Exhibit 9-1-15 CC Item #4 Procedures Processing of General Plan Amendment ApplicationsCupertino Chamber of Cc>mmerce
Yo"r Partner In SI/Icon Valley
20455 Silverado Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel (408) 252-7054
Fax (408) 252-0638
www.cupertino-chamber.org
Anjali Kausar
Chief Executive Officer
2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD OFFICERS
Richard Abdalah, President
Abdalah Law Offices
Mike Rohde, President Elect & VP
Special Events
Val/co Shopping Mall
Art Cohen, VP Membership
Blueligh/ Cinemas 5
Sandy James, VP HR & Staffing
Sand Hill Properties
Scott Jeng, VP Finance
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
Kevin McClelland, VP LAC
Leeward Financial & Insurance Services
Inc.
BOARD MEMBERS
Claudio Bono
Cupertino Inn
Catherine Chen
State Farm Insurance
Janice Chua
Bitter + Sweet
Jessica Epstein
SIL VAR
Anthony Lin
PG&E
Jason Lundgaard
Apple Inc.
Elizabeth Marchu
Technology Credit Union
Andrew Walters
San Jose Water
Keith Warner
Pacific Workplaces
Matt Wheeler,
LMGW Public Accountants
Tim Widman
Law Office of Timothy D. Widman
August 31, 2015
Dear Mayor Rod Sinks and Cupertino City Councilmembers,
I am writing to inform you of the Chamber of Commerce's opposition to the proposed new General
Plan Amendment process. While the revised proposal is significantly better than the June version,
we remain concerned with the proposed approach. The Chamber believes strongly that the current
process has served Cupertino well and should be retained. The current process, whereby the City
determines appropriate citywide allocations of office, retail, and hotel space allows for appropriate
review of projects that are consistent with a robust community planning process.
Back in November 2104, the prior City Council voted to allocate 550k sfofnew office space and
I 000 hotel rooms, in addition to maintaining the existing allocation for major corporations. While
that vote was later nullified due to a scheduling error, the current Council subsequently indicated
majority support for similar allocations in December of last year during a straw vote. We
recommend the Council officially adopt those new allocations.
The proposal to create a "beauty contest" to extract maximum community benefits has several
potential pitfalls:
1) One or two general plan amendments a year does not provide sufficient flexibility.
Cupertino could essentially eliminate from considering exciting, but time sensitive
development opportunities. If a new company is looking to expand in Silicon Valley,
they are unlikely to consider Cupertino if it means waiting for six months to a year
before City staff can spend time on their project. Likewise, development
opportunities arise all the time as tenants leave or new land becomes available. In
many cases, the City's timing for development decisions may make pursuing some
opportunities cost prohibitive.
2) Contrary to making the process easier, lumping all projects together for
simultaneous consideration is likely to increase the Community's negative reaction to
growth. As we have witnessed over the past year, when the public is presented with
multiple development proposals at the same time, there is a tendency to revert to a
no-growth posture. Considering projects one at a time allows individual projects to
stand on their own merits within the broader general plan goals set by the
community.
3) Cupertino residents have consistently expressed concerns with Community Benefits
as a driving factor for development decisions. The business community shares those
concerns.
4) One of the likely outcomes of creating a beauty contest system is to discourage
smaller landowners from pursuing projects in the City. Many worthy projects will not
be able to compete with the heightened benefits proposed by larger projects. The
result will be less diverse types of development occurring in the City.
5) We need to look to the near future. As we see more of our seniors and young adults
abandon their drivers' licenses and cars we need places in Cupertino where they can live
and walk to get the things they require for day to day living without the need to drive.
This would also help reduce traffic in Cupertino.
Thank you for your consideration and do not hesitate to reach out to us with further questions.
Sincerely,
~K~EXHIBIT
2015 VP Legislative Action Committee
Cc: Council Members
City Manager
City Clerk
Mr. Gary Chao
CUPERfINO VILLAGE, LP
l 5 Southgate A venue, Ste. 20 l
Daly City, CA 94015
Asst. Community Development Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Cupertino Village Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Chuo:
As you know, on June 9, 2015, Cupertino Village, LP {"Cupertino Village"') submitted to
the City design schematics/proposed site plans depicting our vision for the future of the
Cupertino Village Shopping Center. In addition to submitting this information, pursuant to the
City's applicah]c application procedures we formally requested a pre-application conforencc with
City staff to discuss the proposed project
In light ofthc item on tonighf s City Council ngendu related to prospective General Plan
amendment applications, the pm1x)sc of this letter is to confin11 that our request fr>r u prc-
applil:ation con fcrence in anticipation of a General Plan amendment applicntion will be
processed in accordance with the rules in place when the request was fonnally submitted. As we
have expressed to you previously, wc were surprised to hear from you on June 15, 20 I 5, that the
City was placing a hold on our pre-application conference request and application because of n
purported "nioratmium" on new Cicncral Plan amendment applications. We reviewed with our
counsel the agenda and video of the May l 9, 2015 meeting at which a moratorium on new
applications was discussed, and our counsel has indicated that for a vmicty of legal reasons, no
valid moratorium \Vas enacted at that meeting. Even assuming the Council's processing
moratorium was valid, it wmll.d have expired by its own terms on August 17, 2015, and staff
should have addressed our pending request immedintcly following its expiration.
We are cager to begin the entitlement process for this exciting redevelopment opportunity
that will modernize an antiquuted property and transfom1 it into a premiere destination for the
City".s residents and visitors. We look forward to meeting with you at your earliest c.;onvcnicm;e
for the pre-application conference.
Very truly yours,
CUPERTlNO VILLAGE, LP
By: Kimco Cupertino Village 1344, inc., its
general pmtner ~~~,~· .. ~~--
Title:
Cc: City Manager
City Clerk
Kristina Lawson, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
·' 15067.118.2
Kirsten Squarda
From:
Sent:
To:
·Subject:
(for Agenda Item 4)
Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:50 PM
City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk
Fwd: [BetterCupertino] Weekly Community Benefits Workshop for Developers, but None
for Residents
On Feb. 6, Feb. 17, March 26 and April 7, 2015, BetterCupertino have inquired multiple times to request any
information on any research the City Staff have done on Community Benefits program. The Staff shared
nothing.
On April 14, we requested to have a Q&A session on community benefits before May 19 meeting. Barry Chang
replied that it's a good idea. The city manager never even replied to the request.
On April 21, during Council meeting, City Manager mentioned they will organize a workshop when asked by
the Council.
On April 28, people ask about workshop. Staff said they are working on a date.
On May 8: Staff told the residents: No workshop will be held.
Till today, September 1. Resolution 15-078 will be approved to allow Community Benefits program, aptly
renamyd as "voluntary community amenities" without any constraint.
The City still has not held any workshop to inform the residents on the various Community Benefits program
considered. The Study Session held on June 30 was only focused on the frequency of the new GP A process, not
on the most important topic, Community Benefits program.
However, through a friendly source, we accidentally discovered that from March to April, the City Staff have
been attending and reporting at a weekly stakeholder meetings for Community Benefits, attended by every
developer in town, two Council members, and the school districts. There were at least 7 meetings on March
9, March 18, March 20, March 26, March 30, April 3, April 8 and April 13. Maybe more later. The City
Staff and consultants had attended many of the meetings and provided presentation on their research on
Community Benefits program.
Around the same time, the residents were denied any information at all on Community Benefits program.
BetterCupertino has inquired the City Manager David Brandt about such weekly stakeholder meeting on
Community Benefits on August 24 and on August 31. We have not received any reply from the City
Manager at all.
The attendee list of this weekly stakeholder meeting on Community Benefits includes two Council members,
Rod Sinks and Savita Vaidhyanathan, both Superintendents ofFUHSD and CUSD, and almost every developers
in town, Sand Hill, Marina (Amy Chan), Irvine Company (Hamptons), KT Urban (Oaks), Kimco Realty
(Cupertino Village), Prometheus (City Center), and Cupertino Inn, plus a team of consultants and attorneys,
including Xavier Campos (Ford & Bonilla, Lobbyist & Consulting Firm), Ben Sigman of BPS (Economic
consultants), consultants from VER on Land Use Planning, financial consultants from Leeward Financial, .
attorneys from Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, and also Neil Struthers, head of Construction Labor Union.
Among the long list of "stakeholders" for Community Benefits, the true stakeholders, Cupertino residents, who
intentionally kept out. Even after repeated attempts to inquire about more information on Community Benefits,
the residents were denied access. Not even one workshop was held for the residents.
One wonders. Who pays for the salaries of the City Staff? Who paid for those consultants and attorneys who
proposed various models of Community Benefits program during these meetings? The very stakeholders,
Cupertino residents, that were excluded from the meeting and denied any information.
Then, after all that efforts by the staff and consultants to study Community Benefits program, Resolution 15-
078 proposes to throw them all away since they are too restrictive. The Council wants only "flexibility for
managing growth," which is in fact uncontrolled growth.
Here are snippets of what happened in each meeting:
March 9:Thanks for coming to our first stakeholders meeting.
March 18: City staff suggested using a dollar per sq ft formula to assess all new developments based on the sq ft
size of the development. Most people at the table thought it may work as a concept, ...
March 20: We learned from legal point of view, there was no nexus between the assessment and project, and if
implemented, it could likely be challenged. Staff offered another alternative straw man structure, similar to the
City of Morgan Hill's ordinance ...
March 26: The group of attorneys came up with four community benefits options and would like to
discuss pros and cons of each with the sub-group.
March 30: City staff and their attorney presented 4 community benefits options to the subgroup this afternoon
for comments.
April 3: City staff and their consulting team presented a straw man community benefits model that essentially is
based on an annual allocation of housing units, office space and hotel rooms. Community benefits will be based
on amount per sq ft., etc. Many questions were raised, including the assuming used on the performa models.
April 8: They think it's more productive for the developer groups to contact the City's economic consultant, Ben
Sigman ofEPS, directly ifthere are questions about the economic assumptions used. Ben's contact info: 510-
841-9190,
April 13: The economic consultant made a presentation from 3:00pm to 5:00pm, at City Hall's
Conference C.
-------
0 ______ ,, ______________ _
CRSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org
Paid for by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015,
FPPC #1376003
Posted By Blogger to BetterCupertino at 9/01/2015 04:24:00 PM
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Monday, August 31, 2015 3:02 PM
better-cupertino-work-group
City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; David
Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino
Re: [Better Cupertino WG] GPA application processing procedures
Xiaowen's letter is published in blog:
http://letters2cupertinocc.blogspot.com/2015/08/gpa-process-is-premature-by-Xiaowen.html
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1 :22 PM, Xiao wen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you regarding the Agenda item 4 on council meeting tomorrow.
First I would like to thank the city staff for updating the White Paper on Development Allocation (D -
Development Management Overview 6 24 15.pdf). This updated white paper provides more information on how
other city's manage the community benefit and development allocations. The update added a lot of details on
how the cities gauge the community benefits. All the cities studied in this report has a grading system, e.g.,
Figure 1 and Figure 2 detailed how San Diego grades different projects and different benefit it can provide.
After reading all these systems in different cities, there is nothing in the staff report regarding what kind of
system we are going to have for our city. Instead, the whole discussion is centered on the frequency of GP A
application processing. However, I don't know how we make that decision without knowing the work load of
the reviewing process. It is obvious that with a more granularity in a grading system means more work. Since
011e major concern of the application process is the staff time, we should really have a clear picture if and how
we want to have a point or grading system in gauging project benefit and cost.
Due to this concern, I would like to urge the city to first engage the public in if and how we want to have the
community benefit program. What is the cost and benefit of allowing certain project have exceptions than what
is specified in General Plan. What kind of community benefits that the community wants? How to weigh these
benefits to the cost of allowing various exceptions?
For other cities, e.g., Palo Altos, citizen advisory board is established to study these issues. I would like to
advocate that we follow the same footstep and sort out the evaluation system first. Only then we can have a
clear idea of the staff work load and we can make a decision on how often we should have the GP A review.
Moreover, another important factor is still missing even in the white paper. What is the final outcome of these
program? It is not clear if the community really get the benefit they ask for. Is there a feasible way to enforce
the promise made at the planning phase? Can we ask the deposit or security fund upfront to secure whatever the
developer promised the community are secured? When evaluating the cost and benefit, we need to know what
kind of risk we are going to take. The biggest doubt I have with any community benefit program is the
enforcement, the only vague word I got is that there is going to be a development contract. But I still have no
idea what is going to happen if such contract is violated. I for one, am not the one who like to take much risk,
especially in the cost of my kids, so my position on this matter is still no community benefit. However, other
1
people may have a different opinion on this. Therefore, it is vitally important for the public to know what kind
of deal that we are stepping in. We all need to make an informative decision and be a grownup facing the
consequence afterward.
I really feel it is premature to discuss the frequency now without knowing what we are going to do during the
process. Let's all first have a candid discussion on what we want, what we sacrifice and what we risk, before we
rush into any decision.
Please put this correspondence on the record for the City Council Meeting on Sep. 1.
Best regards,
Xiaowen Wang
Visit our Home Page http://www.bettercupertino.org/
Visit our Blog http://BetterCupertino.blogspot.com
Visit out facebook page https://www.facebook.com/BetterCupertino
CRSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Better Cupertino Work Group"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to better-cupertino-work-
group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/better-cupertino-work-group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/better-cupertino-work-
group/CADok-fEX3z0hnCJGoM9w7dxfK-VmUTgz3uAmQifK2ryvw8cnqQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
2
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com>
Monday, August 31, 2015 1:23 PM
City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; David
Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino
GPA application processing procedures
I am writing to you regarding the Agenda item 4 on council meeting tomorrow.
First I would like to thank the city staff for updating the White Paper on Development Allocation (D -
Development Management Overview 6 24 15.pdf). This updated white paper provides more information on how
other city's manage the community benefit and development allocations. The update added a lot of details on
how the cities gauge the community benefits. All the cities studied in this report has a grading system, e.g.,
Figure 1 and Figure 2 detailed how San Diego grades different projects and different benefit it can provide.
After reading all these systems in different cities, there is nothing in the staff report regarding what kind of
system we are going to have for our city. Instead, the whole discussion is centered on the frequency of GP A
application processing. However, I don't know how we make that decision without knowing the work load of
the reviewing process. It is obvious that with a more granularity in a grading system means more work. Since
one major concern of the application process is the staff time, we should really have a clear picture if and how
we want to have a point or grading system in gauging project benefit and cost.
Due to this concern, I would like to urge the city to first engage the public in if and how we want to have the
community benefit program. What is the cost and benefit of allowing certain project have exceptions than what
is specified in General Plan. What kind of community benefits that the community wants? How to weigh these
benefits to the cost of allowing various exceptions?
For other cities, e.g., Palo Altos, citizen advisory board is established to study these issues. I would like to
advocate that we follow the same footstep and sort out the evaluation system first. Only then we can have a
clear idea of the staff work load and we can make a decision on how often we should have the GP A review.
Moreover, another important factor is still missing even in the white paper. What is the final outcome of these
program? It is not clear if the community really get the benefit they ask for. Is there a feasible way to enforce
the promise made at the planning phase? Can we ask the deposit or security fund upfront to secure whatever the
developer promised the community are secured? When evaluating the cost and benefit, we need to know what
kind of risk we are going to take. The biggest doubt I have with any community benefit program is the
enforcement, the only vague word I got is that there is going to be a development contract. But I still have no
idea what is going to happen if such contract is violated. I for one, am not the one who like to take much risk,
especially in the cost of my kids, so my position on this matter is still no community benefit. However, other
people may have a different opinion on this. Therefore, it is vitally important for the public to know what kind
of deal that we are stepping in. We all need to make an infonnative decision and be a grownup facing the
consequence afterward.
I really feel it is premature to discuss the frequency now without knowing what we are going to do during the
process. Let's all first have a candid discussion on what we want, what we sacrifice and what we risk, before we
rush into any decision.
1
Please put this correspondence on the record for the City Council Meeting on Sep. 1.
Best regards,
Xiaowen Wang
2
Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Resolution 14-078 is against the residents who you represent
From: Liang C [mailto:lfchao@qmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:11 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt
Subject: Re: Resolution 14-078 is against the residents who you represent
A typo in my last letter in this paragraph:
Please discontinue the notorious ground floor retail component immediately. Do not use it to grant any
more increase in building height until a clear definition of ground floor retail component is provided in
the General Plan. The policy should also define a proper exchange ratio, such as 1 square foot of office
space in exchange for 1 square foot of office space.
The last sentence should read "1 square foot of office space in exchange for 1 square foot of retail space."
Thanks.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com> wrote:
Enclosed is a blog article just published to inform the residents about the truth behind the new process fo:r
General Plan Amendments.
The new process for General Plan Amendments is simply a way to allow Community Benefits program,
renamed voluntary community amenities, to be applied to any parcel in Cupertino in exchange for any increase
in height or office allocation or break any other rule in the General Plan.
Under this new guideline, Oaks can come along and request 1 million office space and 120 feet building; Marin
can come along and request another 1 million office space and 140 feet building. The sky is the limit. The limits
set in the General Plan is non-existent. We may be able to build 10 million square feet of office space by 2040
and Steven Creek could be lined with 10 buildings over 100 feet tall by 2040.
Hundreds of residents have written to you and hundreds of residents have attended the May 19th meeting to
express their concerns on increase in building height and office allocation. Are you going to ignore all of their
concerns and adopt a new process that does the opposite and allow even more increase in building height and
office allocation?
Are you representing the residents of Cupertino who elected you? Or are you representing others who simply
want to make money in Cupertino?
Resolution 15-078 should not be adopted until there is a set guideline to define what General Plan Amendments
are allowed for what type of projects and what Community Benefits programs are allowed in exchange. And
what mechanism could be put in place to ensure that the promised benefits would be delivered.
The city has already suffered from a vague description of Community Benefits program, namely the ground
floor retail component. It has been abused again and again to provide much more benefits to the developers. The
staff and the Council is unwilling to use a proper definition for "retail" and allowed the developers to exploit it.
Now, the Council will introduce another even more loose form of Community Benefits program?
Most recently, Main Street has been able to gain 19 times more office than the amount of ground floor retail
space. Then, the retail is not accessible to the community. The planning staff does not think it's a violation
because there is no definition of "retail" in our General Plan.
Please discontinue the notorious ground floor retail component immediately. Do not use it to grant any more
increase in building height until a clear definition of ground floor retail component is provided in the General
Plan. The policy should also define a proper exchange ratio, such as 1 square foot of office space in exchange
for 1 square foot of office space.
Please do not make the situation even worse by introducing even more vague policies on Community Benefits
program by adopting Resolution 15-078.
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Blogger <no-reply@blogger.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:36 PM
Subject: [BetterCupertino] Buffet-Style Community Benefits Lead to Uncontrolled Growth
To: lfchao@gmail.com
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015, the Cupertino City Council will deliberate and most likely approve the new
process for General Plan Amendments, which opens the door to uncontrolled growth. The agenda description
does not mention one word about Community Benefits program. But the devil in the details is an unregulated
Community Benefits program, which puts all limits set in the General Plan up on the buff et table to be
broken as long as the price is good.
On May 19th, 2015, facing strong opposition by residents about large increase in building heights and massive
increase in office allocation, the Cupertino City Council voted not to approve the proposed General Plan
Amendment. Instead, the Council considered a staff proposal to establish a process to accept requests for
General Plan Amendments on an annual or biannual bases. It appears that the Council listened to the residents
and slowed down uncontrolled growth pushed by developers. However, that is far from the truth.
The new General Plan Amendment process essentially sets no limit on building height or office allocation
or any other regulation set in the General Plan. As long as a developer can provide Community Benefits to
sweeten the deal. the project would be allowed to get higher height, higher density, smaller setback, more office
space, more housing units, more hotel rooms, etc. Anything is up for grabs as the Community Benefits provided
is approved by the Council.
This is a buffet-style Community Benefits program, which make the policies set in the General Plan non-
existent. There is no hard limit -on anythillg, as long as-tne-mo:i:iey is good eiiotigli.
Knowing the residents' concern on building heights and office allocation, the City Council wants to go
ahead and not even set any limit at all. Totally ignore hundreds of residents who sent their written comments
and hundreds of residents who attended the meeting on May 19th.
Vallco comes along and request 2 million square feet of office and 160 feet in building height. It's approved.
Oaks comes along and request 200,000 square feet of office and 100 feet in building height and it's going to be
approved. Next developer will come along and request another 1 million square feet of office and 120 feet in
building height and it will be approved. Where is the limit? None.
If Community Benefits is to be allowed in the General Plan at all, there should be clear policies on what types
of General Plan Amendments are allowed and what are the limits. There should be clear policies what types of
Community Benefits are allowed and how are they determined. Many other cities have set guidelines on
Community Benefits. Butthe Council is unwilling to bound its own hands.
We have seen Community Benefits, which do not benefit the community at all.
Main Street has been able to get 19 times more office space on its two office buildings using ground floor retail
as a Community Benefit. Then, the ground floor retail ends up to serve only office workers. Main Street also got
two extra floors on its garage simply by moving a retail building next to the garage and call it a "ground floor
retail," as a Community Benefit.
Hamptons offers $7 million dollars donation to Civic Center project, which is supported only by a handful of
Council members and does not benefit most of the residents. Oaks is offering to provide bike paths on Mary
A venue as a Community Benefits in order to bring bike traffic to the Mary Bridge, which is barely used. It is
questionable whether nicer bike paths would bring traffic if Mary Bridge is not on the commute path of most
bicyclists.
The Hills at Vallco offered to build a "new" K-5 school to share the same school site as an already over-
crowded school. This new school will force the existing school students to share sports fields. This new school
will also use the neighborhood streets as parking lot since the tiny school hardly has enough space for
classrooms.
Such Community Benefits do not benefits the community. They are determined behind closed doors through
negotiation between developers and stakeholders who benefit from the transaction. Council members get the
developers to donate money to support their own agenda, like the Civic Center project. The surrounding
community who actually get negatively impacted by the development project do not get a say in the deal
making. And often, the deal benefits the developer far far more than it benefits the community.
This practice has to stop and Community Benefits has to be regulated with agreed-upon policies and discussed
in open meetings. The "community" should be involved in the decision making process of Community Benefits.
And we should not confuse mitigation of project impacts, which is a requirement for any development project
with Community Benefits.
Buffet-style Community Benefits lead to uncontrolled growth since the sky is the limit.
Posted By Blogger to BetterCupertino at 8/30/2015 11 :36:00 PM
'Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Resolution 14-078 is against the residents who you represent
From: Liang C [mailto:lfchao@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:28 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt
Subject: Resolution 14-078 is against the residents who you represent
Enclosed is a blog article just published to inform the residents about the truth behind the new process for
General Plan Amendments.
The new process for General Plan Amendments is simply a way to allow Community Benefits program,
renamed voluntary community amenities, to be applied to any parcel in Cupertino in exchange for any increase
in height or office allocation or break any other rule in the General Plan.
Under this new guideline, Oaks can come along and request 1 million office space and 120 feet building; Marin
can come along and request another 1 million office space and 140 feet building. The sky is the limit. The limits
set in the General Plan is non-existent. We may be able to build 10 million square feet of office space by 2040
and Steven Creek could be lined with 10 buildings over 100 feet tall by 2040.
Hundreds of residents have written to you and hundreds of residents have attended the May 19th meeting to
express their concerns on increase in building height and office allocation. Are you going to ignore all of their
concerns and adopt a new process that does the opposite and allow even more increase in building height and
office allocation?
Are you representing the residents of Cupertino who elected you? Or are you representing others who simply
want to make money in Cupertino?
Resolution 15-078 should not be adopted until there is a set guideline to define what General Plan Amendments
are allowed for what type of projects and what Community Benefits programs are allowed in exchange. And
what mechanism could be put in place to ensure that the promised benefits would be delivered.
The city has already suffered from a vague description of Community Benefits program, namely the ground
floor retail component. It has been abused again and again to provide much more benefits to the developers. The
staff and the Council is unwilling to use a proper definition for "retail" and allowed the developers to exploit it.
Now, the Council will introduce another even more loose form of Community Benefits program?
Most recently, Main Street has been able to gain 19 times more office than the amount of ground floor retail
space. Then, the retail is not accessible to the community. The planning staff does not think it's a violation
because there is no definition of "retail" in our General Plan.
Please discontinue the notorious ground floor retail component immediately. Do not use it to grant any more
increase in building height until a clear definition of ground floor retail component is provided in the General
Plan. The policy should also define a proper exchange ratio, such as 1 square foot of office space in exchange
for 1 square foot of office space.
Please do not make the situation even worse by introducing even more vague policies on Community Benefits
program by adopting Resolution 15-078.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Blogger <no-reply@blogger.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11 :36 PM
Subject: [BetterCupertino] Buffet-Style Community Benefits Lead to Uncontrolled Growth
To: lfchao@gmail.com
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015, the Cupertino City Council will deliberate and most likely approve the new
process for General Plan Amendments, which opens the door to uncontrolled growth. The agenda description
does not mention one word about Community Benefits program. But the devil in the details is an unregulated
Community Benefits program, which puts all limits set in the General Plan up on the buff et table to be
broken as long as the price is good,
On May 19th, 2015, facing strong opposition by residents about large increase in building heights and massive
increase in office allocation, the Cupertino City Council voted not to approve the proposed General Plan
Amendment. Instead, the Council considered a staff proposal to establish a process to accept requests for
General Plan Amendments on an annual or biannual bases. It appears that the Council listened to the residents
and slowed down uncontrolled growth pushed by developers. However, that is far from the truth.
The new General Plan Amendment process essentially sets no limit on building height or office allocation
or any other regulation set in the General Plan, As long as a developer can provide Community Benefits to
sweeten the deal. the project would be allowed to get higher height, higher density, smaller setback, more office
space, more housing units, more hotel rooms, etc. Anything is up for grabs as the Community Benefits provided
is approved by the Council.
This is a buffet-style Community Benefits program, which make the policies set in the General Plan non-
existent. There is no hard limit on anything, as long as the money is good enough.
Knowing the residents' concern on building heights and office allocation, the City Council wants to go
ahead and not even set any limit at all. Totally ignore hundreds of residents who sent their written comments
and hundreds of residents who attended the meeting on May 19th.
Vallco comes along and request 2 million square feet of office and 160 feet in building height. It's approved.
Oaks comes along and request 200,000 square feet of office and 100 feet in building height and it's going to be
approved. Next developer will come along and request another 1 million square feet of office and 120 feet in
building height and it will be approved. Where is the limit? None.
If Community Benefits is to be allowed in the General Plan at all, there should be clear policies on what types
. of_ G~n_e~al flap. All1~l1c:l:Q1_e11ts. a:@ _ajl()\V~d and what are the limits. There should be clear policies what types of
Co1nmunity Benefits are allowed and how are-theY-det_e_tIDli1ed.-M8.iiY-other-CitieS-haVe-Sef-griidelilles--Ori---------
Community Benefits. But the Council is unwilling to bound its own hands.
We have seen Community Benefits, which do not benefit the community at all.
Main Street has been able to get 19 times more office space on its two office buildings using ground floor retail
as a Community Benefit. Then, the ground floor retail ends up to serve only office workers. Main Street also got
two extra floors on its garage simply by moving a retail building next to the garage and call it a "ground.floor
retail," as a Community Benefit.
Hamptons offers $7 million dollars donation to Civic Center project, which is supported only by a handful of
Council members and does not benefit most of the residents. Oaks is offering to provide bike paths on Mary
A venue as a Community Benefits in order to bring bike traffic to the Mary Bridge, which is barely used. It is
questionable whether nicer bike paths would b1ing traffic if Mary Bridge is not on the commute path of most
bicyclists.
The Hills at Vallco offered to build a "new" K-5 school to share the same school site as an already over-
crowded school. This new school will force the existing school students to share sports fields. This new school
will also use the neighborhood streets as parking lot since the tiny school hardly has enough space for
classrooms.
Such Community Benefits do not benefits the community. They are determined behind closed doors through
negotiation between developers and stakeholders who benefit from the transaction. Council members get the
developers to donate money to support their own agenda, like the Civic Center project. The surrounding
community who actually get negatively impacted by the development project do not get a say in the deal
making. And often, the deal benefits the developer far far more than it benefits the community.
This practice has to stop and Community Benefits has to be regulated with agreed-upon policies and discussed
in open meetings. The "community" should be involved in the decision making process of Community Benefits.
And we should not confuse mitigation of project impacts, which is a requirement for any development project
with Community Benefits.
Buffet-style Community Benefits lead to uncontrolled growth since the sky is the limit.
Posted By Blogger to BetterCupertino at 8/30/2015 11 :36:00 PM
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Better Cupertino < bettercupertino@gmail.com >
Wednesday, September 02, 2015 8:07 AM
City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk; David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Fwd: [BetterCupertino] Weekly Community Benefits Workshop for Developers, but None
for Residents
I would like to clarify the issue Peggy and I brought up last night at the Council meeting. We are not objecting
to the two Council members attending the weekly stakeholder meetings. We are objecting to the fact that the
City Manager and Staff refused to provide any information to the residents when asked repeatedly. And
the one workshop promised never materialized.
The City of Cupertino consistently kept the residents in the dark, while providing all the information to
developer community through the City Staff and consultants, paid for by the taxpayers.
From Febrary to April of 2015, the residents asked for any infonnation on Community Benefits multiple times
and they were denied. Even the promised workshop on Community Benefits never materialzed. Yet, at the same
time, the City Staff has been presenting materials on Community Benefits at weekly stakeholder meetings on
Community Benefits program. The very stakeholders, Cupertino residents, were excluded from the
meetings and denied any information.
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:50 PM
EXHIBIT
Subject: Fwd: [BetterCupertino] Weekly Community Benefits Workshop for Developers, but None for
Residents
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>,
City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
(for Agenda Item 4)
On Feb. 6, Feb. 17, March 26 and April 7, 2015, BetterCupertino have inquired multiple times to request any
information on any research the City Staff have done on Community Benefits program. The Staff shared
nothing.
On April 14, we requested to have a Q&A session on community benefits before May 19 meeting. Barry Chang
replied that it's a good idea. The city manager never even replied to the request.
On April 21, during Council meeting, City Manager mentioned they will organize a workshop when asked by
the Council.
On April 28, people ask about workshop. Staff said they are working on a date.
On May 8: Staff told the residents: No workshop will be held.
Till today, September 1. Resolution 15-078 will be approved to allow Community Benefits program, aptly
renamed as "voluntary community amenities" without any constraint.
1
The City still has not held any workshop to infonn the residents on the various Community Benefits program
considered. The Study Session held on June 30 was only focused on the frequency of the new GP A process, not
on the most important topic, Community Benefits program.
However, through a friendly source, we accidentally discovered that from March to April, the City Staff have
been attending and reporting at a weekly stakeholder meetings for Community Benefits, attended by every
developer in town, two Council members, and the school districts. There were at least 7 meetings on March
9, March 18, March 20, March 26, March 30, April 3, April 8 and April 13. Maybe more later. The City
Staff and consultants had attended many of the meetings and provided presentation on their research on
Community Benefits program.
Around the same time, the residents were denied any information at all on Community Benefits program.
BetterCupertino has inquired the City Manager David Brandt about such weekly stakeholder meeting on
Community Benefits on August 24 and on August 31. We have not received any reply from the City
Manager at all.
The attendee list of this weekly stakeholder meeting on Community Benefits includes two Council members,
Rod Sinks and Savita Vaidhyanathan, both Superintendents ofFUHSD and CUSD, and almost every developers
in town, Sand Hill, Marina (Amy Chan), Irvine Company (Hamptons), KT Urban (Oaks), Kimco Realty
(Cupertino Village), Prometheus (City Center), and Cupertino Inn, plus a team of consultants and attorneys,
including Xavier Campos (Ford & Bonilla, Lobbyist & Consulting Firm), Ben Sigman ofEPS (Economic
consultants), consultants from VER on Land Use Planning, financial consultants from Leeward Financial,
attorneys from Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, and also Neil Struthers, head of Construction Labor Union.
Among the long list .of ''stakeholders" for Community Benefits, the true stakeholders, Cupertino residents, who
intentionally kept out. Even after repeated attempts to inquire about more information on Community Benefits,
the residents were denied access. Not even one workshop was held for the residents.
One wonders. Who pays for the salaries of the City Staff? Who paid for those consultants and attorneys who
proposed various models of Community Benefits program during these meetings? The very stakeholders,
Cupertino residents, that were excluded from the meeting and denied any information.
Then, after all that efforts by the staff and consultants to study Community Benefits program, Resolution 15-
078 proposes to throw them all away since they are too restrictive. The Council wants only "flexibility for
managing growth," which is in fact uncontrolled growth.
Here are snippets of what happened in each meeting:
March 9:Thanks for coming to our first stakeholders meeting.
March 18: City staff suggested using a dollar per sq ft formula to assess all new developments based on the sq ft
size of the development. Most people at the table thought it may work as a concept, ...
March 20: We learned from legal point of view, there was no nexus between the assessment and project, and if
implemented, it could likely be challenged. Staff offered another alternative straw man structure, similar to the
City of Morgan Hill's ordinance ...
March 26: The group of attorneys came up with four community benefits options and would like to
discuss pros and cons of each with the sub-group.
2
March 30: City staff and their attorney presented 4 community benefits options to the subgroup this afternoon
for comments.
April 3: City staff and their consulting team presented a straw man community benefits model that essentially is
based on an annual allocation of housing tmits, office space and hotel rooms. Community benefits will be based
on amount per sq ft., etc. Many questions were raised, including the assuming used on the performa models.
April 8: They think it's more productive for the developer groups to contact the City's economic consultant, Ben
Sigman ofEPS, directly ifthere are questions about the economic assumptions used. Ben's contact info: 510-
841-9190,
April 13: The economic consultant made a presentation from 3:00pm to 5:00pm, at City Hall's
Conference C.
CRSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org
~ ,..~
}dV#"
Paid for by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015,
FPPC #1376003
Posted By Blogger to BetterCupertino at 9/01/2015 04:24:00 PM
3
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 5:12 PM
City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk
ce 1It!1 s-
:c:tJ24'Y\ # l/
Subject: Fwd: [BetterCupertino] Main Street by Sand Hill -Actions Speak Louder Than Words
(For Agenda Item 4)
The Council may argue that the developer agreement is binding and that would be sufficient to ensure that the
developer provides the promised voluntary community amenities.
The many modifications at Main Street from the approved plan in 2009 to the plan today should be a reminder
to you that the developer agreement is NOT binding since the Council continues to give in to developer's
demands to modify the agreement.
Here are a list of changes, just for one project.
• 260,000 square feet of office ( 4 stories, 60 feet tall) -bumped up from 100,000 s.f. in two 60-feet tall
buildings.
• 130,500 square feet ofretail -reduced from 147,000 s.f.
• 145,000 s.f. Athletic club?-Gone. Not replaced by more retail, but replaced by more office.
• 0.5 acre park (since the other 0.2 acre is a narrow strip of walkway) -reduced from 0.75 acre, which
was reduced from 0.89 acre.
• 120 market-rate residential rental units -160 senior housing? Gone. Low income housing? Gone. Any
compensation for schools? Not a part of development agreement.
• 7 story garage -bumped up from 4 stories before. The building height at the railing of the top floor is
over 60 feet.
• 180-room hotel (Marriott Residence Inn) -400-person banquet hall? Gone.
Even when there are rules and regulations, developers and their lawyers will do their best to break them. When
there is no rule to govern the Community Benefits, you can be sure that the developer agreement will get
modified over and over again to profit the developers.
Please do not adopt Resolution 15-078 since it unleashes a Community Benefits program that have no rules to
follow.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Blogger <no-reply@blogger.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:50PM
Subject: [BetterCupertino] Main Street by Sand Hill -Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Since 2009 when the project was first approved, Cupertino Main Street, which promised to be a downtown like
Santana Row, has been slowly transformed into an office park with 260,000 square feet of office and only
130,000 square feet of retail. In comparison, Santana Row has only 60,000 square feet of office and 600,000
square feet ofretail on 43 acres. Main Street only has 17 acres ofland. The office portion in Santana Row is
only 1/10 of its retail space. Yet, the office portion of Main Street is double the size of its retail space, making it
an office park, not a retail center nor a downtown as promised.
Actions speak louder than words. Let's take a look at what happened and transfonned Cupertino Main Street. It
1
started out well with well-received community outreach
"We did this with Main Street Cupertino," Pau said. "We had 34 public meetings and met with 1,000 people
before we even finalized our plan. (Silicon Valley Business Journal, Nov. 17, 2014)
That's right. There was a lot of outreach in 2009 for Main Street. And Sand Hill did propose a plan that even the
residents were happy at that time. That includes 100,000 square feet office, 160 senior housing (with 15% low
income housing), 147,000 square feet ofretail commercial, 145,000 square feet of athletic club, 4-story garage,
a 160-room hotel (with 400-person banquet hall) and 0.75 acre park. And the maximum height was 45 feet
for most buildings.
Here is the 2009 Main Street Site Plan:
fVf<.IUt
IJf/G-;lJ'zl::t
l-tt~•J1!1'.:1
fi-K• .. ;..:•~J :>O;-<..,.•-.
..
lv!A!N STREET CUPERTINO
1.f. p, .;;. 1 E. P. B ! T E P L A N
S,AND HlLL Pt~OPeiHlY COl\<1Pi-\l\JY'
C"JP~Riir1C·, r-:l-..U! ;"'::!~i;u.
Wlia.t-does Main Street have now?
-------·~----
-~~'!.~!~-·-·---··-·~·
~J\11.. '1:."J,Jit,!W
crr:a.i
HOlf.l
liltll~tl~(UJO
j';J\~d!tl~J~.r.Mt1l
!t~,l.n.~.A!.fti
~Jl!·P~C:t:
~JI'(' Ulft!iut
~ ir.ol!l~MI/
~~ .'.!H_~.~
tlit<Olt)~}
!51~ -re:.1 !lTl.l.Lf.li-V.lliOW.1N.Ql!I
t~'!.0001$1 •
ll!l.ll./>'IH\$ 100~11.l.l.~ lo'Urtll
4 11£ll.r:f ~A-i;:ii·~~r r1'r~;ii@~i.~,?2,~S(.~
; 1'''· •· ~,:::\x~h:>( ! H..f~'jtd.t~ I
! t~'"(;tf
i
-.... -..--
·;gr;;:>~:i~'1~~~~: .. }. w,; ~-
-~~:;'1:;\g ~;:1 ~--~
f'l.'.'1 i:l!~.~'\(~;;1
' (J~~;' ; 'T li" ~· ''7 ~
• 260,000 square feet of office ( 4 stories, 60 feet tall) -bumped up from 100,000 s.f. in two 60-feet tall
buildings.
• 130,500 square feet ofretail -reduced from 147,000 s.f.
• 145,000 s.f. Athletic club?-Gone. Not replaced by more retail, but replaced by more office.
• 0.5 acre park (since the other 0.2 acre is a narrow strip of walkway) -reduced from 0.75 acre, which
was reduced from 0.89 acre.
• 120 market-rate residential rental units -160 senior housing? Gone. Low income housing? Gone. Any
compensation for schools? Not a part of development agreement.
• 7 story garage -bumped up from 4 stories before. The building height at the railing of the top floor is
over 60 feet.
• 180-room hotel (Marriott Residence Inn) -400-person banquet hall? Gone.
2
After 2012, Sand Hill came to the City Council to modify their plan again again, little by little, in separate
council meetings, that no one can keep track. Most residents did not find out about the changes until the 60-feet
buildings are built and they start to ask questions in 2014.
Now. Vallco also had 25 outreach meetings and more than 1000 residents they claim.
However, have they modified their plan at all? They come back with the same 2 million square feet of office,
more than double the number of housing, and still half the amount ofretail as the current Valko.
,Let's look at Sand Hill's actions, not just their words or pictures.
REFERENCE:
Main Street 2009 Approved Site Plan
(http://cupertino.granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view id= 18&clip id= 1319&meta id=73176)
Posted By Blogger to BetterCupertino at 8/30/2015 03:50:00 PM
3
Grace Schmidt
Cc 1 /1 /1 ,)
u-~ tl-l/
From: Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 5:34 PM Sent:
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk
Subject: Abuses of "Ground Floor Retail Component in exchange for 15 feet in height" Should be
Regulated or Stopped EXHIBIT
(For Agenda Item 4)
Before we open the door to extend Community Benefits program, let's fix the problem with the current
C01mnunity Benefits program, which has been severely abused, namely the "Ground Floor Retail Component in
exchange for 15 feet in height". The policy has been in the General Plan since 2005. It has been abused again
and again to provide much more acreage to the developer with little benefits to the co1mnunity.
You may not have approved those projects in the past which abused this policy. However, if you don't fix this
policy and allow it continue to be used, you are agreeing to such abuse.
Just for Main Street project alone, the "Ground Floor Retail Component" has been used to provide extra square
footage that probably totals tens of millions of dollars. Yet, the community gets nothing in retum so far.
The reason that this policy is abused severely is simple. It is not well defined. The "retail component" is not
defined. The accessibility of the retail component is not well defined. The ratio of exchange is not defined. As a
result, it gets abused.
Resolution 15-078 is yet another even more loose policy that ce1iainly will get abused over and over again.
Please do not adopt Resolution 15-078 without an ordinance to regulate C01mnunity Benefits program and
methods on enforcement.
1) ABUSE: Developer gets 19 times more office space than the amount of retail space provide,
which was not even accessible by the community. This twists the intent of the policy. Each of the 2
office buildings received 30,000 sq. ft. of additional space via a height increase from 45' to 60' in
exchange for 1,600 sq. ft. of retail on the first floor of each building. Furthem1ore, a letter from Sand
Hill indicated that the 3,200 sq. ft. would not be available to the public. No action was taken by the City
to object or c01rect such violation of the condition of approval.
2) ABUSE: Developer gets 100,000 square feet of garage space with zero retail space provided. The
top floor of the garage is at 60 feet height even though there is no ground floor retail component inside
the garage. The developer is granted such height exception by shifting another existing standalone retail
building right next to the garage, and claims the other retail building as the ground floor retail
component. This is another applicati01i that twists the intent of the "ground floor retail component"
policy. And the City allowed such twisting of policy to go unchallenged.
3) ABUSE: Developer gets 52,000 square feet of hotel space with hotel restaurant as retail
component. The community benefit provided in exchange for height should go over and beyond any
component already provided as a part of the project. Hotel restaurants should not be considered as a
community benefit in exchange for extra height. However, this policy has been abused again and again
to provide extra floors to hotels.
1
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Blogger <no-reply@blogger.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:26 PM
Subject: [BetterCupertino] Many Voilations at Main Street (Sand Hill) Ignored by the City of Cupertino
Even when t4ere arc limits set in the General Plan, some developers would find any possible loophole to stretch
the set limit to maxinrnmtheir profit. All these suspected violations mentioned below are brought up with the
Planning Department, but the City Staff would rather interpret the law to stretch its boundaries to allow the
developers to get away with these violations.
When policies are vague and non-specific, the developers and their attorneys will exploit them to their
advantage. And these policies have been abused again and again to profit the developers at the expense of the
residents. The "ground floor retail component in exchange for 15 feet in height" policy in the 2000-2020
General Plan has been badly abused, as a Cmmnunity Benefits. But in the end, the ground floor retail
component often does not benefit the community. And tomorrow (September 1, 2015) the City Council will
approve a hew GP A process to allow Community Benefits program with no set policy. Such program will
simply be open to more abuse.
However, when common citizens unintentionally violate any Municipal Code while renovating or simply
adding a ramp for one's disabled children, the city strictly enforce the law and charge hefty fine and request the
struchlre in violation to be torn down.
For Main Street project alone, Sand Hill already cmmnitted many suspected violations, listed below. One
resident, Jon, has painstakingly studied the architecture and site plans of Main Street. According to his
investigation, all these are clear violations of the General Plan. However, the Cupertino Planning Department .
has refused to acknowledge that.
The following are what appear to be actions taken by the Cupertino Planning Department that allows
developer violations of the 2000-2020 General Plan which was in effect at the time of the project
submittals/approvals.
1) VIOLATION: Building plane of 1.5:1 on N. Tantau Avenue is violated. Developer
drawings submitted on 2012-09-15 for the project shows a building plane of 1 :1 on N. Tantau
Avenue but at the time of the submittal the Cupertino General Plan required a building plane of
1.5: 1. These drawings were not rejected although they violated the existing City guidelines.
2) VIOLATION: Office tower on N. Tantau Avenue violates even 1:1 building plane. The
tower on N. Tantau Ave. does not even fit within the building plane ratio of 1: 1 which was
changed from 1 :5:1to1 :1 on October 15, 2013 on N. Tantau Avenue. Figure 2-D of the 2000-
2020 General Plan states "Setback Ratios: Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1: 1 slope
line drawn from the arterial street curb line or lines ... " (See Attachment 2-F.) The occupied
office tower is part of the bulk of the building. This tower is not below the 1: 1 slope line and is a
clear violation of this requirement. The City did not challenge this violation.
3) VIOLATION: Parking structure exceeds 60' height limit. On the parking stn.1chlres, the
vehicles and barricades are above the 60' allowed height for the parking garage. The City did not
challenge this violation.
2
4) VIOLATION: The towers at the roof of the office buildings are significantly above the 60'
height limit. The General Plan states that rooftop structures may exceed the sitipulated height
only if they are mechanical equipment. The City did not challenge this violation.
In the 2000-2020 General Plan, the height limit for the Main Street site is 45 feet. However, if a
ground floor retail component is provided, the height can be increased to 60 feet. The intent of
this policy is to provide ground floor retail component that's accessible to the community as a
"community benefit", although such tenn was not used specifically.
5) ABUSE: Developer gets 19 times more office space than the amount of retail space
provide, which was not even accessible by the community. This twists the intent of the policy.
Each of the 2 office buildings received 30,000 sq. ft. of additional space via a height increase
from 45' to 60' in exchange for 1,600 sq. ft. ofretail on the first floor of each building.
Furthennore, a letter from Sand Hill indicated that the 3,200 sq. ft. would not be available to the
public. No action was taken by the City to object or correct such violation of the conditlon of
approval.
6) ABUSE: Developer gets 100,000 square feet of garage space with zero retail space
provided. The top floor of the garage is at 60 feet height even though there is no ground floor
retail component inside the garage. The developer is granted such height exception by shifting
another existing standalone' retail building right next to the garage, and claims the other retail
building as the ground floor retail component. This is another application that twists the intent of
the "ground floor retail component" policy. And the City allowed such twisting of policy to go
unchallenged.
7) ABUSE: Developer gets 52,000 square feet of hotel space with hotel restaurant as retail
component. The c01mnunity benefit provided in exchange for height should go over and beyond
any component already provided as a part of the project. Hotel restaurants should not be
considered as a community benefit in exchange for extra height. However, this policy has been
abused again and again to provide extra floors to hotels.
8) VIOLATION/ABUSE: Only 0.55 acre of parkland is provided when 0.75 acre is in the
approved plan. Developer counts 0.2 acre of narrow buffer area as a paii of the park. But the
usable parkland area is only 0.55 acre. Main Street project has 102 housing units. With 2.29
people per housing unit (Santa Clara C61mty Standard), the 234 people in Main Street's ,
residential units need 0.7 acre of parkland fro 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The amount of
parkland provided violates the General Plan policy on parkland.
Since the "ground floor retail component" policy is instated in the 2000-2020 General Plan. It has been
abused again and again to let developers get two extra floors for a building of any size with minimal
community benefit. The Council joked that any vending machine could qualify as a ground floor
component, but never tried to amend the-policy so that it is clearly defined. And the Council again and again
approve developer projects that provide minimal community benefits in exchange for two extra floors in
3
height.
When the Community Benefits program is not well-defined, it will be abused by the developers as long as
they can get 3 Council members to approve their plan even if the Community Benefits program they
propose does not benefit the community at all. We need a well-defined and structured Community Benefits
so that it cannot be easily abused.
MHltJ ::=
CRSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org
Paid for by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA
95015, FPPC #1376003
·Posted By Blogger to BetterCupertino at 8/31/2015 02:26:00 PM
4
I
11 0 0 ~ ~
)> 0 c.o
CD ~ ::J I ' Q_ I I OJ CD CD -r-+
CD :::J 3 0.. ~
0 ~ 0 ::J
(J) CD CD •
I D I . ·-V ---L 0.. 0
0 0 < m c
::J en () • >< -· -I • I ~ ·-V :r: CD I CD I -I r-+ -·
OJ ::J 0 c.o
• I ~ -i
An Evaluation System
Figure 1 Map of Bonus FAR Provisions
• ~· '• ~· ;a
~· •• 2•--
-I '• ~. a :•
"I
I • •
:~
]52
..
' ' ............
......
~ Sending Site """'°" .. LJ R.eceivirrg Site "-,
with Scnus FAR 1'> ""
f;c• .. ,,,.,.,:j Park/Open Space O,,,,rlay ".," ....
::=~~:=,~(\~ "",
, ..
i
! ·:i
othcrhcightandbulk ., .. ,. :1:.-\, """""-
r"Mtric:t1on1 coouint'd ln ~ .. _ °" ~ ~Ct>Onsofthi!Cen~Ciry ''1' "'°._, __ .,. '\<
Pl:iinncd Disuia Ordin.;ance. ...,.,..._ ' ,,
==T"""r '-.,
Not~: lnJomution shown out'SHie me C"=ntrc
C1ty Pb.nO(!d Dist.net Boundary n fer
pt.in.nl"" purposes only.
Source: San Diego Municipal Code
,, ......
10
FigureK,.
Sonus,FAR for
Specific: Amenities
,-··~dlor: ParksTDR
t c
I
\
.• ;·'
.. .. ,//
• ...... <!, ....... -·· /
Figure 2 Community Benefit Incentives
Public Benefit/
Development Amenity
Affordable Housing
Urban Open Space
10%ofsite
200./ci of site
Three-Bedroom Units
50% of residential
GSF
800.lci of GSF
residential
Eco Roofs
Public Parking
FAR Payment Bonus
Program
Green Building
Source: City of San Diego
Maximum FAR Bonus
(addition to base FAR)
Formulaic
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
Formulaic
5.0
2.0
Notes
In compliance with State Density Bonus Law
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
To receive max bonus roof must be
accessible to residents
1 square foot of parking earns 1 square foot
bonus development entitlement
Set in 2007 at$15/sf and updated annually
based on CPI; funds parks, open space, and
right of way acquisitions
Performance path (allows applicants to
demonstrate level of sustainability) and
prescriptive path {select from a menu of
green building options)
An Enforcement Strategy
Community Benefits Agreements: Definitions, Values, and Legal Enforceability
Julian Gross
Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law
Vol. 17, No. 1/2, Community Benefits Agreements (Fall 2007/Winter 2008), pp. 35-58
Published by: American Bar Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25782803 Page Count: 24 Reference Count: 82
I. CBA Definition and Values ......................................................................... 37
A. Inclusiveness, Democracy, and Accountability ................................. 37
B. Elements of the CBA Definition .......................................................... 39
1. A CBA concerns a single development project.. ........................... 39
2. A CBA is legally enforceable contract ............................................ 39
3. A CBA addresses a range of community interests ....................... 40
4. A CBA is the product of substantial community
involvement ....................................................................................... 40
C. Definitions, Values, and the New York Experience ......................... .40
1. The Bronx Terminal Market agreement ....................................... .41
2. The Yankee Stadium agreement ..................................................... 42
3. The Columbia University agreement ........................................... .43
D. Roles of Elected Officials and Community Groups .......................... 44
II. Private versus Public CBAs ........................................................................ 45
A. Private CBAs: Enforceable Stand-Alone Agreements
Between Comnumity Groups and Developers ................................ .46
B. Public CBAs: Enforceable Agreements Between
Governmental Entities and Developers, Resulting
from a CBA campaign ........................................................................... 47
C. Enforcement Issues with Public CBAs .............................................. .47
1. Mechanisms for Private Enforcement of Commitments
in Development Agreements ................................ : ......................... 48
2. Enforceable Agreements Behveen Community Groups
and Governmental Entities ............................................................. 49
3. Summary of Private Enforcement Options for
Commitments in Development Agreements ................................ 51
Julian Gross is the director of the Community Bene.fits Law Center (CBLC), which
is the legal program of the Partnership for Working Families. He has represented coali-
tions of community-based organizations in n.egotiation of numerous CBAs. The CBLC
provides legal support to advocates around the country on CBAs and a range of related
issues. The Partnership for Working Families is a national network of community-
based organizations that develop and promote strategies to build community power and
reshave reQ"ional economies to benefit workers and nei~hborhoods.
The widespread national interest in CBAs and related tools indicate that
the issues addressed in this article will be relevant for some time. Misuse of
the CBA terminology and concept is a serious danger, because of the real-
world consequences involved. Community-based organizations may press
for a CBA process because they see it as a tool for addresslng inequality and
changing the balance of power around development decisions. The New York
experience suggests that supporters of controversial projects see a different
type of potential in the term and concept the potential to control and limit
community involvement and dampen opposition to controversial projects.
How the CBA concept is used in the future will determine whether
the tool itself can truly change the development process for the better, or
whether it ends up merely consolidating the power of interests that already
exert the bulk of control over the development process: elected officials,
their staff, and the developers themselves. Reserving use of the term CBA
for agreements that result from a truly inclusive process and that involve le-
gally enforceable commitments can help this tool continue to be a powerful
mechanism for changing the outcomes of urban economic development.
We should
• halt the GPA process discussion until we have a clear
picture of community benefit program
• provide public on factual information on what we can
achieve, what we need sacrifice and what is at risk with
potential community benefit program
• form a citizen advisory board to study the issues with
community benefit program
• if such a program is preferred by the public, come up
detailed evaluation system and feasible enforcement
strategy
COMMUNITY BENEFITS ABUSE AT MAIN STREET
45' ~60'
FO:RRETAIL
DEVELOP.ER GOT 26,000 ffl_. CUPERTINO GOT A RESTAURA1\1T IN THE HOTE,L
45'-+ 60'
FOR RETAIL
m >< I
I-I
CP
~ I
--1
'}
1
{.
'I
l
-,
£.
..
~
"
.. • ~ ..
't .,,
0 ..
f • c r:
0
:.i: .
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO -ASA PACKAGE DESCRIPTIONS
December l 3, 201 3
The following summary describes the building designs as they have evolved after
the approval of Main Street Cupertino (project plans dated 12/22/2011) by the City
Council of the City of Cupertino (resolution No. 12-098).
Designs incorporate responses to Conditions of Approval, on-going coordination
with City departments, and responses to specific comments and directions from the
Planning, Public Works, and Building departments. The following descriptions are
meant to supplement the plans, elevations, color plans and material boards being
submitted for ASA/DRC review.
SITE PLAN
Through the planning review process the Site Plan went through various
modifications, with the final approved plan being dated 9I4/2012.
The current Site Plan is consistent with the approved plan, but has been modified
and improved through on-going coordination and reviews by the Planning and
Public Works Departments.
The Main Street Cupertino development creates a truly dynamic environment that
establishes a new downtown for the City of Cupertino. The landscape plazas and
gathering spaces provide beautiful and functional outdoor environments that
support the Northern California lifestyle. The landscape development includes a
Town Square for public and private recreational gatherings and celebrations, a
Retail Village with restaurant plazas for outdoor dining and a variety of shopping
experiences, a community park with links to the surrounding communities, a vibrant
Hotel-Get1rtyard rich with amenities. New office buildings anchor the development,
with outdoor plazas for employee use. The Lofts Apartments provide vibran1· retail
and clubhouse plazas, activating the surrounding street frontages.
Bv
The design of SHOPS l is reflective of and comp[ementary to the design of SHOPS 6
at the western end of Main Street. It has the same simple, modern design with
overlapping wall planes of horizontal tongue & groove wood siding and stucco.
Window canopies are metal framing with pre-finished metal panel cladding. Exterior
walls terminate at a pre-finished aluminum cap flashing. Storefront system is clear
anodized aluminum with large panels of clear glazing.
SHOPS I provides an elegant punctuation to the easterly entry drive to Main Street,
and relates to the modern design elements of the OFFICE buildings as well as to FLEX
2 across the corner.
OFFICES 1 & 2
These buildings have been detailed to meet requirements of the "Heart of the City"
ordinance by:
• stepping back upper floors to avoid encroachment into setbacks;
• articulating fac;ade elements by using different window treatments, multiple
arcades, decks and material changes;
• placing emphasis on the main entrances by increasing the height of the entry
towers, introducing a curtain wall window system, and providing large glass
canopy at entry doors.
Each building is 4 stories in height. These office buildings could house a single tenant
or multiple tenants. By placing the buildings at 90 degrees to one another, the .. first
and second floor arcades form a continuous feature visible from Stevens Creek and
create a termination to the view down Main Street from the retail shops. The hip
roof of the arcade transitions to the Jrd and 4th floors, which are stepped back; this
roof also helps to reduce the apparent height of the buildings.
Materials used in OFFICE 1 & 2 are stucco walls with horizontal and vertical reveal
joints, GFRC trim, horizontal wood tongue & groove siding and decorative metal
guardrails at terraces. Hip roofs and roof screens are "mission" clay tile, except at
the entrance towers which have standing seam metal roofs as accent. Each
building has a trellis feature at the ground floor to add detail and pedestrian scale.
The arcades and terraces at the 2nd and 3rd floors provide areas for office tenants to
enjoy, and also allow for interaction between the office buildings and retail speces.
Differing configurations of windows creates interest on the facades and brings scale
to OFFICES l & 2. Verticality is only emphasized at the main towers, where a window
wall system creates a feature at the primary entries, along with a large steel and
glass canopy. Introducing horizontal wood siding throughout the fa<~~ade, a warm
character is developed as well as creating a connection to wood siding on the
Retail buildings. Wood siding is also used on the trash enclosure near OFFICE 1.
The retail in the office buildings is intended to be amenities for the office user(s).
Each office building will have a small retail/activit s ace to support a caf~retail,
markffipfocewifn fo~gof0cxr·~or§exerCiSe10'c1 I . ·7. ... . :.·ea~_,the.~f~~-
s 0 ecause 0 e sensitivity by office tenants to operating in a se7:"'Gr~nd ~c•o=n•rillo•e•d!iiie•nvironment. f' / · V1()/t;(.l-e, "f't,,.,,,e, i/'~q1h'I!'~,-.+ d Jl"o Tczc
tt.i. e}}(cl....ow.c;Q ·FQr ttA.C/<ec.c.c~J "1.etqkT,
PARKING STRUCTURE
The PARKING STRUCTURE hds 9 levels: 3 underground, l at ground level and 5 levels
above ·rhe ground level. The parking spaces in the structure will serve the Retail
buildings, the Office buildings and the Hotel. Future Loft Apartments will have an
underground garage constructed as part of that project.
From the original design, the PARKING STRUCTURE has been enhanced to be more
compatible with the design concepts of Main Street Cupertino. Specifically, the
entrance tower was revised to be not only more distinct and prominent, but also
consistent with design elements and materials of the FLEX 1 and FLEX 2 buildings.
The lower portion of the tower ·
Multiple levels of detailing on the perimeter fac;:;ade columns create scale and
eliminate bulkiness. Large format tile at the base of columns adds variety. Wrought
iron decorative railings and open stairs add interest. At the ground floor and at the
stair towers, openings are enhanced by chevron-pattern metal infill elements.
From the ground level to the 2nd level, the frn;ade has additional column features to
reduce the apparent scale. Stair towers, large decorative columns and sub-
columns are painted lighter than the basic structure to create a rhythm and break
up the long facades.
CUPERTINO
EXHIBIT
11 On May 19, 2015, Council directed the
following:
-Present additional details on other programs
that require community benefits
-Deferred decision on policy for approximately
90 days
-Placed new GPA applications on hold until
decision is made on policy
9/1/2015
~~·My
1
• Following was presented
-White Papers
• Pros and cons of various programs
• General guidance on developing a policy that addressed City's
concerns and particular needs for managing growth
-Proposed policy for processing GPA applications
• Council provided input to:
-Consider allowing GPA applications twice a year
-Consider allowing the Council to provide direction to applicants and a
possibility cif a "second chance" before the next review cycle
-Move forward with a policy vs. an ordinance at this time
11 Set up process that addresses growth, manages
development and responds to community
concerns:
-Ability to achieve orderly development of the City
through a managed process
--Er-isure thatadditional developmenLcan achLeveL
improve facility/service and quality of life standards
-Provide opportunity for early community input
-Ease of implementation
-Impact on staff and other resources
9/1 /2015
2
• Processed as they are received
• Project review concurrent with environmental review
• If DA sought, negotiated at the same time
• Then, public hearings are scheduled with approval bodies
for final entitlements
• Public input:
-Sought through out the process
-Since each application processed separately, neither Council nor
public has a chance to get early input in the process
• 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 pians
-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
9/1/2015
3
• 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
• 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.
9/1 /2015
4
• GPA applications would be considered twice a year
• Applications allowed a "second chance" by the Council, to
submit revisions/information within 30 days
• Applications rejected have to wait for a year before re-
applying (i.e. may not re-apply in the subsequent cycle)
9/1 /2015
5
•Anticipated volume of GPA applications will require
additional staff resources
• New procedures could require even more staffing
depending on complexity of process approved by Council
9/1/2015
6
That the City Council:
Adopt Resolution 15-078 adopting procedures for
authorizing the processing of General Plan amendment
applications
• If adopted as policy, deadline for first annual review will
be established and policy will be implemented
• If new policy or ordinance not adopted, current procedure
of processing GPA applications Will continue
•As noted, additional staff will be required to implement
the program. Staffing plan will be brought to the Council
at a subsequent meeting based on the Council's decision
9/1/2015
7
'competition
·based
preview·
Applic'!nt to offer
appropriate voluntary
community ameniUes,.
9/1/2015
8
9/1/2015
9
•Allows City to manage orderly processing of GPA's
a 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 lfpfront alia trans-p-arenfpro-cess-before pTojects
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
9/1 /2015
10