Loading...
Exhibit CC 05-03-2016 Oral Communications CcsishiL 6srAn-_, CCSGI does not increase height • CCSGI is .a complete and self- contained legal document. • All maps and terminologies are completely described in CCSGI . • It is illegal to force definition of Special Areas from somewhere else onto CCSGI . I CCSGI does not increase height • Neighborhoods as defined in CCSGI is part of Special Areas. • Therefore, Neighborhoods have max height of 30 feet. • No other interpretation is legal or allowed . Correct CCSGI ballot label • Max height is not changed from 30 feet. — Not increased to 45 feet. — Not established at 45 feet. • This is also consistent with the 30 feet max height in the small Neighborhoods box in Figure LU -1 . 3 Ballot label in EC 9051 • Attorney General writes ballot title and summary. • Ballot label is a condensed version of the ballot title and summary. • EC 9501 does not say any government official has discretion, as the City Attorney stated . • Does the City Council have discretion ? If so, what's it based on ? What about common sense ? • City' s legal team (City Attorney Mr. Hom and outside counsel Mr. Perlmutter) insisted on the word "establish" . • 3 Councilmembers without legal training and experience ignored expert legal advice to adopt the word "increase" . • This does not make sense and makes the city legally vulnerable . Conflicting statements from City' s legal team • The City' s legal team said CCSGI increases height. • It also recommended against the word "increase" . • What's going on ? • No one is under oath at Council Meetings. • But the ballot label must meet legal requirements in EC 9051 . EC 9212 report • EC 9212 has no requirement for the report to be complete, true, accurate, fair, or impartial . • The 9212 report is just a collection of opinions without any legal standing. — No one can be sued or disbarred for incorrect information in the 9212 report. • Therefore, the 9212 report cannot be the basis for determining the ballot label . 1 Conclusion • As Mayor Chang said, "tell the truth ." • The current CCSGI ballot label is a lie . • The City Council and the City Attorney have an obligation to the Cuperfino residents to correct this lie . • INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purposes and points of the proposed measure: TITLE Initiative amending Cupertino's General Plan to limit redevelopment of the Vallco 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. SUMMARY As required by State law, the City of Cupertino's General Plan establishes permissible land uses, maximum development densities, and intensities for all properties within the City. The City recently completed a multi-year planning effort that resulted in the adoption of its General Plan (Community Vision 2015 —2040), intended to guide development through the year 2040. The initiative amends Cupertino's General Plan in several ways, including requirements for: the Vallco Shopping District; building heights, setbacks, planes, and lot coverage in other areas of the City; residential allocation; and the Housing Element. For the Vallco Shopping District,the initiative: (1) removes the General Plan's vision for the"complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed use 'town center' and restates the City's goal as to "preserve and enhance the Vallco Shopping District as a local and regional retail, hotel, dining and entertainment commercial destination. . . . "; (2) prohibits residential and office uses; (3) restricts building heights to a maximum of 45 feet; and (4) increases the minimum square footage of retail/dining/entertainment uses from 600,000 to 1,200,000 square feet. In other areas of the City, the initiative: (1) prohibits building heights greater than 45 feet except in North Vallco Park and South Vallco Park Gateway within the Heart of the City Special Area; (2) adds policies regarding setbacks, "stepbacks," "building planes," and rooftop height extensions citywide; (3) adds specific policies applicable to North De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Homestead Road in North Vallco Park; (4) limits the maximum lot coverage for projects over 50,000 square feet to 70%; and (5) reduces the Citywide residential allocation by 146 units. For the Housing Element, state law requires that every general plan identify priority housing sites to accommodate that city's share of regional housing needs. The initiative removes the current General Plan"Scenario A" of priority sites and replaces it with the General Plan's "contingency plan", "Scenario B". Scenario B: (1) removes the Vallco Shopping District as a priority housing site; (2) increases residential units allocated to the Heart of the City and North Vallco Park Special Areas: (3) adds two other sites; and (4) reduces the total number of priority housing units by 14. The initiative states that it shall not apply to any development project that has obtained,prior to the initiative's effective date, a vested right pursuant to state law. It directs the City to amend all other provisions of its municipal code, ordinances, plans, policies, and resolutions to conform with the initiative within six months. The initiative states that, except as indicated therein, no provision of the initiative may be amended without voter approval. The initiative has no expiration date. CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE A MEASURE AMENDING THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN TO ENSURE BALANCED AND SENSIBLE GROWTH BY MAINTAINING CITYWIDE LIMITS ON THE INTENSITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT FOR RETAIL, HOTEL,DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT COMMERCIAL USES ONLY AND REQUIRING A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO MODIFY THOSE LIMITS AND USES. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: PART I.TITLE This measure shall be called the CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE PART II. FINDINGS The people of Cupertino hereby find that: A. The City of Cupertino needs binding standards to guide new development within the City. B. Cupertino's citizens wish to maintain control over the long-term direction of that development. C. The City needs to develop in a moderate and controlled way that provides the housing,shopping,jobs, infrastructure,and amenities that will serve the best interests of City residents while avoiding overdevelopment and its associated traffic and other impacts. D.The long-term direction provided by the City's General Plan must be implemented through its specific plans and zoning ordinance without being subject to change due to pressure from the profit-driven proponents of specific projects. E.The City must protect the development density and intensity standards set by the General Plan through limits on heights, setbacks and building planes to prevent distortion of the desirable characteristics of the City through the influence of developers and other outside interests. F.The availability of sufficient retail commercial space is essential to the wellbeing of the City, its current and future residents, and its workers. CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE. Paee I of 18 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS PART Ill. PURPOSE This initiative measure(the"Initiative")has three purposes. If approved by the voters of Cupertino and enacted, it will (I)control the intensity of new development by setting general citywide limits on building heights,setbacks,building planes and lot coverage in Cupertino that will provide long-term direction, (2)preserve and enhance the Vallco Shopping District for retail,hotel,dining and entertainment commercial uses and (3)require that changes or exceptions to those limits and uses be presented to and approved by the voters of Cupertino. Under this Initiative,the General Plan(Community Vision 2015-2040)—hereinafter referred to as"General Plan,"specific plans and conceptual plans, and zoning ordinance would be enforced and not amended on an ad hoc basis to suit individual development projects. The standards in this Initiative are intended to strengthen these plans to protect Cupertino's vibrant mixed use atmosphere,schools, and streetscapes,to limit traffic and congestion, and to promote public safety. PART IV. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The General Plan is hereby amended by enacting or reenacting segments of that general plan as follows: Note: All:numbering of sections, policies,strategies, tables,and figures herein follows that of the General Plan as amended on October 20,2015. Following the adoption of the Initiative, the General Plan's sections, policies,strategies,tables,and figures,and alfii tei•nal'referedces thereto,shall be renumbered in a logical order, and tables and figures shall be modified to conform to the Initiative's changes to the General Plan's text,as specified herein. Section 1. Chapter 1 —Introduction a.The last paragraph of the Section entitled "Purpose of Community Vision 2040" as of October 20,2015, is amended as follows: Due to the breadth of topics covered in Community Vision 2040,conflicts between mutually-desirable goals are inevitable. For instance, increased automobile mobility may conflict with a safe, walkable community. This document reconciles these conflicts in the interest of building a cohesive community by placing a priority upon maintaining the well-being of Cupertino residents.Per State law,every goal and policy in this plan has equal weight. •' - '- •::- • • - _. . - •:-• •:: •... . • . . ._ ..• : ::•••• . •' •: : :. : Harmonization of possible conflicts between goals and policies in this plan shall be guided by an understanding that the General Plan reflects conscious choices that the City makes in the interest of building community and protecting its residents. That harmonization shall also recognize that changes made through this Initiative are intended to modify and supersede any section, policy, strategy, table, or diagram that might otherwise conflict with the amendments being made by this Initiative, and the General Plan shall be conformed accordingly. _ b. A new paragraph is added to the Section entitled "Purpose of Community Vision 2040"gas of October 20,.2015 s follows: Portions of the General Plan were enacted or reenacted in 2016 by a voter initiative.A copy of that initiative shall be appended to the General Plan as an appendix unless or until that requirement is changed or rescinded by the voters. It is the intent of the voters of Cupertino that, in interpreting and harmonizing the provisions of the General Plan,priority be given to ensuring that the provisions enacted or reenacted by the 2016 voter initiative be followed and implemented to the fullest extent possible. Section 2. Chapter 2—Planninu Areas a. The Section "Vision" for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area is amended as follows: The Vallco Shopping District will continue to function as a major regional and community destination. The City envisions this area as a • •• •• " • •• :•: gateway for Cupertino providing a unique and memorable shopping, dining and entertainment experience with appropriate bicycle and pedestrian-friendly access. ••. ... . • '• - :•.•- -: • -• • ': •: - :•: :-::• ': fienaly-steetsrMore pedestrian-oriented buildings with active uses may line lining Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Roads end with publicly-accessible parks and plazas that support the pedestrian-oriented feel of the revitalized area.New development in the Vallco Shopping District should-must be-required-to provide buffers between to protect adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the form of boundary walls, setbacks, landscaping or building transitions. Section 3. Chapter 3—Land Use and Community Design Element a. The Section"Context" is amended as follows: The first paragraph of the subsection"Economic Vitality" is amended as follows: Cupertino is fortunate in its location in the heart of Silicon Valley. Despite its mostly suburban characteristics to the west and south,the city is home to a number of small, medium and large software,technology and biomedical companies. The General Plan ineludes mere effiee growth recognizes the need to retain balanced growth to support a-strong fiscal revenues and a stable tax base. In particular, policies focus on retaining and increasing the number of small, medium and major businesses in key sectors and provide flexible space for innovative startups that need non-traditional office environment. Policies for commercial areas seek to revitalize the Vallco Shopping District, and enhance commercial centers and neighborhood centers,which contribute to the City's tax base and serve community needs. CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE, Page 2 of 18 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS Table LU-1: "CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION BETWEEN 2014-2040 is amended by the additions and strikeouts shown below. .4IA - •,§ ;3 1 i 1 i q i 0 i,..4 C I ' I f I 1 Eel ¢ 4 § a R a 1CO PI a .4 01 1 ro CI d• a fit "' N x m � ' o 1 W ma § F. 11 Li E p v. a • 4 W g• u m r , . 1 , , r Q1. o z c. O d m o ii § 6 to II R n 1 $ og t•. : . n III e m a Q oaIJ % OQ m ..5 W !J s e 0o:s11 ' § 1 s k P Y 'i . CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE, Page 3 of 18 Cc cfli� t , INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The subsection"Site and Building Design" is amended as follows: Policy LU-3.0: Community Forty,The maximum heights and densitielbr the special ares shown in the Community Form Diagram(Figure LU-I)shall not be exceeded. Outside of the-Special Areas shown to figure LU-I, building heights may not exceed 45 feet. Building eig s all be measured to the highest point of the building,excluding light poles,antennae,minor mechanical boxes or roof vent protrusions which are not easily visible. A below-grade structure is not counted towards building height. For any project of over 50,000 sq. ft.of building area,maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 70%. No provision allowing additional height or density,modifying maximum lot coverage,building plane,or minimum setback to relax the standards set in this General Plan,other than those mandated by state law,shall be allowed: CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE, Page 4 of 18 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS In order to assure the retention and enforcement of City guidelines not currently included in the General Plan,the following policies are amended as shown Policy LU-3.2: Building Heights,and Setback Ratios,Stenbacks and Building Planes: Maximum heights and setback ratios are specified in the Community Form Diagram,(Figure LU-I)and as described below. As indicated in the figure,taller heights are focused on major corridors,gateways and nodes. Setback—ratios are established to ensure that the desired relationship of buildings to the street is achieved. Policy LU-3.2.1: Additional Floor Area. In any area where an increase in the maximum building height is granted in exchange for ground floor retail,no more than I square foot of additional floor area above the otherwise-applicable height limit may be allowed for every 1 square foot of ground floor retail. In any such exchange,all ground floor retail must be fully accessible to the public during operating hours. Policy LU-3.2.2: Rooftop Height Extensions. Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures other than cellphone transmission antennae,but no other structures or building features, may exceed stipulated height limitations shown in Figure LU-1 ifthey are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. Policy LU-3.2.3: North De Anza Boulevard. For the area from 1-280 south to Alves Drive on the west and from I-280 south to St. Joseph's Church on the east,not including St. Joseph's Church: • For all new construction,there shall be landscaped setback areas extending a minimum of 50-ft. from curb line. Alternatively,the landscaped setback areas adjacent to North De Anza Blvd. may have a varied depth but a minimum square footage equal to the lot frontage distance multiplied by 50 ft.,and a minimum setback distance at any point of 35 ft. from curb line, Policy LU-3.2.4: Stevens Creek Boulevard •The minimum setback on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from CA-85 to the eastern boundary of the City of Cupertino is no less than 35 feet from the curb line. •On both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from CA-85 to Perimeter Road buildings shall be below a 1:1 (i.e. 1 foot of stepback for every I foot of building height drawn from the curb line)slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Boulevard curb line. •On the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Perimeter Road to the eastern boundary of the City of Cupertino buildings shall be below a 1.5:1 (i.e. 1.5 feet of stepback for every 1 foot of building height drawn from the curb line)slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Boulevard curb line. •On the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Perimeter Road to the eastern boundary of the City of Cupertino buildings shall be below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Boulevard curb line. Policy LU-3.2.5: Homestead Road in the North Vallco Park Area On Homestead Road from Linnet Lane(west of Wolfe Road)to Swallow Drive(east of Wolfe Road)buildings shall be below a 1.5:1 slope line drawn from the Homestead Road curb line. Policy LU-3.2.6: Building Planes on Arterial/Boulevard Streets. Unless specified in other LU-3.2 policies,all other arterial/boulevard streets buildings shall be below a 1:1 (i.e. 1 foot of stepback for every I foot of building height drawn from the curb line)slope line drawn from the curb line or lines. The Subsection"City Center Subarea" is amended as follows: Strategy LU-16.1.3: Building form. The form of$buildings should, through the use of step-downs and setbacks, be designed be moderately-scaled to transition from existing taller buildings(new or existing)to the scale of the surrounding area. The subsection"Vallco Shopping District Special Area" is amended as follows: Vallco Shopping District Special Area The City envisions encourages the renovation and improvement of the-existing Cupertino's Vallco Fashion Shopping Mall while maintaining its important role as a retail shopping center serving Cupertino's residents and regional visitors. new-As renovated,the Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping,dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley. GOAL LU-I9 • ! - • - • • e - e •. _ _- _e __ _" e I• __ -' - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT AS A LOCAL AND REGIONAL RETAIL, HOTEL,DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT COMMERCIAL DESTINATION AND A FOCAL POINT FOR THE COMMUNITY Policy LU-19.1: Specific Plan Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan prior to any development or other significant changes in use on the site that lays out the land uses, design standards and guidelines,and infrastructure improvements required.The Specific Plan will be based on the following strategies: . I. . . • . . _ Strategy LU-19.1.2: Parcel assembly. Parcel assembly and a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required-priortoadding residential and o 'ce u es Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future. Strategy LU-19.1.4: Land use.The following uses are allowed on the site • __ •• ._ .. . _ I. Retail: High-performing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 1,200,000 square feet of retail/dining/entertainment that provide a good source of sales tax for the City and provides high quality convenient shopping for residents of the city and surrounding areas. Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses. 2. Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference center and active uses including main entrances, lobbies, retail and restaurants on the ground floor. a e . . : CUPERTINO CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH INITIATIVE, Page 7 of 18 Stelling Gateway West of Stelling Rd East of Stelling Rd Figure LU-1 Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density North De Anza Gateway ` COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM 15 units per acre(southwestnrcorner of Homestead and Road) Roads) 35 per acre igh North Vallco Gateway 35 units per acre(northwest corner of 1-280 and Stelling Road) Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density Maximum Height 45 feet 35 units per acre MaximWetOum Residential Density Maximum Height 25 units per acre 30 feet � i C5 feet Homestead Special Area �- HOMESTEAD RD __ Maxim p ��7 Maximum Height V et Maximum Residential Densityi_.7 • !. ' �+ 4 ` �""�_ '�."'' N *+ r -..re.,_ East of Wolfe Rd Up to 35 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map �r. �' `t' ' 1":4"." 1.1.x. M Maximum Residential Density . , 15 units per acre(southeast corner of Homestead Road i �► • / �� • i. 1 25 units per acre and Blaney Avenue) ••1 4101% r'�"• �^ Maximum Height Maximum Height to�� m.o. ■/ ,r.. 75 feet(buildings located within 50 feet of the 30 feet,or 45 feet(south side between De Anza and Stelling) ••• ill `_--_� 1 property lines abutting Wolfe Road: �, 1 • 1 Pruneridge Ave.and Apple Campus 2 s to %it ♦�. •• r r 1 1 shah not exceed 60 feet) North Vallco Park Special Area --�� V _ �`���II p Maximum Residential Density Oaks Gateway . •. Q o 25 units per acre Maximum Residential Density _J> ce Maximum Height ` 25 units per acre • a // N J South Vallco Park 60 feet • Maximum Height • //// aZ Maximum Residential Density ,� 45 feet ,a w r 35 units per acre •011111N440 1 Maximum Height Heart of the City Special Area �, tr. IIII 45 feet,or 60 feet with retail Maximum Residential Density I.1-. • 25 or 35(south vatioo)units per acre * * w �� a I Maximum Height III /�� �_* 45 feet,or 30 feet where designated by hatched ,f line i a / j `�� .#L� � T1 North De Anza Special Area IiI \ z I • III _... .......... City Center Node i W Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density 1 25 units per acre i) 25 units per acre I Maximum Height I� ;; Maximum Height / 45 feet III • I.' 45 feet or as existing,for exist ng bui'dings • • am► Ij North Crossroads Node t ,���,,,�;��T Ma nms per acre Density 11 25 I log , 0,) Maximum m Height Maximum Residential Density �� �Si 45 feet 25(north of Bollinger)or 5-15(south ofa5)units per acre �, ph �.•... i, Maximum Height j V Legend 30 feetimm mimo II •� . �IAt/ • ' m Special Ari * eas 1111111 Hillside Transition Monta Vista Village Special Area • �i� z • Homestead Urban Service Area Maximum Residential Density i III ••, o _ North Vallco Park Sphere of Influence Up to 15 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map I IS, /)Q S•4:11 ® Heart of the City Urban Transition Maximum Height Ifl . Up to 30 feet �•� I ` S. _ North De Anza -- -- City Boundary di4wa\rammeamon South De Anza Boulevards(Arterials) Monta Vista Village Avenues(Major Collectors) Bubb Road Special Area t r r•� r ® Bubb Road Avenues(Minor Collectors) 2M0um units peracre Density IjIII, pp gKey Vallco Shopping District Intersections Maximum Height (~ III Neighbrh 000ds •X- Neighborhood Centers 45 feet r) or~��I _�- �---, Ill % Building Planes: •Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arteriaVboulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads Area. Vallco Shopping District Special Area Neighborhoods (d�, •For the Crossroads area,see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan. •For projects adjacent to residential areas:Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review. J •For the North and South Vallco Park areas(except for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area):Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1(i.e., 1.5 West of Wolfe Rd East of Wolfe Rd t Maximum Residential Density feet of setback for every 1 foot of building height)slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd.and Homestead Road curb lines and below 1:1 slope Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density As indicated in the General Plan Land Use Map; line drawn from Wolfe Road and tantau Avenue curb line. 35 units per acre 35 units per acre 15 units per acre for Neighborhood Commercial Sites Rooftop Mechanical Equiptment:Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they are Maximum Height Maximum Height Maximum Height enclosed,centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. Per Specific Plan Per Specific Plan 30 feet Priority Housing Sites:Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above,the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sites - identified in the adopted Housing Element shall be as reflected in the Housing Element. N. . CC 5-13 (ito ANGEL LAW LAW OFFICES OF FRANK P. ANGEL 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE 205 SANTA MONICA, CA 90405- 5269 TEL: ( 310 ) 314-6433 Fax : ( 310 ) 314-6434 City of Redondo Beach Attn: City Council City Hall 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Via Fax to and Email to Mayor and City Councilmembers Re: Public Hearing on Area 2 Amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan and Coastal Zoning Code Following the California Coastal Commission's Action of July 9, 2009 City Council Agenda Item J3 — October 6, 2009 Dear Mayor Gin and Members of the City Council, Angel Law has been retained by Building a Better Redondo, Inc. (BBR) as BBR's legal counsel in connection with the city council's hearing and any proposed action on the California Coastal Commission-modified local coastal program amendment (LCP amendment) for Area 2 of the Redondo Beach coastal zone. BBR formally requests that the city council, upon council approval of the LCP amendment, take the necessary steps to put the amendment to a vote of the people following appropriate traffic analysis. This requested action is mandated by Redondo Beach City Charter article XXVII (article XXVII).1 BBR is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, organized for the purposes of preserving and enhancing the quality of life of the residents of Redondo Beach and surrounding South Bay communities, among other things, through increasing public awareness of governmental and private activities adverse to quality of life in this area, and public participation by affected residents and community organizations in response. Having 'All further unlabeled section references are to city charter sections contained in article XXVII. • City of Redondo Beach • Attn: City Council October 6, 2009 Page 2 of 8 sponsored ballot Measure DD, which added article XXVII to the city's charter, BBR is a major stakeholder in the council's anticipated LCP amendment approval. At the general election of November 4, 2008, Measure DD passed with 58.51% of the popular vote. As such, BBR represents the interests of 15,301 voters, not including the many non- registered voters in support of the growth controls contained in Measure DD. Through their ringing endorsement of Measure DD, the vast majority of the voters of Redondo Beach found that the city's already oversaturated traffic circulation system cannot support the massive intensification of commercial and residential development planned by the city council for Redondo Beach. The voters' voices having been unheard for years, they opted to maximize their public participation in major land use decisions by requiring voter approval of all major changes in allowable land use in Redondo Beach, including zoning changes, and to secure objective, careful analysis of the traffic circulation and safety impacts of such changes, based on consistently applied standards and methodology. (§§ 27.4, 27.5.) By asking this council to follow the law -- the city's own charter BBR also asks the council to respect the democratic process expressed at the ballot box and honor the citizens' vote. The main purposes of the charter amendment are to "[g]ive the voters of Redondo Beach the power to determine whether the City should allow major changes in allowable land use, as defined [in the amendment]" (§ 27.1, subd. (a)), and "[e]nsure that City officials provide timely, accurate and unbiased environmental review ... [to] minimize ... adverse traffic and land use impacts," prior to the voters' decision on any major change. (Id., § 27.1, subd. (c).) The Charter amendment must be liberally construed to accomplish these purposes. (Id., § 27.10.) Whether considering traffic, density or intensity of use increases compared to baseline conditions, the LCP amendment is a "major change in allowable land use," as that term is defined in article XXVII. (§ 27.2, subd. (f).) This fact is not in dispute. What appears to be in dispute, however, is the applicability of article XXVII to the city council's anticipated acceptance and approval of the LCP amendment. In an inter-office memorandum dated November 26, 2008, the city attorney expressed his opinion that the city council's adoption of the land use plan (LUP) and coastal zoning ordinance amendments for the harbor and pier area on May 6, 2008 (and, by necessary implication, the earlier LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments for the power plant site and surrounding area on August 2, City of Redondo Beach Attn: City Council October 6, 2009 Page 3 of 8 2005), need not be submitted to the voters, supposedly because these amendments were already in effect before Measure DD became law. The city attorney's premise is in error. As explained below, the city council's May 2008 and August 2005 LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments never entered into effect, and so the LCP amendment now before the council, which includes the Coastal Commission's modifications to both the council's initial LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments, may not be accepted and approved without being submitted to the voters, following due traffic analysis, under the authority of, and as mandated by, article XXVII. We thus register our strong objections to any possible city action that would transmit to the Coastal Commission the council's acceptance and approval of the Coastal Commission-modified LCP amendment, without voter approval as required by article XXVII. Under article XXVII, the Coastal Commission-certified LCP amendment must be placed on the ballot after council approval (§ 27.4, subd. (a)), and the popular vote "shall be in addition to all other applicable review and approval requirements for" the LCP amendment. (§ 27.4, subd. (d).) Coastal Commission review and approval, which occurred on July 9, 2009, is such "applicable review and approval requirement...." Importantly, without voter approval, no valid permits may be approved for development projects in the power plant, harbor and pier areas. (§ 27.4, subd. (e).) I. The LCP Amendment Proposed for City Council Approval Is Subject to Article XXVII Because the City Council's May 2008 and August 2005 LUP and Coastal Zoning Ordinance Amendments Never Took Effect. The contention that the uncertified, since-modified LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments adopted by the city council on May 6, 2008 and August 2, 2005, for submittal to the Coastal Commission, became legally effective prior to the passage on November 4, 2008, of Measure DD, is untenable. This contention is wrong and, therefore, it cannot serve as a premise for exempting city acceptance and approval of the Coastal Commission-modified LCP amendment from article XXVII. The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) lays out the procedure for local governments to follow when they want to amend their LCPs. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 30514.) The Coastal Act makes clear that "no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the [Coastal] commission." (Id., subd. (a).) In other words, "[n]o amendment to the LCP will become effective until the Coastal Commission certifies the amendment is consistent with the requirements of • City of Redondo Beach Attn: City Council October 6, 2009 Page 5 of 8 to also "REJECT[the] Implementation Program [i.e., the coastal zoning ordinance amendments] as submitted." (6-24-09 staff report at 5, 6, original emphasis.) The report continued by outlining the numerous and substantial modifications that would have to be approved by the city in order for the LCP amendment to be certified by the Coastal Commission. (Ibid.) On July 9, 2009, the Coastal Commission followed its staff recommendations. It denied certification of the LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments as submitted. It then conditioned certification on approval by the city of the suggested modifications now before the city council, while making clear that its action was not intended to prejudice city compliance with article XXVII. Commission staff thereafter forwarded the Coastal Commission's new amendment terms and modifications to the city. Applicable law and the Coastal Commission's own action here make crystal clear that, contrary to the city attorney's opinion of November 26, 2008, the city's 2008 and 2005 LCP actions never took effect. It follows that the conclusion that they need not be submitted to the voters is a non sequitur. By the same token, any conclusion that present (October 6, 2009) city council approval of the LCP amendment as modified by the Coastal Commission on July 9, 2009, need not be submitted to the voters would violate article XXVII and constitute clear prejudicial error. II. The LCP Amendment Proposed for City Council Approval Is Subiect to Article XXVII Because It Has Yet to Be Approved by the City Council. As explained above, the LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments the city approved in May 2008 and August 2005, were rejected by the Coastal Commission, and the Coastal Commission-suggested modifications must be adopted by the city before such amendments are deemed certified by the Coastal Commission and may take effect. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30512, subd. (b), 30513, 30514, subd. (b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 13544, subd. (a), 13551.) Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the city's erstwhile actions of May 6, 2008 and August 2, 2005 have "approved" the LCP amendment. In fact, it would be quite a stretch to make such a claim -- especially given that the LCP amendment includes substantial Coastal Commission-suggested modifications that were never before the city council until now. Accordingly, for purposes of voter approval under article XXVII, any "approval" action in May 2008 or August • City of Redondo Beach Attn: City Council October 6, 2009 Page 6 of 8 2005, is meaningless as such action "approved" something different in substance from the actual LCP amendment now up for final city approval -- a document including 17 separately itemized modifications in the form of numerous, detailed additions and deletions of text. The law in effect when the city council makes its final administrative decision, i.e., when it approves the terms and modifications suggested by the Coastal Commission, governs the council's actions in the wake of the Coastal Commission's action of July 9, 2009. (See Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 38.) In Russian Hill Improvement Assn., the San Francisco board of supervisors enacted a height restriction ordinance while the San Francisco central permit bureau was considering a development permit application submitted prior to the board of supervisors' zoning action. (Id. at 36-37.) The permit bureau issued the permit without applying the height restriction ordinance, and the plaintiff association subsequently lost an appeal to the board of permit appeals. (Id. at 37.) The association then challenged the final administrative decision on the ground that the board of permit appeals should have applied the height restriction ordinance and denied the permit. (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court agreed, holding that the board of permit appeals was bound by the law "in force at the time of the final administrative decision, rather than the ordinances in effect at the time of preliminary proceedings before the permit bureau." (Id. at 38, original emphasis.) Like the height restriction ordinance at issue in Russian Hills Improvement Assn., article XXVII became effective after the administrative process had begun, but before it ended. Since the LCP amendment can only become effective after acceptance and adoption of the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications by the city council, such council action represents the "final administrative decision" in the local coastal planning context.3 As 'Any contention that the approval of the Coastal Commission-modified LCP amendment by the city council constitutes ministerial rather than discretionary action, and therefore could not be deemed an "approval" would be without merit. The city council retains discretion to reject the Coastal Commission's terms and modifications, and also "may elect to meet the [Coastal] commission's refusal of certification in a manner other than as suggested by the commission and may then resubmit its revised land use plan to the commission." (§ 30512, subd. (b).) City of Redondo Beach Attn: City Council October 6, 2009 Page 7 of 8 such, the city council is bound by the law in effect, namely article XXVII, when this final administrative decision occurs.4 Again, the people of Redondo Beach overwhelmingly passed Measure DD to add article XXVII to the charter on November 4, 2008. Section 27.3, subdivision (b) states: "All major changes in allowable land use approved by the City Council on or after the date of publication, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding Article XXVII to this City Charter, shall be subject to the provisions of this article." Because the city council has yet to adopt and approve the actual LCP amendment governing development in area 2 of the city's coastal zone, council approval cannot avoid compliance with the city's charter. It is "subject to the provisions" of article XXVII.5 Of the provisions of article XXVII the city must comply with related to its approval of the LCP amendment, two are of particular importance. First, section 27.5 requires that "any application for a major change in allowable land use shall contain accurate and up-to-date factual data and information" including, inter alia, a "complete, objective" traffic analysis that "adequately disclose[s] the direct, the indirect or secondary, and the cumulative impacts of the project." (§ 27.5, subd. (a).) The analysis also must "identify the mitigations necessary or recommended to reduce the traffic impacts to . . . a LOS [level of service] better than 'E' for the corridors and intersections subject to this analysis." (Charter § 27.5, subd. (a)(4).) The city based its traffic analysis for its 2008 LUP and coastal zoning ordinance amendments on the old "Heart of the City" traffic analysis. However, the general plan circulation element update currently in circulation to city commissions shows significant impacts beyond those Article XXVII's requirement that it be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes (§ 27.10) further bolsters this conclusion. Please also note that the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition was published on July 19, 2007. This notice thus preceded the city council's May 2008 action. Hence, under section 27.3, subdivision (b), the May 2008 action would still be subject to article XXVII, even assuming for the sake of argument that such action somehow constituted final approval of the LCP amendment. City of Redondo Beach Attn:City Council October 6,2009 Page 8 of 8 evaluated in the Heart of the City traffic analysis. The map attached as exhibit 1 to this comment letter compares the impacts of the harbor upzoning as disclosed in the initial environmental study (IES) for the harbor upzoning, to the results of the new city study for the circulation element update.° This map shows nine intersections degraded to LOS E or F (at or over capacity) that did not appear in the Heart of the City traffic analysis. Despite this severe degradation, the city's proposed LCP amendment action fails to "identify the mitigations necessary or recommended" (§ 27.5, subd. (a)(4)) to reduce these impacts, in plain disregard of the voters' clear intent expressed in article XXVII. This goes to emphasize how pressing a need there is for the city to comply with article XXVII. 4R4 Should the city council approve the proposed major change unallowable land use without complying with its public duties under article XXVII, our client will consider its legal options to remedy such illegal conduct. Please note section 27.9: "Any aggrieved person shall have the right to maintain an action for equitable relief to restrain any violation of this article, or to enforce the duties imposed on the City by this article." Sincerely, ANGEL LAW • Frank P. Angel cc: Michael Webb, City Attorney (by email -- michael.webb@redondo.org) Aaron Jones, Planning Director (by email -- aaron.jones@redondo.org Enc.: 1 6This map was prepared by Jim Light of Building a Better Redondo. e. • Comparison of Harbor Upzoning traffic analysis _ (DIF to City's 2008 Circulation Element traffic analysis Jpx, — _r _ , r _ r 1l PM Peak Traffic / Q�� <� ���� Level of Service4, :,,:,_!\v•••-•-•- .� 0 tiii:ra .** f .cxp“... ,__._— _____\ ' cC 14. 0 ab C e � Col` X35-41 x • It co L--• ‘.:;:e2,;. 221 � °'vt f 2 IIID ��F CO S 2 .....> A/F le . Pacific „000400000000r4 16 .mtr•a+a 17 1A r . 7 Ocean • 9 a�Ja• 's A Heart of the City Value 2008 Ciro Element til 6 ,.. 1f 8'.. F K��: Value �'� ' � r j EP Recent City Study shows Harbor Rezoning Impact Analysis Understates Impacts. This map compares the old Heart of the City traffic analysis (used as the impacts of harbor upzoning) to the city's new 2008 Circulation Element analysis (which also includes the new harbor upzoning). The new study shows impacts not predicted or analyzed for mitigation under the HOC EIR. The HOC EIR is inadequate for this upzoning. EXHIBIT 1 Redondo Beach Council decides to leave Measure DD wording as-Is - EastBayTimes.com 5/3/16,5:58 PM BCBGeneration Treasure Pumps Painted jILL A$92.20 A$117.24 Save on Apparel,Home Items,&More t Macy's EAST BAY TIMES(http://www.eastbaytimes.com) NEWS (/NEWS) NOT TOPICS Warriors Owarriorsfutm Source=inthenewel Indiana orimary(/oolitics-oovemment/ci 298436967uhnsource=inthenawel "ElpELEcrRCN9Cs ilia AdNlVERSB3YSA525K OUoCMTkixVEAWAY(YtlP NOW Ham ri News V Story "- ...._.__ _...... ....__ .... ....__ Redondo Beach Council decides to leave M3 g as From staff reports POSTED: 12/03/20O8 11:30:58 PM PST I UPDATED: ]YEARS AGO kaatiLry RELATED REDONDO NEWS '�;$'d} ( "l"� ... »Pearl Plaza's fate left unsettled nP `�Pt,11342 3R1 NORDSTROMREER.DSTROM FREE RETU INS IPPING' Wy (/ »Redondo Gardena look to raise their utility taxes(/news/ci nr3stfaiza - A"I1`OM` Redondo Beach officials this week passed up a chance to put a revised Measure DD on the March 4 1.2-7.71t;':. i The City Council on Tuesday could have decided to float a new version of the measure that correct� .12 rdeq bu .r-e. seemed to be no backers for that idea / .-.: • f m t raw "I would not favor putting this on the ballot again because I think the voters'intent on what was 'tn` .. said."Tc Lir3 typo issue doesn't rise to a level where we need a re-vote." Measure DD amends the city charter so that zoning changes affecting public land and surpassing t ' e% _ _ _ _ 1�^ __ '' lublic vol Once the council certifies the election results next week,a copy of the charter amendment—with t II . MORE VIDEOS: 4 Advertisement ; A. [w, 4r t1{1 w + / il : rpt! r 4 ` IDIT Walnut Creek Local Guide (http://mylocal.contracostatimes.cc . b _.. ---- - Featured Businesses San Leandro Ford Istdibs ;SHgP Nov (http)/mylocal.eastbaytimes.com/san- leandro-CNauto/auto-dealers/San-Leandro- Ford-800-701-1739) Mr.Rooter Plumbing (httpJ/mylocal.eastbaytimes.conJoakland- CNhouse-and-home/plumbing-services/M r- FROM AROUND THE WEB Rooter-Plumbing-408-600-0132) selected for you by a sponsor Altmore Collection The (http://mylocaleastbaytimes.com/san- h ttp://www.eastbaytimes.cominewski11134562 Page 1 of 3 Silicon Valley Residents Leave for Greener Grass, Cheaper Housing- Digits -WSJ 5/3/16,6:29 PM a THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. This copy is for your personal,non-commercial use only.To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues,clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com. htlp://blogs.wsl.com/digits2076/03/03/sllicon-valley-residems-leave-lor-greener-grass-cheaper-housing/ DIGITS Silicon Valley Residents Leave for Greener Grass, Cheaper Housing By GEORGIA WELLS Mar 3, 2016 2:43 pm ET t / , M Jif T �p 111s` 1 �: ! I 149 Silicon Valley lost more than 7,500 residents to other parts of the U.S.last year, according to a new study.GETTY IMAGES Not everyone wants to live in Silicon Valley.Americans are starting to leave the techie hub faster than they're arriving,a new study says. The region lost more than 7,500 residents to other parts of the U.S.last year,the first time Silicon Valley has lost more U.S.residents than it has gained since 2011,according to the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project.Two local groups commissioned the study to identify strategies to reinforce the region's innovation. Although the pool of workers is still growing,due to a large influx of highly educated foreign-born workers,the departure of homegrown talent points to weaknesses in the region's ability to sustain its population,particularly with affordable housing. "People are leaving for a mix of reasons,but some might be getting opportunities in other regions where they can pay less for housing," said John Melville,co-chief executive of Collaborative Economics Inc.,the firm that produced the study. The flow of people in and out of the region is significant because access to workers is one of the most critical ingredients in Silicon http://blogs.wsi.com/digits/2016/03/03/silicon-valley-residents-leave-for-greener-grass-cheaper-housing/N:ONtB-nxAJ3l wrA Page 1 of 3 Silicon Valley Residents Leave for Greener Grass,Cheaper Housing -Digits-WSJ 5/3/16, 6:29 PM Valley's economy.One-quarter of all Silicon Valley jobs are in what the study calls"innovation industries"related to tech.Software engineering roles make up 8%of the region's jobs,and IT services make up another 4%. But the cost of living has become a critical issue.Silicon Valley home prices increased 13%to a median value of$870,000 between August 2014 and August 2015,higher than all other regions the study looked at.Meanwhile,transportation has gotten worse.In 2014,the average Silicon Valley commuter lost 67 hours in traffic congestion,an increase of 13.6%from 2010,the study says. The smaller tech hubs of Seattle and Austin,Texas,meanwhile,have been absorbing more U.S.workers.Over the past year,Seattle saw a net increase of more than 17,000 workers and Austin logged a net increase of 720 workers from other parts of the U.S. A slowdown in the tech sector has started to hit companies and workers in Silicon Valley and San Francisco.Venture capital money is harder to come by.More than a dozen companies have announced layoffs,including Yahoo,Twitter Inc.and Zenefits and other companies are closing money-losing projects. Henry Cisneros,former Secretary of the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development,issued a warning to the region recently that the lack of affordable housing could hinder future economic development.He pointed to land restrictions that make building new housing"almost impossible,"and said the region isn't dedicating enough resources to the problem. "Silicon Valley is not dealing with some basic urban realities,"he said during a conference in San Jose,Calif.in February."Regions and their leaders too often do not,when they are in their prime,look ahead and adjust their systems to sustain that arc of prosperity." Share this: http://on.wsj.com/1TVRTSU DEMOGRAPHICS (HTTP://BLOGS.W SJ.COM/DIG ITS/TAG/DEMOGRAPHICS/) INNOVATION(HTTP://BLOGS.WSJ.COM/DIGITS/TAG/INNOVATION-START- UPS/) MIGRATION(HTTP://BLOGS.WSJ.COM/DIGITS/TAG/MIGRATION/) SILICON VALLEY COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION PROJECT (HTTP://BLOGS.W SJ.COM/DIGITS/TAG/SI LICON-VALLEY- COMPETITIVENESS-AND-INNOVATION-PROJECT/) http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/03/silicon-valley-residents-leave-for-greener-grass-cheaper-housing/M:ONfB-nxAJ3l wrA Page 2 of 3 Tech worts are increasingly looking to leave Silicon Valley-Yahoo Finance 5/3/16, 6:27 PM G Home Mali Search News Spores Finance Celebrity Weather Answers Ft ckr Mobile I More v i Search Finance Search Web © Sign In u Mail 0 -., , 0"(..4?:PM EDT US.fmrkstscloc-:+i ,; Close Ad I x ;Ik aiv f f 4 n- NORDSTROM ! j.t. FREESHIPPING _ � � FREE RETURNS i ALL THE TIME. -,44,,. P °. , Recent Quotes you view appear here for Tech workers are Midday Moyers quick access. _ Bond Market Update from Brieflng.com Ovate Lookup — Go increasingly looking to Story Stocks from Briefing com leave Silicon Valley This weak U.S.dollar is actually helping Janet Finance Home Yellen My Portfolio Federal Reserve to put hedge funds on the My Quotes News hook for the next Lehman Brothers collapse Market Data QUARTZ By Ashley Rodriguez f f f f February 29,201610:16 AM Get ready for'reverse quantitative easing' Yahoo Originals Asian stocks mostly higher following US lead Berkshire Hathaway Market Movers Midday Movers Top Stories • The Final Round These hedge funders are dismayed at the Sportsbook presidential race Business Water scarcity may knock 6%off GDP:World Investing Bank Personal Finance Global shares lose to bonds as deflation dan- More, ger dominates Takata to announce recall of 35 million-40 mil- Business&Finance lion U.S.air bag inflators:sources Personal Finance • Seven big banks settle U.S.rate-rigging law- CNBC A growing number of engineers and tech workers from the San suit for$324 million Contributors Francisco Bay Area are looking to leave Silicon Valley for bur- geoning tech hubs such as Austin,Texas, and Seattle,Washing- I— -------- --'- F ton,according to a job-search site's data. ^�" Recommended Games 1 Ir `���i Pt Mrrt r Indeed.com found that the share of searches from within the Bay nr ., A' V si2F`. }r,' - Area for tech jobs outside of it is on the rise.As of Feb. 1,35% , 4 .. of tech searches on Indeed.com from the region " More games, job were for -0,. � /C: , d jobs elsewhere,data from the company shows.That share, ""*rn*'"x 4 �w•' ' ti which is based on 30-day averages and adjusted for seasonal factors,was up about 30%year-over-year. i �' NORDSTROM FREERETUti SiiicrNGS FREE• ETP/ S i ALL THETIME. http://Finance.yahoo.com/news/tech-workers-increasingly-looking-leave-151652965.html Page 1 of 6 Tech worke1s are increasingly looking to leave Silicon Valley-Yahoo Finance 5/3/16,6:27 PM l • Chris Rock's Oscars made a powerful point about racism- until it threw Asians under the bus Ted Cruz Drops Out of 2016 Race The portion of searches for work outside of the Bay Area—which `I x has the most expensive rents in the US—was also highest b • T` among people ages 31 to 40,suggesting that people are leaving Turn Heads with Designer Dresses f to find better opportunities elsewhere or to settle down in more from Macy's Sponsored Macys.com affordable areas where they can improve their quality of life. Ted Cruz drops out of Republican White House race • Being a good parent will physiologically destroy you, new research confirms Dean:Oil Equities Got Ahead of the Com- "In the Bay Area,there's been such enormous growth and op- modity portunity that it's created some challenges for happiness,"Paul D'Arcy,senior vice president at Indeed.com,told Quartz. "Job searchers are always balancing opportunity and happiness.As people think about what the right fit for them is, housing,traffic, and quality of life are really important factors." This trend doesn't diminish Silicon Valley as a tech hub, D'Arcy said-66%of tech job searches were still for work within the Bay Area,and people from other parts of the country are migrat- Why Google and Fiat Are Teaming Up on Self-Driving Cars ing to the region every day. Rather, it speaks to the growth of technology opportunities around the US. mars f7.,„ 41411fliftnom. "Ia http://rinance.yahoo.com/news/tech-workers-increasingly-looking-leave-151652965.html Page 2 of 6 Techworkjrs are increasingly looking to leave Silicon Valley-Yahoo Finance 5/3/16,6:27 PM The most-searched places outside of California were major cities ) ;'*''� ,® � E 019 —New York,for example—and more affordable places with r it growing tech communities,including Austin and Seattle. • a,r s> ' D' = ir Most-searched cities for tech r ,t ; , , . ` , obs from people in the San P P We install a solar system at no charge. f 'Francisco Bay Area Sponsored SolarCity Rank I City State 1 New York New York 2 Austin Texas 3 Seattle Washington 4 Atlanta Georgia 5 Houston Texas 6 Chicago Illinois 7 Dallas Texas What Are the Biggest Market Risks Right 8 Portland Oregon Now? "It's amazing to see other places that are small up very high," D'Arcy said. "That reflects other strong tech centers that are per- ceived as having a higher quality of life." D'Arcy said this type of migration—from big to smaller cities—is common around the world.The same patterns can be found in the UK and Germany,for example,with people moving from London to Cambridge and Berlin to Munich. How PlateJoy Puts Grocery Shopping on Autopilot And where the talent goes, companies follow.We're seeing this already with tech giants like Facebook opening offices in Austin and Seattle,and Google leasing space in downtown Portland (GOOGL). Sign up for the Quartz Daily Brief,our free daily newsletter with the world's most important and interesting news. McDonald's success triggers breakfast wars More stories from Quartz: bscrir • How leap year babies celebrate their birthdays ° * x* ty�^�`'rl • It's good to be German:The world's most powerful pass- - •• ` ports ?.'.DLII-71-x`, -. ..- -- --- - - - ._ - -- ' - -- "p ,�" i ate+;.„:; • _ Rates 25 Dogs Perfectly Suited for the Elder- f ly Sponsored PetBreeds II By Graphig http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tech-workers-increasingly-looking-leave-151652965.html Page 3 of 6 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM BCBGeneration Treasure Pumps - Painted A ._ A$92.20 A$117.21 Save on Apparel, Home Items, & More Macy's TECHNOLOGY r Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region BY SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ ON 03/05/16 AT 5:45 PM http://www.ibtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2330875 Page 1 of 18 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM F y y ,wt a' .sa sr 1 , µ '",:S t •., n '``,.,"4.4 s. k� { :y u'a, "? w, ;F?,a "es : i 3.{ :y „r =n �.q'. xx.,i r, x EK *;u A =l. �+# 4 r {? �'.Y(p„r,�' W 4` .ypa„ .� x ' .,"'i, % ,;A¢ >$` { r•4. �u P ti t Z $ ( �� a�.` { t fid @ 1 a e .� L1{ t's" ,. a�+: +. / 3 ". # `may <> {rt-.. ,x<{ , 2i..,O, ,,a ' F^""S , . "s . pan ' i tl, � {{e�x°° ° -".�• q ' 'try,. -.n-r' : f ,Yi ir "arrf } a i ti'... I`-` - to 9r -r . s , a Li ! f3 1 11 aer •a .' ' ro } s S0 jt Za *a �L�LSCS ��ep{iriii J,"a_ J �_ -• 4 q) � all `I i i .. ..- ::i:Ow:e4.. -=-E -- � iiiIn� yh § 1 ■J'F w .�0 r.`1 -.. t s�Mt�.wJtac :�� , ...x 1as�•.• ..' �.oiv' a d 's U w` { "1 1 y i:au 1 { t,- 3f Av '-'I 41::...-.-11, J i ax••was oa'- A tW'"' w.\. 'r' e � 1•,1 r :: umJ, .n''--E- i {r:Inti• ''iC i. a r �+ ---s o. . , zey Iv'; t'J ,'�j, .,.,...Ism .l, •• r Wim. • h t ,.. : m m. ^+^" J , . _fits tri 3 s* $ 1 .,, o r 13. +^may l +. 4 +�4 at. C. „ 4 .N44_. t�ES a Afa '" l . !€ VT7 ._.� WLi4w �41*b*a >t`I-N7' "d m _.n A1'R R ;" ,.Me " 5"....1 _iy?.f, ++s4 w,� 4o- Lrn49t'"v e ■ 0f IIiL ■ 'til,j Ar! 4.a v� � -. E_ t ' _y,-a ,, r -- .1.r-wS..-�} rR• '— ofr,Fs7, _•-x e u sI xR a DT r. ,. '-- r?�$ yf`' a +ta W.- rl..x^- :.«., -°-.° �6i�' � is r a 4 -.. -- •1. _ ii ..ear..�.l t..te a.' u b • �:,._.r ,. art 13 i _..... SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley's housing problem, growing cost of living and unbearable commute times are finally starting to push techies away from the region. A recent report found Silicon Valley lost more residents to other parts of the U.S. in 2014 than it gained — the first time that has happened since 2011. More than 7,600 Silicon Valley residents left the region for other U.S. cities, the Silicon Valley. Competitiveness and Innovation Project found. The group's findings also show between August 2014 and August 2015, home prices increased 13 percent while rents increased 12 percent. Additionally, SVCIP's report found the average Silicon Valley commuter lost 67 hours in traffic congestion in 2014, up 13.6 percent since 2010. ADVERTISING Page 2 of 18 http://www.ibtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2336875 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM Altogether, these conditions have concocted a cocktail that is making it difficult for many to justify staying in the San Francisco Bay Area. Just ask Andrew Gazdecki, the CEO of tech startup Bizness Apps. In January, Gazdecki and his team made the difficult decision to relocate the company from San Francisco to San Diego. It's an ongoing process that will continue through April and ultimately migrate 50 Bizness Apps employees out of Silicon Valley. "We love San Francisco, but at the end of the day there's other areas in the country with a lot of talent," said Gazdecki, whose company builds apps for small businesses. "By moving we're going to be able to recruit the best talent at lower wages than we would in San Francisco, allowing everybody to have a better quality of life, pay less for rent and basically just get away from all the downsides of San Francisco." http://www.ibtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2336875 Page 3 of 18 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM Migration Flows Average Net New Residents Per Month Innovation Regions,2014 Seattle .«.� +1,450 e +1,577 +3,027 ,,mom . New York City , ,yaw 9. S-11523 1 Silicon Valley -1,301 -637 ,, • - +1,384 e +2A71 +1,835 i 1 Boston ' � .._ .,�, �-1,015 _.- ._ . e +2,344 +1,809 ,1 _ _ li" ], .a` Avcrape duneo 6 rmrdunu Southern for From MithinUS. California +599 Fmm ab wd 5 4908 - i 0 +6,717 Austin • SW +60 0 +540 Data Source:US Census Burnt,Population Estimates Analysis:Coltabora*e Eccnom'ss Silicon Valley lost more than 7,600 residents to other U.S. cities in 2014. This is the first time since 2011 that Silicon Valley lost more residents than it gained due to domestic migration. PHOTO: SILICON VALLEY COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION PROJECT Silicon Valley's housing problems are nothing new. For years, the region's high cost of living has taken a toll on many who are unable to compete with the employees of tech giants like Apple, Google, Facebook and others for housing. But as the tech industry's demand for talent continues to grow at rapid rates that far outpace the region's housing construction, even the tech companies are starting to worry. "The cost of Living here makes it especially difficult to recruit people from out of town and it http://www.ibtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2330875 Page 4 of 18 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM creates a vicious cycle," said said John Mracek, CEO of NetSeer, based in Mountain View, an online media and audience-targeting company. "Employers raise compensation, employees can pay more for housing and the cycle continues." This concern has resulted in tech companies beginning to lend their names and support to efforts focused on creating more housing. Just this week the Mountain View City Council approved plans for dense housing that were heavily backed by Google. A year ago, tech companies largely refrained from partaking in efforts like this, but now, they have no choice but to do so, said Micah Weinberg, president of the Area Council Economic Institute, which represents the Likes of Apple, Google, Facebook and many others. For the tech industry, this is new behavior "and in many ways uncomfortable. It's not the businesses that they run, and the politics of development are fraught," Weinberg said. "But it's become such an urgent imperative, not only for them as companies but in terms of the communities that they live in, that they are getting engaged." But as Silicon Valley struggles to keep and attract talent, tech hubs like Seattle and Austin, Texas, are reaping the rewards. Both of these areas saw large gains in domestic migration in 2014, according to SVCIP's report. This may be due to the fact that a tech employee's salary in each of these cities goes much further than it does in Silicon Valley. http://www.iblimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-resitlents-leave-region-2330875 Page 5 of 18 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM AVERAGE SOFTWARE ENGINEER SALARY: ADJUSTED BASED ON COST OF LIVING IN SAN FRANCISCO r. SEATTLE ` S164K i II _ rf,r rt t �14� SICKN .CHICAGO - 4 NEW YORK a SF BAY AREA 1 r$155K. 1 ;;, TCY $132K WASHINGTON D.C. .� `"0 DENVER t, }:� ., , v IS136K 4 S1BOK - - • s . II , , LOS ANGELES., ,� t 4. S152K ,I 1 SAN DIEGO I I Y1 $.42K r°t ATLANTA $ 1 j' � _ 3 �1I( '. 5163K I` — l ,a= ' l^ r nAUSTINH } ` S195K Although San Francisco pays software engineers higher salaries than other U.S. cities,salaries elsewhere except New York go much further when adjusted based on San Francisco's cost of living, according to a study by recruiting startup Hired. PHOTO : HIRED The average Silicon Valley software engineer, for example, made $132,000 in 2015, according to Hired, a startup that specializes in helping tech companies recruit talent. The average in Seattle is $125,000 while Austin's average is $110,000, but although these figures are lower, an engineer in either of these cities is getting more bang for his or her buck. When adjusted based on cost of living in San Francisco, an engineer in Seattle is is making $164,000 while an engineer in Austin makes $195,000, Hired's 2015 State of U.S. Salaries Report found. http://www.ibtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2336875 Page 6 of 18 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM "While it's easy for job seekers to get stars in their eyes over the salaries in San Francisco, when you adjust for cost of living, an engineer's salary goes further in every city in our analysis with the exception of New York," the report said. This holds true for Gazdecki and the rest of the Bizness Apps team, who are already starting to feel the benefits of their move to San Diego's La Jolla neighborhood and their "instant raise." "I pay $3,200 for a single-bedroom apartment, and it's a lot of money. In La Jolla we're looking at a two-bedroom apartment two blocks from the ocean for almost half that," Gazdecki said. "It goes to show you how much farther your dollar can go in different areas." Median Home Prices Among Various Tech Hubs $1,130,400 ry Tx } t 'fit - t $533,000 $531,000 0 icy: »a= g', a, P. } • $290,700 „;„, -4 'f .* ,r 1: $149,100 Icdr [ • San Francisco Seattle San Diego Austin Lincoln Source: Zillow Get the data 1B°i°Q hltp://www.lbtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2330875 Page 7 of 18 Tech Starting To Feel Silicon Valley's Housing Crunch As Residents Leave Region 5/3/16, 6:31 PM In Silicon Valley, the median home price in 2015 was $870,000, but that value grew more rapidly year-to-year than all other innovative regions, the SVCIP report said. For techies looking to buy a home, Silicon Valley is among the most expensive places to do so. In San Francisco specifically the median home price is now $1.1 million, Zillow indicates. That's more than twice as much as the median home value in Seattle ($533,000) and nearly four times as much as Austin ($290,700). Some techies have even made their way to flyover country, to such areas as Lincoln, Nebraska, (median home price $149,100), to build tech communities where you don't have to be a millionaire just to own a house. For tech companies without household names, locating in areas outside of Silicon Valley can make it easier to compete for talent against the likes of tech giants, which shower their candidates with benefits that many startups simply cannot afford. "Paying the competitive compensation package is a must now, so what companies do on top of that is the differentiator," said Taro Fukuyama, co-founder and CEO of AnyPerk, a San Francisco company that helps tech firms deliver perks and discount programs to their employees. "There are a lot of factors such as developing a strong mission, promoting a great company culture and implementing unique perks. These are key since it's nearly impossible to only give competitive compensation packages in Silicon Valley since everyone does that." For Gazdecki and Bizness Apps, the hope is that by moving to San Diego it'll be easier to stand out and hire top candidates without having to compete against top names like Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber, Twitter and others. "We're a needle in the haystack in San Francisco," Gazdecki said. "By moving our company to a lower cost area like San Diego we can essentially be the haystack and be the company that people want to work for." http://www.ibtimes.com/tech-starting-feel-silicon-valleys-housing-crunch-residents-leave-region-2330875 Page 8 of 18 0-11-01- covvtm Co g.3// An enormous mistake was made by the consultants who wrote the EC9212 report to analyze the impacts of CCSGI. In the last paragraph of page7 and first paragraph of page 8 of its Appendix A-2, they wrote: "Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet." The only areas of the City that ares"outside.of the Special Areas"are the p of the City that the General Plan defines as Neighborhoods: The existing General Plan--as well as the City's Zoning Ordinance--establish 30 feet as the maximum building height for the neighborhoods. Accordingly, this provision would increase the maximum building height of the City's Neighborhoods by 15 feet, to 45 feet. However, the consultants have mistakenly used the December 2014 version of the General Plan as the c rruc entp anland certified and adopted by the [current] City Council when the October 2015 version should be used since it was the latest version certified and adopted by the [current] City Council (please see page 6 of EC9212 report for reference). Both the CCSGI text and the`October 2015 version of the General Plan clearly include the "Neighborhoods" in Figure LU-1 as a newly designated "special area." Incidentally, the consultants have deleted the key reference to Figure LU-1 in a sub-clause of the quoted CCSGI text and a copy of Figure LU-1 from the CCSGI or the correct (October 2015) version of the General Plan. The box inserted for that designation in Figure LU-1 indicates the zoning for the maximum building height in the "Neighborhoods" is 30 feet. CCSGI did not change, increase or decrease that zoning limit since the "Neighborhoods" is one of the nine "special areas" in the October 2015 version of the General Plan. Therefore, the council started out the discussion and eventually determined the contents of the 75-word "ballot question" (aka "ballot label") on an incorrect recommendation from the EC9212 authors who have charged the City $150,000 for this faulty report. Please seriously consider to re-visit and promptly correct the text of the CCSGI ballot question. Thank you. An enormous mistake was made by the consultants who wrote the EC9212 report to analyze the impacts of CCSGI. In the last paragraph of page7 and first paragraph of page 8 of its Appendix A-2, they wrote: "Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet" The only areas of the City that are ` outside of the Special Areas" are the_part Of the City that the General Plan defines as Neighborhoods The existing General Plan--as well as the City's Zoning Ordinance--establish 30 feet as the maximum building height for the neighborhoods. Accordingly, this provision would increase the maximum building height of the City's Neighborhoods by 15 feet, to 45 feet. However, the consultants have mistakenly used the December 2014 version of the General Plan as the current plan certified and adopted by the [current] City Council when the October 2015 version should be used since it was the latest version certified and adopted by the [current] City Council (please see page 6 of EC9212 report for reference). Both the CCSGI text and the October 2015 version of the General Plan clearly include the "Neighborhood " in Figure LU-1 as a newly designated "special area." Incidentally, the consultants have deleted the key reference to Figure LU-1 in a sub-clause of the quoted CCSGI text and a copy of Figure LU-1 from the CCSGI or the correct(October 2015) version of the General Plan. The box inserted for that designation in Figure LU-1 indicates the zoning for the maximum building height in the "Neighborhoods" is 30 feet. CCSGI did not change, increase or decrease that zoning limit since the "Neighborhood " is one of the nine "special areas" in the Octob 2015 version of the General Plan. Therefore, the council started out the discussion and eventually determined the contents of the 75-word"ballot question" (aka"ballot label") on an incorrect recommendation from the EC9212 authors who have charged the City $150,000 for this faulty report. Please seriously consider to re-visit and promptly correct the text of the CCSGI ballot question. Thank you. An enormous mistake was made by the consultants who wrote the EC9212 report to analyze the impacts of CCSGI. In the last paragraph of page7 and first paragraph of page 8 of its Appendix A-2, they wrote: "Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet." The only areas of the City that are "outside of the Special Areas" azre the part Of the.City that the General Plan defines as Neighborhoods: The existing General Plan--as well as the City's Zoning Ordinance--establish 30 feet as the maximum building height for the neighborhoods. Accordingly, this provision would increase the maximum building height of the City's Neighborhoods by 15 feet, to 45 feet. However, the consultants have mistakenly used the December 2014 version of the General Plan as the current Mali certified and adopted by the [current] City Council when the October 2015 version should be used since it was the latest version certified and adopted by the [current] City Council (please see page 6 of EC9212 report for reference). Both the CCSGI text and the October 2015 version of the General Plan clearly include the "Neighborhoods" in Figure LU-1 as a newly designated "special area." Incidentally, the consultants have deleted the key reference to Figure LU-1 in a sub-clause of the quoted CCSGI text and a copy of Figure LU-1 from the CCSGI or the correct(October 2015) version of the General Plan. The box inserted for that designation in Figure LU-1 indicates the zoning for the maximum building height in the "Neighborhoods" is 30 feet. CCSGI did not change, increase or decrease that zoning limit since the "Neighborhoods" is one of the nine "special areas" in the,October 2015 version of the General Plan. Therefore, the council started out the discussion and eventually determined the contents of the 75-word "ballot question" (aka "ballot label") on an incorrect recommendation from the EC9212 authors who have charged the City $150,000 for this faulty report. Please seriously consider to re-visit and promptly correct the text of the CCSGI ballot question. Thank you. An enormous mistake was made by the consultants who wrote the EC9212 report to analyze the impacts of CCSGI. In the last paragraph of page7 and first paragraph of page 8 of its Appendix A-2, they wrote: "Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet." [The only areas of the City that are "outside of the Special Areas" are the part Of the City that the General Plan defines as,Neighborhoods. The existing General Plan--as well as the City's Zoning Ordinance--establish 30 feet as the maximum building height for the neighborhoods. Accordingly, this provision would increase the maximum building height of the City's Neighborhoods by 15 feet, to 45 feet. However, the consultants have mistakenly used the pecember 2014 version of the General Plan as the current plan certified and adopted by the [current] City Council when the October 2015 version should be used since it was the latest version certified and adopted by the [current] City Council (please see page 6 of EC9212 report for reference). Both the CCSGI text and the October 2.015 version of the General Plan clearly include the "Neighborhoods" in Figure LU-1 as a newly designated "special area." Incidentally, the consultants have deleted the key reference to Figure LU-1 in a sub-clause of the quoted CCSGI text and a copy of Figure LU-1 from the CCSGI or the correct (October 2015) version of the General Plan. The box inserted for that designation in Figure LU-1 indicates the zoning for the maximum building height in the "Neighborhoods" is 30 feet. CCSGI did not change, increase or decrease that zoning limit since the "Neighborhoods" is one of the nine "special areas" in the October 2015 version of the General Plan. Therefore, the council started out the discussion and eventually determined the contents of the 75-word "ballot question" (aka "ballot label") on an incorrect recommendation from the EC9212 authors who have charged the City $150,000 for this faulty report. Please seriously consider to re-visit and promptly correct the text of the CCSGI ballot question. Thank you.