Liang - What Benefits Westport (for Oaks) Offer Cupertino Residents?

From: Liang Chao
Date: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:03 PM
Subject: What Benefits Westport (for Oaks) Offer Cupertino Residents?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Through the new project-based General Plan Amendment (GPA) Authorization process, the intention is to grant GPA only if it benefits Cupertino.

The land use allocation for Oaks in the current General Plan is 200-235 housing units, 45 feet maximum height, 69,500 square feet of retail space and other setback requirements as other sites along Stevens Creek. No office and no hotel.

The above allocation would already increase the density of the existing Oaks FIVE TIMES. The GPA request would increase the density to 13.8 TIMES. What benefits does Westport provide to justify such large density increase?

Why is FIVE TIMES the density not enough? Why should we waste staff time and residents time to consider a GPA that's way out of the bound of the General Plan?

Marina Plaza was able to propose a mixed use plan within the bound of the General Plan in terms of building heights and setbacks. Why can't KT Urban be satisfied with FIVE TIMES the existing density?

Please consider these questions as you make decisions on whether to allow the GPA process for Oaks to proceed.

Below is a comparison between the exception requested and the "benefits" Westport offers for your reference. Many of the so-called "benefits" are not true benefits, which many Cupertino residents will see clearly.
------------------

Westport (for Oaks) requests the following exceptions to the current General Plan and Municipal Code.

1. Increase building heights to 75 feet (Alternative I) or 88 feet (Alternative II).

2. Increase residential allocation, office allocation and hotel allocation:

    Alternative I: 605 units (15% affordable senior housing) and 69,500 square feet of retail.

    Alternative II: 270 units (20% affordable senior housing), 69,500 square feet of retail, 280,000 square feet of office.

3. Reduce Common Open Space required for residential by 50%. And most of the provided Common Open Space is on the rooftop.

4. Reduce setback from property line from 44 feet to 0 feet along I-85.

5. Reduce slope along Stevens Creek for hotel and office buildings from 1:1 to 2:1 and 3:1.

The total square footage of all uses would be increased from 269,500 square feet (allocated in the General Plan) to 724,525 square feet for Alternative I and 742,045 square feet for Alternative II.

The Oaks Shopping Center has 53,425 square feet of retail space today. So, the existing allocation in the General Plan would allow the total square footage to increase to 269,500 square feet, FIVE TIMES of existing Oaks Shopping Center. This is the option some people call "no growth".

The GPA request for Westport would increase the total square footage to 13.8 TIMES of the existing Oaks Shopping Center or 2.75 TIMES of the amount allowed in the General Plan.

We must ask. What benefits does Westport provide so that the city should double the height and triple the building mass of what's allowed in the General Plan?

What "benefits" do Westport project offer Cupertino residents?

1. Transit Center at the north end of the site is nothing but a bus stop with a small waiting area. [Useless benefit] - But it only provides space for two bus parking for south bound bus route on Mary Ave. No space for north bound bus route. And no existing or any future bus routes go through this location to require a bus top there. It provides 50 underground parking spaces for the Transit Center, while taking away 72 parking spaces along Mary Avenue.

2. 4,000 square feet for Community Center. [Incomplete benefit] - But it only provides 16 parking spaces. And for Alternative II, the Community Center will double as conference facility for the hotel.

3. 15-20% affordable "senior" housing - But the affordable housing is earmarked for seniors with low and very low income. It doesn't benefit the young service professionals in Cupertino as some promised and it doesn't fit the needs of Cupertino seniors either.

4. More office space to add property tax. [Not a benefit, but a burden] - But Alternative II would in fact worsen housing crisis by deepening office-housing imbalance. 280,000 square feet of office space would accommodate at least 1260 office workers plus service workers, while providing only 270 housing units. Additional office space should be located near mass transit or in more affordable areas with sufficient space for housing.

5. More housing units - But based on RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Analysis) and transit availability, ABAG (Association of Bay Area Government) allocated only requires Cupertino to build 1002 units by 2023. This is because there is no mass transit here. More housing units should be allocated near mass transit, such as Caltrain, light rail or BART. Among the 1004 units, only 275 units are market-rate housing. Cupertino has already approved 600+188 housing units (only 15 BMR units) for Hamptons and Marina. Thus, based on the regional housing analysis, Cupertino needs ZERO units of market-rate housing, but much more BMR (below-market-rate) housing.

6. Pedestrian bridge over I-85 to the interim. [Not funded and not realistic] - The developer, KT Urban, didn't plan to provide funding or build that bridge and nor the developer nor the city have any authority to decide whether such pedestrian bridge fits in Caltran's plan for I-85. Even in some remote future some tarnsit goes through 85, it would make more sense to place the transit stop near De Anza College, not near Westport anyway.

7. Vibrant mixed use center. [Existing GP would be more vibrant] - The amount of retail space is the same between the existing General Plan, Alternative I and Alternative II. Westport proposals do not add any vibrancy to the location, except more people. But the existing Oaks Shopping Center is already right next to De Anza College with 30,000 students. The lack of potential customers is not the problem of the stagnant mall. Poor management is. There are many more mixed use centers with poor retail offerings in Bay Area and especially in Cupertino because it doesn't fit into the car-centric style of this area. All parking spaces in Westport project are underground.

The existing General Plan already allows FIVE TIMES the density of existing building. With so little "true" benefits, why should we amend the General Plan to allow 13.8 TIMES the density of existing building?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How about other arguable "benefits" mentioned by proponents of Westport project or any high-density development?

1. Millennials prefer urban centers so that they don't need cars. [But not at Westport] - Those millennials who prefer urban centers would rather live in developments close to reliable and efficient mass transit, such as CalTrain, light rail or BART. Anyone living in Westport would still need cars to get around due to the infrequent bus services in Cupertino and inadequate VTA network to reach most destinations.

2. Due to aging population, Cupertino seniors need senior housing. [But not at Westport] - Cupertino seniors are used to the suburban lifestyle in Cupertino. It is unlikely that they would move into a high-density development with ONLY underground parking. Lower density for-sale town homes would be more attractive to Cupertino seniors. For those who prefer the privacy and autonomy of single-family homes, they would only move into senior centers with assisted living and on-site medical facilities. But Westport proposals do not provide the type of senior housing attractive to Cupertino seniors. Westport only provides senior housing for low and very low income so they are likely very tiny studios, not suitable for majority of Cupertino seniors.

3, More housing will reduce traffic since more people could live close to work. [But not really] - People tend to work where they are hired and live where they can afford and prefer. Some would rather commute a distance to get a bigger apartment or purchase a house. Most couples or families with kids won't be able to pick up and move when one of the parents find a new job. Thus, most people won't live close to their work most of the time, except for young singles. But young singles would rather live in urban centers near mass transit and vibrant night life. As a result, apartments at Westport will generate more traffic since they won't be all occupied by young singles. Westport Alternative II would definitely generate more traffic since there are 5 times more workers than the number of apartments.

4. Let the GPA process begin so that the traffic study can be done. [Worst reason to consider a GPA request, especially when the result of the traffic study would be ignored under SB 375] - There is no need to waste the staff time and the residents' time on any study if the benefits of the Westport proposals do not overwhelmingly benefit Cupertino. It's worth noting that the Westport site is located in designated Priority Development Area (PDA). As a result, SB 743 eliminated traffic congestion as an environmental impact for infill projects under CEQA. Meaning: The Westport project cannot be denied even if the traffic study concludes that the traffic impact will be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sincerely,

Liang Chao
Cupertino resident of 17 years