Cupertion's new General Plan "Communit Vision 2040" is planning to increase the office allocation to 2 to 3.5 million square feet. The problem it creates would be even worse since Cupertino already has more jobs than the number of employees.
Liang urges the Council to rescind Resolution 14-211 which also contains an office allocation of 2 million square feet to Vallco alone. And Liang pointed out that the EIR does not support such allocation. The EIR of the new General Plan might not be proven illegal too under scrutiny.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C
Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM
Subject: An Environment Group Sued San Jose and Won Because its General Plan Creates Excessive Jobs
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org
I
'd like to bring your attention to this recent lawsuit filed by an environment group against San Jose over their General Plan because the General Plan creates too many jobs. The San Jose General Plan "Envision 2040" forces urban sprawl, instead of avoiding it, because it would require 109,000 more housing units to be built elsewhere in the region. The environment group California Clean Energy Committee won and San Jose settled and paid for attorney fees. San Jose barely avoided having to throw out the new General Plan, but they have to redo a section of the EIR.
Our new General Plan, as proposed in December, would create excessive jobs. That might get Cupertino sued by similar environment groups. Would our EIR hold up under scrutiny? Traffic analysis, sewage system, green house emission?
And San Jose has a problem with job deficiency, which is why they are creating more jobs in their General Plan. But Cupertino already has a 1.3 to 1 job-worker ratio. The allocation of 2 million square feet of office at Vallco, on top of Apple Campus 2, opens Cupertino up for a lawsuit.
'd like to bring your attention to this recent lawsuit filed by an environment group against San Jose over their General Plan because the General Plan creates too many jobs. The San Jose General Plan "Envision 2040" forces urban sprawl, instead of avoiding it, because it would require 109,000 more housing units to be built elsewhere in the region. The environment group California Clean Energy Committee won and San Jose settled and paid for attorney fees. San Jose barely avoided having to throw out the new General Plan, but they have to redo a section of the EIR.
Our new General Plan, as proposed in December, would create excessive jobs. That might get Cupertino sued by similar environment groups. Would our EIR hold up under scrutiny? Traffic analysis, sewage system, green house emission?
Read the following [enclosed] article and change "San Jose" to Cupertino and the exact same problem exists in Cupertino General Plan "Community Vision 2040."
San Jose's population is about 15 times of Cupertino.
109,000 divides 15 translates to about 7,000 jobs, in the scale of
Cupertino. And Cupertino is creating much more than 7,000 jobs without
any plan for housing or traffic mitigation. Apple Campus 2 is expected
to create a demand of 14,000 new workers. Now that 2 million square feet
of office is added to Vallco,
it will create another demand of 10,000 to 12,000 workers. Even if we
are building 4,421 housing units, by 2040, we are still creating a huge
demand for more housing. Much more than the 7,000 projected by ABAG.
And San Jose has a problem with job deficiency, which is why they are creating more jobs in their General Plan. But Cupertino already has a 1.3 to 1 job-worker ratio. The allocation of 2 million square feet of office at Vallco, on top of Apple Campus 2, opens Cupertino up for a lawsuit.
In addition, the EIR states the "future growth under the proposed Project would come incrementally over approximately 26 years," the EIR assumed a citywide office allocation of 4 million square feet over a period of 26 years, to be built up gradually. The EIR
never estimated the impact of 2 million square feet of office to be
built in 2 years, as soon as Apple Campus 2 finishes, within half mile
of each other.
Please rescind Resolution 14-211. Your
action to correct an unintentional mistaken would save Cupertino from
potential lawsuits and many problems from urban sprawl, as pointed out
by this article. And you will win the people's hearts. A good and
transparent government that listens to the residents and that's not
afraid to stand up and correct its course of action down a path that
might ruin Cupertino in the long run. I hope people would be glad that
they voted for you to represent the residents' interests.
Thank you.
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
-----------------------------
San Jose's Traffic-Intense General Plan Held Unlawful, May 7, 2015
http://www.californiacleanener
The California Clean Energy Committee has successfully over-turned the City of San Jose General Plan due to the failure to adequately analyze impacts resulting from a lack of housing for people employed in the city. The City's recent update of its general plan would require 109,000 additional housing units to be built elsewhere in the region for employees working in San Jose.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) described the effect of that kind of planning in its 2007-2014 Regional Housing Needs Plan—
In short, the proposed general plan update means more sprawl, more traffic, more costly regional transportation projects, more noise, more land consumed by transportation structures, greater contributions to climate disruption, more maintenance obligations for stretched government budgets, more air pollution, more transportation expense for individuals, more time consumed sitting in traffic, and less time for family and leisure.
Moreover, the City has no plan in place to pay for the costs of dealing with the traffic its plan would produce.
The City exhausted an innovative set of planning tools just trying to keep pace with the impacts from new traffic generated by its general plan update. Despite those efforts, the City still fell considerably short of even holding off new adverse impacts.
According to the City, ”Traffic and the environmental effects of traffic, such as air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gases resulting from induced population growth in other jurisdictions will result in significant environmental impacts.”
The California Legislature has enacted legislation in an effort to this kind of local planning and to ensure that communities are designed to reduce the amount of driving that people need to do to carry on their daily activities. (See Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.)
The California Air Resources Board has set a target, calling for a 4 percent reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved through improved local planning. The City of San José now proposes to head dramatically in the opposite direction. Its proposed general plan would increase daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 19.8 million to 34.8 million by 2035. (See Final Program EIR at 882.)
Even if the effect of population growth is factored out, the City’s general plan update still represents a dramatic 32% increase in per capita VMT.
The City, relying on faulty advice from the Bay Area AQMD, failed to disclose the impact on GHG emissions resulting from lack of adequate housing and increased traffic.
The California Supreme Court has made it quite clear that ignoring such impacts “results in an ‘illusory’ comparison that ‘can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,’ a result at direct odds with CEQA’s intent.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.)
San Jose's Traffic-Intense General Plan Held Unlawful, May 7, 2015
http://www.californiacleanener
The California Clean Energy Committee has successfully over-turned the City of San Jose General Plan due to the failure to adequately analyze impacts resulting from a lack of housing for people employed in the city. The City's recent update of its general plan would require 109,000 additional housing units to be built elsewhere in the region for employees working in San Jose.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) described the effect of that kind of planning in its 2007-2014 Regional Housing Needs Plan—
In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan
areas, cities with employment centers have historically planned for
insufficient housing to match job growth. This lack of housing has
escalated Bay Area housing costs. Unmet housing demand has also pushed
housing production to the edges of our region and to outlying areas.
San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito counties have produced much of
the housing needed for Bay Area workers. People moving to these
outlying areas has led to longer commutes on increasingly congested
freeways and inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and
land. Negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment
and overall quality of life in the Bay Area also result.
The City
conceded that it is “very apparent” in the Bay Area that “it is the
physical relationship between the location of housing and jobs . . .
that significantly contributes to several of the primary impacts of
concern in the region, particularly air pollution and the excessive
consumption of energy and land resulting from an inefficient sprawling
land-use pattern.”In short, the proposed general plan update means more sprawl, more traffic, more costly regional transportation projects, more noise, more land consumed by transportation structures, greater contributions to climate disruption, more maintenance obligations for stretched government budgets, more air pollution, more transportation expense for individuals, more time consumed sitting in traffic, and less time for family and leisure.
Moreover, the City has no plan in place to pay for the costs of dealing with the traffic its plan would produce.
The City exhausted an innovative set of planning tools just trying to keep pace with the impacts from new traffic generated by its general plan update. Despite those efforts, the City still fell considerably short of even holding off new adverse impacts.
According to the City, ”Traffic and the environmental effects of traffic, such as air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gases resulting from induced population growth in other jurisdictions will result in significant environmental impacts.”
The California Legislature has enacted legislation in an effort to this kind of local planning and to ensure that communities are designed to reduce the amount of driving that people need to do to carry on their daily activities. (See Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.)
The California Air Resources Board has set a target, calling for a 4 percent reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved through improved local planning. The City of San José now proposes to head dramatically in the opposite direction. Its proposed general plan would increase daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 19.8 million to 34.8 million by 2035. (See Final Program EIR at 882.)
Even if the effect of population growth is factored out, the City’s general plan update still represents a dramatic 32% increase in per capita VMT.
The City, relying on faulty advice from the Bay Area AQMD, failed to disclose the impact on GHG emissions resulting from lack of adequate housing and increased traffic.
The California Supreme Court has made it quite clear that ignoring such impacts “results in an ‘illusory’ comparison that ‘can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,’ a result at direct odds with CEQA’s intent.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.)
