Randy - Resolution 14-201 states Vallco allocations are "contingent on approval of a Specific Plan by May 31, 2018"

From: Randy S
Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:52 PM
Subject: "Vallco Specific Plan" - revocable office and housing allocations.
To: piug@cupertino.org, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>

​Dear Council and Staff

This a comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan.  There are assertions regarding the commercial, office, hotel and residential authorized in the General Plan for the "Special Plan."  The Notice of Preparation says:

Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the Specific Plan would facilitate the development of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units onsite.

http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19386

​I downloaded the latest copy of Resolution 14-210 from the City's archive. It is attached to this e-mail.  This is what was approved by the City Council and signed on Dec. 4, 2014.  Note the following:

1. A Vallco Shopping District Special Plan satisfying the conditions set in Resolution 14-210 was a condition for the provisional allocations for office space and housing becoming permanent. 

2. The General Plan's 389 housing units identified for the Vallco Shopping District is contingent on approval of a Specific Plan by May 31, 2018.

3. The General Plan's 2,000,000 sq. ft. office allocation for the Vallco Shopping District is contingent on approval of a Specific Plan by May 31, 2018. 

 I cut and pasted the following from Resolution 14-210 (the highlights are mine):

Page I-3

The development allocations in the Approved Project are as follows:

Office allocation: 2,000,000 square feet of office allocation is identified for the Vallco

Shopping District site contingent on timely approval of a specific plan for the Vallco

Shopping District). The remainder of the existing allocation is unchanged and is still

available for citywide use as provided for in the General Plan.

Residential allocation: 1, 400 dwelling units of the existing residential allocation on

sites recommended for the 2014-2022 Housing Element Inventory, 389 of which are

identified for the Vallco Shopping District contingent on timely approval of a

specific plan for the Vallco Shopping District site

Page I-4

As stated, these Approved Project allocations rely in part on timely preparation of a specific
plan for the Vallco Shopping District that meets the requirements of the General Plan. If a
Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan is not approved by May 31, 2018, then the City will
consider removing the 2,000,000 square feet of office allocation from the Vallco Shopping
District. In addition, as described in section II.B, below, the Council will further consider
redistributing the residential allocation of 389 units for the Vallco Shopping District
Housing Element site to other Housing Element sites and removing the Vallco site from the
Housing Element Inventory.

Page I-5

The Approved Project involves a list of five Priority Housing Sites (Scenario A) and analternate list of six Priority Housing Sites (Scenario B). Four of the sites are in both lists. Ifthe City has not approved a specific plan for the Vallco Shopping District site, which islisted in Scenario A, by May 31, 2018, the City will consider actions to remove the VallcoShopping District site from the Housing Element Inventory and to add the GlenbrookApartments site and the Homestead Lanes site( Scenario B), and will considerredistributing the 389 units that could have been developed on the Vallco site as follows:35 additional units to the Oaks Shopping Center site, 150 additional units to The Hamptonssite, 58 units to the Glenbrook Apartments site, and 132 units to the Homestead Lanes site.These changes in the recommended Housing Element sites do not have the potential tocreate any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment, becauseall of the Housing Element sites were analyzed in the EIR at or above the number of unitsshown for those sites in the Approved Project.

​Also, please redact my e-mail address and include this as a response to the NOP for the Vallco Shopping District.

Thank you,

Randy S

San Jose

Liang - Objective Standards for "retail as a substantial component" in STRATEGIES: LU-1.3.1 of the General Plan

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:08 AM
Subject: Objective Standards for "retail as a substantial component" in STRATEGIES: LU-1.3.1 of the General Plan
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul, City Council Members and Planning Staff,

The 2017 pro-housing laws might allow projects to ignore any standards without objective numbers, as you must know. The policies for mixed use zones should be reviewed as soon as possible to comply with the state laws to provide objective standards. Here are just some of the policies that might be reviewed.

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.

"All mixed-use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component."

=> What constitutes "substantial component"? More than 50% in total square footage?

LU-1.2.2: Major Employers.
Reserve a development allocation for major companies with sales office and corporate headquarters in Cupertino.
Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies. New office development must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well-being of the city.

"Reserve a development allocation for major companies with sales office and corporate headquarters in Cupertino."
=> What's a "major company"? Perhaps, measured by the annual sales revenue?

"New office development must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well-being of the city "

=> What's the objective standards for such policy? For example, the office space will create demands on more housing, which will in turn require the building of more affordable housing. With the 2017 pro-housing laws, the city will need to build the allocated BMR housing, which might be a substantial financial burden. How to quantify this as an objective standards? Perhaps, there should be no more office when we cannot meet RHNA allocation.

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

=> Without an objective standard, this policy is only lip service. What's the balanced ratio or within the range of balanced ratio?

For Mixed-Use Urban Villages, the General Plan specifies:

"Include a substantial viable, retail component. Retail and active uses such as restaurants, outdoor dining, and entries are required along the ground floor of main street frontages."

=> What's the objective standard for "substantial viable, retail component"? Is 16% retail "substantial" or not? How to ensure "viable" retail? What must be included? Retail depends on easy access. Perhaps, sufficient parking would be required for "viable" retail since the existing mixed-use retail in Cupertino are not "viable" except the ones frequented by high school students who don't have cars.

Thank you for taking steps to protect Cupertino's General Plan through objective standards.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Liang - "Vallco Shopping District" is the proper term used in the General Plan

From: Liang C

Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:49 PM
Subject: "Vallco Shopping District" is the proper term used in the General Plan
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Vallco Project Managers,

For this community-driven specific plan process to be successful, transparency and trust are important.

Perhaps, it should start with NOT trying to steer the process towards one direction or another intentionally. Or at least do not give any perception that the city is attempting to do so.

This should start with recognizing the purpose specified in the General Plan: " a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley".

"The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." (Cupertino's 2040 General Plan)

And the proper term for the planning area is "Vallco Shopping District", as it is used throughout the 2040 General Plan.

However, the Notice of Preparation is titled "Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan", while the term "Vallco Special Area" is not used anywhere in the General Plan. The General Plan also uses other terms like "North Vallco Park Special Area" and "South Vallco Park Special Area" to refer to other areas. So, "Vallco Special Area" is a confusing and inaccurate term.

For transparency, accuracy and trust, please use the proper term "Vallco Shopping District" or "Vallco Shopping District Special Area" in all communications in the future to avoid any confusion. We don't want to give people the impression that the city is somehow discouraging the shopping center use at Vallco Shopping District when the area is specifically marked "Regional Shopping" in the approved South Vallco Master Plan and marked P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping) in the Zoning Map.

The proper term "Vallco Shopping District" is not used even once in the official city web site: http://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco

The term "Vallco Special Area" is used in http://envisionvallco.org too. Unless the City amend the General Plan to specify where is "Vallco Special Area", please use the proper General Plan term.

Please let the community-drive process actually reflect the wishes of the community and NOT confuse the process with any misuse of terms that might give the wrong impression.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Liang - Vallco Specific Plan Should be Based on the Max Allocations in the Adopted General Plan

From: Liang C
Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Vallco EIR NOP Provides Inaccurate Information on General Plan Allocation
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Vallco Project Managers,

The EIR consultant has provided inaccurate information for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan in the adopted General Plan during the EIR Scoping Session. It refers to 600,000 square feet of retail space and 800 housing units when the maximum allowed retail space is 1.2 million square feet and the maximum residential allocation is 389 units.

In fact, the 9212 report for Measure D correctly specified the allocation. How come the EIR consultant is provided inaccurate information this time?

Notice that the above paragraph uses the "max" allocation for all land uses, which is consistent. These numbers appear as the "Buildout" column (namely the maximum buildout allowed).

Yet the NOP states that the Specific Plan would only include ONLY 600,000 sqft of retail space, but doubled the residential allocation to 800 housing units.

This is quite confusing.

When did the City Council decide to only evaluate 600,000 sqft of retail space and double the residential allocation to 800 units? Just wondering when was such decision made?

Shouldn't such decision be made AFTER the so-called community-driven specific plan process?

Thank you for making the attempt to create a community-drive specific plan process with ample chances for community inputs. I am looking forward to a transparent and interactive process that involve all stakeholders.

Please clarify the notices sent out from the city to reduce confusion and improve transparency and trust in the community-driven specific plan process.

Thank you.

Liang

---------------------------------------

From: Liang Chao
Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Vallco EIR NOP Provides Inaccurate Information on General Plan Allocation
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

I found the rationalization to allow 800 units of housing at Vallco from the 9212 Report of Measure D:

The Initiative does not specify how many additional residential units may be developed in the Vallco area “consistent with the General Plan.” For purposes of analysis, this Report assumes that the maximum number of residential units
that could be authorized with a CUP is 800, based on the following assumptions:
• The total number of residential units allocated citywide under the General Plan is 1,882.
• Of that total number, 1,400 residential units are specifically allocated to Priority Housing Element Sites and 28 additional units have been approved, which leaves 454 units to be allocated.51

By the time a developer of the Vallco area could apply for a CUP for additional residential units, the City assumes that sufficient unallocated units (approximately 410) would be available to develop a maximum of 800 units in the Vallco area. Moreover, the General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1 provides that allocations may only be transferred among planning areas provided “no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)” for the General Plan. The General Plan EIR studied a maximum 800 units for the
Vallco area. As a result, 800 is considered the likely maximum number of residential units that could be developed within the Vallco area, consistent with the General Plan and with a CUP.

Sorry for my ignorance earlier. Now I understand where the "800 units" come from. However, I believe many Cupertino residents would be as confused as me.

And it still doesn't explain when the City Council decided that the Specific Plan for Vallco Shopping District would only evaluate 600,000 sqft of retail space and would be allowed to double the residential allocation to 800 units?

Regards,

Liang

KM - Vallco Specific Plan Must Be Consistent with the General Plan

Dear City Attorney Hom,

Greetings!

The Specific Plan for Vallco must be consistent with the General Plan by law as you already know.  See Ca GC 65450-65457:

http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GOV

The General Plan adopted Scenario A allotments for Vallco and stated that it would fall to Scenario B should a Specific Plan not be adopted by May 31, 2018.

LU-1 and LU-2 and the text of the GP never show Vallco with more than 389 units.

http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12729

The GP EIR studied 600,000 SF retail, 2 Million SF office, 800 residential units, and 339 hotel rooms.  The adopted Scenario A in the GP has 389 units.  35 DU/Ac was not an allotment but a density maximum for the 389 units on the site.  Alternative Scenario B has no housing at Vallco.  The Housing Element supports that Vallco could have 389 units, and refers to those unit quantities as “realistic capacity” in Table HE-5:

http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12736

A reasonable person (reasonable person from:  http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf) would conclude that Vallco was never intended to be a heavy housing site and the General Plan provided Scenario B with other sites available for housing.  The Vallco site was described in the General Plan as:  "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley."  

The goals, policies, and strategies to achieve this vision in the General Plan Land Use section support residential as subordinate to other uses.  See p 51:  http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12729  

Additionally, the 2 million SF of office frustrates the General Plan Housing Element Goal of providing adequate housing by generating an excess of employment.  

While Sand Hill requested that a much denser housing option be studied at Vallco, and that a mix between Measure D and a housing heavy option also be studied, neither of these options are consistent with the General Plan.  

They may not be studied for the Specific Plan.  They cannot be part of the EIR process for the Specific Plan.

If the Vallco owner wants something other than what is in the General Plan the Specific Plan route does not appear to be the way to do it.  

Please review the procedure and halt the technical review of options for a Vallco Specific Plan not consistent with the General Plan and that a reasonable person would not find consistent.   Essentially these inconsistent options are General Plan Amendments but without anyone knowing what they actually are.  How can we have an EIR scoping meeting about a mystery project? 

And a final comment:  attempting to include a reallocation of allotments in and among other sites is beyond the scope of a Vallco Specific Plan, in my opinion.  When office or any other allotment is pulled from the General Plan and placed in the city "pool" it results in an alteration of the General Plan.

This gets into the problem I believe which was caused by allowing the GP EIR to study Vallco at essentially a project level.  

Of the 4 options, they mis-state the Proposed project as having 800 rather than 389 residential units in the GP.  This is inconsistent.

The other EIR alternatives are:  Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall which puts allotments into the city pool which were never studied in the GPA EIR.  

General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix) this is inconsistent with the General Plan.  

The final option is retail and residential (no office) which would in practicality have some office but as long as the totals are within the General Plan, this would be consistent.

It is my interpretation that the original GP allotments may be studied in the EIR (not 800 units but 389), the re-tenanted mall may be studied, and the retail/residential may be studied if the totals are consistent with the General Plan (retail minimum 600,000 SF and 389 units residential) .  Is this interpretation correct?

Best regards,

KM

Liang - Cupertino Gives Away $1.5 Billion Dollars Worth of Entitlement To Developer For Free?!

[Nextdoor post]
Cupertino City appears to have turned the provisional allocation of 2 million square feet of office space to Vallco Shopping District, rejected by the voters in Measure D, into direct entitlement, free and clear.

This is a very generous giveaway, which is worth almost $1.5 billion dollars (Measure D is valued at $3 billion dollars and 50% of the project is the 2 million sqft office space)

What did the city council negotiate in return for such a free giveaway? None. Any promised community benefits at all? NONE!

The City Council specifically said in the video of Dec. 4 2014 Council meeting that the 2 million sqft office allocation "will expire" in 3 years (by May 31, 2018) if there is not a Vallco Specific Plan approved by the Council.
However, apparently the 2 million sqft of office space has become entitlement WITHOUT any public input and WITHOUT any city council decision and WITHOUT any approval of Vallco Specific Plan.
The free giveaway just suddenly appeared in the Notice of Preparation for Vallco EIR.
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19386

What's going on?!

<><><><><><><><>

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR NOP Provides Inaccurate Information on General Plan Allocation
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and City Council Members,

The Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation provides inaccurate information the the General Plan Allocation for Vallco Shopping District.
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19386

Please instruct the staff to correct the General Plan Allocation as it is stated in the 2040 General Plan.

On December 4, 2014, the City Council promised that the office and residential allocation at Vallco "will expire" by May 31, 2018.

It can be proved by the city council video. The citizens attending the meeting and watching the video later will hold you accountable to your promise.

The Planning Commission recommended 0 office space and 0 housing units specifically because they said "the community hasn't weighed in yet." Some Council members pushed to give Sand Hill a chance to start the design process, so the Council gave them "provisional allocation", not entitlement.

However, As stated in the Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation (quoted below), the office and residential allocation have become "entitled". When did the City Council make such a decision to alter the General Plan? How come the community was never notified?

As shown in General Plan Table LU-1, the General Plan development allocation for the Vallco Special Area is as follows: approximately 1.2 million square feet of commercial uses (minimum 600,000 square feet of retail uses with a maximum of 30 percent of entertainment uses, pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.4), 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 389 residential dwelling units.2 Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations may be transferred among Planning Areas provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 Final EIR (SCH#2014032007).

General Plan Table LU-1 specifically included the condition approved by the City Council.

The Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation did not mention the fact that the Housing Element has two scenarios, specifically because the allocation of 389 units at Vallco is "provisional". The NOP should not attempt to alter the content of the General Plan and the Housing Element.

It is important to establish the baseline in the Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation and the EIR document that the site is still zoned P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping) as of today.
The office and residential allocation for Vallco is "provisional", pending on the approval of Vallco Specific Plan.

In the South Vallco Master Plan, approved by the City Council on September 19, 2008, designated Vallco area as "Regional Shopping".

Who made the decision to turn Vallco Shopping District into a housing development BEFORE the community process?

There is NO entitlement for 2 million square feet of office space at Vallco Shopping District.

There is NO entitlement for 389 housing units at Vallco Shopping District.

Not yet. Not until Vallco Specific Plan is approved.

There might be stronger community sentiment to accept some housing units at Vallco Shopping District, but it is predicated on the condition that the developer would be able to deliver a strong retail experience component, including shopping, dining, entertainment, fitness and more.

The retail experience component cannot be a side note.

Therefore, it is important to establish the baseline that the site is still zoned for Regional Shopping. That should be the starting point of any negotiation.

Please do not allow outside forces to alter Cupertino's General Plan.

Please do not start the Vallco process by altering the General Plan to give out entitlements without any community inputs.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Cupertino Resident

KM - Vallco Specific Plan must be consistent with General Plan - EIR

"The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." (Cupertino's 2040 General Plan)

<><><><><><><><><>
From: KM
Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Vallco Specific Plan must be consistent with General Plan - EIR
To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, savitav@cupertino.org, Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul, City Council, and Manager Brandt,

I am very confused and concerned about the EIR scoping and Opticos process.  Please have the City Attorney’s office look into the Vallco Specific Plan process alternatives SHPCO has requested the review of (heavy housing and Measure D/heavy housing mix).  The Specific Plan for Vallco must be consistent with the General Plan by law as you already know.  See Ca GC 65450-65457:

http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/spe cific_plans.pdf

https://leginfo.legislature.ca .gov/faces/codes_displaySectio n.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.& lawCode=GOV

The General Plan adopted Scenario A allotments for Vallco and stated that it would fall to Scenario B should a Specific Plan not be adopted by May 31, 2018.

LU-1 and LU-2 and the text of the GP never show Vallco with more than 389 units.

http://www.cupertino.org/home/ showdocument?id=12729

The GP EIR studied 600,000 SF retail, 2 Million SF office, 800 residential units, and 339 hotel rooms.  The adopted Scenario A in the GP has 389 units.  35 DU/Ac was not an allotment but a density maximum for the 389 units on the site.  Alternative Scenario B has no housing at Vallco.  The Housing Element supports that Vallco could have 389 units, and refers to those unit quantities as “realistic capacity” in Table HE-5:

http://www.cupertino.org/home/ showdocument?id=12736

A reasonable person would conclude that Vallco was never intended to be a heavy housing site and the General Plan provided Scenario B with other sites available for housing.  The Vallco site was described in the General Plan as:  "The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley."  The goals, policies, and strategies to achieve this vision in the General Plan Land Use section support residential as subordinate to other uses.  See p 51:  http://www.cupertino.org/ home/showdocument?id=12729  

Additionally, the 2 million SF of office frustrates the General Plan Housing Element Goal of providing adequate housing by generating an excess of employment.  The residents voted it down, and yet it is being studied in the Specific Plan EIR?  Why spend the money when we know it will not happen?  

While Sand Hill requested that a much denser housing option be studied at Vallco, and that a mix between Measure D and a housing heavy option also be studied, neither of these options are consistent with the General Plan.  

They may not be studied for the Specific Plan.  They cannot be part of the EIR process for the Specific Plan.

If the Vallco owner wants something other than what is in the General Plan the Specific Plan route does not appear to be the way to do it.  

Please review the procedure and halt the technical review of options for a Vallco Specific Plan not consistent with the General Plan and that a reasonable person would not find consistent.   Essentially these inconsistent options are General Plan Amendments but without anyone knowing what they actually are.  How can we have an EIR scoping meeting about a mystery project? 

And a final comment:  attempting to include a reallocation of allotments in and among other sites is beyond the scope of a Vallco Specific Plan, in my opinion.

Best regards,

KM

Liana - Oppose SBs 827 and 828 - Action Item Request, Legislative Advocacy Committee

<START LAC Letter, 2/20/2018>

TITLE: Action Item Request, Legislative Advocacy Committee, 2/20/2018: Oppose SBs 827 and 828

Dear Mayor Paul, Council Member Chang, and Assistant City Manager Guzmán:

I understand the Cupertino City Council sub-committee Legislative Advocacy Committee (LAC) meets today, 2/20/2018 at 11:30 am. I request that during today's meeting the LAC consider adopting formal positions against SB 827 "An act to add Section 65917.7 to the Government Code, relating to land use" and SB 828 "An act relating to land use".

The League of California Cities, Alliance for Community Transit-LA (ACT-LA), and the City of Palo Alto have all taken firm positions against SB 827 as these entities recognize that, if passed, SB 827 will further remove cities from the role of determining land use and density for the communities they serve. Furthermore, SB 827 offers no relief for residents struggling with housing insecurity, including displacement, as older, modest, and more affordable housing located near transit corridors will be pushed toward redevelopment either by market forces or eminent domain due to "underutilization" (land use and density). (For example, SB 827 smooths the way for single-story homes to be torn down to make way for multiple-story, market-rate units. In addition to promoting the replacement of older, owner-occupied homes with market-rate rentals, SB 827 offers no protection to prevent the "upzoned" replacement units from be used for hoteling or just left vacant because for some oligarch real estate investors prefer not to be troubled by the needs of tenants.)

SB 828, while not as well publicized, is at least as hostile to residents as SB 827. By increasing RHNA requirements, SB 828 provides further motivation for built-out cities to enact eminent domain legislation against its single-family home owners in an effort to align actual density today (maybe 15- to 28-feet today, single-family units) with zoned density in neighborhoods near  transit corridors under SB 827 (45- to 85-feet, multiple family units).

While the region has created quite a mess by constructing offices at a pace that far exceeds the available housing supply, we need solutions to incentivize office development in communities outside the 10 Bay Area counties. Future job growth must be allocated in communities that need good paying jobs and that have ample affordable housing nearby or room to build affordable housing. False solutions, such as SBs 827 and 828 that aim to separate single family home owners and renters from their homes through change of neighborhood land use and density--essentially obsoleting single-family homes via upzoning--serve the interests of no one except the wealthiest of real estate investors.

Please oppose Senate Bills 827 and 828.

Thank you,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident

REFERENCES
+  Text of SB 827:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827

+ Text of SB 828:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB828

+ League of California Cities Sample Letter of Opposition Against SB 827:
https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Action-Center/SB-827-(Wiener)-Planning-and-Zoning

+ ACT-LA Letter to State Senator Scott Wiener "Re: SB (Wiener) Planning and Zoning - Transit-Rich Housing Bonus - OPPPOSE," 2/12/2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-HoGZWp3E4tNTc1dF9VY3NsTjg4TV9BeTRjSWxJQ0xUc0hN/view

+ "Palo Alto Takes a Stand Against Wiener's Housing Bill," 2/13/2018, Palo Alto Online:
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/02/13/palo-alto-takes-stand-against-wieners-housing-bill

<END LAC Letter, 2/20/2018>

“An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.” Victor Hugo

Liang - Missing Objective Standards for P Zoning: Setback, Slope or Retail Percentage

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Missing Objective Standards for P Zoning: Setback, Slope or Retail Percentage
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,

The 2017 pro-housing bills will allow by-right project approval based only on objective standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The newly proposed SB 827 will even up-zone certain areas, even in R1 zones, to allow high-rise buildings. However, the Municipal Code in Cupertino did not include sufficient objective standards that will provide the basic design standards.

As far as I know, there is no minimum setback standard or slope standard in non-artery streets.

For P zoning with multiple uses, there is no standard on the minimum percentage or maximum percentage of a certain use, as one can find in other city's General Plan. For example, Oaks has submitted a proposal with 0 retail space. This is because the P zoning did not require a minimum amount of retail space. The Municipal Code at the very least should require the existing retail space to be preserved. The Council can always give exception as needed, provided the developer offer other comparable benefits.

Below is some research done back in 2015. The Municipal Code of Palo Alto sets the height limit so that the height of a mixed use project cannot be higher than other surrounding neighborhoods within 150 feet. Similar standards should be adopted for P zoning.

P zoning in Cupertino is not well defined at all in Cupertino's Municipal Code. Please take some time to define objective standards so that the Council is in control of what projects are allowed.

Thank you for considering.

Liang

---------- Forwarded message ----------
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

Liang - Job-Housing Balance in Cupertino is Better Than Santa Clara County Average and Most Surrounding Cities

From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:02 AM
Subject: Fwd: Job-Housing Balance in Cupertino is Better Than Santa Clara County Average and Most Surrounding Cities
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and City Council Members,

This blog article draws data from the LAFCO Cities Services Report, based on 2014 census data. It shows that the job-jousing balance is much better than Santa Clara County and most of surrounding cities.

I hope the City can prepare a similar report to set the record straight since some recent media articles referencing Apple Park and Cupertino appear to be ignorant such differences in  job-housing ratios.

I would like to thank you for listening to the community in December 2014 so that the proposed 3.5 million square feet increase in office space was postponed. However, you have approved 2 million square feet for Vallco at the time, pending the approval of Vallco Specific Plan by May 2018. Since then, no one in their right mind ever supported such massive allocation of office space. 

Sand Hill already got 260,000 square feet of office space at Main Street plus 35,000 square feet as incubator space. Way more than 100,000 sqft in the initial approval. They should be satisfied with what they have now.

No group in the Feb. 5 kickoff meeting mentioned office. It’s time to remove the massive office allocation now so that the expectation is clear in the Vallco Specific Plan process. The city council should be in control in the negotiation table, not the developer.

Cupertino has been a good citizen in the County by maintaining a good job-housing balance. Let’s maintain our good record. Remove the 2 million sqft office allocation from Vallco Specific Plan now.

Regards,

Liang 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:45 AM

Subject: Job-Housing Balance in Cupertino is Better Than Santa Clara County Average and Most Surrounding Cities

Finally finished the article to support Darcy's statement.
---------------------
Job-Housing Balance in Cupertino is Better Than Santa Clara County Average and Most Surrounding Cities
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2018/02/job-housing-balance-in-cupertino-is.html

The root cause of the housing crisis is that there have been excessive job growth, while the housing growth has not been able to keep pace with the rate of job growth. This imbalance is especially significant at some cities where there are 2 or 3 jobs for each employed resident.

Cupertino has maintained pretty good balance between jobs and housing, more balanced than Santa Clara County average.

The job-housing ratio in Cupertino is in fact pretty balanced according to this LAFCO Cities Services report derived from 2014 census data (http://www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov/file/ServiceReviews/CitiesSR2015/2CSRR_ExecSumm.pdf). The LAFCO Cities Services is a "state-mandated comprehensive studies of services within a designated geographic area."

In Santa Clara County as a whole, the job-to-employed resident ratio is 1.18. For every employed resident, there is 1.18 jobs. The ratio of Cupertino is 1.08, below the County average. 

Here are the job-to-employed resident ratios for Cupertino and surrounding cities, in asending order. The ratio in Cupertino is much better than other surrounding cities.

Sunnyvale: 1.07

Cupertino 1.08

Santa Clara County Overall: 1.18 

Campbell 1.35

Milpitas 1.50
Mountain View: 1.79

Los Gato 1.83
Santa Clara: 2.08
Palo Alto: 3.02 

"The jobs/employed-residents ratio measures the balance between where people work and where people live. A balance closer to parity (i.e., 1.0) suggests there is sufficient housing in the community relative to the number of people who work in the community. This does not necessarily mean that the people who live in a city work there, but aggregated for several cities, the jobs/employed-resident ratio begins to paint a picture of where imbalances exist. It shows which communities “export” workers to other places (a ratio below 1.0) and which communities must import workers from other places (more than 1.0)." (From LAFCO Cities Services report)

Another data set provided by the LAFCO report is the job-to-housing ratio. There are 27,950 jobs in Cupertino and 20,494 housing units. The job-housing ratio is 1.36. There are 1.36 jobs per housing unit. It is pretty balanced since the ABAG guideline is 1.5 jobs per housing unit. The job-housing ratio of the entire Santa Clara County is 1.63. So, the job-house ratio of Cupertino is much more balanced then Santa Clara County average.

Here are job-to-housing ratio for Cupertino and surrounding cities, in asending order.
The ratio in Cupertino is much better than other surrounding cities.

Cupertino 1.36
Sunnyvale: 1.43
Santa Clara County Overall: 1.63 
Campbell 1.77
Los Gatos 1.91
Milpitas 2,35
Mountain View: 2.37
Santa Clara: 2.73
Palo Alto: 3.49 

"A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing available within a community. Used for years as a key urban planning tool, the jobs/housing balance measures the jobs available based on the number of homes in a community." (LAFCO Report)
ABAG considers 1.5 jobs/housing unit as a balanced ratio.

Cupertino has maintained a good job-housing balance in the past. 
Apple Park is built on a previous HP site with only 750,000 extra square feet of office space. Not millions of square feet of brand new office space as seen in other cities, like Mountain View or Santa Clara, With Apple Park, it is projected to "add" 2500 jobs (from the 750,000 extra sf added).

Cupertino's General Plan has included 4421 new housing units to be built by 2040. The General Plan includes residential zoning for both sides of Stevens Creek and the west side of De Anza. These 4421 units are expected to be spread out among different sites in the City and built over 25 years. Each 8-year of Housing Element cycle could build 1000-1500 units.

As Mayor Darcy Paul pointed out in his State of the City Address, there is no "dire need" in Cupertino to build thousands of units. Cupertino has a pretty good job-housing balance today. Although Apple Park will add some more jobs, Cupertino has plans to build more over time in order to maintain the balance.