Loading...
Exhibit CC 01-19-2016 Item No. 16 Amended Resolution and Written Communications - Fiscal impact report for the initiativeAMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO PREP ARE A REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE ENTITLED, "INITIATIVE AMENDING CUPERTINO'S GENERAL PLAN TO LIMIT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE V ALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT, LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHTS AND LOT COVERAGES IN AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, ESTABLISH NEW SETBACKS AND BUILDING PLANES ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, AND REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL FOR ANY CHANGES TO THESE PROVISIONS" AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, the Cupertino Residents. for Sensible Zoning Action Committee submitted to the City Clerk a Notice of Intent to circulate an initiative petition ("Initiative") and a request for the City Attorney to prepare the official ballot title and summary; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney thereafter prepared the official title and summary for the Initiative and provided it to the Initiative proponents; and WHEREAS, Elections Code section 9212 authorizes the City Council to direct City staff to prepare a report on the impacts of the Initiative, including seven specified types of impacts as well as on "any other matter" that the City Council requests to be included in the report; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such a report would provide valuable information about the Initiative to the Council and to all interested residents of the City; and WHEREAS, this is not a project under provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), in that this is administrative action which does not involve a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the physical environment; and; NOW THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED: 1. The City Council directs City staff to : Resolution No. 16- Page 2 a. Prepare a Report on the effects of the Initiative pursuant to Elections Code section 9212, addressing each of the impacts specified in subsection (a)(l)-(7) of that section, to the extent applicable, as well as any other items identified by the City Council; and b. Retain, at the direction of the City Manager, any consultants that the City Manager determines are necessary to complete the Report, in an amount not to exceed $120,000.00 $155,000.00; and c. Present the Report to the City Council no later than the latest date authorized by Elections Code section 9212(b); and 2. The City of Cupertino's Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is hereby amended to appropriate $155,000.00 for the preparation of the Report. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th date of January, 2016, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino From:Liang C To:City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt Subject:Comment on Agenda Item 16: Fiscal impact report for the initiative Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2016 5:07:10 PM Dear Mayor Chang and Councilmembers, The Council and the voters should understand that the conclusions reached in a consultant report are little more than speculation and the consultants are normally not held legally responsible for their speculative conclusions. We still want to caution the consultants to write the fiscal impact report based on facts, not unwarranted assumptions. Here are some unwarranted assumptions that the consultant should avoid making . - Any prediction on the number of amendments triggered by the initiative should be based on the past history in Cupertino. If Cupertino has made only one project- specific General Plan Amendment (GPA) in the past 10 years, the consultant should assume that a comparable number of potential GPAs for the no-initiative scenario. - Any prediction on the growth rate of Cupertino should based on the past history in Cupertino unless there is evidence demonstrating that Cupertino’s growth rate is likely to change. If Cupertino has been able to grow in the past without frequent project-specific GPAs, the consultant should assume a similar number of GPAs for the no-initiative scenario. - Any prediction on the number of projects and the sizes of these projects that might get approved under the no-initiative scenario should be based on the past history in Cupertino unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. - Any prediction on the number of over-sized projects that might get approved or rejected by the voters should be based on how well the Council has represented the voters’ concerns. When the approval of an over-sized project get rejected by the voters, it is an indication that the Council didn’t represent the voters’ concern. - The city is responsible for deciding what ballot measures could go on the general election or require a special election. If any cost of special elections in the with- initiative scenario is a result of poor planning of the city. The fiscal impacts of good scheduling of ballot measures versus bad planning should both be evaluated. - Any assumption on the need for extra ballot measures should be based on the assumption that the Council's vision for Cupertino's future development will generally aligns with the voters' vision, as it should. - For over-sized projects, The initiative does not prevent the Council from approving any over-sized project or approving citywide General Plan Amendment as they would normally do. The initiative would only require voters' approval when the parameters set in the initiative are modified in the proposed GPA. - If the scenario with the initiative enacted assumes that there will be less over-sized projects approved, that's a false assumption. Whether to approve a project or not is entirely up to the Council. The voters would simply confirm the Council's decision. - If the scenario with the initiative enacted assumes there is going to be no GPA, it is a false assumption. Whether to approve any more GPA or not is entirely at the Council's discretion. - If in the scenario without the initiative the Council will approve many over-sized projects, the voters will likely approve these over-sized projects too since the vision of the voters should generally align with the Council's vision. - If the scenario with initiative enacted assumes that Vallco will remain retail only forever, that's a false assumption. The initiative does not prevent the Council from approving office and residential allocation for Vallco and then ask for the voters to confirm their approval. In fact, the Council is also considering the option of putting Vallco on the ballot for the voters to decide. The fiscal impacts of the initiative from putting Vallco on the ballot is the same, with or without the initiative, are the same. - If the scenario with initiative enacted makes any assumption about Vallco future operational income, it should be compared with other successful well-run shopping malls in the area, instead of comparing with shopping malls run by developers who have no experience running successful shopping malls. - Whether Vallco would be successful has a shopping mall depends on the ability and experience of Vallco's owner and his intention. The initiative has no influence on whether Vallco's owner has any ability, any experience or any intention in running a successful shopping mall. Please convey these cautions to the consultants working on the fiscal impact report so that they can do their best to write a neutral report based on factual information and reasonable assumptions. Sincerely, Liang Chao