Loading...
CC Exhibit 06-30-15 Item #1 Study Session on policy for processing General Plan Amendment applications i 6/30/2015 �tae,.� �Fx 3 5�73�'�z'z•i.� r ka SrwCox w� x \x eY ae �e`t R ca���;�t=��,a y��t,,. �IY��_` a H =k�£�Ti \r \.�y�'.'`it ���w� ��^•�'as °`\ 'a�x� 3",�,: wt m a '��,'. •�r'�2 � t�'`����y"�'f^� = ii3��\��i'c�a � a?. rfa � � ��3,�`3 �£ r�h� 'vvww.S� �'3>�3�5����3^���"�SaK�a"<a�'�:\��>t 'a a a� F•r iF��<�tt�'�a"��a�,k��4�.� '�? av'r�.r x<aa°fid r>a �k•�£yc' a.�S. �e.,����,- 3't...,�"`�"#ztxw�`"'Z�f�'s��r,��� �.�aew a��'�w,'�,�e�'�c`� �'E,as E•8�sw,'��a tta\��S syaz,,,e'� a t'.T:$���\���9y����a�`fi`•�i5r£'`' � '�' yaw,„�. ,F.w• � .���. .[1"wa;k:;ar���yw j�'yy�`,aageerwC2R>.��` 3xa sr�.: �.'��•�;rs"xb�;x=:a,?•\��,.;<;>_�«�'�`"s�'�'aCry�` �Rw�`•w�`3�,"�� �:;V^;£3..�s�.�t��•�r��e�.,>. h w, ;.a.�a„'s�Z .`tri <,rF�tt �aw�;• ,x.se<�<r. x.,:, 'a>i>.a ,.➢ �::a 'e >:>,�.a.`'�`:.'r;.•7.'•nc•.�:s Eby x h. ?.::,<,... .Lw x:'.<w.:.sE.,a.. ...:;n>....x,.».Vwew.,.s<�3w3s�`,,>,w";�.,att a,>,�'; '"'% .w;(i.�a..R�<,Y",o.�<?:.« ,•r7,o,F#, � d x FL,,,R e3u,rf„r �..>('S,,m>:ey E.97?A;w,\.k$= ...s t vh,,,,2�3"x..3�3 uz� ..t:ghS 3r 8i"rN 3�,�ya•�s'�.£.::. � s:�. 'r6xz`3n°S�fi>v.». a .m�r`sb....w�'�:,5 '���r���`,i<i>�`s w � Oyu PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING GENER'AL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS CITY C0 June 1 2015 Cupertino Community �"w' `�� � 3��'.�"3•x' ?ai3r'ri,,�a<[xwzn=....,...�. ae,k:9dS a<k`,�^`<.....,'>U'>.Niwa%<., .. , >:.,.;E�co.�;[£.•,tea>,w,..M1vex>.[xxz`en,'n£3° �a�`.'?3>>,.,.�,r<,.: ,.,y,wwz ws:;�'.G„�8<e<u=.>J c.'�s.>..r�a��' �. a�'k:�a, `.[wx �{ .r...«<.....>,.. „ � :a.<,<w...^:<>xeew... ,<.wx«<.w>.,.:.<,>.t;.._..<..4. .,,a.:.o.a..»r 3`:?>xts<..3a>:...,..a,.,�..:`eT.• :...`v"wn\T.,.:oa.:..��:>....1<?al.,< ,:`�,`w. ....;,,.,..2xaw.a.<.:.t:s:a[ .,s>o.F, 3w:cz. .. .., ,?L3e>nzxr<..,..<..a�.,..:....,�?ww,. >.v:>:r<.::..:...:.... :......:.:.. .>. `\,.:..,.r..c.,.2.. .l`c:n,>r�. r`�[,`Ex.A•.sr,.:. m>za.=a'[wc?.<....<.„ 9�Ma:x....... ,.a<>.<::r... ++tt<.o..xe,xi[.Ni..Yi'`o. w.:.:. a <... .....,.>.e:.,ax?h.A;>,:.:.>?:x.•w..,....<:..:[>..cn>.i>w>Y.6...x[tn,._... .v ,.,.a..,... {E ...`�?<w` '�. v.e'& ?v.. :A•..a, t> .Y�n,:...,.,,x[F,.:L xnr,..,. ...3x:..SE:....,.a.',kn,..w:.n..s..... ?\..<.:..<r .3......................oxw.w.w, w<..., w:>::"�S'.�::•�?:vn.,`�x�.�.v.�.,>x. ':fi=:.c.[a'.=xw v�>=„i ,..�.$�3a ,.....rr3rx.rw.,s>'� L.. ..... .......i,:>..9,.,r .�, ..3.ru..s.,aw?.;o:..,...>C wS.w:<.,.,a.v'k 3°,3:[:..a..,x .[..... ....,....�.<.,..?<.w:.>.«<ax..y.,.. .:53'..,.,... <..�a Y'w.•.ay, L.,.x::�::a.: ,:�`<,. .� ,:W:33:wxwxw tx<?...<.<N.e� x`x�;. na.Sa<4r:,. ..�'C,:•.�:.�r ..CK`.. .va.,. ?tw, x „ �>.<✓ Y.,,..w.?Y "x .xxw;n`;1..,.:.w,...>x,x..... ...w.,w.�eq:<:.:.:. .u:^'. g.:3ta3yagw,vauarn`.'o:..,n..0 ..,Y. v,..�.x...».a..oj�: ...,x..u& ,5 .. > i w,`�S.wx.:V a.::...... w,. <&£..,....,....a..,„. �,::"x,.M•:.•:>..w. ..,z.,.... ^-a �..� > u.�i:.. N...E'.k,: ., ..v<s......I..,...... .>.,,,...'t.x>.sr..zt�.z.:,>@r<.,g•:xt3.:....x�..x�\�,..>..,...=u�s�.�>...:esw;>z.:?R:u.:.gr.:w�.:Ftx:,.£..,?r�-'- .a;.ax:[ s.,7.,>..r:,..9 'M3�.�: pp s an 4 x a, ,3..,;kw ,..s>.a.., .:s,..t\,., ..c<�a?3S. <.<S[,-rw.e, ,.a� r�.ax'R•:� w�. t,.. :a,:. ....,o.,aa?x:'orc?:<a, ..?;.,,.:-:"x:.. 3?<cw»a. ^3<t3t». :^;�.•>.\ "�3'<, . k............ .�..� +x..:?....d,..<.. a.,nR. ,. .......>.c.wx.Zit ... .. .5..�; '. .. .a ..[..[. .... ...:..... .:..wi„..... ,...3::R.r..:... <t<8w:aa..,.3rN.....a..`..�e6'`w..yt.x.........�......,o...H.,,r...Yw1[>..x,,.>x ,.. .,.a..:.:...........,.:i�:q•n.`?'x'.`.:w;.°�..:.. tafcw....�:x: .,�,> �firbe..>.,.:... .>,. .>v«,.>`7...e d s.. ...�,.w.,..n«........ ....;xa.,.<.nR.,?F,..:x>.c..g..w...\.. >.....t...,waa.. ..,,..>cw,a.=a..ur 7•>3=¢.wk`.,.�a\'a.:\..\".O`.,. ?.:yo ..>.:sax:.e<r:.,.a::.nw,:.... ..:�.'SS'w.�..x�.. w.� .....;.:wn>.ex,w>...>...... ...:...,:n..a:7.�[,>...a<e... .w.n. �\ �J...:ok.. ��i ,aniF.,R•:�..ah....v:.. ion,.��,°�aeiuw?'uL�c'x�`s;.'�2'3A3rxxfiG� r'..-,.,wmi">.,,.�..ia,�.;.�za;:,;sas,••,:ew nz„3 aa•R.�°<crn�aas.�t`'sta�•,ex�,�„'�?,>°ae„w>aaar�>:.a.an^o>,nt>.o�Ssya,.sxasv�;atms^[6�.r ---.,a`„adard>1x,^°:a:F,>aa`^>s.azz�se.:c�>:a"�..a„�:a..a1�,...a•Y . 'esw.w, ■ On May 19, 2015, the Council directed the following: —Present additional details on other programs that require community benefits such as Cities of Mountain View and Morgan Hill —Deferred decision on policy for approximately 90 days —Placed new GPA applications on hold until decision is made on policy 1 6/30/2015 R ; a White Paper prepared for May 19, 2015 CC meeting — Pros and cons of various programs — General guidance on developing a policy that addressed City's concerns and particular needs for managing growth ® Staff recommended a policy for processing GPA applications ■ Council provided further direction on May 19, 2015 ■ Follow up White Paper prepared with more detailed discussion of programs implemented by Cities of: — Berkeley — Santa Monica — San Diego — Mountain View — Morgan Hill .12 " F'Jtt 3gk =xE S 3> mg �� f r g £ i3 ' Yes Predefined Mtr MO ■ M�nrmal R kE n 4�f .:. ■ .Protracted 3 3 a negotiation Yes Negotiated Moderate ■ Lack of trans arenc P. Y ■ Lack of consistency .. b � 3k .00 � C day F;f�t�{K�`EeE,L.sS e A o. .3k' £ �.P,.£ Less#lex,ble - Cumbersome Cornpefi�tion ��F3a����4 LF__?. �,,���RR�g��� tt3 , based Moderate anvolvir�g detailed ori#eria scone and checklists .,....... ........: ........ .. .. ...:: ...:.: a 3 a Transparent x Maximum Allows project: a Could be No competition except Housing preview ' based Elemen# Applicant to offer ro eels P J appropriate voluntary, c aE ttcommunity amenities.'. 2 6/30/2015 t,Y���3,'x � SS ➢c�y,3�"F Ykgm��N L�$3' 3:rD 6krn�3��b�i�fxR83}3 F�i�E'NFEF�{�irR�3�N3.����>T�y����;Z h� �.5.�3-.�L '�kl a v b c e`. .h y� •c E� .:ab.i�� .e�\r�' .. .✓»xow....,,,,xy..,�:x:?,.,«M,s.,umi��,�:;ww.m,..:.�.,,�.wk.m ., s,i5.«i.r.s.,>'s.�,.<,,„,.s...,,..,.,,.:...wsw.,..�.� a�M�»..w,sa.., ,�.,'£._�3,.s»u�'Skauz3'o•..o',"a'x�s'xr„��.,..,m.i. :�.a.,...a.,..a.,.� ,.w.,xa,..\.�a,q.� v w» +wra ,.,„,,, .m o.,:.n.;;.»..>.,,..r...,„.:...:.,:,..w..,s,..,.::,,.»„.,.xx:::»vn:�.v;.r:rzxxr r!.x�^..xro ,.,.,,,,�:.rN .,xxN•xk. •,.N�k:.zxr .,wirrcr>br .w....n:.� .w�:�w ^:�iwxv M x`x krz7� %wz LF � "Y N J' `�Ni^ 3 N. YYf Sw” • `Cy.�"i`"F. � +£ kC „k i � S 3. R ♦y N k� e"� z23¢y,: c R 3R s q b .'b q> £ AR 3 u �,..:-..` k :..:....• q w. :� ,.?' �;6 +�'a., i„ �xtS D:..n��wS Yyt w 3 mak. �� x .3`i Farmularc programs prourde Fcrmularc programs pro�rd very guarantees for what rncentrues (rttCe d�scret,on srr ce Menta.. and and:benefits are prourd�d benefrts predetermrned and:codrfred 2 Grseretronary programs repr rrre protracted negottatron and drscusson before Crty ean,determrne that offer warrants a rant of a bonus for devlo ment ` � DTscretrenar ro rams could create Y C� a (ick of trarsparenc�r, drffrculty rn admrnrsterin` ro ram and lack of - P �onsrstency between pro}ects � Ui/ou(d re wire an u date to`the � p Crtyrsenrng Cade ZX a �3. z T�'�s,,,r, SpC=w. .�'dtn iE''.� .,,�. xi.�(( EZ�,r y,_� ,�(,�._' s, $.y x¢'t. `�c � 't ¢ s�` ,;"\� .' zsa �acR a,k • : YEA � kS�'sY�R��i`SG+ YC �r.��?£ ��,i�\;Y k�i �N��'a��� F„•\(,� a�Fy 3£k�`'` � b �. b �S� Rb �\ \\ .:Z. R`cC_: ^t•3.� '� y"'"$ 'N f 3 s c s r x' ; � a 2R���,.�''\. \`�': r � F 3 \\�. �x �•<-=.c�.. •�;:scN::.w. �-;xarr..s-.rs:.• :r>sczN::H. r>m+a rir�n ,x, �`YR�3 kg�'� a^"6�.'^ys �' R{k E' t b 3'�"'' '"k �£4' .N2”' "„'f t �+” 3�• � .. 'f. 4,0 `°#;z q R '�? z s. '^, 'xR j b �1r 4¢�ae Fs t. > y r ri • y e s � §,�.,�a q>E a. ♦> �Yb �, '»'{.�^ R5 $ 7 & ti Y 3 2, ■-/allow infrastructure Irmo to ® Re urre a chan �to Hou�rn accommodate growth:.; C=lernen�and n©�t adv�sabl� green ® Can create a campetrt�ve adoptrcn deadline process uuhere pralects = : r,f�= Still require City to meet its , . 'showcase commurtr benefrts housrn.g_oblgatrons. '. . Works well rn ears where ® 1*or non residential d��relo meant mare projects than aWrlable would prorrile rr►uch less flexibility :allocation compete �� Cumbersc�rrie to admrnrster due.,. to detailed criteria,scoring Dees not work well irk years that fe�nrer pro�er✓ts than available allacatron apply 3 6/30/2015 � 2 psi' t x �,♦t23� J 3:' � X3 s F ak zi t£ > 't F,. a sr i x >>yi N Molt flexEblew�th significant Success dependent on market City:d�scret�on cond�t�ans AIlou+rs Cit to consider � Project investment risk ansa Y arnendments b oolEng uncertainty dor C� Yp a I�cants and creating p competitive process 110* f Encourage project to rovicle p substantial public benf�ts ® Trans arenc relayed tc� P review of ra'ects ... �M�.., y... x',t k ��.i 4 mss. � R Yt..,� ����;: k1 \... ��;s»$ ♦ :`Y iu�a a,.. & / x 5� . w �'� ��. �\3♦\ti> > iia+�z\� t'� r l ♦\ Set up process that addresses growth, manages development and responds to community concerns: —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 4 6/30/2015 b ■ All applications to be submitted by certain date every year in order to be considered for processing that year ® Scheduled for Council meeting once a year, at which Council will authorize applications for processing ■ Public input sought by city-wide postcard and website ■ Application must include: — Conceptual plans — Specific GPA's being requested Term sheet with list of voluntary communities being provided, if any • Could include:support for School resources,public open space,public facilities and utilities and transportation facilities ® Preliminary review of proposed projects using following criteria will be conducted: — General Plan goals achieved by project including: — Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility — Brief description of net fiscal impacts — Provision of affordable housing — Sustainability — List of GPA's requested (and other zoning amendment/variances requested) — List of voluntary community amenities — Staff time and resources required to process project 5 6/30/2015 s '..'�t takt � � £ ♦ � '.� .:, � ,.aM ax t,'moi\ >ca ; �♦�\�'i'�iM= ��' a...� t �„`ry�'" k �� k �'3�w, ..�5 � �.a,4�'" �,,,,�a r y. �k \t� i�' e 6 �� 3 4��,��3�b '♦ : 'Sc /3 � k �' �7 � 3 L\ `�7£LV�i��..k LF ih ➢�5 3;..r .3� F '�;z " s y�� K = s' : .F ♦ `.Z Z� C „sx s t4 a �'� ,...,w„..,».v.,�..,.w.a o.......aw»u ora>�..x,»..<.w.: »m.rsaa,»a,aows>m .,s.,».o».»,,..»...,.a wa....,,.. ..»u.„.w.,,,.,.....r:.:.✓..9..,..,.....,.�....amw.,.5....w.,,,.c...,a...,, .,u,.a x,S.,w>.,,....sw.,u..,wt u�\ .,,...,,,. ® Council authorization only authorizes staff and other resources for processing of projects. Does NOT guarantee approval of projects. ® Only projects authorized to proceed will move forward on environmental and project review ■ Subsequent project application has to be substantially similar to project authorized by Council to move forward ■ Projects not authorized, would have to re-apply in the next annual period ® If multiple GPA projects authorized for processing, projects would be reviewed and brought for Council review in a manner that would not exceed State allowances of four GPAs per calendar year. ?a'� T � .D k .. r c r k y,. a 'fit f,'�,s :t ��♦\ �a � s,. c\�Cy�L3y ♦ 3 s t / a��, �£h tl��¢< ry��,�t.�•Ff�`�s+K YF k{» � �.fl s.c„�a � ....a��4;F 5�' ,^r�'a\M£��a.Ra F � rta .c&�t2`La .�..ya.k5 q'. �.c`s.,^w z� ✓..� fl.r � ,'..< f; - �D���xs�' as k rcG's : ¢ .��,.s I��� �� h3� �D"���'�i����i u�5 :' CURRENT PROCESS AppGcaf on Pmc¢Ss - _ P iet £ al Peva hWtly 'Y'_1 �, q bxr}ap!ro4Px rouleiaDnzanequuc trs; 4 l DA Yvtewwd- ,�,� .. Camp...<C a1Hm P i ' fi..lns=w'm AppGo P P est rd fn '¢ Ycptl¢y � � ,. 9P5tltMM ntbplr=agr M LtNq __. �. ��;f f�n,s �Fu iDs�m VSs Apel f Proles S-.,,.Y r ayTtc ipetl rdl�al PMbN.PJ Y+YkJ ,(y„5" 4 �St"� D gt.,mrm C mrstC ad/Ib g PROPOSED PROCESS': Pince for Geneal Plan AmendSrz-ntApphmtiw¢ AyyG of P }lrr ` P n .as.w i DrAr rare ' s �� yt1 cc,, ye i"^'"wt YDS, ero nw e4a+t�wu roDofetnD Deb...+Y 4.�f YH+.Sn$.a bti`- t!mO Tvr Amld a AppGrat R • _ 1Z (n� wy,»� f•aeVry roS kma 1�y��r�,� �'�*„`, dDPG�GeD�e.,,NaVUaOS Dnpd S'�J :tr F J�Dm. Dro^Flfv I - ._ ___ _____ ___ an ane aid mmDLzii d ih. .. :'i •fingA'ef aDplranm rtnew P«ns depen(k... Y epee .::. ....:: .. ..� ..... .... . ......: .......... .. ...... .......... 6 6/30/2015 ■ Allows City to manage orderly processing of GPA's ■ Create a more competitive process when compared to current ad hoc approach to processing applications ■ Allows applicants to showcase their projects and their voluntary community amenities ■ Creates upfront and transparent process before projects authorized to move forward for processing ■ Council, public and staff has better preview of projects before Council decision on which projects to process ■ No change to other review processes such as Environmental and Design review, and compliance with applicable codes and laws at_- aY`:..�; 7 1 c # � �,.,,..� a � £ a5 s. ♦,\�� ��k13�}. 'a.� a\`li .y�L� '� � ■ Procedures could be adopted by resolution or ordinance ® Adoption by Resolution makes it official Council policy — Future amendments, if desired, through a subsequent resolution ■ Adoption by Ordinance makes.it part of Municipal Code — Future amendment, if desired, through an ordinance amendment ■ Staff can prepare either based on Council direction 7 6/30/2015 That the City Council: ® Conduct a study session and ■ Comment on the proposed procedures for processing General Plan amendment applications �` ) '. a 3x s A i a ,� ao:i�s s�.a �2 ,'> ��.♦ i a x e\x,.�c,\� 3 ¢ ® If adopted as policy, deadline for first annual review will be established and policy will be implemented immediately If adopted as ordinance, ordinance will be prepared and implemented If new policy or ordinance not adopted, current procedure of processing GPA applications will continue ® The policy or ordinance will be presented to the City Council in September 2015 8 130/1,S-- Andrea Sanders From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 01, 2015 12:24 AM To: City Council; David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; City Clerk Subject: Fwd:CC Mtg - my thoughts - comments please Dear City Council, Staff and City Clerk, Please include the following as part of the public record for this evenings City Council meeting, Agenda Item #1. It is what I presented tonight. I am against Community Benefits, Community amenities or whatever you want to call them. That said, reviewing general plan amendments once a year, makes sense to me with these constraints 1 ) City Council members and the community need adequate time to review the materials; at least 1 month but Piu said it might be as much as 3 months which would be nice. 2) Do not review during the summer or holidays 3) Require a red-lined versions of all the amendment, zoning amendments or variances needed — not just a list 4) As far as project criteria: a) A project stands on its own as a benefit to the community without amenities in order for it to justify getting an amendment. If it does not stand on its own then it doesn't pass. c) No height increases in exchange for anything! Increasing the height needs to be beneficial without tying it to an amenity because i) Height increases impact the entire project requiring more parking, higher density housing, more traffic, more noise, etc. ii) once additional height is added they can ren.ig and nothing can be done about it 5) , No changes to the original proposal a) It is too vague to say no substantial changes b) be clear; no changes; they have already requested changes and gotten approval. Enough is enough. c) Changes would nullify the authorization d) changes would require them to re-apply next year e) Staff should not be allowed to authorize changes, not even up to a threshold. No breaking it into smaller sections to get under a threshold. No'threshold! .6) Follow through on agreements a) All'agreements must be fulfilled before anyone is allowed to move in or any-use permits are issued. b) Sign off is by Council with community input 7) There are still issues that need to be addressed/solved z a) What happens if they sell the property prior to completion? b) If a project is found to violate any project plans and/or agreements, the developer (arid all their LI-Cs) are banned from working in Cupertino for 10 years. The developer takes responsibility for everyone they hire,-construction company included. 8) Improving the process a) Review this new process each year to see what's working/what's not b) Review each completed project to see what worked/what didn't 9) As for whether it is a Resolution vs. Ordinance, I don't know a) What are the pros/cons of each? Thank you, Peggy Griffin r 3 Andrea Sanders CC 6-30-15 Item 1 To: Andrea Sanders Subject: RE: GPA Letter for the public record - Retraction of all submitted comments pre-2015 From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:17 AM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino; Dan Amsden Cc: Colleen Winchester; Grace Schmidt; Karen B. Guerin Subject: Fwd: GPA Letter for the public record - Retraction of all submitted comments pre-2015 FYI... Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Catherine Alexander< Date: June 30,12015 at 1:47:05 AM PDT To: Piu Ghosh<PiuG2cc&pertino.org>, <citycouncilgcupertino.org>, "Cupertino City Manager's Office" <manaaer2ccupertino.org> Cc: CD Alexander<cdjalexandergglnail.com> Subject: GPA Letter for the public record- Retraction of all submitted comments pre-2015 Piu Gosh Senior Planner Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 950143202 June 29, 2015 Re: Retraction of all of my General Plan Amendment and City comments,pre-2015 Dear Ms. Gosh, I would like to submit this letter for the public record. I, Catherine Alexander, Cupertino resident, hereby retract all of my pre-2015 comments and concerns regarding the Cupertino City Council, City staff and the General Plan Amendment process, as well as my comments and concerns about a high density residential development already existing near my home. I am very pleased with the balanced GPA plan which the 2015 City Council and City staff have devised to.assess each new proposed development on a case-by-case basis, evaluating the individual merits of each site, EIR and actual architectural plans before City development approval may take place. I support new affordable housing for young high tech professionals and their families, whom I i 0 believe will enrich our City culture and add to our status as a center of innovation, and have stated this publicly in a letter to the editor of the San Jose Mercury News, which was published on June 23, 2015 in print and online at: http•//` -v w.mercurynetivs.com/opinion/ci 28361905/ Likewise, new management at the residential development next to my home has worked diligently to reduce problems of late night noise, littering, smoking and cigarette butts, and renters ignoring posted stop signs, so my neighborhood is much improved, safer and more peaceful. The City is also replacing corner curbs and repaving our heavily cracked street, which is a plus for our pedestrians and bike riders.. All of these changes are much appreciated, so my prior comments and concerns are no longer valid or appropriate. Thank you for your service to residents during this long and challenging process. Sincerely, Catherine Alexander 3rd generation Cupertino Resident r 2 Andrea Sanders From: Andrea Sanders Sent: Tuesday,June 30, 2015 2:10 PM To: Karen B. Guerin; City Clerk Subject: RE: Developer should not be allowed to write Vallco Specific Plan Printed From: Karen B. Guerin Sent:Tuesday,June 30, 2015 1:54 PM To:City Clerk Subject: FW: Developer should not be allowed to write Vallco Specific Plan From: Liang C [mailto:lfchao@gmaii.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 30, 2015 11:23 AM To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council Cc: better-cupertino-work-group Subject: Re: Developer should not be allowed to write Vallco Specific Plan Please follow the example of North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee in Los Gatos. In Los Gatos,North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee, consists of 6 city officials and 9 community representatives. This committee submits the Specific Plan for review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Therefore, the North 40 Specific Plan is prepared by the city and the community,NOT the developer, as it should be. The North 40 project in Los Gatos is quite similar in size to Vallco Redevelopment Project. The North 40 refers to approximately 40 acres located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highways 85 and 17. In the current General Plan, adopted in 2010, the guiding principals of North 40 include a mix of uses. Liang' On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>wrote: In Figure LU-1 of Community Vision 2040, for Vallco Shopping District Special Area, it states "West of Wolfe Rd: Maximum Residential Density: 35 units per acre Maximum Height: Per Specific Plan East of Wolfe Rd: Maximum Residential Density: 35 units per acre Maximum Height: Per Specific Plan" The Maximum Height for Vallco area is not defined in the General Plan at all. The height is supposed to be specified in the Specific Plan and now the developer is writing the Vallco Specific Plan. i This is wrong. A developer should not write the Vallco Specific Plan even though the developer happens to own that property. A Specific Plan should not become a wish list for a specific developer. A Specific Plan should still take into account of the best interest of the entire city, all the residents in the City and especially all the residents living in surrounding neighborhoods of a specific area. The city and the residents should be writing the Specific Plan, not a developer. And now the limit on height is even removed in Community Vision 2040 to be left to the Specific Plan. It is all the more important for the city to organize a Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee, with mostly community residents, to write the Specific Plan. i Liang-Fang Chao Cupertino Resident 2 Andrea Sanders From: Cailan Shen <shencailan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 30, 2015 12:31 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: From a registered voter and Cupertino resident:I oppose to any form of Community Benefits program in exchange for GPA. Cupertino City Council Member, Cupertino General Plan is the city's Constitution, which should be a very serious law. Yet, what this "Community Benefits" program in exchange for GPA does is to keep on breaking the city's Constitution, every year, several times a year! I view this "Community Benefits" program in exchange for GPA as pure bribery behavior. Name: Cailan Shen i Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,June 30, 2015 9:47 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Development Management Program is still Community Benefits Program From: Liang C [mailto:lfchao@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 30, 2015 9:33 AM To: City Council Cc: better-cupertino-work-group Subject: Development Management Program is still Community Benefits Program Although the meeting description does not mention it, the focus of this proposed GPA process concerns different forms of"Community Benefits" program, now renamed "Development Management Program." As long as a development project follows all current zoning codes and the current General Plan; the project does not need any GPA at all. Why not encourage all developers to follow our General Plan and zoning code? An amendment should be granted only under very rare circumstances. The proposed new GPA process would allow exceptions or variables to the General Plan as a common annual practice. However, General Plan Amendments or variances should not be an annual occurrence. Such exceptions to General Plan should be few and far between; otherwise, the 25-year General Plan would not be able to serve its long-range planning purpose. The proposed new GPA process sends a message to developers: You are welcome to break the zoning code and violate our approved General Plan as long as you bribe us with attractive Community Benefits. And we open the door once a year to see who gives us the best bribe. Please don't approve a process that legalizes breaking city codes and violating policies in General Plan with bribes, which are confusingly named Community Benefits or Community Amenities or whatever naive used. Liang-Fang Chao Cupertino Resident i