Tara - Opposition of SB 827

From: Tara S

Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Opposition of SB 827
To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,

I'm writing to urge the Cupertino City Council to affirm its opposition of SB 827.

While we can all agree that it makes sense to build housing near transit, it should not be to the detriment of our communities. SB 827 is an extreme proposal that could intensify displacement – it is a sledgehammer approach that threatens existing communities.

SB 827 strips local government officials and community members of their ability to appropriately plan for future development. Instead, SB 827 gives developers, who are unaccountable at the local level, the power to exempt themselves from locally developed and adopted building height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards.

It is important to note that under existing law, cities are already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet their entire Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The City of Cupertino’s General Plan promotes walk-able and bike-able communities as we move towards building transportation infrastructure that doesn’t require single-occupancy cars. Planned Development Areas (PDAs) account for 80% of our future housing needs and include properties within a quarter mile of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Highway 85 to its eastern border and a portion of North and South De Anza Boulevards which currently allow for 25-35 units per acre.

Some in our community are worried that transit agencies risk influencing land use decisions by adding or changing bus routes either intentionally or unintentionally. 

SB 827 allows private for-profit housing developers to determine housing densities, parking requirements, and design review standards within one-half mile of a “major transit stop,” or along a “high-quality transit corridor” which could be miles away from an actual bus stop.  Additionally, housing developments within these areas can range in height between 45 feet and 85 feet depending on the desire of the developer.

This bill threatens local land use plans that cities work so hard to encourage while also not addressing our affordability crisis. SB 827 would undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development), and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). 

--

Thank you,

Tara S

Liang - No More Free Giveaway to Developer. Rezone Minimal Required to Residential Use. No Office Use. Please.

From: Liang X

Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Subject: No More Free Giveaway to Developer. Rezone Minimal Required to Residential Use. No Office Use. Please.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council, Planning Commissioners, Vallco Planners and City Manager,

The City Council set a deadline for the provisional allocation at Vallco Shopping District area of May 31, 2018 because the city planners told the City Council that they have until that date to make the final decision. It seems the City Council will miss the deadline. I was also told by a city planner that the deadline to rezone Vallco, according to HCD, is in fact earlier than May 31, perhaps May 4. In that case, shouldn't the deadline to make a decision on Vallco Shopping District be moved up to early May? If no plan is approved, the provisional residential allocation and office allocation should be removed. That was the promise made by the City Council in December 2014 that the provisional allocation will expire. Any intention to keep that promise at all?

Even if the City Council wishes to extend the deadline for the provisional allocation at Vallco Shopping District, the Council should not give MORE FREE GIVEAWAY to Sand Hill by rezoning the entire Vallco Shopping District site to allow THOUSANDS of HOUSING UNITS BEFORE the approval of Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan. The FREE GIVEAWAY of 2 million square feet of office space without sufficient public input already caused us so much headache over the past three years, while the developer gave no promise of any community benefits at all. NO MORE FREE GIVEAWAYS, please.

When the description of a special area includes a certain land use, it does not require that the entire special area needs to be rezoned to include that land use designation. It is perfectly legal and common for parcels in a special area to have different land use designations. For example, the Vallco Shopping District site has two different zoning designations: P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping). Therefore, it is perfectly legal and common to rezone ONLY ONE parcel to P(CG,R) to allow residential use. JUST ONE.

The provisional residential allocation for Vallco Shopping District is 389 units. The Council ONLY needs to rezone enough parcels in the area to allow 389 units. NO MORE.

With 35 units per acre, the Council only needs to rezone 11,11 acres to include residential resignations. NO MORE.

In light of the 2017 pro-housing laws, it is essential that the Council sets clear and objective standards when rezoning parcels to include residential use.

There is no need to rezone the entire 58 acres of Vallco Shopping District to include residential use. Such grand-scale rezoning will cause confusion and community distrust and it is not consistent with the residential allocation of 389 units in the approved General Plan.

Vallco Shopping District contains about 13 parcels. See the attached map. Some are as small as 2 or 3 acres. The largest appears to be 12.4 acres. There is no need at all to rezone ALL parcels in the Vallco Shopping District to include residential use. Only 11.11 acres is necessary to fulfill HCD's requirement.

Furthermore, there is not need to rezone ANY site to include office use at all before May 2018. It is quite common for the zoning map to not completely agree with the General Plan as the land use map reflects the General Plan. Zoning Map could be updated later when the Vallco Specific Plan is actually approved with office use.

Note that the current P(CG) Zoning in some part of Vallco Shopping District does allow small business offices or small clinics or afterschools. There is no need to rezone any parcel in Vallco Shopping District at this time, especially since no one mentioned office use at the Vallco kickoff meeting at all.

In neither the NOP for Vallco EIR nor the presentation of the EIR Scoping Meeting, no where was the likelihood of allowing 35 units/acre on all 58 acres mentioned at all. No where was the likely impact of state legislatures were specified at all. The presentation in EIR Scoping Meeting only mentioned one option with 2/3 residential and 1/2 non-residential. A reasonable person would understand that to mean 389 units or at most 800 units, as stated in NOP by transferring 411 units, could occupy 2/3 footage of the entire project. The other 1/3 would be commercial, such as 1.2 million square feet of retail space.

To build trust and transparency, I urge you to keep your promise to the citizens. No more unnecessary free giveaways without any public inputs. Please rezone at most 11.11 acres for residential use and 0 acre for office use. No more.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Cupertino Resident

Attachment:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7RMc9DXGhUAa3I5blIxcGdnMVV6Tm5NQldUU2o1NFBTNXUw/view?usp=sharing

Liana - Request to Send Letter Opposing SB 827

From: Liana C

To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Cc: cityclerk@cupertino.org <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; cityattorney@cupertino.org <cityattorney@cupertino.org>; jacquelineg@cupertino.org <jacquelineg@cupertino.org>

Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018, 11:09:07 AM PST

Subject: Request to Send Letter Opposing SB 827, Council Meeting 3/6/2018, Agenda Item 18; Support Letter of Opposition Against SB 828, Council Meeting 3/20/2018, future agenda item

Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Council Members Chang, Scharf, and Viadhyanathan:

As the authority of the Legislative Advocacy Committee (LAC) has been dis-proven for now via information revealed in a California Public Records Act request (relevant letter with documents included at the end of this message) and now an entire month has passed since community members and/or Council Members have started asking the City for action against predatory State Bills 827 and 828, I am forwarding the letter I sent previously to the then LAC for the full Council's consideration of now Agenda Item 18 "Transit-rich Housing Bonus" to be decided during 3/6/2018 City Council meeting (see letter immediately below).

I support the recommended action stated in the 3/6/2018 meeting agenda: "Oppose SB 827 (Weiner, sic) and authorize the Mayor to send letters of opposition to state legislative leaders along with our state delegation."

And, I request that Council consider drafting a letter opposing SB 828 (Wiener) "An act relating to land use" as an action to be deliberated during the 3/20/2018 regular Council meeting.

Regarding a LAC, I'm not sure why the Council would abdicate its authority over important legislative issues to a committee. If I understand the intended charter of the now neutered LAC, 2 Council Members would have the authority kill the City's advocacy work on behalf of state or federal legislative issues based on only their votes. What if the majority Council not present in the LAC meeting hold a different view and would vote differently than the minority LAC, if given the opportunity?

Is it expediency that drives interest in the formation of a LAC? But at what cost? And, for the benefit of whom?

Sincerely,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident

<START, letter sent 2/20/2018 to Mayor Paul, Council Member Chang, and Assistant City Manager Guzmán expressing opposition to SBs 827 and 828>

SUBJECT: 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, letter sent 2/20/2018 to Mayor Paul, Council Member Chang, and Assistant City Manager Guzmán expressing opposition to SBs 827 and 828>

...

<START, 3/4/2018 letter from a community member to Council requesting Resolution 18-010 be rescinded in response to results from a PRA request identifying the assumed "Legislative Advocacy Committee" had never been formed and therefore has no authority (relevant documents attached, community member information redacted)>

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