Liang - Does Cupertino's General Plan set clear and precise objective standards?

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Does Cupertino's General Plan set clear and precise objective standards?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Some of the new housing laws are written with the assumption that the General Plan sets a clear and precise objective standards; therefore, a project that comply with the General Plan could be approved without adverse impacts on its neighborhoods.

But, does Cupertino's General Plan set clear and precise objective standards?

Page 2 of  The Goldfarb Lipman memo states

• "Standards in the City's General Plan override any inconsistent zoning or design review standards."
• "A project is also consistent if it complies with the maximum density for the site, plus a density bonus, even if the City established a lower unit allocation for the site."

In the past, the General Plan sets a more loose standard for a general area and the the Municipal Code sets a tighter standard for specific zoning.

For example, for R2i zone, the max building height is 18 feet; however, the General Plan sets the building height for all "Neighborhoods" as 30 feet. Does that mean the area with a height limit of 18 feet is now inconsistent with the General Plan? Thus, 30 feet applies?

Whether or not SB 35 is likely to be applied to any project in Cupertino, the General Plan should use languages that do not allow unintentional holes that might be taken advantage of.

Should we examine the General Plan policies to find out these inconsistencies?

Or maybe we can add some text in the General Plan that specifies that in case of inconsistency, the Municipal Code applies so that the intent of the Municipal Code is not lost.

I understand that SB 35 may not apply to R1 or R2 at this point. But there might be similar inconsistencies and SB 35 would ignore standards in the Municipal Code.

As suggested by the The Goldfarb Lipman memo:

• "The City may want to review its development standards to ensure that they include objective criteria for evaluating housing projects. The City may also want to develop checklists of applicable standards to use when evaluating applications to help respond within the mandatory timeframes."

Here are some examples of policies that require an objective standards:

POLICY LU-1.5: COMMUNITY HEALTH THROUGH LAND USE: Promote community health through land use and design.

=> What's the meaning of such obscure policy? Does that mean no housing development near freeways?

POLICY LU-1.6: JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE: Strive for a more balanced ratio of
jobs and housing units.

=> What's the intention of such policy? What's considered "balanced"? What's the goal we are thriving for? What "objective standards" are there?

RPC-2.1.1: Dedication of Parkland.
New developments, in areas where parkland deficiencies have been identified, should be required to dedicate parkland rather than paying in-lieu fees.

=> Can this be enforced? Should it use stronger language, such as "shall"?

     Marina and Hamptons do not seem to follow this policy?

Question: Would rooftop park be counted as "parkland" or only ground-level parkland count?

Before the city has a standard to ensure the safety and sustainability of rooftop park, perhaps the rooftop parkland should not be allowed and the General Plan should state it clearly.

Or specify that rooftop parkland is only allowed with city council approval.

POLICY LU-1.3: LAND USE IN ALL CITYWIDE MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed-use
districts and economic goals.

=> What does this policy mean? Where is the objective standards to implement this policy? Some cities specify a minimum percentage of retail space for mixed use projects to ensure economic goals of the city.

STRATEGIES: LU-1.3.1: Commercial and Residential
Uses.
Review the placement of commercial and residential uses based on the following criteria:
1. All mixed-use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza Special Area is an exception.

=> Is STRATEGIES: LU-1.3.1 enforceable under the new housing bills? What does "a substantial component" mean? Is 16% substantial?

=> What does this policy mean? Where is the objective standards to implement this policy? Some cities specify a minimum percentage of retail space for mixed use projects to ensure economic goals of the city.

"Character" is used in many places in the General Plan without specific policies to specify the "character".

Liang