Loading...
Summary of Public Comments-1- Public Comments Related to the General Plan and Housing Element The following is a general list of comments received. Staff comments are provided in italics. • Were respondents on the Community Design Survey residents of the City? – The participants included residents, members of various City Commissions, and property owners. • Photographs in the Community Design Survey should have included more developments in the City, to solicit opinions – The photographs included a number of project types in varying heights and intensities including those in the City. • Based on the number of employees resulting due to increase in office allocations and ABAG requirements, will the City have enough infrastructure; housing, transportation, etc., to accommodate the increase of employees? – The population and housing impacts of the Proposed Project and alternatives are discussed in detail in the EIR and no significant impacts were found. The recommended Balanced Plan provides a balance of land uses, including meeting residential targets in the 2040 Plan Bay Area. It also proposes locating growth near transportation corridors and improving connectivity to reduce transportation impacts. • The Market Study did not provide comparable data for some categories. Also, in the past, mixed-use residential projects have not been approved with enough retail or have not provided the approved amount of retail when constructed – The Market Study data could not provide comparable data for certain years due to a major change in categorization of data at the collection stage. In terms of project approvals, the “mixed-use village” concept in Community Vision 2040 addresses the provision of retail in mixed-use residential projects. • In the past, mixed-use projects have not provided adequate parking – Recent projects, such as Main Street and the Biltmore have improved parking layouts and parking ratios. • Concerns related to schools, parks, etc. with housing projects – State law prevents a jurisdiction from denying a project based on school impacts. The school impact fee is considered adequate mitigation for the impacts of any development. All developments will continue to be required to pay school impact fees, and either dedicate parkland or pay park in-lieu fees, depending on the size and location of the project. • What is the ratio of ownership and rental units? The Housing Element and the Market Study provides this information. It should be noted that parcelization is highly discouraged in major mixed- use corridors to allow redevelopment of key parcels over time. • Good design is essential, particularly for high-density projects – The City has taken a very proactive approach in ensuring the projects are built to high design standards. The project review process also encourages extensive community input. • How are community benefits defined? The proposed Community Benefit Program is discussed in detail earlier in this report. • What is the status of money received for trail and park improvements from Main Street and Apple? The money from projects for trails has been programmed for a future study and improvements, which is expected to begin after the adoption of the General Plan. A Parks and -2- Recreation Master Plan is proposed to be prepared for the next fiscal year. The Master Plan will identify improvements and land acquisition needed to meet City goals. • There should be a hotel allocation that requires a five-star hotel with 200-250 rooms and 400- person facility for meeting, conference and dining – Per the recommendation, additional height allowed requires a convention center and community benefits in two hotel locations in the City. As part of the project review, additional items can be required. • The Heart of the City will be superseded by the General Plan one year after adoption. There is no Crossroads Streetscape Plan – Amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan are related to the Housing Element and the removal of the Vallco Shopping District (which will have its own Specific Plan). No amendments are being proposed to the 35-foot front setback. The Crossroads Streetscape plan and updates to relevant conceptual plans will be conformance action items in the General Plan. • Heart of the City corner lot setback – This is expected to be brought to the Council in Spring 2015. • The South Vallco Area and the Vallco Shopping District should be clearly defined – A clear map and description of all the Planning Areas is provided in the Draft General Plan. • Define the 1:1 and 1:1.5 building setbacks in the General Plan. Are there changes recommended? – Currently, all major corridors require 1:1 have building setback lines with 1:1.5 setback lines required for only a small portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road (both between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue) in the North Vallco and South Vallco areas. These are building plane requirements rather than setbacks, where primary building bulk (except for architectural features and eaves) has to be within the plane. The recommendation is to make all the building plane requirements 1:1 in order to maintain consistency of buildings along all the major corridors. • Provide pedestrian-friendly design and improvements to bicycle and transit infrastructure – This is a part of the “Complete Streets” recommendation in the Draft General Plan. • General comments on study areas and suitability for Housing Element sites. Cupertino residents prefer a suburban lifestyle – The Draft General Plan takes into account the importance of neighborhood preservation, economic and fiscal stability of the City, focusing growth in major transportation corridors, connectivity, and ensuring that an adequate number of sites are identified to meet the City’s RHNA allocation, HCD and other criteria, and affordability requirements. • Provide affordable housing and options for seniors – Recommended in the Draft General Plan and Housing Element. • Specify retail requirements in areas where retail is required for additional height – The Draft General Plan provides additional guidance as it relates to viable retail and substantial amount of retail on the ground floor along the street. • Cupertino needs vibrant retail and places where the community can visit and shop – Recommendations included in the Draft General Plan. -3- • Don’t specify Green requirements (green roofs, etc.) – The Draft General Plan encourages, but does not require Green elements beyond those required by the City’s Green Building Ordinance and the Building Code. • Community shuttle – This is an element of the Community Benefits Program. • Concerns from Apple related to heights on the Hamptons site – Addressed in the General Plan in conjunction with input from Apple and the Hamptons. • Residential density should not include any rights-of-way – Revised in the Zoning Ordinance and Heart of the City Specific Plan. • The City’s vision and General Plan should direct the design of large projects rather than the at the individual project level – The Draft General Plan provides more guidance on the expectations of projects and the streetscape in order to provide more guidance for individual projects. • General discussion on zoning of industrial sites to residential – Since the 2007-2014 Housing Element was adopted, no such rezoning has occurred. The Draft General Plan clearly outlines Housing Element sites, where residential development would be a permitted use. Residential on mixed-use sites would be conditional uses. • Fiscal impact of rezoning should be discussed – These can be discussed as part of the rezoning. At this time, the only sites that are proposed for residential rezoning are Housing Element sites, which are mandate by the State. Most of these are mixed-use sites, which require a substantial retail component per the Draft General Plan. • In the past, General Plan amendments have been made to allow height exceptions for an apartment building and hotel. Only hotels should be allowed to have the maximum height – Per the recommended heights in the Draft General Plan, no exceptions are allowed. However, base and maximum heights are defined clearly for each area. The tallest heights are reserved only for four areas, two of which are hotels – provided they provide Community Benefits as outlined. • Ensure that projects meet conditions – Noted. Any revisions will be brought to the relevant body for a decision. However, while the City can make a decision on the type and form of the land use and zoning, it cannot make a decision on specific businesses.