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.

Liang - SB 35 - implementation process and other questions.

From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: SB 35 - implementation process and other questions.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff,

I sent a series of questions on SB 35 to the staffs of Evan Low and Jim Beall.

They have gotten back to me with the answers below.

Please pay attention especially to the following passage:

“SB 35 requires a locality to follow-through on planning decisions that the city has already made.  The city, in the development of its general plan, housing element, zoning ordinances, etc, has already engaged in a robust community process (complete with environmental reviews) to plan for and welcome people into their community.  This is a locally controlled decision-making process as to how many families can be permitted to live in various locations throughout the city.  Included in that decision-making process is how many people the city can accommodate with its services.  SB 35 does not remove the requirement for a housing development to comply with applicable zoning ordinances, the housing element, the general plan, or other planning documents.  (See Govt Code Section 95913.4(a)(2)). “

There was NO "robust community process (complete with environment review)" to allow 2400 housing units at Vallco Shopping Mall site. PERIOD. There was NO "robust community process (complete with environment review)" to label the density of Vallco Shopping Mall site as 35 units/acre, regardless of when the standard 35 units/acre was placed. A density should not exist only because it was slipped in when no one was looking.

Cupertino has always relied upon "max unit allocation" in combination with units-per-acre to define density, just as other cities have used floor-area-ratio to define density in a mixed use site.

When 600 units were allocated to Hamptons, the city increased the units-per-acre at Hamptons to match the "max unit allocation" of Hamptons site.

Since 389 units are allocated to Vallco Shopping Mall, the city should change the units-per-acre at Vallco Shopping Mall site to match the
"max unit allocation" of Vallco site. Thus, the units-per-acre at Vallco should be 6.7 units/acre or 7 units/acre (389 units/58 acres = 6.7 units/acre).

In case the Council would like to increase the max units allocated to Vallco AFTER
robust community process (complete with environment review)", the Council can always increase the units-per-acre at Vallco, just as the Council had increased it at Hamptons.

As stated by the answers from Jim Beall and Evan Low's staff, the general plan is a "locally controlled decision-making process".

No state laws should increase the density of any site in Cupertino. If the new laws would ignore "max unit allocation", the City should immediately use other objective standards, such as units-per-acre or floor-area-area, to provide comparable density at Vallco.

Regards,

Liang Chao

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Chao, Yvonne <Yvonne.Chao@sen.ca.gov>
Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: SB 35 - implementation process and other questions.
CC: Candelas, Domingo <Domingo.Candelas@sen.ca.gov>, Hughes, Alison <Alison.Hughes@sen.ca.gov>

Hi Liang,

Thank you for your patience—we appreciate your diligence in sending over these questions in an attempt to help everyone understand SB 35 better. Here is what we’ve received from Alison in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee:

Question 1: [Process] The current Housing Element cycle is from 2015 to 2023. We are in the third year of the cycle. When and how the cities will be measured against the RHNA allocation to determine whether projects could qualify for streamlining? Would that happen at the end of the 8-year cycle?

Per the language in SB 35, the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) determines city-by-city eligibility for streamlined approval process and is working to publish this information shortly on their Web site.  This is based upon the annual general plan report (also referred to as the annual progress report) required to be submitted by each jurisdiction in the state to HCD under existing law (Ca Govt Code Section 65400).   Per the language in SB 35, the locality remains eligible for streamlining for four years.  The every-four year review ensures that an accurate snapshot of the city’s production is identified. 

Question 2: [Not Penalize Proactive Cities] Out of the 5 Housing Element sites, Cupertino has approved (600+188+19) = 807 units on two sites towards the goal of 1064 units in the RHNA allocation. Since the city cannot foretell that SB 35 would count only building permits pulled, not units approved, the City didn't include measures to encourage the developers to build early, such as a shorter expiration date on the project approval. Such as a higher percentage of BMR units or the requirement that BMR units should be built first. Would the implementation of SB 35 be designed such that it doesn't unfairly penalize cities like Cupertino who acted quickly to approve projects early in the 8-year HE cycle, before Jan. 8 2018?

Yes, see response to Question 1. 

Question 3: [Good-Faith Effort Counts too] Some cities might have identified HE sites where developments are unlikely to happen. But not Cupertino. In this HE cycle, Cupertino identified 5 projects and all 5 projects have submitted project proposals. The three projects did not require any GPA, so they got approved quickly. Two other projects require GPA to add massive office use, increase height and reduce setback. The city adopted a flexible process to allow developers to negotiate for more density in exchange for community benefits. As a result, it takes longer to reach consensus.

However, SB 35 only counts permits issued and doesn't take into account any of the effort by the City of Cupertino to implement HE. Is that fair?

It is great to hear that Cupertino is taking affirmative steps to ensure housing is built quickly.  The legislative package passed this year by the California legislature and signed by the Governor responds to a chronic shortage of housing production in the state over several decades.  In fact, SB 35 only targets jurisdictions that are failing to meet their housing targets (specifically above-moderate housing and housing affordable to families at or below 80% of the area median income).  If the streamlined approval process is triggered in Cupertino, it is due to the fact that Cupertino has not met its statewide housing targets. 

Question 4: [Environment Impact of Streamlined Projects] The EIR of the General Plan was certified in Dec. 2014. At the time, the impact was evaluated based on the allocation of 4421 units over 25-year period (2015-2040). Under SB 35, within 8 years, thousands of units could get built on any site zoned for residential since the "max unit allocation", used by Cupertino's General Plan, would be ignored.  The impact of SB 35 was not expected by the 2014 EIR. The mitigations identified then for traffic would be obsolete and ignored too. What will happen when projects get streamlined and their impacts are not measured and mitigated?

For example, the 2014 EIR concludes that there is no significant impact on library services, police, fire and emergency services because the build-out will be over 25 years and these agencies think that the 4421 units studied will build out naturally over 25 years. Now that all over Bay Area, thousands of units will be added to cities on sites, over the density studied, because SB 35 removed the "max unit allocation". Who will make sure that these essential services, like fire and emergency services, will keep up with these streamlined projects?

SB 35 requires a locality to follow-through on planning decisions that the city has already made.  The city, in the development of its general plan, housing element, zoning ordinances, etc, has already engaged in a robust community process (complete with environmental reviews) to plan for and welcome people into their community.  This is a locally controlled decision-making process as to how many families can be permitted to live in various locations throughout the city.  Included in that decision-making process is how many people the city can accommodate with its services.  SB 35 does not remove the requirement for a housing development to comply with applicable zoning ordinances, the housing element, the general plan, or other planning documents.  (See Govt Code Section 95913.4(a)(2)).  Additionally, more housing brings in more revenue through the payment of property taxes, investments in local communities, and labor revenue, as well as through the receipt of locally imposed development fees, all of which are used to pay for increased services, as necessary.

It should also be noted that SB 35 streamlining is not permitted in several environmentally protected zones, including the Coastal Zone, Wetlands, Delineated earthquake fault zone, Flood plain or floodway, or Lands under conservation easement.  (see Govt Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)).  SB 35 also is not permitted on sites where sites where any housing occupied by tenants in past 10 years and projects involving subdivisions unless pay prevailing wages and use "skilled and trained workforce".  (See Govt Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)).

Given the novelty of this legislation, we are committed to closely monitoring the impacts of SB 35 and will welcome feedback once the legislation begins to be implemented next year.

Question 5: [Disruption of Regional Planning] RHNA allocation is assigned to different cities based on its office growth, population density and also access to transit. Such assignment is based on a regional plan, Plan Bay Area. As a result, a city like Cupertino gets assigned only 1064 units because of our lower office-housing ratio and no easy access to mass transit, like Cltran or BART. Other cities closer to mass transit or with higher office-housing ratio (higher housing deficiency) get a higher RHNA allocation.

With SB 35, there will be projects streamlined in a city like Cupertino for thousands of units to be built. This would upset the regional plan put in place, since residents from these thousands of units will clog up already very congested freeways around Cupertino.

By ignoring "max unit allocation", SB 35 will force the cities to ignore regional planning, where the allocation to each city is different according to various factors. What's the consequences? Have you evaluated it? Will there be any effort to study the Environment Impact of completely disregarding unit allocation in the General Plan?

See response to question 5.

Question 6: The General Plan of each city was approved without the knowledge of SB 35 and other housing bills. Now that SB 35 only allows "objective standards" and ignores "max unit allocation". Would the cities be allowed a grace period to revise the General Plan to use the objective standards as SB 35 specifies? It's only fair.

Again, SB 35 and other housing legislation passed this year were a response to a chronic shortage of housing production in the state over several decades.  Also, as noted above to question 4, SB 35 does not remove the requirement for a housing development to comply with applicable zoning ordinances, the housing element, the general plan or other planning documents.  It merely requires the city to follow-through on planning decisions the city has already made.

If a city feels the need to update its General Plan or other planning documents, another recently passed bill, SB 2, will provide an opportunity next year for locals to apply for funding to help finance the update of General Plan and other local planning tools.  Our office would be happy to keep you apprised of the development of that process, if interested. 

Question 7: [HCD Needs to Require Actionable Plan for BMR] It is great that SB 35 would enforce the accountability of RHNA allocation, especially on BMR housing. A great goal. However, HCD did not require the cities to provide an actionable plan to provide BMRs at all income levels when they reviewed Housing Element in May 2015. The cities only identified sites and a number of units assigned with no requirement on the contributiong of each site for BMR. As a result, most cities only used RHNA allocation as a motivation to build more market-rate units, while providing measly amount for BMR. The responsibility lies in HCD for approving HE without requiring an actionable plan for BMR housing.

HCD has not been treating RHNA allocation as a hard requirement. With SB 35, the intention of RHNA allocation has changed. Would you work with HCD to provide new guidelines for HE to require an actionable plan to provide BMR units? Would you provide cities some grace period to revise their General Plan and Municipal Code in order to have an actionable plan to provide BMR housing? Such as increase the percentage of BMR required or an increase on mitigation fees in order to fund more affordable housing project.

For example, Cupertino needs to provide 794 BMR units. With 15% onsite BMR, Cupertino needs to build 5,293 units in total. The EIR for the HE did not study for such a large amount of housing. The HE did not identify enough sites to provide 5,293 units either. Basically, the entire HE needs to be redone and re-reviewed by HCD. I bet almost every city is in the same situation.

It is correct that prior to this year, the housing element and RHNA process were used as planning documents/procedures and not building requirements.  However, as previously noted, California is facing a housing shortage crisis.  The purpose of SB 35 is to reduce barriers to housing construction, to increase the housing stock, and ensure that all Californians have a safe and affordable place to live.  Additionally, as previously noted, SB 35 does not remove the requirement for a housing development to comply with applicable zoning ordinances, the housing element, the general plan, or other planning documents.  Housing approved under the SB 35 process will be permissible in locations previously identified and vetted through public processes and local decisions made by the city.

The RHNA process, as part of the 8-year Housing Element adoption cycle, specifically identifies the housing needs for each jurisdiction at ALL income levels and is broken down by each income category for that reason.  Cupertino will have been assigned housing needs at above moderate-, moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely-low.  As part of the last housing element cycle, to comply with existing state housing law, Cupertino should have identified adequate sites and ensured proper zoning to meet the needs for all of these income categories.  Presently, about 80% of jurisdictions have a compliant housing element. 

Question 8: [Potential Abuse: Infinite Number of Streamlined Projects] Since SB 35 only counts building permits issued, a city would be put in the vulnerable position for having to accept streamlined projects with only 10% BMR. As long as not sufficient permits are pulled for whatever reason, the city would be in the SB 35-induced vulnerable position. 10 projects could be submitted in one month and the city staff has to review and provide responses in 30 days for all 10 projects. Maybe 10 more projects the next month. This could go on for years, while the developers rush in to get streamlined project approvals without pulling any permits.

What do you have in place to prevent such abuse of the SB 35-induced vulneable situation if only building permits are counted towards RHNA allocation?

The SB 35 streamlined approval process is triggered in one of two ways:

1)      A jurisdiction has not issued building permits to meet its regional housing needs by income category, AND

2)      If there is not enough above-moderate income housing, a developer must have a project that dedicates 10% of the total number of units to incomes with 80% of median income or below, or if there is not enough housing affordable to incomes at 80% and below, a developer must have a project that dedicates 50% of the total number of units to incomes with 80% of median income or below. 

As noted in Question 1, the determination of whether a jurisdiction must use SB 35 is based upon reporting numbers that come from that jurisdiction and are utilized for 4 years to provide an accurate snapshot of housing approvals. 

To ensure housing developments actually get built under SB 35, the legislation requires as follows (see Govt Code Section 65913.4(e)):

1)   If a local government approves a development under SB 35, and the project does not include 50% of the units affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income that approval shall automatically expire after three years.  A project may receive a one-time, one-year extension if the project proponent can provide documentation that there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction ready, such as filing a building permit application.

2)   If a local government approves a development under SB 35, that approval shall remain valid for three years from the date of the final action establishing that approval and shall remain valid thereafter for a project so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress.  Additionally, the development proponent may request, and the local government shall have discretion to grant, an additional one-year extension to the original three-year period.

Hope that helps and please let us know if we can help clarify further.

Thank you,

Yvonne Chao

District Representative

Senator Jim Beall—SD 15

2105 S. Bascom Ave, Suite 154

Campbell, CA 95008

(408) 558-1295

From: Liang-Fang Chao
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3:07 PM
To: Chao, Yvonne
Subject: Fwd: SB 35 - implementation process and other questions.

Yvonne,

I am wondering how SB 35 will be implemented and implemented fairly.

Question 1: [Process] The current Housing Element cycle is from 2015 to 2023. We are in the third year of the cycle. When and how the cities will be measured against the RHNA allocation to determine whether projects could qualify for streamlining? Would that happen at the end of the 8-year cycle?

Question 2: [Not Penalize Proactive Cities] Out of the 5 Housing Element sites, Cupertino has approved (600+188+19) = 807 units on two sites towards the goal of 1064 units in the RHNA allocation. Since the city cannot foretell that SB 35 would count only building permits pulled, not units approved, the City didn't include measures to encourage the developers to build early, such as a shorter expiration date on the project approval. Such as a higher percentage of BMR units or the requirement that BMR units should be built first. Would the implementation of SB 35 be designed such that it doesn't unfairly penalize cities like Cupertino who acted quickly to approve projects early in the 8-year HE cycle, before Jan. 8 2018?

Question 3: [Good-Faith Effort Counts too] Some cities might have identified HE sites where developments are unlikely to happen. But not Cupertino. In this HE cycle, Cupertino identified 5 projects and all 5 projects have submitted project proposals. The three projects did not require any GPA, so they got approved quickly. Two other projects require GPA to add massive office use, increase height and reduce setback. The city adopted a flexible process to allow developers to negotiate for more density.in exchange for community benefits. As a result, it takes longer to reach consensus.

However, SB 35 only counts permits issued and doesn't take into account any of the effort by the City of Cupertino to implement HE. Is that fair?

Question 4: [Environment Impact of Streamlined Projects] The EIR of the General Plan was certified in Dec. 2014. At the time, the impact was evaluated based on the allocation of 4421 units over 25-year period (2015-2040). Under SB 35, within 8 years, thousands of units could get built on any site zoned for residential since the "max unit allocation", used by Cupertino's General Plan, would be ignored.  The impact of SB 35 was not expected by the 2014 EIR. The mitigations identified then for traffic would be obsolete and ignored too. What will happen when projects get streamlined and their impacts are not measured and mitigated?

For example, the 2014 EIR concludes that there is no significant impact on library services, police, fire and emergency services because the build-out will be over 25 years and these agencies think that the 4421 units studied will build out naturally over 25 years. Now that all over Bay Area, thousands of units will be added to cities on sites, over the density studied, because SB 35 removed the "max unit allocation". Who will make sure that these essential services, like fire and emergency services, will keep up with these streamlined projects?

Question 5: [Disruption of Regional Planning] RHNA allocation is assigned to different cities based on its office growth, population density and also access to transit. Such assignment is based on a regional plan, Plan Bay Area. As a result, a city like Cupertino gets assigned only 1064 units because of our lower office-housing ratio and no easy access to mass transit, like Cltran or BART. Other cities closer to mass transit or with higher office-housing ratio (higher housing deficiency) get a higher RHNA allocation.

With SB 35, there will be projects streamlined in a city like Cupertino for thousands of units to be built. This would upset the regional plan put in place, since residents from these thousands of units will clog up already very congested freeways around Cupertino.

By ignoring "max unit allocation", SB 35 will force the cities to ignore regional planning, where the allocation to each city is different according to various factors. What's the consequences? Have you evaluated it? Will there be any effort to study the Environment Impact of completely disregarding unit allocation in the General Plan?

Question 6: The General Plan of each city was approved without the knowledge of SB 35 and other housing bills. Now that SB 35 only allows "objective standards" and ignores "max unit allocation". Would the cities be allowed a grace period to revise the General Plan to use the objective standards as SB 35 specifies? It's only fair.

Question 7: [HCD Needs to Require Actionable Plan for BMR] It is great that SB 35 would enforce the accountability of RHNA allocation, especially on BMR housing. A great goal. However, HCD did not require the cities to provide an actionable plan to provide BMRs at all income levels when they reviewed Housing Element in May 2015. The cities only identified sites and a number of units assigned with no requirement on the contributiong of each site for BMR. As a result, most cities only used RHNA allocation as a motivation to build more market-rate units, while providing measly amount for BMR. The responsibility lies in HCD for approving HE without requiring an actionable plan for BMR housing.

HCD has not been treating RHNA allocation as a hard requirement. With SB 35, the intention of RHNA allocation has changed. Would you work with HCD to provide new guidelines for HE to require an actionable plan to provide BMR units? Would you provide cities some grace period to revise their General Plan and Municipal Code in order to have an actionable plan to provide BMR housing? Such as increase the percentage of BMR required or an increase on mitigation fees in order to fund more affordable housing project.

For example, Cupertino needs to provide 794 BMR units. With 15% onsite BMR, Cupertino needs to build 5,293 units in total. The EIR for the HE did not study for such a large amount of housing. The HE did not identify enough sites to provide 5,293 units either. Basically, the entire HE needs to be redone and re-reviewed by HCD. I bet almost every city is in the same situation.

Question 8: [Potential Abuse: Infinite Number of Streamlined Projects] Since SB 35 only counts building permits issued, a city would be put in the vulnerable position for having to accept streamlined projects with only 10% BMR. As long as not sufficient permits are pulled for whatever reason, the city would be in the SB 35-induced vulnerable position. 10 projects could be submitted in one month and the city staff has to review and provide responses in 30 days for all 10 projects. Maybe 10 more projects the next month. This could go on for years, while the developers rush in to get streamlined project approvals without pulling any permits.

What do you have in place to prevent such abuse of the SB 35-induced vulneable situation if only building permits are counted towards RHNA allocation?

Thank you for answering my questions.

Let me know if I should send my questions to somewhere else directly.

Liang

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

-- Some Background Information on Cupertino --

RHNA allocation for Cupertino is 1064 units.
Extremely low/very low - 356 units (33.5%)
Low - 207 units (19.5%)
Moderate - 231 units (21.7%)
Above Moderate - 270 units (25.4%)

So, 794 BMR units and 270 market-rate units in the RHNA allocation.

Cupertino identified 5 sites for Housing Element. As of now, only 2.5 years in the 8-year HE cycle, Cupertino has approved 600 units for Hampton site and 188 units in the Marina site and 19-unit senior affordable apartment at Barry Swanson site. For the record, Better Cupertino did not oppose to any one of these projects. Better Cupertino pushed for-sale affordable housing and pushed for higher percentage of BMR housing at these sites.

The projects at Oaks site and Vallco are delayed because both developers want to raise building heights and add massive office so that the amount of housing provided is only enough for 1/10 or 1/20 of the number of employees at the site. Both proposed projects would worsen the housing crisis. It defeats the purpose of Housing Element.

Out of 1064 RHNA allocation, Cupertino has approved 807 units with the understanding that the cycle ends in 2023. So, the project approval for Marina site has 5-year expiration date. The expiration date on Hampton's approval is 10 years. Maria hasn't pulled building permits because they are tied up in a lawsuit over easement issue with its neighbor. Hamptons hasn't pulled permits for whatever reason.

This memo from Cupertino has more details:"The City of Cupertino’s Response to the Bay Area Housing Crisis"