Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1:22 PM
Subject: [Better Cupertino WG] GPA application processing procedures
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, RebeccaT@cupertino.org
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you regarding the Agenda item 4 on council meeting tomorrow.
First I would like to thank the city staff for updating the White Paper on Development Allocation (D - Development Management Overview 6 24 15.pdf).
This updated white paper provides more information on how other city's
manage the community benefit and development allocations. The update
added a lot of details on how the cities gauge the community benefits.
All the cities studied in this report has a grading system, e.g., Figure
1 and Figure 2 detailed how San Diego grades different projects and
different benefit it can provide.
After
reading all these systems in different cities, there is nothing in the
staff report regarding what kind of system we are going to have for our
city. Instead, the whole discussion is centered on the frequency of GPA
application processing. However, I don't know how we make that decision
without knowing the work load of the reviewing process. It is obvious
that with a more granularity in a grading system means more work. Since
one major concern of the application process is the staff time, we
should really have a clear picture if and how we want to have a point or
grading system in gauging project benefit and cost.
Due
to this concern, I would like to urge the city to first engage the
public in if and how we want to have the community benefit program. What
is the cost and benefit of allowing certain project have exceptions
than what is specified in General Plan. What kind of community benefits
that the community wants? How to weigh these benefits to the cost of
allowing various exceptions?
For other cities,
e.g., Palo Altos, citizen advisory board is established to study these
issues. I would like to advocate that we follow the same footstep and
sort out the evaluation system first. Only then we can have a clear idea
of the staff work load and we can make a decision on how often we
should have the GPA review.
Moreover, another
important factor is still missing even in the white paper. What is the
final outcome of these program? It is not clear if the community really
get the benefit they ask for. Is there a feasible way to enforce the
promise made at the planning phase? Can we ask the deposit or security
fund upfront to secure whatever the developer promised the community are
secured? When evaluating the cost and benefit, we need to know what
kind of risk we are going to take. The biggest doubt I have with any
community benefit program is the enforcement, the only vague word I got
is that there is going to be a development contract. But I still have no
idea what is going to happen if such contract is violated. I for one,
am not the one who like to take much risk, especially in the cost of my
kids, so my position on this matter is still no community benefit.
However, other people may have a different opinion on this. Therefore,
it is vitally important for the public to know what kind of deal that we
are stepping in. We all need to make an informative decision and be a
grownup facing the consequence afterward.
I
really feel it is premature to discuss the frequency now without knowing
what we are going to do during the process. Let's all first have a
candid discussion on what we want, what we sacrifice and what we risk,
before we rush into any decision.
Please put this correspondence on the record for the City Council Meeting on Sep. 1.
Best regards,
Xiaowen Wang
--
