KM - How Office ends up Generating Traffic beyond EIR amounts - Example Apple Campus 3

From: KM
Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:03 PM
Subject: How Office ends up Generating Traffic beyond EIR amounts - Example Apple Campus 3
To: Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, rsinks@cupertino.org, savitav@cupertino.org, bchang@cupertino.org, Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>

Greetings City Council,

Summary:  AC3 leased space advertised at 6.2 and 6.9 employees per 1000 SF when the EIR studied 3.33 employees per 1000 SF.

Analysis:

The following is a great example of why an office development generates more traffic than expected.  This example is Apple Campus 3.

In Santa Clara County, the common square foot per employee number used is 300 which is 3.33 employees per 1000 SF.  Apple Campus 2, in their EIR used 4.15 employees per 1000 SF determined based on review of some of their other buildings' occupancy.

Apple Campus 3 is leased space at Wolfe and Central in Sunnyvale.

Portion of the EIR may be found here:  https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1938102&GUID=5C07586E-6753-400F-B4D0-A306EF35509D&Options=&Search=\

Of interest is the total number of employees expected at the 770,000 SF project:  2,500

However, when the project was advertised they suggest a much higher occupancy:

Source:  http://www.centralandwolfe.com/downloads/brochure.pdf

Comparing the number of employees expected in the EIR and the total based on the Central and Wolfe test fit A and B, we can see that nearly double the employees may be on the site, creating a much worse traffic situation than expected!

Central and Wolfe Campus:  Compare Brochure Number of Employees vs. EIR

Office SF	770,000	SF			SF/employee
Test fitA	6.2	employees/1000 SF	4,774	employees	161	nearly doubles occupancy
Test fit B	6.9	employees/1000 SF	5,313	employees	145	doubles occupancy
EIR			2,500	employees
Determine EIR number of employees per 1000 SF	3.25	employees/1000 SF	2,503		308	Note:  close to the 300 SF/employee commonly used

The average employees per 1000 SF in the brochure table is 5, that's a 50% increase over what the county is accepting in the EIRs:  3.33 employees per 1000 SF.  Couple that with significant unavoidable impacts being approved at various locations with an underestimated number of employees and we get gridlock when the public imagines we would have a better outcome...

Enlightening.

Best regards,

Kitty Moore

One Question Survey - More Office to Bring More Jobs, by Lisa

 

Lisa posted the following question on Nextdoor to 9 nearby neighborhoods around Rancho Rinconada area and 'C' was the overwhelming response.

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

The question is whether residents are willing to build more office to bring more jobs to Cupertino:

A) For any company

B) Only if we can get economic diversity

C) Not at all

RESPOND to this message with A, B or C

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lisa Warren

To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; PlanningCommission <planningcommission@santaclaraca.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:36 AM
Subject: One office question SURVEY Input from some residents - please add to May 19, 2015 meeting documents

City Council members,  Planning Commissioners, others,

 

Based on a question posed by someone I spoke to,  I chose to send a 'one question survey' out via 'Nextdoor'.  I did this at the end of March and have decided that you should have the 'results'.  There has been some discussion about Economic Diversity among council members during public meetings recently which makes this input very relevant.

I have attached the collection of replies I had received by early April, 2015.  The first 33 responses came within 4 days of post.

There were 38 responses.  The one question is included in the attached collection of responses.

• 'C' was the overwhelming response -  6 'C's without any comments and another 18 with comments - 24 total with the actual 'C' included in feedback.
• 'B' was selected by one person who added a comment.
• 'A' was semi selected by one person (that person chose A/B and added comments)

12 residents commented without choosing either A, B or C.

Same 'flavor' in the comments though.

Out of the 38 comments, I think only 3 people chose to reply 'privately'.  The rest made their thought available to all. 

There actually ended up being a 'spin off' reply that got more discussion going, but was not as focused on 'the office question' so I did not include that info.

Attachment: Office Feedback as of early April 2015.docx