Robert - Letter to San Jose City Council Regarding Fortbay Project in Stevens Creek Urban Village

Letter to San Jose City Council Regarding Fortbay Project in Stevens Creek Urban Village

dipa.chundur@sanjoseca.gov

tracy.tam@sanjoseca.gov

MAYORANDCOUNCIL@SantaClaraCA.gov

LGillmor@SantaClaraCA.gov

citycouncil@cupertino.org

tthomas@thomaslaw.com

ahiguera@thomaslaw.com

Dear Ms. Tam,

San Jose published a “Notice of Development Proposal” regarding 4360 Stevens Creek Blvd, project file PDC16-036.

I want to voice serious concerns regarding this project, namely:

Parking

The proposed number of additional parking is completely insufficient. There will be about 1,800 jobs from the additional office space with a large percentage of workers commuting by car. In addition, there are some 580 apartments each requiring about 1.5 cars. Hence, the total amount of parking should be about 2,400, i.e. about twice as much as suggested by the developer.

There must be a requirement to provide these additional parking spaces for all residents, visitors and customer for this development. This requirement must be part of the project without which the project cannot be approved. These parking spaces have to be ADDITIONAL parking spaces, hence cannot be existing parking including street parking. If there is any planned “sharing” with other structures, then the number of required parking spaces for these other developments must be taken into account.

All of this, among other things, is to avoid even more parking in residential areas including the associated noise, pollution, wasted time to find parking, etc.

Building Height

The proposed development is right next to 1-2 story apartments and single family homes on both sides of Stevens Creek. The proposed building height of 8 stories is 4-8(!!!) times taller than the buildings in this area. Besides all the other negative impacts, the visual impact, blocking of views, reduction of home value prices (they probably still increase but become less desirable) due to all the negative impacts, etc. must be taken into account. Most new developments in this area are 3-4 stories high including developments along Stevens Creek, Lawrence, Kiely, San Tomas, El Camino, etc. This is despite the fact that In many of those cases there are no 1-2 story apartments and single family homes close by. Hence, construction along Stevens Creek should be limited to 3 stories.

Traffic Impact

The proposed development will have a very significant traffic impact. Traffic along Stevens Creek is already very high. The same is true for the major roads that cross Stevens Creek and are used by residents and employees working on Stevens Creek. These roads include Lawrence, San Tomas, Kiely, etc. In addition, the highways are already jammed and the roads providing access to those highways are also backlogged. Even 3 story homes all along Stevens Creek will make the situation considerably worse. These roads simply can’t accommodate the increased traffic from 5+ story buildings. Ignoring this fact will lead to more noise, pollution, jammed local roads, etc. Mass transportation like trains are not feasible along Stevens Creek.

Consideration of General Plan

Often impact studies are made for an individual project. The proposed project on 4360 Stevens Creek will have a significant impact even considered as an isolated project. However, fact is that it will set a precedence for new projects all along Stevens Creek. This is actually quite well outlined by the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan which includes buildings of 50-160 along Stevens Creek on the San Jose side. Impact studies must take the overall impact into consideration.

In addition of all of those items, please also include by reference all the concerns that Santa Clara has submitted to San Jose regarding the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan including the attached letter from Thomas Law Group dated 8/8/17.

Regards,

Robert

Randy - Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan "Hacks" Will Affect Cupertino

rom: Randy S
Date: Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:52 PM
Subject: Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan "hacks"
To: svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, bchang@cupertino.org, rsinks@cupertino.org, sscharf@cupertino.org
Cc: David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, piug@cupertino.org

Dear Cupertino Mayor and Council,

San Jose likes to characterize its Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan (SCUVP) as some sort of "overarching" development plan for San Jose's portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard, but I have a different view.  The planned hotel at the corner of Stern and Stevens Creek at the San Jose City Limits is an example of how the SCUVP is more of a vehicle for enabling building than it is a tool for planning development.

San Diego's Oliver Family purchased the proposed "Stern Hotel" site in February 2017.  Within a month of the purchase, the site's land use in the draft SCUVP was changed from Neighborhood/Community Commercial to Urban Village Commercial.   The maximum floor area ration (FAR) for Neighborhood/Community Commercial is 3.5.  The maximum FAR for Urban Village Commercial is 7.  The change allowed the maximum FAR at the hotel site to go from 3.5 to 7.  That effectively enables the building of the 6 story hotel being proposed.

Here are land use maps from 1/19/17 and 3/9/17.  Note the color change at the corner of Stern and Stevens Creek.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-t-isgqFFeObW1mZWY0eUNfSnc

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/67619

​After the draft SCUVP was submitted to the San Jose Planning Commission, City Staff recommended 4 additional last minute amendments to the plan.  This is a link to the Staff recommended amendments.

​

http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2696&meta_id=646521

​3 out of 4 of the Staff recommended amendments were specifically to enable the approval of the "Stern Hotel."

• The definition of "Commercial Use" was amended to specifically include "hotel."
• Setback Standard #3 was changed from a "standard" to a "guideline."  A "guideline" is something that doesn't have to be followed.  That means that there is effectively no Setback & Stepbacks Standard #3.
• Architectural projections and roof top equipment are now allowed to extend up to 10 feet above the maximum height limit.  The height limit on the corner of Stern and Stevens Creek is 85'.  The proposed "Stern Hotel" is 90' with its "architectural projections." 

​Without the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan, the approval of the hotel proposed at the corner of Stern and Stevens Creek would have faced obstacles.  With the plan, the hotel approval is virtually guaranteed.  ​This didn't go unnoticed.  In the comment letter from the City of Santa Clara's attorney to San Jose, Ms. Tina Thomas wrote about the unintended consequences of Planning Staff's expediency:

Moreover, the Urban Village Plans further refine the types of uses that are allowed and

anticipated within the Plan areas. For example, within the Stevens Creek Urban Village, the City

of San Jose proposes to define “commercial uses” to include hotels. Virtually every land use

category within the Stevens Creek Urban Village authorizes “commercial uses.” Thus, the City

of San Jose appears to be authorizing hotels to be constructed anywhere within the Stevens

Creek Urban Village. While Envision San Jose 2040 contemplated hotels as an allowed use

within the Urban Village Commercial designation, it did not contemplate hotels within other land

use designations included within the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan area. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1koFObMmxp-ZFdLakg2N0NHY0U/view

​I hope that you take the time to consider how bad the SCUVP will be for Cupertino and the area bordering San Jose along Stevens Creek.

Thank you,

Randy S

San Jose resident

Howard - Problems in SCUV - Height Doubles. Ignore Residents' Concerns

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

This coming Tuesday, June 27, 2017, the San Jose City Council will consider 3 "Urban Village" development plans for the Stevens Creek and Winchester areas of West San Jose.  Of particular interest to me is the Stevens Creek Urban Village plan.

Please clarify for the record the meaning of this statement in the June 23, 2017 memo from Mayor Sam Liccardo, et al, SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STEVENS CREEK URBAN VILLAGE PLAN (document link here: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2690&meta_id=644171), included as “Attachment 1” with the text below highlighted:

          8. Implementation Chapter (Page 2)

b. Implementation Chapter for the Stevens Creek Urban Village must allow for increased heights above the approved village heights if a project provides substantial urban village amenities.

Please clarify:

1)    Does this mean that the implementation chapter “must allow” for consideration of increased heights, or that the increased heights are required to be automatically granted? Please clarify that this statement does not automatically allow for increased heights without a general plan amendment or other mechanism approved by council. As you are aware, building heights are a very contentious issue.

2)    The term “substantial urban village amenities” is vague and subjective. Please clarify that this needs to be defined in further detail in the implementation chapter.

Furthermore, I submit that the following statement is inaccurate or misleading in the aforementioned memo (the June 23, 2017 memo from Mayor Sam Liccardo, et al, SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STEVENS CREEK URBAN VILLAGE PLAN), included as “Attachment 1” with the text below highlighted:

Height (Page 4)

The height on the sites between Kiely Avenue and Palace Drive were reduced from 150 feet to 120 feet.

This property concerns the property at 4300 Stevens Creek Blvd, and is the proposed “Fortbay” development. It is concerning that this property is owned by SCAG member Thomas deRegt, and this should be corrected to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Fact: This statement neglects that:

(a)  In the initial height diagram presented to the public at the June 23, 2016 SCAG meeting, the height for the property was proposed at 80 ft.  (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/57981)

(b)  The community survey (results dated January 2017) also indicated the proposed height was 80 ft. (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66370)

(c)   The March 9, 2017 height diagram presented to the community indicated a proposed height of 120 ft. (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/67620)

(d)  The 150 ft. height was briefly considered by SCAG however there is no published record on the SCAG website. At the May 11, 2017 SCAG meeting, committee members expressed some confusion and reservations regarding the 150 ft height limits discussed at the previous meeting, and a majority of the committee then voted to recommend an 85 ft. height limit after lengthy discussion and general public testimony. The owner of the property was not opposed to this. Yet this recommendation was not adopted by planning staff, against the advisory group’s recommendation, even though community input requested 65 – 85 ft, and there is a clear history of public presentations showing a proposed 80 ft height limit. In fact, the proposed height limit for this property have actually been increased over time.

I therefore request that the public record be amended to reflect these facts. (Reference Attachment 2: height diagram history)

I hope you understand the many citizens that have expressed concerns regarding the Stevens Creek Urban Village over the last few weeks have nothing to personally gain. They are doing so out of genuine concern for the community.

Finally, I am not in support of the current SCUV plan. In my opinion council is rushing to approve a plan due to an artificial MTC funding deadline. Did anyone ask MTC to extend the deadline?

This has unnecessarily created a feeling of mistrust and skepticism in the community over “urban villages” that will take a lot of effort to overcome, and will cause more friction for projects to be completed. You yourselves expressed concern earlier this year that urban villages are not “crossing the finish line”. A vote at this time does not help.

In summary:

1)  Redevelopment on a healthy scale is good. However, what is proposed is out of character for the area - specifically allowing 150 ft building heights. For reference, on the Santa Clara side, two new buildings are being built, both of which are low-rise 1 to 2 story, and the 150 ft. proposed heights are directly across Stevens Creek Blvd from Serena Way, which is a single family one and two story residential neighborhood.

2)     There is no planned or existing mass transit in the area – Caltrain, VTA Light Rail, or BART – in contrast to the Diridon Station area or parts of N. San Jose. We’re making huge investments in these types of mass transit, and should be supporting high density in those areas.

3)     By amending the general plan to allow for 150 ft building heights, when other urban villages are primarily 65 ft and in some cases 85 ft, San Jose is unnecessarily giving away a bargaining chip that could be used to obtain amenities such as affordable housing, parkland (sorely lacking in the area), or transit improvements. The proposed height limits appear to be arbitrary and in some cases contrary to what was presented to the public over many months. Building height limits can always be raised or reconsidered at any time.

4)     One more concern is school capacity.  The draft Stevens Creek Urban Village plan makes no mention of the potential impact of 3860 housing units, most of which impact the Cupertino Union and Fremont Union School Districts. Outreach was proposed to be conducted at Lynhaven (see Attachment 3, email), which is in Campbell Union and not in the aforementioned school districts. This is another indication that the community’s concerns were not taken into account.

Residents of San Jose, Santa Clara and Cupertino have expressed concerns. Cupertino residents recently spoke out during a city council meeting with concerns about the Stevens Creek Urban Village and lack of engagement from San Jose. (“Cupertino residents worried about planned Urban Village”, SJ Mercury News, June 23, 2017, link to article here: http://mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=0a5f5144b)

Please don’t willingly make things worse by rushing to approve this plan without additional input and consideration.

Thank you,

HH

Liang (to SJ CC) - Traffic Congestion Coming from 15-story Buildings on Stevens Creek Blvd.

From: Liang Chao
Date: Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Traffic Congestion Coming from 15-story Buildings on Stevens Creek Blvd.
To: "Jones, Chappie" <chappie.jones@sanjoseca.gov>, mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom1@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom2@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom3@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom4@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom5@sanjoseca.gov, "Cc: Pressman, Christina" <Christina.Pressman@sanjoseca.gov>, "Ferguson, Jerad" <Jerad.Ferguson@sanjoseca.gov>, "Xavier, Lesley" <lesley.xavier@sanjoseca.gov>, "Brilliot, Michael" <Michael.Brilliot@sanjoseca.gov>

Dear Council Member Jones and Planning Commissioners,

As requested by one Planning Commissioner in the May 24 Planning Commission meeting, please justify the height numbers used for Stevens Creek Urban Village (SCUV) and also the other two urban villages to be approved on June 27 by the City Council.

The SCUV plan will double the existing building heights of many buildings to 65 feet and quadruple the heights to 120 feet or 150 feet.

The maximum heights of five Urban Village plans already approved:

• The Alameda Urban Village: Up to 85’. Mostly under 65’.
• Roosevelt Park Village Plan: 55’ or 85’.
• Little Portugal Urban Village: 58’ or 70’.
• Five Wounds Urban Village: up to 120’ (one site). Mostly under 70’.
• 24th & William Urban Village: 30’-35’ or 55’-65’.

The approved urban village plans above are near the planned BART stations close to downtown. They are located in an area with easy access existing CalTrain, light rail, BRTs and bus lines. As one can see, the max heights are mostly 65 to 85 feet even near San Jose downtown. Only one site in one Urban Village has the maximum height of 120 feet.

The maximum heights of three Urban Village plans to be approved on June 27:

• Valley Fair/Santana Row Urban Village: Up to 150’. Unlimited with community benefits.
• Winchester Urban Village: up to 85’.
• Stevens Creek Village: 85 feet or up to 120’ to 150’.

Even with San Jose standards, the maximum heights being throwing at Stevens Creek Blvd. area are extraordinary and baseless. That area is far away from any existing or planned BART, light rail or real BRT with dedicated lanes. How will people commute to and from work then?

 

The EIR for Envision 2040 was done in 2011, which is 6 years ago, and the traffic congestion has worsened considerably in 2017, especially in the area of I-280, Lawrence and I-880. The building heights allocated to SCUV are not consistent with the job and housing allocation assigned to SCUV, which can fit easily under 65 feet. By doubling the building heights, you would encourage doubling the density and the amount of allocation in SCUV. Thus, SCUV does not comply with Envision 2040 General Plan.

Please justify the max. building heights in the three urban villages to be approved. Every story generates more density and traffic and more cost for infrastructure support. The building heights are not just numbers to be negotiated like in a bargaining game. The building heights have to make sense in the context of the entire city, based on the transportation capacity and the allocation.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident