The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 11-17-2020 Item No. 16 Transportation Impact Fee Study_Written CommunicationsCC 11-17-20 #16 Transportation Impact Fee Study Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Rick Kitson <rick@cupertino-chamber.org> Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:21 AM To:Kirsten Squarcia Subject:Letter re proposed TIFs on upcoming council agenda Attachments:20201015 Letter to city council re TIF.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Kirsten, If you could please make sure this letter gets to the appropriate people regarding the proposed traffic impact fee item on the agenda. Rick Kitson Director of Communication Cupertino Chamber of Commerce !"+'%+$* *&')!$% " ,,,*&')!$% #'%' %!# +)( !-*)!+!' ( )'*&('(!$) ",# & ( &%(##!)()'(!$) $$ " %%#'(!$)") %&'"&#" # "& " *(%(!$$ #%$ & "&&!"+$)( "'%'($%'"# ("() % %"%#$%'& &% (## # #+ # *& &%%+)* % ($%'"# &'#% #'+(&(! #+ &&%& ($%'"# #' &##-&, %!#"'"#" ## &'%' *( %% ''%! "&(%" %-$) " %#$%'& *- ($%'"#"#"## &'%' , %###% *%"" "&(%"%)& %& &%%!""' &%% "#&'%#!$"+ " )""%"# $% "$""$#) ##$%####$#$$"#"#%" "%" &"$ " #" $ $*# "$# $$ " #$"#$$" ""# " $ "&$"#$#"&#$%"%$)$$$' $%""$ " ##"$)'%$$# )$$'$ #$ $"#$$"#$ "#$$ #%""$) " #$$"#$$"###)$ #$#$"$$"#$$"# "") (%#"$ " # $"%#$""# $$#$$$"#$$" "$&"$% "$%###%$)# #% "$ "$$'$$$$)%# $$$"#%$#"&") $ '&'"% "$"$ '##$ "$#"##'#$")%"$%$$ $$ " $ ##%""$) " # %"'"# "!%"$$ " #$"#$$"$" $"# "$$#%$#$ " ")$)$ $"% ") %#" % "$"" 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Myron Crawford <Mcrawford@bergvc.com> Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2020 7:49 PM To:Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; City Clerk; David Stillman; Roger Lee Cc:kevinm@leewardfinancial.com Subject:CC 11/17/20 Item 16 Traffic Impact Fees - Objection to increases Attachments:CCUP Mayor 31 Traffic Impact Fee.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax 408-703-2035 mcrawford@bergvc.com 11/12/2020 Mayor & Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408-777-3308 3251 Fax 408-777-3333 sscharf@cupertino.org; liangchao@cupertino.org;rsinks@cupertino.org;dpaul@cupertino.org; jwilley@cupertino.org;cityclerk@cupertino.org;davids@cupertino.org;rogerl@cupertino .org; kevinm@leewardfinancial.com Reference: CC 11/17/20 Item 16 Traffic Impact Fees Subject: Traffic Impact Fee - There Needs To Be More Value Engineering We object to the proposed TIF fee increases! 1) The nexus study shows a 20% increase in trips but a 56% increase in fees, that seems unreasonable. 2) Bicycle Infrastructure Costs - The Table 5 Cost Summary shows $120 million of $285 million allocated to the Bicycle transportation which is 42% of the total budget. Tier 1 for 8.18 miles is $85 million or $10,371,965 per mile. Tier 2 for 14.2 miles is 12 million or $839,917 per mile and Tier 3 is $33 million or $1,758,659 per mile of improvements. These improvements should be value engineered to reduce the cost and in some cases the improvements should be cancelled entirely. A disproportionate percentage is being diverted thoughtlessly to bicycle traffic, on a good day, not to mention an inclement weather day there will never be enough bicycle traffic to justify these costs, someone needs to reduce the Bicycle Transportation Plan significantly. In some 2 cases you can build a mile of street for less than these bicycle cost per mile are running at the lowest tier of bicycle improvements. 3) Transit Center Costs – With the onset of the covid pandemic and remote work being advocated by both employers and governments as well it’s a good bet that the transit center as a minimum should be reduced in scope if not eliminated entirely particularly when ridership is considered. Bart and the Golden Gate Bridge District are already going back to the users and soaking them with more increases. Users and permittees are already being taxed and fee levied beyond reasonable amounts and you are asking for more, there is a limit you know!!! Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax 408-703-2035 mcrawford@bergvc.com 11/12/2020 Mayor & Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408-777-3308 3251 Fax 408-777-3333 sscharf@cupertino.org; liangchao@cupertino.org;rsinks@cupertino.org;dpaul@cupertino.org; jwilley@cupertino.org;cityclerk@cupertino.org;davids@cupertino.org;rogerl@cupertino .org; kevinm@leewardfinancial.com Reference: CC 11/17/20 Item 16 Traffic Impact Fees Subject: Traffic Impact Fee - There Needs To Be More Value Engineering We object to the proposed TIF fee increases! 1) The nexus study shows a 20% increase in trips but a 56% increase in fees, that seems unreasonable. 2) Bicycle Infrastructure Costs - The Table 5 Cost Summary shows $120 million of $285 million allocated to the Bicycle transportation which is 42% of the total budget. Tier 1 for 8.18 miles is $85 million or $10,371,965 per mile. Tier 2 for 14.2 miles is 12 million or $839,917 per mile and Tier 3 is $33 million or $1,758,659 per mile of improvements. These improvements should be value engineered to reduce the cost and in some cases the improvements should be cancelled entirely. A disproportionate percentage is being diverted thoughtlessly to bicycle traffic, on a good day, not to mention an inclement weather day there will never be enough bicycle traffic to justify these costs, someone needs to reduce the Bicycle Transportation Plan significantly. In some cases you can build a mile of street for less than these bicycle cost per mile are running at the lowest tier of bicycle improvements. 3) Transit Center Costs – With the onset of the covid pandemic and remote work being advocated by both employers and governments as well it’s a good bet that the transit center as a minimum should be reduced in scope if not eliminated entirely particularly when ridership is considered. Bart and the Golden Gate Bridge District are already going back to the users and soaking them with more increases. Users and permittees are already being taxed and fee levied beyond reasonable amounts and you are asking for more, there is a limit you know!!! Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Olson, Donna <Donna.Olson@berliner.com> Sent:Monday, November 16, 2020 3:56 PM To:City Council; Steven Scharf; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:mtersini@aol.com; Faber, Andrew L.; Ramakrishnan, Erik Subject:November 17, 2020 Agenda Item No. 16: 2020 Transportation Fee Attachments:Letter re Cupertino Proposed 2020 Transportation Impact Fee v1.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Scharf, Council Members, Ms. Feng, Attached please find correspondence from Andrew L. Faber of today’s date. Donna Olson | Litigation Assistant to Andrew L. Faber Christine H. Long Eileen P. Kennedy Ghazaleh Modarresi Aleshia M. White Donna.Olson@berliner.com San Jose | Modesto | Merced 10 Almaden Blvd., Eleventh Floor | San Jose, California 95113 | 408.286.5800 | F 408.998.5388 | www.berliner.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain information that is attorney‐client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail and delete the message and any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. 4823-8704-9682v3 ALF\24070001 TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD ELEVENTH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800 FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388 www.berliner.com Branch Offices Merced, CA • Modesto, CA ____________ ____________ FOUNDERS SANFORD A. BERLINER (d. 2020) SAMUEL J. COHEN OF COUNSEL STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON FRANK R. UBHAUS RALPH J. SWANSON NANCY L. BRANDT LESLIE KALIM McHUGH BRADLEY HEBERT November 16, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mayor Scharf & Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: citycouncil@cupertino.org Re: November 17, 2020 Agenda Item No. 16: 2020 Transportation Fee Dear Councilmembers: I am writing on behalf of KT Properties Urban, Inc. (“KT Urban”) regarding Item No. 16 for the City Council’s November 17 agenda. KT Urban opposes the proposed transportation fee increase for two reasons. First, the fee study prepared in connection with the proposed increase does not meet the standards required under the Mitigation Fee Act (“MFA”). Second, although the amount of the fee increase is significant and may make property development in Cupertino infeasible, a feasibility study has not been conducted to ensure that proposed fees will not be confiscatory. A large portion of the fee increase is attributable to a proposed transit center at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 85. A total of $40,596,488 was attributed to this project in the City’s nexus study. This amount was calculated based upon a high and a low estimate for each of two design options being considered for a transit center. These four estimates ranged from $33,783,750 to $1,165,185,000, for a difference of approximately 35-fold. The median estimate, or $353,936,250, was then multiplied by 11.47 percent, which is the City’s estimated share of the cost to construct the median, yielding $40,596,488. ANDREW L. FABER PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY SAMUEL L. FARB JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN J. CASAD NANCY J. JOHNSON JEROLD A. REITON JONATHAN D. WOLF KATHLEEN K. SIPLE KEVIN F. KELLEY MARK MAKIEWICZ JOLIE HOUSTON BRIAN L. SHETLER HARRY A. LOPEZ CHARLES W. VOLPE CHRISTINE H. LONG AARON M. VALENTI CHRISTIAN E. PICONE SUSAN E. BISHOP SANDRA G. SEPÚLVEDA MICHAEL B. IJAMS KIMBERLY G. FLORES DAWN C. SWEATT TYLER A. SHEWEY JAMES F. LANDRUM, JR. C. DAVID SPENCE JOSHUA BORGER THOMAS P. MURPHY ALESHIA M. WHITE EILEEN P. KENNEDY MICHAEL J. CHENG ALEXANDRIA N. NGUYEN GHAZALEH MODARRESI ANDREW J. DIGNAN ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN LEILA N. SOCKOLOV BEAU C. CORREIA TIMOTHY K. BOONE ANGELA HOFFMAN SHAW DAVID A. BELLUMORI BENJAMIN M. JOHNSON MARY T. NGUYEN STEPHEN C. SCORDELIS ELLEN M. TAYLOR BRANDON L. REBBOAH LINDSAY I. HOVER EMILY TEWES CHRISTIAN SIMON MARISA J. MARTINSON ROBERT A. QUILES MARIA I. PALOMARES Item No. 16, 11/17/2020 Meeting November 16, 2020 -2- 4823-8704-9682v3 ALF\24070001 Government Code Section 66005(a), which is part of the MFA, requires a reasonable relationship between the amount of development impact fees and the cost of providing the service or facility for which the fees are imposed. Thus, in the case of impact fees to fund public facilities, although precise cost estimates based upon actual construction plans are unnecessary, estimates used in the fee study must have some reasonable basis. At a minimum, the agency must have an actual plan to construct the facilities in question, and it must have identified the type of facilities that it will construct with enough particularity to allow for a reasonable cost estimate. (See SummerHill Winchester LLC v. Campbell Union Sch. Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 545, 554.) Here, the nexus study is defective because it is still far from certain that a transit center will be constructed, and the City has not yet even fleshed out the type of facility that it will construct. The fact that the transit center is dependent upon federal funding is one factor in showing that its construction is wholly speculative. Additionally, it appears the project would be part of the transit lane project described in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) document entitled SR85 Transit Guideway Study. The transit lane project is in the early planning phase. On October 1, 2020, the VTA Board voted to accept the SR 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (“PAB”) recommendation for a transit lane project on SR 85 and to proceed with an alternatives analysis. The Staff Report dated September 29, 2020, stated that the PAB recommendation identified several components of the proposed project, including a small number of stations along the corridor, which may include the proposed site at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Thus, it is still uncertain whether the proposed site will remain part of the transit lane project after VTA finishes analyzing alternatives, and it is unclear that the transit center would be built if it is not included as part of the larger Highway 85 transit lane project. Not only is it questionable whether a transit center will be built, but the magnitude of variation in the four engineer’s estimates used in the nexus study also shows that the City has not even identified the transit facility it intends to construct. As indicated above, the City is not required to have developed detailed construction plans for the transit center to include it in the fee study, but it needs to have identified with some level of particularity the type of facility that will be constructed. The 35-fold difference between the current high and low estimates shows that the City has not met that standard. In addition to the fact that the nexus study does not satisfy the MFA’s reasonable relationship requirement, the City should not approve the proposed fee increase without first doing a feasibility study. A fee that deprives a developer of a reasonable return on an investment is confiscatory, and therefore violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (See Calif. Building Indus. Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 464 [defining “confiscatory”]; Erlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 897 [stating that confiscatory fees violate the federal constitution].) For this reason, proposed increases in impact fees typically are accompanied not only by a nexus study, but also by a feasibility study. The proposed fees are nearly double the current fees, and based upon a fee comparison recently shared with members of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce by the City’s consultants, the proposed fees will be some of the highest transportation fees in the South Bay and Mid- Peninsula areas. Given the already high cost to develop land in Cupertino, there is a significant Item No. 16, 11/17/2020 Meeting November 16, 2020 -3- 4823-8704-9682v3 ALF\24070001 likelihood that the proposed fees will be confiscatory, so that a feasibility study should be prepared before the City Council considers the proposed increase. For the foregoing reasons, KT Urban requests that the City Council not approve the proposed fee increase unless the transit center is removed from the fee calculation and a feasibility study is prepared to ensure that the increased fees will not be confiscatory. BERLINER COHEN, LLP ANDREW L. FABER Andy.Faber@berliner.com cc: City Manager Mark Tersini 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Michael Lane <mlane@spur.org> Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:39 AM To:Steven Scharf; Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey Cc:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Transportation Impact Fee - lack of adequate stakeholder process Attachments:Coalition letter Cupertino transportation impact fee.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul and Councilmembers: Please find attached to this email our coalition letter expressing concern for the lack of notice and an adequate stakeholder process for the proposed major increases in Transportation Impact Fees that you are considering this evening. We urge you to continue this item and take time to conduct a thorough stakeholder process that includes input from the development community and undertake a feasibility analysis to study the effect on development of the proposed fee increases. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Michael Michael Lane San José Director | SPUR SPUR Join | Get Newsletters | Twitter | LinkedIn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