Public Comment Written CommunicationsCoblentztoPa+cD’iffiSanFrancisco.CA94104-5500CT4153914800&BassLLP--MilesImwalleD(415)772-5786mimwalle@coblentzlaw.comDecember21,2018WAE-MAILAmyChan,CityManagerCupertinoCityHall10300TorreAve.Cupertino,CA945014.3202Re:VailcoTownCenterProject—ReservationofRightsandProtestRegardingFeesDearMs.Chan:IamsubmittingthisletteronbehalfofVailcoPropertyOwnerLLC(“Vailco”),thedeveloperandowneroftheVailcoTownCenterProject(the“Project”).TheProjectcoversthe50.82-acreVaficoMallpropertythatmakesuptheProjectsite.PursuanttoGovernmentCodesection66020,thisletterservesasnoticeofVafico’sprotestofcertainfeesincludedbytheCityofCupertino(the“City”)asconditionsofapprovalintheCity’sSeptember21,2018ApprovalLetterfortheVallcoTownCenterSB35ProjectApplication(the“ProjectApproval”).1InaccordancewithConditionofApproval#38oftheProjectApprovalandtheMitigationFeeAct,thisletterconstitutesVailco’sprotestofcertainfeesmadewithin90daysoftheProject’sapprovaldate.Vailco’sprimaryprotestrelatestotheBelowMarketRate(BMR)HousingMitigationFee;however,unfortunately,asdiscussedbelow,theProjectApprovaldoesnotspecifytheamountoftheotherfeesorprovidesufficientdetailforourclienttoascertainhowthesefeeswouldbeappliedtotheProject.‘GovernmentCodesection66020statesthattheprotestshallbemadetothe“governingbody.”Here,theProjectwasapprovedunderSB35,whichisaministerialapprovalprocessthatrequiresactionatastafflevelbasedonlyonobjectivestandards.Underthestatute,theCityCouncilhasnoapprovalauthority.Forthisreason,thisletterisdirectedtotheCityManagerasshehaseffectivelybeenthe“governingbody”forpurposesoftheSB35approvalandimposingfees.Aswiththeunderlyingapproval,neithertheCityCouncilnoranyotherdiscretionarydecision-makingbodyhasanyroleindeterminingthefees.Nonetheless,toensuretransparency,wearesendingacourtesycopyofthelettertotheCityCouncil.17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
CoblentzPatchDuffy&BaSsLLPAmyChanDecember21,2018Page2Vaficoisthereforesubmittingthislettertoreserveitsrightstochallengetheapplicationofcertainadditionalfeestotheproject.VallcoalsoreservestherighttofileadditionalprotestlettersupontheCity’ssubsequentdeterminationoftheamountofthesefees.Furthermore,pursuanttotherequirementsofSB35,theonlyapplicablefees(andcalculationpracticesand/ormethodologies)arethoseinplaceasofMarch27,2018,thedateofVailco’sProjectapplication.InaccordancewiththeproceduralrequirementsofGovernmentCodesection66020,Vailcowilltendertherequiredpaymentwhendueunderprotestandwillsatisfyanyconditionsthathavebeenimposedunderprotest.Vailco’scompliancewithanyoftheProjectApprovalrequirements(includingthesubmissionofthisletter)issubjecttoafullreservationoftightstoseekallavailableadministrativeorjudicialrelieftherefromandtoseekfullrestitutionandrefundofanyamountspaidtotheCityinexcessofwhatisallowedunderstateorfederallaw.Theremainderofthislettersetsforththefactualelementsandlegalbasisfortheprotest.A.ProtestoftheBMRHousingMitigationFeeVailco’sconcernregardingtheCity’sBMRHousingMitigationFeeistwo-fold.First,Vailcoshouldbeaffordedafullcreditfortheapproximately1,200,000squarefeetofexistingretailusesandthatcreditshouldbeappliedagainstanynewuse,includingoffice.Second,theBMRHousingMitigationfeeisbasedonthepremisethataprojectimpactstheneedforaffordablehousing;howeverinthiscircumstance,theProjectincludesanunprecedented1,201belowmarketrateunits,whichwillfullyoffsettheProject-wideimpactsonaffordablehousingdemand.ThisreductioninimpactsshouldberecognizedwhenassessingtheBMRHousingMitigationFeeapplicabletotheProjectasawhole.A.1.FactualBackgroundA.1.1.ProjectDemolitionandDevelopmentTheProjectentailsdemolitionofapproximately1,200,000squarefeetofexistingretailbuildings.TheredevelopedProjectwillcontainapproximately430,939squarefeetofnewretailalongwith2,402residentialunitsand1,981,447squarefeetofofficeuses.1,201(50%)oftheresidentialunitsaretobeprovidedasBMRunits.A.1.2.TheCitysBIvIRHousingfeeProgramTheCity’sBMRHousingFeeisauthorizedbyChapter19.172oftheMunicipalCode.AdministrationoftheprogramisdetailedintheCity’sBelowMarketRate(BMR)HousingMittgationProgramProceduralManual(the“BMRManual”),whichwasadoptedbytheCitybyresolutiononMay5,2015.TheHousingfeeispremisedonthepurportedincreaseindemandforaffordable17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
CoblentzPatchDuffy&BassLLPAmyChanDecember21,2018Page3housinggeneratedbynewdevelopment.TheCitydocumentedthis“nexus”intwostudies,onestudyfornewhousingandtheotherstudyfornon-residentialdevelopment(collectively,the“NexusStudy”).TheCity’sBMRHousingFeesapplytobothresidentialandnon-residentialdevelopmentandarebasedonthesquarefootageofnewdevelopment.A.1.3.CreditforReplacementofDemolishedSquareFootageAsstatedintheCity’sBMRManual,theHousingMitigationProgramappliestoallprojectsthatresultinanincreaseofgrossfloorareaoranincreaseinthenumberofnetnewunits.ExceptedfromtheMitigationProgramis“newgrossfloorareathatisreplacingdemolishedordestroyedgrossfloorarea.”2Forinstance,ifanexistingdevelopmentisdemolishedandsubsequentlyrebuiltaspartofanewproject,theCity’shousingimpactfeewillonlyapplytothenewgrosssquarefootage.Thispolicyrecognizesthatfeescanonlylegallybechargedforimpactscausedbydevelopmentandthatsubstitutinganewbuildingforanoldbuildingwiththesamesquarefootagedoesnotcreateanynewimpactontheneedforaffordablehousing.MioftheexistingsquarefootagefortheProjectwillbereplacedeitherwithnewretailusesorwithofficeorresidentialuses.BecausetheProjectwillremovetheexistingaffordablehousingimpactsassociatedwithapproximately1,200,000squarefeetofretail,itshouldreceivefull“credit”forthisexistingsquarefootagewhenassessingtheCity’saffordablehousingfeeinaccordancewiththeCity’sBMRManual.Althoughnotstatedintheconditionsofapprovalorelsewhere,theCityhastakenthepositionthatValicocanonlyreceivecreditona“like-for-like”basis.Thatis,thatVailcocanonlyusethecreditforthedemolishedretailfornewretailuses.Westronglydisagreewiththisposition.A.1.4.ProvisionofOn-SiteBMRUnitsAccordingtotheBMRManual,providing15%affordableunits(splitbetween9%verylowincomeand6%lowincome)wouldbeequivalenttopayingtheBMRHousingFee.Because50%oftheunitsintheProjectareaffordable,undertheCity’spolicies,theadditional35%BMRunitsshouldbeconsideredtoreducethedemandforaffordablehousing.TheCityhasnotindicatedthatitwouldprovideanycreditfortheadditionalBMRunitsindeterminingtheBMRHousingMitigationFee.2SeeBMRManual,pp.2,9.17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
CoblentzPatchDuffy&BassLLPAmyChanDecember21,2018Page4A.2.LegalBasisforProtestofBMRHousingMitigationFeeAsthisCouncilappreciates,andisaffirmedbycaselawandtheMitigationFeeAct,withoutanimpact,thereisnonexustolevyafee.TheMitigationFeeActrequirestheamountofmitigationfeestobearareasonablerelationshiptotheimpactofthedevelopment.Consequently,theCitymust1)provideacreditforthetotalsquarefootageofdemolishedretail,evenifsomeoftheretailisbeingreplacedbyofficeuse,and2)provideacreditfortheexcessBMRunits(andfortheexcessaffordabilityofthoseunits)includedintheProject.Basedonthesefactors,itisourviewthatVailcoshouldnotpayanyBMRHousingMitigationfeesfortheProject.A.2.1.TheCityUnwritten“Like-for-Like”PolicyViolatestheMittationFeeActTheCity’sunwrittn“like-for-like”policyrunscountertorequirementsoftheMitigationFeeAct.Thelogicofgivingcreditfordemolishedsquarefootageappliesregardlessofwhetherthenewuseisthesameordifferentfromtheoriginaluse:therewasanimpactthatisbeingremovedandreplaced,sothefeecanonlybeleviedonthenetnewimpacts.ApplyingtheCity’sBMRManualpolicies,theVallcoRedevelopmentProject’sfmalhousingimpactfeecalculationclearlyexemptsthe430,939squarefeetofnewretailfromthefinalimpactfeecalculation.Inaddition,theBMRManualshouldproperlybeinterpretedasprovidingacreditfortheremainingapproximately770,000squarefeetofpre-existingretailspacethatwillbedemolishedandredevelopedasofficeandresidentialuses.Failingtoproperlyaccountforthisapproximately770,000squarefeetofdemolishedspaceaspartoftheproposedProject’shousingimpactfeecalculationandapplyingthecurrentretailsquarefootagefeeamountof$11.88persquarefootwouldresultinanoverchargetoSandHillofatleast$9,147,600thatwouldnothaveanexustotheimpact.SuchanoverchargewouldviolatetheMitigationFeeAct.Further,theactualoverchargewouldalsoexceedtheabove-statedamountwhenconsideringtheconclusionsonwhichtheaffordablehousingfeesarebased.TheNexusStudyconcludedthatduetolowerwagesearnedbyretailemployees,retailuseactuallyhasthemostsignificantimpactonthedemandforaffordablehousing.Forexample,theNexusStudyfoundthattheaveragecompensationforaretail/restaurantworkerinSantaClaraCountyisapproximately$33,000peryear,whereastheaverageofficeworkerearnsapproximately$94,000.AlthoughtheCitysettheretailfeeatapproximatelyhalfoftheofficefee,thiswasdoneforthepolicyrationaleofencouragingretailandassociatedtaxrevenues—thelowerfeeforretaildoesnotreflectalowerimpact.Infact,theNexusStudyfoundthatthemaximumfeetheCitycouldlegallychargewasapproximately72%higherthanthemaximumfeeitcouldchargeforoffice.Therefore,toproperlyconsiderthenetimpactonthedemandforaffordablehousing,theCityshouldgiveacreditfortheadditional770,000squarefeet17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
CoblentzPatchDu±fy&BassLLPAmyChanDecember21,2018Page5basedonthepersquarefootofficerateof$23.76,whichwouldresultinatotalcreditofover$18,000,000.A.2.2.TheMittgationFeeActRequirestheCitytoConsiderAllOn-Site3MRUnitsWhenDeterminingtheBMRHousingMit4gationfeeWhenassessingthenetnewimpactofdemandforaffordablehousing,theCitymustalsorecognizethe1,201belowmarketrateunitsthattheProjectwillprovide.ThepurposeoftheBMRHousingMitigationFeeistomitigateaffordablehousingdemandgeneratedbythenewdevelopment.ToignorethefactthattheProjectwillincludefargreateron-siteaffordableunitsthantheCityhasdeterminedwouldoffsettheimpactofmarketrateunitsdefiesthebasicpremiseofthefeeandviolatestherequirementsoftheMitigationFeeAct.Because50%oftheunitsintheProjectareaffordabletolowerincomehouseholds,and15%ofwhichareaffordabletoverylowincomehouseholds(inexcessoftheBMRManual’srequirement),thedeeperaffordabilityofthebase15%andtheadditional35%oftheunitsshouldbeviewedasreducingthedemandforaffordablehousing.Consequently,theCityshouldreducethefeefurtherinrecognitionoftheadditional35%affordableunitsandthedeeperaffordabilityofthebase15%.B.ReservationofRightstoProtestOtherFeesTheProjectApprovalcontainedtwoconditionsconcerningdevelopmentfees.Condition6providesthefollowing:FEESTheApplicantshallpayallapplicablefees,taxesandbondspertheCity’sadoptedfeescheduleand!orMunicipalCode,atthetimeofbuildingpermitissuanceincluding,butnotlimitedto:a.BuildingPermitFeesb.Third-partyConsultantCostsplusanyadministrationfeesC.BelowMarketRateHousingMitigationFeesd.TransportationImpactFeese.ParkiandDedicationFeesf.StormDrainFeesAndCondition38provides,infull:17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
CoblentzPatchDu±y&BaSsLLPAmyChanDecember2l,201$Page6NOTICEOFFEES,DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONSOROTHEREXACTIONSThedeterminationsetforthhereinmayincludecertainfees,dedicationrequirements,reservationrequirements,andotherexactions.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66020(d)(1),thesenotesconstitutewrittennoticeofastatementoftheamountofsuchfees,andadescriptionofthededications,reservations,andotherexactions.TheApplicantisherebynotifiedthatthe90—dayapprovalperiodinwhichthesefees,dedications,reservations,andotherexactions,maybeprotestedpursuanttoGovemmentCodeSection66020(a)beginsasofthedateofprojectapproval.IftheApplicantfailstofileaprotestwithinthis90-dayperiodcomplyingwithalloftherequirementsofSection66020,theApplicantwillbelegallybarredfromlaterchallengingsuchexactions.ContrarytotheCity’sassertioninCondition38thatithasprovided“writtennoticeofastatementoftheamountofsuchfees,andadescriptionofthededications,reservations,andotherexactions,”nowhereintheProjectApprovalshastheCityspecifiedtheamountoffeestobepaid.Instead,thefeerelatedconditionsarevagueandopenendedanddonotspecifythefeeamounts.Asapreconditionofimposingafee,theMitigationFeeActrequireslocalagenciestoprovideastatementspecifyingtheamountofthefee.3TheCityhasnotdonethathere.Therefore,the90-dayperiodtoprotestafeeonadevelopmentprojectunderGovernmentCodesection66020hasnotyetbegunandCondition38oftheProjectApprovaliswithouteffectwithrespecttoanyofthefeesdescribedinCondition6.WithregardtotheParkiandDedicationFees,Vailco’sunderstandingisthattheCitydoesnotchargefeesbasedontheCity’spracticetheProjectwillbedeterminedtocontainsufficient(ifnotanexcessof)dedicatedparklandthatnofeewillberequired.ButbecausetheCityhasnotyetdeterminedtheamountofanyfees,wereservetherighttoprotesttheParkiandDedicationFeealongwithotheryet-to-beimposedfeesincludingtheTransportationImpactFeesandStormDrainFees.Wefurtherreservetherighttosupplementtheseconimentsatthetimetheactualfeeamountsareidentified.C.ConclusionsBasedontheforegoing,VailcorequeststhefollowingfromtheCity:1.)WrittenconfirmationthatinimposingtheAffordableHousingFee,theCitywillfullycreditVallcofor(i)alldemolishedretailandnotlimitthecreditto“lilce-for-lilce”replacementand(ii)allexcessBMRunitsandaffordabilitylevels.Gov’tCode§66001(b),66020(d)(l).17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
CoblentzPatchDuffy&BaSsLLPAmyChanDecember21,2018Page72.)WrittenconfirmationthattheopenspaceprovidedbytheProjectsatisfiestheParkiandDedicationrequirementsand,whilethepartieswillcollaboratetodeterminethelocationandnatureofdedication,noParkiandDedicationFeewillbeimposed.3.)WrittenconfirmationthattheCitycanonlyimposetheAffordableHousingFees(ifany),theTransportationImpactFees,andtheStormDrainFees(andtherewerenootherfeesinplaceasofMarch27,2018)andthushasnotyetimposedthesefeesinaccordancewiththeMitigationFeeAct;revisionofCondition38inaccordancewiththisacknowledgement;andacknowledgementofVallco’srighttochallengethosefeeswhentheyareimposed.4.)Astatementoftheamountoftheotherfeestobeimposed.Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthesematters.Sincerely,MilesImwalleCC:MayorScharfandMembersoftheCityCouncilAartiShrivastava,AssistantCityManagerRocloFiero,ActingCityAttorneyTimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorksReedMoulds,VailcoPropertyOwnerLLC17571.0014818-9385-8945.3
Meet with staff to get therequirements for yourplanned development: road,utilities, drainageimprovements, etc..Conceptual Phase (Pre - Application)Apply for approval ofsubdivision: submit twelve(12) copies of the TentativeMapCity Staff circulates referrals,internal and outsideagencies. City Staff requestscorrections, based on inputfrom referralsResubmit Tentative Map andrequired reportsStaff recommends Conditionsof Approval and sets PublicHearingPLANNING COMMISSIONconducts a public hearing andrecommends approval withconditions to City Council; ifunder five (5) parcels (minorsubdivision) - the PlanningCommission can approve theTentative Map at that meetingCITY COUNCILA public hearing is set beforethe City Council, at which theymay adopt the final Conditionsof Approval and approve theproposed Tentative MapOnce Improvement Plansand Engineer's Estimatesare approved, constructionof improvements can beginSubmit four (4) sets ofengineered improvementplans to the City Engineer forreview. One (1) set will bereturned with red-linedcorrections if necessaryNote: Estimated Timeline depends on receiving accurate plans and complete information.(1-2 Months)Subdivision Flow ChartFinish construction (with inspections by City);Submit Record Drawings and provide updatedTitle Report. Have improvements accepted bythe City (acceptance and approval of RecordDrawings) file 10% bond and sign aMaintenance Agreement to cover maintenanceof public improvements for one year periodEnter into an Improvement Plan Agreement bybonding 150% of the value of all remainingimprovements (Engineer's Estimate based onprevailing wages); pay taxes; supply updatedTitle Report; place deposit for the ImprovementPlan Record DrawingsFinal Map PhaseConstruct requiredimprovements perapproved plans within oneyear of SubdivisionConstruction AgreementTurn inDraft Final Mapfor approvals(3 copies)City Surveyor reviews theproperty line data andrequests corrections ifneeded (2 weeks min.)Finish improvementsSurveyor signs andstamps approved map ascorrect and returns it toCity Engineer for Citysignatures once all othersignatures are gatheredDeveloper pays allrequired fees and taxesProvide Improvement PlanRecord Drawings, provide 10%maintenance bond for PublicImprovements for one yearperiod; get Improvement PlanRecord Drawings deposit backFinal Map is taken to theCounty Recorder's officeby the City and filedCongratulations!You are done. The maintenance bond will be returned to you(minus anything used on fixing defects) after the one year maintenance period.Complete?NoYesMinor Subdivision< 5 parcels (1-2 months)Conditional Approval ReceivedNote: Two (2) years to recordmap or apply for extensionSubmit Engineer'sEstimates of allImprovementsbased on prevailingwage(1-2 weeks)Developer decideswhether to constructimprovements beforefiling Final MapY
e
s
NoTentative Map Phase (3-6 Months)>4 Parcels (1-2 Months)Major SubdivisionImprovement Plan Phase(2 Weeks to 3 Months)Approved?YesNoCorrectionsneeded?YesComments from Engineering returned toapplicant with red-lined correctionsCity performs inspection ofimprovements prior to theend of the one yearmaintenance periodRepairs?BondReleasedNoYes(1-2 Months)Make an appointment for ameeting with City Staff toreview your preliminary plansfor development (submit five(5) sets of plans)Turn inDraft Final Mapfor approvals(3 copies)NoO:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT\FORMS AND PROCEDURES\SUBDIVISIONS\09-10-06_SUBDIVISION FLOW CHART.PDF
Vallco SB 35 Tentative
Subdivision Map
Part of the Vallco SB 35 plan set
What does SB 35 say?
SB 35: 65913.4(c):
(c)Any design review or public oversight of the development may be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as appropriate. That design review or public oversight shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to development within the jurisdiction. That design review or public oversight shall be completed as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as applicable:
(1)Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units.
(2)Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units.
What does Cupertino Municipal Code
Say?
CHAPTER 18.16:SUBDIVISION MAPS (FIVE OR MORE PARCELS)
18.16.030 Department of Community Development Action.
A.The Department of Community Development shall forward copies of the
tentative map to the affected public agencies which may, in turn, forward to
the Department of Community Development their findings and
recommendations thereon. Public utilities and agencies shall certify that the
subdivision can be adequately served.
B.Within five days of the tentative map application being determined to
be complete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943, the local agency
shall send a notice of this determination to the governing board of any
elementary school, high school or unified school district within the boundaries
of which the subdivision is proposed to be located.
Obligations of staff: “shall”
18.16.040 Action of Community Development Director–Notice of Public Hearings.
A.Upon receipt of a valid application, the Director of Community Development shall set the matter for public meeting. At least ten calendar days before the public meeting, he or she shall cause notice to be given of the time, date and place of the meeting including a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a general description of the area affected, and the street address, if any, of the property involved.
B.The notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City.
C.In addition to notice by publication, the City shall give notice of the meeting by mail or delivery to all persons, including businesses, corporations or other public or private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within three hundred feet of the property which is the subject of the proposed changes.
What would the Planning Commission
do?
18.16.050 Action of Planning Commission–Recommending Approval–Required Findings.
A.In approving or conditionally approving the tentative subdivision map, the Planning Commission shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general or specific plans adopted by the City.
B.The Planning Commission may modify or delete any of the conditions of approval recommended in the Department of Community Development's report, except conditions required by City ordinance, related to public health and safety or standards required by the City Engineer, or add additional requirements as a condition of its approval.
C.If no action is taken by the Planning Commission within the time limit as specified, the tentative map as filed shall be deemed to be approved, insofar as it complies with other applicable provisions of the Map Act and other applicable case law, this title or other City ordinances, and it shall be the duty of the City Clerk to certify the approval.
Planning Commission continued…
18.16.060 Action of Planning Commission–Recommending Denial upon
Certain Findings.
A.The tentative subdivision map may be recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission on any of the grounds provided by City ordinances or the
State Subdivision Map Act.
B.The Planning Commission shall deny approval of the tentative map if it
makes any of the following findings:
1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans;
2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
What would the City Council Do?
18.16.070 Action of City Council.
If a tentative map is recommended for approval or denial by the Planning
Commission, the Department of Community Development shall make a
written report to the City Council. This report shall be placed on the City
Council agenda at the next regular meeting following receipt of the report,
unless the subdivider consents to a continuance. The Council may review the
map and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The City
Council may deny the tentative map on any of the grounds contained in
Section 18.16.060.
(Ord. 2085, §2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1384, Exhibit A (part), 1986)
What Actually Happened?
No public Hearing
“Approval”of allegedly void (inconsistent with General Plan, not signed by
City Council) Tentative Map by Piu Ghosh,planner,at Planning Department
level
49.131 Acres x 35 dwelling unit/acre = 1,720 units (Not 1,779 in SB 35 plan)
Other issues from the Fee Protest Letter by
Coblents, Patch, Duffy, and Bass, LLP,
December 21, 2018: The Park land Problem
“C.Conclusions
Based on the foregoing, Vallco requests the following from the City:
Written confirmation that in imposing the Affordable Housing Fee, the City will fully credit
Vallco for (i) all demolished retail and not limit the credit to "like-for-like" replacement and
(ii) all excess BMR units and affordability levels.
Written confirmation that the open space provided by the Project satisfies the Parkland
Dedication requirements and, while the parties will collaborate to determine the location
and nature of dedication, no Parkland Dedication Fee will be imposed
Written confirmation that the City can only impose the Affordable Housing Fees (if any), the
Transportation Impact Fees, and the Storm Drain Fees (and there were no other fees in place
as of March 27, 2018) and thus has not yet imposed these fees in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act; revision of Condition 38 in accordance with this acknowledgement; and
acknowledgement of Vallco's right to challenge those fees when they are imposed.
A statement of the amount of the other fees to be imposed.” –Fee Protest Letter
Conclusions
Investigate if Staff violated Cupertino Municipal Code Subdivisions Chapter 18
Staff did not call for public hearing and provided no notice
The Tentative Map is inconsistent with the General Plan and could not be
approved
Staff does not have authority to approve the Tentative Map, City Council holds
that authority
Developer attorneys appear, in their December 21, 2019 Fee Protest Letter to
be acknowledging the need for and are requesting a discretionary approval of
the elevated roof structure in lieu of park land,which is not allowed under SB
35.