06-30-15 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL
6:45 PM
Special Meeting - Study Session
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY
COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City
Council is hereby called for Tuesday, June 30, 2015, commencing at 6:45 p.m. in
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject
matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."
SPECIAL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
1.Subject: Study Session on policy for processing General Plan Amendment
applications
Recommended Action: Conduct study session and comment on the proposed
procedures for processing General Plan amendment applications (Attachment A)
Description: Application No(s).: CP-2015-02, Applicant(s): City of Cupertino,
Location: citywide, Policy for processing General Plan Amendment applications
Staff Report
A - Proposed procedures for Processing General Plan Amendment applications
B - May 19 2015 City Council Staff Report
C - White Paper on Development Management Programs dated May 8 2015
D - Supplemental White Paper on specific Development Management Programs dated June 24 2015
E - Comparison of Current and Proposed Procedures for Processing General Plan Amendment applications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
1
June 30, 2015City Council AGENDA
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on
any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases,
State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter
not listed on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
2
June 30, 2015City Council AGENDA
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6;
litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90
days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal
law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested
persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the
City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply
with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s
office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for
a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any
disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at
408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance.
Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas
and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available
in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive
listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after
publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City
Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours
and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino
web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that
is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of
that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please
complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the
Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and
the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item
not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting
following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3)
minutes or less.
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:115-0920 Name:
Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:6/2/2015 City Council
On agenda:Final action:6/30/2015
Title:Subject: Study Session on policy for processing General Plan Amendment applications
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Proposed procedures for Processing General Plan Amendment applications
B - May 19 2015 City Council Staff Report
C - White Paper on Development Management Programs dated May 8 2015
D - Supplemental White Paper on specific Development Management Programs dated June 24 2015
E - Comparison of Current and Proposed Procedures for Processing General Plan Amendment
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council6/30/20151
Subject: Study Session on policy for processing General Plan Amendment applications
ConductstudysessionandcommentontheproposedproceduresforprocessingGeneralPlan
amendment applications (Attachment A)
Description:ApplicationNo(s).:CP-2015-02,Applicant(s):CityofCupertino,Location:
citywide, Policy for processing General Plan Amendment applications
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/24/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 30, 2015
SUBJECT
Study Session on Policy for Processing General Plan Amendment Applications.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend that the City Council conduct a study session and comment on the proposed
procedures for processing General Plan amendment applications (Attachment A).
DESCRIPTION
Application No.: CP-2015-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2015, the City Council reviewed the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element, the
General Plan for potential changes to development allocations for commercial, office and
hotel uses, building heights and building planes, and the proposed policy for establishing
procedures for processing General Plan Amendment (GPA) applications (Attachment B).
At that meeting the Council provided the following direction on the proposed policy to
establish procedures for processing General Plan Amendment applications:
Directed staff to present additional details on other programs that require community
benefits such as the Cities of Mountain View and Morgan Hill.
Deferred the decision on the policy for approximately 90 days.
Placed new GPA applications on hold until a decision is made on the policy.
DISCUSSION
This report focuses on the following issues:
Comparison of incentive zoning, growth allocation and land use regulation models
that allow for community benefits in various cities;
A description of the recommended policy on processing GPAs; and
A comparison of current GPA process vs the recommended process.
5
CP-2015-02 June 30, 2015
Comparison and Conclusions from Study of Incentive Zoning, Growth Allocation and
Land use Regulation Models that allow for Community Benefits
A white paper prepared for the Council meeting on May 19, 2015, provided the pros and
cons of various incentive zoning, growth allocation and land use regulation models and
provided general guidance on developing a policy that addressed Cupertino’s concerns
and particular needs for managing growth (Attachment C). Upon reviewing the pros and
cons for the different programs administered by the various cities, staff recommended a
policy for processing applications for GPAs, which was presented at the May 19 City
Council meeting (Attachment A).
Per further direction from the City Council at the May 19, 2015 meeting, a follow up white
paper has been prepared that includes a more detailed discussion of programs
implemented by the Cities of Berkeley, Santa Monica, San Diego, Mountain View and
Morgan Hill (see Attachment D). Table 1 provides a comparison summary of the different
types of models studied on different aspects of the programs including:
Whether the growth is built in to the General Plan and the Zoning Code;
Types of Community Benefits received/expected in exchange for incentives offered;
Discretion in project review; and
Challenges and ease of administration of the program.
Table 1: Comparison of Programs that have Community Benefit component
Growth Built in to
General Plan and
Zoning Code?
Community
Benefits
Discretion in
project review Administration
Formulaic Zoning Incentive
Programs (e.g. City of San Diego
Downtown Community Plan)
Yes Predefined Minimal Minimal
Discretionary CBIZ Programs
(e.g. City of Berkeley Downtown
Area Plan)
Yes Negotiated Moderate
Protracted negotiation
Lack of transparency
Lack of consistency
Growth Allocation Metering
Programs (e.g. Cities of Morgan
Hill, Brentwood, Livermore,
Mountain View)
Yes Competition
based Moderate
Less flexible
Cumbersome involving
detailed criteria,
scoring and checklists
Land Use Regulation No
Could be
structured to
be
competition
based
Maximum
except
Housing
Element
projects
Transparent
Allows project preview
Applicant to offer
appropriate voluntary
community amenities.
6
CP-2015-02 June 30, 2015
The following is a summary of conclusions based on the review of the various Community
Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) models, Growth Allocation models and the consideration
of land use regulation as a community benefit model:
1. Formulaic zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of San Diego Downtown Community
Plan) provide less discretion since the development incentives and community benefits
are predetermined and codified by zoning.
2. Discretionary zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan)
require protracted negotiation and discussion before the City can determine that a
project applicant’s offer of “substantial community benefits” warrants granting of a
bonus in height or floor area ratio. Also, the lack of specific criteria can lead to lack of
transparency, difficulty in administering the program and lack of consistency between
projects. A discretionary CBIZ program also would require updates to the zoning code.
3. Metering residential development annually (e.g., Morgan Hill, Brentwood, Livermore)
would require changes to the recently adopted Housing Element and additional HCD
review. The City also would need to ensure that any metering program would still
allow its housing obligations to be met. Even if the process is implemented only for
non-residential development, the program provides little flexibility and is cumbersome
to administer. Such a program would require a process that involves detailed criteria,
scoring, and a specific checklist of community benefits, as well as deadlines for
processing and building of development.
4. A development cap or metering approach establishes a supply constraint which may
support a competitive process. When market demand exceeds supply, projects may be
required to showcase community benefits in order to be considered for processing. The
Mountain View and Morgan Hill case studies offer good examples of this type of
process. In both cities, competition for project entitlements has generated substantial
public benefits from new development, but the programs are labor intensive for City
Staff to implement and the success of the competition is highly dependent on market
conditions. In addition, these processes introduce additional investment risk for
development investors active in the community, due to increased uncertainty about
project approval.
5. Growth allocation programs implement growth planned in the General Plan, and can
achieve community benefits. However, while these programs work well in years in
which there are projects competing for development, in years during which there are
fewer projects competing community benefits offered are not as significant.
6. A process that provides procedures for General Plan Amendments can provide the
most flexibility, because development assumptions are not already built in and cities
have discretion to amend their General Plans, except with respect to legal requirements
for Housing Elements. This approach would provide the ability for the City to review a
7
CP-2015-02 June 30, 2015
development proposal and determine if it meets the goals and quality of life standards
of the City, such as through the provision of community amenities. If multiple
proposals for general plan amendments are submitted, based on the case studies
examined here, it seems likely to increase the community amenities offered by project
proponents, particularly when economic conditions are strong.
In considering options to address growth, manage development, and respond to the
community concerns, the following should be achieved by any program implemented:
Ability to achieve goals of General Plan
Ease of implementation
Desire for flexibility versus specific requirements (as in a General Plan or zoning)
Ensure a diverse and vital economic base
Ensure the City can meet its housing obligations
Ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process
Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility/service and
quality of life standards for the community
The recommended procedures for processing of General Plan amendment applications
achieves the above goals and also ensures a greater level of transparency and public input.
The discussion below provides a brief discussion of the current procedures and additional
details on the recommended procedures. In addition, see Attachment E for a summary
flowchart showing a comparison of the current and proposed procedure.
Current Procedure for Processing General Plan Amendment Applications
Currently, GPA applications are processed as they are received. Project review is
completed concurrently to ensure that other aspects of the General Plan and zoning
regulations are met by the project. If a Development Agreement is sought by the applicant,
one is negotiated at this time, including any items that are offered by the applicant as
community benefits. Environmental review for the proposed project is processed
concurrent with project review. Upon completion of the environmental and project review,
public hearings are scheduled with the Planning Commission and City Council for a final
decision on the environmental review, project, proposed General Plan Amendments and
Development Agreement, if any.
Public input notification is provided through neighborhood noticing, legal notices for
meetings and site signage. Public input is sought through neighborhood meetings and at
hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. However, since each application is
processed separately, neither the Council nor the public have a chance to get a preliminary
look at the applications before they are processed.
8
CP-2015-02 June 30, 2015
Therefore, the current process is not as transparent, does not allow comparison of
applications, received and being processed, in a given year, does not consider issues such
as early public input, achievement of key City goals, and time and resource requirements,
prior to processing these applications. Additionally, since each application is reviewed
separately and applicants do not compete for authorization with other projects, there is no
incentive for the applicant to offer community amenities.
Proposed Procedure for Processing General Plan Amendments Applications
Under the proposed procedure, GPA applications would not be processed as they were
received. Instead the following process would be applied:
All GPA applications would have to be submitted by a certain date every year in order
to be considered for processing that year.
The GPA applications would be scheduled for a Council meeting once a year, at which
the Council would authorize applications for processing.
Public input would be sought by sending a city-wide postcard and providing project
information on the City website.
Project information would include conceptual plans, community amenities, General
Plan amendments sought and other features proposed by applicants.
The Council would consider the following criteria when deciding whether or not to
authorize GPA applications:
o General Plan goals achieved by the project;
o Quality of architectural and site design;
o Fiscal impacts of the project;
o Affordable housing provided by the project;
o General Plan amendments (and/or other variances) sought by the project; and
o Voluntary community amenities provided by the project
The Council decision would authorize the applicant to submit an application for the
GPA. It would not guarantee approval of projects. Projects authorized to proceed,
would then be processed as they are currently. Council’s final decision on each project
would be made after reviewing all aspects of the proposal including site and
architectural design, environmental review, public input, etc.
If multiple GPA projects were authorized for processing, each project would be
reviewed and staff would ensure that they were brought for Council review in a
manner that would not exceed four GPAs per calendar year. Projects could also be
bundled together as needed so as not to exceed four per year.
Projects not authorized in the current annual period would have to re-apply,
potentially with changes, for consideration during a subsequent annual period.
9
CP-2015-02 June 30, 2015
An annual review and authorization process would ensure:
Transparency – the public would get a chance to review the projects and provide
input before the applications were authorized for processing. In addition, this
would give the public notification on which projects would be processed and
allow them to be informed on each project.
Early Input – the Council meeting would enable the applicant and staff to consider
comments from the Council and the public as the project was reviewed.
Voluntary Community Amenities – the annual process would allow projects to
compete. As noted in the review of programs in other cities including Morgan Hill
and Mountain View, such a process would incentivize applicants to shape their
applications and offer voluntary community amenities to increase their chances for
being considered for processing.
Staff therefore recommends that the Council adopt the new procedures on processing of
General Plan amendment applications either via resolution or by ordinance.
Policy or Ordinance
The procedures for processing General Plan amendments could either be adopted by
resolution or by ordinance. Adopting it as a resolution would make it an official Council
policy and could be amended through a subsequent resolution. Adopting the procedures
as an ordinance would make it part of the City’s Municipal Code and could be amended
via an ordinance amendment. Depending on direction provided by the City Council, staff
can prepare either for presentation at a future public hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICING, OUTREACH AND COMMENTS
City Council Study Session– June 30, 2015
The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting:
Notice Agenda
Courtesy email sent to all interested
parties signed up through the project
website
Newspaper Display Ad (at least 10 days
prior to hearing)
City's official notice bulletin board (6 days
prior to the hearing)
City of Cupertino’s website (6 days prior to
the hearing)
Project website (5 days prior to hearing)
NEXT STEPS
If the Council adopts the policy, a deadline for the first annual review of applications will
be established and the policy will be implemented for all applications received thereafter. If
10
CP-2015-02 June 30, 2015
the Council prefers an ordinance approach, staff will follow the process for ordinance
amendments.
If the Council decides not to adopt the policy for authorization of General Plan amendment
applications, the City would continue with the current procedure of processing General
Plan amendment applications as they are submitted.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Proposed procedures for Processing General Plan Amendment applications
B - May 19, 2015 City Council Staff Report
C - White Paper on Development Management Programs dated May 8, 2015
D - Supplemental White Paper on specific Development Management programs dated
June 24, 2015
E - Flowchart comparing the current and proposed procedure for processing General
Plan amendment applications
11
1
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
Adopted by the City Council
_____________, 2015
1. Background/Goals
Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the
benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such
growth can overwhelm the City’s ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in
the community.
The goal is to create a procedure for the consideration of future General Plan amendments
that will encourage orderly development of the City and ensure that facility/service and
quality of life standards can be met for the community. These procedures only address
amendments requested by private parties. The City may initiate General Plan amendments
when it deems necessary, such as, to conform to State law or to ensure consistency within
the General Plan.
2. Procedure
a. The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments once
every year.
b. In order to be considered for processing, applicants would be required to apply for
authorization to process a General Plan amendment by a designated date each year.
c. In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a publicly
noticed meeting to preliminarily review the list of proposed General Plan amendments.
d. Noticing – City-wide noticing and public meeting requirements.
e. Each application will be preliminarily evaluated for the following:
(i) General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the
following:
(1) Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility
(2) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transit occupancy tax or other
revenue provided by the project) including a diverse economic base
(3) The provision of affordable housing
(4) Sustainability
(ii) List of General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or
variances) requested.
(iii) A list of voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3, if any.
(iv) Staff time and resources required to process the project.
12
2
f. Based on the above evaluation the Council will consider which projects, if any, will be
authorized to proceed with a General Plan amendment application. The decision does
not in any way presume approval of the amendment or project. It only authorizes staff
to process the application, but the City retains its discretion to consider the application
in accordance with all applicable laws, including the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s zoning laws and ordinances. Consideration of the
application will be in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and regulations.
g. Staff will begin processing the General Plan amendment applications per Council
direction. A project that applies for processing should be in substantial compliance with
the project authorized by Council.
h. Applicants whose proposals were not authorized for processing will have to apply for
the next cycle to be considered.
3. Voluntary Community Amenities. For purposes of this policy, voluntary community
amenities are defined as facilities, land and/or funding contributions to ensure that any
development with a General Plan amendment application enhances the quality of life in the
City.
a. School resources
b. Public open space, such as parks and trails.
c. Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems.
d. Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, transit
center/stations, etc.).
4. Preliminary Review Requirements:
a. Preliminary documents that would be typically required for the type of application that
is requested, such as site plans, preliminary landscape plans, elevations, cross sections,
preliminary grading plans and proposed materials.
b. A description, including graphics, of the General Plan amendment(s) and land use
approvals required, if any. The description should include diagrammatic information as
necessary to clearly explain the request.
c. An explanation of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General Plan
and the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life.
d. A brief summary of net fiscal impacts.
e. To the extent the proposed project includes voluntary community amenities of a type
typically memorialized in a development agreement, the applicant should include a
Term Sheet explaining the proposed terms. The Term Sheet will be memorialized in a
Development Agreement as part of the project, if approved.
13
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 19, 2015
SUBJECT
Item 7B: General Plan Amendment to consider changes to citywide development
allocations for office, commercial, and hotel uses, building planes, height limits.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1. Make no further amendments to the General Plan (Community Vision 2040) adopted
on December 4, 2014 (GPA-2013-01); and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 15-043 adopting a policy establishing procedures for
authorization of General Plan amendments (Attachment B1).
DESCRIPTION
Application No.: GPA-2013-01 (EA-2013-03)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare draft General Plan
amendments to replenish office and hotel allocations; inform the Vallco Shopping District
Specific Plan; consolidate individual requests from property owners; and address State law,
and text clean-up.
In addition, in November 2013, a State-mandated update of the Housing Element of the
General Plan was initiated. The Housing Element Update was combined with the General
Plan Amendment process so that the City and community could fully evaluate and discuss
issues in one comprehensive outreach and planning process. Please see the staff report for
Item 7A. for additional detail on the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
The General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update process has involved over 21
months of extensive community discussions and input provided during 27 public
meetings, workshops, online comment surveys, and study sessions and hearings with the
14
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. For a detailed listing of the
public input meetings leading up to the December 2, 2014 Council meeting and for
recommendations previously made, please refer to the December 2, 2014 City Council staff
report (Attachment B.2.) Copies of the staff reports from past study sessions and public
hearings are available on the project website at www.cupertinogpa.org and at
www.cupertino.org/records.
On December 4, 2014, the City Council reviewed three General Plan alternatives
(Alternatives A, B and C – See Attachment B.3), including various Housing Element sites,
and made the following decisions:
Authorized staff to send the Draft Housing Element to HCD with amendments to the
priority Housing Element sites for HCD’s review (See Staff Report for Item 7A for
details.)
Adopted Community Vision 2040, the City’s updated General Plan (available online at:
www.cupertino.org/gp),
Authorized processing of a Specific Plan for the Vallco Shopping District as follows:
o Development allocation of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail, up to 2 million
square feet of office, 389 units in the Housing Element with building heights,
building planes and setbacks to be decided in the Specific Plan.
Deferred the decision on the following General Plan items to a meeting in 2015 after
receiving community input:
o Development allocations for commercial, office and hotel uses, building heights and
building planes,
o Community Benefit program, and
o Site-specific land use designation amendments and associated re-zoning for two
properties – PG&E site located at 10900 N. Blaney Avenue and the Mirapath
property located at 10950 N. Blaney Avenue.
The Council also directed staff to conduct more community input on the proposed Geneal
Plan amendments and research community benefit programs. The December 2, 2014 City
Council staff report (Attachment B.2) provides a detailed discussion on the issues listed
above.
DISCUSSION
Community Workshop & Survey
In order to gather additional input on key issues related to the General Plan, the City
hosted a community workshop and made an online survey available to the public.
15
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
The workshop was conducted on February 4, 2015 and included over 80 participants.
Attendees at the workshop gathered in small groups and discussed what they considered
to be appropriate building forms and heights (including building planes) within different
Special Areas, nodes and gateways in the city. The groups also provided input on whether
or not the City should establish a community benefits program, and the types of benefits
that should be required if a program were to be created. Attachment B.4 provides a
summary of the feedback from the workshop.
Additionally, an online survey was made available to the public using an outreach
platform called Peak Democracy, also used by other local agencies. The online survey
consisted of two parts. The first part of the survey focused on building heights at the
Special Areas, gateways and nodes. The second part focused on building planes and
community benefits.
Responses from participants who registered on the Peak Democracy platform are called
“on forum” responses. Registration ensures that each response is from a discrete
participant and is not a multiple response from the same source. There were 382 on forum
responses for Part A of the survey and 300 on-forum responses for Part B of the survey. The
on forum responses of the results for Parts A and B of the survey are briefly summarized
below (Attachment B.5 provides a detailed report):
Over 80% of respondents stated that they were Cupertino residents.
Over 55% of the respondents stated they do not want to see an increase in building
heights for six of the seven areas identified.
Over 50% of the respondents stated they do not want to see a change to the existing
1.5:1 building plane requirement along the south side of Homestead Road (between
Linnet Lane and Swallow Drive) and the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard
(between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue).
Over 65% of respondents think a community benefits program would be beneficial, but
do not think ground floor retail should be required as part of a Community Benefits
Program.
The average priorities were ranked as follows but there was support for amenities in
all the categories:
o Parks/Recreation
o Transportation enhancements (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.)
o Community services (e.g. teen center, library branch, etc.)
o In-lieu fee to City (e.g. contribution towards school improvements or affordable
housing)
16
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
Peak Democracy also allows participants that do not want to register to provide feedback.
However, since it is difficult to ascertain whether the feedback is from discrete individuals
or repeat responses from the same individuals, these are summarized separately as “off
forum” responses. 429 off forum responses were received for Part A and 182 off forum
responses for Part B of the survey. These are provided separately in Attachment B.6.
Research on Community Benefits and Growth Allocation programs
The Council also directed staff to research implementation of a community benefits
program for projects that required additional development above a base height.
Extensive research was conducted into development models tied to community benefits in
various communities (see Attachment B.7 for a white paper about Development
Management). These included three basic approaches:
Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) Programs - In these programs, the zoning
allows additional development or height based on community amenities provided
by a project. These range from formulaic approaches where projects are given
additional development (floor area or height) if they provide items based on
objective criteria and requirements such as green buildings, traffic reduction
programs, etc. (e.g. Santa Monica and San Diego), to discretionary, non-formulaic
models where maximum heights or development allocation may be set out in the
General Plan but are not tied to a pre-determined checklist and the community
amenities would be negotiated through a development agreement (e.g. Palo Alto
and Berkeley).
Growth Allocation Programs – These are programs that meter development to allow
infrastructure improvements to keep up with development. These programs are
adopted by cities of Morgan Hill, Brentwood, and Livermore. In each case, growth
is already planned in the General Plan and it requires a meticulous and time-
consuming process to score developments based on pre-determined objective
criteria, decide which ones are allowed to proceed and then review them.
Land Use Regulation - A community benefit model in Vancouver, Canada, was also
briefly reviewed, that required the payment of specific dollar amounts for projects
that were approved for rezoning. However, that program is not legally feasible.
The white paper also notes that cities can implement, and control, growth and
development through their General Plans, Specific Plans and zoning. In California,
State Planning and Zoning Law allows the local legislative bodies the authority to
establish their own procedures for the processing of amendments to its General
Plan. Cities can also implement additional nexus fees (such as community facilities
fees, transportation impact fees, utility impact fees, etc.) and additional design
review guidelines to address the impacts of development. Cities can also enter into
17
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
negotiated Development Agreements with developers, which allow for developers
to obtain vested rights and for the City to negotiate desired community amenities to
address the impacts of development.
The following is a summary of pros and cons of the models based on the review of the
various Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Allocation models:
Requiring community benefits (or in-lieu payments for community benefits) as an
absolute condition of development, may constitute an exaction under California
law, and thus the City may need to demonstrate a proportional relationship
between the community benefit payment and the impact of the project.
Formulaic zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of San Diego Downtown
Community Plan) provide very little discretion since the development incentives
and community benefits are predetermined and codified by zoning.
Discretionary zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of Berkeley Downtown Area
Plan) require protracted negotiation and discussion before the City can determine
that a project applicants offer of “substantial community benefits” warrants
granting of a bonus in height or floor area ratio. Also, the lack of specific criteria
can lead to lack of transparency, difficulty in administering the program and lack
of consistency between projects. A discretionary CBIZ program would also require
updates to the City’s zoning code.
Metering residential development annually (e.g., Morgan Hill, Brentwood,
Livermore, etc.) would require changes to the Housing Element and is not
advisable given the May 31, 2015 deadline for its adoption. The City would also
need to ensure that any metering program would still allow its housing
obligations to be met. Even if the process is implemented only for non-residential
development, the program provides much less flexibility and is cumbersome to
administer since it involves detailed criteria, scoring, a specific checklist of
community benefits and deadlines for processing and building of development.
A metering approach can create a competitive process where projects can
showcase community benefits in order to be considered for processing. Morgan
Hill is a good example of this process. A newer example is the City of Mountain
View, where proposals for a limited amount of development are being reviewed
along with a community benefit approach in the North Bayshore area.
Growth allocation metering programs require an additional amount of planned
growth in the General Plan (e.g. Brentwood and Morgan Hill). However, these
programs can work well in years in which there are projects competing for
development, since the quality of site plans and community benefits would be
high. In years where there are fewer projects competing for an allocation that is
18
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
built-into the zoning or General Plan, quality of the development and/or
community amenities may not be of the same quality as in competitive years.
A process that provides procedures for General Plan amendments can provide the
most flexibility since development assumptions are not already built in and cities
have more discretion about amending General Plans, except with respect to legal
requirements for Housing Element sites.
Staff Recommendation Related to the General Plan
The community survey and community input indicated the following concerns and wishes:
Concern about additional growth and heights being built into the General Plan.
There continues to be interest in community benefits/amenities being provided by
development to improve transportation and transit, parks, facilities and schools.
Staggering or metering growth instead of allowing it all at one time.
There is a preference to see more detail about projects before any changes to the
General Plan are contemplated.
That the process should be more transparent and provide more information up
front.
Based on Council direction, community input and research on community benefit models,
staff is recommending that:
No changes be made to Community Vision 2040 adopted in December 4, 2014
including:
o No increase in existing General Plan building heights and building planes,
o No increase in residential, commercial, office or hotel development allocations,
or
o No change in land use designations to any property.
Council adopt a procedure to review General Plan amendments and authorize
staff to process a limited number of General Plan amendments using a specific set
of criteria (See Attachment B.1 for a description of the policy). The process is
described in greater detail below.
Proposed Process for Authorization of General Plan Amendments
The recommended approach would establish clear community expectations that in order to
be considered for General Plan amendments, projects would have to make a specific project
proposal including a detailed description of voluntary community amenities offered, if
any. This process would not apply to City-initiated General Plan amendments (such as the
Housing Element, etc.).
19
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
The process would work as follows:
The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments
once every year.
As part of the annual cycle for applications, projects would provide conceptual
plans for a brief preliminary review (site plan, project plans, elevations,
perspectives, project description, etc.), the General Plan amendment(s) requested
and a term sheet with a list of voluntary community amenities to be provided, if
any.
The list of voluntary community amenities could include: support for (i) school
resources, (ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails (e.g. land and/or
improvements, (iii) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center
or utility, and (iv) transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle,
pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and
bicycle bridges, transit center/stations, etc.
Each cycle, staff would conduct a preliminary review of the proposed projects using
the following criteria.
o General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the
following:
Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility,
Brief description of net fiscal impacts (revenue such as sales tax, transit
occupancy tax or other revenue, a diverse economic base, etc.),
The provision of affordable housing,
Sustainability.
o List of General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or
variances) requested.
o A list of voluntary community amenities as discussed above.
o Staff time and resources required to process the project.
The process would include city-wide notification.
The Council would conduct a public meeting, take public input and make the final
decision on which projects would be authorized for processing of a General Plan
amendment(s).
Only projects that were authorized by the Council for processing of a General Plan
amendment(s) would move forward for environmental and entitlement review. The
subsequent project applications would have to be substantially similar to the project
authorized by the Council in order to move forward for processing.
20
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
Projects that were not authorized for the annual round would have to re-apply for
the next annual round in order to be considered for processing. This would allow
them to modify their project for the next cycle.
In addition to achieving both Council and community goals, the process would also have
the following benefits:
It would allow the City to manage the process of General Plan amendments in a
more orderly manner (General law cities, such as Cupertino, are only allowed four
General Plan amendments every year),
It would create a more competitive process when compared to the current ad hoc
approach to processing applications as they come in,
It would allow applicants to showcase their projects and their voluntary community
amenity program to the Council and the community,
The Council, public and staff would have a better preview of projects before the
Council made a decision on which projects would be processed.
It would create an upfront and transparent process before projects were authorized
to move forward for processing.
The Council decision would only authorize staff and other resources for processing of the
projects. It would not guarantee approval of projects. Each project would be reviewed in a
manner similar to the City’s project review process including a review of environmental
impacts per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adherence to applicable
codes and laws, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this General Plan
Amendment is considered a project that must be reviewed for potential environmental
impacts. The environmental review was completed along with the Housing Element
project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the two projects was made
available for public review and comment for a 45-day period ending on August 1, 2014. As
required by CEQA, subsequently, a Response to Comments document (RTC), to respond to
comments received regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, including corrections
necessary to the Draft EIR, was prepared.
The Final EIR, comprising of the RTC document and the Draft EIR was certified by the City
Council on December 4, 2014. No actions related to environmental review are required by
the City Council.
21
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
PUBLIC NOTICING, OUTREACH AND COMMENTS
City Council – May 19, 2015
The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting:
Notice Agenda
Courtesy email sent to all interested parties
signed up through the project website
Newspaper Display Ad (at least 10 days prior
to hearing)
Newspaper Display Ad (at least 10 days prior
to hearing)
City's official notice bulletin board
(6 days prior to the hearing)
City of Cupertino’s website (6 days
prior to the hearing)
Project website (5 days prior to
hearing)
The complete list of public outreach meetings leading up to the December 2, 2014 City
Council meeting is provided in the December 2, 2014 Staff Report (Attachment B.2)
In addition to the public input collected at the February 4, 2015 workshop and the online
survey, public comments have been sent by members of the public. These have been
compiled into Attachment B.8.
NEXT STEPS
Community Vision 2040 Clean-up Edits
As part of General Plan Amendment process, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) recommended minor edits to certain General Plan policies and strategies. Due to
the lateness of their comments, their recommendations could not be incorporated into
Community Vision 2040 in time for the December 2014 adoption. Should the Council wish
to incorporate these changes, they can be brought back to the City Council in conjunction
with a future General Plan amendment.
Staff Recommendation Summary
If Council adopts the staff recommendation:
There will be no changes to the General Plan – Community Vision 2040, except for
adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element.
The final General Plan including text, maps and graphics will be formatted and
prepared for posting online and printing.
As noted earlier in this report, staff will not make General Plan clean-up edits suggested
by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Instead they will be brought for Council
consideration in conjunction with a future General Plan amendment.
22
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
Applications for General Plan amendments will have to follow the newly adopted
Council policy and will require authorization from the Council for processing.
General Plan Fee
Since this will conclude the General Plan Amendment process, staff will compile the cost of
the preparation of the General Plan and EIR and bring back a General Plan fee for the
Council’s consideration in June 2015. The fee will be charged on a square foot basis for
projects that will tier off the General Plan EIR. Projects that paid into the General Plan
process will not have to pay the fee.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
General Plan Amendment Project Components
If the Council wishes staff to process amendments to the General Plan in specific areas, it
can provide direction to staff to bring back the specific amendments to be heard at a future
public hearing after Planning Commission consideration. Attachment B.2 provides a
detailed description of issues that were presented for Council consideration at the
December 2, 2014 public hearing on the General Plan amendment. These are briefly listed
below:
Development allocations
Building heights/building planes
Land use designation and zoning changes for the PG&E site at 10900 N. Blaney Avenue
and the Mirapath site at 10950 N. Blaney Avenue. While staff does not recommend
bringing the application for PG&E back for the City Council’s consideration, staff
recommends that the Mirapath site be brought back for consideration at a later date.
Default Process for General Plan Amendment Applications
If the Council does not wish to authorize the policy for authorization of General Plan
amendment applications, the City would continue with the current process of taking in
General Plan amendment applications as they came in. While this process continues to
involve the community on a project-by-project basis, it would not have the same benefits as
the proposed process where all the applications and voluntary community amenities
programs could be preliminarily reviewed at the same time on an annual basis.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
23
GPA-2013-01 May 19, 2015
Attachments:
B.1. Resolution No. 15-043 adopting a policy for Procedures for Authorization of General
Plan Amendment applications
B.2. December 2, 2014 City Council Staff Report
B.3. Concept Alternative Maps (Alternatives A, B and C)
B.4. February 4, 2015 Workshop Feedback Summary
B.5. Peak Democracy Survey On Forum Responses Summary (Part A and B)
B.6. Peak Democracy Survey Off Forum Responses Summary (Part A and B)
B.7. White Paper on Development Management Programs
B.8. Public Comments
24
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
OVERVIEW
Prepared for the City of Cupertino
By:
Economic & Planning Systems
and
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
May 8, 2015
25
1
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW
Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the
benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such growth
can overwhelm the City’s ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in the
community. The City Council directed staff to evaluate ways to balance these issues, including a
potential implementation of a community benefits program for development projects. The
purpose of this overview is to address the steps that have been taken to review various methods
to address growth, quality of life, and to provide a summary of the reviewed approaches, as well
as their benefits and constraints.
History of Process
• General Plan
On December 4, 2014, Cupertino’s City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled
Community Vision 2040. The amended plan reflects community input, regulatory
changes, best practices, and the desire to achieve community‐building, sustainability,
economic, and fiscal objectives. The City Council continued the considerations related to
development heights, development allocations, and the potential for a Community
Benefits Program until 2015.
• Community Benefits
In early 2015, the City engaged Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to provide
information regarding the advantages and disadvantages based on a variety of existing
Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) programs in California and to assist with
discussions regarding a potential program in Cupertino.
• Additional Programs Analyzed
During this research on CBIZ programs, various alternative options to address growth
and quality of life were considered, including growth allocations programs and regulation
through General Plan land use designations and zoning.
Assessment of Community Concerns
The main areas of concern regarding development in the City that have been addressed
throughout this process revolve around the following:
• Impacts on schools and lack of school resources, such as facilities, land and funding;
• Impacts on and lack of public facilities and utilities, such as libraries, a community center
and utility systems;
• Impacts on and lack of public open space, parks and trails; and
• Impacts on transportation network, including inadequacy of city-wide bicycle, pedestrian,
transit improvements and facilities.
26
2
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
Community Benefit Incentive Zoning
California cities have a long history of exacting community benefits through a variety of
mechanisms, including fees, conditions of approval, and development agreements. More
recently, Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) programs have offered an alternative
approach. CBIZ programs are structured around an exchange in which municipalities offer
optional increases in development potential in return for public assets (or funds) desired by the
community. The incentive must be above what normally would be allowed and the public benefit
must be beyond what otherwise would be required. Because these programs are optional,
development outcomes vary based on the degree of participation in the plan. That is, some
developments may not take advantage of the incentive while others do. The optional nature of
the program creates increased uncertainty regarding the final urban form that ultimately will be
achieved.
The magnitude of the community benefit sought must be equal to or less than the value of the
incentive offered. In order for community benefits to be achieved, the public sector must create
value through the provision of an incentive (commonly increased development density). CBIZ
programs are founded on the concept of “value capture.” CBIZ programs must be carefully
tailored to be attractive to project proponents and simultaneously achieve quality of life goals of
the community. Program design and development should evaluate the range of potential
development outcomes, including the built form and magnitude of expected community benefits,
to ensure that the exchange of development rights for community benefits is desirable.
The Concept of Value Capture
Cities and government agencies create value with investments in public facilities and services
(e.g., transit, sewer upgrades) as well as through changes to the zoning code that increase the
value of land. Typically, when the public sector creates value in these ways, landowners enjoy a
financial gain in the form of higher land value, realized when they sell or develop their land. This
increase in land value is an unearned financial benefit that accrues to the private sector, though
it is generated (and commonly paid for) by tax-payer funded public entities. The term “value
capture” reflects the situation in which the public sector reclaims some of the “unearned” value
created for the private sector by public sector activities. The State of California’s Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Law is an example of a value capture program. Under this law,
developers are granted additional density allocations in return for the development of affordable
housing units.
If the public sector seeks to extract more value than is created, it is unlikely that project
proponents will use the program. Since the value of development incentives varies with market
conditions, development incentives may be very valuable in a strong market but of lesser or no
value in a weak market. Therefore, CBIZ programs respond to market conditions or anticipate
that the program will not be used during periods of market weakness.
CBIZ requires a healthy real estate market with sufficient market value to support the incentives.
For example, in order for a CBIZ program that seeks to capture value from an upzoning to be
successful, there must be market demand to support the higher-density, higher-cost real estate
products that are made available through the zoning change. Currently, Cupertino has strong
residential and commercial real estate markets and is a viable candidate for CBIZ in this regard.
27
3
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
CBIZ Program Basics
Literature on the topic of CBIZ programs establishes two primary types of programs, including
“negotiation-based” and “plan-based” programs. Negotiated community benefits may occur in
the context of a Development Agreement or not. Plan-based programs are “formulaic” (the term
used here) and typically are implemented in a “ministerial” fashion, without discretion.
Negotiation-Based CBIZ Program
Under a negotiated approach, the development incentive and associated community benefits
package are jointly agreed upon between the municipality and the project proponent. That is,
the CBIZ does not define fixed relationships between incentives and required community
benefits. Negotiated programs are relatively costly to administer, perceived by the community
as opaque processes and may be viewed as risky by the development community. However,
these programs offer the flexibility to increase or reduce community benefit requirements to
reflect changing market conditions. The primary advantage of negotiation-based programs is
that the potential for the community benefits requirement may be crafted to reflect the
economics of the proposed project and the current real estate market, while the disadvantage is
the negotiation process is commonly highly labor intensive and, therefore, may not be practical
for smaller projects.
Formulaic (Plan-Based) CBIZ Program
Under a formulaic (plan-based) approach, specific development incentives are made available in
return for the provision of commensurate pre-defined community benefits. The principal
advantages of a formulaic approach are the reduction of project risk, for both the development
community and the municipality, through program certainty and lower program costs. The key
disadvantages are that the program cannot respond to unique project challenges or fast-
changing market conditions.
Case Studies
EPS studied CBIZ programs in San Diego, Emeryville, Santa Monica, and Berkeley. The table
below offers a high-level overview of these programs. The following section details the program
in Santa Monica, which seeks to incorporate elements of the formulaic and negotiated
approaches to CBIZ.
28
4
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
Overview of Case Study Programs
City of Santa Monica
As part of the City of Santa Monica’s most recent General Plan Update, a community outreach
process explored the question “what makes a livable city?”. Responses led urban planners to
land use standards that could maintain the City’s unique attributes, improve neighborhood
livability, and provide affordable housing. Santa Monica’s Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) update, adopted in 2010, reflects a six-year community input process and provides for
community benefits though a unique “tiered” approach. With the LUCE in place, the City has
begun implementation steps, including the preparation of an updated Zoning Ordinance.
The Santa Monica Community Benefits Program was adopted as part of the LUCE in 2010. The
Plan establishes a three-tier system in which a base tier of development (Tier I) is allowed as of
right and approval is “ministerial” (non-discretionary) while higher “bonus” levels of development
require the provision of community benefits and approval is discretionary.
Per the LUCE, in most of the commercial areas, the maximum base height for a project without
community benefits is 32 feet (typically 2 stories). Development above this Tier I level requires
community benefits. The LUCE calls for projects seeking development above the base level to be
sorted into two tiers (Tier II and Tier III). Tier II projects must provide community benefits that
will be considered through a discretionary permit or Development Agreement (DA) process. Tier
III projects require additional community benefits to be negotiated in a DA.
Santa Monica’s five priority categories of Community Benefits include:
1. Trip reduction and traffic management;
2. Affordable and workforce housing;
CBIZ
Design
City of
San Diego
City of
Emeryville
City of
Santa Monica
City of
Berkeley
Basic
Method
Formulaic Formulaic Formulaic &
Negotiated
Negotiated
Determination
of Community
Benefit
Predetermined
exchanges and
charges
Point
system for
project
elements
Formulaic program
under
development;
Negotiated
incentives by
Development
Agreement
Negotiated by
Zoning
Adjustments
Board
Key Incentive
Type
FAR Bonus Height, FAR,
and DU/Acre
FAR Bonus Height
29
5
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
3. Community physical improvements (e.g., streets, open space, neighborhood retail);
4. Social/cultural facilities; and
5. Historic preservation.
Santa Monica has not fully implemented the LUCE. Today, projects that seek to develop at levels
above the base entitlement must pursue a DA with the City. City staff is seeking to fully
implement the Community Benefits Program with the updated City Zoning Ordinance, which is
currently under development. The revised Zoning Ordinance will detail the community benefit
requirements that allow additional density for Tier II projects. While the Planning Commission
had considered a points system for Tier II projects, Santa Monica anticipated that this approach
would be challenging to implement and has not been adopted. The City also explored the
potential to charge certain impact fees and require affordable housing from Tier II projects.
These requirements likely would have taken advantage of nexus studies that justify maximum
fee levels. As community benefits may constitute an exaction under California Law, the City
seeks to demonstrate a proportional relationship between the community benefit payment and
the impact of the project.1 Alternatively, Tier II projects could have had the option provide on-
site amenities that satisfy Tier II requirements.
Currently, Santa Monica relies heavily on the use of DA to negotiate optimal community benefits.
While the DA process is highly flexible and allows for a diverse range of potential benefits, these
agreements commonly are time consuming and thus expensive to implement. Despite this, the
market potential for development in Santa Monica is exceptionally strong and as of 2012, 24 DAs
had been approved or were pending since the adoption of the LUCE in 2010. While developer
interest in pursuing projects above base zoning in exchange for community benefits is strong,
the City is seeking to curtail the number of projects that come through a DA process due to the
burden on City staff.
Benefits and Constraints
CBIZ programs allow additional development, whether in the form of height or floor area ratio,
and do not regulate the pace or ability to develop. Therefore, while they may address the
impacts of a proposed project and the provision of community benefits to address those impacts,
CBIZ programs allow such development through the implementation of zoning ordinances.
Basically, in exchange for addressing the areas of community concern noted, the City would be
allowing increased height or other development above the base zoning.
Formulaic CBIZ programs provide clear guidelines for applicants in terms of the additional
development they can achieve. However, such programs provide very little discretion since the
additional bonuses are structured in the zoning ordinance. Negotiated programs, on the other
hand, can be very difficult to administer and they do not provide the certainty to developers that
is inherent in a formulaic program.
1 See Planning Commission Report: Zoning Ordinance Update: Implementing Tier 2 Community
Benefits, April 3, 2013.
30
6
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
Growth Management Programs
Growth management is a tool that has been used by California cities for over 40 years. Growth
management systems regulate the amount of development that can take place in any given
period of time. For example, growth management systems may include a population or housing
cap or a commercial square footage cap.
Some programs operate as a “competition,” whereby developers seek to obtain development
allocations through an application process conducted on a set basis, typically once or twice a
year. Generally, applicants will be required to obtain growth allocations in order to proceed with
development. The City of Morgan Hill has adopted such an approach, which is described in more
detail below and is currently being implemented.
A number of other California cities have adopted competitive growth allocation programs, which
were later eliminated or suspended. The City of Brentwood implemented a competitive growth
management program for residential projects, the RGMP, for a number of years during its
greatest periods of growth. The RGMP was suspended in 2011 due to the recession. In 2005,
the City of Ventura eliminated its development cap and competitive process as established by its
Residential Growth Management Program.
Further, some cities limit growth, but do not require a competition for allocation. For example,
the City of Livermore has set a cap on residential units every three years, with numbers ranging
from 140 to 700 units. The City of Petaluma, the first city in California to adopt a residential
growth management system in the early 1970s, also has a maximum allotment of units, but no
competitive process.
While the City of Cupertino currently sets city-wide development allocations over its General Plan
horizon, it does not currently have a competitive or metering process in place.
Case Study - City of Morgan Hill
The City of Morgan Hill’s Residential Development Control System (RDCS) issues allotments to
developers who wish to build residential units in the City through a competition process. The
City has used this system since 1977 prior to the implementation of the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) process by Housing Element Law. The impetus of the RDCS was to address
the impacts of intense growth at a time when the infrastructure was not prepared to absorb the
growth. The population growth in the City impacted the ability of the City to provide sewage
treatment, water and other necessary municipal services. The RDCS was initially adopted by
ballot measure and has been modified over the years to meet the City’s needs and address
exemptions.
The competition is based on an evaluation system that utilizes a series of standards and criteria
set forth in the Morgan Hill Municipal Code. Morgan Hill’s General Plan describes the RDCS in the
following way, with allowances for small development projects:2
2 Morgan Hill’s General Plan, http://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1148
31
7
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
This system shall provide for awards of development allotments based on the number of points
scored for all development proposals biennial competition, or outside of a competition but based
on requiring projects to achieve a minimum point score . . . . The point scale used shall take into
account the impact of the proposed development on the following public facilities and services:
water supply system, sanitary sewer and treatment plant, drainage and runoff, fire and police
protection, traffic and other municipal services.
Proposed developments shall be awarded points for provision of schools, and related facilities,
open space, orderly and contiguous development, public facilities, parks and trails, low-income
and moderate income housing and housing for the elderly, and diversity of housing types; and
for quality of architectural design and site design.
Small residential developments provide special benefits to the City by encouraging local
developers, providing design variety, and promoting utilization of smaller lots. These
developments do not impose as high a burden on municipal services as do larger projects,
because their demands are incremental and they tend to be infill developments. Such small
developments may be unable to compete with larger developments in terms of the levels of
amenities provided. In order to treat small developments in a manner reflecting their benefits to
the community, the Residential Development Control System shall be designed to provide for
small development through appropriate means selected by the City Council, such as a separate
small project competition and a more streamlined and less costly process.
The process takes places on an annual or biannual basis and developers who wish to build
housing units are required to compete for the ability to obtain a development allocation. The
process begins by dividing projects into various categories for the competition, such as “small”
projects, multi-family housing and open market. Each year, Morgan Hill determines the number
of units available in each category and then evaluates projects according to a set of objective
standards and criteria in 14 separate categories. Morgan Hill’s Municipal Code provides the
specifics of the city’s point system and specific guidelines for how to earn points in various
categories, such as schools, open space, public facilities, parks and livable communities.
Generally, projects with the highest number of points receive a building allocation. Thereafter,
the project applicant applies for the land use entitlements required to proceed with the proposed
project. All projects that receive RDCS allotments must enter into a Development Agreement.
Traditionally, Morgan Hill received more requests for allotments than the required allocations.
However, more recently, most projects were able to receive allocations. In addition to the time
required to process requests for allocations, Morgan Hill must also continue to monitor the
projects to ensure compliance with the RDCS program.
32
8
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
While it appears that the RDCS has served Morgan Hill well, the administration has been time
intensive and has required a significant amount of staff time. Morgan Hill is currently in the
midst of its Morgan Hill 2035 project and is considering how to streamline and improve the
system “to be more efficient, effective, and sustainable while maintaining its most important
benefits: a population cap, pace of development; high quality development; and contribution
toward community amenities.”3
Benefits and Constraints
Growth allocation programs with a competitive process provide benefits to the public and ensure
a good pace of development. However, they are administratively burdensome as they require a
great deal of staff time to implement. Further, if proposed development is less than the annual
allocation, there is no ability to review the various applications to consider the potential benefits
of high quality development or community amenities. A complicated growth allocation system
can also discourage developers that are not familiar with the system or City processes. Where
growth allocation programs set a cap on the number of residential units, they must be consistent
with a city’s Housing Element and may also draw more scrutiny if they are challenged in court.
Lastly, once the criteria and standards in the program are established, it may be difficult to
encourage flexibility and to respond to changing market conditions or City desires or trends. The
fact that a number of cities have either eliminated or suspended previously adopted growth
allocation programs and that Morgan Hill is looking at other approaches is indicative of the
inherent difficulties in implementing such a program.
Land Use Regulation
Growth and development have traditionally been regulated through land use designations and
zoning. Cities implement and control growth and development through their General Plans,
Specific Plans and zoning and can address impacts of development through development impact
fees and city regulations, such as enhanced design review regulations. Cities also enter into
negotiated Development Agreements with developers, which allow for developers to obtain
vested rights and for the City to negotiate desired community amenities to address the impacts
of development.
Although not located in the United States, the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has
adopted a community benefits program that combines the city’s ability to rezone development
sites with community benefits. In Vancouver, developers are required to provide Community
Amenity Contributions, or CACs, when the City Council grants development rights through
rezoning. CACs are in-kind or cash contributions that are used to fund community centers,
libraries, parks and other community spaces. Such a program, however, would not be workable
under California law.
In California, State Planning and Zoning Law allows the local legislative bodies the authority to
establish their own procedures for the processing of amendments to its General Plan. General
Law cities, such as Cupertino, are limited to four (4) General Plan Amendments each year;
however, cities may dictate the method used to process/evaluate any amendments.
3 See City Council Staff Report, Morgan Hill 2035: RDCS Update, April 1, 2015.
33
9
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
In addition to reviewing projects for General Plan consistency and quality of life goals, cities can
also implement additional nexus fees (such as community facilities fees, transportation impact
fees, utility impact fees, etc.) and additional design review guidelines to address the impacts of
development.
Conclusion
The following is a summary of pros and cons of the models based on the review of the
various Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Allocation models:
1. Requiring community benefits (or in-lieu payments for community benefits) as an
absolute condition of development, may constitute an exaction under California law, and thus
the City may need to demonstrate a proportional relationship between the community benefit
payment and the impact of the project.
2. Formulaic zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of San Diego Downtown Community
Plan) provide very little discretion since the development incentives and community benefits
are predetermined and codified by zoning.
3. Discretionary zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan)
require protracted negotiation and discussion before the City can determine that a project
applicants offer of “substantial community benefits” warrants granting of a bonus in height or
floor area ratio. Also, the lack of specific criteria can lead to lack of transparency, difficulty in
administering the program and lack of consistency between projects. A discretionary CBIZ
program also would require updates to the City’s zoning code.
4. Metering residential development annually (e.g., Morgan Hill, Brentwood, Livermore,
etc.) would require changes to the Housing Element and is not advisable given the May 31,
2015 deadline for its adoption. The City would also need to ensure that any metering
program would still allow its housing obligations to be met. Even if the process is
implemented only for non-residential development, the program provides much less flexibility
and is cumbersome to administer since it involves detailed criteria, scoring, a specific
checklist of community benefits and deadlines for processing and building of development.
5. A metering approach can create a competitive process where projects can showcase
community benefits in order to be considered for processing. Morgan Hill is a good example
of this process. A newer example is the City of Mountain View, where proposals for a limited
amount of development are being reviewed along with a community benefit approach in the
North Bayshore area.
6. Growth allocation metering programs require an additional amount of planned growth
in the General Plan (e.g. Brentwood and Morgan Hill.) However, these programs can work
well in years in which there are projects competing for development since the quality of site
plans and community benefits is high. In years where there are fewer projects competing for
an allocation that is built-into the zoning or General Plan, quality of the development and/or
community amenities may not be of the same quality as in competitive years.
34
10
OAK #4824-1644-4195 v4
7. A process that provides procedures for General Plan amendments can provide the
most flexibility since development assumptions are not already built in and cities have more
discretion about amending General Plans, except with respect to legal requirements for
Housing Elements.
In considering its options to address growth, manage development and respond to the
community concerns, Cupertino should consider implementing a program that achieves the
following:
• Ability to achieve goals of General Plan
• Ease of implementation
• Desire for flexibility versus specific requirements (as in a General Plan or zoning)
• Ensure a diverse and vital economic base
• Ensure the City can meet its housing obligations
• Ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process.
Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility/service and quality of life
standards for the community
35
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
OVERVIEW
Prepared for the City of Cupertino
By:
Economic & Planning Systems
and
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
June 24, 2015
36
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
COMMUNITY BENEFIT INCENTIVE ZONING............................................................................... 2
CITY OF SAN DIEGO CASE STUDY ....................................................................................... 4
CITY OF EMERYVILLE CASE STUDY ....................................................................................... 7
CITY OF BERKELEY CASE STUDY ........................................................................................ 10
CITY OF SANTA MONICA CASE STUDY ................................................................................. 11
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CASE STUDY ............................................................................... 12
GROWTH ALLOCATION PROGRAMS ..................................................................................... 16
CITY OF MORGAN HILL CASE STUDY .................................................................................. 16
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 20
37
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
1
Introduction
Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the
benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. Impacts from growth can
overwhelm a City’s infrastructure and affect quality of life in the community. The City Council
directed staff to evaluate ways to balance these issues, including a potential implementation of a
community benefits program for development projects. The purpose of this overview is to
present various methods to address growth, quality of life, and to provide a summary of
development management approaches, including assessment of their benefits and constraints.
History of Process
• General Plan
On December 4, 2014, Cupertino’s City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled
Community Vision 2040. The amended plan reflects community input, regulatory changes,
best practices, and the desire to achieve community‐building, sustainability, economic, and
fiscal objectives. However, the City Council continued the considerations related to
development heights, development allocations, and the potential for a Community Benefits
Program until 2015. In May 2015, the City council voted to maintain current development
allocations but also authorized staff to continue to study and collect public input on
approaches to processing General Plan Amendments.
• Community Benefit Incentive Zoning
In early 2015, the City engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to provide
information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of incentive zoning based on study
of a variety of existing Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) programs in California
and to assist with discussions regarding a potential program in Cupertino.
• Growth Management
The City, with support from Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, LLP (BWS), also considered various
alternative options to address growth and quality of life, including growth allocation programs
and regulations implemented through General Plan land use designations and zoning.
Summary of Development Management
The CBIZ and Growth Management programs studied reviewed for this study use a range of
approaches to achieving community benefit contributions from new real estate development
projects. In general, the programs generate community benefits using three principal
approaches.
1. The program offers increased development potential (e.g., a density bonus) in return for a
cash payment from the project developer;
2. The program offers increased development potential in return for project modifications
and/or community improvements (e.g., affordable housing, parkland, green building
features) provided by the developer; and
38
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
2
3. The program establishes a competition through which project proponents commit to
providing community benefits in hopes of being selected as one of a limited number of
project proponents to be allowed to submit a development application and seek entitlement.
Assessment of Community Concerns
Residents and other stakeholders in Cupertino indicated throughout the General Plan and
Development Management processes that the main areas of concern regarding development in
the City are the following:
• Impacts on schools, such as facilities, land, and funding;
• Impacts on public facilities and utilities, such as libraries, community centers and utility
systems;
• Impacts on public open space, parks and trails; and
• Impacts on transportation networks, including roadway congestion and transit capacity.
Community Benefit Incentive Zoning
California cities have a long history of obtaining community benefits from real estate
development through a variety of mechanisms, including fees, conditions of approval, and
development agreements. Community Benefit Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) programs offer an
alternative approach. CBIZ programs are structured around an exchange in which municipalities
offer optional increases in development potential in return for public assets (or funds) desired by
the community. The development incentive must be above what normally would be allowed and
the public benefit must be beyond what otherwise would be required. Because these programs
are optional, development outcomes vary based on the degree of participation in the plan. That
is, some developments may not take advantage of the incentive while others will. The optional
nature of the program creates increased uncertainty regarding the final urban form that
ultimately will be achieved.
Additionally, the magnitude of the community benefit sought/expected must be equal to or less
than the value of the incentive offered. In order to receive community benefits, the public sector
creates value through the provision of an incentive (commonly increased development density).
CBIZ programs are founded on the concept of “value capture.” CBIZ programs must be carefully
tailored to be attractive to project proponents and simultaneously achieve quality of life goals of
the community. Program design and development should evaluate the range of potential
development outcomes, including the built form and magnitude of expected community benefits,
to ensure that the exchange of development rights for community benefits is desirable.
The Concept of Value Capture
Cities and government agencies create real estate value with investments in public facilities and
services (e.g., transit and utilities upgrades) as well as through changes to zoning code that
increase the value of land. Typically, when the public sector creates value in these ways,
landowners enjoy a financial gain in the form of higher land value, which is realized when they
sell or develop their land. This increase in land value is an unearned financial benefit that accrues
to the private sector, though it is generated (and commonly paid for) by tax-payer funded public
entities. The term “value capture” reflects the situation in which the public sector reclaims some
39
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
3
of this unearned value created for the private sector by public sector activities. The State of
California’s Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law is an example of a value capture program.
Under this State law, developers are granted additional density allocations in return for their
development of affordable housing units, a policy goal for the State.
If the public sector seeks/expects to collect more value than is created, in the form of
community benefits, it is unlikely that project proponents will use the program. Since the value
of development incentives varies with market conditions, development incentives may be very
valuable in a strong market but of lesser or no value in a weak market. Therefore, CBIZ
programs respond to market conditions or anticipate that the program will not be used during
periods of market weakness.
CBIZ requires a healthy real estate market with sufficient market value to support the incentives.
For example, in order for a CBIZ program that seeks to capture value from an incentive (such as
increased density or greater development potential) to be successful, there must be market
demand to support the higher-density, higher-cost real estate products that are made available
through the zoning change. Currently, Cupertino has strong residential and commercial real
estate markets and is a viable candidate for CBIZ in this regard.
CBIZ Program Basics
Literature on the topic of CBIZ programs establishes two primary types of programs, including
“negotiation-based” and “plan-based” programs. Negotiated community benefits may occur in
the context of a Development Agreement or other negotiation process. Plan-based programs are
“formulaic” (the term used here) and typically are implemented in a “ministerial” fashion,
without discretion.
Negotiation-Based CBIZ Program
Under a negotiated approach, the development incentive and associated community benefits
package are jointly agreed upon between the municipality and the project proponent. That is, the
CBIZ program does not define fixed relationships between incentives and required community
benefits. Negotiated programs are relatively costly to administer, may be perceived by the
community as opaque processes, and may be viewed as risky by the development community.
However, these programs offer the flexibility to increase or reduce community benefit
requirements to reflect changing market conditions. The primary advantage of negotiation-based
programs is that the potential for the community benefits requirement may be crafted to reflect
the economics of the proposed project and the current real estate market, while the
disadvantage is that the negotiation process can be labor intensive and may not be practical
(particularly for smaller projects).
Formulaic (Plan-Based) CBIZ Program
Under a formulaic approach, specific development incentives are made available in return for the
provision of commensurate pre-defined community benefits. The principal advantage of a
formulaic approach is the reduction of project risk, for both the development community and the
municipality and community, due to program certainty and lower program administration costs.
The key disadvantage is that the program cannot respond to unique project challenges or fast-
changing market conditions.
40
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
4
City of San Diego Case Study
In 2006, the City of San Diego adopted its Downtown Community Plan. The primary goals of the
Plan are to increase development intensity in the downtown area and to provide new community
amenities. To this end, the City developed a density bonus program in conjunction with the plan.
CBIZ Plan Description
The City of San Diego offers a formulaic, plan-based CBIZ with clearly defined incentives. The
program allows additional density bonuses (greater FAR) and/or regulatory exemptions in
exchange for specific voluntary community benefits or predetermined cash payments. The plan
includes a menu of potential options that offer a variety of ways in which projects may achieve
greater density through the provision of community benefits. The Plan defines the following
bonus options:
• Retail along active streets - exempts retail/commercial and public uses on the ground floor
from FAR calculations on designated Main Streets and Commercial Streets;
• Historical Resources – excludes the gross floor area of a historic structure from FAR
calculations if the character of the structure is rehabilitated;
• Affordable housing – offers a FAR bonus (applied to the residential component of a project)
for projects meeting on-site affordable housing requirements (bonus varies with the type of
affordable housing being built);
• Parks and Public Infrastructure – offers a “FAR Payment Bonus Program” under which,
depending on a site's location, developers can choose to purchase density allowances up to
additional 5.0 FAR over base zoning; and
• Specific Amenities and Improvements – offers increases in FAR in exchange for the provision
of improvements or amenities (urban open spaces, green roofs, family units, right-of-way
improvements, and employment uses).
There also is a component of the program that consists of a Transfer of Development Rights
Program for Parks and Historical Resources in which the Plan determines eligible “sending” sites
and “receiving” sites for development rights. The Plan calls for a “TDR Bank” or other
mechanisms to facilitate transfers.
Figure 1 below illustrates the magnitude of combined incentives (bonus FAR) that may be
pursued within San Diego’s Downtown Community Plan area. Figure 2 provides a summary of
the incentive program, including both the benefit requirement and the associated incentive
provided by the San Diego program.
41
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
5
Figure 1 Map of Bonus FAR Provisions
Source: San Diego Municipal Code
42
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
6
Figure 2 Community Benefit Incentives
Source: City of San Diego
Plan Efficacy
Under the San Diego plan (as of 2012), 13 out of 18 eligible projects had used at least one of the
FAR bonus options. Five of the projects elected to use the affordable housing density bonus
leading to 141 new affordable units in the downtown. Three projects built 3-bedroom units
creating 87 new units total.1 The popularity of eco roofs prompted staff to increase benefits
1 Statistics from City of San Diego
Public Benefit/
Development Amenity
Maximum FAR Bonus
(addition to base FAR)Notes
Affordable Housing Formulaic In compliance with State Density Bonus Law
Urban Open Space
10% of site 0.5
20% of site 1.0
Three-Bedroom Units
50% of residential
GSF 0.5
80% of GSF
residential 1.0
Eco Roofs 1.0 To receive max bonus roof must be
accessible to residents
Public Parking Formulaic 1 square foot of parking earns 1 square foot
bonus development entitlement
FAR Payment Bonus
Program 5.0
Set in 2007 at $15/sf and updat ed annually
based on CPI; funds parks, open space, and
right of way acquisitions
Green Building 2.0
Performance path (allows applicants to
demonstrate level of sustainability) and
prescriptive path (select from a menu of
green building options)
Must meet Downtown Design Guidelines
and be open to the general public between
the hours of 6 AM and 10 PM everyday
10% of units with a minimum of five three-
bedroom dwelling units
43
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
7
requirements in the 2012 program amendments (i.e., the bonus FAR of 1.0 for an eco-roof, has
been amended to 0.5 to 1.0 FAR depending on whether the eco-roof is accessible to residents). A
recent update to the Plan has increased the maximum FAR available through the bonus payment
program.
City of Emeryville Case Study
The City of Emeryville’s City Council adopted an updated General Plan in October 2009. The new
Plan introduces a CBIZ program which offers height and density increases in return for
community amenities.
CBIZ Plan Description
The City of Emeryville’s formulaic “Bonus for Community Amenities” program allows developers
to participate in a voluntary points-based bonus system in which bonus development capacity is
exchanged for community benefits. Intensity, height, and density bonuses are permitted after
developers provide certain community amenities, including family-friendly housing, green
architecture, and public open space. The Emeryville General Plan notes that the bonuses are
“discretionary and contingent on excellence in design.” The program gives points for specific
elements that are public benefits.
Public benefits sought by the program include public open space, sustainable design, alternative
energy, water efficiency, energy efficiency, public improvements, utility undergrounding,
transportation demand management, family-friendly housing, neighborhood centers, support for
small businesses, public art, public parking, bike stations, significant structures, EV charging
stations, concealed mechanical equipment, universal design features, and other “flexible” public
benefits. The points system for the community benefit elements is based on cost, desirability,
quantity, and importance to the community. Points are redeemed for additional FAR, building
height, and density. The bonus FAR increment is capped by zoning district.
The FAR bonus is calculated by multiplying (1) the total number of points divided by the
maximum number of points by (2) the maximum allowed FAR bonus increment, as follows:
(Number of Points/Maximum Points) x Bonus FAR Increment = Bonus FAR Amount
To qualify for a bonus, the public benefits provided must be significant and clearly beyond what
otherwise would be required by City code provisions, conditions of approval, and/or
environmental review mitigation measures. Development bonuses are in addition to any density
bonuses for affordable housing. Figure 3 summarizes the points that may be awarded to a
project for specific community benefits defined by the Emeryville program.
44
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
8
Figure 3 Summary of Emeryville Development Bonus Point System
Source: Emeryville Zoning Ordinance
Plan Efficacy
The relatively new CBIZ program in Emeryville has been used successfully by one project, and
another project is currently under review by City staff. During 2013, the City’s Planning
Commission approved a mixed-use project that exceeded base zoning allowances. This project
sought residential density that exceeded the base by 11 dwelling units per acre, a commercial
FAR that exceeded the base by 0.24, and height that exceeded the base by 20 feet. Given the
zoning and bonus program parameters, the project needed to achieve a community benefits
score of 100 (the height sought was 100 percent of that allowed with community benefits). The
project application successfully included commercial space that met the “Neighborhood Centers”
criteria (35 points), provided sufficient “Energy Efficiency” upgrades (35 points), and featured
reuse of a “Significant Structure” (35 points), earning the project a total of 105 points. The
proposed community benefits were included as conditions of approval.
Public Benefit/
Development Amenity
Maximum
Bonus Points
Public Open Space 50
Sustainable Design 35
Alternative Energy 50
Water Efficency 35
Energy Efficiency 35
Public Improvements 50
Utility Undergrounding 50
Transportation Demand Manageme 35
Family Friendly Housing 50
Neighborhood Centers 35
Small Businesses 35
Public Art 20
Public Parking 35
Bike Station 35
Significant Structures 35
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 35
Mechanical Equipment 20
Universal Design 50
Flexible Public Benefit N/A
45
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
9
City of Berkeley Case Study
The City of Berkeley initiated its Downtown Area Plan effort in 2005. In early 2012, after six
years of effort and nearly two hundred public meetings, the City Council adopted the current
Downtown Area Plan (DAP). The DAP includes the provision that all new buildings must provide
significant public benefits and that buildings over 75 feet must provide additional, significant
community benefits.
CBIZ Plan Description
The DAP, through a negotiation-based CBIZ program, allows seven buildings to be built in the
downtown area that exceed 75 feet, and these projects must provide significant community
benefits beyond those that would otherwise be required. Three buildings up to 180 feet in height
may be located in the “Core Area” and an additional four buildings up to 120 feet may be located
in the “Core” and “Outer Core.” Figure 4 presents the land use map for Downtown Berkeley. The
community benefits package required for projects over 75 feet might include affordable housing,
supportive social services, green building features, open space, transportation demand features,
job training, and/or employment opportunities.
The applicable public benefit requirements are to be included as conditions of approval and the
owner shall enter into a written agreement that is binding on all successors in interest. The DAP
also calls for establishment of a voluntary “Green Pathway” development review process that
would provide a streamlined permit process for buildings that provide extraordinary public
benefits.
Plan Efficacy
To date, not one building over 75 feet in height has completed the Berkeley CBIZ program
application process. The Residences at Berkeley Plaza (2211 Harold Way) is the first project over
75 feet to request approval under the DAP (it is potentially one of the three buildings that may
be built to 180 feet in height). The project applicant submitted Documentation of Project
Significant Community Benefits for the City of Berkeley on October 20, 2014, offering community
benefits including a Project Labor Agreement, retention of an existing cinema, transportation
demand management features, and privately-owned public open space. The City’s Zoning
Adjustments Board (ZAB) has met twice to hear public comments and to discuss the proposal.
The ZAB’s initial comments suggest that the proposed community benefits package is
unsatisfactory and that additional meetings and negotiations will be necessary for the applicant
to secure approval. Given concerns voiced by the ZAB, Berkeley’s City Council is currently
reviewing the proposed community benefit package offered by the project.
46
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
10
Figure 4 DAP Land Use Map
Source: Berkeley Downtown Area Plan
City of Santa Monica Case Study
As part of the City of Santa Monica’s most recent General Plan Update, a community outreach
process explored the question “what makes a livable city?” Responses led urban planners to land
use standards that could maintain the City’s unique attributes, improve neighborhood livability,
and provide affordable housing. Santa Monica’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update,
adopted in 2010, reflects a six-year community input process and provides for community
benefits though a unique “tiered” approach, which is a blend of formulaic and negotiation-based
approaches (i.e., modest incentives are likely to be offered in exchange for the payment of
higher existing nexus-based fees and affordable housing while significant incentives require
negotiation) . With the LUCE in place, the City has begun implementation steps, including
adoption of an updated Zoning Ordinance.
CBIZ Plan Description
The Santa Monica Community Benefits Program was adopted as part of the LUCE in 2010. The
Plan establishes a three-tier system in which a base tier of development (Tier I) is allowed as of
right and approval is “ministerial” (non-discretionary) while higher “bonus” levels of development
require the provision of community benefits and approval is discretionary.
47
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
11
In most of the commercial areas, the maximum base height for a project without community
benefits is 32 feet (typically 2 stories). Development above this Tier I level requires community
benefits. The LUCE calls for projects seeking development above the base level to be sorted into
two tiers (Tier II and Tier III). Tier II projects must provide community benefits that will be
considered through a discretionary permit or Development Agreement (DA) process. Tier III
projects require additional community benefits to be negotiated in a DA.
Santa Monica’s five priority categories of Community Benefits are:
1. Trip reduction and traffic management;
2. Affordable and workforce housing;
3. Community physical improvements (e.g., streets, open space, neighborhood retail);
4. Social/cultural facilities; and
5. Historic preservation.
Santa Monica’s approach to administering the community benefits program has evolved from
that originally envisioned by the LUCE. In recent years, projects that sought to develop at levels
above the base entitlement needed to pursue a DA with the City. Through revisions to the LUCE,
the City now is seeking to require Tier II projects to pay higher existing nexus-based fees and
provide affordable housing. These additional fees likely will take advantage of nexus studies that
justify the maximum fee levels. As community benefits may constitute an exaction under
California Law, the City seeks to demonstrate a proportional relationship between the community
benefit payment and the impact of the project.2 While the Planning Commission had considered
a points system for Tier II projects, Santa Monica anticipated that this approach would be too
challenging to implement.
Plan Efficacy
In recent years, Santa Monica has relied heavily on the use of DAs to negotiate optimal
community benefits. While the DA process is highly flexible and allows for a diverse range of
potential benefits, these agreements commonly are time consuming and expensive to
implement. Despite this, the market potential for development in Santa Monica is exceptionally
strong and as of 2012, 24 DAs had been approved or were pending since the adoption of the
LUCE in 2010. While developer interest in pursuing projects above base zoning in exchange for
community benefits is strong, the City is seeking to curtail the number of projects that come
through a DA process due to the time and cost burden for the City.
City of Mountain View Case Study
Mountain View’s City Council adopted the North Bayshore Precise Plan in December 2014. This
plan established a CBIZ program in each of the Plan Area’s four “Character Areas.” The Plan also
capped total non-residential net new development in the Plan Area at 3.3 million square feet.
2 See Planning Commission Report: Zoning Ordinance Update: Implementing Tier 2 Community
Benefits, April 3, 2013.
48
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
12
Due to the constraint on development potential created by the development cap, the CBIZ
program ultimately evolved into a commercial development allocation process.
CBIZ Plan Description
The City of Mountain View General Plan recognizes incentive zoning as a strategy to procure
desired community benefits. In accordance with this strategy, the North Bayshore Precise Plan
offers a formulaic CBIZ program with bonus FAR available in exchange for specific categories of
community benefits, including transportation improvements, green buildings, and public benefit
or district-improvement projects. Each Character Area is governed by a tiered bonus FAR
program in which a base FAR is allowed for all development, while higher tiers of bonus FAR may
be earned through the provision of approved community benefits (up to a maximum FAR).
Figure 5 presents the details of the tiered CBIZ system in place in North Bayshore.
Based on the North Bayshore area’s transportation
capacity and other planning considerations, the
Precise Plan also established a cap on net new non-
residential development (office, R&D office, industrial,
service, and retail uses) in the plan area. With a
strong economy creating intense localized demand for
workspace, technology firms including Google and
LinkedIn sought to expand in the highly desirable
North Bayshore area. The Plan’s development cap
constrained supply which resulted in a shortage of
office space development potential within North
Bayshore.
As the Precise Plan process evolved, planning staff
recognized that demand for office space would
outstrip maximum allowable supply. In response, staff
established “Precise Plan Bonus FAR Review
Guidelines,” which require applicants seeking bonus
FAR to submit community benefit proposals for
consideration in the commercial FAR allocation
process (see text box at right). The guidelines
established criteria for community benefit proposals
and set a due date for submittals. With this approach,
North Bayshore Bonus FAR Review
Guidelines Qualifying Criteria
• Consistency with Precise Plan vision
and guiding priciples
• Effect on trip cap and roadway
performance
• Habitat enhancements
• Small business preservation
• Non-auto transportation
improvements
• Enhanced community benefits
• District-wide improvements
• Project phasing
• Impact on staff resources
• Quality of application materials
49
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
13
Figure 5 North Bayshore Precise Plan Bonus FAR Program
Source: City of Mountain View North Bayshore Precise Plan
FAR
Gateway
Character
Area1
Core
Character
Area2
General
Character
Area
Edge
Character
Area
Base FAR 1.0 0.45 0.45 0.45
Maximum FAR 2.35 1.5 1.0 0.65
Tier 1
Bonus FARUp to 0.50 Up to 0.30 Up to 0.30 Up to 0.20
Benefits
Public benefit or
district-improvement
project, focusing on
transportation
LEED Platinum or
alternative green
building standard;
public benefit or
district improvement
project focusing on
transportation
LEED Platinum or
alternative green
building standard;
public benefit or
district improvement
project focusing on
transportation
LEED Platinum or
alternative green
building standard;
public benefit or
district improvement
project focusing on
transportation
Tier 2
Bonus FAR Up to 0.50 Up to 0.25 Up to 0.25
Benefits
Higher-performing
green building; zero
net green building;
public benefit or
district improvement
Higher-performing
green building; zero
net green building;
public benefit or
district improvement
Higher-performing
green building; zero
net green building;
public benefit or
district improvement
Tier 3
Bonus FAR Up to 0.35 Up to 0.25
Benefits
Higher-performing
green building; zero
net green building;
public benefit or
district improvement
Higher-performing
green building; zero
net green building;
transfer of
development; public
benefit or district
improvement
Tier 4
Bonus FAR Up to 0.25
Benefits Transfer of
Development
(1) Applicants can only request one green building Bonus FAR above 1.5 FAR
(2) Applicants can only request one green building Bonus FAR above 0.75 FAR
50
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
14
the City created a competition for the limited amount of office development allocation in North
Bayshore. In response, applicants sought to propose desirable projects with significant
community benefits that would score well against the evaluation criteria.
When the submittals were in, the total square footage proposed far exceeded the cap on non-
residential development. As a first step in the Bonus FAR Review process, City staff preliminarily
evaluated each proposal based on the Precise Plan guidelines. Applicants providing sufficient
community benefits were approved to be included in the commercial allocation process
conducted by the City Council. Through the allocation process, the Council approved 1.4 million
square feet of LinkedIn’s requested 1.6 million square feet, 515,000 square feet of Google’s 2.5
million requested square feet (enough for one piece of its envisioned four-part campus), and the
full development requests from Broadreach Capital Partners and Rees Properties for smaller
projects. The City Council made the allocation decisions based on the criteria in the Bonus FAR
Review Guidelines. A particular community benefit noted by council, but not explicit in the
criteria, was the economic diversity that would be supported by the LinkedIn proposal (as
compared with a Google expansion, since that firm already is the top employer in the City). The
Council’s allocation decisions allow selected projects to move forward with formal development
plans for review and approval (i.e., allocations are not guarantees of project entitlement).
Plan Efficacy
Mountain View’s North Bayshore commercial allocation process resulted in a tremendous
response from private sector project proponents. Due to the competitive nature of the process,
applicants devised creative community benefit plans and offered extensive benefits, above what
likely would have offered outside of a competitive process. From an economic perspective, it is
notable that the competitive process allowed project proponents to make their own proposals
based on their willingness to pay (i.e., the market determined the value of community benefits
achievable).
While the North Bayshore community benefits strategy was highly beneficial for the City of
Mountain View, the success is attributable to a “perfect storm” of unique local market conditions
and a hot economy. In addition, the process was not without a cost. A City staff representative
indicates that the process was very burdensome because the pooling of applications created a
high volume of proposal review activity over a very brief time period. However, the staff member
also indicated that the process was “exciting” and the City is very pleased with the outcome.
While the City will continue to use the tiered Bonus FAR policy structure in future plan, it is
uncertain whether the success of the North Bayshore Bonus FAR Program in replicable.
51
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
15
Growth Allocation Programs
Growth management is a tool that has been used by California cities for over 40 years. Some
growth management ordinances are related directly to a lack of inadequate infrastructure, such
as limited sewer capacity, water constraints or school overcrowding, while others are adopted to
maintain quality of life, stemming from factors such as open space and low population density.
While growth management may be broadly used to refer to any tool a local government may
employ to manage growth, such as urban limit lines, general plan designations or zoning, this
section focuses on growth allocation systems that regulate the amount of development that can
take place in any given period of time, such as programs that adopt a housing cap or a
commercial square footage cap.
A number of cities in California have adopted growth allocation programs that include housing or
commercial caps. The City of Petaluma, the first city in California to adopt a residential growth
management system in the early 1970s, has a maximum annual allotment of units. In addition,
the City of Livermore has set a cap on residential units every three years, with numbers ranging
from 140 to 700 units. In these cities, development applications are reviewed on a first-come,
first-served basis.
Other cities have implemented growth allocation programs that operate as a “competition,”
whereby developers seek to obtain development allocations through an application process
conducted on a fixed schedule, typically once a year. Generally, applicants will be required to
obtain growth allocations in order to proceed with development. The City of Morgan Hill adopted
such an approach in 1977 through a citizens’ initiative. The program is still being implemented
and is described in more detail below. A few California cities have adopted competitive growth
allocation programs, which were later eliminated or suspended. For example, the City of
Brentwood implemented a competitive growth management program for residential projects (the
RGMP) for a number of years during its greatest periods of growth. The RGMP was suspended in
2011 due to the recession. Similarly, in 2005, the City of Ventura eliminated its development cap
and competitive process.
Cities that adopt programs with housing caps now have to comply with state regulations adopted
in 1980, which require an ordinance that limits the number of residential building permits
allowed to show that “such ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety,
or welfare of the populations of such city . . . .” (Evidence Code section 669.5.) In addition,
state law requires cities to adopt Housing Elements to provide for growth consistent with its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. Therefore, cities have greater
constraints than when growth allocation programs were originally adopted.
While the City of Cupertino currently sets city-wide development allocations over its General Plan
horizon, it does not currently have a competitive or metering process in place. To assist
Cupertino with evaluation of potential growth management approaches, the section below
reviews the City of Morgan Hill’s current growth management program.
City of Morgan Hill Case Study
The City of Morgan Hill’s Residential Development Control System (RDCS) relies on a competitive
process to issue allotments to developers who wish to build residential units in the City. The City
has used this system since 1977, prior to the implementation of the RHNA process by Housing
52
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
16
Element Law or the requirement for public health and safety findings when limiting residential
permits. The impetus of the RDCS was to address the impacts of intense growth at a time when
the infrastructure was not prepared to absorb the growth. During this period, population growth
in the City was impacting the ability of the City to provide sewage treatment, water and other
necessary municipal services. The RDCS was initially adopted by ballot measure and has been
modified through ballot measures over the years to meet the City’s needs and address
exemptions. The City has also adopted implementing ordinances and policies.
The competition is based on an evaluation system that utilizes a series of standards and criteria
set forth in the Morgan Hill Municipal Code. Morgan Hill’s General Plan describes the RDCS in the
following way, with allowances for small development projects:3
“This system shall provide for awards of development allotments based on the
number of points scored for all development proposals biennial competition, or
outside of a competition but based on requiring projects to achieve a minimum
point score . . . . The point scale used shall take into account the impact of the
proposed development on the following public facilities and services: water supply
system, sanitary sewer and treatment plant, drainage and runoff, fire and police
protection, traffic and other municipal services.
Proposed developments shall be awarded points for provision of schools, and
related facilities, open space, orderly and contiguous development, public
facilities, parks and trails, low-income and moderate income housing and housing
for the elderly, and diversity of housing types; and for quality of architectural
design and site design.
Small residential developments provide special benefits to the City by encouraging
local developers, providing design variety, and promoting utilization of smaller
lots. These developments do not impose as high a burden on municipal services
as do larger projects, because their demands are incremental and they tend to be
infill developments. Such small developments may be unable to compete with
larger developments in terms of the levels of amenities provided. In order to treat
small developments in a manner reflecting their benefits to the community, the
Residential Development Control System shall be designed to provide for small
development through appropriate means selected by the City Council, such as a
separate small project competition and a more streamlined and less costly
process.”
The process takes places on an annual or biennial basis and developers who wish to build
housing units are required to compete for the ability to obtain a development allocation. The
process begins by dividing projects into categories for purposes of the competition, including
“small” projects (7 to 15 units), multi-family housing, senior housing, and open market (more
than 15 units).
Each year, the City Council of Morgan Hill determines the total number of allotments available for
the next available competition, based upon a formula that calculates the number of units
3 Morgan Hill’s General Plan, http://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1148
53
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
17
available in the population cap divided by the number of years left in the RDCS.4 The total
number of allotments is then divided into the competition categories. City staff then evaluates
projects according to a set of objective standards and criteria in 14 separate categories: (1)
schools; (2) open space; (3) orderly and contiguous; (4) public facilities; (5) parks and paths;
(6) housing needs; (7) housing types; (8) quality of construction; (9) lot layout and orientation;
(10) circulation efficiency; (11) safety and security; (12) landscaping; (13) natural and
environmental; and (14) livable communities. Morgan Hill’s Municipal Code provides the specifics
of the City’s point system, which grants the highest number of points for the categories of
schools, open space and housing types.
Morgan Hill’s Municipal Code has been amended to implement the RDCS originally adopted by
ballot measure. It sets forth specific and detailed guidelines for how points are earned in each
category. For example Section 18.78.210 sets forth the following standards and criteria for
obtaining points with respect to schools:
“18.78.210 - Schools.
A. The provision of school facilities and amenities as attested by agreement
with the Morgan Hill Unified School District (MHUSD) to the extent such
consideration is not in conflict with state law. (twenty-five points)
B. Standard and Criteria:
1. Sixteen points will be awarded for the payment of the district-adopted
developer fees as provided by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.
Full market value credit will be applied to a direct payment to the School District,
for donated land, construction, or other services provided by a developer or
project property owner that relate to provision of school facilities.
2. Up to six additional points may be awarded to a project where: At the time
of application submittal or applicant commits as part of the first year of the first
phase of the current application, a safe walking route exists or will be provided
between the project site and existing or planned MHUSD schools, or charter
school licensed by the MHUSD, the Santa Clara County Board of Education or the
State Department of Education. A safe route is defined as continuous sidewalks
and/or paved pedestrian pathways cross walks and traffic signals at designated
street intersections between the project and a school site.
. . . .
3. Up to six additional points may be awarded to a project which:
a. Provides off-site pedestrian safety improvements or traffic safety
improvements, including adjacent related roadway improvements near a MHUSD
school. Any proposed pedestrian and traffic safety improvements cannot be
redundant of improvements committed to in other categories. The cost of the
4 Growth Management, Morgan Hill 2035, Existing Conditions White Papers, City of Morgan Hill, May
16, 2013.
54
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
18
improvements must be valued at eight hundred twenty-five dollars per point per
unit. The pedestrian improvements and traffic safety improvements must be
made to an elementary school within three-quarters of a mile (straight line
distance) of the edge of project site or the same improvements can be made to a
middle or high school within the City's Urban Service Area (USA). (up to two
points for safety improvements in proximity to a school and up to four points for
safety improvements on roadways serving schools within the City's USA)
. . . .”
With respect to schools, applicants will receive more points if they agree to provide safe routes
to school or other pedestrian or traffic safety improvements. Because all projects are required to
pay development impact fees, the payment of these fees does not differentiate the applicant
pool. Other categories are treated similarly. Applicants receive more points if they provide a
greater number of desired improvements.
The Planning Commission then considers all projects that have submitted applications, typically
in one meeting, and projects with the highest number of points receive building allocations.
Thereafter, the project applicant is allowed to apply for the land use entitlements required to
proceed with the proposed project. All projects that receive RDCS allotments must enter into a
Development Agreement. There also is an appeals process to the City Council for those entities
who disagree with the Planning Commission’s determination.
Historically, Morgan Hill has received more requests for allotments than the City has available.
However, more recently, most projects have been able to receive allocations. In addition to the
time required to process requests for allocations, Morgan Hill also must continue to monitor the
projects to ensure compliance with the RDCS program.
While it appears that the RDCS has served Morgan Hill well, the administration has been time
intensive and has required a significant amount of staff time. Morgan Hill currently is in the
midst of its Morgan Hill 2035 project and is considering how to streamline and improve the
system “to be more efficient, effective, and sustainable while maintaining its most important
benefits: a population cap, pace of development; high quality development; and contribution
toward community amenities.”5
Benefits and Constraints
Growth allocation programs with a competitive process provide benefits to the public and ensure
a good pace of development. However, they are administratively burdensome as they require a
great deal of staff time to implement. Further, if proposed development is less than the annual
allocation, there will be less competition for required allocations and fewer points will be required
for a project to move forward. A complicated growth allocation system also may discourage
developers that are not familiar with the system or City processes from filing applications.
Where growth allocation programs set a cap on the number of residential units, they must be
consistent with a city’s Housing Element and also may draw more scrutiny if they are challenged
in court.
5 See City Council Staff Report, Morgan Hill 2035: RDCS Update, April 1, 2015.
55
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
19
Lastly, once the criteria and standards in the program are established, it may be difficult to
encourage flexibility and to respond to changing market conditions or City desires or trends. The
fact that a number of cities have either eliminated or suspended previously adopted growth
allocation programs and that Morgan Hill is looking at other approaches is indicative of the
inherent difficulties in implementing such a program.
Land Use Regulation
Growth and development have traditionally been regulated through land use designations and
zoning. Cities implement and control growth and development through their General Plans,
Specific Plans and zoning, and can address impacts of development through development impact
fees and city regulations, such as enhanced design review regulations.6 Cities also enter into
negotiated Development Agreements with developers, which allow for developers to obtain
vested rights and for the City to negotiate desired community amenities to address the impacts
of development.
In California, State Planning and Zoning Law allows the legislative bodies of cities and counties to
establish their own procedures for the processing of amendments to their General Plans. While
General Law cities, such as Cupertino, are limited to four (4) General Plan Amendments each
year, cities may dictate the method used to process/evaluate any such amendments.
In addition to reviewing projects for General Plan consistency and quality of life goals, cities can
also implement additional nexus fees (such as community facilities fees, transportation impact
fees, utility impact fees, etc.) and additional design review guidelines to address the impacts of
development.
Conclusions
The following is a summary of conclusions based on the review of the various Community Benefit
Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) models, Growth Allocation models, and the consideration of land use
regulation as a community benefit model:
1. Formulaic zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of San Diego Downtown Community Plan)
provide less discretion since the development incentives and community benefits are
predetermined and codified by zoning.
2. Discretionary zoning incentive programs (e.g., City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan) require
protracted negotiation and discussion before the City can determine that a project applicant’s
offer of “substantial community benefits” warrants granting of a bonus in height or floor area
ratio. Also, the lack of specific criteria can lead to lack of transparency, difficulty in
administering the program and lack of consistency between projects. A discretionary CBIZ
program also would require updates to the City zoning code.
6 Although not located in the United States, the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, has
adopted a community benefits program that combines the city’s ability to rezone development sites
with community benefits. In Vancouver, developers are required to provide Community Amenity
Contributions (CACs) when the City Council grants development rights through rezoning. CACs are in-
kind or cash contributions that are used to fund community centers, libraries, parks and other
community spaces. Such a program, however, would not be workable under California law.
56
Development Management Overview
June 24, 2015
20
3. Metering residential development annually (e.g., Morgan Hill, Brentwood, Livermore) would
require changes to the recently adopted Housing Element and additional HCD review. The
City also would need to ensure that any metering program would still allow its housing
obligations to be met. Even if the process is implemented only for non-residential
development, the program provides less flexibility and is more cumbersome to administer.
Such a program would require a process that involves detailed criteria, scoring, and a specific
checklist of community benefits, as well as deadlines for processing and project construction.
4. A development cap or metering approach establishes a supply constraint, which may support
a competitive process. When market demand exceeds supply, projects would be required to
showcase community benefits in order to be considered for processing. The Mountain View
and Morgan Hill case studies offer good examples of this type of process. In both cities,
competition for project entitlements has generated substantial public benefits from new
development, but the programs are time and labor intensive for City Staff to implement and
the success of the competition is highly dependent on market conditions. In addition, these
processes introduce additional investment risk for development investors active in the
community due to increased uncertainty about project approval.
5. Growth allocation programs implement growth planned in the General Plan, and can achieve
community benefits. However, while these programs work well in years in which there are
projects competing for development, in years during which there are fewer projects the
community benefits offered in order to compete for allocations are not as significant.
6. Though no specific examples have been identified, a process that includes procedures for
projects that require General Plan Amendments can provide the most flexibility, because
development assumptions are not already built in and cities have discretion to amend their
General Plans, except with respect to legal requirements for Housing Elements. This
approach would provide the ability for the City to review a development proposal and
determine if it meets the goals and quality of life standards of the City, such as through the
provision of community amenities. If multiple proposals for general plan amendments are
submitted, based on the case studies examined here, it seems likely to increase the
community amenities offered by project proponents, particularly when economic conditions
are strong.
In considering its options to address growth, manage development, and respond to the
community concerns, Cupertino should consider implementing a program that achieves the
following:
• Ability to achieve goals of General Plan
• Ease of implementation
• Desire for flexibility as opposed to specific requirements (as in a General Plan or zoning)
• Ensure a diverse and vital economic base
• Ensure the City can meet its housing obligations
• Ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process
• Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility, service and quality of life
standards for the community
57
General Plan Amendment (GPA) Process Comparison
Application Process *
CURRENT PROCESS
PROPOSED PROCESS
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Public Input
City Council
Meeting
X
XX
X
Application A authorized
for Processing
* Length of application review process depends on size and complexity of the project
Preliminary Submittal
Application A
City-wide Postcard
and Notification
Application Authorization
and Review
Application B Not Authorized
for Processing
(applicant may reapply next year)
Application C authorized
for Processing
Project and Environmental Review including
neighborhood and legal notifications, and public input.
Formal Submittal
Project Application A
Formal Submittal
Project Application B
Formal Submittal
Project Application C
Preliminary Submittal
Application B
Preliminary Submittal
Application C
Application Process *
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Project and Environmental Review including
neighborhood and legal notifications, and public input.
Application Process *
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Project and Environmental Review including
neighborhood and legal notifications, and public input.
Application Process *
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Project and Environmental Review including
neighborhood and legal notifications, and public input.
Formal Submittal
Project Application A
Formal Submittal
Project Application C
Application Process *
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Project and Environmental Review including
neighborhood and legal notifications, and public input.
Process for General Plan Amendment Applications
General Plan Amendment Process Comparison
Application Process
CURRENT PROCESS
PROPOSED PROCESS
Application B
Neighborhood
Notifications
Legal
Notifications
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Application Process
Project review
Environmental review
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Application C
Application Process
Environmental review
Application B
Application C
Public Input
City Council
Meeting
X
XX
X
Application Process
Application Process
Application A authorized
for Processing
Application A
Project review
Environmental review
Public Inpute
for CEQA
Neighborhood
Meetings
Legal
Notifications Public Inpute
for CEQA
Neighborhood
Notifications Neighborhood
Meetings
Application A City-wide Postcard
and Notification
Application Authorization
and Review
Legal
Notifications
Neighborhood
Meetings
Planning Commission
Hearing
Neighborhood
Notifications
Project review
Public Inpute
for CEQA
Application B Not Authorized
for Processing
(applicant may reapply next year)
Application C authorized
for Processing
Neighborhood
Notifications
Legal
Notifications Public Inpute
for CEQA
Neighborhood
Meetings
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Legal
Notifications
Neighborhood
Meetings
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Neighborhood
Notifications
Public Inpute
for CEQA
Project review
Environmental review
Project review
Environmental review
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Authorization to Proceed Process
General Plan Amendment Process Comparison
Application Process
CURRENT PROCESS
PROPOSED PROCESS
Application B
Neighborhood
Notifications
Legal
Notifications
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Application Process
Project review
Environmental review
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Application C
Application Process
Environmental review
Application B
Application C
Public Input
City Council
Meeting
X
XX
X
Application Process
Application Process
Application A authorized
for Processing
Application A
Project review
Environmental review
Public Inpute
for CEQA
Neighborhood
Meetings
Legal
Notifications Public Inpute
for CEQA
Neighborhood
Notifications Neighborhood
Meetings
Application A City-wide Postcard
and Notification
Application Authorization
and Review
Legal
Notifications
Neighborhood
Meetings
Planning Commission
Hearing
Neighborhood
Notifications
Project review
Public Inpute
for CEQA
Application B Not Authorized
for Processing
(applicant may reapply next year)
Application C authorized
for Processing
Neighborhood
Notifications
Legal
Notifications Public Inpute
for CEQA
Neighborhood
Meetings
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Legal
Notifications
Neighborhood
Meetings
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Planning Commission
Hearing
Neighborhood
Notifications
Public Inpute
for CEQA
Project review
Environmental review
Project review
Environmental review
City Council Hearing
Final Decision on Project
Authorization to Proceed Process
58