner project and it doesn’t look good for its residents if any

of these tall buildings are built. It looks like it was written for the project to built anyway regardless of what the

surrounding community’s feedback is. I won’t be on the hearing on Monday, May 9th so I would like to

mention that I am not happy with the plan of putting the five-story buildings and seven-story buildings.

I would like to re-iterate my concerns regarding traffic congestion, pollution (both air and noise), school

overcrowding and lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. I would like to request that the

large buildings should be downsized to the levels of the surrounding buildings. I’m concerned that the tall

buildings that the developers has in their plans next to the Tapadera homes will impose on our view and

privacy. The taller 7-story seems out-of place with the existing buildings around the community and something

this huge will definitely increase the population around the area that would result to more traffic congestion,

pollution and school overcrowding.

-Pedro (resident at Tapadera)


B19-02

B19-01

Ms. Caliva-Lepe, I believe you have already decided to build more congestion at Butcher's Corner, so my opinion will have no effect. Nevertheless, your plan is another creeping, incremental step to turn Sunnyvale into a wall-to-wall metropolis of apartments and bumper-to-bumper traffic. The image of Sunnyvale as a desirable, attractive, room-to-breath place to live has all but vanished. Apple's new spaceship down the street from Butcher's Corner has put a final stake in the coffin. Don't make it worse. Turn Butcher's Corner into a park or simple green area. Let local residents see something outside their windows other than the wall of the next building. Dick Yaeger 864 Lusterleaf Dr.


B20-01


B21-01

• • • • •

B21-01cont.

B21-02

B21-03

Hello Noren,

I bought my townhouse in 1996 and have lived in the Tapadera development on Kingfisher Terrace, adjacent to

the property in question for the last 20 years. I have serious concerns regarding the De Anza Properties proposal

for Butcher's Corner.

My biggest concern is the traffic congestion (and traffic hazard) the new development will create.

Fremont Ave is already extremely crowded throughout the day without the addition of a high density

development. With the only egress point to the new development on Fremont Avenue, traffic will increase

considerably, to the point where gridlock will ensue for large portions of the day. It's already next to impossible

to approach Wolfe Road along Fremont from Kingfisher Terrace during many of the morning and afternoon

commute hours, and merging onto Fremont heading west is also problematic.

With a high density development added between Wolfe and Kingfisher Way, many drivers will immediately

attempt to make a U-turn at Kingfisher Way/Kingfisher Terrace crossing traffic to do so. Others will further

clog westbound Fremont making the intersection at Kingfisher Way/Kingfisher Terrace and Fremont much

more dangerous than it already is.

As a rule, I don't attempt to make a left turn out of the Kingfisher Terrace driveway onto Fremont, but many

drivers do. I turn right, and then make a U-Turn at Lillian because I can see oncoming traffic more easily that

way, but the drivers attempting to turn left onto Fremont from Kingfisher Terrace already create a traffic hazard

because visibility around parked cars is obstructed, and eastbound traffic is also obstructed by the median. This

will be amplified considerably with the increased traffic load created by a new high density development

pouring out onto Fremont Ave.

We still need to be able to turn left from eastbound Fremont Ave onto Kingfisher Way to avoid having to make

a U-turn at Wolfe Road, but given that intersection will be gridlocked much more of the time with the new

development, both sides of Fremont will be backed up more of the time.

Beyond traffic concerns which are considerable, the tall five story building along El Camino and the seven story

building along Fremont Ave are way out of scope for the neighborhood, and they will overshadow the Tapadera

developmnent to a significant degree invading the privacy of the residents already there. The proposed

townhomes are more in keeping with the scope of the neighborhood. Can't the building commission limit the

height of the buildings being proposed to no more than three stories? The Tapadera development, and the

Cambria Apartments to the west of Tapadera are all only two stories.

In addition to invasion of privacy, the increased noise is also a concern, as are concerns over increased crime

levels that seem to follow higher density areas. The inclusion of more commercial activity will also increase

noise, traffic, and potentially crime decreasing the quality of life for the rest of the neighborhood.

When I bought my townhouse in 1996, the orchard was a selling point for the development keeping the


B22-01

B22-02

B22-03

B22-04

suburban feel. The development that De Anza properties is proposing is a city development, not appropriate for

a mostly residential suburban area. Please don't let them destroy the quality of life at Tapadera.

Thank you for your consideration,

AJ

Ande Jacobson

Home: / Cell:

B22-04cont.

When will the City of Sunnyvale stop or at least pause expansion? The increased traffic congestion as well as supplying services, such as parking, schools, etc. for more and more families moving into the area has become a major problem in our city.. As I write this email to you, it would appear resident objections don’t seem to matter these days even with “outreach” meetings. It has become extremely frustrating and increasingly more and more difficult to even get our cars out of our driveways these days. Looking forward to your response, Dolores Medeiros 627 E. El Camino Real Sunnyvale, CA


B23-01

I am writing to ask that the plans for Butcher’s Corner be reevaluated for lower density and lower profile development. A portion of this lot does lie on El Camino Real, but the majority of the project is along Fremont Avenue. If you drive the length of Fremont Avenue from Wolfe Road to Highway 85, the tallest buildings you will encounter are the 2 story condos across the street from the Butcher’s corner property. This is how Fremont Avenue should remain – a suburban area with low profile buildings. Anything greater will destroy the character and aesthetic of the suburban neighborhood that is all along Fremont Avenue. A 7 story building does not belong on Fremont Avenue! I understand that development will happen, but this type of project sets a precedent for larger scale developments encroaching the suburban neighborhoods along Fremont Avenue. The traffic will be negatively impacted in the area, historic trees will be destroyed, and the overcrowded schools will suffer with more students and greater traffic congestion. Not to mention the increased need for water and utilities in an already drought impacted area. The scale of this project is too great for our neighborhood. Please send the developer back to his drawing board to come up with a project that will blend into our neighborhood along Fremont Avenue. Respectfully yours, Liz Brockman Finch Way


B24-03

B24-02

B24-01

A) EIR estimate:

“Based on an average household size of 2.61 persons, 20 the proposed project would accommodate up to 400 residents.”

Summary - 153 residential units - 390 parking spaces

COMMENTS: assuming a median of 2 occupants/residential unit (I think this is optimistic based on the number of people living together in this neighborhood). My estimate would be ~300 adult residents and potentially an additional 300 children. Likely 600 additional people in just this location is far more likely. Assuming this population follows that of the residential complex next door, 4 people per unit is likely to be closer to 5-6 (~800-900 residents). Roughly 300 vehicles added to the Fremont roadway in the peak hours from 7-8:30AM and 5-7PM.

B) Building height description

“Structures in this land use designation generally exceed two stories and often include on‐site amenities such as recreational facilities, private balconies or patios, and common open space.” Yes, not 7 stories.

“wide streets with high traffic volumes, two‐ to three‐story, multi‐family residential buildings, community‐serving and neighborhood‐serving commercial retail buildings, and medical offices.” “ranging from 10‐ to 80‐feet tall”

“The main roof of the Fremont Building would be at an elevation of 202.79 feet amsl” “25 percent of the roof area may exceed the height limit by 25 feet”

COMMENTS: The project suggests a 7 story residential building plus a superstructure on top for another story (~225 feet tall).

“Based on the R‐3 zoning district, a maximum of 123 units are permitted. Additional residential units are allowed through the State of California Affordable Housing Density Bonus provisions (a sliding scale based on the number of affordable units provided and level of affordability up to a 35 percent bonus) and through the City’s Green Building Incentive program where an additional five percent may be built for achieving higher levels of green.”

“The project includes a request to rezone the project site to R‐4 (High Density Residential)/ECR (Precise Plan for El Camino Real) (R‐4/ECR). The R‐4 zoning district allows up to 36 du/ac or one unit per 1,200 square feet. Under the R‐4 zoning district, a maximum of 185 units are permitted. Same as the R‐3 zoning district, additional residential units are allowed through the State of California Affordable Housing Density Bonus provisions and through the City’s Green Building Incentive program as noted above.”

“The Precise Plan recognizes this intersection as the second busiest along El Camino Real.”


B25-01

B25-02

“In all other cases, the maximum building height is 75 feet. The height may be increased by five feet for multi‐family residential developments with underground parking within the R‐4 and R‐5 zoning districts, per SMC Chapter 19.32. In addition, architectural features not exceeding 25 percent of the roof area may exceed the height limit by up to 25 feet.”

C) FINDING: “AES‐2 The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.”

COMMENTS: This ignores the fact that this would be the ONLY 7 story building in Sunnyvale, 200‐225 feet in height with nothing around like it.

D) FINDING: CC‐3.2 Ensure site design is compatible with the natural and surrounding built environment.

“heights ranging from approximately 35 to 39 feet for the townhomes and 75 to 82 feet for the apartment buildings that create variety in the physical environment”

COMMENTS: A height of 75 feet is fine. 225 feet is not compatible with the area. The high rise should be limited to 4-5 stories like the neighboring buildings.

E) Additional EIR Report FINDINGs:

PS‐1: The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police, fire or emergency medical service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.

PS‐2: The proposed project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection services.

PS‐3: The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

PS‐4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less‐than‐ significant cumulative impacts with respect to schools.

COMMENTS: The above statements are a fantasy. The local fire departments are not capable of dealing with anything at a 7 story level. You are replacing one single family home with 153 units and roughly 500‐600 additional residents. What? No one is going to fall ill? And there will never be a fire or an injury? With the two already approved 5 story hotels replacing the nursery and the pool/restaurant

B25-02cont.

B25-03

next to Walgrens on El Camino, you will have to add significant firefighter/emt staff to cover the additional people and traffic.

F) COMMENTS: It is not clear but there are statements that there will be traffic impact with no correction. The analysis suggests that there will be no significant impact to traffic. Again, this is silly.

“TRANS‐1: The proposed project would contribute to unacceptable operation at the intersection of Kingfisher Way and East Fremont Avenue (#5) under Existing, Background, and Cumulative conditions. S There are no mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.11, Transportation and Circulation, for a complete discussion. “

TRANS‐4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts.

As stated under TRANS‐1, the proposed project would contribute to unacceptable operation at the intersection of Kingfisher Way and East Fremont Avenue (#5) under Existing, Background and Cumulative conditions. There are no mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.11, Transportation and Circulation, for a complete discussion.

COMMENTS: No resident with a car that can afford one of these units will use the VTA route busses so suggesting that they will have any beneficial effect is silly.

G) LT‐4.1 Protect the integrity of the city’s neighborhoods; whether residential, industrial, or commercial.

Consistent. Given that the proposed project is consistent with the density associated with the General Plan land use designation of the site and would be required to go through the City’s development review process, upon project approval, impacts to surrounding neighborhoods would not be significant.

FANTASY. The traffic from a 5 story and 7 story buildings (600-900 residents and 390 cars) will be insane.

H) LT‐4.2 Require new development to be compatible with the neighborhood, adjacent land uses and the transportation system.

Consistent. Because the proposed project is consistent with the density associated with the General Plan land use designation of the site and would be required to go through the City’s development review process potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods would not be significant. Additionally, as discussed above, the project would complement the area’s transportation network since it would

B25-03cont.

B25-04

B25-05

B25-06

provide concentrated residential development near a major transportation corridor (El Camino Real) and would be located within 900 feet of major bus stops, and three miles of two CalTrain stations.

This intersection (El Camino and Wolfe) is already recognized as the second busiest in Sunnyvale. And that is before the Apple plant opens!

“project includes a zoning amendment to be rezoned to R‐4/ECR” This should not be allowed.

I) Fire Services: The new Station #5 will include a new 107‐foot platform ladder truck to serve multi‐story commercial and residential structures.

As previously covered, this proposed building is 200-225 feet tall.

FINDING: PS‐1 The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police, fire or emergency medical service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.

COMMENTS: Ridiculous. You are 100 feet plus short of the roof.

“the BFS and BPS confirmed that they have adequate staff and facilities to accommodate the proposed project and would not require the need for new or altered police or fire protection facilities.”

Seriously, no new services or personnel required? I want someone’s personal name on this. Not some vague reference to BFS and BPS.

J) Schools: “The project site is within the attendance area of Stocklmeir Elementary and Cupertino Middle School.”

Sunnyvale Elementary Schools: Stocklmeir Elementary

14/15 Capacity 1,260

Enrollment 1,211

Difference 49

COMMENTS: New Additions 150 (assuming 1 child per unit, which is optimistic. 2 is realistic.)

“Applying a student generation rate of 0.37 elementary and middle school students for every unit”

B25-06cont.

B25-07

B25-08

K) Finding: PS‐3 The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

This above multiplier is based on students per housing for the existing residents surrounding Sunnyvale’s Stocklmeir with an aging population. Completely against this, these new units will be purchased by new families having young children.

COMMENTS: This is not realistic. Stocklmeir students will suffer.

L) TRANS‐1 The proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit, non‐motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

During the AM peak commute period, although the northbound traffic volume on Wolfe Road is high, the progression analysis results show that both the South Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue (#2)and South Wolfe Road and El Camino Real (#3) intersections would operate adequately with and without project traffic.

During the PM peak commute period, the southbound through traffic volumes on Wolfe Road and eastbound through traffic on El Camino Real are high; and in general, the traffic conditions at both intersections are busier than the traffic conditions in the AM peak commute period.

Again, counter to the Stocklmeir grammar school analysis (+50 students), there will now be +50-100 cars exiting butchers corner and into the birdland neighborhood through the side streets during the morning rush traffic to get to school. There will not be 1 car every 12 minutes as suggested in the analysis. They will all leave at the same time to drop off and pick up their kids.

We’re obviously not looking at the same traffic during evening commute hours. It already takes 2-3 cycles to get through the Wolfe Road South traffic at El Camino Real during PM commutes. Adding much more traffic will make this worse.

These are my concerns with the EIR report as compiled. There are many oversimplifications in it. Theimpact of this project will be huge if approved.

Sincerely,

Phil Gibson

1367 Fisherhawk Drive, Sunnyvale, 94087

B25-08cont.

B25-09

B25-10

Dear Mr. Caliva-Lepe, I am writing in regards to trees situated at the corner of El Camino and Wolfe Rd. at Butcher's Corner. SUFA (Sunnyvale Urban Forest Advocates) is now going through the process of having the oak trees designated as heritage trees. There are also mature Canary Island palms in this location. Both the oak trees and the Canary Island palms are in good to excellent condition. They are protected trees. In the EIR in section 4.3-14 it is stated that the oak trees "contribute to the aesthetic and habitat values of the site and complement the existing grove of oaks on the east side of S. Wolfe Road, opposite the site." This is a very important point in regards to their preservation. In the Preliminary Tree Report all these trees were designated as "suitable for preservation." According to the EIR they "could be incorporated into the project." The trees are of high environmental value. It's becoming rare that one holds onto and cultivates this quality of plant life. Trees and greenery have been proven to have a calming effect on motorists. This would be very desirable for this busy intersection. We ,therefore, ask that a potential mitigation be the reconsideration of the layout of the buildings at this site allowing for the preservation of these trees. A small green area with the trees could be created with sidewalks leading to the residential units. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Deborah Marks SUFA, President


B26-01

B26-02

Hoping this will forward.

Lois

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Lois S

Date: Saturday, April 30, 2016

Subject: Butcher's Corner proposed development

To: ncaliva‐[email protected]

Dear Ms. Caliva-Lepe, the Planning Commission, and the City Council,

The traffic already is very congested at the El Camino-Wolfe-Fremont intersection. Adding almost 200 more

homes and apartments which will result in another 400 or more cars pouring onto Fremont Avenue each

morning and evening, plus traffic from the retail portion, seems totally unworkable. I understand it already is

one of the most congested intersections in Sunnyvale. Likewise, the local school is already at maximum

capacity and cannot absorb more students.

Furthermore, permitting a 7-story building on Fremont Avenue which currently has one and two story homes is

not in keeping with the neighborhood and sets a new precedent for more 7-story buildings or higher in

residential neighborhoods. I think it should be no more than 4 - 5 stories. However, I believe that five acres is

too small for John Vidovich's proposal, even with fewer stories. When the two Apple campuses on Wolfe Road

open, traffic will be a total nightmare. The last thing Wolfe Road needs is another high-density housing

development with retail at that intersection.

My suggestion is for the city to deny Vidovich's current plans, buy the Butcher property from him, keep the

Butcher house there, and move the Historical Museum to that site making it a History Park with landscaping

and play equipment. Five acres would be fine for this plan and, with the many new high-density housing

developments being built in Sunnyvale, we definitely need more parks.

Sincerely,

Lois Smallwood

Sunnyvale resident


B27-03

B27-04

B27-02

B27-01

Hello Noren, I am reading thru the EIR for the proposed Butchers Corner Development and have a question. On page 4.10-16 (or 294), the EIR states a student generation rate of 0.37 elementary and middle school students for every unit - based on communications from Chris Jew. Can you provide more background on how this figure is derived? Is it based on general demographics from populations across the city? Or is it based on new home sales within the Stocklmeir and CMS boundaries? 0.37 implies that for every three houses sold, there will be one new student. Anecdotally, I feel that most houses sold in this neighborhood have 2 school age children. So that number should be higher. Thanks, Sang Park


B28-01

RE: Butchers Corner 5/6/2016

Dear Commissioner,

With many new developments around town in the works and under-construction, Sunnyvale can expect a healthy increase in revenues which allows us to consider critically what each new development will bring in terms of community values and opportunity. In the case of Butchers Corner, which is one of the last large redevelopment locations within the boundaries of two desirable school districts (FUSHD and CUSD), the developer is assured of making a handsome profit. However, it is the surrounding neighbors and City of Sunnyvale that will have to live with the decisions made now for the next 50+ years.

Do not change the General Plan for this development from R-3 to R-4 zoning. If every development is allowed to deviate from the General Plan, Sunnyvale will lose the purpose and accountability of a General Plan and the input of the community that formed the General Plan. The Commission should honor the work and thought put into the General Plan.

Remove 2 townhomes from the draft plan – specifically the 2 most eastern ‘Building F’ townhomes (#23 & 22 in some drawings):

o The lack of emergency vehicle access to the center of the development from El Camino Real is a serious tragedy waiting to happen. I am not suggesting it has to be active access – even placing bollards between the Oakwood apartment complex driveway and the Butcher corner development would be acceptable for now - but it needs to be available for emergencies and for future planning purposes as other development along El Camino evolve in the next 55 years. Elimination of those 2 townhomes will insure the City’s future flexibility on access. The EIR shows that enormous traffic and constraints on Fremont Avenue from this development as drafted will become the normal state; any significant incident along Fremont will cut off entry into Butchers Corner (and potentially neighboring buildings) completely. The closest fire station is on the opposite side of the El Camino/Wolfe/Fremont intersections which is already considered an F- graded intersection [as determined in the Apple 2 campus EIR].

o Removal of these 2 townhomes (out of 39 townhomes) will also allow the creation of a pocket park accessible from El Camino improving the look/feel walkability of El Camino for pedestrians and fitting in with the Grand Boulevard schema. More open park space is needed in the general neighborhood which suffers from a park gap and will allow these residents another place to walk their dogs or have their toddlers play (instead of using the already severely impacted Panama Park – especially during soccer or baseball season).

Reduce the height of the Fremont Building apartment building. Why would Sunnyvale approve a building height here near to existing low-rise residential neighborhoods (not designated highest density) that is even taller than what has been built in Downtown in which the General Plan designated high density housing zone? The building height should be limited to 45 feet to avoid creating an imposing and pedestrian-unfriendly environment along Fremont Avenue and to fit more in the character of the neighborhood.


B29-01

B29-02

B29-03

B29-04

B29-05

B29-06

In honor of affordable housing week, significant on-site affordable housing should be required. San Jose has codified a 15% on-site affordable housing requirement and Santa Clara has informally announced the same expectation of its new developments. This development should require 8% age-restricted (senior) housing and another 8% affordable (low-and-moderate income) housing of which half (4%) should be set aside specifically for school districts’ teachers and staff. Without giving additional housing units. The developer still will make plenty of money from families seeking to live in the CUSD/FUHSD attendance area – every bedroom will be filled in this development (despite the EIR use of a low “average” county numbers) and student generation rates will be likely exceed 1 per unit. A healthy city needs a diversity of residents of all ages and critical skills, and Sunnyvale can and should require on-site affordable housing without giving additional density.

The EIR needs an additional very localized air quality impact review. An additional daily 400 or more car ingress/egress from the one single entrance at Fremont Avenue which sits next to a congested intersection of El Camino/Wolfe/Fremont, means a significant increase in the number of sitting and idling cars and emissions on one-block of East Fremont and an increase of cars cutting through the adjoining neighborhood by driving up Kingfisher Avenue (in order to avoid Wolfe or making an u-turn on Fremont).

The EIR needs a shading review of the ‘saved’ Oak Tree during winter months. As drafted, the plan has a very tall building to the east (morning) and 3-story buildings south and west of the tree which gives the appearance of blocking sunshine for enough hours every winter to sicken and kill the historic tree.

The draft EIR is unusually selective in its comparison of impact developments. While outside the City’s boundaries (as is the Apple 2 campust), the new mix-use development at Lawrence and El Camino that is under construction right now in Santa Clara is only about ¼ mile away and will have greater impact on Butcher corner than the Gateway development and other selected developments.

The developer has plenty of money and time to devote to this one project. Meanwhile us, the neighbors, have other commitments and lack of time and resources to seek a more reasoned and healthy plan for the long-term. We are dependent upon you, the Planning Commission, and the Council to act in the best interest of Sunnyvale residents. Please do so.

Sincerely,

Ann Hatcher Devonshire Way Sunnyvale, Ca 94087

B29-07

B29-08

B29-09

B29-10

B29-11


B30-01

B30-03

B30-04

B30-05

B30-06

B30-02


B31-01

B31-02

B31-03

Butcher’s Corner DEIR Response – Some of the mitigation measures did not seem adequate and seemed difficult to enforce. Of particular concern is tree protection and lack of understanding of the significance of the trees on the property. The alternatives to the project should be expanded to include more options regarding size and location of buildings. ITEM: Aesthetics – Visual Character – Section 2.4 - In the Executive Summary, it is stated that the impacts to aesthetics with regard to the possibility to “Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, tree, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway” (section 2.4) were not considered significant and were not analyzed. RESPONSE: This project does significant damage. It damages scenic resources by removing mature trees and the significance should be considered. ITEM: Aesthetics – Visual Character – Table 2-1 AES-2 - “The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.” The impact was considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures were proposed. RESPONSE: This development includes the removal of 83 of the 84 protected trees on the site. These trees are part of the visual character of the site and the surrounding area. One specific visual character is the grove of trees at the corner of El Camino Real and Wolfe Road. Tree removal should be considered a significant issue and mitigation measures should be required to preserve the protected trees, particularly those most visible to the community. ITEM: Biological Resources – Tree Removal – Table 2.1 BIO-2 - “Proposed development would result in removal of trees regulated under City ordinance, and possible damage to other trees unless adequate controls are implemented, and would conflict with the intent of the City’s Tree Preservation regulations.” The impact is considered significant and several mitigation measures were identified, including tree replacement and protection. The large Oak in the center is expected to remain where it is. RESPONSE: Mitigation measures should require that protected trees be preserved, not simply moved or replaced. One mitigation is to redesign the project. Relocation of large oaks is risky and should be avoided. ITEM: Cultural Resource – Table 2.1 CULT-1 - “The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 10564-5.” (Table 2-1 CULT-1). The impact was considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures were proposed.


B32-01

B32-02

B32-03

B32-04

B32-05

RESPONSE: The designation of the grove of oak trees at the corner of El Camino Real and Wolfe Road as heritage trees (historical resource) is being pursued by community members. Mitigation measures to preserve this grove of trees (where currently located) are required. The designation of the large oak in the center of the property as a heritage tree (historical resource) is being pursued by community members. Mitigation measures to preserve this tree are required. Reference Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.96 Heritage Preservation. ITEM: Project Objectives – Section 3.2 - Under the Project Objectives, it lists “provide adequate open space and landscaping to comply with the City’s standards that will enhance the overall community” and “encourage pedestrian activity around the project boundary.” RESPONSE: Removing protected trees will not enhance the community. Removal of trees around the project boundary will not encourage pedestrian activity, as shade will be eliminated. ITEM: Landscaping Plan 3.3.2.4 The Landscaping Plan calls for the removal of 84 landscape trees and 161 remnant orchard trees. The existing oak tree in the center of the project site would be retained. Proposed trees include Armstrong Red Maple, Strawberry Tree, Western Redbud, Catalina Ironwood, Olive and Chinese Elm. RESPONSE: Replacing mature trees with ornamental trees does not preserve the tree canopy. As explained in the Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan, tree canopy is measured by the breadth of the tree coverage, not the number of trees. It could take 10 ornamental trees to equal the tree canopy of one large oak tree. There are 84 protected trees on the property, 50 of which are considered healthy and suitable for preservation. Removal of these protected trees violates city standards outlined in the Sunnyvale Tree Preservation Regulations and the Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan. Mature trees should be preserved. ITEM: Environmental Setting – Regulatory Framework 4.1.1.1 and Table 4.1-1 Policies of the Sunnyvale General Plan Relevant to Aesthetics (Table 4.1-1 CC 3.2) According to the Sunnyvale General Plan, Chapter 4 addresses the visual appearance and character of the built environment and is intended to maintain and enhance Sunnyvale’s sense of place and the quality of life of its residents. According to Table 4.1-1 CC 3.2 - The project must “Ensure site design is compatible with the natural and surrounding built environment.” RESPONSE: The proposed project is not compatible with the natural environment of mature trees or the surrounding built environment of two to three story multi-family residential buildings. The removal of the trees and the proposed building heights are not compatible. ITEM: Scenic Resources- Regulatory Framework 4.1.1.1 Under Scenic Resources, “The General Plan defines visual landmarks as visually prominent and outstanding structures or natural features that function as points of orientation and identification for individuals and areas of the city.” The report claims that “There are no city gateways or visual landmarks within one half mile from the project site. The section also discusses the importance of landscaping, attractive street environment, etc. RESPONSE: The property contains several visual landmarks, particularly the grove of oak trees at the corner of El Camino and Wolfe Road. This grove is a natural feature that identifies the corner and is a recognizable characteristic of the area.

B32-05cont.

B32-06

B32-07

B32-08

B32-09

ITEM: Table 4.1-2 Site Landscaping 3.4.4 The Policies of the Precise Plan for El Camino Real Relevant to Aesthetics, state that Site Landscaping should “use abundant and attractive landscaping” with trees and setback areas. RESPONSE: The project does not seem to have much setback. ITEM: Existing Conditions – 4.1.1.2 - Under Existing Conditions, Visual Character, it is explained that El Camino Real is considered a scenic corridor under the Grand Boulevard Initiative. RESPONSE: The implication is that the design guidelines of the Grand Boulevard Initiative will be followed. Wide sidewalks, large tree canopy, building setbacks would be required. This project does not have these. ITEM: Impact Discussion 4.1.3, Item AES-2 Under 4.1.3 Impact Discussion, it was determined that “the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. If the project follows the guidelines on building height and signage, then the project is considered to have a less than significant impact. RESPONSE: The visual character of the property would be significantly affected if mature trees were removed. Buildings that are taller than other buildings in the area (over 3 stories) would also impact the aesthetics of the site. The impact should be reconsidered. ITEM: Biological Resources 4.3 – Section 4.3.1.1 Local Regulations - Under Local Regulations, Chapter 19.94 Tree Preservation, “The Municipal Code includes provisions regulating development hen it may affect “protected trees” in these Tree Preservation regulations. The City’s Tree Preservation regulations serve to regulate the protection, installation, removal, and long-term management of significantly sized trees on private and public property within the City.” “The Director of Community Development has authority over protected tree removal permits.” “Tree replacement In-lieu fees shall be used to fund the City’s urban forestry program.” RESPONSE: The mitigation measures regarding the destruction of protected trees are not sufficient. ITEM: Biological Resources – 4.3.2 Impact Discussion – Item BIO-2 – BIO-2 Explains that the regulations regarding protected trees apply to this project. “Many of the protected trees on the site are in good to excellent condition, have a high suitability for preservation, and contribute to the aesthetic and habitat values of the site. The City’s Tree Preservation regulations are intended to provide for reasonable protection of trees which qualify as protected trees, and removal of all but one of the protected trees on the site would conflict with that intent.” “Of particular interest is a grove of mature native coast live oaks near the intersection of El Camino Real and Wolfe Road that contribute to the aesthetic and habitat value of the site, and complement the existing grove of oaks on the east side of South Wolfe Road, opposite the site. These consist of five mature coast live oaks, all of which are of a protected tree size, are in good to excellent condition and have a moderate suitability for preservation.” Measures to mitigate damage are listed. Significance with mitigation is less than significant. RESPONSE: The mitigation measures are insufficient to preserve the protected trees. Mitigation should require that significant trees (such as the grove of mature oaks) be preserved. Paying in-lieu fees cannot replace the history of these trees. Replacing trees is not the same as preserving them. If the project needs to

B32-10

B32-11

B32-12

B32-13

B32-14

be redesigned for it to comply with the Tree Preservation and Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan requirements, then it should be redesigned. ITEM: Biological Resources – Local Regulations – Section 4.3.1.1 Chapter 19.94 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code describes the City’s Tree Preservation regulations with regards to protected trees. Project applicant is required to provide information on flexibility in plan modification where considered necessary to retain protected trees….” RESPONSE: The project proposes to preserve one protected tree. That is one out of 245 trees (0.4%), or 1 of the 50 healthy protected trees (2%) on the site. This is an appalling percentage. The alternate plans for the project do not show any designs that preserve more than that one tree. Design alternatives which protect trees should be presented. If preserving the protected trees is not in the plan, the plan should be modified. ITEM: Biological Resources – Local Regulations – Section 4.3.1.1 “The City of Sunnyvale prepared Tree Replacement Standards to ensure the preservation of existing healthy trees to maintain a healthy tree canopy in the community, which is a high priority of the City.” RESPONSE: Despite the City’s stated priority of preserving existing healthy trees, this project proposes to destroy 245 trees. There is a large discrepancy between the City priority and the proposal. Removing large, protected trees will severely affect the tree canopy. The City should require preservation, not simply provide a way to remove trees. The trees should be preserved in their current locations, as moving large trees is risky. ITEM: Cultural Resources – Local Regulations – Section 4.4 - In the Cultural Resources section (4.4), The Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.96 Heritage Preservation is discussed. To be designated as a heritage resource it must: Have a unique location or singular physical characteristic or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City of Sunnyvale. RESPONSE: The grove of oak trees at the corner of El Camino Real and Wolfe Road are protected trees because of their size. These trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the city, and thus meet the criteria for heritage tree status, which is being pursued. ITEM: 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project and 5.1 Purpose - The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. RESPONSE: The alternatives discussed are too similar to be considered true alternatives. The Existing R-3 Zoning Alternative retains the building size and locations as the proposed project. The Corner Lot Site Plan Alternative retains the building size and locations as the proposed project, while moving the swimming pool. The other alternative projects that were proposed for R-3 and R-4 zoning would result in “removal of all on-site vegetation and trees, with the exception of the existing protected oak tree.” (5.6.2.3 Biological Resources of R-3 Zoning Alternative). The alternatives presented do not meet the intent of CEQA guidelines regarding a range of reasonable alternatives. The alternatives do not comply with Sunnyvale Municipal Code regarding flexibility in plan modification to retain protected trees.

B32-14cont.

B32-15

B32-16

B32-17

B32-18

Alternatives that change the design, building heights, locations and number of buildings, retain protected trees, and show new configurations of the site should be explored. ITEM: Appendix E – Arborist Report and Biological Resources Data Appendix E provides a tree inventory and reports on the health of the trees and suitability for preservation. Majority of trees are healthy and meet preservation criteria. RESPONSE: The 50 healthy protected trees should be preserved. The grove of oaks at the corner of El Camino and Wolfe should be preserved in their current location.

B32-18cont.

B32-19

Butcher’s Corner: Draft EIR Child Health/Safety

Response from Eleanor Field

Child health/safety at Butcher’s Corner

• Pros • 153 new living units

• Cons • No public transportation to

schools • No room in local schools • No recreational facilities in plan • Serious safety issues at adjacent

“F” intersection • Poor access for emergency

vehicles


B33-01

The school-transportation muddle

• Estimated occupation by students = c. 100 • Divided between

• Stocklmeir Elementary* (1269 students) • Cupertino Middle School • Fremont High School (1700+ students) *=Severely impacted. Lottery of at least 3 years’ standing to enter school *=district alternatives mainly west of #280

The school-transportation muddle

• Estimated increase in students = c. 100 • Divided between

• Stocklmeir Elementary* (1269 students) • Cupertino Middle School • Fremont High School* (1700+ students) *=No public transportation on Fremont Ave. *=Sidewalks discontinuous, road widths variable

B33-02

B33-03

Recreation: green spaces deceptive Regularly available • Ortega Park up to 50 groups at a time (sports, picnis, 9

acres—used by all of Santa Clara County) • Panama Park (sports, picnics; 5 acres--ditto) • Peterson School yard (rt edge only: sports—ditto)

Reserved/mainly adult use • Raynor School: in transition • Full Circle Farm: agriculture • Golf course: adult recreation • Community Center: mixed use (including rentals)

Schools shown as “green” • Fremont HS • Stocklmeir Elem.

• Provisions for child safety? • Realistic plans for schooling?

Questions

• Reserve one acre for picket park for children on premises • Include historic house on the property • Provide El Camino entrance/exit for residences facing El Camino • Reduce height of building Fremont side to 4 stories max

Consider these alternatives

B33-04

B33-05

Dear Ms. Caliva-Lepe:

I am writing today to voice my concerns about the Butcher’s Corner development. I am not against

development in general. I know that with time, the use of land will change. What I am against is sacrificing

forever the character of a neighborhood that has been here for decades. In two words, the high-density planned

development at Butcher’s Corner is WRONG and SHORT-SIGHTED.

I agree that mixed-use commercial and residential development would be an appropriate use for this land given

its location on a major transit and commercial corridor. However, the City needs to keep in mind that the south

and west sides of the property border an established neighborhood that enjoys a very high quality of life and

particular character that relies on low-density development. I am not aware of a SINGLE residential

development in Sunnyvale that is five stories high. Why here? Limit structures to three stories. Sunnyvale is not

The Bronx.

In addition, our middle-school sized elementary school, Stocklmeir, already suffers horrible traffic and

overcrowding issues. There is no way the demographer can exactly predict how many children are likely to

inhabit the planned development. Although the City does not seem to concern itself with what may be seen as

CUSD’s “problem,” it ought to be concerned about school safety issues. Butcher’s Corner is 1.3 miles from

Stocklmeir, necessitating a car ride to/from school. A crossing guard has recently quit due to the dangerous

traffic situation. With its approval of the new development, the City will be contributing to this madness.

I do not simply have a case of NIMBY. It is just common sense that such a dense development does not belong

in this location when no other residential building this tall can be found for miles around. Just because the land

is available and it is physically possible to build does not mean that the development ought to be built.

It is horrifying to me that the plan has been allowed to proceed as far as it has. Sunnyvale decision-makers need

to imagine how they would feel were they to pass by this development on their way in and out of their own

neighborhoods. Particularly off-putting to me is the five-story residential building adjacent to Fremont Avenue.

Keep in mind the kinds of buildings lining Fremont Ave. from its genesis at Wolfe Rd. and El Camino Real and

as it penetrates into Los Altos. There is NOT ONE building this colossal. There are parts of Fremont Ave. (such

as near Mary Ave.) that are more commercial and developed where this building MIGHT be fathomable. But

tucked away into a residential neighborhood — NO!

Thank you for your attention,

Susan Howard

1433 Hawk Court

Sunnyvale resident from 1968-1985 and 2001-present

Mother of two high school aged children


B34-03

B34-04

B34-01

B34-02

Hi, Noren,

Thanks for your help. One point I had to omit for lack of time was the irregular curbs, sidewalks, and bike

lanes on Fremont Ave. This is mainly an issue for students attending Fremont High School.

The bike lanes were put in about 30 years ago, and (in reference to the point mentioned by the chair near the

end) there have been many bike accidents at the Sunnyvale-Saratoga light since the beginning. They usually

involve cars turning right and bikes going straight.

There was a lot of bike-lane clean up last year and the striping does help. It's a pity that the city has not tried to

bring other other county lots along Fremont under city jurisdiction so that the lanes could be regularized.

Best regards,

Eleanor Field


B35-01

Dear Ms Caliva-Lepe

I am a local resident and I am writing to express my concern over the Butcher's Corner Development.

My concerns are:

The proposed height on Fremont Avenue of the Butcher's Corner Development, such a tall building is not in keeping with the local area and should be limited to 2 / 3 stories at most.

The increase in traffic onto the Wolfe/Fremont/El Camino junction. A more in depth study needs to be undertaken.

The fate of the 80 or so protected trees on the land. Heritage trees are an important part of Sunnyvale history.

I would ask that if this development does go ahead that serious consideration is taken as to where the children living in this development go to school. Stocklmeir is already the biggest school in the CUSD area, nearly all other schools in CUSD are in decline and would strongly urge planners to consider sending kids to a school with a declining enrollment.

Yours sincerely

Phillipa Sharp


B36-01

B36-02

B36-03

B36-04

B36-05


B37-01

B37-02

B37-03

B37-04

B37-05

B37-06

B37-07

B37-08

B37-09

I am concerned that the building heights are too tall for this area. There has not been enough of a traffic study to properly evaluate the project.

This can negatively impact the neighborhood.

Thanks

Charlie


B38-01B38-02

B38-03

Hello. I'm a resident who lives near the corner of Kingfisher Way and Fremont. I'm concerned about the added traffic at Kingfisher Way and Fremont. A lot of kids play in the front yards and residential street on Kingfisher Way. I think a traffic light at Kingfisher and Fremont is a bad idea because there's already a traffic light at Wolfe and Fremont, a very close intersection. A traffic light would also imply that Kingfisher is a major thoroughfare rather than the residential road that it actually is. I'd like to see: 1. Stop sign or circle island at Kingfisher and Carlisle to slow traffic. 2. Several speed bumps on Kingfisher between Fremont and Dartshire. 3. A street sign on Kingfisher indicating that there are children around. 4. NO vehicle entrance/exit from Butcher's corner to Fremont. Instead, vehicles enter and exit to El Camino Real. 5. Pedestrian walkway that is well marked and lights up when a pedestrian is there (like the one on El Camino Real, near the post office and Fremont High School). 6. Pedestrian and bicycle walkway cutting through the Butcher's corner property so that pedestrians and bicyclists can reach El Camino Real and get to Safeway and those nearby stores without having to go around through the El Camino/Wolfe/Fremont intersection. Regarding the actual property and building, I'd like to see: 1. a local park/playground area for the kids who move into the Butcher's corner building. This is to ease the congestion at Ortega park. 2. Butcher's corner developers pay per condo or unit to the city and to Cupertino Union School District and FUSD. 3. Significant drought-tolerant greenery and nice scenery between the street and building with a good set-back of the building from the street. It should not look like a strip-mall that is so popular on El Camino Real. 4. Parking spaces inside the Butcher's Corner should be wide enough. Thank you. ------------------------------- Ann Bogan


B39-01

B39-03

B39-04

B39-02

Councilmembers:

Forwarding to you per below and attached.


From: Heidi Kirk <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Subject: Re: PROTECT BUTCHER'S CORNER!

To: Lik Roper <[email protected]>

Mr. Clefstad:

Thank you for your additional email to the Council AnswerPoint. I am forwarding your additional message and attachment to Council, copying key City staff for their review as well.


On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Lik Roper <[email protected]> wrote:

yet another angle that occurred to me...

not only is the butcher family property historic for the butcher family's presence in the valley; but they also

employed migrant farm workers who used to live in the "flat top" neighborhood (raynor park) right by peterson

high school...therefore; saving this land also pays tribute to their hard struggles as well...adding to this; chris

moon has found an aerial photo of the ranch; and apparently there is an old pool that could be used for skating

as well...so not only could you draw people from all around to the historic ranch property and buildings at

butcher park; but you could also have a skate park with a cool old pool to skate; and this would draw skaters

from all over...that would put sunnyvale into the "cool city" category instead of the "geek city" that it is now...

you just have to know when to say when; while many of your other major new building developments are good

ideas; the butcher ranch idea clearly is not...

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Heidi Kirk <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Clefstad:

B40-01

Thank you for your emails to the Council AnswerPoint. I am forwarding your message to Council, copying key City staff for their review as well.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Lik Roper <[email protected]>

Date: Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:53 PM

Subject: Re: PROTECT BUTCHER'S CORNER!

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Some of the old buildings on the property could be left intact and perhaps restored and left intact as historic

monuments as well; perhaps serving as sheds for park maintenance equipment etc.

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Lik Roper <[email protected]> wrote:

B40-01cont.

Butchers corner should be re-named "Butcher Park" with orchard trees and wildlife habitat left intact; semi-

naturalized with paths and benches and a skate park so Chris Moon and his friends can ride their skateboards

there; right next to Believe board shop. It makes perfect sense.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Lik Roper <[email protected]> wrote:

i know you all think this awful new development proposal is a done deal...but i beg to differ...i can see how

new development in north sunnyvale; and even on arques avenue makes sense; but ripping the heart out of the

valley of hearts' delight by destroying the old butcher ranch is UNACCEPTABLE...

the city of sunnyvale has officially lost it's soul whether they go through with this project or not...and you

should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES for even considering it...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/713/072/509/tell-the-city-of-sunnyvale-to-protect-butchers-corner/

B40-01cont.

Hello, I’ve lived in Sunnyvale since 1962. I started working in Sunnyvale in 1959. We have 2 homes here in Sunnyvale. How sad to see the overbuilding in our area. The traffic is bad, and our lives have been upset by the large numbers of cars on our roads and it has affected the way people behave on the streets. Please consider how much your decision to make high density housing will adversely affect the neighborhoods. The Fremont — Wolfe Road — and El Camino Real corner is bad enough of an intersection without adding more cars and traffic to that corner. Richard Mukai Victoria Mukai Lorin Mukai 586 Croyden Court — Sunnyvale, CA 94087 676 San Diego Avenue — Sunnyvale, CA 94085


B41-01

B41-02

Please reconsider this project.

The proposed building is too high for this neighborhood. We should not allow higher than 2 or maximum 3

story buildings.

They are killing too many heritage trees.

The traffic impact will be too great along Fremont Avenue and the adjoining intersection at Wolfe Road. We

have already seen much more traffic than just a couple of years ago.

Schools are already too crowded – with students and with cars.

Mahesh Suri

717 Ashbourne Dr,

Sent from my iPhone


B42-03

B42-04

B42-05

B42-02

B42-01

Today, Thursday 12 May, 6:15PM. Heading west (north) on El Camino, it took three light cycles to turn left onto Wolfe heading south. This was with today's traffic. Adding a significant number of additional drivers living near the intersection will greatly increase the traffic problem. Joseph D Tajnai 1532 Emperor Way Sunnyvale Sent from my thingy


B43-01

The proposed building is too high for this neighborhood. They are killing too many heritage trees. In Israel, trees are moved not killed! The traffic impact will be too great along Fremont Avenue and the adjoining intersection at Wolfe Road. Schools are already too crowded – with students and with cars. Way too much traffic already!


B44-01B44-02B44-03B44-04

B44-05

I have lived in Sunnyvale for 20+ years and have seen the schools become overcrowded as a result of the multi-

unit development that has been occurring in the city over that time.

Please consider voting against the Butcher's Corner project. The schools and roads are crowded enough without

adding a 7 story apartment building.

Thank you.

Andy Brockman


B45-01

Noren, I am having trouble reconciling the various guidelines for new development in relation to the Butcher’s Corner Proposal.

City-Wide Design Guidelines (http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/CDD/Non-Residential/CityWideDesignGuidelines.pdf) state: “Protecting and preserving the existing desirable features of the City against potential negative impacts of new development is another challenge that the City has been facing. The Citywide Design Guidelines are intended to create a balance between both protecting the existing neighborhood character and accommodating new developments.”

The Precise Plan for El Camino Real recommends that certain nodes be considered for mixed use development, with specific criteria.

Tree preservation Guidelines and Sunnyvale Urban Forest Management Plan require that protected trees be preserved.

Butcher’s Corner is on Fremont Avenue. It is near two and three story apartment buildings. It contains 50 healthy protected trees. It has no usable access to El Camino Real. It has few options for those leaving the site on Fremont Avenue who would like to turn back towards Wolfe Road.

By claiming that this project falls under the Precise Plan for El Camino Real, the development EIR did not address traffic or aesthetics. But this project does not meet the criteria for the Precise Plan. This property was identified a few years ago as a place to consider mixed use. The guidelines require that access to retail be from El Camino Real and that access to residential be from a separate street. Access to retail cannot be through a neighborhood. This proposal does not have access from El Camino Real and traffic will run through a residential area for access. The recommendation that the trees and landscaping in the city owned “triangle” be used as a foundation for landscaping the other corners at that intersection has not been implemented.

This project should be classified as a residential development that is consistent with the neighborhood. It is on Fremont Avenue. The DEIR should be updated with information related to a residential development on a residential street, not El Camino Real.

Aesthetics and Transportation and Circulation should be properly analyzed. The development would substantially damage scenic resources by destroying protected trees. The development would result in a change in traffic patterns by increasing traffic and providing no safe option for making a left turn out of the parking lot or a u-turn further up Fremont Avenue. This would result in traffic delays and unsafe turns.

Thank you, Mary Brunkhorst


B46-01

B46-02

Hi, Noren, I'm a resident of Sunnyvale. I have concern over the Butchers Corner project. 1. Traffic Even now, the traffic at El Camino/Wolfe often turns into a deadlock b/c of the two traffic intersections on Wolfe are very close to each other. Cars stuck in the middle of El Camino/Wolfe intersection trying to turn to Wolfe. With more residential added to the Corner, the situation can only get worse. 2. School Impact Being the largest elementary school in Cupertino, close to ~1200 students enrolled, Stocklmeir will get even more crowded with affordable housing added into its school boundary. Right now the playgrounds and running tracks are getting cut and turned into portable classrooms to accommodate the ever increasing enrollment. Teachers, students, and the entire community are getting tired already dealing with this large school. We don't want to see this project being the last straw to finally causing experienced teachers leaving, ruining our kids' education. 3. Public facilities Sunnyvale has been adding new house day by day. And we haven't seen equal amount of public facilities added to keep the service per capital rate as before. We have only one community center in Sunnyvale. The sports center in it is always packed and over used. The badminton courts are over crowded. Even with court sharing, players who don't show up right at the opening will often find no space left for them to play. City of Sunnyvale should not only build residential houses, it should strive to keep the public facility meet the needs of Sunnyvale residents as well. It's time to add another sports center to Sunnyvale. And Butchers Corner can be an ideal choice with its size and location. More residential can be built at north Sunnyvale where the streets are quieter. Overall, none of the above impacts can be neglected when considering this project. Without variable solution to the above issues, the project should not proceed. Thanks, Vivian


B47-03

B47-04

B47-05

B47-02

B47-01

I would just like to be able to say I let the City of Sunnyvale know that the homeowners and residents who live near this proposed development are opposed to the size and scope of this project. We oppose the number of stories, the number of units, the increased number of cars at an already crazy intersection. We understand that the City is suppose to support development of homes in conjunction with the number of jobs, but at some point you lost the reasonableness of just how many people can fit into a limited space. How many children do you really think can fit at one school sight, because you must feel like 1200 at Stocklmeir isn’t enough? Your decisions will likely affect many factors far beyond number of units and humans you’re willing to squeeze into our community. However, I fear this plea, like many others brought to the City Council’s ears, will fall silent and be ignored. This is the precedent set by recent Council decisions. ‘Thank you for your comments, we aren’t going to listen to them anyway.’ You are disenfranchising the very Citizens you are suppose to represent. Be courageous. Stand up for the Residents who paid good money to live here and raise our children here. Limit this project to a reasonable limit or I fear you will continue to degrade the quality of life for current residents and their families. Enough is enough. Mary Depew 1637 Canary Dr Sunnyvale, CA 94087


B48-01

Without a proper mass transit plan to move people around it seems foolish to grid lock the Fremont Wolfe area

with high rise apartments.

Currently this is the path way for heavy traffic commuting from Cupertino and San Jose traveling up and down

to their jobs.

First implement mass transit plans not high rise buildings.

Sesh Raj

Sunnyvale Resident

Sent from my iPhone


B49-01

Hi Noren,

After reviewing the draft EIR for Butcher's Corners, I had a number of comments/issues with the data and

methodology. They include:

• Various tables and analysis in the document are missing planned development that will impact the site

through higher traffic, impact on utilities, and city services. Missing development includes: hotels (El

Camino & Fair Oaks), Apple campuses (Homestead & Wolfe, Wolfe & Central), Gateway Village (El

Camino & Lawrence), Hampton Apartments (Wolfe & 280), and Vallco redevelopment.

• Aesthetics: the developer proposes a seven and five story building

o The largest building is more than 2x taller than nearby buildings, and will not fit in with the

development in the area (incorrectly stated in the report that it would fit in).

o The proximity of the large buildings to the sidewalks create an urban canyon, especially near

Fremont.

o Based on the information in the report, it appears that the seven story on Fremont will have

insufficient setback from Fremont and have less setback than the smaller building on El Camino.

o The mockups and perspective do not give very good insight in how the project will look. Better

mockups/photos are needed to avoid "surprises" like the Linked-In buildings. For example, the

photos are shown next to the site on a hazy day. This doesn't let people know if they will block

the hills especially from the other side of the street.

• Parks: no mention of parks in the document.

o My understanding is that Sunnyvale has guidelines for the minimum amount of park space per

resident. Will this cause Sunnyvale to go into a "deficit"? Are there mitigation plans, such as to

provide more open space land? Or land on the property for the public? The EIR should address

parks.

o The recreation facilities on the site are targeted for adults and teenagers (pool, BBQ grills,

etc). The nearest parks are over 1 mile away. This will force families with small children to

drive to nearby parks. The additional traffic/parking needs to be included in the traffic study.

• Hydrology and water quality

o The current site retains all storm water, whereas the proposed development does not retain storm

water and consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. So, almost all the rain on the site will go

into the storm sewer system.

o According to the EIR, “…would be conveyed to the City’s existing storm drain system along E.

Fremont Ave”.

o The storm water will drain into the Sunnyvale East Channel.

o The Santa Clara Valley Water District has a plan to improve the channel on the website -

http://www.valleywater.org/service/SunnyvaleEastandWest.aspx

o The site only considers flooding on this site. Instead, it must look at the impact of other sites

along the Sunnyvale East Channel - will this force downstream residents and business to need

flood insurance?

• Schools


B50-01

B50-02

B50-03

B50-04

B50-05

B50-06

o New developments have clusters of children around the same age. So more children will added

than the averages that are in the EIR.

o Most parents drive their children to school due to the distance (>1 mile). The peak AM

out/residential is 60 (table 4.11-5), but most of the 95 new students for elementary/middle

school/high school will need rides. Because the start time for school is fixed, these rides will be

clustered in about a ten minute window (much worse than the 60 predicted). The EIR needs to

be updated for this.

o The kids will need to be driven home, and this can lead to a second trip per day which was not

captured in the EIR.

o For methodology, the peak time should be used for school. Traffic will be much lighter on

holidays and during vacation. Averaging will tend to hide some of these issues.

o In order to deal with overcrowding, CUSD "distributes students" between schools. This requires

additional/longer driving trips to get students to schools that are further away. The additional

trips need to be included in the overall traffic analysis.

o The EIR includes feedback from CUSD. It's missing the feedback from FUHSD. Based on the

tone of the EIR, I assume this is because the feedback was negative and so withheld. If this is

not the case, the EIR should state the status (no reply? didn't contact?).

o The EIR includes legal interpretation of state law WRT schools for planning projects. Unless the

staff of Placeworks includes lawyers, this information should not be included. Instead, the City

Attorney should give the City Council a summary of state law along with summary of the legal

standing/plans for development/school conflict including San Jose/Santa Clara Unified (North

San Jose development), Fremont (city & school), and Cupertino/CUSD over Vallco development

(from several years ago with plans to build housing on Vallco property). Each of the three cities

worked with the local school district. It's not reasonable that those cities/schools could work

together, but that Sunnyvale is not allowed to work with the school district. If you have

questions about this, please let me know.

• Construction Impacts/4.12-19

o The proposed development includes two- and three-story deep parking garages.

o It's unclear where all that dirt will go. Please make this more clear in the EIR.

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Access/3-23: …street dedication along El Camino Real and the construction of a

bike lane…

o More information/description is needed:

Is the development to provide additional land for bike lane?

Removal of an existing traffic lane for a bike lane?

o Removal of a driving lane will impact traffic on El Camino and needs to be included in traffic

study

Was the impact included in the traffic study?

Removal of dedicated right turn lane at El Camino and Remington has impacted traffic

• Wolfe Road/new right turn lane

o If the city would like more bikes traveling up Wolfe, a dedicated bike lane between El Camino

and Wolfe is needed for safety.

Can the lane be added to the EIR or should that be in a separate recommendation to the

city council and planning commission?

o Can more information and analysis be included of the proposed dedicated right turn lane from El

Camino? Several of the pro-development speakers at the planning commission meeting

highlighted this lane, but it's not clear to me that it would help. I think in some cases, it would

create problems.

I've been in the right left-turn lane at El Camino/Wolfe and have been cut off by someone

in the leftmost lane turning right on Fremont. I'm concerned that adding the lane will

only cause more accidents and confusion with cars coming from more directions at

once. Has this type of issue been studied?

B50-06cont.

B50-07

B50-08

B50-09

B50-10

B50-11

Will the cars in the right-most lane have a light limiting their movement? If not, there

can be a continuous flow of traffic going west on Fremont. Without a break in traffic, it

will be difficult to leave the Kingfisher town homes. It's unclear if the traffic analysis

included this issue.

• Impact on water

o In order to reduce the impact of the water needs on the surrounding community, Apple is using

recycled water for irrigation and bathrooms (toilets).

o This mitigation should be included in the EIR.

o As an aside, my understanding is that the developer controls the Smilie Dental office. That

office waters the lawn at 2PM on Sundays, which is against the drought restrictions. My wife

has called the city to complain and was told many people had called. Is there a reason there

hasn't been a change in behavior? We had a woman in our neighborhood that complained about

minor code violations to the city (garbage can visible from the street, etc) and the city would

contact the home owner. It appears that the rules are not being applied uniformly.

• Alternatives to the project

o The project should look at more alternatives, including much less dense housing.

o Alternative uses for the site should be examined. For example, we were not able to find my

wife's elderly relatives good senior living facilities in Sunnyvale, and they are in the Terrace's in

Los Gatos. Services along El Camino are available for seniors, and there won't be an impact on

the schools.

Regards,

Peter Wright

B50-11cont.

B50-12

B50-13

Hello,

I am a member of the Butcher family, and would like to point out a few corrections to the Draft EIR:

Historical Resources, page 4.4-8, paragraph 4:

> Correct: “The Craftsman home is reported to have been built by Arthur Butcher in 1912.”

Incorrect: “It was also reportedly built the same year his son Robert was born in 1914.”

> It was built in 1912. Robert Butcher was born (in the house) in 1913.

Incorrect: “After Arthur’s death in 2003…”

> Arthur Butcher’s death was in 1967. (His son Robert Butcher’s death was in 2003.)

Incorrect: “…Audrey kept the orchard going but her death in 2013…”

> Audrey Butcher’s death was in 2012.

Incorrect: “…her death … ended three generations of Butchers farming the property.”

> Four generations of Butchers farmed the property: 1. Emma Butcher, 2. Sons Arthur and Rolla II, 3.

Grandson Robert and Grand-daughter-in-law Audrey, 4. Great-grandson Lloyd Andrew.

Thank you for your time,

Margaret Butcher


B51-01

From: Noren Caliva-Lepe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 4:25 PMTo: Holly LofgrenSubject: RE: RE: [PNFS] Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability

Hi Holly,

I received confirmation from Public Works staff that the City does not have its own design standards for stopping sight distance and the City uses the Caltrans Design Manual as guidance on this matter. In addition per Sunnyvale Municipal Code 10.08.010, the City Engineer should be following the latest standards or guidelines established by Caltrans which includes the Caltrans Design Manual. Public Works has also confirmed that the traffic analysis did study the peak times (7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm) for all intersections.

The proposed driveway is about 300 feet to Wolfe Road and just under 350 feet to the Tapadero Condo driveway.

I hope that information helps you prepare your comments. Please remember that comments are due next Monday, May 23rd.

Noren_______________________________Noren Caliva-Lepe, Senior PlannerCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Sunnyvale Phone: (408) [email protected] Department of Community Development is innovative in promoting sustainable development while enhancing the economy, community character and quality of life in Sunnyvale.Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

From: Holly Lofgren [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:56 PMTo: Noren Caliva-LepeSubject: Re: RE: [PNFS] Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability

Noren,

Hello. I am checking in with regards to my question about the driveway and distances. Do you have any information yet?

I have another question, please. Could you either provide an answer for me or put me in touch with the Sunnyvale staff member who worked ontraffic with Hexagon? Thankyou. I would like to inquire about whether the traffic analysis relied on peak times for all intersections when it concluded that only the Kingfisher intersection would be significantly impacted.

See the following on pages 4.11-8 and 4.11-10 which I was unsure of:"The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table 4.11‐2."TABLE 4.11‐2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON AVERAGE DELAY

TABLE 4.11‐4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING CONDITIONS

S Wolfe Rd and El Camino Real LOS Standard is E Existing Control is 'Signal'

Kingfisher Way and E Fremont Ave LOS Standard is D Existing Control is 'TWSC'

In the footnotes: Notes 2 "Overall weighted average control delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized intersections. Worst stop-controlled approach delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for TWSC intersections."

Thank you for your timely responses so that I can prepare my written comments.

Holly

-----------------------

From: Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]>To: Holly Lofgren <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 1:41 PMSubject: Re: RE: Butcher's Corner Draft EIR - Clarification

Holly,

I'm trying to get an answer to your questions about traffic before the hearing, but I can't guarantee it. I'll send you the information as soon as it is


B52-01

B52-02

B52-03

available. Of course, responses to comments will also be prepared as part of the Final EIR. Your question will be addressed there as well.

Noren

From: Holly Lofgren <[email protected]>To: Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 4:51 PMSubject: Re: RE: [PNFS] Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability

Noren,

I had a question about the BC DEIR and hoped that you could help.

Trans 3 – Project Access Driveways “The project would be accessed via a single driveway on East Fremont Avenue”States a Caltran standard of 300 feet. Why did they use a Caltran standard? What standard does the city typically use? What is the distancebetween the sites planned driveway and the Tapadero Condo driveway? What is the distance between the proposed projects driveway and SWolfe Road?

Thank you.

Holly

From: Holly Lofgren <[email protected]>To: Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 5:54 PMSubject: Re: RE: [PNFS] Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability

Noren,

I think a tentative schedule would be helpful.Thank you.Holly

Sent from AT&T Mail on Android

From:"Noren Caliva-Lepe" <[email protected]>Date:Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:55 PMSubject:RE: [PNFS] Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability

Hi Holly,

Thank you for asking. As stated on the notice, the purpose of the May 9th hearing is to receive comments only. No decisions will be made. Public hearings for the Final EIRand project entitlements have not yet been finalized, but I am tentatively aiming for late July or early August. Additional notices will be sent out when the hearing dates arefinalized.

Thanks also for your email reminder to the group about CEQA-related comments. I will be sending out an email (bcc this time) by the end of the week to help resolve some ofthe confusion.

Regards,Noren_______________________________Noren Caliva-Lepe, Senior PlannerCommunity Development DepartmentCity of SunnyvalePhone: (408) [email protected] Department of Community Development is innovative in promoting sustainable development while enhancing the economy, community character and quality of life in Sunnyvale.Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

From: Holly Lofgren [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 1:13 PMTo: Noren Caliva-LepeSubject: Fw: [PNFS] Re: Butcher's Corner - Draft EIR Availability

Noren,

I had a question.

Will the Planning Commission vote on the project on May 9th? You notice said to "gatherinput". If they are not voting on May 9th please provide the date they are voting. Please provideany tentative time frame for City Council reviews of DEIR.

Thank you,

Holly

B52-04

B52-05

B52-06

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]> wrote:Dear Residents,

You are receiving this email because you are on the interested parties list for the Butcher’sCorner project.The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is now available for public review and commentstarting today, April 8 through May 23, 2016. Attached is the Notice of Availability. Electroniccopies of the DEIR and appendices are available on the project webpage athttp://www.butcherscorner.insunnyvale.com/. Hard copies are also be available for review atCity Hall, the Sunnyvale Public Library and the Sunnyvale Community Center.The attached Notice of Availability also serves as public notice of the May 9, 2016 PlanningCommission public hearing to gather input on the DEIR. Please feel free to contact me foradditional information about the EIR process, or visit the following webpagehttp://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/CDD/Planning/Planning%20Library/CEQAInfo.pdf.Regards,Noren

_______________________________Noren Caliva-Lepe, Associate PlannerCommunity Development DepartmentCity of SunnyvalePhone: (408) [email protected] Department of Community Development is innovative in promoting sustainable development while enhancing the economy, community character and quality of life in Sunnyvale.Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

__._,_.___

Posted by: Holly Lofgren <[email protected]>

Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (9)

Upgrade your account with the latest Yahoo Mail appGet organized with the fast and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail app. Upgrade today!

A DISCUSSION GROUP FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES IN SUNNYVALEVisit Your Group

· New Members 1

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___


B53-01

B53-02

B53-03

B53-03cont.

B53-04B53-05

B53-06

B53-07

B53-08

B53-08cont.

B53-08cont.

Dear Sunnyvale Planning Commission and Sunnyvale City Council,

I am writing with some of my public comments regarding the DEIR for Butcher’s Corner. This letter pertains to the number of people who would live in the proposed Butcher’s Corner apartments and to the number of students who would attend Stocklmeir Elementary and Cupertino Middle Schools.

I feel the DEIR did not adequately address, analyze or predict either the number of residents who would live at the proposed site or the number of children who would attend the schools. Hexagon claimed that approximately 400 people would live in 153 units which results in 2.61 persons per unit. I would like to see precisely how they arrived at this figure. I feel that their analysis should include actual statistics of how many people live in new apartments in CUSD of the same square footage, additionally separating out the Stockmeir attendance area and Cupertino Middle attendance area. Finally, the rentjungle.com website says the cost of a new two bedroom apartment is now at an average of $3,114 in Sunnyvale. To afford these rents, there is more pressure to crowd apartments to share rent, resulting in many more persons per apartment than in the past – see recent Craigslist ads!

I feel the DEIR did not adequately predict the number of school-aged children who would live at the proposed complex.

Background: I inquired with the CUSD Business Manager, Rick Hausman in 2014 regarding generation rates for the two schools. The statistician they use had vastly under-predicted attendance at these two schools for many years. They said the reason was the larger presence of apartments in the area, which turn over faster than single family homes, making it difficult to predict attendance. This is how Stocklmeir came to the problem of having 1,400 kids just a couple of years ago. Mr. Hausman also said that CUSD would not predict the number of students at the proposed complex because no large apartment complex had been built for decades in the Stocklmeir area and he was afraid they would underestimate. Neighbors in the area knew for years that the rates were too low and were aware that many apartments had two families living together or would have 2-3 children in a one bedroom apartment which does not agree with the low rates CUSD used.

Hexagon used the generate rate of .37 for CUSD and backed this up with these footnotes:

41 Personal Communication between Ricky Caperton, Associate, PlaceWorks and Chris Jew, Chief Business Officer, Cupertino Union School District, on July 6, 2015. 42 0.37 students per unit (CUSD Student Generation Rate) X 153 residential units (# of units proposed by the project) = 56.61students or 57 rounded up. This is hardly an analysis! The actual 2012 CUSD report shows that the generation rates were .33 for attached units (apartments) and .57 for single family attached (duos) for recently built housing (see page 9). Additionally, in 2014, Mr. Hausman indicated via email that the rates were .35 for Stocklmeir for attached units and .69 for Cupertino Middle for attached units. Also, the 2012 CUSD report lists “average annual birth totals” (pg 10) which indicated a dramatically higher figure, 710, in the Sunnyvale 94087 area and 479 in the Cupertino 95014 area for 2017/18. This statistic should be factored into the report. Hexagon should be directed to produce an analysis that covers the special nature of the Stocklmeir and Cupertino Middle attendance area, separated by the two types of housing being


B54-01

B54-02

proposed and separated by the attendance area. They should also clearly state that CUSD is fairly uncertain how accurate their figures would be given that no large apartment complex has been built in the Stocklmeir attendance area for decades. Please help to ensure that the Final DEIR uses realistic number or resident figures from which all the traffic analysis flows. Please help to ensure that the final DEIR uses realistic and detailed demographic figures from which all the school attendance figures flow. A DEIR based on the current DEIR underestimated figures would skew the entire analysis and make it conclusions highly unreliable.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Holly Lofgren

B54-03

B54-02cont.

Dear Noren Caliva-Lepe,

I am currently a homeowner residence in the Sunset Oaks townhouse complex, 691 Crescent Ave, Sunnyvale,

CA 94087. I am writing this letter to stress my concern with the Butcher’s Corner project. I was born and raised

in San Jose back in 1969 and now have a family of my own in Sunnyvale. I am a native south bay residence for

the majority of my life. Unfortunately, I'm writing this letter to voice my 2 complaints regarding the impacted

Stocklmeir Elementary School and 7 story building facing Fremont Ave.

In 2009, I contacted Stocklmeir on the reason for excluding the 12 townhouses from the Stocklmeir Elementary

school boundaries. The reasoning was the impact of students on the school. As a reminder, the 12 townhouses

are the only homes on Crescent Ave that fall outside the boundaries. The school council needs to consider

opening the boundaries to the 12 homes before opening them up to the new Butcher’s Corner residence.

In the past couple of years I have noticed massive apartment complexes being built along El Camino Real. Now

this construction is happening in my own backyard. Even though the construction along El Camino is not

favorable, but tolerable since its along a major street artery. My issue is the 7 story building that is facing

Fremont Ave. This size of building is absolutely unacceptable. The council needs to consider reducing the

stories.

I have further complaints regarding added street congestion, removal of living trees, and waste. I will leave

these as secondary complaints so the 2 primary complaints can get addressed.

Regards,

Derek Niizawa


B55-03

B55-02

B55-01

Dear Sir or Madam, My comments on the Butcher's Corner proposed comments are as follows: We have lived directly off of Fremont Avenue near Wolfe Road for 37 years. I strongly feel and believe that a SEVEN STORY building facing Fremont Avenue, plus the high number of apartments and townhomes is too massive for that site. Traffic is already very bad at that intersection. Traffic often is stopped and backed up with cars trying to turn onto Fremont Avenue coming off of El Camino Real. Also, with the new Apple campus being developed traffic will only worsen in the near future. Also, aesthetically, a building that tall (seven stories) would not blend well and would appear out of place and out of proportion in that area. Regarding the trees, for the sake of our environment we need to keep as many healthy trees as possible to provide cleaner air quality, as well as homes for beneficial insects and birds which are indispensable to the well-being of the population of our city. Without the trees our city will become more polluted and a much less desirable place to live. I would appreciate it if you would take my concerns into consideration and reduce the number of stories of the tallest building to four stories and keep absolutely as many of the trees as are healthy and viable. This can only keep Sunnyvale a good place to live. The developers who will make the large amounts of money from the project possibly do not live in Sunnyvale, but I don't know that for a fact. Thank you for your time, Cheryl Reed Pauline Drive, Sunnyvale


B56-01

B56-02

B56-03

B56-05

B56-04

I am writing regarding the Butchers Corner DEIR. I find that the current building proposal and analysis are not

appropriate.

Schools: Analysis of school impact is insufficient and understated. The simplified estimate method is

unrealistic, as proven by Stocklmeir’s continued overcrowding. This development unfairly and significantly

impacts current residents.

Trees: The tree plans are inconsistent with Sunnyvale’s tree policies. “Saving” a single oak tree yet predicting it

will be damaged is a farce. Replacement trees won’t provide equivalent canopy. Sunnyvale needs uniform

ordinances that are not applied to the distraction of homeowners and at the whim of developers.

Health and Safety: This oversized development on Sunnyvale’s busiest corner will reduce visibility and

increase sound and pollution. It will be a visual distraction to drivers.

Traffic: The intersection has critical traffic issues, and other plans along Wolfe must be considered in the

analysis. Or will Sunnyvale “solve” this issue simply by adding flashing “Slow Down/Heavy Traffic” over the

intersection like on other roads? (These signs are an ineffective, wasteful embarrassment for our city.)

Transit: A development of this size is suitable for an already developed transit corridor. This corner does not

meet that description.

City Planning: No buildings in that area are taller than 3 stories, and this building should not join a growing

precedent for woefully placed developments plopped haphazardly across our city. Where is our city's previously

touted long term vision for our future?


B57-01

B57-02

B57-03

B57-04

B57-05

B57-06

B57-07

Site Suitability: The aesthetics of the project do not negate the fact that the development is too large for the

planned area. Sunnyvale does have other areas with more open land, taller surrounding buildings, away from an

impacted intersection, where these plans would be suitable.

Respectfully,

Teri Archer

B57-08

Hello, Thanks for the clarification; I think you mentioned it in less detail toward the end of our telephone conversation a few weeks ago. The DEIR appears adequate on the face of it and I don't feel familiar enough with the instrument to comment on its adequacy. I had one concern, however, and that is with the use of the "less than significant" or "LTS" designation throughout. I'm unclear about criteria used to establish LTS status. Where statutory or regulatory mandates or regulations exist it appears a simple matter to apply these directly as intended. Some areas appear more subjective than others if only by arbitrary inclusion or exclusion. For example, consideration is given to obstruction of vistas and lines of sight, etc. but little, outside of zoning, is given to the "goodness of fit" of a seven story structure in a neighborhood with single and two story buildings. The complex will have 153 units intended to house 400 individuals. Given the high cost to rent or purchase housing in the area and the expansion of local technology firms, it appears wholly realistic to anticipate much higher densities than stated. There will be added stress on traffic, parking and the school systems. Considering traffic alone, I don't think the current triangular configuration is adequate to the task even with proposed modifications on the El Camino corridor. It was fine during the days, years ago when I recall literally, chickens crossing the road, but no longer. I view this development, as proposed, as nothing short of a nightmare. At a minimum building height should be limited to two stories. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Best Wishes, L. Nakano, Ph.D. -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 5/9/16, Noren Caliva-Lepe <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: RE: Butcher's Corner Draft EIR - Clarification To: [email protected] Date: Monday, May 9, 2016, 12:03 PM Community Members: I understand that there has been some confusion about the purpose of the Butcher’s Corner Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was released for a 45-day comment period starting on April 8, 2016 and ending on May 23, 2016. The purpose of this email is to provide general information about the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to clarify the decision-making process for considering the proposed project. CEQA was enacted in 1970 and requires local government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a project, prior to taking action on the project. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA. EIRs are intended to provide an objective analysis of the environmental impacts of a project, and is only one tool to help inform decision-makers. During the public comment period of the DEIR, it is helpful to staff to receive comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. For instance, have the potential impacts been adequately considered? Is the data used in the analysis accurate? Is a reasonable range of alternatives to the project considered? After the public comment period, comments related to the DEIR will be compiled and responses will be prepared. Responses to comments will become part of the Final EIR. Public hearings to consider the Final EIR will then be held, ultimately going before the City Council for final certification. It is important to note that an EIR does not approve or disapprove a project, but rather helps to support informed decision-making. Separate actions to consider the project itself will also be required. In these actions, other non-CEQA related impacts may be considered, such as consistency with design guidelines, parking, etc. The City Council may decide to certify the EIR, but


B58-01

may still decide to deny the project or ask for modifications if it does not meet certain community standards. I hope this provides clarification. More information about CEQA can be found at the link below. Please let me know if you have any questions. http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/CDD/Planning/Planning%20Library/CEQAInfo.pdf Regards,Noren_______________________________Noren Caliva-Lepe, Senior Planner Community Development DepartmentCity of Sunnyvale Phone: (408) [email protected] Department of Community Development is innovative in promoting sustainable development while enhancing the economy, community character and quality of life in Sunnyvale.Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

Holly Lofgren 5-21-16

Comments Regarding Inadequacy of DEIR for Butchers Corner The basis for the DEIR review is described in the following section. This letter delineates how the document was inadequately prepared in regards to each of the tests mentioned below:

2.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of Sunnyvale, as Lead Agency, related to:

Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. Whether the identified mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides those

Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant

impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic objectives.

How the DEIR is inadequate

1) Number or residents. This statistic is the basis for much of the remainder of the DEIR. The derivation of the figures are absent from the report.

The report states that the number of residents is expected to be ~400 based on 2.61 persons per unit. This figure is completely unsubstantiated by the DEIR. In fact, there are 465 bedrooms in the proposed development.*1 The DEIR must include a realistic basis for now many people would live in a new apartment complex or use worst case figure, not a best case figure, in lieu of other information.

2) Aesthetics. The report brushed off aesthetics and tries to minimize this issue in all

ways possible.

a) The report states in the Executive Summary that “It was determined that development of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts – in the following topic areas and therefore, impacts related to these criteria are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR”: Aesthetics Not substantially damage scenic resources. The report claims that since you cannot always see the mountains from El Camino Real, therefore, a seven story building that would block these views to a greater degree is of no significant consequence. You can, in fact, often see the mountains from El Camino Real and the photos Playworks chose were biased.

1 Seven one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, 77 three bedroom units, 38 four bedroom units and one five bedroom unit.


B59-01

B59-02

B59-03


b) AES-2 “The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.” “increased heights would be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area.” This statement is simply not true. The document tries to make an argument that because future development would present a different comparison, this site should be evaluated against an assumed future scenario. This would seem to be unfair and a very poor method to judge the current conditions. It seems like a circular argument and should be eliminated.

c) The report states: “While this chapter analyzes the aesthetic effects of the proposed project, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) adopted in 2013, the aesthetic impacts of residential or mixed use projects located on an infill site in a “transit priority area” “shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” “Infill site” is defined as a lot in an urban area that has been previously developed”. “As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project site is currently developed with residential land uses”. In no interpretation of this language could Playworks conclude that this property is “in fill. In no interpretation of the language could Playworks conclude that this is “an urban area that has been previously developed”. In no interpretation of the language could Playworks conclude that “the site is currently developed with residential land uses”. The land was zoned agricultural by the county at the time the land was annexed by the city and was not developed. It consists of a farm house and an orchard. These assertions must be stripped form the document and therefore, aesthetics must be considered and evaluated as part of the final DEIR. In that needed analysis the blocking of the view of the mountains would necessarily have to be included. In that analysis, the juxtaposition of a seven story building next to nearby two story buildings and across the street form one story buildings have to be further evaluated.

3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. This area is inadequately studied and is missing key information.

a) Section 4.7 Hydrology problems “Chapter 16.62, Prevention of Flood Damage. This chapter applies to all areas of special flood hazard (i.e., 100‐year floodplain) within the City. A development permit must be obtained and reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator before new construction, substantial improvements or development (including the placement of prefabricated buildings and manufactured homes) begin within any area of special flood hazard. The chapter also contains construction standards that must be implemented within the 100‐year floodplain to protect buildings and improvements from flood damage.”

The DEIR failed to acknowledge that the Santa Clara Valley Water District classifies the area on East Fremont west of Butcher’s Corner as a flood prone area. Lack of flood control at this site could result in damage to neighbor’s properties, or street flooding that would further impact traffic, an environmental impact. Additionally, neighbors at the Tapadero Condo unit reported this problem to the developer in “neighbor meetings” in 2104 (witnessed by the attendees) citing that some of the condos are “sinking”. The DEIR does not adequately address how run off will be handled given that the site has an extreme amount of impervious surface area.

B59-03cont.

B59-04


b) Thus, the following impacts listed in the DEIR have not been adequately covered or mitigated.

“EM‐10.1 Consider the impacts of surface runoff as part of land use and development decisions and implement BMPs to minimize the total volume and rate of runoff of waste quality and quantity (hydro modification) of surface runoff as part of land use and development decisions.” “EM‐10.2 Consider the ability of a land parcel to detain excess storm water runoff in flood prone areas and require incorporation of appropriate controls. Require the incorporation of appropriate stormwater treatment and control measures for new and redevelopment regulated projects and/or any sites that may reasonably be considered to cause or contribute to the pollution of the stormwater Municipal Regional Permit.” “EM‐10.3 Require the incorporation of appropriate stormwater treatment and control measures for industrial and commercial facilities as identified in the stormwater Municipal Regional Permit.”

4) Traffic, Traffic Circulation and Traffic Safety

The DEIR states: “It was determined that development of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts – in the following topic areas and therefore, impacts related to these criteria are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR”: Transportation and Circulation Traffic Safety was barely mentioned in the entire report

a) The Area of Controversy was misstated in item 2.5 as “Vehicular Circulation with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety, potential neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking” And in Trans -3 : The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections). This is incorrect. Vehicular safety was erroneously not mentioned in under “Area of Controversy” and the area not studied.

The U-turns and lane changing anticipated on Fremont Ave. was a key objection to the project from the outset, and the EIR dismissed this issue out of hand. This traffic condition must be studied!

b) Trans 3 – Project Access Driveways “The project would be accessed via a single driveway on East

Fremont Avenue”. The report states use of a Caltrans standard of 300 safe stopping distance. This key point of traffic safety and traffic circulation was barely addressed in the DEIR. City of

B59-05

B59-06

B59-07

B59-08


Sunnyvale Principal Transportation Engineer, Carol Shariat, stated in an email2, based upon an evaluation of a printed document provided by the applicant, that the proposed project barely reaches the minimum Caltrans standard. Given the proximity to a very unusual and highly impacted traffic configuration at this multiple intersection and the lack of any visible physical verification of measurements, together with the expectation of many U-turns, this issue must be much more aggressively mitigated!!!

5) Cumulative Traffic. Hexagon omitted significant new developments and well understated

cumulative traffic impacts in its analysis.

4.1.1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS CONSIDERED

c) “The City has identified several projects that are evaluated in conjunction with the proposed project in this Draft EIR. These are listed in Table 4‐1 and identified on Figure 4‐1.”

“1010 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road, 1500 Partridge Avenue, 590 West El Camino Real, 861 East El

Camino Real, 280 Santa Ana Court, 701‐729 East Evelyn Avenue and 915 De Guigne Drive”

This list is missing: a) Development at Cupertino Village (Wolfe and Homestead) b) Gateway Village (Kohl’s Plaza), c) Hamptons remodel (Wolfe and 280) d) Landbank (Central an Wolfe), e) Hotel (Wolfe and El Camino), f) 803 W El Camino Real, g) 1080 Stuart Drive, h) 1111 W. El Camino Real, i) 1205 W. El Camino Real, j) 1313 S. Wolfe Rd, k) 598 W. El Camino Real, l) 725 S. Fair Oaks Road, m) 777 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd, n) 850 E El Camino Real, o) 830 E. El Camino Real, p) 861 E. El Camino Real, q) 970 W. El Camino Real, r) 1008 E. El Camino Real

d) Additionally, since we now know that the tenant for the Landbank project will be Apple

Computer, it would be logical to assume that there will be more back and forth traffic on Wolfe 2 “From the edge of the proposed driveway to the existing Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 320 feet. When you include the right-turn lane, the distance between the edge of the proposed driveway to the new Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 300 feet. However, it is more common to provide distances measured from the centerlines. Thus, from the centerline of the proposed driveway to existing Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 340 feet. When you include the right-turn lane, the distance from the centerline of the proposed driveway to new Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 325 feet. Also in terms of the Caltrans standard referenced in the EIR, this relates to stopping sight distance from the proposed driveway to a public street. The stopping sight distance is a function of the speed limit of the roadway. In this case, Fremont Road's posted speed limit is 40 mph. Based on Caltrans standards, the optimal stopping sight distance along Fremont Road would be approximately 300 feet. In this case, the best manual to provide guidance on the stopping sight distance matter was the Caltrans Design Manual.”

B59-08cont.

B59-09

B59-08cont.


Road. The revised DEIR should include the special additional traffic that will result from this circumstance or state how it will be mitigated and how that mitigation is legally required (for balance as Hexagon has eagerly included the legal precedence for issues that favor the projects approval).

e) The original Apple 2 traffic analysis (also prepared by Hexagon) underestimated the impact to

Wolfe Road. Since that time, Apple 2 now says they are expecting 18,000 employees and 18% of that traffic will be utilizing Wolfe Road. These updated figures from the Apple 2 plans need to be re-planned into Hexagon’s figures. A major factor not considered by Hexagon is the cut through traffic that will flow towards the BC site in order to avoid the Wolfe and Homestead intersection. They only considered cut through traffic that would flow out of the BC site, becoming cut through traffic. They did not adequately look at the impacts to Dartshire, Mallard, Carlisle, or the Wolfe and Maria intersection all mentioned and listed in writing at the scoping meeting on 4/23/15.

f) Additional traffic should also be considered for parents to drive children to school. The DEIR did

not adequately calculate the number of elementary children that would be housed at the proposed development. These updated figures should translate into additional two trips a day for those households which should be included in all the affected intersections.

g) The Under Cumulative Conditions: The result of the level of service calculations show that the intersection of S. Wolfe/East Fremont Avenue (#2) would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under both Cumulative plus Project and Cumulative Without Project conditions. However, since the proposed project would not increase the critical-movement delay by 4 or more seconds and the v/c by 0.01 or more, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impact at this intersection. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE THIS RESULT. With further, complete analysis, I believe this intersection will degrade to ‘F’ as predicted in the city’s study more than 12 years ago.

h) “TRANS‐1: The proposed project would contribute to unacceptable operation at the intersection of Kingfisher Way and East Fremont Avenue (#5) under Existing, Background, and Cumulative conditions. There are no mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.11, Shown in table 4.11-6, the LOS will go from 60.3 to 92.9 Am and from 67.9 to 93.7 PM. From F to F. A traffic lite was considered infeasible.” This is the only environmental impact that Playworks is willing to admit would be significant and remains unmitigated! More should be said about this intersection and its impact to surrounding intersections.

i) The DEIR states in 2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY “The City of Sunnyvale issued a Notice of Preparation for the EIR on March 26, 2015 and held a scoping meeting on April 23, 2015 to receive scoping comments. During the 30‐day scoping period for this EIR, which concluded on April 27, 2015, responsible agencies and interested members of the public were invited to submit comments as to the scope and content of the EIR. The comments received focused primarily on the following issues: Vehicular Circulation with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety, potential neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking”

B59-09cont.

B59-10

B59-11

B59-12

B59-13

B59-14


This is not a wide-enough description to be factually correct. Members of the public focused on the amount of traffic congestion and the safety of traffic movement. Thus, the DEIR is inaccurate in its assumptions and failed to properly state this concern.

5) Emergency Vehicles – the DEIR did not adequately address how emergency vehicles will access the site in a timely manner. The argument seemed to be that Sunnyvale is poor at response time now so that standard will be upheld.

4.10.1 POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

“SN‐3.1 Provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies.”

“SN‐3.5 Facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.”

6) Pedestrian and Bicycle Access – This area of the report contains circular arguments. The report states:

a) “the project includes a street dedication along El Camino Real and the construction of a bike lane. The construction of the bike lane would involve painting a striped and/or stenciled lane for one‐way travel on El Camino Real.” If this is the case then that would involve the removal of a traffic land and if a traffic lane is to be removed then then that impact is not part of the DEIR and must be included.

b) “Moreover, per the Sunnyvale Bicycle Plan adopted in 2006, parking on East El Camino Real,

adjacent to the project site, is proposed to be removed, which would improve bicycle transportation on that corridor.” There is no parking on El Camino Real adjacent to this property as it is in a turning lane – there for bicycle transportation could not be improved due to the removal of street parking.

7) Public Services – Several subject areas are lacking from the DEIR including park space.

4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES

a) The DEIR did not adequately provide an analysis of park space needed for such a large apartment complex. The on-site amenities are not suitable for the likely population of small children who would live there (see discussion of CUSD and school-aged children). The nearest park is more than one mile away. Therefore, the DEIR should conclude that more amenities for children should be provided to prevent additional back and forth car trips to park land.

B59-14cont.

B59-15

B59-16

B59-17


b) All resultant additional trip planning that would be needed for the DEIR to adequately predict anticipated traffic from the proposed development should naturally, be built into the air quality statistics and GHG emissions that would logically be increased once a realistic number of trips associated with the proposed project is calculated.

c) Section 4.10 of the DEIR should state that the CUSD has stated their opposition to the proposed project.

8) El Camino Precise Plan – The report cherry picked from the El Camino Precise Plan and failed to cover major components of adherence to that plan. If Playworks is going to consider the adherence of the EL Camino Precise Plan in its analysis, then they should include all aspects of it, not just those that favor a large project. See specific sections below:

ECPP: “Requires no access to commercial uses from the residential neighborhoods”. The proposal has no El Camino access so this violates major condition of ECPP. In the ECPP, Butcher’s Triangle is used as a foundation when landscaping the other corners so this would indicate that more trees should be preserved on Butcher’s Corner.

Design Guidelines ignored:

DESIGN GUIDELINES City of Sunnyvale 4.1.3 Locate service access entries and circulation paths to minimize conflicts with shoppers’ car and pedestrian movements. Avoid service access entries from side streets that primarily serve adjacent residential neighborhoods


DESIGN GUIDELINES City of Sunnyvale BASIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

d. Projects located on corner parcels should incorporate major design features on the intersection corner.

1. Buildings located at these corner locations are strongly encouraged. Buildings located on corners should generally be limited to two stories in height, but one story is preferred.

B59-18cont.

B59-19

B59-20

B59-21

B59-22


3.4.3 SITE ACCESS Provide access to parking for retail and service uses directly from El Camino Real, with the number of access points limited in order to minimize disruption to the smooth flow of traffic on the street. a. No access to commercial uses from adjacent residential neighborhood streets.

3.4.4 SITE LANDSCAPING Use abundant and attractive landscaping to soften the impact of large structures and parking lots, to define the street edge, and to buffer adjacent low density residential uses.

3.4.7 NEIGHBORHOOD INTERFACES Design and operate developments along El Camino Real with respect for neighbors in adjacent residential areas.

9) Ordinances - The City has ordinances which affect this propose development. The DEIR failed

to adequately analyze the effect of the proposed project’s environmental impacts in regards to pedestrian safety, pedestrian experience or traffic visibility. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the development – facing the neighborhood – is not adequately addressed in the DEIR.

From PRC Report from City Planning: CODE DEVIATIONS - The following are code deviations being requested (by the developer): 1. El Camino Real Front Setback (Building B): 0 permitted only for the first floor retail/office portion of the building and 15' is required for the remaining first floor and stories above. 2. Fremont Ave Front Setback (Building A): 8', where 15' is required 3. Distance Between Buildings (Buildings A & B): 38' minimum is required 4. Distance Between Buildings (Townhomes): 26' minimum is required. 5. Landscaped Frontage Strip (all street frontages, measured from back of sidewalk): 15' is required

Throughout City Planning, the city calls for walkable neighborhoods , yet the proposed project has sidewalks that are just three feet wide!! This was not addressed by the DEIR!!!!!

The set-back at Fremont Ave is currently less than the set-back on El Camino Real. However, the proposed project faces the residential Fremont avenue side. Either the DEIR must recommend that the project be turned around by 180 degrees or the DEIR must show an environmental need for greater set-backs. The reports assertion that buildings of these heights with very limited set-backs and three foot sidewalks is ‘walkable’ or ‘pedestrian friendly’ is simply not reasonable.

The juxtaposition of the proposed development faces the neighborhood. The outdoor amenities area is not adequately private or contained enough for such a large number of people. The swimming pool area is very close to the street and should be located in the interior of the site to prevent noise from travelling into the neighborhood.

B59-23

B59-24

B59-25

B59-26

B59-27

B59-28


10) General Comments My final objection to this DEIR is that is not a DEIR - it is a policy document. Not only does it analyze the environmental conditions, very poorly and selectively, but it also strays into a biased set of policy directives. I found this objectionable. The report examines State Law and the Sunnyvale General Plan to make arguments regarding how the reader should weigh the contents of the environmental portions of the report, by cherry-picking policy statements. It mentions every conceivable agency in the area to back up statements favorable to this large proposed project, including the standards of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as an argument against ‘no project’. The study refers to Butchers Corner being part of the El Camino Mixed-Use Corridor PDA (see figure 3.5) – it is not – it is in the El Camino Precise Plan – City Council has not voted on the El Camino Real Corridor Plan (they didn’t even get the name of the plan under study correct, they were so anxious to rename it with the words ‘mixed-use’ in the name). Finally, and most disturbing, – the study used Hexagon’s traffic analysis - the same company as the Apple 2 traffic study which declared that many nearby Sunnyvale intersections would see no significant traffic from the Apple 2 campus. A balanced and objective analysis was simply not performed. Examples of this bias were listed under my section on the EL Camino Precise plan.

The City should chastise Hexagon and Playworks for producing such a report. The City Council should direct staff to produce a thorough report, via these contractors or via new contractors and in no case should they bring forward such a biased, incomplete or inaccurate report to the City Council!

B59-29

Dear Noren Caliva-Lepe,

My mom owns the Linden Arms Apartments located at 940 Linden Ave. in Sunnyvale. I'm the property

manager at Linden Arms. We also own a duplex at 559 Mozart Court in Sunnyvale. Both of these properties are

very close to the proposed Butchers Corner project.

I have some concerns about the Butchers Corner development proposal. First, buildings that are 5 and 7 stories

at this location would be an eye sore. There are no other buildings over 3 stories within at least a mile radius of

this location. I think that any development there should be limited to 3 stories, although the city of Sunnyvale

could go out on a limb and raise the limit of the towers to 4 stories. According to

http://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/108205/sunnyvale-ca-usa, the tallest building in

Sunnyvale is 6 stories. So the current proposal, if approved would instantly make the proposed Butchers Corner

7 story tower the largest building in Sunnyvale, dwarfing nearby buildings. It would look out of place at this

location.

The other concern I have is the fact that the Fremont-Wolfe-El Camino street cross sections are heavily

congested with traffic for the much of the day and night. I drive through here everyday so I see it first hand.

There is a complex set of street lights that handle the traffic for these 3 streets, due to the fact that Fremont road

ends so close to El Camino Real. The traffic engineers who set up the timing of all these lights for these 3

intertwining streets did an excellent job, but the system has its limits. I think that such a large development

would significantly impede the traffic flow in this area, leading to much more severe traffic gridlock. If the

development was cut in half from its current proposed state (which would occur if the towers were downsized to

3 or 4 stories), then this escalation will at least be substantially mitigated.

Thanks for your consideration,

Bryan Epis


B60-03

B60-04

B60-02

B60-01

To: Sunnyvale Planning Commission and City Councilmembers: From Rose-Marie Twu, Sunnyvale Re: Input to Butchers Corner Project Date: May 22, 2016 We residents recognize the need to provide housing, to the extent it is balanced by good traffic solutions, pleasing architectures, and other factors. To say: ‘I’m so glad I live here’ is proof of quality of life. Problems with Butchers Corner Project: Traffic: the corner of El Camino/Wolfe/Fremont was listed many years ago in a Sunnyvale quarterly report as one of the most difficult for traffic. Since then traffic has increased to a point of contention, and will worsen with 2 Apple campuses north and south plus other business buildup such as the Hampton Inn. My gym classmate rides her bike to gym from Santa Clara to 24HourFitness at Fremont/SunnyvaleSaratoga Rd. She said if she obeys the traffic lights on either Fremont or El Camino by Wolfe, she would’ve been killed many times. My car was hit rear-right on Eastbound Fremont by a car from a side street. Another time on Westbount Fremont I averted a collision by veering left onto the Eastbound when a car came out full speed from a side street and no time for me to stop. Both times were within the first block West of Wolfe, and not recorded in the traffic study. Imagine the mess after the project. There’re factors the traffic study cannot measure, including the stress of having to maneuver that corner without bumping into someone/something. Blindly following a traffic measure leads us to believe things are good on paper, unmeasured high numbers of near-hits/misses emphasize a difficult corner. It is plain irresponsible to have such a huge project without thinking through and implementing traffic solutions. Architecture: this corner can be an acclaimed landmark showing off the collaboration of humans with nature to produce awesomeness, and put Sunnyvale on the map! Or the reverse, to put Sunnyvale on the map as show of eyesore and lack of planning. The 2 huge tall buildings juxtaposed at an odd angle as proposed must be a mistake. They are way too high and too big for the neighborhood, they resemble garden tools thrown in the corner of my garage, but at a giant’s scale for all to see and feel the teeth-grind for eons to come. Proposed are Soviet-era buildings thrown in to take care of the masses (right), but gone awry. It would’ve been better if the 2 building at much reduced height and size follow the angles of the lot or form a straight cross. What about the view to the hills, setbacks, trees to preserve and soften the buildings, or schools and parks for the residents. Sure we can take the ABAG grants and build high rises, but not at this corner when the traffic and architecture and other issues are all at odds. In good conscience, the project is too much for this corner and no one can honestly say ‘I’m so glad I live here’ any more. Sincerely,

Rose-Marie Twu


B61-03

B61-04

B61-02

B61-01

Dear Ms. Caliva-Lepe: I attended the public hearing on May 9th of the Planning Commission. My thoughts are as follows on the proposed project: 1. Granted we need more housing; especially affordable housing in Sunnyvale, but the Butcher’s Corner is not a suitable

location for a project of the size and scope proposed. 2 The proposed heights are too high and would thus create a negative impact on the area. 3. Traffic generated by this over-sized project would be untenable. Currently it is a big problem. 4. The nearest elementary school, Stocklmeir has the most elementary students in the Cupertino Union School District at

@1200 students. It has ten kindergartens this school year. How will it accomodate the influx of students from a project of this

size? Has the developer worked out a plan with the school district to ameliorate the effects of his development? 5. This development would sacrifice one of the last orchards in Sunnyvale. Saving one oak tree doesn’t preserve our

agricultural heritage.

Sincerely, Linda S. Barrett


B62-01

B62-03

B62-06

B62-04

B62-05

B62-02

•

•

•

•

•

• •


B63-01

B63-02

B63-03

B63-04

B63-05

B63-06

B63-07

B63-08

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

B63-09

B63-10

B63-11

B63-12

B63-13

B63-14

B63-15

B63-16

B63-17

B63-18

B63-19

B63-20

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

B63-20cont.

B63-21

B63-22

B63-23

B63-24

B63-25

B63-27

B63-28

B63-29

B63-26

•

•

•

B63-29cont.

B63-30

B63-31

B63-32

Dear Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and Council- I'm writing to provide feedback on the Butcher's corner DEIR. I've lived in Sunnyvale for 30 years, 19 of which have been as a homeowner and resident in Tapadera Townhomes, directly to the west of the proposed development. So this development will have a negative impact on our quality of life and home values. After sitting in many meetings with Mr. Vidovich and witnessing how supportive our City is of developers, I am quite concerned. The last significant meeting on Butcher's Corner that I attended was the failed "community meeting" where Mr. Vidovich "winged it" and I was shocked at how ill-prepared he was to discuss the merits of his proposal. Frankly, I was also offended that he wasted our time. That leads me to believe he would not be a good neighbor during construction and managing the apartments. I don't think he cares about our neighborhood and he has not taken the time to understand. Furthermore, every time he speaks he changes his plans: originally these would be $1.5M flats that would increase our home prices, now they will be apartments. Up until recently, Sunnyvale was a desirable place to live. That's why people live here and why companies must locate here vs. the central valley, LA, etc... Residents matter. You are changing the demographics and you will kill the golden goose because many of us will move. Please consider that as you make decisions. For now, I will focus on the DEIR. Summary: The DEIR is not objective. It reads like a developer's proposal vs. what is sensible for the environment and community. The site can not support the development as proposed. It is obvious to the community and is why it has been such a struggle to move forward with it in a timely fashion. Yes, Mr. Vidovich has some property rights, but he bought that property speculating that the community would approve the project. The rights and quality of life for existing residents and homeowners should not take a back seat to Mr. Vidovich . Please do your best to look out for the interest of residents. I believe that the "no project" alternative would be best for our community. Details: 1. Resident count: DEIR estimates potential resident count at 400 for 153 units. Given the size of many of the 153 units (3 and 4 bed rooms) and observable demographics for the area in 2016 (multiple families, multi generations, etc) the actual number of residents will be 600-800. This is a key point and the DEIR needs correction.


B64-01

B64-02

2. Parking impact to neighborhood was ignored. The amount of parking on the site can not support the number of residents and visitors. - Fremont has very limited parking. Kingfisher Way has impacted parking after 6PM. - During construction it is estimated that there will be 150 workers. Where will they park? - We have very limited on site parking in our town home complex, some of the residents depend on that space to park for both themselves and visitors. The development as proposed will encroach on that parking in addition to residents on Kingfisher Way. 3. Trees: There are several healthy oak trees on the corner of Wolfe and El Camino. The plans call for tearing out all of the trees but the one in the center. The other trees should be kept. Those are on par with the ones in the park across Wolfe and are key features for the city. I can imagine the city telling Mr. Vidovich to install some sort of public art ... let's keep the trees instead of having some sort of brightly colored sheet metal "art". 4. Impact on the Tapadera townhomes to the west of the proposed development was ignored. In addition to the negative impact on the greater community, this development will have a substantial negative impact on our development. Including: - Noise during construction: I worked 1 block from a huge development as it was built. There were times we could not concentrate due to the noise. We will be living much closer than one block to this development. - Construction traffic: Traffic flow for the trucks leaving the project need to be discussed. I envision times of day when we can not leave our homes because of the traffic. This was not considered for Fremont Ave and Kingfisher Terr - Air quality: As discussed in the DEIR, there will be AQ issues. It will directly impact our homes. 5. Traffic: DEIR states that "The proposed project would contribute to unacceptable operation at the intersection of Kingfisher Way and East Fremont Avenue (#5) under Existing, Background and Cumulative conditions." This by itself should kill the project as it is has been proposed. - Outdated data used throughout the doc and do not reflect the development (current and planned) in Sunnyvale and Cupertino. - Pedestrian safety at Kingfisher Way and Fremont was neglected. Many people cross there to go to the markets or to the parks. It will be even more unsafe for walkers should that development go in. - According to the DEIR impact on Kingfisher Way can not be mitigated, even if a slightly smaller development is implemented and a traffic signal installed. This topic is near and dear to me. Kingfisher Terr (our street) is on the same side as the development. If the council grants a variance to the traffic issue residents will have even more very unsafe conditions. - Hexagon has a poor track record, a more reputable company should be selected. 6. Schools: The info in the DEIR is outdated and states so on page 4.10-11, yet the table presents otherwise. A casual reader would draw the incorrect conclusion that schools would not be negatively impacted by this development. Furthermore, on page 865 of the appendix Chris Jew states clearly that the district is opposed to the development as it stands now. That info did not end up in the DEIR from what I can see. 7. Aesthetics: The DEIR is dismissive of the aesthetic impact of this project on the area. AES-2 “The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.”“increased heights would be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area.” This is not factual. In order to make sense, our two story homes and the neighboring apartments would need to be torn down and rebuilt as multi-story buildings. The DEIR needs to take into account the existing neighborhood.

B64-03

B64-04

B64-05

B64-06

B64-07

B64-08

B64-09

B64-10

B64-11

B64-12

B64-14

B64-15

B64-16

B64-13

-The high rise apartments will block views of the mountains. Next time you drive southward on Wolfe, look around and imagine a high rise building on the corner. Again, lack of appreciation for the area. 8. Sewer: The DEIR minimizes impact to the sewer system. We have had sewer problems due to a fault in the city lines. Adding 600-800 people will have a huge impact on the sewers. I do not believe anybody actually looked into this issue. 9. Projects in development: The DEIR does not list all the planned development in the area. For example: Landbank (Central an Wolfe) is currently under construction and my understanding is that Apple will be the tenant. That will have a huge impact on us both due to access to 280 and also the Apple 2 campus. Several proposed hotels nearby and the development down at the Kohl's site were also ignored. It's easy to look up that info, the EIR should include ALL the major proposed and implemented projects in the area. 10. Cumulative Impact: Page 246 claims that cumulative projects have a less than significant impact on the community. This is NOT true. Traffic is increasing already, my travel time from work to home has increased by 25% in the past 2-3 years due to the uncontrolled growth in our area. Noise, crime, school impact, etc. will all go up. 11. Project alternatives: Table 5-1 on page 359 presents a summary of alternatives to the proposed plans. The "no project" alternative meets most of the criteria. This alternative should be considered: Since this is a key "node" in our city, what better feature than an orchard and the heritage oaks on the site? A year or so I could have considered townhomes at this location, but (as I stated earlier) after seeing Mr. Vidovich in action and learning more about his past behavior I am strongly opposed to this development. 12. Open space/park space: Using the correct population of 600-800 residents, there will be about 200-300 children living in the apartments. Where will they play? There will be increased traffic to Panama and Ortega Parks, that needs to be taken into account. 13. Distance from corner to project driveway: There's not enough distance from the driveway to Wolfe. There many days when we can't pull out of our driveway due to all the cars turning right on to Fremont. The development driveway will be 300 feet from that corner. People will pull out of the driveway and get hit. This needs to be looked at. Final notes: A lot of planning errors have been made recently in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino, etc.. Please do not add this project to the list of mistakes. Let's get this one right! Thank you, Don Haislet Resident of Tapadera Townhomes

B64-17

B64-18

B64-19

B64-20

B64-21

B64-22

B64-23

B64-24


From: meenakshi jain <>

Date: Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:43 PM

Subject: Butcher corner development

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dear Sunnyvale city council member

We hope that you hear our concern and work on it,

I live on Bobwhite and school traffic already at dangerous lave, I am unable to back the car and can't have my

kids walk to school due to heavy traffic, Stockelmeir is heavly crowded elementary school with capacity of

more than 1200 having this apt complex will make this neighbor hood unlivable for residents like us.

Further having 7 story tall building in Sunnyvale residential area in not acceptable for all of us, it will be the

tallest building in entire neighborhood will cause unreasonable environmental harm

I would urge you and request that you reconsider this project

thanks


B65-01


From: Anuj Aggarwal <>


Subject: Re: Butcher's Corner Development

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Cc: Ruchika Aggarwal <>

I strongly oppose the current proposal for this property and urge the Council to not approve this project.

Dear Sunnyvale City Council Members:

I am a resident of Sunnyvale and am writing to oppose the proposed Butcher’s Corner Apartments project. Many neighbors I spoke to share

the same concerns. I have read the draft Environment Impact Report (EIR) report and have multiple concerns:

1. Schools are already overcrowded. In the report, from page # 4.10-11 onwards, it states that “Stocklmeir School is already at capacity and

Cupertino Middle School is over capacity”. I understand these two schools will be the home school for this new development. Yes, with this

new development the school district (CUSD) will be eligible for developer fees and in the 2014/15 school year, a total of $745,916 was

collected in developer fees, of those fees, $560,323 was expended during the year for modular classrooms to accommodate growth at

several of the CUSD schools, which included $41,074 for Stocklmeir Elementary and $43,261 for Nimitz Elementary(quoting from the

report page #4.10-14). But as a resident of this area, this solution is not acceptable to me that with every new development, the school district

keeps adding modular classrooms.

2. The proposed building is too high for this neighborhood. 7 story apartment building does not belong or fit off of Fremont Avenue. There

are no other residential buildings in or around Sunnyvale – even in downtown Sunnyvale that is this high. A maximum of three stories have

been allowed and that is what should be considered for this project. Not to mention, that the height of the buildings will have a severe impact

on the amount of direct sun light that the neighbors can enjoy.

3. Too many heritage trees will be destroyed as part of this project. A few years ago, when we tried to significantly trim/or remove a

heritage Oak tree from our yard, Sunnyvale City staff denied that request. But now it seems like the rules are different for private

development.

4. The traffic impact will be too great along Fremont Avenue and the adjoining streets. The intersection of Kingfisher Way and E Fremont

Ave is already at a substandard level of service (LOS) at F. The report states that with this project, “The northbound approach would continue

to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. Because the intersection would operate worse than the acceptable level of service and satisfy the

CA MUTCD peak‐hour volume signal warrant, the project’s impact on traffic operations is considered significant at the Kingfisher Way

and East Fremont Avenue (#5) intersection”. The Wolfe – El Camino-Fremont intersection is already one of the worst traffic congestion

areas in the City. The report also states that The results of the level of service calculations show that the intersection of South Wolfe

Road/East Fremont Avenue (#2) would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under both Cumulative Plus Project and

Cumulative Without Project conditions. However, since the proposed project would not increase the critical‐movement delay by 4 or more

seconds and the v/c by 0.01 or more, the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact at this intersection.

I strongly oppose the current proposal for this property and urge the Council to not approve this project.


B66-03

B66-04

B66-05

B66-06

B66-02

B66-01

SincerelyRuchika AggarwalBobolink Circle Resaurant


From: Helen Amick <>


Subject: Butchers Corner

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"

<[email protected]>

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I understand that the clock is ticking down on input for the proposed Butcher's Corner development and I

wanted to take a few minutes to briefly present my concerns. First, I am very concerned with thoroughness of

the Draft EIR. It seems that in the draft a number of key items were either glossed over or completely pushed

aside such as a thorough traffic assessment, the impact on schools, aesthetics, and the impact on trees/green

space including parks). By minimizing the thoroughness of study in these areas, it is easy to come to the

conclusion that the development will not have a substantially negative effect on our community, however, I

believe that the development as proposed will have a significant and lifestyle altering impact on our

community. I ask that you send this draft back for further study. In particular, I ask that the revised draft

present a much more detail and comprehensive look at the impact on both the total and student population and

at the specific impact on traffic and schools taking in to account not only this development, but putting it into

the context of all the other developments going on in Sunnyvale and along the Sunnyvale borders. I think the

methodology and conclusions to these numbers are significantly flawed. It may be easy to come to the

conclusion that any one development may have only a limited impact, but in reality we must look at the totality

of all the developments (approved and proposed) going on. At some point we will hit the tipping point where

our lifestyle is completely and unalterably changed. We need to make sure we make individual decisions in the

context of the whole and make sure we have plans to mitigate the negative consequences of development.

Additionally, as it specifically relates to Butchers Corner, I would like to request that you not change the zoning

on the property to residential 4 and that you maintain the limits on the building heights to three stories. In

addition, if the justification for this development is the El Camino Grand Boulevard Plan, then this development

should be facing El Camino and the entrance to the development be from El Camino and not Fremont Ave.

Fremont is a residential street and can bot handle the volume of additional traffic that this development will

generate. Additionally, if this development is approved in its current or similar form, it will just be the

justification for continued high density development along Fremont ave (including the single story

senior/nursing home housing just down the street.

Furthermore, as it relates to the specific development, I ask that we preserve the mature tree canopy and that we

make some provision for green or park space within the development. I also request that the sidewalks have

sufficient width and setback from the street to ensure safe walking paths. Ideally, there would be a walking path

cut through the property from Fremont to El Camino so that pedestrians can avoid walking along El Camino

and Wolfe as much as possible. I hope that you are able to take these factors into consideration.


B67-01

B67-02

B67-04

B67-05

B67-03

RespectfullyHelen AmickFloyd Ave.

I am writing regarding the Butchers Corner DEIR. I do not feel it does an adequate assessment at all. I have

made a few brief comments of my own, and am also including Holly Lofgren's more in depth analysis. I am

dismayed that Sunnyvale residents need to analyze the report so closely; I am hoping that the officials in

Sunnyvale care enough about Sunnyvale and its residents to look out for us ... but I am worried.

Here are a few elements that I am concerned about, in addition to Holly Lofgren's in depth analysis of the

report.

SCHOOLS: The analysis of school impact is severely understated. Just look at Stocklmeir's continued

overcrowding. that has been going on for years and years. This proposed development will severely impact

current residents and will not be good for the children in the area.

TREES: Please save all of the big trees, especially the oak trees. Replacing them with ornamental trees will not

provide nearly the canopy that provides much needed shade, beauty, and a vitally important part of our

environment I like to breathe clean air, and we need trees to help us there. In addition, the idea of "saving" a

single oak tree, but saying that it will most likely be damaged does not do anyone any good. Save the big trees!

CITY PLANNING: This proposed development is WAY too tall for the surrounding buildings in the area.

Most buildings are one to two stories tall. Nothing in this area is very tall. How can you justify allowing a 7

story tall building (or a 5 story tall building) in this area? I thought our city had a long term vision for future

growth.

HEALTH & SAFETY: This oversized development on an incredibly busy intersection in Sunnyvale will

increase noise and air pollution. I used to be proud to live in Sunnyvale (and have lived here for over 30 years),

but I am becoming woefully sad about Sunnyvale and its future.

TRAFFIC: The intersection of Fremont Avenue and Wolfe Road has critical traffic issues. It is a horrible

intersection to get through. There are many other developments which are also increasing traffic on Wolfe Road

(both the Apple campus in Cupertino and the Apple campus in north Sunnyvale both off of Wolfe Road, the

new private school that our council approved near Raynor Park, the new motels going in, as well as all of the

existing incredible traffic that is not easy to navigate already before any of these new projects go in! .. these all


B68-01

B68-02

B68-03

B68-04

B68-05

B68-06

must be considered in the traffic analysis. Have any of you tried to drive in this area during commute times? I encourage you to

come try it out. It is unsafe and way too busy.

TRANSIT: A development of this size is suitable for an already developed transit corridor. This corner does

not meet that description.

BICYCLE UNFRIENDLY: The area of Fremont and Wolfe is already incredibly unfriendly to bikers. By adding significant more traffic, it

will not be helped at all. Are you waiting for more residents to get killed before you care? Have any of you ever tried to bike up Wolfe, or

tried to bike from Fremont to Wolfe? I am an avid cyclist, and I will not risk my life there.

SITE SUITABILITY: The proposed development is simply too large for the planned area. The proposed development is more appropriate

for an area that already has tall surrounding buildings and is not at an impacted intersection. Butcher's Corner is simply not suitable for such

an enormous project.

I certainly hope that you truly care about our city and its residents.

Respectfully,

Jean Batryn

Below is Holly Lofgren's letter. She did an amazing job of outlining so many areas that are deficient in the

DEIR. I appreciate all of her effort and hope that our city representatives pay attention! I am in full support of

the items she brought up. Thank you for listening.

Comments Regarding Inadequacy of DEIR for Butchers Corner

The basis for the DEIR review is described in the following section. This letter delineates how the document was inadequately prepared in regards to each of the tests mentioned below:

2.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of Sunnyvale, as Lead Agency, related to:

♣ Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.

♣ Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.

♣ Whether the identified mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.

B68-06cont.

B68-07

B68-08

B68-09

B68-10

must be considered in the traffic analysis. Have any of you tried to drive in this area during commute times? I encourage you to

come try it out. It is unsafe and way too busy.

TRANSIT: A development of this size is suitable for an already developed transit corridor. This corner does

not meet that description.

BICYCLE UNFRIENDLY: The area of Fremont and Wolfe is already incredibly unfriendly to bikers. By adding significant more traffic, it

will not be helped at all. Are you waiting for more residents to get killed before you care? Have any of you ever tried to bike up Wolfe, or

tried to bike from Fremont to Wolfe? I am an avid cyclist, and I will not risk my life there.

SITE SUITABILITY: The proposed development is simply too large for the planned area. The proposed development is more appropriate

for an area that already has tall surrounding buildings and is not at an impacted intersection. Butcher's Corner is simply not suitable for such

an enormous project.

I certainly hope that you truly care about our city and its residents.

Respectfully,

Jean Batryn

Below is Holly Lofgren's letter. She did an amazing job of outlining so many areas that are deficient in the

DEIR. I appreciate all of her effort and hope that our city representatives pay attention! I am in full support of

the items she brought up. Thank you for listening.

Comments Regarding Inadequacy of DEIR for Butchers Corner

The basis for the DEIR review is described in the following section. This letter delineates how the document was inadequately prepared in regards to each of the tests mentioned below:

2.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of Sunnyvale, as Lead Agency, related to:

♣ Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.

♣ Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.

♣ Whether the identified mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.

ATTACHMENT # B68

♣ Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides those Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR.

♣ Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic objectives.

How the DEIR is inadequate

1) Number or residents. This statistic is the basis for much of the remainder of the

DEIR. The derivation of the figures are absent from the report. The report states that the number of residents is expected to be ~400 based on 2.61 persons per unit. This figure is completely unsubstantiated by the DEIR. In fact, there are 465 bedrooms in the proposed development.*[1] The DEIR must include a realistic basis for now many people would live in a new apartment complex or use worst case figure, not a best case figure, in lieu of other information.

2) Aesthetics. The report brushed off aesthetics and tries to minimize this issue in all ways

possible.

a) The report states in the Executive Summary that “It was determined that development of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts – in the following topic areas and therefore, impacts related to these criteria are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR”: Aesthetics Not substantially damage scenic resources. The report claims that since you cannot always see the mountains from El Camino Real, therefore, a seven story building that would block these views to a greater degree is of no significant consequence. You can, in fact, often see the mountains from El Camino Real and the photos Playworks chose were biased. b) AES-2 “The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.” “increased heights would be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area.” This statement is simply not true. The document tries to make an argument that because future development would present a different comparison, this site should be evaluated against an assumed future scenario. This would seem to be unfair and a very poor method to judge the current conditions. It seems like a circular argument and should be eliminated. c) The report states: “While this chapter analyzes the aesthetic effects of the proposed project, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) adopted in 2013, the aesthetic impacts of residential or mixed use projects located on an infill site in a “transit priority area” “shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” “Infill site” is defined as a lot in an urban area that has been previously developed”. “As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project site is currently developed with residential land uses”. In no interpretation of this language could Playworks conclude that this property is “in fill. In no interpretation of the language could Playworks conclude that this is “an urban area that has been previously developed”. In no interpretation of the language could Playworks conclude that “the site is currently developed with residential land uses”. The land was zoned agricultural by the county at the time the land was annexed by the city and was not developed. It consists of a farm house and an orchard.

These assertions must be stripped form the document and therefore, aesthetics must be considered and evaluated as part of the final DEIR. In that needed analysis the blocking of the view of the mountains would necessarily have to be included. In that analysis, the juxtaposition of a seven story building next to nearby two story buildings and across the street form one story buildings have to be further evaluated.

3) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. This area is inadequately studied and is

missing key information.

a) Section 4.7 Hydrology problems “Chapter 16.62, Prevention of Flood Damage. This chapter

applies to all areas of special flood hazard (i.e., 100‐year floodplain) within the City. A development permit must be obtained and reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator before new construction, substantial improvements or development (including the placement of prefabricated buildings and manufactured homes) begin within any area of special flood hazard. The chapter also contains construction standards that must be implemented within the 100‐year floodplain to protect buildings and improvements from flood damage.” The DEIR failed to acknowledge that the Santa Clara Valley Water District classifies the area on East Fremont west of Butcher’s Corner as a flood prone area. Lack of flood control at this site could result in damage to neighbor’s properties, or street flooding that would further impact traffic, an environmental impact. Additionally, neighbors at the Tapadero Condo unit reported this problem to the developer in “neighbor meetings” in 2104 (witnessed by the attendees) citing that some of the condos are “sinking”. The DEIR does not adequately address how run off will be handled given that the site has an extreme amount of impervious surface area. b) Thus, the following impacts listed in the DEIR have not been adequately covered or mitigated.

“EM‐10.1 Consider the impacts of surface runoff as part of land use and development decisions and implement BMPs to minimize the total volume and rate of runoff of waste quality and quantity (hydro modification) of surface runoff as part of land use and development decisions.” “EM‐10.2 Consider the ability of a land parcel to detain excess storm water runoff in flood prone areas and require incorporation of appropriate controls. Require the incorporation of appropriate stormwater treatment and control measures for new and redevelopment regulated projects and/or any sites that may reasonably be considered to cause or contribute to the pollution of the stormwater Municipal Regional Permit.” “EM‐10.3 Require the incorporation of appropriate stormwater treatment and control measures for industrial and commercial facilities as identified in the stormwater Municipal Regional Permit.”

4) Traffic, Traffic Circulation and Traffic Safety

The DEIR states: “It was determined that development of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts – in the following topic areas and therefore, impacts related to these criteria are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR”: Transportation and Circulation Traffic Safety was barely mentioned in the entire report

a) The Area of Controversy was misstated in item 2.5 as “Vehicular Circulation with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety, potential neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking” And in Trans -3 : The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections).

This is incorrect. Vehicular safety was erroneously not mentioned in under “Area of Controversy” and the area not studied.

The U-turns and lane changing anticipated on Fremont Ave. was a key objection to the project from the outset, and the EIR dismissed this issue out of hand. This traffic condition must be studied!

b) Trans 3 – Project Access Driveways “The project would be accessed via a single driveway on East Fremont Avenue”. The report states use of a Caltrans standard of 300 safe stopping distance. This key point of traffic safety and traffic circulation was barely addressed in the DEIR. City of Sunnyvale Principal Transportation Engineer, Carol Shariat, stated in an email[2], based upon an evaluation of a printed document provided by the applicant, that the proposed project barely reaches the minimum Caltrans standard. Given the proximity to a very unusual and highly impacted traffic configuration at this multiple intersection and the lack of any visible physical verification of measurements, together with the expectation of many U-turns, this issue must be much more aggressively mitigated!!!

5) Cumulative Traffic. Hexagon omitted significant new developments and well understated

cumulative traffic impacts in its analysis.

4.1.1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS CONSIDERED

c) “The City has identified several projects that are evaluated in conjunction with the proposed

project in this Draft EIR. These are listed in Table 4‐1 and identified on Figure 4‐1.”

“1010 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road, 1500 Partridge Avenue, 590 West El Camino Real, 861 East El Camino Real, 280 Santa Ana Court, 701‐729 East Evelyn Avenue and 915 De Guigne Drive”

This list is missing: a) Development at Cupertino Village (Wolfe and Homestead) b) Gateway Village (Kohl’s Plaza), c) Hamptons remodel (Wolfe and 280) d) Landbank (Central an Wolfe), e) Hotel (Wolfe and El Camino), f) 803 W El Camino Real, g) 1080 Stuart Drive, h) 1111 W. El Camino Real, i) 1205 W. El Camino Real, j) 1313 S. Wolfe Rd, k) 598 W. El Camino Real, l) 725 S. Fair Oaks Road, m) 777 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd, n) 850 E El Camino Real, o) 830 E. El Camino Real, p) 861 E. El Camino Real, q) 970 W. El Camino Real, r) 1008 E. El Camino Real

d) Additionally, since we now know that the tenant for the Landbank project will be Apple Computer, it would be logical to assume that there will be more back and forth traffic on Wolfe Road. The revised DEIR should include the special additional traffic that will result from this circumstance or state how it will be mitigated and how that mitigation is legally required (for balance as Hexagon has eagerly included the legal precedence for issues that favor the projects approval).

e) The original Apple 2 traffic analysis (also prepared by Hexagon) underestimated the impact to Wolfe Road. Since that time, Apple 2 now says they are expecting 18,000 employees and 18% of that traffic will be utilizing Wolfe Road. These updated figures from the Apple 2 plans need to be re-planned into Hexagon’s figures. A major factor not considered by Hexagon is the cut through traffic that will flow towards the BC site in order to avoid the Wolfe and Homestead intersection. They only considered cut through traffic that would flow out of the BC site, becoming cut through traffic. They did not adequately look at the impacts to Dartshire, Mallard, Carlisle, or the Wolfe and Maria intersection all mentioned and listed in writing at the scoping meeting on 4/23/15.

f) Additional traffic should also be considered for parents to drive children to school. The DEIR did not adequately calculate the number of elementary children that would be housed at the proposed development. These updated figures should translate into additional two trips a day for those households which should be included in all the affected intersections.

g) The Under Cumulative Conditions: The result of the level of service calculations show that the intersection of S. Wolfe/East Fremont Avenue (#2) would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under both Cumulative plus Project and Cumulative Without Project conditions. However, since the proposed project would not increase the critical-movement delay by 4 or more seconds and the v/c by 0.01 or more, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impact at this intersection. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE THIS RESULT. With further, complete analysis, I believe this intersection will degrade to ‘F’ as predicted in the city’s study more than 12 years ago. h) “TRANS‐1: The proposed project would contribute to unacceptable operation at the intersection of Kingfisher Way and East Fremont Avenue (#5) under Existing, Background, and Cumulative conditions. There are no mitigation measures available. See Chapter 4.11, Shown in table 4.11-6, the LOS will go from 60.3 to 92.9 Am and from 67.9 to 93.7 PM. From F to F. A traffic lite was considered infeasible.” This is the only environmental impact that Playworks is willing to admit would be significant and remains unmitigated! More should be said about this intersection and its impact to surrounding intersections.

i) The DEIR states in 2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

“The City of Sunnyvale issued a Notice of Preparation for the EIR on March 26, 2015 and held a scoping meeting on April 23, 2015 to receive scoping comments. During the 30‐day scoping period for this EIR, which concluded on April 27, 2015, responsible agencies and interested members of the public were invited to submit comments as to the scope and content of the EIR. The comments received focused primarily on the following issues: Vehicular Circulation with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety, potential neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking” This is not a wide-enough description to be factually correct. Members of the public focused on the amount of traffic congestion and the safety of traffic movement. Thus, the DEIR is inaccurate in its assumptions and failed to properly state this concern.

5) Emergency Vehicles – the DEIR did not adequately address how emergency vehicles will

access the site in a timely manner. The argument seemed to be that Sunnyvale is poor at response time now so that standard will be upheld.

4.10.1 POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES “SN‐3.1 Provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies.” “SN‐3.5 Facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.”

6) Pedestrian and Bicycle Access – This area of the report contains circular

arguments. The report states: a) “the project includes a street dedication along El Camino Real and the construction of a bike lane. The construction of the bike lane would involve painting a striped and/or stenciled lane for one‐way travel on El Camino Real.” If this is the case then that would involve the removal of a traffic land and if a traffic lane is to be removed then then that impact is not part of the DEIR and must be included. b) “Moreover, per the Sunnyvale Bicycle Plan adopted in 2006, parking on East El Camino Real, adjacent to the project site, is proposed to be removed, which would improve bicycle transportation on that corridor.” There is no parking on El Camino Real adjacent to this property as it is in a turning lane – there for bicycle transportation could not be improved due to the removal of street parking.

7) Public Services – Several subject areas are lacking from the DEIR including park space.

4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES

a) The DEIR did not adequately provide an analysis of park space needed for such a large apartment complex. The on-site amenities are not suitable for the likely population of small children who would live there (see discussion of CUSD and school-aged children). The nearest park is more than one mile away. Therefore, the DEIR should conclude that more amenities for children should be provided to prevent additional back and forth car trips to park land. b) All resultant additional trip planning that would be needed for the DEIR to adequately predict anticipated traffic from the proposed development should naturally, be built into the air quality statistics and GHG emissions that would logically be increased once a realistic number of trips associated with the proposed project is calculated. c) Section 4.10 of the DEIR should state that the CUSD has stated their opposition to the proposed project.

8) El Camino Precise Plan – The report cherry picked from the El Camino Precise Plan and

failed to cover major components of adherence to that plan. If Playworks is going to consider the adherence of the EL Camino Precise Plan in its analysis, then they should include all aspects of it, not just those that favor a large project. See specific sections below: ECPP: “Requires no access to commercial uses from the residential neighborhoods”. The proposal has no El Camino access so this violates major condition of ECPP. In the ECPP, Butcher’s Triangle is used as a foundation when landscaping the other corners so this would indicate that more trees should be preserved on Butcher’s Corner. Design Guidelines ignored:



DESIGN GUIDELINES City of Sunnyvale BASIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES d. Projects located on corner parcels should incorporate major design features on the intersection corner. 1. Buildings located at these corner locations are strongly encouraged. Buildings located on corners should generally be limited to two stories in height, but one story is preferred. 3.4.3 SITE ACCESS Provide access to parking for retail and service uses directly from El Camino Real, with the number of access points limited in order to minimize disruption to the smooth flow of traffic on the street. a. No access to commercial uses from adjacent residential neighborhood streets. 3.4.4 SITE LANDSCAPING

Use abundant and attractive landscaping to soften the impact of large structures and parking lots, to define the street edge, and to buffer adjacent low density residential uses. 3.4.7 NEIGHBORHOOD INTERFACES Design and operate developments along El Camino Real with respect for neighbors in adjacent residential areas.

9) Ordinances - The City has ordinances which affect this propose development. The DEIR

failed to adequately analyze the effect of the proposed project’s environmental impacts in regards to pedestrian safety, pedestrian experience or traffic visibility. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the development – facing the neighborhood – is not adequately addressed in the DEIR. From PRC Report from City Planning: CODE DEVIATIONS - The following are code deviations being requested (by the developer): 1. El Camino Real Front Setback (Building B): 0 permitted only for the first floor retail/office portion of the building and 15' is required for the remaining first floor and stories above. 2. Fremont Ave Front Setback (Building A): 8', where 15' is required 3. Distance Between Buildings (Buildings A & B): 38' minimum is required 4. Distance Between Buildings (Townhomes): 26' minimum is required. 5. Landscaped Frontage Strip (all street frontages, measured from back of sidewalk): 15' is required Throughout City Planning, the city calls for walkable neighborhoods , yet the proposed project has sidewalks that are just three feet wide!! This was not addressed by the DEIR!!!!! The set-back at Fremont Ave is currently less than the set-back on El Camino Real. However, the proposed project faces the residential Fremont avenue side. Either the DEIR must recommend that the project be turned around by 180 degrees or the DEIR must show an environmental need for greater set-backs. The reports assertion that buildings of these heights with very limited set-backs and three foot sidewalks is ‘walkable’ or ‘pedestrian friendly’ is simply not reasonable. The juxtaposition of the proposed development faces the neighborhood. The outdoor amenities area is not adequately private or contained enough for such a large number of people. The swimming pool area is very close to the street and should be located in the interior of the site to prevent noise from travelling into the neighborhood.

10) General Comments

My final objection to this DEIR is that is not a DEIR - it is a policy document. Not only does it analyze the environmental conditions, very poorly and selectively, but it also strays into a biased set of policy directives. I found this objectionable. The report examines State Law and the Sunnyvale General Plan to make arguments regarding how the reader should weigh the contents of the environmental portions of the report, by cherry-picking policy statements. It mentions every conceivable agency in the area to back up statements favorable to this large proposed project, including the standards of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as an argument against ‘no project’. The study refers to Butchers Corner being part of the El Camino Mixed-Use Corridor PDA (see figure 3.5) – it is not – it is in the El Camino Precise Plan – City Council has not voted on the El Camino Real Corridor Plan (they didn’t even get the name of the plan under study correct, they were so anxious to rename it with the words ‘mixed-use’ in the name). Finally, and most disturbing, – the study used Hexagon’s traffic analysis - the same company as the Apple 2 traffic study which declared that many nearby Sunnyvale intersections

would see no significant traffic from the Apple 2 campus. A balanced and objective analysis was simply not performed. Examples of this bias were listed under my section on the EL Camino Precise plan. The City should chastise Hexagon and Playworks for producing such a report. The City Council should direct staff to produce a thorough report, via these contractors or via new contractors and in no case should they bring forward such a biased, incomplete or inaccurate report to the City Council!

[1] Seven one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, 77 three bedroom units, 38 four bedroom units and one five bedroom unit. [2] “From the edge of the proposed driveway to the existing Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 320

feet. When you include the right-turn lane, the distance between the edge of the proposed driveway to the new

Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 300 feet. However, it is more common to provide distances measured

from the centerlines. Thus, from the centerline of the proposed driveway to existing Wolfe Road curb line is

approximately 340 feet. When you include the right-turn lane, the distance from the centerline of the proposed

driveway to new Wolfe Road curb line is approximately 325 feet. Also in terms of the Caltrans standard referenced in the EIR, this relates to stopping sight distance from the

proposed driveway to a public street. The stopping sight distance is a function of the speed limit of the

roadway. In this case, Fremont Road's posted speed limit is 40 mph. Based on Caltrans standards, the optimal

stopping sight distance along Fremont Road would be approximately 300 feet. In this case, the best manual to

provide guidance on the stopping sight distance matter was the Caltrans Design Manual.” Holly

-

Dear Planning Commission and City Council members, I spoke and listened at the May 9, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). One of the biggest concerns that I have and heard repeatedly was the predicted increased U-turn traffic west bound on Fremont Ave at Kingfisher coming from the Butcher Corner development. I have a few suggestions that could help reduce the total impact from the proposed development: 1. Proposal to add a (Right Turn Only) EXIT out of Butcher's Corner onto El Camino. (Please see attached diagram of the EXIT location) 2. The site should remain R3 (Medium Density Residential). It should not be re-zoned R4 (High Density) 3. Reduce the Maximum building height to 4 stories to match the current neighborhood. The (Sunnyvale General Plan) states -- "consideration for the integrity of neighborhoods" and "compatibility between neighborhoods" Thank you for listening... Ed Cramer Tapadera HOA President, and 16 year Resident at: 820 Kingfisher Terrace Sunnyvale, CA 94087-2938 [email protected]


B69-01

B69-02

B69-03

B69-04

B69-05

ATTACHMENT# B69

Dear Noren Caliva-Lepe: I have reviewed the Draft EIR titled Butcher’s Corner Apartments and my comments follow: Section 2.6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES COMMENT:The following could result in significant environmental impacts and need to be analyzed further in this EIR: Transportation and Circulation ♣ Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. ♣ Result in inadequate emergency access. ♣ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. TABLE 2‐1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIO‐2: Proposed development would result in removal of trees regulated under City ordinance, and possible damage to other trees unless adequate controls are implemented, and would conflict with the intent of the City’s Tree Preservation regulations. COMMENT: The mitigation measures are totally inadequate. It is feasible to modify the project to save most of the protected trees. Replacement trees and in-lieu fees are a last resort, not a first resort. Specifically all healthy native trees should be saved and the design modified to incorporate these trees. There is no reason to remove the healthy oak trees on the perimeter of the property. GHG‐1: The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. COMMENT: The loss of a significant number of tress would generate greenhouse gas emissions by virtue of the fact of a loss of filtering. The project needs to be modified to prevent loss of trees. Section 3.1.4.5 GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE The overall goal of the Initiative is to produce a coordinated series of policy decisions that will be embraced by all jurisdictions, thereby helping El Camino Real to function and look better. COMMENT: This plan does not meet the objective stated. The height and placement of the building along El Camino will create an eye sore. TABLE 4.1‐1 POLICIES OF THE SUNNYVALE GENERAL PLAN RELEVANT TO AESTHETICS COMMENT: This project does not adhere to the policies below. It is not compatible with the two‐‐‐‐ to three‐‐‐‐story multifamily residential development with partially submerged parking to the west, and three and a half‐‐‐‐story multi‐‐‐‐family housing (three stories of apartments over semi‐‐‐‐submerged structured parking) to the northwest, facing El Camino Real. LT‐4.2 Require new development to be compatible with the neighborhood, adjacent land uses, and the transportation system. LT‐4.4 Preserve and enhance the high quality character of residential neighborhoods. CC‐1.3 Ensure that new development is compatible with the character of special districts and residential neighborhoods. CC‐2.1 Maintain and provide attractive landscaping in the public right‐of‐way to identify the different types of roadways and districts, make motorists more comfortable, and improve the enjoyment of residential neighborhoods. CC‐3.2 Ensure site design is compatible with the natural and surrounding built environment. Section 5.4.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS


B70-01

B70-02

B70-03

B70-04

B70-05

B70-06

COMMENT: An alternative needs to be considered that would maintain the integrity of the neighborhood by limiting the height of all buildings to three stories. Sincerely, Denise DeLange Sunnyvale Resident

B70-06cont.

From: Andy Frazer, 1624 Nightingale Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Subject: Comments on the Draft EIR for Butcher’s Corner

Miss Noren Caliva-Lepe,

I believe the DEIR for Butcher’s Corner is grossly inadequate because it fails to properly describe the environmental impacts of the project. Other residents have cited a more detailed list of inadequacies with this DEIR. While I agree with those detailed lists, I would like to bring to your attention the most glaring mistake in the Draft EIR in Section 4.1.1. Cumulative Projects Considered. It states,

The City has identified several projects that are evaluated in conjunction with the proposed project in this Draft EIR. These are listed in Table 4‐1 and identified on Figure 4‐1. As shown in Table 4‐1, the related projects would result in a total of 791,578 square feet of non‐residential development, 249 hotel rooms and 654 residential units.

Table 4.1 lists seven new projects for a cumulative square footage of only ~792,000 square feet. However, Table 4.1 failed to identify (either accidentally, or intentionally) three enormous new projects, all currently under construction, that will directly impact traffic and other environmental effects on Butcher’s Corner.

• The list is missing the Gateway Village one mile directly east on El Camino Real.

• The list is missing the Apple 2 headquarters one mile directly south on Wolfe Rd.

• The list is missing the Apple/Landmark office complex less than two miles direclty north on Wolfe Rd.

• The list is also missing most of the dozen new hotels that are in the City’s approval/development pipeline.

The Wolfe-El Camino intersection is the second most congested intersection in Sunnyvale. The addition of the new projects above will easily reduce this intersection to an “F” Level of Service, and with no possibility of ever improving that intersection. Clearly, the proposal to build high density residential housing at this intersection, in an over-crowded school district is foolish and irresponsible. Sincerely, Andy Frazer 1624 Nightingale Ave,


B71-01

Forwarding previously considered policy item from the Planning Commission Answer Point.

This item is being forwarded as Information Only. Commission members should not respond to the individual.

Thank you,


From: Graham, Peggy <>


Subject: Butcher's Corners EIR

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

It is clear that the City of Sunnyvale and the EIR report is failing the residents of the City of Sunnyvale. I have read the Apple EIR report and some of the intersections in that report have a higher rating than the ones in the Butcher’s Corner EIR report. How can that be possible when Butcher’s Corner will add to the traffic congestion? What about the proposed tripling of The Hampton Condos on Wolfe and Pruneridge? What about all the people using Inverness because the Wolfe/Homestead intersection is such a mess? What about the fact that less people can make a left from Homestead East to Wolfe North because of the island that was installed between the gas station and the Ranch Market blocks people from getting into the left hand turn lane and causes Homestead to back up even further? None of this was taken into consideration.


B72-01

B72-02

It is obvious that the proposed project does not match the neighborhood as there are no other 5 story buildings in the Fremont/Wolfe area.

It is obvious that the EIR does not take into account the actual # of residents that will be inhabiting this proposed project because it was not taken into account the current number of people living in condo’s this size.

Who wants this to go through besides real estate agents?

Why aren’t our council members serving their constituents?

Peggy Graham

1524 Oriole Avenue

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

B72-03

B72-04

B72-05

For comments, questions, etc. about these comments please contactIan Jacobi

815 E Fremont Ave., Apt. 13Sunnyvale, CA 94087

(505) 991-6110

Comments on the Proposed Butcher’s Corner Project:Regarding possible increased trafÞc hazards along East Fremont Avenue

SUMMARY

While the proposed Butcher’s Corner Project is a necessary step towards meeting the needs of the population growth projected for 2025 in Sunnyvale’s General Plan, its location creates a unique set of hazards and safety concerns with respect to the changes in trafÞc that will result from its development. A number of these trafÞc issues have already been addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report, including an analysis of an increase of hazards caused by design features of the access driveways (p. 4.11-22). In this document, I wish to highlight the possibility of increased trafÞc hazards on the three parcels immediately “downstream” from the Project along East Fremont Avenue, namely the KingÞsher Terrace complex, Cambria Apartments at 815 East Fremont Avenue, and the Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center at 797 East Fremont Avenue, not otherwise discussed in the Transportation and Circulation section of the draft Report. It is my belief that the increased trafÞc that would be created by the Butcher’s Corner Project will increase the likelihood of accidents caused by drivers attempting to enter East Fremont Avenue from these parcels beyond the normal frequency for a right-hand turn onto a thoroughfare carrying East Fremont Avenue’s typical trafÞc levels and that a discussion on this topic is warranted in the Þnal Report.

BACKGROUND

The stretch of East Fremont Avenue that these parcels face has two features that create a uniquely hazardous environment. Unlike much of East Fremont Avenue, the west-bound lane in this stretch features not only a bicycle lane, but on-street parking. This on-street parking limits the Þeld of view when exiting these parcels (particularly for the three driveways for 815 and 797 East Fremont Avenue). This Þeld of view is further restricted, however, by a slight west-northwest bend in East Fremont Avenue along the frontage of the KingÞsher Terrace complex (see Figure 1).

These two features compound each other to severely restrict the Þeld-of-view coming out of these three downstream parcels. Each parcelÕs driveways are impacted by this Þeld-of-view restriction to varying degrees.

The KingÞsher Terrace complex driveway appears to be impacted the least, as it is on the slight bend, and therefore only suffers signiÞcantly from the on-street parking. In fact, the view along the sidewalk to the west combined with the end of on-street parking just east of the complex


B73-01

itself allows drivers to see all cars in the right lane of East Fremont Avenue beyond a point about 290 feet east of the entrance. Thus, the on-street parking only restricts the 200 or so feet between that point and a point about 75 feet east of the entrance.

The “shared” driveway of 815 and 797 East Fremont Avenue and the west driveway of the Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center at 797 East Fremont Avenue likewise only suffer from on-street parking blocking the Þeld of view beyond about 75 feet to the west of their respective driveways.

The greatest impact of this layout appears to be on the east driveway of 815 East Fremont Avenue, which is effectively a blind driveway. There, the combination of the bend in front of the KingÞsher Terrace complex and the on-street parking limits the Þeld of view considerably, giving about 50 feet of visibility into the right lane and almost no visibility into the bicycle lane (see Figures 2 and 3; the approximate Þelds-of-view are depicted in Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 1. This satellite view illustrates the slight bend in East Fremont Avenue to the west-northwest in front of the KingÞsher Terrace complex. The general east-to-west ßow turns slightly to the south to make room for the on-street parking, and then bends slightly north of west along the frontage of the KingÞsher Terrace complex before returning to east-to-west ßow in front of 815 East Fremont Avenue.

B73-01cont.

Figure 2. This photo was taken from the east driveway of 815 East Fremont Avenue and demonstrates the limited Þeld-of-view caused by the northwest bend and on-street parking.

Figure 3. This photo illustrates the slightly expanded Þeld-of-view from the east driveway of 815 East Fremont Avenue when a driver pulls out onto the sidewalk to adjust for the limited Þeld-of-view in Figure 2.

B73-01cont.

Figure 4. The approximate Þeld of view from the east driveway of 815 East Fremont Avenue. Compare with the single dashed stripe in the frame of Figure 2 and partial view of a second dashed stripe.

Figure 5. The approximate Þeld of view from the east driveway of 815 East Fremont Avenue when looking from the sidewalk. Notice the second dashed stripe coming into view. This also demonstrates the limited lead time for drivers exiting (60 feet ≈ 1.2 seconds at 35mph).

B73-01cont.

IMPACT OF THE BUTCHER’S CORNER PROJECT

As all trafÞc from the ButcherÕs Corner Project must exit right, going west-bound on East Fremont Avenue, this will necessarily increase the amount of trafÞc passing by the four driveways with restricted Þeld-of-view due to the road geometry and on-street parking. This will correspondingly increase the chances of an accident caused by a driver attempting to exit one of these driveways. This may be especially problematic for the Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, which sees regular emergency (ambulance) trafÞc, though the proÞle of ambulances may alleviate the concerns more readily observed in passenger vehicles.

The ButcherÕs Corner Project may, in fact, exacerbate the existing issue beyond what a baseline increased trafÞc ßow on East Fremont Avenue would suggest, as the trafÞc ßow of two of the three parcels affected (the KingÞsher Terrace complex and the Cambria Apartments at 815 East Fremont Avenue) will likely be synchronized with the trafÞc ßow of the ButcherÕs Corner complex, as these parcels are residential (the commercial space of the ButcherÕs Corner Project notwithstanding). That is to say, that the greatest amount of trafÞc entering East Fremont Avenue from each parcel is likely to occur at the same time (i.e. weekday mornings, when ITE Trip Generation predicted 62 outgoing trips from the location during the peak hour, of which 30 could be expected to pass the three parcels in question, per the 52% trip distribution pattern for the KingÞsher Way/East Fremont Avenue u-turn in Figure 4.11-3 in the draft Report).

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

The most viable solution for this issue would be to eliminate on-street parking on this segment of East Fremont Avenue, but this must be considered carefully, as this will eliminate approximately 20 to 22 parking spaces regularly used by residents and visitors (I have personally counted 16 cars using these spaces at 11PM on a Sunday night).

Other solutions may involve reducing the number of vehicle spaces in the ButcherÕs Corner complex to encourage the use of other means of transportation for residents of the complex and reduce the number of vehicles entering East Fremont Avenue from the complex, but the number of spaces that must be removed to reduce the risk of trafÞc hazards to a satisfactory level may exceed the number that would be removed with the Existing R-3 Zoning Alternative.

B73-02

B73-03

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [1] Discrepancy in height

Page 3-1 under Section 3. Project Description states "and 39 three-story townhome units" Page 3-13 under Section 3.2 Project Objectives states "Provide townhome residences along the western edge with a similar scale and architectural character to the adjacent properties with two-story roof lines facing the west edge to respect the neighboring two-story buildings" Figure 3-11 The townhome renderings all appear to show 3 story roofs. The bolded text is inconsistent. In the first reference, we are told all the townhomes are three-story. In the seconds reference, we are told the western edge townhomes have two-story roofs and are of similar scale. A two verses a three story roof is 33% different. Is the text on page 3-13 in error?


B74-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [2] Project site structure date range Page 3-15 under Section 3.3.1 Demolition, Site Preparation, and Construction states "The buildings on the project site were built between 1956 and 1968..." Currently, the 100+ year old Butcher house resides on the site. It was built in 1912 from what I understand--44 years prior to the 1956 date cited. The draft E.I.R. needs adjusting.


B75-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [3] Population density Page: 3-16 under Section: 3.3.2.1 Residential states "The proposed project would involve construction of 153 residential units in two apartment buildings and eighteen townhome buildings, for a total building foot print of 89,373 square feet. The density for the project would be approximately 30 units per acre.[superscript nineteen] Based on an average household size of 2.61 persons,[superscript 20] the proposed project would accommodate up to 400 residents" [A] The footnotes are present at the page bottom for superscripts 18 and 19. However, the footnote indicating where 2.61 persons came from, superscript 20, is missing from the document. Page: 3-21 under Section: Apartments states The Fremont Building "

• seven one-bedroom units (947 square feet) • 14 two bedroom units (1,376 to 1,542 square feet) • 26 three bedroom units (1,827 to 2,079 square feet) • eight four-bedroom units (2,130 to 2,391 square feet)

" The El Camino Building "

• 16 two-bedroom units (1,202 square feet) • 31 three-bedroom units (1,519 to 2,007) • 12 four-bedroom units (2,126 to 2,299 square feet)

"


B76-01

B76-02

[B] While table 3-2 on page 3-22 lists the townhome buildings types and sizes, it does not indicate how many bedrooms are in each, only their square footage. It would be helpful to have that information included. There is room for it in the table. Page: 1-1 under Section: 1.1 Proposed Action states "The residential area would include seven one-bedroom units, 30 two-bedroom units, 77 three-bedroom units and 38 four-bedroom units and one five-bedroom unit" [C] By arithmetic, the bedroom total on page 1-1 is 455. The bedroom total from page 3-21 is 318. Is the term "unit(s)" on page 1-1 inclusive of townhouses? I've only heard the term "unit" used in reference to apartments. [D] Is there data available indicating how many people on average occupy a bedroom in new local construction townhouses and also apartments? The "up to 400 residents" stated on page 3-16 section 3.3.2.1 cited above seems low to me. Why isn't projected population done off bedroom count rather than dwelling units?

B76-03

B76-04

B76-05

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [4] Recycling Page: 3-23 under Section: Vehicular Access Sub-Section: Solid Waste Service Access states "Trash and recycle collection for the townhomes would be handled by carts for each unit that would be stored in the unit's garages." Page: 4.12-20 under Section: 4.12.2.2 Standard of Significance Sub-Section: Utilities and Service Systems states "The Sunnyvale General Plan includes policies that promote recycling, conservation, and help ensure adequate waste collection and disposal facilities are available for residents and workers of the city of Sunnyvale." Isn't it much more efficient and cost effective to sort out recyclables at their source? Recycling pickup is covered for the townhomes. Why isn't there mention of solid recycling collection for the two apartment complexes on page 3-23? All that is mentioned is trash chutes and their dumpsters.


B77-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [5] Parking Page: 3-26 under Section: Parking [A] There is no allocation mentioned for visitor parking. [B] Where is spill over parking suppose to go? [C] "parking requirements are based on accepted guidelines such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or Urban Land Institute (ULI)" is stated on draft E.I.R. page 3-16. There needs to be a detailed explanation of how the necessary number of parking spots were determined. Perhaps it should be in an appendix. Were the parking spaces determined based off the number of expected occupants, number of rooms, number of dwellings, or some combination? If the minimum parking number seems low, there is no way to look into it...


B78-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [6] Table 4-1 Related Projects incomplete Page: 4-4 Table: 4-1 Related Projects Table 4-1 Related Projects is incomplete. The following are missing: (1) Apple's new campus located at Wolfe and Homestead from the draft E.I.R. (I don't know where the final one is.) located at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Apple_Campus_2_Project_EIR_Public_Review_1-Introduction.pdf "construction of 3,420,000 square feet of office, research, and development uses" from the draft E.I.R. (I don't know where the final one is.) located at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Apple_Campus_2_Project_EIR_Public_Review_3-ProjectDescription.pdf Table III-1 page 15 (document page # 65): Employees: 14,200 (2) Gateway Village 3610 and 3700 El Camino Real [roughly at Lawrence and El Camino] Acquired from: http://santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/37/2495 476 residential units 108,600 square feet of retail Employees: 227 (3) 725 South Fair Oaks Ave. 182 room, five story hotel (4) 830 East El Camino Real 130 room, four story hotel (5) 803 West El Camino Real (Before a planning commission study session on 12/14/2015.) 40 apartments 9 single family homes expansion of the Grand Hotel (51 rooms) (6) 845 Maria Lane (This is rather small comparatively. It needs to be verified.) 5 townhouse-style condominium units


B79-01

(7) Is there anything concrete for the Sunnyvale Town Center project for inclusion yet? 590 West El Camino Real is listed. Double check there isn't a typo. It is listed as 83 rooms in Table 4-1. I found it listed as 85 rooms.

B79-01cont.

B79-02

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [7] Infill Page: 4.1-1 under Section: 4.1 Aesthetics states "...pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) adopted in 2013, the aesthetic impacts of residential or mixed use projects located on an infill site in a 'transit priority area' 'shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. 'Infill site' is defined as a lot in an urban area that has been previously developed." Prior to the 2015 Butcher's corner annexation by the city of Sunnyvale, the site was zoned as agriculture land. The location has no less than 161 orchard trees. Most of the land not filled by the orchard trees is vacant. Apart from a couple of houses, it is agriculture land, not developed land. And hence, aesthetics are in bounds for consideration. [A] How many people's backyards is a 7 story building going to peer down into? [B] The long five story building running along close to El Camino Real will create an urban canyon effect--completely in negative contrast to the surrounding area. [C] Sight line rendering drawings should be included showing the project from various vantage points as would viewed from an average height adult. Additionally, various pictures should be provided to show what people in the 7 story building facing Fremont can see when looking down at people's backyards.


B80-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [8] Traffic count data old Page: 4.11-10 in Table: 4.11-4 Intersection Level of Service-Existing Conditions under column "Count Date" The traffic counts vary from being one year out of date, to most of it being, two years out of date.


B81-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [9] Project Trip Generation 15% mixed use internal trip reduction Page: 4.11-13 under Section: Project Trip Generation states "Because the project would provide commercial use on-site, per the VTA TIA Guidlines, a 15 percent mixed-use internal trip reduction was applied to the project." Wouldn't simply not applying the 15 percent internal trip reduction be the conservative thing to do? Is that allowed? The retail would likely not be a heavy use like a drug store or super market. There are already two Safeways, a Lucky, a Sprouts, and a Trader Joe's within two miles of the project site. In addition to the two drug store portions of the aforementioned Safeways, there is a Rite-Aid, two Walgreens, and a CVS also within 2 miles.


B82-01

Butchers Corner draft EIR comment: [10] Table 4.11-5 Project Trip Generation Page: 4.11-14 Table: 4.11-5 Project Trip Generation On the surface the table doesn't seem to make a distinction between a 1 bedroom apartment and a 4 bedroom apartment. One would expect a radically different result based off the number of projected occupants. This table seems to be listing trips simply off raw dwelling units. "average rates are used" mentioned in the table "notes" is a little vague to me. Can you explain the methodology please.


B83-01

562 Carlisle Way Sunnyvale, CA 94087

May 23, 2016 BY EMAIL (.PDF) City of Sunnyvale Department of Community Development 456 W. Olive Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 Attention: Noren CalivaLepe (ncaliva[email protected]) Re: Butcher’s Corner Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Ms. CalivaLepe: In section 4.4. “Cultural Resources” the impact to historical resources is listed as "LessThanSignificant Impact". I think the impact to historical resources should be listed as "Potentially Significant Impact". The 1912 house, midcentury modern house, outbuildings, orchard and mature trees should all be considered historical for the purposes of the Draft EIR. Their destruction should be considered potentially significant. Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states the following:

For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include the following: A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource Code SS 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. ...

The historical resources at Butcher's Corner are not on the “local” Sunnyvale Heritage Resource Inventory because Butcher's Corner has only recently been annexed by the City of Sunnyvale. As a result, the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission has not had enough time to evaluate the historical resources at Butcher’s Corner. Starting the EIR process before the City’s Heritage


B84-01

Preservation Commission has a chance to evaluate, and possibly add, the historical resources at Butcher's Corner to Sunnyvale's Heritage Resource Inventory violates the intent of CEQA Section 15064.5. Starting the EIR process before the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission evaluates the cultural resources at Butcher's Corner also ignores Goal CC5 (Protection of Sunnyvale's Heritage) in Sunnyvale's General Plan. Starting the EIR process before the Heritage Preservation Commission evaluates the cultural resources at Butcher's Corner also circumvents the intent of Sunnyvale Municipal Code 19.96 (Heritage Preservation). The Sunnyvale Public Library produced a 6 minute video on the history of Butcher’s Corner. The video is available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRhWVFLXJg The existence of the video is substantial evidence that Butcher’s Corners is significant to Sunnyvale’s history. The video also illustrates the importance of the Butcher family in local history. According to the regulations in CEQA Section 15064.5, the lead agency has NOT shown a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resources (1912 house, midcentury modern house, outbuildings, orchard and mature trees) at Butcher’s Corner are not historically or culturally significant. The lead agency should delay the release the Final EIR a minimum of 12 months so the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission can review the historical resources at Butcher’s corner.

Sincerely, Martin Landzaat [email protected]

B84-01cont.


May 23, 2016 BY EMAIL (.PDF) City of Sunnyvale Department of Community Development 456 W. Olive Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 Attention: Noren CalivaLepe (ncaliva[email protected]) Re: Butcher’s Corner Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Ms. CalivaLepe: I would like the section 4.10 “Public Services” of the Final EIR to analyze the impact of the Butcher's Corner Project on the following public services:

EMSparamedic capacity and response times Trauma emergency capacity and access times Emergency medical capacity and access times Mental health services

The provision of emergency medical services (EMS) is divided between basic life support (EMT) and advanced life support (paramedics). The traffic generated by the Butcher's Corner Project will impact the travel times of EMSparamedic vehicles to people in need of their services. In addition, the traffic generated by the Butcher's Corner Project will impact the travel times of EMSparamedic vehicles to local trauma/emergency medical care facilities. I would like the Final EIR to analyze the EMSparamedic capacity and travel times. Sunnyvale Public Safety officers are trained to provide EMTbasic service, I am requesting an analysis of the EMSparamedic service. The growth of Sunnyvale’s population induced by the Butcher's Corner Project will impact the region’s trauma emergency facilities. I would like the Final EIR to analyze the capacity and


B85-01

access times to Sunnyvale’s trauma emergency medical care facilities. The additional people brought into Sunnyvale by the Butcher's Corner Project will impact Sunnyvale’s emergency medical care facilities. The Final EIR should analyze the capacity and access times to Sunnyvale’s emergency medical care facilities. The Final EIR should analyze the impact of the Butcher's Corner Project on local mental health services. Mental health services include family counseling, mental health clinics and professionals, including those specializing in drug and alcohol abuse treatment. The Butcher's Corner Project may have a limited effect on Sunnyvale’s EMSparamedic, trauma emergency, emergency medical and mental health care services, the cumulative impact of recent and future projects in the City of Sunnyvale should also be considered.

Regards, Martin Landzaat

B85-01cont.


May 23, 2016 BY EMAIL (.PDF) City of Sunnyvale Department of Community Development 456 W. Olive Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 Attention: Noren CalivaLepe (ncaliva[email protected]) Re: Butcher’s Corner Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Ms. CalivaLepe: The Final EIR should to study the impact of the project on Sunnyvale’s parks and recreation facilities. Section 6.1 says impacts to recreation are not significant because of the analysis done in the Initial Study. In section XIV.a.iv (Public Services Parks) of the Butcher’s Corner Project Initial Study it lists the impact to Sunnyvale Parks as "LessThanSignificant Impact". I disagree with that assessment, the impact to Sunnyvale parks should be listed as "Potentially Significant Impact". As mentioned in the Initial Study, part of the 745 acres of parkland in Sunnyvale is school open space. The most recent school open space agreement between the City of Sunnyvale and the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) gives the CUSD an option to make capital improvements on the open space at Stocklmeir Elementary. Building classrooms on the open space to accommodate a growing student population would be considered a capital improvement. See agenda item #4 for the 16Sept2014 City Council meeting for details on the CUSD open space joint use agreement. The Final EIR should analyze the loss of school open space due to an increase of students at Stocklmeir Elementary. Although the impact from the Butcher's Corner project may be limited, the EIR needs to consider the cumulative effect of recent and reasonably foreseeable future projects on the loss parkland at Stocklmeir Elementary. In addition, the CUSD has a option to make capital improvements on the open space at the following school sites:

Cupertino Middle School Nimitz Elementary Serra Elementary


B86-01

West Valley Elementary The EIR should also analyze the loss of parkland due to an increase of students at the other CUSD schools located in Sunnyvale. Although the impact from the Butcher's Corner project may be limited, the EIR needs to consider the cumulative effect of recent and reasonably foreseeable future projects on the loss of open space at all the CUSD schools located in Sunnyvale.

Sincerely, Martin Landzaat [email protected]

B86-01cont.


May 23, 2016 BY EMAIL (.PDF) City of Sunnyvale Department of Community Development 456 W. Olive Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 Attention: Noren CalivaLepe (ncaliva[email protected]) Re: Butcher’s Corner Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Ms. CalivaLepe: I have the following comments: In section 4.10.2 (Schools) only data for 2014/15 school enrollments and estimated increases due to the project are given. The Final EIR should analyze the cumulative impact of recent and future projects in the City of Sunnyvale on the listed schools. The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) have 10 year enrollment projections, data from those projections should be included in the Final EIR. Contact the CUSD and FUHSD for enrollment projections.

Regards, Martin Landzaat


B87-01


B88-01

B88-02

B88-03

B88-04

B88-05

B88-06

B88-07


B89-01

B89-02

B89-03

B89-03cont.

B89-04

B89-05

B89-05cont.

B89-06

B89-07

B89-07cont.

B89-08

B89-9

B89-10

B89-10cont.

Hello Noren, I have prepared some feedback on the Butcher's Corner EIR, attached at the end of this message. I hope you are still accepting feedback via email. Let me know if I need to drop off a printed version. Thank you for compiling the responses. Best regards, Sang Park

===== City of Sunnyvale Planning Commission Attn: Noren Caliva-Lepe May 23, 2016 Feedback on the Draft EIR for the proposed development on Butcher’s Corner at 871 Fremont Avenue. Traffic and Safety Impact

• Single access point for resident and non-resident cars is on Fremont Ave as referenced in Section 3.3.2.3 Circulation (page 59), and also referenced on the map shown in Figure 3-14 (page 65).

o This access point is aligned with the left-turn lane from East-bound direction on Fremont Avenue, and is downstream from the intersection of Fremont Ave and Kingfisher Way

o This access point is downstream from the U-turn lane from the West-bound direction to travel East-bound.

• Due to these factors, Butcher’s Corner will contribute directly to increase in traffic volume on Kingfisher Way in both directions. The EIR analyzes traffic with the assumption that Butcher’s Corner will increase traffic only along Fremont Avenue.

o For traffic leaving Butcher’s Corner, to get to South-bound Wolfe Road cars will travel thru Kingfisher Way due to traffic backed up from the Fremont Ave and Wolfe Road intersection. Also this is the fastest path from Butcher’s Corner to Stocklmeir Elementary School.

o For traffic returning to Butcher’s Corner from I-280/Cupertino traveling North-bound along Wolfe Road, many cars will travel thru Dartshire Way and Kingfisher Way to avoid the left-turn back up from Wolfe Road to Fremont Ave. This cut-thru traffic is well known as a problem in the neighborhood, especially during commute hours.

• In addition to the increased traffic volume, traffic speed remains a problem. Sections of Kingfisher Way have speed limit of 20 MPH. Yet cars travel in excess of 40 MPH. This is a problem because students attending Stocklmeir Elementary School from Butcher’s Corner (please see my comments below about student attendance figures) will walk or bike thru Kingfisher Way.


B90-01

B90-02

B90-03

o I don’t know the number of children that reside in this area, but from observation, there are always a lot of kids playing along the street in this area.

o There is a high density of cars parked along this narrow and curvy street, due to the higher density apartments and duplexes, making visibility poor.

o I have attached a picture from the middle of the Kingfisher Way facing South towards Carlisle Way, which is about 30 to 40 yards away. The point is that drivers can’t see half the street, making it dangerous for children and pedestrians to cross Kingfisher Way, especially when cars are speeding. We typically see a lot of car accidents at this intersection.

• The take away: the development at Butcher’s Corner will have direct and material impact on traffic along Kingfisher Way. Impact and mitigation efforts should not stop at the intersection of Fremont Ave and Kingfisher Way. It should extend along Kingfisher Way - between Fremont Avenue and Dartshire Way.

o This specific situation along Kingfisher Way is not covered by the Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Study.

o My suggestion is to consider: A four-way stop at the intersection of Kingfisher Way and Carlisle Way Cross walks across Kingfisher Way at both Dartshire Way and Carlisle Way Add speed bumps along Kingfisher Way

School Impact

• The EIR refers to a Student Generation Rate of 0.37 students per household, which underestimates the number of students coming from the Butcher’s Corner development.

o One of the leading selling point for home sales in the area is the high quality of schools. I would also put forth that after completion, one of marketing strategies for the Butcher’s Corner development will probably be to target families with school age children. It is no coincidence that the site is within the high-demand attendance boundaries for Stocklmeir Elementary School and Cupertino Middle School.

o From observation, many if not most of the new home sales in the area go to families with children.

o An informal survey of our neighborhood shows an average of 1 child (of middle school age or younger) per home, which includes long-term residents. The assumption is that new home sales will have a ratio higher than 1 student per home.

o A survey of new home owners in the area will provide a more accurate Student Generation Rate, as that will be more accurate in reflecting the demographics of Butcher’s Corner.

o Comparing the enrollment figures on Table 4.10-4 (page 394) to the Cupertino Unified School District Boundary Map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1hy4Tqhi648yE5CaXG4T9_fY_tiI&hl=en_US) shows that the enrollment at Stocklmeir Elementary school is double that of other elementary schools for similar size of coverage, which supports the assertion that the 0.37 Student Generation Rate for Stocklmeir Elementary School is too low.

• Assuming a more realistic Student Generation Rate of 1.0 students per household, the impact to the school system is off by a factor of 3. The expected introduction of 57 new elementary and middle school students, as described in Section 4.10.2.4 (page 294), will actually be closer to 170 students.

• Assuming even distribution across grades K thru 8, two-third of those students will attend Stocklmeir Elementary School, which will result in an enrollment increase of 114 students at Stocklmeir Elementary School and an increase of 56 students at Cupertino Middle School.

• An increase of 114 students is not “Less than significant” and is well over the capacity of Stocklmeir Elementary School.

o 114 students spread over 6 grades levels at Stocklmeir Elementary School will result in an additional 19 students per grade level - or basically an additional classroom of students for each grade level. Where are these classrooms going to come from? Where are they going to be build? What existing facilities need to be removed to make space for the new classrooms?

B90-04

B90-05

B90-06

B90-07

B90-08

o How will the school district respond? Will they impose a lottery system, and turn away students who already reside within attendance boundaries? These are residents who have already paid the expensive premium to live in this neighborhood and to have their children attend Stocklmeir.

• Regarding traffic and safety. It was recently noted that person employed by the City of Sunnyvale to serve as the cross walk guard in front of Stocklmeir Elementary School resigned a few weeks ago saying that the job was too dangerous. There are too many cars dropping kids off, with drivers rushing and not following road rules. Injecting 114 students into this situation will have a Significant impact on traffic and safety near the school.

• The EIR does fails to adequately evaluate the aspect that will have the most impact, which is the impact to the local school system. The dramatic increase in student population will impact the quality of education with larger class sizes. It will the stress school resources, including the need for additional classrooms. And it will cause financial burden and huge emotional frustration for current residents who will have to drive their children to another school while new classrooms are built.

• Possible options that I see here: o Revise the Butcher’s Corner proposal to reduce the number of residential units. o Work with the Cupertino Unified School District on a plan to re-distribute students from

Butcher’s Corner across multiple schools until sufficient classrooms can be built. Effectively, this is a attendance lottery only on Butcher’s Corner.

Right Turn Lane from East-bound El Camino Real onto Wolfe Road

• My observation is that the traffic delay is due in large part to cars waiting for pedestrians to cross Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue. Instead of adding a dedicated right turn lane (which I think is already part of the proposals resulting from the Wolfe Corridor Traffic Improvement Study), the space may be better used to create pedestrian isles where people can stand while allowing traffic to continue right turns

B90-08cont.

B90-09

ATTACHMENT # B90

Hi Noren,

I have some thoughts on putting the development up at butcher's corner. My family is not in favor of this.

1) Traffic Concerns: Putting up such a high density housing/business unit in one of the most ridiculous

intersections in the entire city. We understand folks want housing close to their jobs and, but think about all the

new traffic that will be coming down Wolfe, El Camino and Fremont. It will be a nightmare. I already avoid

going down that way unless absolutely necessary.

2) School Concerns: Allowing this development to be approved would put even more strain on the school

system and neighborhood at Stocklmeir. I have heard from many residents there that they can't even leave their

houses at certain times, That kids have a hard time crossing the street safely.

3) Housing Concerns: Rezoning to make this property high density is also a bad idea. Adding more housing is

nice, but will you require some of it to be affordable? This area has been going crazy with increasing housing

prices and rents. When will it slow down?

At a maximum it should have the 123 units mentioned unless they will provide affordable housing and green

housing.

There are no plans for a "park area" for children. With that many residents and homes on the site, it should be

assumed some families will be living there. What will the kids do? These children would not have access to a

park without crossing a major intersection. Not safe.

Adding a project of this size right across from the proposed hotel would make traffic conditions even worse.

Bottom line is that a project of this size is not reasonable. It will put too much strain on city services:

♣ Hydrology and Water Quality

♣ Air Quality

♣ Land Use and Planning

♣ Biological Resources


B91-01

B91-02

B91-03

B91-05

B91-06

B91-07

B91-04

♣ Noise

♣ Cultural Resources

♣ Public Services and Recreation

♣ Geology and Soils

♣ Transportation and Circulation

♣ Greenhouse Gas Emissions

♣ Utilities and Service Systems

Make them plan something smaller. Or just improve that intersection first.

Sincerely,

Dominique and Jacob Vincent

834 Van Dyck ct.

B91-07cont.

B91-08

Hello Noren, The following is our feedback to the Butcher’s Corner Draft EIR. Note: We tried to delete the names we saw of that did not want to be included and apologize if we missed any. Regards, John Ameling Susan Charbonneau

Comments to Butcher Environmental Impact Report This report makes it very clear that the neighborhood outreach meetings were meaningless for the current residents. Many major concerns that were voiced repeatedly seem to have been ignored or conveniently dismissed under the guise of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.

• Intrusion into the privacy of the neighborhood yards • Side streets becoming thoroughfares • Corner lot not factored into traffic impact • Amount of parking space predicted per unit is woefully deficient

Intrusion into the privacy of the neighborhood yards See Page 4.1-8 (PDF page 86 and following) Existing Viewsheds View Location 2: Southeastern Corner of Project Site (PDF page 89) These views would have credence only if the buildings were one story. What is the view into the neighborhood homes across Fremont Avenue from the proposed 7-story level? The intrusion into our private yards and into our houses has been an overriding concern at every neighborhood outreach meeting for this project. Your photos conveniently don’t point in the direction of the Eichler neighborhood toward Kingfisher. Any meaningful EIR must include the views from a 7th story level. Hint: get a drone. The neighborhood has a right to demand to know the amount of personal intrusion this project will present.


B92-01

B92-02

Please provide a view that lets us know what the visibility is into our yards. See the yellow area indicated in the following figure.

Side streets becoming thoroughfares Page 6-4 (PDF page 384) The terms “Significant and Unavoidable Impacts” is just a euphemism for “Terrible impact, but too bad for you”. The effect on the traffic on the Kingfisher-to-Dartshire-to-Wolfe inevitable route is under-predicted. The stretch of Kingfisher between Fremont and Carlisle is heavy with apartment dwellers who go back and forth to load their cars, often leaving the doors open. They also perform many U-turns to change parking places right in the middle of the S-curve. Also big rigs (yes, big rigs) that either deliver or the driver is getting something from 7-Eleven perform U-turns at the Kingfisher/Carlisle intersection. Add to this the clearly under-predicted amount of parking overflow from the Butcher residents. Corner Lot not factored into traffic impact Why is this presented without including the removal of the Medical Building, which was mentioned at every meeting? There was significant discussion regarding the impact this would have. This report is not meaningful without that information. Separating it out has the appearance of hiding its impact and causing everyone to deal with it separately when it clearly has a vital impact on any of the EIR factors for this development. The 130 room hotel at Crazy Buffet traffic is also key to the traffic impact. Amount of parking space predicted per unit is woefully deficient We all know that these units will be rented out to have one person for every bedroom that has its own bathroom. The algorithm used to justify the ridiculously small amount of parking required is severely outdated. The oops result of course is that the overflow will spill into the neighborhood. Page 3-26, Table 3-3. (PDF page 62). A better algorithm would be: (280 apartment residents) x (number of bedrooms with a private bathroom) = the real number of resident parking spaces needed.

B92-02cont.

B92-03

B92-04

B92-05

Hi Noreen,

I hope it is not too late for comments on the EIR

Thanks for your consideration

Paul

Section 4.11

I believe there are errors of methodology in the assessment of the intersection at Kingfisher and Fremont.

1) An LOS standard established for signalized intersections is being applied to a sign controlled intersection.

2) It appears the EIR preparers are using a worst case delay for this signed controlled intersection. Signalized

intersections are rated based upon average wait times. What does a worst case wait time even mean? This

would appear to be a significant misrepensentation of the conditions at the intersection.

Additionally there are claims made that no mitigation measures are possible for the Kingfisher

intersection. That is demonstrably not true. Mitigation measures available listed in order of positive impact:

1) Provide access to the project site from El Camino Real. This would allow traffic leaving the site better

access to points south and east of the project site, while minimizing impact to the local residential areas.

2) A lighted crosswalk should be installed to facilitate pedestrian crossing at the increasingly busy Kingfisher

intersection

3) The Kingfisher intersection should be striped with "KEEP CLEAR" notice in the intersection

4) "Do Not block intersection" signage should be installed at the intersection boundaries.

AES-2 AND AES-3


B93-01

B93-02

B93-03

B93-05

B93-04

There are significant aesthetic impacts resulting from this project. The buildings do not fit the character of the

neighborhood due to their scale, height and proximity to the roadway.

The scale of the project should be rolled back to avoid another "Linked-in" type of project with excessively

large buildings that are out of context with their surroundings.

BIO-1

Should not an assessment of biological resources be conducted prior to project approval? This section looks

only to mitigation during construction, and therefore does not address the core question of habitat loss.

B93-05cont.

B93-06

May 9, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT for a mixed-use project on a 5.1-acre site, consisting of 153 residential units and 6,936 square feet of office/retail use.

Project Planner: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659, [email protected]

Senior Planner Noren Caliva-Lepe provided information about the proposed project and the purpose of the DEIR. She said this Public Hearing is for members of the public and the Planning Commission to provide comments on the adequacy of the DEIR and that no decision will be made on the EIR or project.

Chair Melton noted that any questions asked by the public or the Commission will be responded to in the Final EIR.

Chair Melton opened the Public Hearing.

Mei-Ling Stefan, Sunnyvale resident, said the EIR does not adequately address aesthetic issues, that the proposed project and its appearance do not meet the Precise Plan for El Camino Real (PPECR) design guidelines and is not sensitive to neighboring projects in terms of scale. She noted that the PPECR provides guidelines for a size transition between larger and smaller buildings and that there will be three-story townhouses with a sharp transition to five- and seven-story buildings. She said the EIR does not adequately examine the loss of natural resources, that there will be a loss of five acres for recharging ground water and no plan for rain water capture and reuse, or for a graywater system for landscaping. She said the negative impacts on traffic and circulation are not accurately assessed as the Level of Service (LOS) at Fremont and Kingfisher has a grade of F when peak hour traffic data are used; whereas the El Camino Real and Wolfe intersection has a grade of D to E+ because average traffic data are used.

Mike Serrone, Sunnyvale resident, said there is no affordable housing included as part of the proposed project, and that while there may be mitigation fees, this is an excellent location for affordable housing as it is along transportation routes. He said the PPECR clearly defines this area as a key transit node going in all directions and is an excellent location for a station or other transportation facilities and it is not clear that was considered. He noted that a hotel was recently approved nearby, and said it seems individual projects are considered in isolation and not coming out of a plan to implement pedestrian walkways or transportation hubs for the area. He said the LinkedIn building set a model for poorly designed developments in terms of what it does for the community, which is nothing, and that the building comes right up to the sidewalk. He said it has created lot of resentment for the community and he would hate to see another very visible structure with a small setback that

Page 3City of Sunnyvale

COMMENT LETTER # C01

C01-01

C01-02


communicates the idea that a development has nothing to do with the community it is in. He said he is amazed that aesthetics were not considered and he hopes consideration is given for the aesthetics of this development.

Sue Serrone, Sunnyvale resident, said the provision and foreseeable implementation of the 2007 PPECR and the Grand Boulevard Initiative are not in conflict with this development, but that she requests the Commission examine the setback on the El Camino side, which appears to be ten feet from the street. She said this conflicts with the direction of previous plans to provide walkable, bikeable and multimodal street situations, and she is concerned that the extension of bike lanes on El Camino will conflict with the narrow sidewalk located close to the proposed building. She said a public benefit mitigation may be in order, such as a protected bike lane or a healthier setback from the sidewalk. She said she supports increased density at this node and that zoning from R-4 to R-5 is appropriate with the wide street and commercial services on three sides. She referred to a document submitted by Karen Warner and Associates, prepared for the update to the PPECR, that noted over 350 residential units are planned or under construction on El Camino and none have requested a density bonus, that there is currently no residential density limit on commercially zoned sites, and that establishing residential density for this corridor or for the nodes and enabling the use of a density bonus program could incentivize the inclusion of affordable units and market rate development along this corridor.

Phil Gibson, Sunnyvale resident, questioned the objectivity of the EIR because it is written as if there is no impact on the neighborhood. He said the description of the neighborhood trees in the the report are described as ranging from 75 to 80 feet in height but that most trees appear to be 60 feet tall. He noted that the proposed five-story and the seven-story buildings will be massive and two-to-three times as tall as anything in the area. He said the written average household size and projected number of new students attending Stocklmeir Elementary School are unrealistic, that current Stocklmeir students will be affected and that 150 more cars will be racing through the neighborhood.

Ritesh Patel, Sunnyvale resident, said he appreciates that this project will have significantly less of an impact than something like a mall on traffic, pollution and other problems he or his neighbors will have to deal with. He said while a project like this will bring with it a lot of homes it will also bring a lot of tax revenue to the City.

Kirt Mulji, an employee working in Sunnyvale, said the project does not seem to have much of an impact on traffic, and that the developer is making great strides to


C01-02cont.

C01-03

C01-04

C01-05

C01-06


protect the environment, including the older trees, which the project would be built around.

Holly Lofgren, Sunnyvale resident, noted that aesthetics were not studied in the DEIR and disagrees with the statement that the seven-story building would not block the view of the mountains. She said this project is not a Transit Oriented Development (TOD), that the expected large bottleneck at the intersection, which will degrade to LOS F, should warrant an analysis of emergency access, which was not performed. She said the area of controversy is misstated and that vehicular safety was erroneously not mentioned. She noted that U-turns and lane changing anticipated on Fremont were key objections to the project from the outset and were dismissed. She noted that the project will be accessed from a single driveway on E. Fremont Avenue, that she has requested information regarding the standard distance between driveways and she does not understand why this is not a major circulation safety concern. She said regarding the Cumulative Conditions section, she does not believe the result stating the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact at the Wolfe and E. Fremont intersection. She said the Landbank project was not included in the analysis of traffic and we can expect back and forth traffic on Wolfe, and she noted that other items were not addressed, including the wide sidewalks, the project's proximity to a two-story dwelling and the appalling architecture.

Ed Cramer, HOA president of the Tapadera Condos on Kingfisher Terrace, said the proposed project does not conform to the integrity or compatibility of the neighborhood, that it is too tall and should remain zoned R-3. He said Kingfisher Terrace was not mentioned in the DEIR and he is concerned that residents will not be able to pull out of the complex because it will be adjacent to the traffic from the project. He said he is also concerned with the noise, dirt and pollution during construction and questions how those issues will be resolved.

Matthew Maxson, Sunnyvale resident, noted that part of this plan is to provide a dedicated right turn lane off of Wolfe onto Fremont and that it would offer great relief to some of the traffic safety issues there. He said this is a modest medium density project and that he believes any minor findings in the EIR will be mitigated by the developer.

Zachary Kaufman, Sunnyvale resident, said the ratio of the number of bedrooms to the number of parking spaces is imbalanced and that the DEIR does not address visitor parking. He said the report does not mention how the average household size was calculated and that he does not believe it will be near 2.61 persons. He said the aesthetics section characterizes this site as previously developed, which


C01-06cont.

C01-07

C01-08

C01-09

C01-10


he says is incorrect because it was determined to be an agricultural site which means aesthetics should be discussed, as should sight lines.

Yogesh Rane, a mortgage broker in the area, said the biggest issue for many first time home buyers is affordable housing in the area, and that seeing this amount of inventory coming on the market in the next few years will stabilize valuations and will allow more people to consider buying in Sunnyvale. He said it is nice to see that there will be a less than significant impact on traffic and the conservation of nesting habitats for birds and bats.

Peter Wright said the related projects section makes no mention of the projects on Homestead and Wolfe, of Gateway on Lawrence or The Hamptons project at Wolfe and 280. He said the aesthetics section describes the area as two- to three-stories and that the proposed project is two times taller than nearby buildings. He said the setback on Fremont appears to be less than that on El Camino for the same building and that it should be the same if not greater. He mentioned that it would be helpful to include better mockups of the buildings to see how they would look onsite. He noted that water would be conveyed to the City's existing drain system on Fremont and that the Santa Clara Valley Water District determined that sites west of Butchers Corner and north of El Camino are flood prone, so it could have an impact on adjacent neighbors and should be discussed in the EIR. He said onsite recreation is oriented to adults and teenagers, that the report does not mention the project's impact on City parks, the nearest of which for small children being one mile away. He said the EIR does not include additional trips for basic recreation, and that new developments tend to have more children around the same age, meaning the project will have a greater impact on the schools than discussed in the EIR. He said most parents drive their children to school due to distance, that during the peak morning time the number of residents leaving is listed as 60, but that there will be 95 new students needing rides, for which the traffic planning and analysis should account. He said if a dedicated bike lane on El Camino is in the street and a traffic lane must be removed it should be included in the report.

Piyush Kothaxy said the EIR is comprehensive, that he is glad this site is not going to be used for an office building or commercial development and he likes the idea of a dedicated right turn lane. He said we need housing like this near office buildings which will shorten commutes.

Anupama Dwivedi, resident of Blair Avenue, said the dedicated right turn lane will help alleviate traffic and that this is the right density for El Camino.


C01-10cont.

C01-11

C01-12

C01-13

C01-14


Heather Morse, Sunnyvale resident, said the project is beautiful and in a good location, and that she likes that the corner will have a park-like setting. She said the project provides a major traffic improvement by widening El Camino, that the housing is the perfect density and is glad that the developer is able to save the 200 year oak tree.

Jessica Morse, Sunnyvale resident, said the project is a positive addition to Sunnyvale which needs more housing and that having another turning lane can minimize traffic accidents.

Denise DeLange, Sunnyvale resident, encouraged others who want to address the DEIR to do so in writing.

Mary Brunkhorst, Sunnyvale resident, said she is concerned with the proposal to remove 245 of the 246 trees onsite and said replacing them does not replace the tree canopy or their history and that 50 more protected trees are healthy enough for preservation, particularly those on the corner of the site. She said there should be additional project design alternatives with smaller buildings or different building locations to allow preservation of the trees, and that she is confused by the assumption in the report that the project meets the requirements of the PPECR and can use the associated zoning. She said the plan encourages mixed use with access to commercial services from adjacent residential neighborhoods, but that this project does not have access from El Camino. She said the project faces Fremont and should be turned around so it is seen as part of the neighborhood on a residential street surrounded by buildings two- to three-stories high.

Nirav Mehta, owner of the Building at Wolfe and Fremont, said the only way to alleviate the traffic problem at the Wolfe-El Camino-Fremont intersection is with the corner plot alternative that provides an additional lane at no cost to the City, its tax payers and businesses. He noted that the EIR fails to highlight the traffic relief that would result from the additional lane.

Manisha Shah, Sunnyvale resident, said the plan should be altered, that the buildings should be staggered and there should be several access points to the project from El Camino.

Dipa Mehta said the DEIR determined that the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigations on all of the major issues, and that the addition of a right turn lane will improve the traffic at an intersection that is F rated.

Ashish Gupta, owner of a business in Sunnyvale, said more housing is needed to


C01-15

C01-16

C01-17

C01-19

C01-20

C01-21

C01-22

C01-18


accommodate growing businesses in Sunnyvale.

Devang Shah, employee of a business in Sunnyvale, said we should continue increasing housing density to support growing businesses and increase tax revenues. He added that many of the issues presented in the EIR are negative issues, and suggested it also evaluate the positives and how the project can help the City.

Nandita Shah said projects like this provide much needed housing and will make Sunnyvale richer in terms of talent, diversity and tax revenue. She said only two-to-three percent of impacts were significant and that other impacts have measures to mitigate them.

Bong Joon Jang, owner of a business in Sunnyvale, said the dedicated right turn lane from Wolfe onto Fremont will help alleviate daily traffic jams and increase vehicle safety.

Dhruvi Mehta, owner of a business in Sunnyvale, spoke in support of the project.

Sarmistha Patnaik spoke in support of the project.

Eleanor Field, Sunnyvale resident, said increased housing in the area has increased the population of Stocklmeir Elementary so that students have to get in by lottery, and that there is no safe way to get to Fremont High School. She said there is no public transportation on Fremont, and that with several big projects on Wolfe there will be a huge increase in traffic. She added that fire engines will not be able to get in and out of the site.

Peter Meier said Sunnyvale needs the extra housing to support local businesses, that the added turn lane will help with traffic and that this is a sensible sized project for this site.

Vice Chair Harrison said not enough adequate alternatives were studied with regard to the environmentally preferred corner lot site plan. She said there are no EIR defined scenic vistas in Sunnyvale and that a grove of mature oak trees may not be defined as a significant biological or cultural asset in EIR terms, but that the trees mirroring each other from the proposed project site to the City right-of-way across Wolfe better represent our history and culture. She said they are a visual landmark and gateway as required by the PPECR, which encourages a consistent landscape theme. She requested an alternative be studied that retains the mature grove and redistributes the buildings with the corner lot site plan.


C01-22cont.

C01-23

C01-24

C01-25

C01-26

C01-27

C01-28

C01-29

C01-30


Commissioner Olevson said he would like to see the EIR better explain the use of averages, specifically the number of people per dwelling unit. He questions whether the baseline used by the EIR is based on Silicon Valley averages or national averages. He said in this valley we have a much higher density per bedroom, and he would like the EIR to better explain where the data came from so we can evaluate whether it is adequate at the approval stage.

Commissioner Simons said he assumes that there is not a linear ratio for the numbers for traffic and pollution contribution if a single occupancy vehicle reduction requirement is added. He asked if a reduction was imposed for traffic, would the impact be linear, if there is a step function or if there are different amounts at peak times that reduce the traffic level. He asked what the mitigation for safety is for maintaining a bike lane when cars turning right from the dedicated lane cross over the bike lane.

Commissioner Weiss asked if the project will follow the 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards going into effect on January 1, or if it will be bound by prior standards. She said she is concerned by the increase in pervious surfaces and would like to see how water runoff will be prevented or captured and directed to landscaping addressed in the EIR. She said she does not understand why the emergency access is from Fremont and said it could be shown more clearly and justified. She said she would like to see more project alternatives with scaled down size and bulk, and that she would like to see the trees referred to as a heritage orchard rather than a remnant to potentially save more. She said only 7,000 square feet will be dedicated to commercial retail and she would like to see how this space will be best used in a mixed use concept.

Commissioner Klein said under the Cumulative Impact Analysis section the project listing should encompass other large, well known projects nearby, including Central and Wolfe, the Apple campus on Homestead and the Wolfe and El Camino hotel. He said he would like to see an evaluation of an alternative with an exit onto El Camino from the project in order for the project to be considered part of the PPECR and to help alleviate traffic issues on Fremont. He said he would also like to see an alternative that would conceivably increase the retail along El Camino and Wolfe to provide more walkability for the existing residents near the site.

Chair Melton said the following developments should be included in table 4-1 and in the Cumulative Impact Analysis section of the EIR: 803 W. El Camino Real, 1080 Steward Drive, 1111 W. El Camino Real, 1205 W. El Camino Real, 1313 S. Wolfe Road, 598 W. El Camino Real, 725 S. Fair Oaks, 777 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road,


C01-31

C01-32

C01-33

C01-34

C01-35


850 E. El Camino Real, 830 E. El Camino Real, 861 E. El Camino Real, 970 W. El Camino Real and 1008 E. El Camino Real. He said on page 4.1-17 under Aesthetics the following language should be added, "Notwithstanding the requirements of SB-743, for the sake of completeness, the FEIR includes computerized renderings of how the completed project would appear, in its final form, to an average height adult looking at and towards the project from the following five locations: 1,000 feet to the west standing on E. Fremont Ave.; 1,000 feet to the east standing on El Camino Real; 1,000 feet to the south standing on S. Wolfe Road; 1,000 feet to the north standing on S. Wolfe Road; and, 1,000 feet to the south standing on Kingfisher Way. He said on page 4.3-6 in the discussion about the orchard trees the final sentence of the paragraph currently says the trees were not included in the Preliminary Tree Report because of their original function for agricultural use. He requested the authors of the EIR add a footnote that cites the specific California law which exempted the orchard trees from having to be included in the Preliminary Tree Report, and to add the following sentence, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the sake of completeness, the Preliminary Tree Report has been re-prepared in its entirety for the purposes of this FEIR, which such Preliminary Tree Report now includes an analysis of the previously excluded orchard trees, and which such revised Preliminary Tree Report is attached to this FEIR." Chair Melton said in section 4.8 on page five, the authors describe a disconnect between the zoning as R-3 and the General Plan zoning district associated with this parcel R-4. He requested the authors add the following language, "To better help decision makers understand whether this disconnect between the zoning designation and the General Plan designation is uncommon or commonplace, the following table in this FEIR identifies all residentially-zoned parcels in the City of Sunnyvale where the zoning designation is disconnected from the zoning district designated by the General Plan to each such parcel." He said in section 4.10 on page 14 at the conclusion of the discussion on Cupertino Union School District he would like the following language to be added, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, on July 6, 2015 the District stated its opposition to the planned project, as shown in Appendix I."

Senior Planner Caliva-Lepe noted that the end of the DEIR public comment period is May 23, 2016.

Chair Melton closed this agenda item.

3 16-0338 File #: 2015-8086Location: 568 South Frances Street (APN: 209-30-020)Zoning: R0-HH (Low Density Residential / Heritage Housing)Proposed Project:

Appeal by the applicant of a decision by the Zoning Administrator to approve a VARIANCE with conditions to


C01-35cont.

........................................................................................................................

APPENDIX B: REVISED APPENDIX I PUBLIC SERVICES DATA

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

........................................................................................................................

EIR RESPONSE TO PLACEWORKS FOR BUTCHER’S CORNER 1. What is the existing staffing and equipment levels of the SFBS (i.e. number of firefighters, number of firefighter/EMTs, number of fire trucks, etc.)? See enclosed DPS EIR Standard Response Document 2. Are the existing staff and equipment levels at the fire station(s) adequate to meet current demands for fire protection services at the Project site and its vicinity? Yes Would implementation of the proposed Project impact service levels to drop below the projected future level? No. 3. Is there a standard ratio of firefighters per number of population (or other performance measure/standard) that the department wishes to maintain? No such ratio currently exists. Does the department currently meet that standard? NA 4. What are the average response times for fire and emergency services? See enclosed DPS EIR Standard Response Document Are these times considered acceptable? Yes. If not, what is the preferred response time? NA 5. Does the SFBS have identified Developer Impact Fees for new development? No. If so, please describe the fees and what they fund. 6. Does the SFBS currently have plans to expand and/or construct new fire stations and/or facilities? New Fire Station 5 under construction on Bordeaux Drive and scheduled to be occupied in March 2016. 7. Would the SFBS need to construct new facilities or expand existing facilities in order to accommodate the proposed Project’s demand for fire protection services? No. 8. Included as attachments with this letter are maps with the location of proposed Project. Does the SBFS have an emergency evacuation plan or emergency response plan that the Project is a part of? We do not have any specific evacuation plans or emergency response plans that this project is a part of at this time. If so, how will the Project affect those plans? 9. Any other concerns or information you’d like to provide regarding the proposed Project? DPS may require installation of radio controlled signal devices (Emtrac) in nearby traffic signals to minimize emergency response delays due to increased traffic and congestion in the project area.

SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INFORMATION

1

Rev 7-6-2015 Page 1

Public Safety Model The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety provides fully integrated public safety services including Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services. Our unique model of service delivery requires each sworn officer to be fully trained in all three disciplines. Public Safety Officers (PSOs) are assigned to a specific bureau (Police or Fire), but can be called upon to provide cross bureau services on a daily basis. PSOs assigned to the Bureau of Police Field Operations are deployed to emergency medical services calls requiring lifesaving measures, as well as all structure fires. Each carries specialized equipment in their patrol vehicles which allow them to provide non-routine patrol duties such as firefighting and emergency medical services. PSOs assigned to the Bureau of Fire Field Operations are equipped with law enforcement personal equipment and can be reassigned to a law enforcement incident as needed. The cross-functional service model extends into our Communications Center where dispatchers are trained in all three disciplines, allowing for a single point of contact and immediate assistance upon receipt of a 911 call. In addition to police and fire services, the Department provides a multitude of other services such as Fire Prevention, Animal Control, Vehicle Abatement, Crime Prevention, Neighborhood Resource Program, Records Unit and Neighborhood Preservation. All of these services are provided through a professional staff of over 285 full-time employees and a large cadre of volunteers.

Insurance Services Organization (ISO) Rating Sunnyvale’s municipal fire insurance rating is Class 2.

Staffing In FY2014/2015, the Department is authorized for 198 sworn officers and 81 non-sworn personnel. Sworn officers are currently assigned as follows: Director of Public Safety: 1 director oversees Police Services, Fire Services, and Special Operations.

Bureau of Police Services: 88 officers include 72 Public Safety Officers, 13 Lieutenants, 2 Captains, and 1 Deputy Chief.

Bureau of Fire Services: 82 officers include 57 Public Safety Officers, 21 Lieutenants, 3 Captains, and 1 Deputy Chief.

Bureau of Special Operations: 27 officers include 16 Public Safety Officers, 8 Lieutenants, 2 Captains, and 1 Deputy Chief.

The Bureau of Police Services has two field teams of 38 officers each (76 total), a Traffic Safety Unit (4 officers), and a Street Crimes Unit (4 officers). The Bureau of Fire Services has three teams of 26 officers each (78 total). The Bureau of Special Operations has 24 officers in the following units: Crime Prevention (5 officers), Office of Emergency Services (1 officer), Investigations (14), Recruitment and Selection (1 officer), Training (2 officers), and an Administrative– Internal Affairs (1 officer).


2

Rev 7-6-2015 Page 2

Calls for Service In 2014, DPS made 47,195 police responses and 7,448 Fire/EMS responses. In 2014, the DPS Communications Unit answered 64,382 emergency calls, 46,530 of which were 9-1-1 calls. They answered 89.25% of these calls within 10 seconds.

Response Times Internal metrics on response standards are evaluated on an ongoing basis EMS events - Dispatch to on-scene within 5 minutes 42 seconds - 92% of time Fire events - Dispatch to on-scene within 6 minutes 14 seconds - 86% of time Police events - Dispatch to on-scene 5 minutes 54 seconds - 84% of the time

Area Plan The Area Plan, updated in 2015, describes Santa Clara County’s plan for the prevention of, preparation for and response to hazardous materials incidents and threatened incidents. This Plan is required to be prepared and updated by the Administering Agency, which is the SCC Department of Environmental Health, which is also serves as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for hazardous materials and hazardous wastes programs. This updated Area Plan will serve as an adjunct document to the County’s Emergency Operation Plan. This Area Plan is also applicable to the cities of Gilroy, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale which are also CUPAs as well as other cities and agencies in Santa Clara County. The Area Plan can be made available upon request.

Mutual Aid No community, including Sunnyvale, has resources sufficient to cope with any and all emergencies. County and Statewide mutual aid agreements provide for rapid systematic mobilization, organization, and operation of fire and rescue resources. To find out more about our mutual aid agreements visit: http://dpsweb/fireweb/FSPM/0804.pdf

Fire Stations & Apparatus The Bureau of Fire Services currently maintains six fire stations. Dispatch & Public Safety Headquarters - Dispatch services are provided from the Public Safety Headquarters at 700 All America Way near City Hall. No apparatus.

http://dpsweb/fireweb/FSPM/0804.pdf


3

Rev 7-6-2015 Page 3

Fire Station No. 1 – 171 Mathilda Avenue

District: The perimeter of district 1 exceeds 8.2 miles. The response district is roughly bordered by:

Sunnyvale Avenue (to the east) Maude Avenue (to the North) City of Mountain View (to the West) El Camino Real (to the South)

Apparatus: There are three apparatus operating out of station 1.

Engine 41 is a 2008 Ferrara. Truck 41 is a 2001 American LaFrance rear mount ladder truck. Reserve Engine 141 is a 1987 Pierce “Arrow” engine.

Fire Station No. 2 – 795 E Arques Ave

District: District 2 has a perimeter of roughly eight miles. The response district is roughly bordered by:

US 101 to the north, although the Fair Oaks corridor extends further north. City of Santa Clara to the east. The southern border of district 2 extends mostly along Reed Avenue out to the Santa Clara border. District 1 to the west and follows a line from US 101 south along Borregas to Central Expressway.

South of the expressway, the western border continues south from the area of Fair Oaks down to Old San Francisco Road.

Apparatus: Station 2 is home to the following apparatus, support vehicles, and mobile assets:

Engine 42 is a 2008 Ferrara “Igniter” Truck 42 is a 2001 American LaFrance “Eagle” 100’ rear mount ladder truck Rescue 42 (2008 American LaFrance “Eagle”) is dispatched citywide to every single structure fire

alarm. It is a specialized resource capable of delivering breathing air support and two truck operators to the scene.

Reserve Engine 142 (1990’s American LaFrance) Battalion Chief (Ford Expedition) Utility 142 (Ford F-250) Utility 242 - Prime Mover (Ford F-450) County EMS trailer (EMS-UTL-153) is a 12’ trailer equipped for multiple patient (MP) incidents. Technical Rescue support trailer – this trailer contains supplies and equipment to support technical

rescue emergencies and it is intended that it will be configured for utility response (work will soon be underway to facilitate this).

Fire Station No. 3 – 910 Ticonderoga Ave

District: The district is the second largest in terms of area served with a perimeter of over nine miles. It is situated in the southwest corner of the city and is extremely diverse – from million dollar properties in the west to low-income high-density housing complexes on the southeast. The response district is bordered by:


4

Rev 7-6-2015 Page 4

Stevens Creek drainage to a point where the creek crosses under SR 85 and into the city of Mountain View.

The district border then jogs in a northeasterly direction, and follows the property lines of apartments on Acalanes Drive and makes a turn toward the east splitting this residential area with district 1.

The northern boundary splits El Camino Real toward the east as far as Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, where the boundary roughly turns to the south.

The east border is shared with District 4 and splits Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road to the southern boundary (Homestead Road).

The south boundary has some pockets that extend south of Homestead Road as it makes a line toward the west. Major thoroughfares in and around the district include SR85, a portion of I-280, Homestead Road, El Camino Real, Mary Avenue, Fremont Avenue and Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road.

Apparatus:

Engine 43 is a 2008 Ferrara. The apparatus is staffed with a Lieutenant (Company Officer) and a PSO (Engine Operator).

Engine 243 is a 2000 American LaFrance (ALF). Engine 243 is staffed with two PSO’s.

Fire Station No. 4 – 996 S Wolfe Ave

District: The perimeter of District approaches 10 miles in length. The response district is bordered by:

Lawrence Expressway (to the East) Reed Avenue (to the North) Sunnyvale-Saratoga (to the West) Homestead Road (to the South)

Apparatus:

Engine 44 is a 2008 Ferrara. The apparatus is staffed with a Lieutenant (Company Officer) and a PSO (Engine Operator).

Engine 244 is a 2000 American LaFrance (ALF) Engine 244 is staffed with two PSO’s.

Fire Station No. 5 – 1120 Innovation Way

District: District 5 is primarily an industrial/business area of the city. The perimeter of District 5 stretches over 7 miles in length. The response district is roughly bordered by

Fair Oaks Avenue to the east Southern reaches of the bay to the north City of Mountain View to the west Maude Avenue to the south

The district is dissected by the 101 and 237 freeways. Emergency responses on these freeways often require additional apparatus from Mountain View FD through our automatic aid agreements (AUTO AID). Apparatus:

Engine 45 is a 2013 KME. The apparatus is staffed with a Lieutenant (Company Officer) and a PSO (Engine Operator).

Truck 45 is a Ferrara HD-100 Rear Mount Platform staffed by two Public Safety Officers.


5

Rev 7-6-2015 Page 5

Fire Station No. 6 - 1282 North Lawrence Station Road

District: Station 6 is located in the industrial/commercial area of the city’s northeast corner, situated between State Route 237 and US101. The response district is bordered by:

City of Santa Clara and City of San Jose to the east US 101 (and DPS district 2) to the south Baylands to the north Borregas Avenue (and district 5) on the west

Apparatus:

Engine 46 is a 2004 American LaFrance (ALF). The apparatus is staffed with a Lieutenant (Company Officer) and a PSO (Engine Operator).

Engine 246 is a 2000 American LaFrance (ALF). Engine 246 is staffed with two PSO’s.

........................................................................................................................

POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES

........................................................................................................................

SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY _____________________________________________________

July 2, 2015

Mr. Caperton, The following are the responses to the questions submitted for the ‘Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Butcher’s Corner Project’ 1. Please provide updated background information and also include which beat the proposed Project (871 East Fremont) would be in? The Bureau of Police Services consists of 88 officers, who include: 72 Public Safety Officers, 13 Lieutenants, 2 Captains, and 1 Deputy Chief. The Bureau of Police Services has two field teams of 38 officers each (76 total), and a Traffic Safety Unit (3 officers). 871 East Fremont is located in ‘Beat 6’, which covers the southeast portion of the city (beat borders are El Camino to the north, Sunnyvale-Saratoga to the west, Homestead to the south, and the Santa Clara border to the east). 2. Are the existing staff levels and equipment at the station(s) adequate to meet current demands for police protection services in the Project area? Would implementation of the proposed Project impact service levels to drop below the current or projected future level? With the addition of 400 residents, nearly 400 vehicles, and population and vehicular impact of almost 7,000 square feet of office/retail space, it would be safe to assume there would be some impact on demands for police services but that impact would be difficult to quantify at this time. The intersection of El Camino and Wolfe is already heavily impacted with traffic congestion and this project would definitely contribute to that congestion. The increased congestion would have an impact on response times for emergency vehicles traveling through this area. It is also worth noting that there is a proposed multi-story hotel also being proposed across the street (El Camino) from this development, which will compound the aforementioned issues in this area. 3. Is there a standard ratio of officers per number of population (or other performance measure/standard) that the SBPS wishes to maintain? Does the department currently meet that standard? For 2014, SBPS was staffed with 0.73 officers per 1,000 population, compared with the Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies average of 1.21 officers per 1,000. 4. What are the average response times to the Project area? Average non-emergency response time? Are these times considered acceptable? If not, what is the preferred response time? Response times are calculated city-wide, not by beat or specific area. For FY 13-14, our average response time to 'emergency' calls for service was 4 minutes 55 seconds, and for

'urgent' calls for service our average response time was 6 minutes, 42 seconds. These times were within our accepted standards. It is always our goal to shorten our response time, but that is impacted by a number of variables, most notably the volume of calls-for-service (which is impacted by resident and transitory population) and traffic congestion. 5. Does the SBPS have identified Developer Impact Fees for the development of residential and commercial development? If so, please describe the fees. No. 6. What contribution would this proposed Project have on the cumulative policing services demand when considered in context with other developments in the area? Refer to #2. 7. Included as an attachment with this letter are an aerial photograph of the Project site and a map of the proposed Site Plan and its vicinity. Does the proposed Project conform to the SBPS’ requirements for emergency access? For Patrol purposes, yes. 8. Are there current plans to expand and/or construct new police facilities? The City is studying a new City Hall Complex, which would include a Department of Public Safety facility, but there is no current plan to expand/construct a new police facility. 9. Based on the Project description above, would the SBPS need to expand and/or construct new facilities to accommodate the Project? Not for this specific project, but there is a need to expand/construct new facilities based on city-wide construction and growth. 10. Any other concerns or information you’d like to provide regarding the proposed Project? Addressed in #2.

Dave Pitts Deputy Chief, Bureau of Police Services Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety

........................................................................................................................

SCHOOL SERVICES

........................................................................................................................

From: Jew Chris <[email protected]> Date: Monday, July 6, 2015 1:22 PM To: Ricky Caperton Cc: Terri McCracken; Gudalewicz Wendy Subject: Butcher's Corner Project EIR - City of Sunnyvale - Request for Information Hi Ricky, The Superintendent has forwarded this request to my attention. 1. What is the capacity for students at the schools within the City of Sunnyvale that would accommodate students generated by the Project? Are these schools currently within capacity limits? The proposed development area currently falls within the attendance boundaries assigned to Stocklemeir Elementary school. The school’s attendance this past school year was at 1200 students. The school facilities has already reached its enrollment capacity. The impacts and effects need to be mitigated. 2. Based on a June 2014 School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Schoolhouse Services for the City of Cupertino for a General Plan Update, which analyzed potential impacts to the CUSD, a student generation rate of 0.25 per residential unit for elementary and 0.07 per unit for middle school was used to project the number of students anticipated by the Project. Are these generation rates still accurate? If not, please provide current student generation rates? The District’s demographer has calculated the Student Generation Rates for this type of housing to be at .37 per unit. 3. Any other concerns or issues related to the proposed Project? At this time the District is opposed to the planned project. There have been no activity by the developer to discuss mitigation of impacts and effects with the District. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this. Chris Jew Chief Business Officer Cupertino Union School District 1309 S. Mary Ave. Suite 150 Sunnyvale, Ca. 94087 (Ph) 408.252.3000 ext. 424 (Fax) 408.749.1034

Hi Ricky, Sorry! Here is the attachment. Christine From: Ricky Caperton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 2:09 PM To: Mallery, Christine Subject: RE: Butcher's Corner Project EIR - City of Sunnyvale Thank you Christine for this information. We greatly appreciate the response. Also, there was no attachment to the email. Can you please attach the Forecast Update report referenced in your response? Thank you, Ricky From: Mallery, Christine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 1:45 PM To: Ricky Caperton Cc: Bove, Polly; Crutchfield, Jason Subject: Butcher's Corner Project EIR - City of Sunnyvale Hello Ricky, Per our telephone conversation, a student generation rate of .07 per unit that was used to project the number of students anticipated by the project is not correct. The most recent report from our demographer has the new “SFA” (including townhouses of 1500+ square feet with two‐car garages for each unit, which fits the described 39 townhouses in this Butcher's Corner project) averaging a 0.25 SGR in grades 9‐12 (0.81 in TK‐12) in the Cupertino USD part of our district. All other mainly market‐rate new attached developments in that part of our district are averaging 0.12 in grades 9‐12 (0.49 in TK‐12). (See pages 14 and 15 of the attached Forecast Update report.) Please let me know if you need additional information. Christine

Christine Mallery CBO/Associate Superintendent Fremont Union High School District 589 W. Fremont Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Office: (408) 522‐2245 Fax: (408) 522‐2263 From: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 1:31 PM To: Polly Bove <[email protected]> Cc: Terri McCracken <[email protected]> Subject: Butcher's Corner Project EIR ‐ City of Sunnyvale ‐ Request for Information

Hi Polly, My name is Ricky Caperton and I work with PlaceWorks, an environmental consulting firm working with the City of Sunnyvale to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed mixed‐use (residential/office) project located at 871 East Fremont Avenue in Sunnyvale, referred to as the Butcher’s Corner Project. I’ve attached a PDF which includes a brief description of the project, followed by a few questions that would aid us in the preparation of the EIR and to ensure information regarding the FUHSD is accurate. Please review the PDF and provide responses to the questions no later than Friday, July 17, 2015. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you!

RICKY CAPERTON Associate

1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 [email protected] placeworks.com

Our most recent enrollment projection report is posted on line and contains all of our Student Generation rates: http://www.fuhsd.org/enrollment . Let me know if there is anything else we can do.

Jason Crutchfield Director of Business Services Fremont Union High School District (408) 522‐2226 From: Trudi Ryan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:35 AM To: Darmanian, Aram; [email protected]; Noren Caliva-Lepe; Crutchfield, Jason Subject: School enrollment projections Aram/Jason Can one of you direct me to who at FUHSD our EIR consultant should contact for student generation factors to use in an EIR. There is a proposed project at Wolfe/Fremont/El Camino (the 5 acre Butcher property that you may have gotten wind of). Our EIR consultant (Terri McCracken from Placeworks‐‐copied on this message) has referenced a 2012 study done in Cupertino, however I would be more comfortable with a more current comment directly from the school districts. I have also copied Noren Caliva‐Lepe (Project Planner from City of Sunnyvale) on this message as well. Feel free to reply to all. We will be in touch as this project moves forward.

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Trudi Ryan, AICP Planning Officer City of Sunnyvale 408‐730‐7435 [email protected]

Save the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to. </S

!"#$%&"!'&(!"#$%&$'!(&)*$!+'!(,%!-,*$.'!/"!01123411+2!!5!!6,78!9:;2<!31;40+::!!5!!=>.%$8!9:;2<!31;40+:;

!"#$%&"!'&(!"#$%&$'!(&)*$!+'!(,%!-,*$.'!/"!01123411+2!!5!!6,78!9:;2<!31;40+::!!5!!=>.%$8!9:;2<!31;40+:;

Superintendent and Board of Trustees December 31, 2014 Fremont Union High School District 589 West Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Dear Superintendent and Board Members: This is the concluding documentation to the latest forecast update. As with our past reports, we begin with a summary (below) and then provide some background information, including a table comparing your current enrollment to what was expected from a year earlier. Subsequent sections follow the order of the remaining tables, starting with the updated projections in Tables 2 and 3 and then the underlying factors to those numbers in Tables 4 to 8. The appendices provide more detail for those who want to delve further into the data. Summary of Forecast Numbers Related to Facilities Total enrollment in the Fremont Union High School District (henceforth FUHSD or district) is forecast to rise by 108 to October 2015 and then more significantly over the following five years. The cumulative projected increase in the next 36 months is by 700 students. An expected enrollment high point in 2020 could have over 1,200 more students than in the “current” (October 2014) total.1 Thereafter a modest enrollment decline should occur. The projected short-term “resident” increase is again concentrated in the Cupertino High region, with relatively modest differences in the other attendance areas. The former is forecast to have 121 additional resident students in 2015 and another 115 (236 total) to 2016. The Fremont High region has the second largest projected gain in the next two years, with 96 more students. The resident totals for the other high schools are forecast to stay within 70 of their current amounts in 2015 and 2016. How the FUHSD handles intra-district attendance will alter these amounts for the enrollment at each site. By 2018, however, each of the attendance areas is forecast for differences of greater than 100 resident students. Cupertino is projected to have 460 more than at present, Fremont 273 and Homestead 137, all of which become even larger amounts two years later. Monta Vista’s resident total reaches 172 above the current figure in 2018, but that is a temporary occurrence, as the projected count falls thereafter. And the Lynbrook region is expected to have a reduction by 107 students over the next four years, with a further decline in subsequent years. The result, unless either the attendance areas and/or intra-district patterns change, will be Lynbrook having far fewer enrolled students than at the other regular high schools, including potentially a 2020 difference of over 1,000 students between Cupertino and Lynbrook.

1 Whenever just a year is stated in the text, such as 2020, the reference is for early October of that year.

Projected Enrollments from 2014 to 2024 Fremont Union High School District

Enrollment Projection Consultants Page 2

Background and Forecast Accuracy This is the tenth consecutive year that we have provided a neighborhood-specific forecast for the FUHSD. My firm, Enrollment Projection Consultants (EPC), specializes in these in-depth studies, where every key component of the recent enrollment trends is determined, analyzed, compared to the knowledge gained from our experience in over 300 previous studies, and then projected. To do this, we drove literally every street in the district in our first FUHSD study to learn the community and divide it into suitable planning areas. These planning areas represent a single dominant housing type wherever feasible, including by subjective price ranges and average home and parcel sizes. Several years of student files (including from the elementary “feeder” districts) have been coded against a street index representing those areas so that the trends in each housing situation could be identified and evaluated for the likelihood to continue, by degree, in the projections. While the previous eight forecasts were all within 0.8% of the actual total FUHSD enrollment in the following year, the projection from last year for the current total was not. Those studies prior to last year’s averaged being within ½ of 1% of the actual total for the first projection year and within 1% of actual for the third projection year, which are considered very high accuracy levels. And the first projection for ten years out, or from 2005 to 2015, had a 2015 estimate that is only 301 below what we are now expecting for next year (i.e., a difference of less than 3%, which means the estimate from 2005 was statistically accurate for such a long period of time).2 Last year’s forecast for the FUHSD total, however, is high by a significant 126 students, or 1.2%, with all of the consequential difference being in ninth grade (i.e., by 99 students, as is shown in the bottom row of Table 1 on page 3). The deviations in the other high school grades are nominal (by less than 15 students per grade in totals of over 2,600 per grade), as is the eighth grade count from the two “feeder” districts. This means that last year’s estimate for the presence of children in these upper grades was accurate, but that there was a change in the net difference in the number of feeder district eighth graders who graduated into being ninth graders enrolled in the FUHSD. For the three prior ninth grade enrollments, there had been an average net gain of 54 students in the classes that graduated from the feeder districts. Most of that increase presumably was from students coming out of private middle school programs. The current ninth grade class, however, has 13 fewer students than were in eighth grade in the feeders a year ago. This suggests that the usual net gain in FUHSD students coming from private middle schools did not occur this year, but we consider that to be an aberration specific to 2014. The clear trend in recent years has been to add students as the local public school classes graduated from eighth to ninth and a one-year shift does not eliminate that trend. There would have been a greater impact on the short-term projections for the FUHSD if this year’s deviation from the forecast had been spread across more of grades 8-12, as that would have indicated net enrollment losses from housing turnover. Our bigger concern for the mid- and long-range forecast is instead what happened in the rest of the feeder district grades (TK-7) in 2014. Those grades collectively had averaged adding 314 students annually from 2010 to 2013. The change in the last year, by contrast, was a drop by 87 students. Although we had accurately projected much less than that 314-student increase would occur for 2014, we did not foresee a shift to a decline. The forecast was high by 153 in TK-7 as a result. The portion of this shortfall that is in the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) can be attributed to simply a slight delay in the opening a major apartment complex (i.e., the students there enrolled just after, rather than just before, the October 1 enrollment date that we are using), but the decline in the Sunnyvale School District (SSD) is an issue. We do not fully understand the causes of some of the severe reductions there, especially for the classes graduating from fifth to sixth, but these have been factored into the updated forecast. This especially impacts the projected high school totals in the Fremont attendance area after 2016, with less (but still significant) growth now the most likely scenario. 2 These differences for all prior projections are shown in Appendix B1 on page 21.



District-Wide Projected Enrollments: 2014 to 2020 The total FUHSD enrollment is forecast to grow by 1,244 students in the next six years (see bold box in Table 2 on page 4). One of the smallest annual increases projected during that time is in 2015, with just 108 students added. Between 219 and 348 more students are expected in each of the following four years, to a 2019 total that could be 1,160 above the current count. Another 84 students are projected in 2020, to what could be the highest enrollment in the next decade, at nearly 12,000 students. The “current” (October 1, 2014) total is just 10,739. Evolution of the current student distribution through the grades, including in the elementary “feeder” districts, is a key reason for this growth. The smallest single-grade totals this year are in tenth and eleventh, with about 2,630 each. There is a slightly larger class now in twelfth, at 2,703, and a comparable amount in eighth, at 2,710. All of the grades from first to seventh, however, have much larger totals, with third-through-fifth having the most at close to 3,000 students each. This distribution will not make a big difference in next year’s FUHSD total because the outgoing twelfth grade class and the incoming class from eighth have similar student numbers. Thereafter, however, those smallest classes now in tenth and eleventh will be graduating out at the same time as the larger classes start to reach the ninth grade. The four largest current classes will be in the high school grades in 2020, which is why that year is forecast to have the highest FUHSD enrollment. While this comparison by grade is an oversimplification of all of the underlying factors to the projections, it does give a good quick insight into why the forecast grows so rapidly after next year, until an enrollment “peak” is reached in six years.

EarlyEnrollment Subject Oct. TK-7 8 9 10 11 12

Enrolled Students in All Relevant Districts TotalTK-12

Table 1: Comparisons of Actual and Projected Enrollments from All Relevant Districts Combined*

9-12 Total

Actual Students 2010 22,303 2,599 2,642 2,639 2,531 2,545 10,357 35,259

2011 22,705 2,589 2,668 2,657 2,640 2,531 10,496 35,790

2012 23,197 2,592 2,642 2,697 2,667 2,641 10,647 36,436

2013 23,246 2,787 2,632 2,640 2,696 2,689 10,657 36,690

2014 23,159 2,710 2,774 2,632 2,630 2,703 10,739 36,608

Actual Difference within Group: Annual Average, 2010 to 2013 314 63 100 477 2013 to 2014 -87 -77 82 -82

Actual Difference, Graduation into this Grade: Annual Average, 2010 to 2013 54 14 3 8 2013 to 2014 -13 0 -10 7

Projected from 2013-14 2014 23,312 2,698 2,873 2,646 2,632 2,714 10,865 36,875

2014 Difference, Actual-to-Projected -153 12 -99 -14 -2 -11 -126 -267

* Figures cover all students, including NPS, enrolled in the SSD, CUSD and FUHSD.



Early Grade in Fremont Union HSDOct. TK+K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2014* 2,760 2,868 2,917 2,987 2,980 2,988 2,885 2,774 2,710 2,774 2,632 2,630 2,703 10,739

2015 2,907 2,654 2,914 2,940 2,986 2,954 2,947 2,905 2,794 2,761 2,791 2,642 2,653 10,8472016 2,856 2,805 2,688 2,923 2,947 2,947 2,898 2,959 2,917 2,859 2,772 2,797 2,663 11,091

2017 2,950 2,744 2,848 2,691 2,925 2,918 2,877 2,910 2,971 2,978 2,869 2,776 2,816 11,4392018 3,036 2,816 2,786 2,860 2,689 2,893 2,863 2,886 2,920 3,027 2,986 2,874 2,793 11,680

2019 3,056 2,880 2,858 2,797 2,862 2,655 2,832 2,874 2,891 2,980 3,037 2,992 2,890 11,8992020 3,071 2,882 2,923 2,869 2,799 2,831 2,585 2,839 2,885 2,953 2,985 3,039 3,006 11,983

2021 3,075 2,880 2,925 2,934 2,871 2,768 2,769 2,590 2,849 2,946 2,961 2,987 3,051 11,9452022 3,086 2,885 2,923 2,936 2,937 2,840 2,707 2,777 2,598 2,911 2,951 2,968 3,003 11,833

2023 3,102 2,894 2,928 2,933 2,938 2,904 2,777 2,715 2,787 2,656 2,915 2,960 2,985 11,5162024 3,115 2,908 2,936 2,937 2,934 2,904 2,839 2,784 2,723 2,847 2,659 2,922 2,974 11,402

Total Fremont UHSD Enrollment Change in One Year, to October 2015 108Total Fremont UHSD Enrollment Change in Two Years, to October 2016 352Total Fremont UHSD Enrollment Change in Three Years, to October 2017 700

Total Fremont UHSD Enrollment Change in Four Years, to October 2018 941Total Fremont UHSD Enrollment Change in Five Years, to October 2019 1,160

Total Fremont UHSD Enrollment Change in Six Years, to October 2020 (at peak projected FUHSD total) 1,244

Real Potential Lower FUHSD Total in 2015 (essentially -1.0%) 10,740Real Potential Higher FUHSD Total in 2015 (essentially +1.0%) 10,960

Real Potential Lower FUHSD Total in 2020 (essentially -4.0%) 11,500Real Potential Higher FUHSD Total in 2020 (essentially +4.3%) 12,500

Projected FUHSD students from net additional new housing through 2020 217Projected FUHSD students from net additional new housing through 2024 364

* This is the actual enrollment in student files provided to EPC by the relevant districts, including all TK-12 SDC (Special Ed.) and NPS (non public school) students maintained in databases of the three districts. (The TK-12 NPS total is less than 60.)

Notes: (1) Projected amounts are for current facilities, educational programs and level of inter-district control. (2) Enrollmentsanywhere within "real potential" ranges are quite possible, with the likelihood of being more to the lower or higher end of eachrange dependent in part on inter-district enforcement levels (especially the extent of identifying incorrect home addressing).Potential ranges shown are for essentially an 80% probability. There is an approximately 10% possibility for each of lower orhigher totals. (3) All figures include SDC and NPS students enrolled in the relevant districts. (Some earlier FUHSD forecastsexcluded NPS.) (4) Nuances of the recent evolution of the kindergarten (K) eligibility cutoff birth date from December 2 toSeptember 1, plus the related "Transitional Kindergarten" (TK) program for those in the affected birth months, will create someby-grade distributional differences that start impacting the FUHSD in 2021. There were three adjacent student body classes inK in October 2012 to 2014 that essentially covered only eleven-month birth periods, but that was mostly offset by correlating to high birth count years for all but the current K. TK expanded from representing essentially one month of births in October 2012to three months of births in October 2014 and thereafter. This raises the TK+K amount from covering 14 birth months this yearto 15 months in all forecast years in the CUSD. (The SSD has policies that lower that figure.) Those three adjacent CUSDstudent body classes containing only eleven birth months will start graduating into the FUHSD grades in 2021, but with a moresignificant impact starting in 2023. Also starting to impact the FUHSD after 2022 will be student body classes coming from thelow birth-count years of 2009 to 2012 (during the recession). These factors should create an FUHSD enrollment reduction after2020. Enrollments that far into the future, however, have a large potential range, so only the likelihood of a consequential dropafter a peak in about 2020 should be noted. The forecast figures in 2024 should be considered as just general estimates. (5)The TK+K figures shown in last year's version of this table were incorrect because they excluded CUSD TK students.

Total

Total Projected Enrollment by(9-12)

FUHSD

Table 2: Projected Total District October Enrollment, 2014 to 2024

Sunnyvale and Cupertino Union Elementary School DistrictsTotal Projected Enrollment by Grade in the



District-Wide Projected Enrollments: After 2020 To repeat from our last report: There is almost certainly going to be an enrollment decline after 2020 due to nuances now occurring in the lowest grades. The birthdate cutoff for kindergarten eligibility evolved over the last three years from December 2 to September 1. Children with birthdates that previously would have qualified for kindergarten (K) enrollment are instead supposed to enroll in a new “transitional kindergarten” (TK) program. The Sunnyvale SD implemented this program in a way that keeps the by-grade totals relatively close to covering twelve birth months (i.e., by allowing TK students, upon parent request, to go directly into first in the following year). For the Cupertino USD and most other districts, however, more formal observance of the TK-then-K policy means there are three smaller student body classes graduating upward, compared to what would have been in those classes if not for this eligibility date shift. This reduction starts to impact the FUHSD total in 2021 (from the current second grade class) and will be fully in the high school grades in 2023 and 2024, with some impact through 2026. Compounding the reduction to an 11-month period for this year’s kindergarten class is the correlation to a low birth total in 2009 (during the economic recession).3 That unusually small K total will evolve into the ninth grade enrollment in 2023. This is a key reason why the FUHSD total significantly drops between 2022 and 2023. The projected 2024 total, nonetheless, is still nearly 700 above the current amount and that could be an overly conservative figure, especially if new housing starts generating more students in the SSD part of the FUHSD. Projected Resident Student Populations by Existing Attendance Areas The following text is repeated from past reports. Readers who already know how to interpret the difference between resident and attending figures can skip to “Key Findings by the Existing FUHSD Attendance Areas”. This forecast is again based on an analysis of where the students live (the resident population) rather than the schools they happen to attend (the attending enrollment). Resident populations differ from enrollments because of (1) intra-district enrollment (between FUHSD schools), (2) incoming inter-district enrollment (from addresses outside the FUHSD) and (3) Community High and NPS students.4 By coding student addresses from the current and prior years to planning areas that represent various housing types and locations, we have been able to identify and evaluate how the student population is evolving in each situation. We flip back-and-forth between the “resident” and "enrollment" amounts in the text below and it is important to remember the distinction between these types. The current and projected resident numbers, along with the current attendance figures, are provided in Table 3 on page 6. Understanding the Data in Table 3 Table 3 contains two sets of data. The figures on the left (under "Actual Resident-to-Enrollment part”) show how the current enrollment at each school differs from the resident population. There are 1,973 district-enrolled (9-12) students, for instance, with home addresses in the Fremont attendance area. That school’s enrollment, however,

3 The current first and second grade classes correlate to higher birth count years (i.e., mainly from five years earlier), while the

2015, 2016 and 2017 kindergartens correlate to recession-influenced low birth total years. Please note that the birth period for the TK+K total was 12 months (11+1) in 2012 and 13 in 2013 (11+2), is 14 for this year (11+3) and will be 15 (12+3) in all future years. There also are expected to be higher percentages of TK-eligible children enrolled in TK in the future. These factors contribute to the higher projected-than-current TK+K figures.

4 Community High and Non Public School (NPS) students do not have specified attendance area subsections of the district, so

those students are instead resident to the attendance areas of the five main high schools. FUHSD students enrolled in other special district programs are included in the figures for the five regular high schools. All counts cover only 9-12 (i.e., no Adult Ed or eighth graders taking FUHSD classes). It also should be noted that “resident” throughout this report means physical resident, not legal resident.



is 1,965, which is eight less than the resident total. This net difference is shown by the “-8” in the top row of the “Attending Adjust” column in the table. The second set of data, on the right side of the table (under "Projected Resident Student Population part”), has the projected resident amounts. These are not projected enrollments. They do indicate, however, where changes in the population may warrant a concern. In Lynbrook’s case, for example, the resident total, which already is the lowest in the district, is forecast to drop by 179 in six years. This declining amount is shown in the bottom row of the box in the far right column of the table. Continuing or expanding the net adjustment gain of 88 for Lynbrook will help maintain a higher enrollment there. Key Findings by the Existing FUHSD Attendance Areas We always start this subsection with a comparison between the actual and projected totals by attendance area, for which there are some consequential differences in 2014. (Such figures are not shown in the above table.) Mainly due to the aforementioned lack of a rise in the relevant populations graduating from eighth to ninth, the current Homestead, Monta Vista and Lynbrook totals are each 38 to 50 below what was projected from a year ago. Having this ninth grade shortfall occur mainly in these areas reinforces our estimation that this was mostly a one-year aberration. Those highest-API-scoring schools have always added students in ninth that had not been enrolled in even the CUSD in eighth in the previous year. Considering the prestige of these schools, we expect such gains entering ninth will reappear. The Fremont total came within three of what was projected (in 9-12), but that has the greater long-range concern about unforeseen losses in TK-7 within that region. Cupertino’s total is only off by 19 and that is entirely attributable to a delay in an apartment complex opening in that attendance area.

Table 3: Actual Enrollments and Actual and Projected Resident (9-12) Students by FUHSD Attendance Area

Actual October 2014* 9-12 Student PopulationResident Attending Attending (incl. SDC and NPS) in Oct. of Change to Oct. of***

School Students Adjust** Enrollment 2015 2016 2018 2020 2015 2016 2018 2020

Fremont 1,973 -8 1,965 1,986 2,069 2,246 2,415 13 96 273 442

Homestead 2,404 -1 2,403 2,398 2,419 2,541 2,682 -6 15 137 278

Monta Vista 2,360 -9 2,351 2,365 2,424 2,532 2,438 5 64 172 78

Cupertino 2,100 49 2,149 2,221 2,336 2,560 2,713 121 236 460 613

Lynbrook 1,748 88 1,836 1,722 1,682 1,641 1,569 -26 -66 -107 -179

Community NA 14 14 NA NA NA NANPS NA 21 21 NA NA NA NA

Total*** 10,585 154 10,739 10,692 10,930 11,520 11,817 107 345 935 1,232

* The actual student counts in grades 9-12 are based on student records provided to EPC by the FUHSD (incl. SDC and NPS).

** Net attending adjustments include (1) intra-district attendance, (2) incoming inter-district enrollment and (3) students listed at unlocatable home addresses. This includes 152 inter-district students and two unlocatable addresses in the current records.

*** "Resident" totals differ from Table 2 because they exclude incoming inter-district enrollment and addresses unlocatable by attendance region.

Notes: (1) Students enrolled in Middle College, College Advantage, Horizon, New Start, Vista and Young Parent programs areincluded in the above attendance numbers for the five regular schools. (2) Appendix A provides actual October 2014 residentand attending amounts by grade. (3) Projections include fractional amounts, so the amounts shown here may not sum exactlyto totals in other tables.

Projected Res. 9-12 Student Pop.

Actual Resident-to-Enrollment part Projected Resident Student Population part



As in our recent studies, the largest projected resident increase is in the Cupertino attendance area. This is true, in comparison to the current totals, to every year of the next decade. The expected resident Cupertino growth for 2015 is by 121 students, while the next highest rise is by just 13 in Fremont’s region. The cumulative differences to 2016 are 236 more students for Cupertino, 96 for Fremont, 64 for Monta Vista and just 15 for Homestead. The Lynbrook area is forecast to have a 66-student decline during that time. Two years later, in 2018, the Cupertino area is projected to have the most resident students, with 2,560 (from a net four-year gain of 460). That is up from having the third largest total today. Fremont, Homestead and Monta Vista also could have significant four-year growth, with 273, 137 and 172 more students, respectively, but only the former two and Cupertino have further increases to 2020. The Monta Vista total instead reaches a high of 2,532 in 2018, but declines thereafter. The differences become even greater to the overall enrollment high point in 2020, but with a key caveat for the Fremont area. The projected resident total for Cupertino exceeds 2,700 students, with Homestead’s figure a close second at just under 2,700. Both Monta Vista and Fremont are forecast for around 2,400 students, but the Fremont total could be much higher (2,600+) if either (1) new dwellings start generating more students from within that area and/or (2) there is less of a severe reduction in the underlying student population graduating upward. The Lynbrook area, with little new housing expected and a current resident student distribution in TK-12 that is severely slanted toward the upper grades, is forecast to have fewer than 1,600 high school students by 2020. That is a projected difference of over 1,100 resident students between Cupertino and Lynbrook. An even greater divergence is possible for the current attendance areas in subsequent years (which is not shown in this table because the numbers have too wide of a potential deviation for that far into the future). Underlying Factors to the Projections: Recent Student Population Evolution by High School Region The five high school attendance areas have had dramatic recent differences in how their TK-12 populations evolved. The Fremont High region, in particular, has had a huge distributional slant toward the lower grades for several years, but there also have been significant reductions in each class graduating through the grades. This can be seen in the top section of Table 4 on page 8. The 898 resident students in kindergarten in 2010 (before TK came into existence) evolved over the next five years to 783 in fourth, for a 115-student reduction (-13%). The 686 students in fourth in 2010 became a class of just 498 in 2014, which is a loss of 188 students (-27%). If these patterns continue, then each resident total in K could be reduced by 40% by the time it gradates into ninth. So even though there are now, and have been for awhile, far more students in the lower grades in this area than for any of the other four regular high schools, the attrition rate is so severe through the grades that there has been less growth than in the Homestead and Cupertino areas. There even was a decline in the Fremont TK-12 total in the last year, despite all of the new housing being built there. Nonetheless, the Fremont High region did add over 500 students in TK-12 since 2009, and that was joined by growth of 683 and 988 TK-12 students in the Homestead and Cupertino areas, respectively, for a combined rise by over 2,000 students. With much of that significant growth having occurred in TK-5 for each area, there will be notable future resident gains in the high school grades for all three schools. Evolving in the opposite direction are the resident numbers in the Monta Vista and Lynbrook attendance areas. The Monta Vista region does have a modest “bubble” graduating upward that is now in fifth through ninth. This should create some increase in that high school total for the next few years. The totals in the lower grades there, however, are collapsing and this will impact Monta Vista by 2020 and thereafter. The Lynbrook region has had a relatively stable resident 9-12 count since 2009, but smaller totals have been graduating upward through the elementary grades. The resident totals now in seventh and eighth are the smallest in those grades in some time. Although we had similar findings in the resident TK-12 numbers in our last report, some of the trends became even more evident in the latest data, especially (1) the losses in the graduation through the grades in Fremont’s region and (2) the pending high school decline for the Lynbrook area.



High School Oct.Region of TK+K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TK-12

Fremont 2009 864 885 792 760 686 596 569 547 574 495 464 506 518 8,2562010 898 866 864 785 711 649 566 566 542 535 514 459 516 8,4712011 985 886 833 828 756 663 588 548 536 523 527 505 460 8,6382012 891 965 862 827 815 714 588 576 532 475 514 536 508 8,8032013 915 885 910 832 792 739 621 578 540 493 460 501 554 8,8202014 913 880 839 875 783 731 645 585 546 498 492 469 514 8,770

Change from October 2009 to October 2014 514

Homestead 2009 604 605 578 501 560 512 523 540 494 576 543 542 575 7,1532010 601 628 597 580 521 564 518 530 544 567 585 551 533 7,3192011 590 608 625 623 571 529 558 532 532 599 579 582 536 7,4642012 585 630 600 625 619 568 542 557 537 600 606 582 568 7,6192013 659 590 655 603 614 591 554 549 586 588 602 613 575 7,7792014 595 651 602 660 616 614 579 557 558 635 572 598 599 7,836


Cupertino 2009 602 608 576 580 554 534 496 473 463 438 432 438 378 6,5722010 581 634 612 590 561 565 526 502 478 466 453 424 435 6,8272011 569 593 640 584 594 580 558 516 494 497 483 459 430 6,9972012 608 622 639 648 600 593 556 554 525 508 500 477 458 7,2882013 583 618 624 642 649 611 585 574 558 522 518 497 479 7,4602014 569 568 653 607 650 641 597 591 584 545 547 507 501 7,560


Monta Vista 2009 467 515 549 567 597 517 576 597 589 641 687 593 604 7,4992010 492 521 542 565 581 599 544 572 602 618 644 670 582 7,5322011 455 537 541 588 585 579 615 527 576 607 613 637 655 7,5152012 436 494 550 588 601 602 599 630 545 584 610 613 634 7,4862013 446 486 512 553 610 611 625 605 635 559 584 614 597 7,4372014 403 472 518 496 578 601 642 633 611 632 544 583 601 7,314

Change from October 2009 to October 2014 -185

Lynbrook 2009 254 268 297 303 376 340 406 393 429 420 414 445 452 4,7972010 240 296 303 321 340 394 385 424 396 436 430 401 439 4,8052011 253 293 338 322 333 353 429 410 423 426 432 432 397 4,8412012 222 279 317 361 358 364 383 447 425 450 439 437 415 4,8972013 231 254 307 323 376 385 377 381 447 444 451 439 422 4,8372014 237 264 274 321 327 377 400 389 388 440 442 447 419 4,725

Change from October 2009 to October 2014 -72

* Figures include TK-12 SDC and a nominal number of NPS students. Students in former Montebello SD included before 2009.

Notes: (1) Figures exclude intra- and inter-district enrollments and a small number of students listed at residentially unlocatableaddresses such as PO boxes. (2) Color codes for by-grade student totals are: red = 900s, pink = 800s, rust = 700s, orange =600s, yellow = 500s, green = 400s, blue = 300s, lavender = 200s, grey = highest TK-12 total since 2008 for each school area

Table 4: TK-12 Public School Resident Student Trends in Each Current High School Attendance Area

Number of Students Residing in High School Region and Enrolled in SSD, CUSD and FUHSD*



Recent Resident Student Population Changes in Existing Housing All of the trend findings in “existing housing” have been recalculated for this study, including by several value classifications of single-family-detached residences (“SFD”) and attached units (“ATT”, covering apartments, condos, townhouses and plexes). A key change from past studies, however, is that we are now using October 1, 2010, as the cutoff date for identifying areas of almost exclusively “existing housing”. This changed the student numbers in the categories that had dwellings added between the previous October 1, 2006, cutoff date and the current 2010 date. Key information on the main housing trends is summarized in Tables 5A, 5B and 6, with additional detail provided in Appendix B2. This is all based on aggregates of the relevant student population counts in the nearly 500 planning areas that we are analyzing the data by for your district. These figures have been compiled separately by the Sunnyvale SD (SSD) and Cupertino Union SD (CUSD) regions because of trend differences between similar dwellings in those respective locations. Understanding the Data in Tables 5A and 5B Table 5A, on page 10, contains student totals from 2011 through 2014 from areas with virtually no housing units added since September 2010. The counts are provided in TK-8 and 9-12. Having figures for both groups shows how the student population is evolving, in terms of getting older or younger on average. “All Existing” ATT units in the SSD, for instance, now have 22 more TK-8 students and 39 fewer high school students than in 2011 (see middle part of Table 5A). There was thus a distribution shift toward the elementary grades, which indicates the current families have younger children on average (through turnover). Table 5B has a similar structure to 5A but differs by comparing the recent impacts of new vs. existing housing. Key Findings Related to the Data in Tables 5A and 5B Existing ATT housing in the CUSD was the main source of both the TK-8 and 9-12 growth. Those units added 175 FUHSD students (+7%) and an even more significant 766 CUSD students (+11%) in just the last three years. Our past finding of growth also coming from such units in the SSD, however, has disappeared in this latest data. While 22 TK-8 students were added over the last three years in these SSD dwellings, that is the net of growth to 2012 and a decline by 32 since then. And the high school total went down by 45 this year from those units. We should note that these latest losses came mainly from the most affordable ATT units in the SSD. All of the other value classifications of existing attached dwellings, which are combined into feeder district totals in this table, (1) had more stable student numbers in the SSD area and (2) were the main source of growth in the CUSD region. The three-year differences from existing SFD homes are 34 and 31 more high school students in the SSD and CUSD areas, respectively, but the latter gain could be short lived. This is because there also was a 384-student decline (-3%) in the CUSD grades, including by 350 in just the last year, from those residences. While much of that reduction came from a low kindergarten enrollment in 2014 (i.e., with no FUHSD impact until 2023), some of it occurred in the middle school grades in mainly the southern Fremont attendance area.5 Locations with new housing provided only 28 more FUHSD students and 41 additional SSD and CUSD students since 2011 (see Table 5B). We had expected a larger gain from the hundreds of new units occupied in the SSD in the last year. The implications of this are discussed in the new housing section of this report.

5 Also contributing to the 2014 decline in these CUSD homes was the graduation of a large eighth grade population.



Elem. EarlyDistrict Oct.Region Type** Category*** of

SSD SFD All Existing 2011 3,025 1,2822012 3,064 39 1,309 272013 3,120 56 1,321 122014 3,074 -46 49 1,316 -5 34

ATT Most 2011 1,653 623Affordable 2012 1,684 31 618 -5

2013 1,626 -58 668 502014 1,601 -25 -52 640 -28 17

All Existing 2011 2,877 1,074(incl. Most 2012 2,931 54 1,060 -14 Affordable) 2013 2,913 -18 1,080 20

2014 2,899 -14 22 1,035 -45 -39

CUSD SFD All Existing 2011 11,124 5,2282012 11,177 53 5,245 172013 11,090 -87 5,217 -282014 10,740 -350 -384 5,259 42 31

ATT Most 2011 998 548Affordable 2012 1,029 31 587 39

2013 1,044 15 568 -192014 1,077 33 79 549 -19 1

All Existing 2011 7,128 2,410(incl. Most 2012 7,441 313 2,525 115 Affordable) 2013 7,681 240 2,537 12

2014 7,894 213 766 2,585 48 175

* These are aggregate counts of planning areas with virtually no new housing units added since September 2010.

** "SFD" = single family detached homes; "ATT" = Attached, including condo, townhouse, apartment & duplex-fourplex units

*** Categories are for subjective assignments by EPC of the dominant housing situation in each area; areas without a dominant type are excluded. Students from areas with a mix of pre-2010 and more recently built units are also excluded.

Note: A few student counts have changed notably by category since our last study due to the shift from fall 2006 to fall 2010for the cutoff date for existing housing (i.e., in categories where additional housing units were occupied between those dates).

Oct. 2011 Oct. 2011Pop. Change Since9-12 Resident Stu.

in 9-12

Table 5A: Most Significant Resident Student Population Trends in Existing Housing by Residential Category*

StudentsStudentsExisting Residences (built before 2006)

in TK-8 Prior Year

TK-8 Resident Stu.Pop. Change Since

Prior Year



Average Student Grade-to-Grade Advancement Rates from Existing Housing The following explanations are repeated from past reports. Readers who already know how to interpret this data can proceed to the “Key Findings Related to the Data in Table 6” subsection on page 12. Grade-to-grade “advancement” rates are calculations of the net change in the number of students in each grade as they "graduate" into the next grade in the following school year. These figures, which are sometimes called “cohort survival” rates, are most applicable to an accurate forecast when they are determined specifically for students from existing dwellings. For example, if there had been a total of 100 students in eighth grade last year and 105 in ninth grade this year from the same group of homes, that would be a +5% (1.05) net advancement rate gain. Such rates usually are averaged over the last several years within each single-grade advancement to avoid giving too much influence to nuances that may have occurred in any one year. For this study, we have again determined the average over the last four years, with a slight weighting added for the final year of change. These rates are then evaluated for their likelihood to continue, by degree, through the forecast period.

EarlyDistrict Oct.Region of

SSD Existing Dwellings* 2011 6,550 2,6262012 6,665 115 2,618 -82013 6,732 67 2,631 132014 6,660 -72 110 2,603 -28 -23

New Dwellings** 2011 20 92012 31 11 15 62013 42 11 16 12014 52 10 32 25 9 16

CUSD Existing Dwellings* 2011 18,416 7,7262012 18,791 375 7,861 1352013 18,956 165 7,838 -232014 18,813 -143 397 7,916 78 190

New Dwellings** 2011 64 312012 67 3 36 52013 64 -3 37 12014 73 9 9 43 6 12

* "Existing" figures are aggregate counts of areas with virtually no net increase in housing units since September 2010. This includes students in residual categories not shown in Table 5A, such as mobile home parks (in SSD) and mixed-type areas.

** "New" figures are from areas with consequential net numbers of housing units first occupied since September 2010 and can include a few students from older units.

Note: Figures are for students enrolled in the three relevant districts and exclude both incoming inter-district students andstudents listed at residentially unlocatable addresses such as PO boxes.

Oct. 2011Subject

Table 5B: Comparison of Recent Student Population Changes between Areas of Existing and New Housing

in TK-8 Prior Year Oct. 2011 in 9-12 Prior YearStudents Pop. Change Since Students Pop. Change Since

TK-8 Resident Stu. 9-12 Resident Stu.



Understanding the Data in Table 6 The rates entering each high school grade are shown in bold on the right side of Table 6 on page 13. In the “Affordable to Modest” SFD group in the SSD region, for instance, the boxed "1.02” rate entering ninth grade means that, on average, a net of 102% of the eighth grade population in one year became ninth graders a year later from the same homes. That rate is then evaluated for its likelihood to continue, by degree, in the forecast. The cumulative rates shown in the middle columns of Table 6 are the result of a compounding of the individual grade-to-grade rates from first to eighth. These figures identify the net aggregate change, from the same housing units, in each student body class as it graduates upward through all of the elementary grades.6 Again using the “Affordable to Modest” SFD group within the SSD as an example, the “0.74” from 2010 to 2014 means that 100 students in first grade in one year would become 74 students seven years later in eighth grade (i.e. a 26% reduction), if these rates continue. These cumulative figures are a good indication of the net effect that families moving in and out are having on the TK-8 enrollments and the subsequent high school populations. Key Findings Related to the Data in Table 6 The big shift that has occurred in this data is the decline in the cumulative rates in the SSD region. Those are down in every category compared to our previous calculations, despite having several overlapping years of data. For the SSD’s detached homes, the updated rates are within the ranges in the three studies prior to last year’s and thus are not as great an issue. The new 0.89 rate identified in “Moderate to Upper Income” SFD dwellings, for example, is a return to being within the past range in the SSD area (0.88 to 0.94); it was the last study’s higher 0.97 figure that was the exception. The latest rates in both value groups of attached housing in the SSD region, however, are much lower than in any of our last four studies. For the “ATT All Other” (affordable to high amenity) units, in particular, the new 0.57 figure is not only both 10% below the rate in the last study (0.63) and more than 20% under those in prior studies (0.74 to 0.79), it also is far outside the “normal range” we are determining elsewhere. Whenever we calculate cumulative rates that deviate so severely from the norm, our usual finding a study or two later has been that the figure evolved toward the normal range. Although that did not happen between the last study and this study for “ATT All Other”, it remains the more probable scenario in the future. The updated projections follow this expectation, while still having a cumulative rate that is below the normal range.7 What this table does not show (see Appendix B2 instead) is that a key source of these low ATT cumulative rates in the SSD continues to be the underlying grade-to-grade rates from fifth to sixth. Shifts to private school attendance starting in sixth grade appear to be contributing to this. This is projected to be ongoing. The only significant net gain occurring in the SSD region in ninth grade, however, is in the more expensive SFD homes, at +19%. That large increase presumably represents students who graduated from private middle school programs. Considering the losses mentioned above between especially fifth and sixth from the “All Other” ATT units in the SSD, we would have expected a rate well over 1.00 entering ninth from those dwellings as well. This was the situation during the 2006-to-2010 period (with no years of overlap with the latest calculation), when there was a 15% increase entering ninth. The updated calculation is instead just a 3% pickup. The CUSD’s cumulative rates in the “Most Affordable” ATT and “Originally Affordable or Modest” SFD categories, by contrast, continue to be among the highest that we have calculated and, surprisingly, they rose from the 2009-to-2013 period to the latest one. Those rates had steadily declined in the preceding studies, as was projected. Aside from these 2009-to-2013 exceptions, however, the latest figures (in these two categories) do continue a downward trend compared to their previous figures. The cumulative rates for the “Most Affordable” ATT group, 6 The rates entering first and ninth grades are excluded from this cumulative calculation because those are often impacted by

students coming from private schools. The latter factor, while important, is a separate issue from identifying the changes caused, in most districts, mainly by housing turnover.

7 The latest rate calculated in the “Most Affordable” ATT units is projected to continue. These “normal ranges” are discussed in

more detail in reports provided this year to the SSD and CUSD, as well as in our 2011-12 report for the FUHSD.



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006to to to to to to 2010

Region Type** 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 9th 9th 10th 11th 12th

SSD SFD - 2,174 0.82 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.74 1.03 1.02 0.99 0.97 0.99 Affordable to Modest

SFD - 2,173 0.94 0.92 0.88 0.97 0.89 1.16 1.19 1.00 1.02 0.97 Moderate to Upper Income

ATT - Most 2,241 0.98 1.01 0.93 0.87 0.81 1.01 1.04 0.98 0.99 1.03 Affordable

ATT - 1,693 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.63 0.57 1.15 1.03 0.96 1.00 1.00 All Other

CUSD SFD - 1,726 1.42 1.34 1.29 1.21 1.27 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.01 1.01 Originally Affordable to Modest

SFD - 14,273 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.20 1.18 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 Moderate to Upper Income

ATT - Most 1,626 1.47 1.38 1.25 1.21 1.24 1.18 1.09 1.04 1.06 0.94 Affordable

ATT - 8,853 0.82 0.81 0.88 0.87 0.86 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 All Other

* These are areas with virtually no added housing units since Sept. 2010 for this study and since earlier dates for prior studies.

** "SFD" is for single-family detached homes and "ATT" covers attached units, including apartments, condos, townhouses and plexes. Value levels are based on EPC evaluation of the dominant housing situation in each planning area. The totals in these levels may not sum to aggregate SFD and ATT figures shown elsewhere because of a small number of students in mixed-value SFD or ATT areas.

*** This is the portion of the number of students in any one year in first grade that would be in eighth grade seven years later using these rates. The "0.57" from "ATT - All Other" in the Sunnyvale SD region, for instance, means that, on average, there would be 57% as many eighth graders (i.e., -43%) in these same homes as there were first graders seven years earlier.

**** For example, the boxed "1.09" entering ninth grade from "ATT - Most Affordable" in the Cupertino USD region means that the student population rose by an average of 9% in graduating from the eighth to ninth grade from the same housing units over the last four years, except that the rate of change in the latest year has been weighted at 150% in the calculations.

Note: Advancement rates shown are the actual calculated rates. These have been modified where warranted in the forecast.

FUHSD

Grade to this Grade in Oct. Each Year****

2010 to 2014 (This Study)

from 1st to 8th***

Table 6: Summary of Resident Student Grade-to-Grade Advancement Rate Findings in Existing Housing

Existing Residences*Neighborhods of

Enrolledin the twoESDs and

Cumulative Rates Net Number of Stu. Advanced from PriorStudentsFour-Year Weighted Avg. Rate at whichCurrent



for example, went from 1.47 in the 2006-to-2010 period to 1.24 in the latest period. We expect modest further declines, toward the normal ranges, will occur in the future, which means that the recent student growth in these dwellings could be ending. All of the remaining updated cumulative rates and high school advancement rates in the CUSD region are reasonable to be ongoing; only the rates in the SSD area have a high potential for major swings in the future.8 Projected Impacts of New Housing New dwellings impact the enrollment through a combination of (1) the number of residences expected in the various housing types, by year and location, and (2) the projected number of students in each of those units. These two components are discussed in the following italicized subsections. Most of the text below, other than the updated rates, is repeated from past reports, so some readers may want to skip to “Projected New Housing Amounts” on page 15. Average Student Generation Rates (SGRs) from Recently Built Housing Student generation rates are the average rates at which residences “yield” students, such as one student in every two homes (a 0.50 SGR). Public school SGRs usually are calculated by identifying the number of students in a sufficiently large unit sample from the local area. The rates identified from recently built housing are often considered the best estimation of what similar future homes will generate, at least in the first few years of occupation. Several of these SGR categories were again determined necessary (and have been updated) for the projections. Two pairs of these categories are for the same housing classifications, but within the separate SSD and CUSD regions.9 The categories are: (1) “SFD and SFA” - tracts of mostly market-rate, SFD and comparable attached (SFA) homes (i.e., large

plex units with attached two-car garages and private spaces per unit) [split into SSD and CUSD sections] (2) “Regular ATT” – all non-SFA attached housing developments with a majority of market-rate units [split

into SSD and CUSD sections] (3) “BMR ATT” – attached complexes with at least 50% of the units originally offered at below-market rates

(i.e., affordable to occupants with annual incomes below a certain level, such as 80% of the median income); this excludes motel-like “SRO” BMR projects [for all of the FUHSD, including in both ESDs]

(4) “SRO BMR” – BMR units that generally are studios lacking functional kitchens and have limited parking

options [only from, and projected in, the SSD section] These SGRs for FUHSD students can differ based on the feeder district location, with new homes in the CUSD area consistently having higher rates in both TK-8 and 9-12. A sample of 60 recently built “SFD and SFA” homes in the SSD currently provides five FUHSD-enrolled students (see top row of Table 7 on page 15). That translates into a 0.08 SGR in grades 9-12, or the rounded equivalent of eight students in every 100 such new residences. Recent “SFD and SFA” dwellings in the CUSD, by contrast, have a 0.25 high school SGR (i.e., more than triple the rate in the SSD for comparable residences). A shift has occurred in the SGR distribution from these CUSD homes, however, in that there no longer is a greater proportionate concentration in the elementary grades. This means that there is less likelihood of a further rise in the high school SGR from those dwellings (from within the CUSD region).

8 Appendix B2 provides the individual grade-to-grade rates into 5-8, including by more categories than those summarized here. 9 Some samples have changed since the last study, with the just-completed tracts added and developments that are now too

old (within the context of suitable sample sizes, relative to the housing amounts being projected in that type) excluded.



There is also a difference between the two “Regular ATT” samples. There are just 23 FUHSD students coming from an updated sample of 1,121 such units in the SSD, for a 0.02 SGR in grades 9-12. Although this may sound low to some readers, such a high school SGR is not out-of-line with our findings from new ATT complexes in comparable elementary district regions and settings. Many of these modern ATT developments have higher percentages of studios, one-bedroom and smaller two-bedroom units than in the attached housing developments built prior to the 1980s. They also tend to be designed more for singles and childless couples, with features such as weight rooms and spas but only minimal “green” areas for children. As a result, even though this 0.02 high school SGR could increase after several years of occupation, it will never approach the SGR level of the average older ATT development. The key shift that occurred in this SGR is the lower rate in the elementary grades. A larger Regular ATT unit sample in our previous study had a 0.06 TK-8 SGR. With the slightly older units in that sample now excluded and the most recently completed locations in the SSD added, that SGR is now only 0.02, or one TK-8 student in every 50 units. The newest units in that sample had even lower rates in both TK-8 and 9-12. This justified a reduction in the expected SGR over time from such units, with the impact being mainly on Fremont High (for grades 9-12) The recent “Regular ATT” units in the CUSD, on the other hand, have a notable 0.12 high school SGR. The 0.37 TK-8 SGR in those dwellings also suggests that this 9-12 SGR will become even larger in the next few years.10 Only small samples are available of recently built units in the BMR categories, but this should suffice because few are projected. The sample of 40 “BMR ATT (non-SRO)” units in the FUHSD currently has a 0.38 SGR in 9-12 (from 15 students). A 193-unit development of entirely “BMR-SRO” units currently has one FUHSD student and one SSD student. Such a low student yield is not surprising for this housing type.

10 These SGRs have been applied to the total number of projected Regular ATT units in the CUSD region, but some allocations

have been shifted between developments where appropriate. The projected student numbers coming out of the “19800 Apartments”, for example, with solely multiple-bedroom units, are higher per unit than from the strictly one-bedroom “Main Street Apartments”, but the aggregate unit total matches the 0.37 SGR in the first years of occupation.

Elementary Category ofDistrict Recently Built Enrolled in the Respective DistrictsRegion Housing* TK-2 3-5 6-8 9-12 TK-8 9-12 TK-12

Sunnyvale SFD and SFA 60 8 4 2 5 0.23 0.08 0.32(SSD) Regular ATT 1,121 10 8 7 23 0.02 0.02 0.04

Cupertino SFD and SFA 232 42 44 43 59 0.56 0.25 0.81(CUSD) Regular ATT 321 40 45 35 37 0.37 0.12 0.49

All Areas BMR ATT (non-SRO) 40 5 5 9 15 0.48 0.38 0.85BMR SRO ATT 193 0 1 0 1 0.01 0.01 0.01

* "SFD" = single family detached; "SFA" = single family attached, for modern large (1500+ sq. ft.) individually-owned townhome and plex units with multi-car garages connected to each unit; "Regular ATT" (attached) = combined apartment, condo and traditional townhome and plex units; "BMR"= developments with at least 50% of units at below-market-rates; "SRO" = single- room-occupancy locations (developments of small studios with limited kitchen facilities and only one parking space per unit)

Note: "SFD and SFA" and "Regular ATT" samples are of virtually all non-replacement units in developments of three or moreunits completed since 2007 and (in the CUSD) 2005, respectively, to generate sufficient sample sizes. The only BMR ATT(non-SRO) location was built in 2006, while the one BMR SRO ATT location was built in 2000. No other recent BMR sites exist.

Units

Actual October 2014 StudentsRate (SGR) (rounded)

Table 7: Student Generation Rates (SGRs) from Recently Built Housing

SampledHousing

Current Student Generation



Projected New Housing Amounts The following paragraphs cover the elementary feeder regions separately, with information provided in reports to each of those districts essentially copied here. This provides consistency between the reports. Readers who do not need a listing of the major projected sites can proceed to the last paragraph of this subsection (on page 17). Residential developments had both faster and slower timelines than expected in the last year, but the South Bay is still in the midst of a housing “boom”. Complexes that had slower building and occupancy rates over the previous twelve months include, in the SSD, the “Avon 101” apartments on northern Fair Oaks. Most of those 97 pending units, however, are one-bedroom, so few students are expected as that building becomes occupied in 2015. Also taking longer to fill than previously forecast are the “Las Palmas” townhomes on the south side of El Camino west of Mathilda, but the rest of those (88 out of 105) should be moved into by next fall. A 67-unit ATT complex at the junction of South Bayview and East Evelyn had been forecast to be 50% occupied on October 1, 2014, but is instead only now being built, with completion perhaps a year off. These modest delays contributed to the lower-than-projected enrollment for this fall, but the enrollment impact still will occur in the future. Progressing at a quicker pace than expected was the first (main) phase of the Stewart Village Apartments on Stewart Drive, with nearly all of the just-finished 202 units occupied on October 1, 2014, and the rest right after. The next phase, with 57 apartments, probably is still a few years off due to some land-use issues. Such an isolated location, however, in an office setting far from any SSD or FUHSD school, has resulted in no students at the moment. Several additional developments are projected to have move-ins in the SSD region in 2015. Two small projects just east of northernmost Morse Avenue should have their combined 65 townhouses occupied during that time. Around 50% of the 85 regular ATT units, 40 regular BMR units and 83 SRO units in the development on the former Armory site could be occupied by next October (with the remainder for 2016).11 The “Loft House” apartments by the Town Center had the first approximately 20 units occupied as of this October 1 and the other 113 are now being moved into. Three small developments with a total of 37 ATT units (on Mathilda near ECR, on Old San Francisco near Fair Oaks, and on Willow Ave.) also should be finished. The result is a projection of 500 dwelling units in the SSD region being “first occupied” in 2015 (i.e., in the twelve months to October 1, 2015), all of which are in the Fremont High attendance area. That new occupancy rate (500 units annually in the SSD region) could continue for at least three more years as more in-the-process developments are built. This includes the Prometheus apartments that are now under construction near the Town Center and a pending project on the former St. Jude medical facility property on East Evelyn. Both of these are in the Fremont area. While there are three developments forecast in the Homestead area between 2016 and 2018, those are at locations by El Camino Real and on the west side of N. Mathilda that are unlikely to generate significant student numbers. The five-to-ten year forecast in the SSD region (and the Fremont attendance area) includes questionable sites that are sometimes referred to as the “Spansion”, “Greystar” and former Sheraton locations. . The largest development that did not become occupied as quickly as projected in the CUSD region is the “19800 Apartments” complex (aka “Rose Bowl”) near Vallco. This is in Cupertino High’s attendance area. That complex had been slated to open in August but instead started having occupancies in October 2014. With 204 entirely multiple-bedroom units, this will provide significant student numbers. It should be fully occupied by next fall. Also forecast in the CUSD in the next two years are (1) a new phase of the Biltmore apartments by the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Blaney Avenue and (2) the “Main Street Apartments” that are adjacent to the “19800” complex. Both are in the Cupertino High attendance area. The former has 80 new units that were just starting to be moved into in October 2014. The rest will be occupied shortly. The “Main Street” complex, with 120 strictly studio and one-bedroom residences, could be fully occupied in 2016, as should two small projects on Foothill Blvd. with a total of 21 units. 11 Slightly less than 50% has been projected for 2015.



The subsequently projected housing units in the CUSD are mainly in the Fremont, Cupertino and Monta Visa regions. The largest possibility in the Fremont High part of the CUSD area is on the west side of the El Camino Real and Fremont Avenue intersection. While the final numbers that will be approved and the precise timing are unknown, the unit total and densities being requested in this “Butcher’s Corner” project are unlikely to occur. This could take years in the planning process. We are estimating 120 Regular ATT units eventually will be permitted, with completion in 2017 and 2018. These will be mostly, if not entirely, large multiple bedroom residences. The State requires the periodic “Housing Element” for each city and county to include allowing for their designated "fair share" of potential new residences, which the City of Cupertino just provided for in a council vote during their December 3, 2014, meeting. Two alternative plans were approved in that vote. The first, which is referred to as “Plan A”, requires that a specific plan be approved by May 31, 2018, for redevelopment of the Vallco property. We are assuming the owners of that property will meet this requirement, which will keep the substitute “Plan B” from occurring instead. Under this Plan A, a total of 1,400 more housing units could be built in Cupertino (in addition to what is already approved). This includes 600 units in an expansion of the Hamptons Apartments complex in the Santa Clara Unified School District. All in the FUHSD, however, are (1) 389 maximum (360 projected) on the Vallco property, which probably will occur between 2017 and 2019 in the Cupertino High area, (2) 200 in The Oaks shopping center on Stevens Creek Blvd. across from Foothill College, also possible within five years but projected in 2020 and 2021, in the Monta Vista area, and (3) 200 at the Marina Foods location on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. just west of De Anza Blvd. This last possibility, which is also in the Monta Vista region, is estimated to occur late in the forecast period. Also included in Plan A are 11 units on a small parcel on the south side of Stevens Creek Blvd. near Wolfe Road. These projected units in the SSD and CUSD regions total to 5,970 residences, which is 670 more than in our last forecast. Nearly two-thirds of these (3,854) are in the Fremont High attendance area, but over 90% of those are in the low yielding “Regular ATT” category in the SSD. The 835 regular attached units projected in the Cupertino High region, under the much higher “Regular ATT” SGR in the CUSD, should have a greater enrollment impact. Only around 600 new residences are forecast in each of the Homestead and Monta Vista areas, while the total for Lynbrook’s area is just 46 homes (see Table 8 on page 18). The result is a projection of 364 FUHSD students in 2024 from these developments, as is shown in the lowest data row of Table 2 on page 4. Concluding Commentary There is a huge upside potential to the Fremont High numbers because of how low some cumulative rates and new home SGRs have become for that area. With the high school SGR from new Regular ATT units there being just one student in every 50 residences, it is impossible to become much lower, but it could rise significantly. We simply do not have local trend data that justifies projecting the latter in this update. The unusually low cumulative rates from the majority of the homes in Fremont’s region also could jump by more than we are projecting. So even though the latest data only warrants forecasting a “peak” of about 2,400 resident high school students for Fremont, a much higher total easily could occur. Sincerely,

Signature not provided with electronic PDF version Thomas R. Williams, principal demographer for Enrollment Projection Consultants



Current Housing ESDAttend. Area Category Region 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Fremont HS Regular ATT SSD 434 272 396 417 397 395 384 240 290 305 3,530Regular ATT CUSD 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 120

BMR ATT SSD 20 20 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 47SRO BMR SSD 40 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83

SFD & SFA SSD 6 4 4 3 3 3 0 0 4 3 30SFD & SFA CUSD 18 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 10 44

Total 518 341 460 480 404 398 391 240 304 318 3,854

Homestead HS Regular ATT SSD 0 161 100 80 0 0 0 59 0 0 400Regular ATT CUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 40 40 130

BMR ATT SSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 40

SFD & SFA SSD 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 9 0 0 20SFD & SFA CUSD 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 1 0 8

Total 0 161 100 81 0 3 10 142 61 40 598

Monta Vista HS Regular ATT CUSD 0 15 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 515BMR ATT CUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20SFD & SFA CUSD 12 7 7 6 7 15 15 9 5 6 89

Total 12 22 7 6 7 115 115 109 115 116 624

Cupertino HS Regular ATT CUSD 255 120 100 100 160 50 50 0 0 0 835BMR ATT CUSD 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10SFD & SFA CUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

Total 255 120 105 105 160 50 50 3 0 0 848

Lynbrook HS Regular ATT CUSD 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

Table 8: Projected New Housing Units (excludes housing restricted to seniors)*

Projected Net Additional Units in 12 Months to October 1 of

SFD & SFA CUSD 12 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Total 12 30 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 46

Sunnyvale SD Regular ATT SSD 434 433 496 497 397 395 384 299 290 305 3,930BMR ATT SSD 20 20 0 0 0 0 7 20 20 0 87SRO BMR SSD 40 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83SFD & SFA SSD 6 4 4 3 3 5 9 9 4 3 50

Total 500 500 500 500 400 400 400 328 314 308 4,150

Cupertino USD Regular ATT CUSD 255 165 160 160 160 150 150 150 140 140 1,630BMR ATT CUSD 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 10 10 30SFD & SFA CUSD 42 9 9 9 11 16 16 16 16 16 160

Total 297 174 174 174 171 166 166 166 166 166 1,820

Fremont UHSD Regular ATT (all) 689 598 656 657 557 545 534 449 430 445 5,560BMR ATT (all) 20 20 5 5 0 0 7 20 30 10 117SRO BMR (all) 40 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83SFD & SFA (all) 48 13 13 12 14 21 25 25 20 19 210

Total 797 674 674 674 571 566 566 494 480 474 5,970

* from site-specific projections that are based on EPC fieldwork and information from the relevant city planning departments



Appendix A1: Actual October 2014 Resident Populations versus Attending Enrollments

High School Category 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9-12 Total

Fremont Attendance 501 495 466 503 1,965 Resident Population 645 585 546 498 492 469 514 1,973

Net Difference (A-R) 3 3 -3 -11 -8

Homestead Attendance 631 567 600 605 2,403 Resident Population 579 557 558 635 572 598 599 2,404

Net Difference (A-R) -4 -5 2 6 -1

Monta Vista Attendance 626 542 575 608 2,351 Resident Population 642 633 611 632 544 583 601 2,360

Net Difference (A-R) -6 -2 -8 7 -9

Cupertino Attendance 559 562 521 507 2,149 Resident Population 597 591 584 545 547 507 501 2,100

Net Difference (A-R) 14 15 14 6 49

Lynbrook Attendance 453 454 461 468 1,836 Resident Population 400 389 388 440 442 447 419 1,748

Net Difference (A-R) 13 12 14 49 88

Community Attendance (no Res. Pop.) 0 7 3 4 14 NPS Attendance (no Res. Pop.) 4 5 4 8 21

Total Attendance 2,774 2,632 2,630 2,703 10,739 Resident Population 2,863 2,755 2,687 2,750 2,597 2,604 2,634 10,585

Net Difference (A-R)** 24 35 26 69 154

* Attendance figures exclude eighth graders taking classes at the high schools.

** Total net difference is 152 incoming inter-district students (outgoing amount not calculated) and two students listed at unlocatable addresses.

Note: Students enrolled in unlisted special programs are included in the attendance numbers for the five regular high schools.

Actual Oct. 2014 Feeder ESD and FUHSD Students, incl. SDC and NPS*



Appendix A2: Projected October 2015 Resident Student Populations and

High School Category 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9-12 Total

Fremont Resident Population 658 631 569 513 497 499 477 1,986 Potential Net Adjustment 2 4 4 5 15

Potential Attendance 515 501 503 482 2,001

Homestead Resident Population 608 582 568 611 633 568 586 2,398 Potential Net Adjustment -5 -3 -4 10 -2


Monta Vista Resident Population 619 648 638 613 633 544 575 2,365 Potential Net Adjustment -6 -5 -1 0 -12


Cupertino Resident Population 653 614 601 602 558 552 509 2,221 Potential Net Adjustment 13 15 16 22 66


Lynbrook Resident Population 392 406 394 402 441 439 440 1,722 Potential Net Adjustment 12 14 13 22 61


Community Attendance (extrapolated) 0 0 7 3 10 NPS Attendance (extrapolated) 4 4 5 4 17

Total Resident Population 2,930 2,881 2,770 2,741 2,762 2,602 2,587 10,692 Projected Net Adjustment*** 20 29 40 66 155 Attendance 2,761 2,791 2,642 2,653 10,847

Projected Oct. 2015 Feeder ESD and FUHSD Students, incl. SDC and NPS**

Potential Attending Enrollments if Current Intra- and Inter-District Levels continue Next Year(graduated up by one grade with adjustments for both advancement rates and special schools)*

* This information is provided to assist the FUHSD in planning for individual school enrollments. District decisions based on both these numbers and many other factors will almost certainly alter the actual net adjustments that will occur for each school.

** Potential attendance figures exclude eighth graders taking classes at the high schools.

*** Projected total net adjustment is 153 incoming inter-district students and two students listed at unlocatable addresses. The former is based on recent FUHSD averages of (1) accepting around 89% as many 9th grade inter-district students as had been enrolled as 8th graders the year before in the ESDs and (2) about 40 more inter-district students in 12th, compared to the amount in 11th the year before, presumably via "senior privilege"; but with all of those differences fine-tuned as necessary to match the aggregate forecast. The actual levels, however, easily could be modified by District decisions, such as to accept more students to maintain enrollments.

Notes: (1) Students enrolled in unlisted special programs are included in the attendance numbers for the five regular schools.(2) The projections have hidden fractional amounts, so the totals shown here may not exactly match those in other tables.



School Year ofForecast Study Year 1 # Year 1 % Year 3 # Year 3 % Year Total Total Difference

Appendix B1: Accuracy of Past EPC Projections for the FUHSD

Total Difference of Actual FUHSD Totalfrom Projected FUHSD Total in

Highest Total Forecastin Following 10 Years

Now Being Forecast inSame Yr. as Past Study

2007-08 -18 -0.17% -1 -0.01% 2017 11,583 11,439 -1442008-09 -42 -0.41% 142 1.37% 2018 11,716 11,680 -36

2009-10 80 0.78% 263 2.53% 2019 11,783 11,899 1162010-11 32 0.31% 59 0.56% 2020 12,279 11,983 -2962011-12 23 0.22% -70 -0.65% 2020 12,088 11,983 -1052012-13 -40 -0.37% NA NA 2020 12,352 11,983 -369

2013-14 -126 -1.16% NA NA 2020 12,135 11,983 -152

Average in First Seven Studies* 45 0.44% 102 0.98%

* These are the averages with all differences treated as positive figures. The "Year 1" average in the first eight studies is 0.43%.



Type** Category***

SFD Relatively Affordable and Modest

Moderate through Upper Incomes

All SFD Categories (including one mixed-value area)

ATT Most Affordable

Affordable through High Amenity

All ATT Categories

Appendix B2: Detail for Tables 5 and 6 on Resident Student Population Trends and Grade-to-Grade Advancement Rates

Classification of

from Existing Housing by Category in the Sunnyvale SD Region (with focus on data in the high school grades)

Existing Dwellings*

Appendix B2, page 1 of 3, with footnotes at the bottom of the final page

Oct.of

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

Appendix B2: Detail for Tables 5 and 6 on Resident Student Population Trends and Grade-to-Grade Advancement Ratesfrom Existing Housing by Category in the Sunnyvale SD Region (with focus on data in the high school grades)


5th 6th 7th 8th TK-8

176 181 155 168 1,613157 166 181 149 1,582182 157 157 174 1,595155 159 151 151 1,554152 145 152 152 1,5250.94 0.94 0.96 0.98

158 145 126 136 1,377135 146 143 124 1,407151 128 150 137 1,437190 153 136 149 1,528181 163 139 137 1,5160.97 0.93 0.99 0.99

337 328 285 307 3,019299 315 326 278 3,025336 290 310 312 3,064349 315 292 304 3,120338 311 295 291 3,0740.96 0.93 0.98 0.98

162 160 147 172 1,598191 161 156 141 1,653179 170 162 162 1,684174 157 164 158 1,626170 148 161 163 1,6010.97 0.90 1.00 0.99

110 87 106 114 1,25097 95 79 106 1,224

126 80 91 90 1,247124 108 81 98 1,287130 108 95 81 1,2980.91 0.86 0.93 1.05

272 247 253 286 2,848288 256 235 247 2,877305 250 253 252 2,931298 265 245 256 2,913300 256 256 244 2,8990.95 0.88 0.97 1.01


enrolled in SSD and Resultant Avg.


Resident Students by Grade

4-Year Rates Entering Each Grade****


CumulativeAdvancement

Rate from1st-to-8th*****

0.74

0.89

0.81

0.81

0.57

0.69

Appendix B2: Detail for Tables 5 and 6 on Resident Student Population Trends and Grade-to-Grade Advancement Ratesfrom Existing Housing by Category in the Sunnyvale SD Region (with focus on data in the high school grades)


9th 10th 11th 12th 9-12

205 206 172 214 797176 207 191 162 736153 174 207 189 723182 143 169 202 696150 183 141 175 6491.02 0.99 0.97 0.99

115 143 126 119 503152 114 147 119 532155 158 114 141 568166 157 167 120 610178 162 158 159 6571.19 1.00 1.02 0.97

325 353 298 338 1,314330 327 344 281 1,282313 334 327 335 1,309348 304 338 331 1,321331 345 304 336 1,3161.10 0.99 1.00 0.98

155 137 146 133 571174 159 147 143 623146 169 157 146 618162 151 177 178 668174 149 137 180 6401.04 0.98 0.99 1.03

118 99 107 104 428127 116 94 114 451105 118 121 98 44295 98 107 112 41295 93 104 103 395

1.03 0.96 1.00 1.00

273 236 253 237 999301 275 241 257 1,074251 287 278 244 1,060257 249 284 290 1,080269 242 241 283 1,0351.04 0.97 0.99 1.01


Resident Students by Gradeenrolled in FUHSD and Resultant Avg.






Type** Category***

SFD Gentrifying Areas that Originally were Affordable or Modest

Originally Moderate Income

Originally Middle Income

Upper Middle throughHighest Income

Existing Dwellings*Classification of

Appendix B2: Detail for Tables 5 and 6 on Resident Student Population Trends and Grade-to-Grade Advancement Ratesfrom Existing Housing by Category in the Cupertino USD Region (with focus on data in the high school grades)

Oct.of

20102011

Affordable or Modest 201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

4-Year Rates Entering Each Grade****enrolled in CUSD and Resultant Avg.




153 120 149 115 1,122135 160 119 143 1,124128 132 162 126 1,150119 136 139 158 1,151120 134 147 142 1,1571.00 1.06 1.04 1.01

109 94 84 90 985112 107 99 86 1,026115 110 111 99 1,062124 116 114 110 1,072143 125 122 111 1,0490.98 1.00 1.05 0.99

785 711 743 700 6,299731 807 728 753 6,311786 751 835 738 6,320780 770 757 840 6,269699 791 781 769 6,0281.02 1.01 1.02 1.01

323 327 324 354 2,674313 322 331 315 2,663298 308 323 332 2,645309 296 316 328 2,598348 301 298 309 2,5061.02 0.99 1.01 0.99

4-Year Rates Entering Each Grade****enrolled in CUSD and Resultant Avg.





1.27

1.09

1.20

1.19


9th 10th 11th 12th 9-12

138 158 173 147 616121 139 161 172 593154 126 147 168 595134 157 127 155 573156 137 152 124 5691.04 1.02 1.01 1.01

93 101 89 95 37888 94 101 93 37688 88 89 101 366

103 88 86 93 370113 111 83 87 394

1.02 1.03 0.96 1.02

722 766 693 720 2,901710 720 757 702 2,889748 720 722 746 2,936727 759 717 710 2,913795 725 745 707 2,9720.98 1.00 0.99 0.99

337 328 342 331 1,338363 338 329 340 1,370316 354 349 329 1,348335 323 359 344 1,361325 329 319 351 1,3241.01 0.99 1.01 0.99



Resident Students by Gradeenrolled in FUHSD and Resultant Avg.

All SFD Categories


20102011201220132014


1370 1252 1300 1259 11,0801291 1396 1277 1297 11,1241327 1301 1431 1295 11,1771332 1318 1326 1436 11,0901310 1351 1348 1331 10,7401.02 1.01 1.02 1.00


1.19


1290 1353 1297 1293 5,2331282 1291 1348 1307 5,2281306 1288 1307 1344 5,2451299 1327 1289 1302 5,2171389 1302 1299 1269 5,2591.00 1.01 1.00 1.00




Type** Category***

ATT Most Affordable

Affordable & Modest

Moderate through High Amenity (including "Duets")


Existing Dwellings*Classification of

from Existing Housing by Category in the Cupertino USD Region (with focus on data in the high school grades)

Oct.of

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014

20102011201220132014



108 113 114 123 1,00497 115 120 120 998

116 108 116 115 1,029110 126 110 130 1,044112 122 123 120 1,077

0.99 1.10 1.01 1.06

277 275 275 269 3,051311 267 237 258 3,164335 304 258 250 3,334381 309 300 241 3,485398 355 307 298 3,6050.97 0.95 0.96 0.98

311 253 285 220 2,851310 306 251 267 2,966326 314 295 253 3,078379 333 305 292 3,152395 373 327 293 3,2120.98 1.00 0.98 0.97

Resident Students by Gradeenrolled in CUSD and Resultant Avg.4-Year Rates Entering Each Grade****




1.24

0.81

0.92


9th 10th 11th 12th 9-12

140 138 126 134 538131 153 147 117 548143 137 166 141 587132 143 139 154 568129 136 154 130 5491.09 1.04 1.06 0.94

273 248 243 222 986278 260 233 223 994256 275 246 228 1,005252 245 267 245 1,009247 235 250 261 9931.02 0.95 0.97 0.97

233 209 203 198 843228 234 207 199 868266 239 227 201 933239 264 245 212 960273 258 267 245 1,0430.97 1.04 1.00 0.97

enrolled in FUHSD and Resultant Avg.




from Existing Housing by Category in the Cupertino USD Region (with focus on data in the high school grades)

All ATT Categories

* These are the aggregate counts from planning areas with virtually no net increase in housing units since September 2010.

** "SFD" = single family detached homes; "Attached" = condominum, townhouse, apartment & traditional duplex-fourplex units

*** Categories are subjective assignments by EPC of the dominant housing situation in each planning area; some areas may have small percentages in other groups.

**** For example, the "1.01" entering ninth grade from "All ATT Categories" in the CUSD means that the student population grew by an average of 1% from eighth to ninth from the same housing units over the last four years, except that the rate of change in latest year has been weighted at 150% in the calculation.

***** This is the portion of the number of students in any one year in first grade that would be in eighth grade seven years later using these rates. For instance, the "0.91" for "All ATT" in the CUSD means that, on average, there would be 9% fewer eighth graders from these same housing units as there had been first graders seven years earlier (if these rates continue).

Note: The rates shown are the actual calculated rates. These have been modified where warranted in the forecast, including for somedifferences identified (but not shown here) by attendance area location.

Appendix B2, page 3 of 3

20102011201220132014



*** Categories are subjective assignments by EPC of the dominant housing situation in each planning area; some areas may have small percentages in other groups.

**** For example, the "1.01" entering ninth grade from "All ATT Categories" in the CUSD means that the student population grew by an average of 1% from eighth to ninth from the same housing units over the last four years, except that the rate of change in latest year has been weighted at 150% in the calculation.




696 641 674 612 6,906718 688 608 645 7,128777 726 669 618 7,441870 768 715 663 7,681905 850 757 711 7,8940.97 0.99 0.97 0.99



*** Categories are subjective assignments by EPC of the dominant housing situation in each planning area; some areas may have small

**** For example, the "1.01" entering ninth grade from "All ATT Categories" in the CUSD means that the student population grew by an average of 1% from eighth to ninth from the same housing units over the last four years, except that the rate of change in latest year has been weighted




0.91






Note: The rates shown are the actual calculated rates. These have been modified where warranted in the forecast, including for some


646 595 572 554 2,367637 647 587 539 2,410665 651 639 570 2,525623 652 651 611 2,537649 629 671 636 2,5851.01 1.00 1.00 0.96





***** This is the portion of the number of students in any one year in first grade that would be in eighth grade seven years later using these rates. For instance, the "0.91" for "All ATT" in the CUSD means that, on average, there would be 9% fewer eighth graders from these same housing

Note: The rates shown are the actual calculated rates. These have been modified where warranted in the forecast, including for some
