Loading...
CC 09-20-05 #7 Cc 1/20/0S- .:#-7 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Your Partner in Silicon Valley September 20, 2005 Subject: Opposition to last minute general plan amendments Dear Mayor Kwok and City Council Members: The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce is very much opposed to the staff introduced changes to the general plan which were put before you as "hot topics" at the last minute without proper review by the planning commission or general plan task force. We respectfully request that these ideas be removed from the general plan as they are bad for Cupertino business and will have the unintended effect of driving business out of Cupertino. Cupertino businesses bring revenue to the city in a variety of ways, through direct contribution of sales tax certainly, but also through a great amount of indirect sales tax and other revenues. Businesses like the Cypress Hotel and Alexander's Steakhouse rely upon a thriving commercial business base to be profitable, all of which results in sales tax and tot for the city. Under the current general plan amendments, as set out in policy 2-20, policy 2-42, policy 2-63, and the cohesive commercial centers criteria, the city would be putting forth requirements for sales tax or other "revenue" demonstration that is unfair and would harm business. Zoning is the proper method the city should use for maintaining and increasing revenue. Our current zoning of "industrial, commercial, residential" does little to help this. Rather than focus on policies that would result in vacant buildings, the city should be honest about it's zoning and properly define the areas that should be maintained as commercial, industrial, and retail. The Chamber continues to stand ready to work with the city at increasing our business base and creating the thriving business community that will bring needed revenue to the city. Beyond removing this harmful language discussed above, there are three concrete steps that could be taken in the current draft general plan to enhancing business revenues: 1. Return the commercial building height along transit corridors to 60 feet suggested by staff (now 45). 2. Eliminate the requirement for 1 % art set aside - this tax has little nexus to the development and is best dealt with on a project by project basis. 3. Strengthen the protection of commercial and industrial centers to limit the "profiteering" currently occurring in Cupertino where commercial buildings that would otherwise sell for commercial value are selling for a higher "residential" value, and lost from our dwindling commercial centers. We thank you for taking the time and energy to make sure that this document reflects not just the Cupertino of today, but the city it will become in the future - a city with better financial stability, more choices for our residents and consumers, greater regional presence, continued excellent schools, and affordable housing for our families. Very truly yours, D. Michael Foulkes President Cupertino Chamber of Commerce c e r1]..ð/OS # 7 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Your Partner in Silicon Valley September 20, 2005 Subject: Text of chamber letter opposing cash-out Dear Mayor Kwok and Council Members: The Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that "parking cash out" not be included in the General Plan. While we understand the rationale behind such a proposal, that of increasing use of public transportation, we do not believe this plan will achieve the goal, and may severely restrict use of land for subsequent lessees or purchasers. Cupertino businesses already encourage employees to take public transportation via a number of strategies including free transit passes, free shuttles from major transportation hubs, formal and informal carpool programs, etc. This measure, which is not used by any current Cupertino business, would allow employers to provide fewer parking spaces when they offer cash payments to employees who use public transportation. The HR impact of trying to police this program would make it unworkable, as "proof" of daily public transit usage would be impossible to track. There would also be a significant detriment to subsequent users of a property, for if a single business took advantage of this program to build out more parking spaces, then every subsequent business would have to provide the same benefit or tear out building space for parking. We appreciate the intent behind the program, but believe the current voluntary programs already in place are much more effective and efficient at increasing public transit rider ship, and should be looked at first before "parking cash out" would ever be considered. Very truly yours, D. Michael Foulkes President Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Karen B. Guerin \ t--eA -it 1 ê-ê. C11 ao loS' From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: johnknopp@comcast.net Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11 :01 AM Patrick Kwok; Richard Lowenthal; Sandra James; Kris Wang City Clerk Rezoning LindyLane-Mount Crest - Sept. 20 General Plan agenda item September 20, 2005 To: Cupertino City Council Re: Hearings on revisions to the Cupertino General Plan We have been property owners on Lindy Lane for over 25 years. We bought our property with the expectation of subdividing and/or building an additional house for our family. This is both our home and an investment for our family. About ten years ago, Planning Staff proposed to the Planning Commission that the Lindy Lane/Mount Crest properties be rezoned. Those of us who could subdivide were asked to submit tentative maps, even though we did not intend to develop at that time. The Planning Commission questioned the opinion that there would be no negative economic effect. They found that the rezoning would severely devalue all of the properties. Those that could be subdivided would lose the value from subdividing, and all properties would be restricted when rebuilding or remodeling. Finally, the Planning Commission moved that - since there was no reason to change zoning, that any changes would put all properties in non- compliance, and there would severely damage the value of all properties - that the City should not change the zoning. In February of this year, Planning Staff made the same proposal to rezone Lindy Lane/Mount Crest properties, They had informational meetings with us property owners. We learned that restrictions had already been placed on the properties, but none of us property owners had been notified. The meetings began with the assertion that there would be no negative impact. We quickly learned that the five properties that could be subdivided would lose their value, and that all 27 (or 53) properties would be out of compliance and would have severe restrictions to rebuilding or remodeling. Staff urged the five properties that could be subdivided to hurry and subdivide, even though most were not prepared or willing to develop in such haste. This poorly-examined proposal is before you now. For any developments in the area concerns about geology, environment, aesthics, etc. should be examined through the regular application and review processes for each proposed development - not by arbitrarily changing the rules on our homes and investments. Blanket rezoing only takes away great economic value from all of the properties, and also devalues surrounding neighborhoods. Please, do not take away from us property owners the value we have invested in our homes. We urge you to do what the Planning Commission did over ten years ago: With no apparent reason and with severe economic harm to property owners, leave the zoning as it is and consider each development application on its own merits. John and Karen Knopp 21925 Lindy Lane I cc. qr~al05 \ +-eM :t:I= l Phone call from Helen Kopy, Cupertino resident September 20, 2005 Asked that we convey to the City Council her opposition to new housing and high rise buildings. Wants Cupertino to remain small. Ciddy Wordell 9//20/05 " <: e 1'!20!tJJ -Jt7 1-/0- )£)05 IF YOV ;u.- '70 0 E 51 ,1'¿ í/-/1' Î T/.,I¿ CO / 7;-~ C.H!J;V¿;é í//¿- A 6¡Lf//¡-6 b ^í L / AI;:} Y L.A).,n'~ F¡;)(;¡..( ;~'/-jl()¿{rrl/ÆL (R/) TO FiE5/¿y~,rc:-,,4i. H ¡ j. ¿ ~ /;),~:-: (i; i/ 'S) P v T A 51,LA;21. [ /j¿> .//.,,:' ---~-- " '""'" (¿; T1 T/ Nt, So ð O" T/I/.S L ¿ 7':-?~"'~ - GET IT 7(,:' .Iv( 1- yo R f( it C'IíA 7 1-//;: '::"1 r)/ HAL j.~ Q¡C,¡C/cè ð¡.,/ / I~:) }eO 70;y~E A 1/£. 8E ,c¿:;;v'fE rHt= S ,E,¡t)'7. ';2. çP ~ ON/KG M! Ee ;ryJV'<J'::p wE LIJ/¿ - . , . óA/ H /ii 5/,oc 5- /L/¿7T r/'/E þ ¿/j 7' Ld//'.c» ~>/r t7 ,. /YfJ G- /~ / .~ .L-- AM 1\ '~I ,k( ,4 / r-j<' nf~ r-: l f) 7lf1~ (2 , LA <\ ,- /f tt- .~= I {A-7ìY j-'(;i'<-' ß rEA} Jì c\. ,[:-./ C p~. 7 p,~'T' f: t" /./1 L ¡ ~,( í'J;-' T~((' ÆfJt:-fc Ý. -]) 1S (2.r: -- I 7- IS / f.) ((. ¡¿ fl-Jç-ç (r l 7 f A (>, .. . 1J ' . ç I~(U < J ()( f c,çevc D ß~ 2' ¿fJ, 1\ (, H 71~f¡ \ I( Æwnsu Í'{ TOM, ¡( ¡:.y- 1 (íL) (/-'J{, (,(--Ie (.' ( T') /{ t}~1 [(7 Tf({,<; , ;' 11 (.? ( { ~" \)y c-(¡-(' '. .' , ~/ ) .,,", ----:-...--:-...-------- V \;is ''''-'' Vc ~1\\..cr,\I IC:; V -j i Ì\;:::;'1\.''--. ^',' ". ~ .. ,~<r" '( -- ..------ ,. '-'-'7 .,A. \, /'\ \...\:;"A" ,,,,,..-,, 1.1\ Air ~ ,- "- , . ,\0, \. ,-. .. "- / '- ^ .. \ .' "", '-' '-' P 1f-71? Ie. If Ktvo t( - )...11. Á 'rt?7? <¡(E.Ve f I. 515Ctr! jot//./' JII,<¡ ::::5 {jc'ì"'r: t¡7,)..<705 ·TO: , Cè. FRðlA: June 4, 2005 Dear Cupertino City Cou cil, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff, We the residents of Lind Lane and Mt Crest object to the recent change in building requirements in our area, Specifically, we object to the change in the Rl ordinance section 19.28.050 paragra h C whereby both the Rl and RSH rules are applied to buildings in our area with slope densities greater that 15%. According to the planning office, there are 27 home affected by this change. We object to the change for two reasons, lack of proper no ification, and lack of evidence that the proposed change is reasonable or required. I,' In a Cupertino Planning ommission meeting held on January 26, 2005 there were II members from the affecte group attending a meeting to discuss a proposed rezoning of our area from Rl to RSH, During that meeting the 15% slope change was mentioned by Peter Gilli from planning None of the residents in that meeting had heard of the slope change, which had alread been passed. We feel this change. amounts to a rezoning under another name, Bec use the change is effectively a rezoni~, and because the residents were not proper notified we feel it should be repealed, .In addition, we have seen no credible evidence that such a change is warranted'in our area. There are already rules in effect to ensure t t structures built on slopped lots are safe, The January 26 meeting as.called by the city planners to discuss a possible rezoning of the area around Lindy La e and Mt Crest. We were told that the proposed changes would have "no negative effects, This is simply NOT true, Both the 15% slope change and the proposed rezoning have t mendous adverse effects on our property values, We the residents of those areas a strongly against this proposed rezçning. Such a rezoning was proposed by the ci ty 10 Y ars ago. During that time the city decided NOT to rezone the area. The ci ty had reason for the decision back then, and we see NO reason to change the zoning now. In summary, we the owns of the properties around Lindy Lane and Mt Crest strongly object to the change in th building rules requiring both Rl and RSH restrictions on lots with 15% slope densities. We are also against the proposed rezoning. We request that the city council repeal t e change in the Rl ordinance section 19.28.050 paragraph C whereby both the Rl d RSH rules are applied to buildings With slope densities greater than 15% and r instate the previous rule. We also request that the proposed rezoning-"Of 0 area from Rl to RSH be dropped from the general plan. / Thank you for your atten on in this matter.