General Plan Policies Should Set Specific Standards, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Subject: General Plan Guidelines - Require Specific Standards
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear City Manager, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

   In order to make informed decisions, especially decisions that impact the future of our city, it is very important that the City Staff provide clear and non-misleading information to Councilmembers and and Planning Commissioners.

   The City Staff mentioned on more than one occasion that "General Plan Policies should be general," when the councilmembers and commissioners want to set a certain standard. In particular, on September 22, 2015, Commissioner Don Sun inquired a clarification on "Major Retail" in one policy, but the staff answered with "General Plan Policies should be general."

  However, the State of California General Plan Guidelines

Page 16 gave specific examples on what languages can be used in the General Plan:

Examples of standards:

♦ A minimally acceptable peak hour level of service for an arterial street is level of service C.
♦ The minimum acreage required for a regional shopping center is from 40 to 50 acres.
♦ High-density residential means 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre and up to 42 dwelling units per acre with a density bonus.
♦ The first floor of all new construction shall be at least two feet above the base flood elevation.

Examples of implementation measures:

♦ The city shall use tax-increment financing to pay the costs of replacing old sidewalks in the redevelopment area.
♦ The city shall adopt a specific plan for the industrial park.
♦ Areas designated by the land use element for agriculture shall be placed in the agricultural zone.

And note that the "shall" is used instead of "should" so that the policies are enforceable by law.

In many cases, specific numbers and standards were removed from "Community Vision 2040" with the misleading information: "General Plan policies should be general." This is against the recommendations of the State of California General Plan Guidelines.

Specifically, the City of Cupertino has lost perhaps millions of dollars because "ground floor retail component" is not well-defined in the 2000-2020 General Plan. This policy has been abused again and again. It is time to put some specifics into the General Plan and fix these ambiguous policies to comply with the State General Plan Guidelines.

We would appreciate if the city manager and each Councilmember could acknowledge that you've read this note and example standards and measures quoted from State of California General Plan Guideline.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

General Plan Should Set Specific Standards, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Subject: General Plan Guidelines - Require Specific Standards
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear City Manager, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

   In order to make informed decisions, especially decisions that impact the future of our city, it is very important that the City Staff provide clear and non-misleading information to Councilmembers and and Planning Commissioners.

   The City Staff mentioned on more than one occasion that "General Plan Policies should be general," when the councilmembers and commissioners want to set a certain standard. In particular, on September 22, 2015, Commissioner Don Sun inquired a clarification on "Major Retail" in one policy, but the staff answered with "General Plan Policies should be general."

   However, the State of California General Plan Guidelines

Page 16 gave specific examples on what languages can be used in the General Plan:

Examples of standards:

♦ A minimally acceptable peak hour level of service
for an arterial street is level of service C.
♦ The minimum acreage required for a regional shopping
center is from 40 to 50 acres.
♦ High-density residential means 15 to 30 dwelling
units per acre and up to 42 dwelling units per acre
with a density bonus.
♦ The first floor of all new construction shall be at
least two feet above the base flood elevation.

Examples of implementation measures:

♦ The city shall use tax-increment financing to pay
the costs of replacing old sidewalks in the redevelopment
area.
♦ The city shall adopt a specific plan for the industrial
park.
♦ Areas designated by the land use element for agriculture
shall be placed in the agricultural zone.

And note that the "shall" is used instead of "should" so that the policies are enforceable by law.

In many cases, specific numbers and standards were removed from "Community Vision 2040" with the misleading information: "General Plan policies should be general." This is against the recommendations of the State of California General Plan Guidelines.

Specifically, the City of Cupertino has lost perhaps millions of dollars because "ground floor retail component" is not well-defined in the 2000-2020 General Plan. This policy has been abused again and again. It is time to put some specifics into the General Plan and fix these ambiguous policies to comply with the State General Plan Guidelines.

We would appreciate if the city manager and each Councilmember could acknowledge that you've read this note and example standards and measures quoted from State of California General Plan Guideline.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

Clintonian Language and Doing your Jobs by Brooke

From:  Brooke Ezzat
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Subject: Clintonian Language and Doing your Jobs
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org
Cc: bettercupertino@gmail.com

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Council Member Paul, Council Member Vaidhyanahthan, and Council Member Wong,

 

It appears that the terms "master plan" and "specific plan" are loosely defined and are used interchangeably to the residents' disadvantage. Which no doubt accounts for the change in the land use map of Vallco listing the property as being commercial/office/retail.  Residents need to have a Clintonian understanding of language to parse what is being said.

 

Citizens want to have the confidence that the Council works assiduously on behalf of the residents as it does for the developers, but do not.  We are consistently told how wonderful all the development is in Cupertino without any attention paid to the quality of life of the residents. If we oppose the overwrought development, we are labeled "resistant to change," i.e., stupid and out of touch. And we are lectured ad nauseam on our deportment in council chambers as if we are a herd of wildebeests, not well educated professionals.

 

Focus on what is good for the community-- traffic issues, the crime rate, and general quality of life. In some neighborhoods, it is impossible for people to get out of their driveways during rush hour; this is not something they signed on for when they moved to this city.  Some streets do not have speed limit signs, there are not enough lighted crosswalks, nor are there enough school crossing guards In my neighborhood, residential burglaries have increased to the point where the Sheriff's department leaves decoys in the neighborhood.  Five cars were broken into on my street a couple of months ago in the middle of the night.  People have been assaulted.  There are only six deputies patrolling Cupertino at any given time; adding thousands of non residents to the mix will only exacerbate the problem. And then the schools. What is there to say about the schools?  That they are overcrowded and will be more so if students from all of the rental homes and office space being built flood the district. That there will be a continual round of parcel taxes and a parcel tax rebellion because taxpayers will grow weary of subsidizing this nonsense.

 

As citizens, we deserve better from you.

 

Regards,

 

Brooke Ezzat

GP Should Require Minimum Setback or Buffers for Mixed Use Projects, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:46 PM
Subject: Missing Policies on setback or buffers for mixed use projects next to residential zones or non-artery streets
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Cupertino is entering a new era with many mixed use projects and many buildings over 45 feet. Hamptons is already granted 75 feet; Cupertino Village has 60 feet; Oaks will request close to 100 feet; Vallco is probably looking at 130 feet. More will come with the new GPA application process which allow individual projects to request GPA to increase density, which has never been done before (even though it is allowed, but the previous Council never abused that right to amend general plans just to grant a project more density).

However, neither 2040 General Plan nor the previous General Plan have policies to protect other neighborhoods or non-artery streets from taller buildings or mixed use sites that will attempt to use up all available space for building mass. It is time to update the general plan to include policies that govern setback and buffers from residential neighbors or non-artery streets.

These policies on setbacks and buffers are essential. For example, Apple requested that the following to be added to Hamptons site: "Buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Ave. and Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet)." Apple employees need privacy on a lot of 175 acres which already has a large setback from its own property boundary. Other Cupertino property owners, commercial or residential, need the same privacy protection from taller buildings also. Yet, "Community Vision 2040" did not add any other policies to protect the rest of Cupertino property owners.

For example, condo owners from Metropolitan requested a 20 feet buffer/setback for Main Street projects. As a result, Main Street developer cut out a part of the park area to provide such buffer. Main Street ends up with o.55 acre park, instead of 0.75 acre as approved. Such negotiation won't need to take place if there are policies in the General Plan to set the minimum setback/buffer of mixed use projects when the site is borders residential zones or borders a local street with residential homes/condos. Policies should be in place so that mixed use projects developers have a set rule to follow. It shouldn't be negotiated project by project at the time when a development project is approved.

As an example, here is the requirement from Palo Alto's zoning code that specifically applies to mixed use zones:

18.38.150 Special requirements.
Sites abutting or having any portion located with one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family development shall be subject to the following
additional height and yard requirements:
(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the most restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be fifty feet
(c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard shall be at least as restrictive as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site.

(e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

GP Should Set a Limit on Building Density for Mixed Use Zoning, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:38 AM
Subject: Missing General Plan Policies to Set a Limit on Building Density for Mixed Use Zoning
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Mixed use projects are a popping up in Cupertino in recent years and more of them to come. However, neither the new General Plan nor the previous one have specific policies that set a density limit on mixed use projects. Other cities have used FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to set a limit on the amount of building mass that can be piled up in mixed use zone. Or some cities set a percentage of open space at the ground level. But not Cupertino.

On Dec. 4, 2014, the Council have adopted a new way to calculation housing unit density as the number of units on an entire lot, regardless of whether or not a large portion of the lot has been occupied by other uses.

For example, on a 4 acre lot with 25 units/acre, the developer is allowed 100 units/acre. However, the developer could put any amount of office or retail on 3 of the acres and put housing on one acre only and reach 100 units/acre. There is really no limit on building density under the new definition in mixed use projects.

It is important to set specific policies that govern mixed use projects. If we give the developers any leeway, they will take it and build to the max. Then, the residents and the Council are at the mercy of the developers. The developer will be able to submit a project that meets all zoning requirements, but it's simply too dense.

The 2040 General Plan needs to have proper policies in place to govern mixed use projects.

Building density limit, like FAR or percentage of open space, is just one of them. Other cities have more policies that govern mixed use projects. It's a vacuum in Cupertino's General Plan.

We urge the Council and the Planning Commission to look at the need of Cupertino in the next 25 years from the point of view of the residential community.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

SB50 does not apply to the approval of rezoning or general plan amendment or other plan/code amendments, by BC

From: Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Subject: SB50 does not apply to the approval of rezoning or general plan amendment or other plan/code amendments
To: planning@cupertino.org, City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

SB 50 does not apply to protect developers "who were seeking rezoning or approvals of general plan amendments or specific plans." (Indirect Impacts On School Facilities Must be Considered and Mitigated Under CEQA (Legal Alerts, July 8, 2011)

Policies to consider school impact before a development project is approved were simply removed due to SB 50. There was no attempt to rephrase the policies to comply with the law, but still consider other aspects of school impacts. For example, a new policy could be introduced to ensure that no rezoning or increased building height or other general plan amendment is approved if it would adversely impact the school systems. Such policy could require developers to fully mitigate school impact before a zoning change or general plan amendment.


SB 50 still allows traffic, air quality, noise and other environment factors to be considered around schools as a condition of approval on projects. New policies should be put in place to ensure a minimum level of standards for these environmental factors when a development project is considered. New policies should be put in place to ensure that development projects provide more extensive traffic mitigation measures to improve traffic condition around school for either biking, walking, driving or shuttling. It is not sufficient to leave it up to the Environment Impact Report to protect the environment around schools.

Regards,

BetterCupertino

Weekly Community Benefits Workshop for Developers, but None for Residents, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: [BetterCupertino] Weekly Community Benefits Workshop for Developers, but None for Residents
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>

I would like to clarify the issue Peggy and I brought up last night at the Council meeting. We are not objecting to the two Council members attending the weekly stakeholder meetings. We are objecting to the fact that the City Manager and Staff refused to provide any information to the residents when asked repeatedly. And the one workshop promised never materialized.
The City of Cupertino consistently kept the residents in the dark, while providing all the information to developer community through the City Staff and consultants, paid for by the taxpayers.

From Febrary to April of 2015, the residents asked for any information on Community Benefits multiple times and they were denied. Even the promised workshop on Community Benefits never materialzed. Yet, at the same time, the City Staff has been presenting materials on Community Benefits at weekly stakeholder meetings on Community Benefits program. The very stakeholders, Cupertino residents, were excluded from the meetings and denied any information.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C

Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: [BetterCupertino] Weekly Community Benefits Workshop for Developers, but None for Residents
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>

(for Agenda Item 4)

On Feb. 6, Feb. 17, March 26 and April 7, 2015, BetterCupertino have inquired multiple times to request any information on any research the City Staff have done on Community Benefits program. The Staff shared nothing.

On April 14, we requested to have a Q&A session on community benefits before May 19 meeting. Barry Chang replied that it's a good idea. The city manager never even replied to the request.

On April 21, during Council meeting, City Manager mentioned they will organize a workshop when asked by the Council.

On April 28, people ask about workshop. Staff said they are working on a date.

On May 8: Staff told the residents: No workshop will be held.
Till today, September 1. Resolution 15-078 will be approved to allow Community Benefits program, aptly renamed as "voluntary community amenities" without any constraint.

The City still has not held any workshop to inform the residents on the various Community Benefits program considered. The Study Session held on June 30 was only focused on the frequency of the new GPA process, not on the most important topic, Community Benefits program.

However, through a friendly source, we accidentally discovered that from March to April, the City Staff have been attending and reporting at a weekly stakeholder meetings for Community Benefits, attended by every developer in town, two Council members, and the school districts. There were at least 7 meetings on March 9, March 18, March 20, March 26, March 30, April 3, April 8 and April 13. Maybe more later. The City Staff and consultants had attended many of the meetings and provided presentation on their research on Community Benefits program.

Around the same time, the residents were denied any information at all on Community Benefits program. BetterCupertino has inquired the City Manager David Brandt about such weekly stakeholder meeting on Community Benefits on August 24 and on August 31. We have not received any reply from the City Manager at all.
The attendee list of this weekly stakeholder meeting on Community Benefits includes two Council members, Rod Sinks and Savita Vaidhyanathan, both Superintendents of FUHSD and CUSD, and almost every developers in town, Sand Hill, Marina (Amy Chan), Irvine Company (Hamptons), KT Urban (Oaks), Kimco Realty (Cupertino Village), Prometheus (City Center), and Cupertino Inn, plus a team of consultants and attorneys, including Xavier Campos (Ford & Bonilla, Lobbyist & Consulting Firm), Ben Sigman of EPS (Economic consultants), consultants from VER on Land Use Planning, financial consultants from Leeward Financial, attorneys from Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, and also Neil Struthers, head of Construction Labor Union.

Among the long list of "stakeholders" for Community Benefits, the true stakeholders, Cupertino residents, who intentionally kept out. Even after repeated attempts to inquire about more information on Community Benefits, the residents were denied access. Not even one workshop was held for the residents.

One wonders. Who pays for the salaries of the City Staff? Who paid for those consultants and attorneys who proposed various models of Community Benefits program during these meetings? The very stakeholders, Cupertino residents, that were excluded from the meeting and denied any information.

Then, after all that efforts by the staff and consultants to study Community Benefits program, Resolution 15-078 proposes to throw them all away since they are too restrictive. The Council wants only "flexibility for managing growth," which is in fact uncontrolled growth.

-------------------------------------------
Here are snippets of what happened in each meeting:
 

March 9:Thanks for coming to our first stakeholders meeting.

March 18: City staff suggested using a dollar per sq ft formula to assess all new developments based on the sq ft size of the development. Most people at the table thought it may work as a concept,...

March 20: We learned from legal point of view, there was no nexus between the assessment and project, and if implemented, it could likely be challenged. Staff offered another alternative straw man structure, similar to the City of Morgan Hill's ordinance...

March 26: The group of attorneys came up with four community benefits options and would like to
discuss pros and cons of each with the sub-group.

March 30: City staff and their attorney presented 4 community benefits options to the subgroup this afternoon for comments.

April 3: City staff and their consulting team presented a straw man community benefits model that essentially is based on an annual allocation of housing units, office space and hotel rooms. Community benefits will be based on amount per sq ft., etc. Many questions were raised, including the assuming used on the performa models.

April 8: They think it's more productive for the developer groups to contact the City's economic consultant, Ben Sigman of EPS, directly if there are questions about the economic assumptions used. Ben's contact info: 510-841-9190,

April 13: The economic consultant made a presentation from 3:00pm to 5:00pm, at City Hall's
Conference C.

CRSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org
Paid for by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015, FPPC #1376003