Loading...
Fung, David -NOP Comments-20180311March 11, 2018 City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Via e-mail / planning@cupertino.org Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, File Number EA -2017-05. My name is David Fung and I'm a 32 -year resident of Cupertino. I currently serve on the Cupertino Planning Commission, however I am providing my comments as an individual citizen. As a long time citizen observer of Cupertino's land use policymaking, I believe the 2014 General Plan provides insufficient guidance in a number of areas that directly impact this Vallco Specific Plan effort. In particular, the adopted GP was deficient in identifying housing needs over its 25 -year lifespan does not clearly address mixed-use development. These issues are highlighted in my comments. Maximum residential units for EIR consideration — The approved GP does not speak clearly to the potential number of housing units that can be built in the Vallco planning zone. There is an explicit provisional allocation of 389 units expiring on 5/31/2018, but this reflects a process that apportioned 2014-2022 RHNA targets, rather than reflecting the GP's time range through 2040. At the 12/02/2014 City Council meeting where the GP was adopted, the Staff Report (attached): (https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=395499&GUID=8C8FD 15F -BB26-4EF8-9701-83CC2B07DBAC, p. 9) recommended a citywide residential allocation of +4,421 units, which included 1,400 units for the 2014-2022 RHNA cycle, but only those 1,400 units were approved at that meeting. As the staff report points out, approving only 1,400 total units leaves insufficient allocation to cover RHNA cycles after 2022 without GP amendments. Since the +4,421 units have been fully studied in the GP EIR, I recommend that the upper bound for consideration of residential units at the Vallco site be no higher than the unallocated proposed balance of 3,410 units (34 10 = 4421- 1400+389), which would then be subject to existing unit density for this site or Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Comments p.I David Fung the equivalent form -based code metric (see my next point, below). A fully redeveloped Vallco site would likely still be under construction when the next Housing Element is taken up in 2021 which justifies consideration of this project hosting some of the next RHNA allocation. Mixed-use Housing Density - The GP is ambiguous around the meaning of housing density in mixed-use developments. Even in a residential -only multi- family project, density alone does not give a good sense of the mass of the construction, and it is particularly vague in a mixed-use environment where major portions of the site may not include homes. For instance, if only 10% of a site housed its entire residential component, but the allowable density was applied to the whole site area, this would seem to allow or require a very tall residential building. Because this affects the ultimate number of units being considered, I think it is important for the City to clarify the interpretation of density before setting the maximum number of units under study. Possibilities would be to apply an (adjusted) density ratio only to the portion of the site that has residential structures, of to set a maximum floor -area -ratio for residential structures. Max Residential Build -Out alternative — In the EIR scoping hearing, one slide of the DJ Powers & Associations presentation, one of the slides reflected a "General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix). I'm not sure of the genesis of this ratio, other than it being mentioned as the criteria for a project that could seek streamlining under the new SB35 legislation. Potential SB35 action is not a justification for setting the land use ratio of a mixed-use project, and believe that this should be dropped as a design criteria for the EIR scenarios. Our adopted GP does a poor job addressing mixed-use development. In Palo Alto, a mixed -used building has non-residential uses subject to a specific FAR and residential space above that subject to a different, higher FAR. A three-story building could easily have this (2/3R, 1/3NR), but taller buildings would much higher residential ratio. It's everybody's expectation that the outcome of the Specific Plan process will address these weaknesses in defining mixed-use projects, but the EIR may be less effective if this doesn't have greater clarity at the start. Commercial vs. Office Space - When developing Specific Plan EIR alternative scenarios, I strongly recommend that the scenarios study SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT allocations for Commercial vs Office space, which have been grouped together historically, but qualitatively differ in their effects on the community impacts. These classifications differ in their target market — commercial uses provide services to the adjacent community where office uses Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Comments p.2 David Fung direct their output beyond the immediate locality. They also generate different levels of impact in the EIR, particularly in daily trips generated. I would recommend using the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition with the suggestion that Office encompass ITE codes 700- 799[Office], and Commercial include ITE codes (800-999 [Retail, Services], 400- 499 [Recreational], and 600-699 [Medical]). Finally, I want to express my concern regarding no mention of current Vallco Specific Plan process in NOP letter. While recognizing that the NOP must have been vetted prior to distribution and complies with CEQA requirements, I feel that the lack of discussion of the Specific Plan process running in parallel has negative impact on the ability of the public and external agencies to comprehend the true scope of the project, especially alternatives that differ significantly from the original Hills at Vallco proposal submitted in 2015. There have been sentiments expressed by city staff, the City Council, the applicant, and the public that this Specific Plan process will look at a mix of land -use that shifts the emphasis from office to residential use. This would be hard to recognize based on the NOP document alone. Given the prevailing rates of turnover among agency staff, the ability to get quality responses to the NOP may be reduced. I raised the issue of the Specific Plan process and EIR report being executed in parallel rather than serially during public comment at the first consultant's presentation to the Council on 12/19/2017. Although I understand it the goal is for the EIR to study a greater sphere of impact than the project proposal, if that envelope is MUCH greater than the actual project, the findings are less useful and compromise our decision-making ability. Although the Draft EIR will reflect the full scope of alternatives for final agency comment, I would encourage the City to draft an addendum to the NOP that reflects the wider scope being considered in the Specific Plan process to reduce surprises later. David Fung Cupertino, CA Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Comments p.3 David Fung Community Ideas and Best Practices 1. Community Benefit — The idea was first discussed by a community member and the Council was interested in exploring the possibility. The concept includes allowing additional specified heights in certain location if community benefits are provided as part of a project. The concept is discussed later in this report. 2. Walking and biking to schools, parks and shopping — This idea was discussed by several community members in public workshops and is consistent with SB 375, AB 32 and Complete Streets and best practices. 3. Design of mixed-use projects — A "mixed-use village" concept is recommended for mixed-use projects that include residential development. The concept was developed from Council, Planning Commission and public input and best practices regarding mixed-use projects. These include provision of viable retail, gathering places, pedestrian -oriented architecture and streetscape improvements, improving connectivity and neighborhood buffers. A similar but limited discussion is provided for "neighborhood center" redevelopment. 4. Vallco Shopping District —Public input from workshops regarding the transformation of the Vallco Shopping District into an active community gathering place and regional destination have been included. A detailed discussion is provided later in this report. 5. Calculation of residential density — The City Council and a member of the public requested changing calculation from density of the gross lot area (which includes portions of adjacent streets) to density of the net lot area (which does not include adjacent streets, driveway and drainage easements, etc.). This change has been made to the Zoning Ordinance. The density and residential yield of Housing Element sites reflects this change. Balanced Plan and Planning Commission Recommendations Development Allocation Community Vision 2040 is a 25 -year plan for the City's future that considers community goals for active gathering places, health, sustainability, economic development and fiscal reliance, as well as regional requirements and mandates, while balancing residents' need for minimizing traffic, air quality, and other environmental impacts. As noted earlier, the Planning Commission had recommendations that were different from the Balanced Plan. Maps to reflect the development allocations, heights and densities in the Balanced Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation have been attached as Attachments N & O. The Commission's recommendations in each category are provided in the discussion below. ■ Economic and Fiscal — the City's goal for the next 25 years is to ensure that companies and businesses thrive and new businesses are attracted to the City and that property owners have incentives to maintain and enhance property. The City Council recognized this when they authorized the increase in development allocation as part of the General Plan process. Maintaining an adequate allocation for development will help revenues grow so that the City can continue to provide excellent community services. A Market Study was conducted to see the realistic economic demand for various uses through 2035 (Attachment P). It notes that existing 7 commercial space in the City's General Plan Allocation pool is adequate to meet the high end of demand through 2035 and indicates market support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet for office space, 985 net hotel rooms and 4,420 residential units for the same period (close to Alternative C). o Office — Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down about 525,000 square feet through Apple and Main Street and other office development in the City, and currently only has a balance of 17,113 square feet remaining in city-wide office allocation. To account for redevelopment at the Vallco Shopping District and new office development for the next 25 years, an increase of 2,000,000 square feet is proposed (consistent with Alternative B). In the Balanced Plan, office allocation is balanced with other land uses to reduce environmental impacts while recognizing the City's economic and fiscal goals. Request from a potential applicant and consultant response — On October 13, 2014, the City received a letter from a potential developer of the Vallco Shopping District generally stating that the costs of assembling the site, providing a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail in a high quality mixed-use "Town Center" envisioned for the area, community benefits and off-site infrastructure costs, would require at least 2,000,000 square feet, or 1,000,000 square feet more than was recommended in the Balanced Plan (see Attachment CC). The City's retail consultant reviewed the request and noted that given the high cost of site assembly and construction, an office allocation of up to 2,000,000 could potentially be necessary to make the project economically viable. However, it could not be verified without a proforma review. Planning Commission Recommendation — The Planning Commission felt that the regional growth in jobs and lack of housing had exacerbated traffic conditions. In addition, by approving the Apple Campus 2, the City had added to this growth. Therefore, the City should only add 500,000 square feet of additional office growth above the 2005 General Plan for the next 25 year horizon. They also recommended moving the office allocation in the "Major Company" category (about 523,000 square feet) into the city-wide allocation pool. o Hotel — Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down 303 hotel rooms from the allocation leaving 339 rooms at time of project initiation. Hotels bring in considerable revenue, which will help realize community goals of economic and fiscal stability. Consistent with the Market Study, the recommendation is to add 1,000 more hotel rooms to the allocation. This is also consistent with Alternative C. Planning Commission Recommendation — The Planning Commission felt that hotel rooms generated revenue, and were beneficial to nearby businesses and necessary to serve existing and planned office in the City. The Commission, therefore, recommended adding 1,000 hotel rooms consistent with the Balanced Plan and Alternative C. o Residential — The State -mandated RHNA requirement is 1,064 units with about 1,400 recommended by the Housing consultant after consulting with the HCD. Subtracting 1,400 units from the remaining allocation of 1,895 units leaves 495 units through 2040, which will not be enough to meet RHNA targets for the two additional housing element cycles through 2040 per Plan Bay Area. Alternative A, which is consistent with the 2005 General Plan, and 8 Alternative B, which only meets 75% of the Plan Bay Area targets, do not achieve the regional target. However Alternative C meets 100% of the targets set by Plan Bay Area. To ensure that the City is consistent with these regional targets, the recommendation is to increase the residential development allocation by 2,526 units (to 4,461 units which includes the 1,400 required for 2014-2022 cycle). The residential development allocation is a City legislative policy aimed at promoting the public welfare which tracks growth by monitoring permits. It cannot restrict growth in such a way as to conflict with State housing element requirements or regional needs. However, the Balanced Plan recommends strategies for managing the amount and form of housing growth as follows: ■ Selecting Housing Element sites for up to 1,400 units to meet the demand for the 2014-2022 RHNA period. ■ Revising the General Plan so that on sites with a mixed-use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on Non -Housing Element mixed-use sites. Related changes will have to be made to the Municipal Code, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans. ■ Form - The General Plan includes a "mixed-use village" strategy so that mixed-use residential sites provide substantial and viable retail, and also create a livable environment for residents, shoppers and workers on and around the site. Planning Commission Recommendation — The Commission discussed the relevance of residential allocations, when densities were already noted in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. There was additional discussion about whether the number could be perceived as a growth control measure and whether a number, if any, should be generally consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan). Ultimately, the Commission decided that the residential allocation number should be removed and that the Housing Element, lot densities and policies were sufficient to guide residential development in the City. Comments - While the City is not required by State Law to have a residential allocation in the General Plan, the City's environmental consultants recommend retaining the allocation system for environmental review purposes. Removing the allocation would require additional CEQA analysis on the maximum capacity of residential development in the City, which would require additional time and budget. An allocation of 4,421 units is recommended to be consistent with Plan Bay Area estimates for the 25 -year horizon through 2040 and to prevent an impression of growth restriction. Table 1 below is a comparison of the Planning Commission recommendation, the Balanced Plan and alternatives studied in the EIR. The numbers in the General Plan differ from the numbers reflected in Table 1 because there have been minor changes to the allocation balances since project initiation. These changes include allocation granted to projects approved and allocation returned to the pool due to projects expiring. 9