Exhibit CC 10-20-15 Item #1 Study Session Ballot MeasureGrace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:04 PM
City Council; City Clerk
Incomplete Staff Report for Study Session on Civic Center
[Please put this as a written communication for Oct. 20 Council Meeting.]
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,
CC I 0/10//to
1=P I
Thank you for hosting a study session for the questions of whether to put Civic Center or Vall co on the ballot
to get voter's approval.
However, there is insufficient background provided for Civic Center. The Staff Report should provide the
estimated cost of Civic Center and what happened on Aug. 18 so that the voters get alerted of the importance of
such study session. Especially the financial impact to the city.
The Staff Report spells out the cost of different elections. But we still have no infonnation on the funding
strategy. As of right now, any information on the funding strategy is still buried inside the Civic Center Master
Plan that's more than 600 pages long.
The agenda description should also clearly specify the financial impact of the Civic Center Master Plan. Yet,
once again, the agenda item failed to mention the estimated cost of the project, which is up to $70 million.
Neither the agenda item nor the staff report mentioned the potential financial burden. of a long term debt for
the city. That's what motivated this study session in the first place. But it is not mentioned.
Please provide further information on Civic Center Master Plan for the study session.
Sincerely,
BetterCupertino
1
SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELECTION -2016 STAND-ALONE SPECIAL, PRES. PRIMARY & GENERAL ELECTIONS
FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
c/o Grace Schmidt (408) 777-3224; email address: graces@cupertino.org
DATA
Registration as of 09/11/2015 24,519
Projected Registration (110% of current registration) 26,971
2016 SPECIAL STAND-ALONE JUNE 2016 PRIMARY ELECTION
COMPUTATION I FOR TWO 6-PG MEASURES FOR TWO 6-PG MEAS 2 issues
Unit Cost Total Costs Unit Cost Total Costs
(a) Base charge $ 14.00 $ 377,593
Initial Issue $ 1.25 $ 33,714
2nd Issue $ 0.34 $ 9,170
3rd Issue
(b) Absentee Voter Charge INCLUDED
Initial Issue $ 0.31 $ 8,361
2nd Issue $ 0.11 $ 2,967
3rd Issue
( c) Shared Printing Costs INCLUDED
Initial Issue $ 0.35 $ 9,440
2nd Issue $ 0.18 $ 4,855
3rd Issue
Total Est Costs of Elections $ 14.00 $ 377,593 $ 2.54 $ 68,506
(d) Four Candidate Statements
(e) Two 6-Page Measure Pages $ 5,894 $ 70,724 $ 5,894 $ 70,724
Total Est Cost of Elections, Cand Stmt & Meas Pages $ 448,316 $ 139,230
NOTES:
Pursuant to Elections Code section 10002, the district is required to reimburse the County in full for the elections
services it has requested. The full costs of the district's share on the costs of the election will be available at
least 60 days after the election. The costs reflected above, are ESTIMATES ONLY and may change following
the final calculation of the actual costs of the election. Please check the CA Election Code and with your legal
Prepared by:
CAROL GOMEZ
ACCOUNTANT III
SCC ROV -Fiscal Division
1555 Berger Drive, San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: (408) 282-3012 Fax: (408) 282-3046
Email: carol.gomez@rov.sccgov.org
2016 City of Cupertino -Comp Est-Special Primary Gen (with 2 Meas).xls
$
$
$
$
$
1o/20/Jr
J:b ... ,.
''
NOV 2016 GENERAL ELECTION
CITY COUNCIL SEATS FOR TWO 6-PG MEAS 2 issues GRAND
Unit Cost Total Costs Unit Cost Total Costs TOTAL
1.25 $ 33,714 $ 33,714
$ 0.34 $ 9,170 $ 9,170
$ 0.34 $ 9,170 $ 9,170
0.31 $ 8,361 $ 8,361
$ 0.11 $ 2,967 $ 2,967
$ 0.11 $ 2,967 $ 2,967
0.35 $ 9,440 $ 9,440
$ 0.18 $ 4,855 $ 4,855
$ 0.18 $ 4,855 $ 4,855
1.91 $ 51,514 $ 1.26 $ 33,983 $ 85,498
2,091 $ 8,364 $ 8,364
$
$ $ 5,894 _! 70,724 $ 70,724
$ 59,879 $ 104,707 $ 164,585
10/19/2015 2:54 PM
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Darrel Lum <drlum@pacbell.net>
Monday, October 19, 2015 4:46 PM
Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Gilbert Wong; City Council
David Brandt; City Clerk
City of Cupertino City Council Study Session Agenda Item #1
1. Study Session Agenda Item #1 on potential Ballot Measures regarding Civic Center Master Plan and Vallco Shopping
District Special Area
Regarding Civic Center Master Plan: Perhaps some consideration of the 2012 Town of Atherton Measure L, "Should
the Town
of Atherton primarily use private donations to construct and design a new Town Center? Other funding sources
might include
funds derived from Building fees or future grant money, but would not use general fund or parcel tax money.
Regarding Vallee Shopping District Special Area: Is it appropriate to place this project on a ballot measure in the
absence of the
General Plan-mandated Vallee Specific Plan, approved plans and specifications for the project, development
agreement
and/or conditions of approval?
1
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com >
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:27 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure
Please note that this comment is in regards to Agenda Item 1 for funding options for Civic Center project.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11 :46 AM
Subject: Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Tenn Financial Plan for Infrastructure
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>,
planning@cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
I have changed the subject line to read "Infrastructure Impact Fee" for clarity, since in some cities
"Development Impact Fee" refers to the mitigation fee for affordable housing.
Why do we need Infrastructure Impact Fee? Why is the EIR not sufficient to mitigate all development impact?
Take the example of the EIR for GP A. It tries to estimation the impact of a 30% ·population growth from 60,000
people to over 90,000.
In the section on "Public Services and Recreation". Every category is reported as "Less Than Significant,"
including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Library Facility Services, Park and Recreation. The reasons used
are either there are already general plan policies or municipal code to ensure a proper level of service or that this
growth will happen incrementally over a 25-year period of time. (See quotes from EIR at the bottom of this
email.)
However, general plan policies or municipal code do not provide funding sources to ensure the level of services
needed. The growth will happen incrementally, but the property tax from growth does not pay for all facilities
needed for increased civil services.
Here is what the current EIR process does. It declares each project as "less than significant" on city services.
After 10 projects, the accumulated impact will eventually become significant. And the next EIR will say this:
"The impact is already 'significant' and it remains 'significant' with this new project. Thus, there is no need to
mitigate the impact." So, as a result, none of the project would need to mitigate the impact on city services.
Then, who will eventually pay to build a new library when the current one is too crowded?
Who will pay to build community centers?
And who will pay for a new city ha117 We the taxpayers.
The city needs to plan for the future and make a financial plan for the future.
Not one project at a time. And get a loan for each project.
1
If any of the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) you have in mind falls into the category
of basic services, like fire, police, library, park, community center, bike path, ... They should be take care of
through Infrastructure Impact Fee.
Any project which does not need any GP A would also pay their share oflnfrastructure Impact Fee.
If the developer is willing to offer more beyond the mandatory Infrastructure Impact Fee, that is then considered
community benefits (or voluntary community amenities). Of course, you can always waive Infrastructure
Impact Fee if the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) is beyond the mandatory amount.
Please make a long tenn investment for the city and a long term financial plan.
-----------------------from EIR Section 4.12 Public Services and Recreation------------------
GP A EIR 4.12-8 Fire Protection Service=> Less than significant
"The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate fire protection
services are available for the residents of Cupertino .... Consequently, compliance with the State and local
regulations, in conjunction with confirmation by the SCCFD that facilities, staff, and equipment would be
adequate to accommodate anticipated future growth, ... "
GP A EIR 4.12-12: Police Protection Service=> Less than significant
"Further, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed Project would significantly increase the degree or
incidence of need for mutual aid from neighbo1ing agencies
because anticipated growth under the General Plan would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year
buildout horizon."
GPA EIR 4.12-24: Library Facility and Services=> Less than significant
"While an overall increase in residents is expected, service growth under the proposed Project would occur
incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon; therefore, potential impacts resulting from increased demand for
library services would not occur in the immediate future."
GP A EIR 4.12-32: Parks and Recreation=> Less than significant
"Overall, the proposed Project would result in development allocation increases throughout the city that would
increase population, and subsequently the demand to parks and recreation facilities throughout the city.
However, because buildout would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon, and future development
would be subject to comply with the Municipal Code Chapters 14.05 and 18.24, and the General Plan policies
listed above that would ensure that future development provide their fair-share of parks to help meet the City's
target of three acres per 1,000 residents, impacts would be less than significant."
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@ginail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Subject: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>,
planning@cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the growing number of
residents. This can be achieved by charging Development Impact Fee, as many other cities have done.
2
These fees help mitigate the aggregated impact of new development projects on basic city services, like parks,
library, community centers, public safety needs, city staff and facility needs, sewage and water systems. Every
new development should contribute to the Development Impact Fee.
For example, Palo Alto has Development Impact Fee that covers Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public
Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities.
Palo Alto Development Impact fee (incl. Park, Comm Ctr, Public Safety) 8-17-15 .pdf
In addition to the Development Impact Fee, Palo Alto also charges a Transportation Impact Fee as Citywide
Transportation hnpact Fee $3,439 per net new PM peak hour trip. (Also specified in the document above)
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the residents. Every new
development, whether or not it requires GP A, should contribute to the Development Impact fee.
Eventually, such impact fee can help fund additional library branches, community centers, police and fire
stations or a new city hall. Other cities have also assessed impact fees for emergency services, sewage and water
systems, etc.
Cupertino should not reply on community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) derived from granting
exception for the General Plan to pay for basic city services. If we do, there is some flaw with the city's
financing structure and it should be fixed.
Note that these fees, if adopted, give the Council negotiation power. When necessary, the Council can always
give developers a discount as an incentive to promote a certain type of development in certain areas, as San Jose
has done. And when economy is slow, the Council can also suspend the collection of the fee for a short time at
your discretion.
Please consider adopt the Development Impact Fee to truly mitigate the impact of new development projects on
basic city services. With so many projects already built and so many new projects being proposed, Cupertino
desperately need to adopt Development Impact Fee to provide basic city services. ·
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
3
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Better Cupertino < bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:27 PM
City Clerk
Fwd: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
Please note that this comment is in regards to Agenda Item 1 for funding options for Civic Center project.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015at11:15 PM
Subject: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>,
planning@cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the growing number of
residents. This can be achieved by charging Development Impact Fee, as many other cities have done.
These fees help mitigate the aggregated impact of new development projects on basic city services, like parks,
library, community centers, public safety needs, city staff and facility needs, sewage and water systems. Every
new development should contribute to the Development Impact Fee.
For example, Palo Alto has Development Impact Fee that covers Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public
Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities.
Palo Alto Development Impact fee (incl. Park, Comm Ctr, Public Safety) 8-17-15 .pdf
In addition to the Development Impact Fee, Palo Alto also charges a Transportation Impact Fee as Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee $3,439 per net new PM peak hour trip. (Also specified in the document above)
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the residents. Every new
development, whether or not it requires GP A, should contribute to the Development Impact fee.
Eventually, such impact fee can help fund additional library branches, community centers, police and fire
stations or a new city hall. Other cities have also assessed impact fees for emergency services, sewage and water
systems, etc.
Cupertino should not reply on community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) derived from granting
exception for the General Plan to pay for basic city services. If we do, there is some flaw with the city's
financing structure and it should be fixed.
1
Note that these fees, if adopted, give the Council negotiation power. When necessary, the Council can always
give developers a discount as an incentive to promote a certain type of development in certain areas, as San Jose
has done. And when economy is slow, the Council can also suspend the collection of the fee for a short time at
your discretion.
Please consider adopt the Development Impact Fee to truly mitigate the impact of new development projects on
basic city services. With so many projects already built and so many new projects being proposed, Cupertino
desperately need to adopt Development Impact Fee to provide basic city services.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
2
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Grace Schmidt
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:10 PM
Grace Schmidt
Subject: FW: Development Impact Fee in Palo Alto
From: Better Cupertino [mailto:bettercupertino@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:49 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt
Subject: Development Impact Fee in Palo Alto
RE: Funding for Civic Center and other infrastructure support
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Palo Alto has been using charging "Development Impact Fee" (DIF) to enhance their infrastructure since 2002,
as this staff report reveals:
A brief summary of Palo Alto's current DIFs (detailed in Attachment B) follows, with enactment dates in
parentheses:
1. Housing Impact Fees for commercial and industrial projects (1984 and updated 2004)
2. Traffic Impact fees in the Stanford Research Park and San Antonio/East Bayshore areas (1989)
3. In-lieu parking fee for downtown development (1995)
4. Parks (2002)
5. Community Centers (2002)
6. Libraries (2002)
7. Transportation (2007)
Every year Palo Alto malces up a Facilities Needs list and adjust their DIF to pay for capitol projects. This year
the DIF also includes "Public Safety Facilities" to pay for a police station and "General Government Facilicies",
besides "Parks", "Community Centers" and "Libraries". In addition to DIF, they also have a separate
Transportation Impact Fee. And also Parking Facitlies Fee for development which does not provide sufficient
parking, since they will use the city streets and city garages.
Palo Also has a Finance Committee to help the Council look at various funding options. In 2012, Palo Alto also
did·a comparative survey ofDIF used in various bay area cities.
Please do not use "community benefits" (or voluntary community amenities) as a proper funding source for city
facility needs.
Please talk a citywide 25-year view of the facilities needs, instead of just one project at a time, like the Civic
Center. Please adopt a proper procedure to assess various funding options, including Development Impact Fee,
which is widely used by many cities.
Sincerely,
BetterCupe1tino
1