Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Subject: City has Policy Power over Properties - Palo Alto fines Sand Hill $1,000 per day for violation
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt davidb@cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Counncilmembers,
How much right does a city have on private properties?
The city in fact could be quite powerful as long as you are willing to assert your right.
The property owners do not have a right to do whatever they want with their property. That's the basics of Land Use law. The City Council should know that and practice that. The general plan, master plans and specific plans in every city can specify the height, setback, density, even architecture, materials used, what type of retail shops or business in a commercial property, and even what type of occupants in a residential property. The City has police power on all properties in the city to ensure health, safety and welfare of the City. For the welfare of the residents, access to affordable retail shops is essential. Please do not use the property owner's right as an excuse to benefit Sand Hill or any other developer at the expense of health, safety and welfare of the residents. Please exercise the City's police power to protect the City and the residents.
The City should look into ways to require a minimum percentage of operational retail space for the current or future Vallco or other mixed use projects. Otherwise, a developer who wants to turn any retail space into office could simply intentionally not find a good tenant to rent the space out.
Palo Alto is able to fine Sand Hill $1000 per day just because a store is not occupied by a grocery store, promised as a public benefit.
"The Land Use 101, a field guide" by cacities.org states
The property owners do not have a right to do whatever they want with their property. That's the basics of Land Use law. The City Council should know that and practice that. The general plan, master plans and specific plans in every city can specify the height, setback, density, even architecture, materials used, what type of retail shops or business in a commercial property, and even what type of occupants in a residential property. The City has police power on all properties in the city to ensure health, safety and welfare of the City. For the welfare of the residents, access to affordable retail shops is essential. Please do not use the property owner's right as an excuse to benefit Sand Hill or any other developer at the expense of health, safety and welfare of the residents. Please exercise the City's police power to protect the City and the residents.
The City should look into ways to require a minimum percentage of operational retail space for the current or future Vallco or other mixed use projects. Otherwise, a developer who wants to turn any retail space into office could simply intentionally not find a good tenant to rent the space out.
Palo Alto is able to fine Sand Hill $1000 per day just because a store is not occupied by a grocery store, promised as a public benefit.
"The Land Use 101, a field guide" by cacities.org states
"Virtually every reference guide on Municipal Law begins with the premise that a city has the police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. See Berman v. Parker , (1954) 348 U.S. 26, 32 - 33."
"The
ability to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety and welfare
is important in the land use context because it confers very broad
rights to adopt regulations that implement local land use vision and
values,..."
"Land use an d zoning regulations are derivative of a City’s general police power... This power allows cities to establish land use and zoning laws which govern the development and use of the community.....The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.”
"One seminal land use and zoning case underscoring a city’s police power was Wal - Mart Stores Inc. v. The City of Turlock , (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4 th 273, 303 where, in response to concerns over the impacts of big box stores, particularly Wal - Mart, the City o f Turlock adopted an ordinance prohibiting the development of discount superstores."
"The court found the police power allows cities to “control and organize development within their boundaries as a means of serving the general welfare.”
"Land use an d zoning regulations are derivative of a City’s general police power... This power allows cities to establish land use and zoning laws which govern the development and use of the community.....The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.”
"One seminal land use and zoning case underscoring a city’s police power was Wal - Mart Stores Inc. v. The City of Turlock , (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4 th 273, 303 where, in response to concerns over the impacts of big box stores, particularly Wal - Mart, the City o f Turlock adopted an ordinance prohibiting the development of discount superstores."
"The court found the police power allows cities to “control and organize development within their boundaries as a means of serving the general welfare.”
This article lists the many violations of Sand Hill just at Main Street alone, which the Planning Department, and thus the City, have chosen to ignore. The city did not exercise your police power.
http://bettercupertino.
Below (end of the email) are some references to Sand Hill's violations in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is able to fine Sand Hill $1000 per day just because a store is not occupied by a grocery store, promised as a public benefit.
Sand
Hill is now forcing Vallco to become vacant before the Vallco
redevelopment project is even approved. This should not be allowed.
Vallco mall provides a service to the City, just as the grocery store in
Palo Alto provides the service to their community.
Could
the City investigate a way to request Sand Hill to keep Vallco
operational? At least Sand Hill should not intentionally kill it. The
mall provides retail services that's essential to the welfare of the
residents. Before the redevelopment project is approved, Sand Hill
should be required to keep the mall operational. Or at least 50% of the
mall.
If the City couldn't put enforcement according
to the current code, the City should look into ways to require a minimum
percentage of operational retail space for the future Vallco or other
mixed use projects. Otherwise, a developer who wants to turn any retail
space into office could simply intentionally not find a good tenant to
rent the space out.
In fact, this
is the trick the previous Vallco owner and the owners before that have
been playing. As long as Vallco doesn't do well, the City would turn
Vallco into a more profitable office park. What incentive is there for
any mall operator to provide the much needed retail service to Cupertino
residents? None.
The property owner doesn't have a right to do whatever they want with their property.
That's the basics of Land Use law. The City Council should know that
and practice that. The general plan, master plans and specific plans in
every city can specify the height, setback, density, even architecture,
materials used, what type of retail shops in a commercial property. The City has police power on all properties in the city to ensure health, safety and welfare of the city. For the welfare of the residents, access to affordable retail shops is essential. Please
do not use the property owner's right as an excuse to benefit Sand Hill
or any other developer at the expense of health, safety and welfare of
the residents. Please exercise the City's police power to protect the City and the residents.
------------------------------
Sand Hill's violations in Palo Alto:
- 2013: knocking down a historic building that they are supposed to preserve:
- A developer will have to pay $94,200 for knocking down one of two historic buildings that were supposed to be rehabilitated as part of a project to overhaul Edgewood Plaza in Palo Alto.
- 2015: violation for empty grocery store
- The developer of Edgewood Plaza is now facing a fine of $1,000 per day for not replacing the vacant grocery store formerly occupied by Fresh Market, which departed on March 31.
- In August, the City Council added pressure on Sand Hill Property Company to replace Fresh Market by the end of September by imposing a fine of $500 per day. That fine increased to $750 on Oct. 1 and $1,000 each day after Oct. 1 until the property is brought into compliance with an ordinance that requires the continued operation of a grocery store at the once-dilapidated Edgewood Plaza, located at 2080 Channing Ave.
- The grocery store is a key component of a "planned-community" zone change that the city granted to Sand Hill in 2012. The zone change allowed the developer to construct a development that, in addition to the grocery store, includes two commercial buildings and 10 homes.
Liang Chao
No comments:
Post a Comment