CC - Updated Late Comments memo dated Nov 3 2014 PLACEWORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 22, 2014
TO Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino
FROM Steve Noack, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)—Updated Late Comments Received after the 45-Day
Comment Period
Table 1, below, lists and provides a brief response to written comments that were received by the City
after the close of the public comment period for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR.The 45-day public comment period ended on August 1,
2014.This memo responds to comments received between August 2 through November 22, 2014.1
These comments are reproduced at the end of this memo. No other late comments on the Draft EIR
have been received as of the date of this memo.
These comments do not contain "significant new information," as defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15088.5, which includes new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives,or information indicating that
the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. No revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR.
This memo updates our November 3, 2014 memo that addressed late comments received
through November 3, 2014.
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 1 Berkeley, California 94709 1 510.848.3815 1 PlaceWorks.com
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Number2 Name Date Received Topic Response3
1 B LC-01 John Frey 8/8/2014 Traffic,Emergency Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13,
Response,Schools, Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.
Aesthetics(increased The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional
height) Growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5.
Impacts to fire protection services,police services and schools are
discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services and Recreation,beginning
on pages 4.12-1,4.12-8 and 4.12-18,respectively. Impacts to public
service providers were found to be less than significant.
Impacts due to increased height limits under the proposed Project are
discussed in Chapter 4.1,Aesthetics,of the Draft EIR.As discussed in
Chapter 4.1,impacts were found to be less than significant in all areas
where potential future development involving increased height is being
considered. See Response to Comment B11-01 in Chapter 5 of the
Response to Comments Document.
2 B LC-02 Barbara Rogers 8/25/2014 Senior Housing,Non-EIR The comment is acknowledged.
related
3 B LC-03 Carlene Matchniff 9/9/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.
4 B LC-04 Dan Whisenhunt 9/8/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.Please see the responses to letter 13-
16 in the August 28,2014 Response to Comments Document.
5 B LC-05 Ruby Elbogen 9/12/2014 Water supply,schools Impacts schools are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public Services and
Recreation,beginning on page 44.12-18. Impacts to schools were
found to be less than significant. Impacts to water supply were
discussed in Chapter 4.14,Utilities and Service Systems,beginning on
page 4.14-1. Water supply impacts were found to be less than
significant.
November 22,2014 1 Page 2
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Numberz Name Date Received Topic Response3
6 B LC-06 Ruby Elbogen 9/16/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.
7 B LC-07 Sabrina Risk 9/16/2014 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.
8 B LC-08 Trish McAfee 9/16/2014 Traffic Impacts to traffic congestion are discussed in Chapter 4.13,
Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.
The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional
growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5.With respect to parking,future
development would be required to provide sufficient parking as
required in Title 19,Zoning,Chapter 19.124,Parking Regulations of
the Municipal Code.
9 B LC-09 Steve Hill 9/16/2014 Traffic Impacts to all modes of transportation are discussed in Chapter 4.13,
Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.
The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for regional
growth. See Draft EIR,pp.4-4 to 4-5.
10 B LC-10 Phyllis Dickstein 10/6/2014 General EIR, Response to Impacts to water supply are discussed in Chapter 4.14,Utilities and
Comments Document, Service Systems,beginning on page 4.14-13.The cumulative impacts
Water Supply,EIR Process analysis in the EIR accounts for regional growth.See Draft EIR,pages
4-4 to 4-5.Water supply impacts were found to be less than significant.
11 B LC-11 Kai Wetlesen 10/6/2014 Traffic The comment is acknowledged.Table 4.13-15 is edited to include the
revisions mentioned.
12 A LC-12 Mark Allgire,Santa Clara 10/9/2014 Air Quality,Public Schools, Air Quality impacts, including impacts to sensitive receptors,are
Unified School District Non-EIR related discussed in Chapter 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR. Section 4.2.3.3,
Sensitive Receptors,on pages 4.2-18 to 4.2-19 describes the types of
sensitive receptors, including children.Air Quality impacts are
described beginning on page 4.2-22.Impact AQ-4,beginning on page
4.2-57,discusses the impacts of the proposed Project's on sensitive
receptors and concludes that impacts to sensitive receptors would be
less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-4a
and AQ-4b.The cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR accounts for
emissions due to traffic,construction,and existing airborne
November 22,2014 1 Page 3
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Numberz Name Date Received Topic Response3
contaminants throughout the city.
Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12,Public
Services&Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18.
Impacts on school facilities were found to be less than significant due
to implementation of General Plan policies and strategies,as well as
mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill
50(SB 50).As discussed on page 4.12-18,the California State
Legislature,under Senate Bill 50,has determined that payment of
school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete
school facilities mitigation.All new developments proposed pursuant to
the adoption of the proposed Project will be required to pay the school
impact fees adopted by the SCUSD,and this requirement is
considered to fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project on
school facilities,which could include the construction of new schools as
noted by the commenter.
Traffic related safety issues are discussed in Chapter 4.13,
Transportation and Traffic, Impact TRAF-3,which concludes that the
proposed Project would not create safety impacts.
13 B LC-13 Ivor E.Samson,Dentons 10/9/2014 Land Use Compatibility, The commenter requests that these comments be withdrawn. See
US LLP Traffic,Economic impacts, Comment Letter LC-16 below.
Non-EIR related
14 B LC-14 Catherine Alexander 10/10/14 Traffic, Noise,Quality of The commenter requests that these comments be superseded by their
Life,Non-EIR related comments submitted on October 13,2014. See Comment Letter LC-
15 below.
November 22,2014 1 Page 4
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Numberz Name Date Received Topic Response3
15 B LC-15 Catherine Alexander 10/13/14 Traffic, Noise,Quality of The commenter describes existing conditions.
Life, Non-EIR related Traffic impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.13,Transportation and
Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.The analysis was
conducted in accordance with the standards and methodologies set
forth by the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara VTA.
Noise impacts to noise are discussed in Chapter 4.10,Noise,of the
Draft EIR beginning on page 4.10-27.
Impacts on school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public
Services and Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15131,Economic and Social Effects,
economic or social effects of a project,such as effects on property
values and community character,shall not be treated as significant
effects on the environment unless they lead to significant physical
effects.
16 B LC-16 Ivor E.Samson,Dentons 10/13/14 Non-EIR related The commenter's formal withdrawal of their October 9,2014 letter is
US LLP acknowledged.
17 B LC-17 Peter Pau, Principal and 10/13/14 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.
Founder,Sand Hill
Property Company
18 B LC-18 Carlene Matchniff 10/14/14 Non-EIR related The comment is acknowledged.
19 B LC-19 Darrel Lum 10/16/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
20 B LC-20 J.Blair Volckmann 10/16/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
21 B LC-21 John F.Warda 10/17/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
22 B LC-22 Tom and Eleane Hall 10/23/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
23 B LC-23 Alvin and Shirley De 10/24/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
Ridder
November 22,2014 Page 5
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Number2 Name Date Received Topic Response'
24 B LC-24 Anonymous 10/25/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
25 B LC-25 Urs Mader 10/25/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
26 B LC-26 Mark Tersini 10/27/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
27 B LC-27 Max K.Agoston 10/27/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
28 B LC-28 Paul Brophy 10/27/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
29 B LC-29 Claire Arnold 10/30/14 Public Schools Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public
Services&Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18.
Impacts on school facilities were found to be less than significant due
to implementation of General Plan policies and strategies,as well as
mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill
50(SB 50).As discussed on page 4.12-18,the California State
Legislature,under Senate Bill 50,has determined that payment of
school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete
school facilities mitigation.
30 B LC-30 Claudio Bono 10/31/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
31 B LC-31 Claudio Bono 10/31/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
32 B LC-32 Claudio Bono 10/31/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
33 B LC-33 Claudio Bono 10/31/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
34 B LC-34 Steve Gazzera 10/31/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
November 22,2014 1 Page 6
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Number2 Name Date Received Topic Response3
35 B LC-35 George Anderl 10/31/14 Traffic Traffic impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.13,Transportation and
Traffic,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.13-49.The analysis was
conducted in accordance with the standards and methodologies set
forth by the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara VTA.
36 B LC-36 Jialin Song and 10/31/14 Schools Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public
Hongliang Chang Services&Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18.
Impacts on school facilities were found to be less than significant due
to implementation of General Plan policies and strategies,as well as
mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill
50(SB 50).As discussed on page 4.12-18,the California State
Legislature,under Senate Bill 50,has determined that payment of
school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete
school facilities mitigation.
37 B LC-37 Karen Farrelly 11/01/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
38 B LC-38 Virginia Tamblyn 11/01/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
39 B LC-39 Eric Schmidt 11/17/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
40 B LC-40 Gary E Jones 11/18/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
41 B LC-41 Eric Schmidt 11/09/14 Schools Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public
Services&Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18.
Impacts on school facilities were found to be less than significant due
to implementation of General Plan policies and strategies,as well as
mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill
50(SB 50).As discussed on page 4.12-18,the California State
Legislature,under Senate Bill 50,has determined that payment of
school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete
school facilities mitigation.
42 B LC-42 Ching Shyu 11/17/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
November 22,2014 1 Page 7
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Number2 Name Date Received Topic Response'
43 B LC-43 Scott Hughes 11/16/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
44 B LC-44 Geoff Paulsen 11/15/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
45 B LC-45 Sue Tippets 11/17/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
46 B LC-46 Catherine Alexander 11/16/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
47 A LC-47 Jody Littlehales 11/17/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
48 B LC-48 Vaitheesh Kolady 11/05/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
49 B LC-49 Hoi Yung Poon 11/07/14 Schools Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public
Services&Recreation,of the Draft EIR beginning on page 4.12-18.
Impacts on school facilities were found to be less than significant due
to implementation of General Plan policies and strategies,as well as
mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill
50(SB 50).As discussed on page 4.12-18,the California State
Legislature,under Senate Bill 50,has determined that payment of
school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete
school facilities mitigation.
50 B LC-50 Gilbert Wong 11/06/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
51 B LC-51 Virgina Tamblyn 11/03/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
52 B LC-52 Jialin Song,Hongliang 11/03/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
Chang
53 B LC-53 Sabrina Rizk 11/14/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
54 B LC-54 Chris Bencher 11/16/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
55 B LC-55 Mitchell Ai-Chang 11/10/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
56 B LC-56 Sowmya Subramaniam 11/13/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
57 B LC-57 George Anderl 10/31/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
November 22,2014 Page 8
PLACEWORKS
TABLE 1: LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Type' Nuirl Name Date Received Topic Response'
58 B LC-58 Eric Schmidt 11/20/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
59 B LC-59 Ruby Elbogen 11/20/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
60 B LC-60 Eric Schmidt 11/20/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
61 B LC-61 Eic Schaefer 11/21/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
62 B LC-62 Shankar lyer 11/2214 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
63 B LC-63 Scott Huges 11/22/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
64 B LC-64 Claire Arnold 11/21/14 Non-EIR related. The comment is acknowledged.
Notes:
1.The comment"type"pertains to the categories used to organize the comments submitted on the Draft EIR in the Response to Comments Document.Type A=Agencies and Service Providers and Type B=Private Individuals and Organizations;
2.The comment number LC=Late Comment. The Late Comment letters are attached to this memo.
3.The"response"column references responses provided in the Response to Comments Document,published on August 28,2014.
November 22,2014 1 Page 9
From:John Frey [mailto:johnfreyca@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday,August 18, 2014 9:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Growth and the straining of our services .
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing you on my concerns about our growth and straining of our services. I have
lived in Cupertino for approximately 22 years and grew up in Mtn. View/Palo Alto. I have
firsthand witnessed how Silicon Valley changed from the orchards I rode my bike though to the
concrete jungle we now live in. I truly understand businesses need to grow and that they
provide valuable tax revenue to Cupertino. But when I see our businesses being bulldozed then
replaced with buildings with businesses on the bottom and APARTMENTS/CONDOS above
them, it is a bit upsetting.
Is our City Planning strategy to become like San Francisco or San Jose? Or are we going to
make Cupertino one of the most balanced Cities in Santa Clara? Where businesses are
welcomed and residents have a safe beautiful neighborhood to raise their children in. When we
approve plans to build these high rises we take away from this. We put more cars on our roads,
more calls for service from our Deputies and Fire/ Paramedics, and more children in our
schools.All but one of which, I have not seen any growth in. Our roads have not gotten wider,
there are no more Deputies patrolling though their beats have increased. This also can be said
about our Fire/ Paramedics too. We do have construction on new classrooms (etc.) in our
schools but these school are in established neighborhoods that were designed for single family
homes back in 60's, 70's, and part of the 80's. Traffic around these schools are becoming a
parking lot. Blocking city residents from being able to exit their neighborhoods and sometime
their own driveways.
I have personally talked to Deputies who have stated to me that if they work in the west
end of Cupertino and a call comes out on the east end of Cupertino,they know it can take up to
30 mins. or more depending on the time of day. When you approve apartments/condos above
old businesses,you indirectly create a whole new beat for each floor added. This adds many
more calls for service with the same amount of Deputies we have had since I moved here back
in 90's with no one to replacing the vacuum. We need more Deputies!
I know we are building a "new downtown" off of Stevens Creek Blvd. I also know we are
building the new Apple 2 building off of Wolfe. These are hugh projects and will bring more
strain on our services and way of life here in Cupertino. Some for the good and I feel more for
the bad. The bad is the high density housing and traffic! It really has to stop,we cannot support
any more of these projects without destroying our way of life here in Cupertino. If a single
family home has to cost 2 million dollars,then unfortunately it is the cost of living here in
Cupertino. We have no more room for this type of high density growth! Or are we going the
way of being the San Francisco of the South Bay? I know every one of my neighbors feel the
same way about limiting the growth. I know a few years ago we had a petition passed that City
Hall cannot approve any construction above 3 stories without voter approval (correct me if I am
wrong). That was due to the big eye sore at the Crossroads (Stevens Creek and De Anza) being
built with high density housing. Please, don't make the citizens of Cupertino have to speak up
again.
All of you live here and represent us. Control the Planning Commission and preserve what is left
of our city community!
Thank you for your consideration to this matter!
Respectfully,
John Frey
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:04 PM
To: Christopher Valenzuela
Subject: Re: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting
Hi, C.J. and thanks for your courtesy.
I'm sorry I didn't see reference to senior housing in the staff report.
But glad it was there--and not surprised that it would have been included.
As the City is fortunate to have excellent members of staff.
Please accept my apologies for not reading well enough to find the staff reference.
And extend my apologies, as appropriate.
Thnx, again, C.J. Love, BR
On Aug 25, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Valenzuela <ChristopherV@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Barbara, I have forwarded your comment below to the Housing Commission as I didn't see the
Housing Commission included on your prior e-mail. Thank you.
Christopher "C.J." Valenzuela, Senior Housing Planner City Hall
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-777-3251 (Phone)
christopherv@cupertino.org(E-mail)
www.cupertino.org(Website)
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Rogers [mailto:barbsbucket@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:03 PM
To: Christopher Valenzuela; City of Cupertino Fine Arts
Cc: Gary Chao; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Aug. 28 Housing Commission Meeting
To: Housing Commission Chair Raman and Members Wilson, Barnett, Chu, and Maroko—
I am very sorry to not be able to attend your meeting this Thurs. Aug. 28 at 9:00.
I have a conflict on 2nd and also on 4th Thurs. mornings, unfortunately.
Therefore, I'm emailing my input which I hope you will adopt in some form in your
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Specifically, I look at the Housing Element section of the staff report for your meeting this Thurs.
morning.
I find no reference to older adult(senior)housing an the need for it.
Perhaps I may have overlooked something in the long, well-written report.
I did testify at several of the workshops where it seemed to me that my comments were welcomed
and would be included.
I ask that you include some reference to the need for older adult housing in Cupertino, as well as
housing for all segments of the population, in your recommendations to the Planning Commission.
And not just below-market-rate and subsidized housing but also for-profit units.
There is ample documentation of this need which exists all over the country and is growing.
I've made available to staff material relative to successful for-profit and subsized senior housing
projects constructed in the Bay Area, across the U.S. and world-wide.
This need for senior housing, both government-assisted and also for profit, is growing in
Cupertino, as elsewhere, as the senior demographic is burgeoning.
I hope that in recognizing this need in Cupertino you will recommend for the City of Cupertino to
increase the housing available in Cupertino for older adults.
Thanks, again, for all you do to benefit our community and its residents--that you care enough to
give of your time and expertise and make a difference for the better.
I look forward to welcoming you to the Sept. 30 Forum Aging-in-Place.
Thnx, again, Love, BR
IRVINE COMPANY
Since 1864
September 4, 2014
Ms. Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
Dear Ms. Ghosh,
The intent of this letter is to reinforce that The Irvine Company(TIC)has a strong desire to plan the
future redevelopment of the Hamptons in full cooperation with Apple, including but not limited to
security, height, landscape buffering, and amenities that could serve possible future Apple employees that
may choose to reside within close proximity of their employment.
From the beginning of our dialogue with Apple,we were encouraged that providing additional housing
near the Apple Campus 2(AC2)would create an opportunity to reduce auto trips for employees living
within walking and bicycling distance to AC2. In fact,the AC2 EIR includes a mitigation measure,
which requires Apple to expand the Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Program to reduce
traffic impacts.This TDM Program expansion requires implementation of TDM measures that increase
Apple's non-single occupant vehicle mode to 34%at full occupancy of the site.The CPA's proposed
increase of housing units for the Hamptons site will provide a significant increase in housing within a
short walking/bicycling distance to AC2, helping Apple achieve this TDM requirement.
Recently,management at TIC were surprised to read the letter Apple sent to the City, since prior to that,
the two companies had an otherwise amicable and cooperative relationship over the years.
That cooperation began with a significant amount of coordination between TIC and Apple during the
period in which the AC2 ❑EIR was being prepared, circulated for public comment, and certified by the
City of Cupertino. This coordination took place between 2011 and 2013 and culminated with the
execution of two separate agreements between Apple and TIC(a Land Swap Agreement and a
Construction Impact Mitigation Agreement).
During the winter of 2011, Apple approached TIC regarding the expected need to mitigate the traffic
impacts associated with development of AC2. They expected that EIR mitigation for the project would
include the widening of North Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and 1-280, requiring right of way
from the Hamptons. In addition,their proposed AC2 development included the closure of Pruneridge
Avenue between the Hampton's access and North Tantau Avenue. Apple communicated to the Company
that it was their desire, as well as the City of Cupertino's, that the Company and Apple reach agreement
on this North Wolfe Road widening and Pruneridge Avenue closure prior to the City Council's approval
of the AC2 project and certification of their project EIR.
690 N, McCarthy Blvd.. Suite 100 1 Milpitas, CA 95035
Over the course of nearly two years, Apple and TIC resolved a number of issues to address the impacts
associated with the North Wolfe Road widen ing and the vacation of Pruneridge Avenue. These included
the design parameters of the North Wolfe roadway widening(i.e.number and width of lanes),the design
parameters of that portion of Pruneridge Avenue that would remain between the Hamptons access and
North Wolfe Road, review of future landscaping plans for the edge conditions surrounding the
Hamptons,trail and sidewalk requirements,and right of way compensation.These discussions concluded
with execution of a Land Swap Agreement between the parties in November 2013 and eliminated any
need for the City of Cupertino to use its powers of eminent domain to acquire the needed right of way
along North Wolfe Road. In the end,TIC agreed to dedicate access to Apple, Inc. in a Land Swap for the
price of$100.
Our cooperation also went beyond the issue of required access. in May 2013,the DEIR for AC2 was
circulated to the public. After TIC's review of the DEIR,we believed that a number of environmental
issues had not been adequately addressed. TIC informed Apple of our concerns three weeks prior to the
close of the DEIR review period. Apple requested that TIC and Apple execute a side agreement to address
our concerns in lieu of submitting a formal DEIR comment letter to the City of Cupertino. Over the next
three weeks,we engaged in a series of communications with Apple to discuss our issues.This
coordination culminated in the execution of a Construction Impact Mitigation Agreement between the
parties in July 2013. This Agreement dealt with a number of issues including:
• Commitment by TIC to not write a DEIR comment letter
■ Spillover parking into Hamptons
• Maintaining emergency access to the Hamptons site at all time
• Uses permitted in nearby Landscape Maintenance Building on AC2 site
■ Noise limits from Central Plant
• Limitations on use of Pruneridge for construction traffic
■ Weekend construction impacts, Dust control
■ Design of temporary noise wail and Lighting shields
Despite TIC's general concern about the increased traffic associated with the AC2 project and the impacts
associated with reduced accessibility to the Hamptons site caused by the closure of a section of
Pruneridge, TIC was willing to work with Apple to eliminate the need to raise concerns during the DEIR
and hearing process. Even though our residents are inconvenienced on a daily basis by the noise,truck
traffic, dust,and general inconvenience of the construction,we have honored all prior agreements.
Now,as we explore future redevelopment of our site,and prior to filing plans for a specific project,Apple
has expressed concern in writing to the City, and also testified against redevelopment of our site at a
recent Housing Commission meeting. We wish to assure the City that TIC is willing to reduce heights to
60 feet along the Apple boundary and will design the future proposal within a 60 to 75 foot range with
taller heights along the freeway and stepping down the heights on Wolfe Road and along Apple's
boundary. With respect to Apple's privacy concerns,TIC is committed to incorporating appropriate
setbacks, landscape buffering,and design features into the design of the Hamptons redevelopment, in
order to respect the privacy of AC2. In fact,we have already engaged Apple's Iandscape architect, Olin,
with Apple's permission,to assure Apple that we would plant adequate trees and foliage to screen and
buffer views from AC2 to the Hamptons site and vice versa.
Regarding traffic, it is worth noting,a positive community benefit of redevelopment of the Hamptons, is
related to Section 3.14 of the Apple Development Agreement. This section requires their payment of
$1,000,000 towards a transportation study of Wolfe Road between Homestead and Stevens Creek
including widening of the Wolfe Road overcrossing at 1-280. (Apple told us that they had already paid the
City this study funding). However, subject to the outcome of the study,the City and Apple are to
determine funding options to implement the recommended improvements from this transportation study.
One of those funding options is recognized in Section 3.14 to be a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District(CFD). Further, Section 3.14 gives the City sole discretion in making the findings with the study
and the funding mechanisms. In light of this requirement, any development in the Wolfe corridor,
including redevelopment of the Hamptons will necessitate the preparation of the Wolfe interchange study
and will kick off the process for forming the potential funding mechanism for the improvements in this
area.This is a positive benefit for the community as the Wolfe interchange is in need of study.TIC
recognizes that our project, should it move forward,would be subject to an appropriate contribution to
this funding district.
Our goal is to continue to work with Apple on a myriad of issues that require cooperation between our
two adjacent property owners,and to do so in a professional manner. We appreciate the considerable
efforts of the City to develop the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element update, related zoning
changes, and EIR,as well as your consideration of the facts presented in this letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Carlene Matchniff
Vice President Entitlements& Public Affairs
The Irvine Company
cc: Mayor and City Council of Cupertino
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager& Director of Community Development
September 8, 2014
Piu Ghosh
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
RE: Citywide General Plan Amendment Proposed Resolution- Hamptons Site
Dear Piu,
We were pleased to read the letter from The Irvine Company ("TIC") confirming its
intent to respect Apple's privacy and security needs in any future redevelopment
of the Hamptons site. The language quoted below from TIC's letter also confirms
that TIC does not want the 85 foot height limit, with no setbacks, as currently
drafted in the General Plan Amendment ("GPA"):
"We wish to assure the City that TIC is willing to reduce heights to 60 feet
along the Apple boundary and will design the future proposal with a 60 to 75
foot range with taller heights along the freeway and stepping down the
heights on Wolfe Road and along Apple's boundary. With respect to Apple's
privacy concerns, TIC is committed to incorporating appropriate setbacks,
landscaped buffering, and design features into the then design of the
Hamptons redevelopment, in order to respect the privacy of AC2."
The bottom line is that Apple and TIC are on the same page, but this isn't yet
reflected in the current draft of the GPA. As currently proposed,the GPA permits
heights up to 85 feet with no requirement for setbacks or other buffers. This
seriously damages Apple, and doesn't benefit TIC, since TIC does not require the
additional height to redevelop the Hamptons site. We appreciate that the City
recognized Apple's multi-billion dollar investment in Cupertino and respected
our security and privacy requirements during the approval process for AC2, as
reflected in the EIR and project approval findings. The City should continue to
live up to that commitment by revising the GPA and adopting the specific
language we previously proposed, and shown below.
'The height limit for the structures located within 50 feet of the parcel line
abutting adjacent commercial properties or Pruneridge shall not exceed 60
feet. The height limit shall not exceed 60 feet for the remainder of the
Hamptons site, unless the City makes special findings that an increased
height, up to a maximum of 75 feet, would not infringe on the privacy and
security needs of adjacent neighbors, nor unreasonably impact view corridors
or sunlight, or create light or glare trespass. This may require any future
development of the site to include transitions, landscaping, or other
mitigations,so that the City can make the special findings specified above."
Apple
i Infinite Loop
MS 21-1AC2
Cupertino,CA 95014
T 408 996-1010
F 408995-0275
www apple-com
Piu Ghosh
September 8,2014
Page 2 of 2
It's vital for the City to address this issue now. Otherwise, the City may have unintentionally
limited its discretion to address project-level concerns after adopting higher density limits in
the GPA. For example, California law provides that the density of a proposed project
complying with the applicable General Plan, zoning and development policies cannot be
reduced unless the City makes specific written findings that a reduction in density is needed to
avoid health or safety effects. Gov. Code sec. 65589.5(j). There is also a streamlined CEQA
review for residential projects that are consistent with the General Plan, in which only impacts
that are "peculiar" to the project are analyzed. Pub. Res. Code sec. 21083.3. Therefore, the City
should set forth in the GPA the key issues that need to be taken into account in considering
potential redevelopment of the Hamptons site, since deferring this step may unduly bind the
City in the future. We believe the language we proposed does that, and is consistent with
TIC's statements regarding its plans for the Hamptons site.
Kind regards,
Sit,
Dan Whisenhunt
Senior Director
Real Estate& Development
Apple
cc: Mayor and City Council of Cupertino
Planning Commission of Cupertino
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
2
From: Ruby Elbogen <rgelbogen@aol.com>
Date: September 12, 2014 at 8:06:04 AM PDT
To: gwong212@aol.com
Subject: Mr. Mayor - "Hell No, I Won't Go"
Dear Mr. Mayor - As I watched the Planning Commission meeting last
evening, and assumed the Irvine Company was pulling a prank on the
Commissioners by telling them that the Company from The OC is planning to
add 800-ish (give or take 3) apartments to what they already have
here--I laughed and waited for the punch line. Little did I know the
joke is on us. So, when this is approved--are we expected to give up
OUR water for them, as well as for Apple--so they can flush their
thousands of new toilets? If not, where will the water come
from? And, where will their kids go to school--even though it's not
the City Council's problem, so to speak, you will still be blamed for
letting it happen. You could tell the Irvine Company to go back to
Disneyland. Thanks, Ruby
Thanks & Regards,
Ruby Elbogen,
Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & Cupertino-News.com
408/355-0575
From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:54 AM
To: George Schroeder
Subject:The Fence Between Vallco & Our Neighborhood
Hi, George- Rumor has it that Apple, the City and/or some other entity wants to take down the
fence between Vallco and our neighborhood. Our home is on No. Portal. I can only assume that
all the people involved, who are fairly new to Cupertino are unaware of Propositions D & E--and
the fact that our neighborhood fought a huge war to keep that fence up. And, does the City and
Apple, etc. realize how dumb the premise is that in order to promote Walkability those who
want to turn our area of Cupertino into what it doesn't want to be--a friggin' Pass Through for
Apple employees--who profess Walkability, but who can't or won't walk around our very nice
quiet area? We want to nip this in the bud early, but we can gather a crowd to make it an issue.
What is your advice? Cheers, Ruby
Thanks& Regards,
Ruby Elbogen,
Editor/Publisher The C Magazine &CMagazineOnline.com
408/355-0575
COMMENT CARD
Please fill out this card with any comments you have related to the Draft 2040 General Plan and
Housing Element.The City will include all comments in upcoming Planning Commission and City
Council staff reports.You can also submit comments online at www.cupertinogpa.org or via email
to:planning@cupertino.org.
Contact Information p
Name:jJ�C t r-)�VYZX Phone#or Email:(GSO)4oq-7'�
Address:�V5a3 R0;r��er>zSV vl,�CC City:CvPeV�k'>-�o State:CA
Comments:'I 5v�W�M ace�oJS i V1 FcC 0A)",)Come-pf o��
ahc\fo,bow`those.who wan'\to buy C<(en+WIth�t
PA--Q-hoys�n�'tom Cc,5�of hoJsi'r,g iu,�lllc,n")b,ue+-
\r,ccea5e,�ovn+\ie5 W�,o
c9uE We need j7,>cxddcess r11E Ce0.lty+'ng+�,Cs t�w efe
ace;n ccp-6�cA oav c��-he n2Ly emp I o,/V s ne�a.,a�(ac=-e
�o dive,
T o.\sue s-Ry�A he-Nx c9.11 gne�
C�din o Gs'}�n('s 1„as be ccrn�r\\52fe--y issue f�,
fie-(�n0�5 QV13 Zed Zcoc7 C"(-A 3AC
an ewLel�n cy I,),*�J(ids o{�ac�`V25
0,i
1 SuZpo(A wade-c ccrr,Sedya anA oit�kr�r,tlicli�'�e5
cyf�MUIT�-M�a��cC55 o�a�P«U;o►-�_e�,q
'��1c52 ren�nor�r,n i'�V�G Sf�eS 1Q�
For more information visit:
www.cupertinogpa.org
COMMENT CARD
Please fill out this card with any comments you have related to the Draft 2040 General Plan and
Housing Element.The City will include all comments in upcoming Planning Commission and City
Council staff reports.You can also submit comments online at www.cupertinogpa.org or via email
to:planning@cupertino.org.
Contact Information
Name:7_,r�h��Phone#or Email:C7oYY1C6C.l�Yo2�
Address:!0 r`t O lV011�,�lan�City:�u�L^7�/�`y State:
Comments:
0,who 1.u'��dn�(�.j��ne�0�Ger���{n�a>�3
U�l/-v¢ins&00iYld/.4au��Lc�►L/]�/�rY�t�1�t
Mod q A-//�I G LO��//oy�%rl 15//1 Oc l/Lt✓1
U JhPi6Er k�P[aen Cd�`�a10A/`//ri
a0nne�l�lrx d c�'�aven�G'n��_r.eaoe u9e�
P.i n e-n`c.n mYrm l>�/n m n va��.n
•(��hav���a�e2orne 1��tio�,
Lt ct 2�t 0 C-4aL e„�..!w Z I-n/n ZAYA.1�,filar a i S 4a 9!"s<
Ill o r�We-,ha v��I Cn.f,/n Coy n,-a�n,lL e-
e�'wool�/ta��n.Coll�ikt F�/.oru'�®n Zs S'o
.r�u9t�ems,,n�n 4-,r�.,c��'d
Jac r0��w1J2U du,fl rn�G�MYl'Lr��Qrllen,(��'�n.�-
�"�('O s'!/cn7�d�hL pt.e E'er
m!"{f��n,/Ji d L�X��/act-/1/.t°/iJ�alQ.�_O
L,�a_a dd-n C,-o n--o I
Ci�,4tf�
/A n�
u'1 e 4'lra a ng'a"S o rnL�F+7n 11 ZGl o l),o r a ro_"
For more information visit:
www.cupertinogpa.org
COMMENT CARD
Please fill out this card with any comments you have related to the Draft 2040 General Plan and
Housing Element.The City will include all comments in upcoming Planning Commission and City
Council staff reports.You can also submit comments online at www.cupertinogpa.org or via email
to:planning@cupertino.org.
Contact Information
Name:
P✓e�Il�Phone Email:S7G.I I3 C°Xo-kOU.�
Address:g»��Ypfldl�r City:�'°State:--
Comments:CoNJ„(�ib�!�-t>y x;/S1 n77/e T°fJl`c�1 f+el of 6Nr✓per.
Tfff,/r mil,=door fnf o(,,.ouu✓=Gv,IV+j1,fr(,m 5kf Ff6pt d P ti-1,d s�
Arlr.f!/e COu�Q 0�^r�(l°Tc�s�1�{f��UD��I?ert fD rPrro�Uu�
CGS�t
2.JV e,j fYr'i 1�<0 ai b i f"!,,-s 1 ka A�f/1"�'�C�+uf}.p®i-s-,c'i'I'i�'d./V PpO TD
Q'�e1 d�vF(frees•Greer��;1 F�I�r b�/�,Q iS Sal/
3.S'N�yeej Nff�iQFr�il,1p(�fr G�/V'/c ltap�.�Ci°+LU�v�/��yPfa��
C(vr�I\N-�p fIA�ec 1i111N��'SY✓4,-.!Uk I�R-v�i P-'��v�'-�a-i�-IUf-IS l7H W,
,Pvo,�[�I'rateFL/ter 1�N�5>+,�f�t
dT IITF st 1�I"�N,ea,,-6
S'/7 Y��1.C!'LN A'Ylr
�luw 4f�,6✓c(Pslh NOT�ab e
0)Uty to c',+Y f,0,+t-N4
M7C(1ivc��-Fd'F�U�v�a�(A'rlrN N'cbll<�/�Lvw�iftv�fr-'�
For more information visit:
www.cupertinogpa.org
From: Dicksteinp@aol.com [ma i Ito:Dicksteinp@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:17 AM
To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro
Cc:travigne-villas-hoa@googlegroups.com;faridakhan123@yahoo.com;
pamcafee1942@yahoo.com; betspix@gmail.com; amarsl0@hotmail.com; rgelbogen@aol.com
Subject: Council EIR session Tue Oct 7 4-6:30pm
Gentlemen:
Since I will probably be late for tomorrow's meeting, which is beginning rather early, I
am submitting, or reiterating, some comments in advance.
1) The EIR is a bit of a whitewash. That is, the facts are there but the conclusions need to
be taken with a large grain of salt. Impacts on traffic, air pollution and water supply that
are reported as "less than significant" by the authors may not be so regarded by the
ordinary residents of Cupertino.
2) The responses to the comments on the EIR are a series of justifications --was there
ever any acknowledgement that in a particular instance the commenter might be right
and therefore something ought to be scaled back?
3) 1 have already spoken at length about the impact on traffic and air quality of further
housing development on Blaney Avenue, but now, once again, I wish to address water
supply.
4) Water is already being rationed north of here, while the latest issue of Cupertino
Scene is urging residents to conserve water and suggesting several ways to do so. Yet
what good does it do for us to take shorter showers if in the end water is not being
conserved but simply transferred to thousands of new apartments and offices? Climate
change is not going way and the figures provided in the EIR for a five-year drought
situation belie their sanguine conclusions.
5) 1 am unclear as to what will happen on November 3. 1 hope that the final Plan will not
be adopted the day before the elections! Many Silicon Valley residents work long hours
and cannot attend an endless series of meetings but they do vote. Any final decisions
should wait.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Dickstein
Travigne Villas
From: <info@cupertinogpa.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website
To: info@cupertinogpa.org
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Kai Wetlesen
Organization: None Given
Email: kwetlesen@mac.com
Possibly Regarding Page:
/documents/view/195
Subject:
Error in General Plan Amendment, page 4.13-25
Comment:
regarding:
The General Plan
Hello,
The headways cited in 4.13-15 are not correct according to VTA
timetables within the Cupertino city limits. The following corrections
should be made to the headways table:
23: 10 to 12 minutes
25: 20 to 30 minutes
26: 30 minutes
55: 30 minutes
Regards,
Kai Wetlesen
ta a •-
` I IF
S A N T A October 9,2014
CLARA
UNIFIED Piu Ghosh
SCHOOL Community Development Department
DISTRICT City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
1889 Lawrerce Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014
Santa Clara,CA
95051
408) 423-2 000 RE: City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment,Housing Update
STANLEY ROSE 111,Ed.D.
SUPERINTHNDES
Dear Mr. Ghosh,
The Santa Clara Unified School District appreciates the opportunity to provide input for the
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report(EIR).
The Amendment and Housing Elements have several impacts to schools.
Pedestrian friendly communities are a catalyst for residential interaction, outdoor activities and
walking or biking to school. Student safety is paramount for the District and safe routes to
schools help to protect the students and parents walking and/or bicycling to school. The District
requests safe routes to the schools to be identified prior to large residential development projects.
Students are extremely sensitive receptors to pollution and the air quality around the school can
have a significant effect on students' health. The increased traffic congestion,construction
equipment,and ongoing airborne contaminants due to the projects should be studied relative to
the proximity of the schools. The increase in vehicle trips may also affect the transportation of
students to and from the schools.
Alternative C, The Proposed Project, evaluates adding 4,421 units to the City of Cupertino, some
of which will be located within the Santa Clara Unified School District attendance boundaries,
including Housing Element Site 10(The Hamptons). The Housing Element Site 10 currently has
342 units and plans to add an additional 820 residential units. The increase in residential units
will create additional students for the Santa Clara Unified School District. Laurelwood
Elementary and Wilcox High School,two of the three schools for this attendance boundary,are
currently over capacity. The Santa Clara Unified School District will not have capacity for the
additional students until a new elementary and a new high school is constructed.
The Proposed Project also presents an increase of 5,383,910 square feet of office and commercial
construction. Every 1,664 square feet of commercial or industrial development creates the need
for one additional housing unit in the Santa Clara area for new employees of the businesses. The
District's schools do not currently have the capacity to accommodate the students from these
homes. Developers need to collaborate with the District in order to remedy these capacity
shortfalls within the Santa Clara Unified School District due to the development growth.
Education Code 17620,paragraph(5), states a city"...shall not issue a building permit for any
construction absent certification by the appropriate school district that any fee, charge, dedication,
or other requirement levied by the governing board of that school district has been complied with,
or of the district's determination that the fee, charge,dedication, or other requirement does not
OF EnucA�Trox apply to the construction." Santa Clara Unified School District requests the City of Cupertino to
uphold the code section above and not issue building permits without the appropriate response
INA K.BENDIS
JIM CANOVA
ALBERT GONZALEZ
CHRISTINEKOLTP.R-MANN "The mission of Santa Clara Unified School District is to prepare stug#W4 1
ANUREFJRARYAN N
P.11CABi.E RYAN of all ages and abilities to succeed in an ever-changing world."
CHRISTOPHER STAMPOLIS
from the District. When the City does not enforce this section of the code, Santa Clara Unified is
not able to appropriately plan for student growth within the District.
The Santa Clara Unified School District is requesting the City of Cupertino to encourage
developers work with the District to mitigate these impacts as well as the fees related to
additional classrooms and/or schools.
Please contact Michal Healy,mhealy@scusd.net with any questions.
S' S' cerely, jo
Mark Allgire, CPA,Assist t uperintendent,Business Services
MA:mh
Page 12
Ivor E.Samson ivor.samson@dentons.com Salans FMC SNR Denton
Partner D +1 415 882 2491 dentons.com
Demons US LLP
525 Market Street
26th Floor
San Francisco,CA 94105-2708 USA
T +1 415 882 5000
F +1 415 882 0300
October 9, 2014
BY E-MAIL& FEDERAL EXPRESS
(planning@cupertino.org)
Mr. Paul Brophy
Chair, City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Sears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr, Brophy:
This letter is provided on behalf of the Sears Holding Corporation ("Sears"), which owns and operates the
Sears store in the Vallco Mall at the corner of North Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. We have
reviewed the Cupertino General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning
Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) (June 2014) and its subsequent Response to Comments
Document(August 2014) to identify the effects of the Proposed Project on the Sears property and store
operations. This letter describes Sears' concerns associated with the proposed modifications to zoning
and increased densification in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall.
Planning Context
The Sears store is located at 10101 North Wolfe Road (APN under Sears ownership: 316-20-080, 316-
20-081, 316-20-082). The parcels are located within the Heart of the City Special Area and the South
Vallco Park Gateway West area. The Sears property is currently zoned as P (General Commercial), as
indicated by the Heart of the City Specific Plan (revised 2012) The proposed General Plan Amendment
also indicates that both the Sears property and the mall are currently zoned as P (Regional Shopping).
The Sears site is also included in the South Vallco Master Plan (adopted 2008). The current and future
land use as indicated in that Master Plan is Regional Shopping Mall. The Master Plan includes a number
of objectives, including "improve connections for vehicular access", "minimize traffic impacts on local
neighborhoods", and "promote compatibility with existing and new developments".
The General Plan Amendment includes the Sears site within the Heart of the City Special Area, South
Vallco Park Gateway West, Study Area 6 and Housing Site#11. The General Plan Amendment
Proposed Project would modify the zoning of the South Vallco Park Gateway West area, including the
Sears site, to P (Regional Shopping, OP, Res).
The height limit would be increased from 60 feet to a maximum of 85 feet if certain conditions are met.
Additionally, Housing Site#11, which includes the Vallco Shopping District, has been identified as having
the potential for and reasonable yield of 800 residential units.
WIN no M
Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMC SNR Denton
October 9, 2014 dentons.com
Page 2
Land Use Compatibility Effects of the General Plan Amendment
Housing Site#11 is proposed to include 800 new residential units. Additionally, the land use assumptions
used in the traffic model for the area in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall, according to the Response to
Comments Document, include the addition of 2,000,000 square feet of office, 489 hotel rooms, and the
reduction of 445,171 square feet of commercial space.
This loss of commercial space is in conflict with the policies included in the South Vallco Master Plan and
the Heart of the City Specific Plan and potentially jeopardizes the Vallco Shopping District as a regional
shopping center. The replacement of the regional shopping center with alternative uses, as assumed by
the EIR analysis, would potentially adversely impact Sears' business by reducing the appeal of the store
for regional shoppers. It will introduce adjacent uses that are not necessarily compatible with the current
regional shopping use. While the assumptions of the traffic study are simply a forecast of future use, it
should be clear that if the existing regional shopping space is retained, and some magnitude of office,
residential and/or hotel use added to the area, then the traffic analysis greatly understates the resulting
effects on the surrounding transportation network and traffic conditions would be worse than described.
General Plan Amendment's Effects on Circulation
Traffic flow in the vicinity of the Sears site already operates at constrained levels, and the Proposed
Project will only make things worse. The General Plan Amendment greatly increases the development
potential in the vicinity of the Vallco Mall. The increased development intensity and new land use types
will cause significant traffic congestion impacts in the vicinity of the Sears site. The increased traffic
congestion will make access to the Sears store more difficult, impacting the competitiveness of the retail
site as a regional shopping destination.
Even without the addition of Proposed Project traffic, several intersections in the vicinity of Sears are
forecast to deteriorate to a deficient level of service due to regional growth. The General Plan
Amendment Proposed Project further increases total traffic volumes on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek
Boulevard by greater than 10 percent(in terms of average daily traffic), greatly exacerbating the forecast
traffic problems. The Proposed Project will result in significant project impacts at the following
intersections in close proximity to the Sears site:
• Wolfe Rd & 1-280 NB Ramp;
• Wolfe Rd & 1-280 SB Ramp;
• Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd;
• Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd; and
• 1-280 SB Ramp & Stevens Creek Blvd.
Additionally, the Proposed Project will result in significant freeway impacts on both directions of 1-280.
These significant impacts will result in deterioration of local circulation and make it more difficult to access
the Sears site.
The Proposed Project's traffic impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the DEIR, as
mitigations were not required in order to implement the Proposed Project. A traffic impact fee program is
proposed in the DEIR, but no timeframe for adoption of a fee program is included and there is no
guarantee that the potential mitigations listed will be included in the fee program or implemented in
conjunction with new development. The fee program must go through a lengthy analysis and review
• Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMC SNR Denton
October 9, 2014 dentons.com
Page 3
process prior to the start of fee collection. Fee accounts will only start accumulating upon adoption of the
fee program ordinances, and there is no certainty that deficiencies in the vicinity of the Sears site will be
addressed as they arise. The DEIR notes that a Project Study Report(PSR) is needed for the widening
of North Wolfe Road at the 1-280 interchange, but no trigger for the PSR is identified, nor is a funding
source identified. Traffic impacts in areas outside of Cupertino's jurisdiction are also left as"significant
and unavoidable." Mitigation of these impacts are left up to the discretion of other agencies without a
funding source indicated. We are concerned that the traffic congestion resulting from the Proposed
Project will not be sufficiently addressed, resulting in difficulty accessing the Sears store and negatively
impacting business.
Comments on Traffic Findings
The traffic analysis identifies a number of significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
However, we are concerned that the magnitude of the impacts is not sufficiently stated and/or insufficient
information is provided to fully identify impacts. Some of the more serous concerns regarding the
analysis' methodology and how it may be understating the traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Sears site
are as follows:
• The traffic analysis does not study the Proposed Project's effects on the intersection of Perimeter
Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Perimeter Road represents a major access point for the
Sears property and the Vallco Mail. Higher densities within the Vallco Shopping District will
undoubtedly increase use of Perimeter Road and traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard
and are shown in the DEIR to significantly increase with the addition of the Proposed Project.
Therefore, the operation of this intersection with the Proposed Project is of particular concern.
• No analysis of peak Saturday conditions was performed. While a Saturday analysis may not be
necessary City-wide, given that the Vallco Mall is a regional shopping attractor(and planned by
the City as such), weekend peak traffic activity should be studied. Ensuring adequate circulation
in both the weekday PM peak period and weekend afternoon peak periods are both critical to the
success of the Sears store.
• The Transportation and Traffic chapter in the EIR does not reference or acknowledge the Stevens
Creek BRT project, currently in the planning stage. The ultimate effect of the BRT project on the
roadway network is not currently known, but solutions under consideration, such as dedicated
transit lanes or other transit priority treatments, may significantly affect vehicle operations and the
viability of the roadway network subject to the conditions of the Proposed Project.
• The traffic analysis assumes completion of all Apple mitigation measures in the 2040 No Project
scenario. However, the Apple Campus 2 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2013) indicates that
improvements at the 1-280/Wolfe Road interchange and the 1-280/Stevens Creek Road
interchange would be significant and unavoidable impacts since they are in Caltrans'jurisdiction.
Additionally, as noted in that same analysis, Apple is only contributing its pro-rata share for the
improvement at Wolfe RoadNallco Parkway. The remainder of the funding and the timeframe of
the improvements have not been determined. If these improvements were not constructed, then
the impacts of the Proposed Project on the Sears property would be even greater than identified.
• Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMC SNR Denton
October 9, 2014 dentons.com
Page 4
• While the DEIR did not contain information on the trip generation or detailed land use
assumptions used in the traffic analysis, the Revision to the DEIR provide a marginal amount of
additional information. However, it is unclear what trip rates were assumed in those calculations.
Summary of Concerns
In summary, we understand the City's desire to meet the demand for jobs in the area and to meet it's
regional housing requirements. However, we are concerned that the increase in land use densities from
the Proposed Project will be inconsistent with the South Vallco Master Plan and will negatively affect the
Sears property and store operations. These concerns are summarized below:
• The densification of nearby land use will significantly increase congestion and introduce
additional traffic impacts, making it more difficult to access the Sears site. The increased travel
time to the Sears site, and increased circulation and parking time may make it more likely that
customers will find alternate locations to meet their shopping needs. A traffic impact fee program
is proposed as the solution to the identified traffic impacts. While this may ultimately help
address Citywide circulation needs, we are concerned that the fee program will not sufficiently
provide the congestion relief when and where the impacts are generated.
• The traffic analysis appears to understate the impacts of the Proposed Project by not evaluating
Saturday conditions or conditions at Perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard; by assuming
an extensive reduction in retail square footage at South Vallco Park Gateway West; and by
assuming the implementation of projects in the baseline scenario that may not be fully funded and
programmed.
• The modification of zoning within the South Vallco Park Gateway West area may lead to a
reduction in commercial square footage within the Vallco Shopping District, as assumed in the
traffic analysis. This may reduce the regional attractiveness of the shopping area, to the
detriment of existing retail businesses. It also is contrary to the policies enacted as part of the
Heart of the City Specific Plan and South Vallco Master Plan, both of which emphasize
maintaining the character of the regional shopping center and compatibility of existing and future
uses.
The Alternatives chapter of the DEIR analyzed the impacts of two alternative land use scenarios. Both
alternative land use scenarios result in fewer traffic impacts than the Proposed Project. In particular,
Land Use Alternative B results in much less congestion at intersections and on the freeway, and a lower
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita. Land Use Alternative B achieves the City's goals of increasing
density and providing mixed-use development opportunities, but without the severity of traffic impacts
associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, we encourage the City to consider adopting one of the
land use alternatives to the Proposed Project in order to reduce the Project's detriment to existing
businesses.
Additional ways in which the City can help address these concerns include:
• Implementing the fee program promptly, and ensuring that it includes the full slate of
improvement projects necessary to mitigate traffic impacts. Projects funded by the fee program
should be implemented as soon as sufficient funding is available and prioritized based on the
location of the development.
• Working closely with Caltrans and surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that traffic impacts in
Caltrans or other jurisdictions are mitigated and improvements implemented in a timely manner.
W • M.W Mr. Paul Brophy Salans FMC SNR Denton
October 9, 2014 dentons.com
Page 5
• As development projects are proposed, require that they be compatible with existing land uses.
This includes verifying that development activity does not diminish access to existing land uses or
the business viability of those uses.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the City's proposed General Plan Amendment. Please feel
free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Dentons US LLP
Ivor E. Samson
I ES/kzc
cc: Aarti Shirvastava
From: Catherine Alexander[mailto:cdjalexander@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday,October 10,2014 2:47 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update- Planning
Commission
Thanks, George.
I have a board meeting that night at one of the non-profits whose Web site I write/manage, and
can't attend.
My comments for the record:
In my opinion, new, dense housing complexes will ruin property values for single-family homeowners
and impact the historic safety of our Cupertino neighborhoods, overcrowd our struggling schools
(Building up is not a viable solution) and increase traffic and parking problems to unbearable levels.
Residents who pay property taxes here are already struggling with traffic congestion and parking
problems at shopping areas due to downsized parking lots designed to increase acreage available for
development. Many residents now shop and dine in other cities where parking and congestion is
more manageable, as was mentioned more than once by residents during the hearings,yet
apparently not recorded in the minutes by consultants working for developers and the City.
In my opinion, our Cupertino City Council and the current Community Development manager seem
to care about housing Apple employees who bike and walk to work and are not working for long
term residents who own single family homes here and want to preserve their quality of life.
Seniors, residents with small children and those who are disabled are not able bike or walk to shops
or restaurants in overdeveloped areas of Cupertino.These physically-impacted groups seem to have
no place in the City of Cupertino envisioned by the manager of the Cupertino Community
Development team,who seems unwilling to hear any actual opinions and experiences from residents
which differ from her own somewhat rigid futuristic vision and theories of how we should want to
live here. Her goals for our City seem to be based on her cited and compiled,theoretical planning
statistics, not what residents want.
The Cupertino Community Development manager apparently was part of the team who created the
current traffic and parking mess in downtown Mountain View, based on the same bike and public
transit theories and statistics she seems to using now,to envision the Cupertino she feels would be
best for residents. Despite the feedback that most residents disagree with her,these theories trump
actual residents views, so some of us have stopped attending public hearings because she and the
City Council don't seem to be willing to hear that residents don't want any of the changes planned
for Cupertino and its posse of consultants and developers. Residents are interrupted or cut off at
hearings and some of our anti-growth views don't seem to be recorded by the consultants working
for developers and City.
The Cupertino Community Development manager was apparently one of the city planning team who
created the "new Mountain View," where travel and parking is now almost inaccessible,where
Mountain View residents and business owners must now purchase$300 annual parking permits to
visit shops and restaurants or park near their own downtown businesses.
Downtown Mountain View restaurants and shops on Castro Street are now almost inaccessible to
residents, based on severe traffic and parking problems every evening. City visitors now attempt to
1
park in front of resident's homes in those residential areas several blocks deep surrounding Castro
Street, since the same, "everyone will bike and take public transit"thinking, apparently by this
Cupertino planning manager during her tenure in Mountain View, was used to tell residents what
they should want in their City based on statistical models which were unrealistic,so vastly
inadequate and poorly planned parking, has become the new norm in Mountain View.
Now, Mountain View residents are living in a civic nightmare of continual congestion,with residents
and visitors circling blocks in every direction for over 30 minutes most evenings,just to find one
parking spot.This is not safe for families, children,the elderly, or the disabled,who use cross walks
and need parking in front of their own homes, and who absolutely need their cars and parking spots
near Mountain View's Kaiser facility, City Hall, Library, pharmacies,grocery stores and other shops.
Cupertino residents do not want to see our City condense itself to a limited bike/mass transit-
centered future,where every foot of our City is not just developed, but over developed, and the
elderly and disabled, or those with small children are disenfranchised.
Long-time residents don't want their community to become a series of high-rise apartment
complexes and condos over businesses, or of shopping areas, parks and libraries which no longer
have adequate parking and green space for residents. High-density developments age and degrade
over time and look shabby, and they are hard to remove once they are in place because they make
money for the owners, who most often do not live in Cupertino themselves and don't have to live
near them or deal with the traffic, health and safety problems they create.
Protect Cupertino property for those home and business owners who actually live in our City and
who care about its long term quality of life, its history, its safety, its schools, and our families,
seniors, and disabled. Create a balanced City which is not overly focused on one business or one
demographic, at the expense of everyone else in the City.
Residents with single family homes who moved here expecting their neighborhoods to exist of other
families in similar single family homes,who were told Cupertino had a "no-growth" policy when they
moved here, do not to be overlooked by apartment and condo complexes, multistory garages, or
Santana Row-like developments that, let's face it, no matter how fancy they are, are fake re-
creations of historic buildings and look fake and tacky.
Cupertino demolished (and should have preserved) its own historic buildings, and lost what could
have been its own Los Gatos-like authentic Santa Cruz/University Avenue quaint downtown area
with a planned civic center park at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (as it
was called then).
Instead, as it always has since the 1970's,Cupertino City Council members chased the development
and industry dollar, believing the large industry du jour(remember Varian Associates/Valco Park,
Hewlett Packard, Sunsweet,Gemco, and all of the other businesses which were the answer for
Cupertino,yet have since fled)were the answer to Cupertino's future. Even now,Apple is moving to
a complex bordering Santa Clara, and my guess is that the dated and run-down light industry
buildings it uses near Bandley Avenue, Lazaneo Avenue, and Mariani Drive,will be abandoned in the
next 5 years,with no industry filling those office space leasing gaps.
Those industries mentioned above moved away after Cupertino had already destroyed plans for
parks, Civic Centers and museums using historic buildings on those properties,which had been
previously preserved in no-growth plans to benefit residents and our history. Sadly,we can't bring
2
our historic structures back. Even the historic Cali Brothers grain silo, left to the City and destined to
become a historic park relic,since it was beloved by many here as the town's own Eiffel Tower-like
monument when it was decorated with lights and a tree every holiday season, somehow was
mysteriously destroyed when it was entrusted to the City of Cupertino, and Apple wanted to develop
that corner lot.
Let's face it, Cupertino has apparently been for sale to the latest developer for many years now,
based on greed for revenue at City hall,with its posse of Chamber allies, consultants and developers.
What Cupertino could have been, if creating a city which respected our history, environment(while
refusing funding for civic life projects and programs from our greatest local polluter, Lehigh Cement),
neighborhoods, green space and quality of life for residents and families, was lost long ago.
The latest consultant and developer-based dance around producing an Amended City Plan, is just
another step towards turning Cupertino into Mountain View, where there is little parking, cramped
residential areas and schools, and where some historic structures have been destroyed to create
fake, new buildings with an historic look,to jump on the current Santana Row-themed fad of fake
historic Victorian or Mediterranean-like architecture,for those who want to feel like they are in
historic Los Gatos or San Francsico,yet don't want to make the effort to drive there to experience
real respect for history and authentic architectural preservation.
Folks,you can't sell phony, high-density Victorian and Mediterranean architecture to high tech
workers.These workers are highly educated and know the difference between fake Victorian and
Mediterranean cheap residential reproductions, which is why many of them choose to live in Los
Gatos,Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto,where actual historical homes and structures were
thoughtfully preserved by those cities and still exist as businesses and single family homes. High
density housing in those cities is not crammed in among single family neighborhoods, but limited to
light industrial areas, so home values and the quality of life in city centers, is not impacted by less
desirable combined residential and business developments.
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siIiconvaIleylibrarian.com/
From: Catherine Alexander [mailto:cdjalexander@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday,October 10, 2014 3:58 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: PS-Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update- Planning
Commission
Hello George,
Please also add this to the record:
As a Cupertino resident, my single family home,which used to be inside and surrounded by orchards,
was allowed,through re-zoning and City Plan amendments,to sit beside a huge apartment complex
and its entry lane, once our neighbor sold his orchard land to developers.
3
In what once was a clean and quiet neighborhood of single family homes, my home and front yard
now and for many years since the apartment development was built, has had chronic:
* Car alarms at all hours.
* Traffic at all hours.
* Honking at all hours.
* Dogs barking and cats howling at all hours.
* Cats defecating in my back yard at night. (I don't have pets.)
* Cats having kittens in my yard.
* Rats regularly coming under my fence,since the trash bins in the complex parking area are
directly across the entry lane from my back yard.
* Conversations and car key electronic beeping noises at all hours on the entry lane near the
bedroom windows of my home.
* People trespassing and walking under my bedroom windows at all hours. (the City will not allow
a fence to be built near the property line.)
* Loitering running vehicles and parked vehicles in no-parking areas in front of my home, with
people using phones,talking,visiting, eating and smoking in illegally parked cars, since the
apartment complex is non-smoking.
* People parked across the street from my driveway(in a no parking area) and taking photos of my
home and garage,when I have my garage doors open.
* Apartment managers (male)who watched me through their tall shrubs, when I mowed my lawn
or trimmed my plants.
* Cigarettes, cigarette butts,food, cups,wrappers, used and unused condoms, and used and
unused sanitary napkins/tampons, and other food related and personal trash,which is regularly
tossed in my yard and under my 50-year-old redwood trees, which I have to clean up.
* Weeds and quince apples left behind apartment complex bushes at their property line,which are
never removed by apartment yard maintenance workers (I have asked)so I am left to remove them
myself to prevent the spread of seeds/weeds into my yard, or rodents and pests near, in or under my
home.
* People regularly smoking near my historic trees without any apparent common sense or respect
for my property or fire safety,flicking their live ashes and butts in my yard on dry mulch under my
dry trees,which I can't water during this drought.
* People also smoking and flicking live ash and butts under dry trees, leaves and needles, on the
state property across the street from my home, creating ongoing neighborhood fire danger, despite
4 years of requesting that the apartment complex create a smoking area on its own property,to
improve chronic littering problems and fire safety in the neighborhood.
* People sitting under the trees on my property, in my front yard,without respect to property
boundaries.
* Workers from the complex, parking in my driveway to make phone calls and eat lunch.
* Repossession car haulers parking across my driveway as they quietly walk through apartment
complex parking areas to repossess cars from delinquent car buyers, usually between midnight and
1:30 a.m. on work nights,with their pulleys and hydraulics running the entire time outside my
bedroom windows.
* Moving vans,tractors and construction crews parked across my driveway for several hours, as
work takes place in the apartments during the year.
* Tractors and trailers left parked in front of my home for days in no parking areas, as construction
takes place in the apartments.
* Devaluation of my home and property, due to all of the above from the existence of apartments
next door to my home, as reported in my last property evaluation.
4
When the City says there will be no impact to existing single family homeowners from new high-
density residential developments,that is not accurate nor honest, in my opinion and based on my
real life experience.
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siIiconvaIleylibrarian.com/
From:Catherine Alexander [mailto:cdjalexander@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:20 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: PS again comments to add to the bulleted list-Cupertino General Plan Amendment and
Housing Element Update- Planning Commission
• Since apartments went in next door to my home, I can no longer sleep in my my master
bedroom. I have to sleep in a small bedroom on the other side of my home, due to the
constant car alarms, early morning honking, and car key electronic beeps in the parking area
of the complex,which is directly across their entry lane from the windows of two of the
bedrooms in my home, once of which happens to be my master bedroom.
• 1 hear a steady stream of talking and slamming car doors, if I try to use my own master
bedroom,since apartment residents also park along the lane along my bedroom windows,
and sometimes have prolonged loud conversations near their cars. I have literally been
jolted awake at 1 or 2 a.m., nearly every day of the week, until I gave up and slept in another
room in my house.
• Likewise, residents leave their apartment unit windows open at night and crank up their
music and televisions, so it is impossible to use my master bedroom in summer months,
since I hear all of their music, movies and programs.
• 1 am also woken at 6 a.m. on weekdays from apartment noise (I worked some nights on my
job with the County, so this was a real problem),which including slamming car doors,
yelling, and people honking several times directly outside my bedroom windows,while
picking others up at the complex or dropping them off late at night.
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siIiconvaIleylibrarian.com/
5
From: George Schroeder [ma i Ito:GeorgeS@cupertino.org]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:57 AM
To: Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino; Terri McCracken; Dan Amsden
Subject: Catherine Alexander Comments on GPA/HE - SUPERSEDES OTHERS
Good Morning,
I received these comments from Catherine Alexander over the weekend. and she said to let
these supersede the 2 or 3 others she sent on Friday.Thank you, and see below:
My comments for the GPA hearing record:
In my opinion, new, dense housing complexes will ruin property values for single-family
homeowners, impact the historic safety of our Cupertino neighborhoods, overcrowd our
struggling schools (adding new stories to existing schools is not a viable solution, since city
streets are already impassible for parents and residents who live near schools) and dense
development of any type will increase traffic and parking problems to more unbearable levels.
Residents who pay property taxes here are already struggling with traffic congestion and parking
at shopping areas, due to downsized parking lots designed to increase acreage available for
development. Many residents now shop and dine in other cities where parking and traffic
congestion is more manageable, as was mentioned more than once by residents during the GPA
hearings,yet was apparently not summarized in the report of overly-favorable resident
feedback found in the proceeding materials as produced by developer-paid consultants funded
by interested business owners and the City.
In my opinion, our Cupertino City Council and the current Cupertino Community Development
manager seem to care only about courting and housing local tech employees who bike and walk
to work. Our City Council and Community Development manager no longer seem to be working
for(nor really considering the interests of) long term and new Cupertino residents who pay their
salaries through taxes, nor residents who own single family homes here who also want to
preserve their quality of life, having made a significant financial investment in our community
and its welfare.
Seniors, residents with small children and those who are disabled are not able to bus, bike or
walk to shops or restaurants in Cupertino.Those physically-impacted groups seem to have no
place in the City of Cupertino envisioned by the manager of the Cupertino Community
Development team, who seems unwilling to hear any actual opinions and experiences from
residents which differ from her own somewhat rigid futuristic vision and academic theories of
how we "should" want to live here. She repeatedly seems to not hear or acknowledge what
residents have stated they want for Cupertino's future, if those comments and wishes do not
1
agree with her projected models and research statistics, based on popular urban planning
theory.
The Cupertino Community Development manager apparently was part of the team which
created the current traffic and parking mess in downtown Mountain View, all based on the same
bike, pedestrian and public transit theories and statistics she seems to be using now,to envision
the Cupertino she feels would be best for residents.
Some residents have stopped attending public hearings because they don't want any of the
changes planned for Cupertino by its posse of urban planners, consultants and developers.
Residents expressing opposition have been interrupted or cut off at hearings, and some of our
anti-growth views don't seem to be recorded by the consultants working for stakeholder
developers, business owners and the City, or found in those glossy General Plan Amendment
brochures the City posts online, which residents often can't access or print, due to heavy
graphics usage which eats up home ink cartridges and takes huge chunks of Internet bandwidth
to download.
The Cupertino Community Development manager was apparently one of the city planning team
who created the "new downtown Mountain View," where car travel and parking has become
almost impossible. Mountain View residents, workers and business owners must now purchase
$300 annual parking permits to visit shops and restaurants,to park near jobs, or to park near
their own downtown businesses.
Visitors to downtown Mountain View now attempt to park in front of resident's homes in
residential areas surrounding Castro Street, since the same, "everyone will bike, walk and take
public transit"thinking, apparently from this Cupertino Community Development manager
during her tenure in Mountain View, was used to tell residents what they should want in their
City, based on the same unrealistic statistical models now being used in the City of Cupertino.
Apparently, as a result,vastly inadequate surface road access and poorly planned City-wide
parking levels, pedestrian safety and access for seniors and the disabled, or families with small
children, have become the new norm in Mountain View, after their downtown was repurposed.
Mountain View residents near Castro Street live in a civic nightmare of continual congestion,
with residents and visitors circling blocks in every direction for nearly 30 minutes most evenings,
just to find one parking spot.This is not safe for families, children, the elderly, or the disabled,
who need safe cross walks and easy parking in front of their own homes, plus easily accessible
parking near Mountain View's Kaiser facility, City Hall, Library, pharmacies,grocery stores and
other shops. One wonders if their stories now appear in the statistical models recalculated or
revised by the City of Mountain View, once the real-life effects of poor planning became
apparent years later.
2
Cupertino residents do not want to continue to see our City condense itself into a limited
bike/mass transit-centered future,where every foot of our City is not just developed, but
overdeveloped, and the elderly and disabled, or those with small children, continue to
beforgotten in favor or tech workers' habits and preferences.
Residents do not want our City to become so densely occupied that normal living becomes even
more impossible, due to the already extremely poor City Community Development management
planning used in the location of civic buildings, parks and the parking lots adjacent to them,
notably our Cupertino City Hall, the Library, the Cupertino Community Hall and Memorial Park,
which residents are often unable to access or use, due to the ongoing lack of parking during
events and programs.
Ironically, Cupertino residents are unable to attend civic hearings on the proposed City General
Plan Amendment, because there is such inadequate parking near the combined City Council
Chamber/Community Hall, located between the library and City Hall.The fancy, online City Plan
General Amendment consultant-produced documents and promotional booklets do not
mention that each public General Plan Amendment-related hearing has had maybe 2-5
residents present in recent months, due to inability of residents to park nearby to attend these
meetings, or the fact that some hearings were held during normal 9-5 business hours, when
most Cupertino residents were either at work or busy with childcare.
There seems to be a sad lack of transparency and honesty in the online General Plan
Amendment documents, since they were produced to push residents towards approving new
high density housing and multiuse developments, and to make it appear that residents were
really behind the move towards new high-density, when in reality,the same flotilla of
businesses and their developers, consultants and the Chamber of Commerce, seem to really be
behind the move to continually sell out and increase the density of Cupertino's residential
landscape, continuing to try to turn us into one large, ongoing strip mall like the now ubiquitous
Santana Row model, in hopes that they may make$ millions off of new and existing tech
workers.
Long-time residents don't want their community to become a series of high-rise apartment
complexes or condos over businesses, or of shopping areas, parks and libraries which continue
to have completely inadequate parking with shrinking green spaces for residents.
High-density developments age and degrade over time then look dated and shabby. High-
density developments are also hard to remove once they are in place (visit the blocks of empty
condos near Target in downtown Sunnyvale, which have remained unoccupied for many, many
years now since they were built, after that City demolished the quaint Town and Country
downtown area for Santana Row-like "improvements.")
3
The owners of these high-density multiuse monstrosities most often do not live in the
complexes or the cities where they have been built, so they do not have to deal with the traffic,
health, safety and blight problems they create.Just like in Cupertino, in downtown Sunnyvale,
the Farmers' Markets and street fairs are no longer easily accessible to all residents because
parking and walking distance to fairs and markets has increased, disenfranchising the elderly
and disabled. Close parking that was available previously, was removed in favor or multi-story
developments through rezoning.And, again, in Sunnyvale, the Target/condos high rise blocks
are ugly and detract from the many well-maintained bungalows and 1930's-style historic homes
and buildings, thankfully left untouched in nearby residential streets, which now suffer from
constant commercial transient traffic through formerly quiet neighborhoods. Anyone want to
guess what that has done to the property values of those historic homes now bordering a giant
Target store and parking garage, or several huge nearly abandoned condo complexes?
Protect Cupertino property for those home and business owners who actually live in our City
and who care about its long term quality of life, its history, its safety, its schools, and our
families, seniors, kids and the disabled. Create a balanced City which is not overly focused on
one business, one industry, or one demographic, at the expense of everyone else living in the
City and our quality of life.
Residents with very expensive single family homes moved here expecting their neighborhood to
co-exist among other family neighborhoods with similar single family homes.They were told
that Cupertino has always had an historic "no-growth" policy, before they decided to move
here.Those single family home dwellers do not want to be overlooked by apartment and condo
complexes, by multistory garages, or by Santana Row-like developments. Let's face it, no matter
how many pre-fab cupolas, vinyl bay windows and fake fiberboard cornices these Santana Bow-
like developments employ, nor how many extruded plastic artificial stucco trellises with newly
planted roses and vines they are decorated with,they are still blatantly fake re-creations of
historic Victorian and Mediterranean buildings, and look as fake and phony as lipstick on a pig,
as they age over time.
Cupertino demolished (and should have preserved) its own historic buildings, losing what could
have been its own Los Gatos-like quaint downtown area, sacrificing a planned historic civic
center and park at the corner of Stevens Creek and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (as it was called
then),trading all of that for pseudo-Italianate high-rise condos and a hotel with no parking for
guests, a quasi-modern yet bland Seagate building at odds with the architecture which
surrounds it (who approved that?), street-side bistro-like mini strip malls (again with no
apparent parking visible for customers along a tremendously busy road where no one would
want to sit outside to relax or dine) and a southwest BBQjoint which most health-conscious
residents don't use near the corner.
The bifurcated Apple headquarters which deep-sixed the planned historic civic center, is now
being moved to an area boarding Santa Clara. Where have we seen this, "if we built it they will
4
come" development dance before in Cupertino?That's right, when Hewlett Packard, Gemco,
Vallco Park and Seagate developers first came to town. Once again, residents' quality of life,
parks,green space, civic areas, shopping centers and neighborhoods, were on the chopping
block, in trade for the next big financial carrot dangled in front of the City Council as the next
main meal for our City economy, by developers,their PR staff and their consultants, all spinning
their glittering, new bottle of snake oil with a promise to cure all of our civic ills (which were far
fewer than they than are now, by the way).
Since the 1970's, Cupertino's City Council members have chased the development and industry
dollar, believing each large industry du four was the fiduciary answer for Cupertino. Each new
City Council panel forgets to review how many past major industries have fled Cupertino,failed
or are building elsewhere, whose pre-development zoning and permitting, promised to be the
answer to Cupertino's future. Even now,Apple is moving to a complex bordering Santa Clara,
and the dated light industry buildings it uses near Bandley Avenue, Lazaneo Avenue, and
Mariani Drive, I predict, will be abandoned in the next 5 years,with no industries filling those
aging office spaces, which will impact our city tax levels and reduce tech employee use of city
area businesses and restaurants.
The lost industries mentioned above, moved away after Cupertino had already destroyed plans
for parks, Civic Centers and museums using historic buildings on those properties, which had
been previously preserved in no-growth plans to benefit residents and honor our history and
founding residents with a large green space and gathering spaces for residents.
Sadly, we can't bring our historic structures back. Even the historic Cali Brothers Grain Silo,
willed to the City and destined to become a historic civic park monument, since it was beloved
by many here as the town's own Eiffel Tower-like center when its peak was decorated with
lights and a tree every holiday season, acting as the center of the City in some respects,
somehow was mysteriously destroyed when it was entrusted to the City of Cupertino, after
Apple wanted to develop the corner lot which was earmarked to be our historic civic center park
in the future. Instead, we got Memorial Park, duck poop, drained lagoons, and no place for
residents to park for civic events.
Unfortunately,this "oops, we accidentally destroyed that historic ( Your name here )" artifact
or structure, or"we accidentally lost it," or"we sold it to someone else," mantra, has been
common in Cupertino over the years, unlike the surrounding cities of Santa Clara, Niles, San
Jose, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Los Altos, which had community development leadership which
understood that preserving history and historic buildings creates tangible civic value, not only in
terms of pride of place with residents and visitors, but in terms of City property values as well.
Cupertino leadership has always been too transient and too focused on the short-term financial
bump of new industry to realize two simple urban development maxims: 1) historic preservation
adds destination city Gold to local businesses, and 2) apartments, condos and light industry may
5
co-exist only in designated areas far from historic landmarks, single family residences, and
historic downtown tourism destinations. So, although we could have been awesome, we have
lost any chance of being an historic destination City with a high tech heart, and as a result, have
demeaned the quality of our City life and its essence. We could have been amazing. Instead, our
Council wants to fabricate a phony destination pseudo-downtown here,there, anywhere, to
replace that which in its infinite wisdom, it chose to tear down for"progress," years ago.
Let's face it, Cupertino has apparently been for sale to the latest developer for many years now,
based on a greed for revenue and the steady posse of Chamber allies, consultants and
developers trying to manipulate City Councils and voters to sell out their own no-growth best
interests to prop-up tacky high density projects.
Residents are increasingly disgusted with Community Development management which forgets
to value residential life in favor of pie-in-the-sky theories of utopian living/working/dining
developments favoring pedestrians, bike lanes and mass transit, which almost no resident will
use who isn't employed by Apple or attending De Anza College. Parents, granny's, teens, seniors,
and most adults here, prefer to drive and park close to destinations, it's that simple folks,
despite what urban planning academic thinkers (or developers PR staff) believe,we drive here,
so a balance has to be found which does not solely court young tech workers.
Want an example? Okay. Let's look at that Mary Avenue Pedestrian Bridge. How much did that
cost? Holy smokes, are you kidding me,that much? Um, but I never see anyone actually using it.
Ever. In theory, with the high school and De Anza at either ends, it should be hopping all day if
people are truly walking and riding bikes at the levels predicted by our Community Development
manager. In theory. Wow, wrong urban planning theories and inaccurate usage statistics can be
really expensive, can't they? Like in $ millions of dollars expensive.The bridge looks kind of
pretty at night,though, I mean, if you look at it like a sculpture or something. Me? No, I've never
used it.You have to park on Homestead and walk behind the high school to get to it,then it
ends up near a mini storage unit on the other side of the freeway--way too to far from
anywhere I'd like to walk and absolutely nothing interesting near by.
Whatever Cupertino could have been, if correctly developed by a City team which respected
our history and environment (refusing civic funding for projects and programs from our greatest
local polluter, Lehigh Cement) and honoring the needs of families, the disabled and seniors
seeking low-density neighborhoods, shopping areas and parks, all adding to the quality of life for
residents and families, was lost long ago.
Folks,you can't sell phony, high-density Victorian and pseudo-Mediterranean architecture to
high tech workers.These workers are highly educated and know the difference between
fiberboard cookie-cutter condo residential reproductions coated with a stucco effect, which is
why many of them choose to live in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto, where actual
historical homes, heritage trees and structures were thoughtfully preserved by those cities and
6
still exist as businesses and single family homes. High density housing in those cities is not
crammed in among heritage single family neighborhoods, but limited to light industrial areas, so
home values and the quality of life in city centers, are not impacted by less desirable combined
high-rise residential and business developments.
As a Cupertino resident, my single family home, formerly inside an orchard and surrounded by
other orchards,farms and hothouses, was allowed, through re-zoning and City General Plan
Amendments,to sit adjacent to a huge apartment complex and its entry lane, after our neighbor
sold his orchard land to high density apartment complex developers. At that time, it was the
only apartment complex within blocks of older residential single family homes. It has been
downhill since near my home, due to that apartment complex and its residents.
In what once was a clean and quiet neighborhood of single family homes, my home currently
and over many years has experienced, from that apartment complex next door:
• Car alarms at all hours.
• Traffic at all hours.
• Honking at all hours.
• Dogs barking and cats howling and fighting at all hours.
• Cats defecating in my back yard at night. (I don't have pets.)
• Cats having kittens in my yard.
• A dog whose owner, an apartment resident, allowed him to keep urinating on two of my
older roses until they died and nothing would grow where they stood. When I asked him
to please keep the dog out of my yard, he allowed his dog to walk and pee on my
neighbor's landscaping, killing a large area of their groundcover plantings, which had
been healthy, lush and green for many years before this apartment resident and his
uncurbed dog, moved in.
• Rats regularly coming under my fence, since the huge industrial-sized trash bins in the
complex parking area are directly across from my back yard.
• Conversations and car key electronic beeping noises at all hours from the cars parked
along the entry lane and in the complex parking garage, which faces the bedroom
windows of my home.
• People trespassing and walking under the bedroom windows of my home. (the City will
not allow more than a 3 foot fence to be built near the property line, however there is a
power pole requiring utility access.)
• Loitering, running vehicles and parked vehicles in no-parking areas in front of my home,
with people using cell phones,talking,visiting, eating, smoking, pacing and apparently
having sex in illegally parked cars, at all hours.
• People parked across the street from my driveway (in a no parking area) and taking
photos of my home and garage,when I have my garage doors open.
• Apartment managers (male) who watched me through their tall shrubs,when I mowed
my lawn or trimmed my plants.
• Cigarettes, cigarette butts, food, cups, wrappers, used and unused condoms, used and
unused sanitary napkins/tampons, and other food-related and personal trash, which is
regularly tossed into my yard and under my 50-year-old trees, which I have to clean up.
• Weeds and quince apples left near apartment complex bushes inside their property line,
which are never removed by apartment yard maintenance workers (I have asked), so I
am left to remove them myself to prevent the spread of seeds/weeds into my yard, or
rodents and pests near, in or under my home.
• People regularly smoking near my historic trees without any apparent common sense or
respect for my property or fire safety,flicking their live ashes and butts in my yard under
my mulched large trees (which I am unable to water during the drought).
• People also smoking and flicking live ash and butts under dry trees, leaves and needles,
on the state property across the street from my home, creating ongoing neighborhood
fire danger, despite 4 years of my requests asking that the apartment complex create a
smoking area on its own property,to improve chronic littering problems and fire safety
in the neighborhood.
• People sitting or talking under the trees in my front yard, without respect to property
boundaries or my privacy.
• Workers hired by the complex parking in my driveway to make phone calls and eat
lunch.
• Repossession company huge multi-car, multi-trailer haulers parking directly across my
driveway(and blocking access to or from my home) as they quietly walk through
apartment complex parking areas to repossess cars from delinquent car buyers, usually
between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. on Sunday nights, with their pulleys and hydraulics
running on noisy truck generators outside my bedroom windows.
• Moving vans,tractors and construction equipment parked in front of my home for days
or weeks, as work takes place in the apartments during the year.
• Tractors and trailers left parked in front of my home for days in no parking areas, as
construction takes place in the apartments. Sometimes the construction engines are hot
and oily and parked under dry neighborhood trees.
• Devaluation of my home and property due to all of the above,from the existence of
apartments next door to my single family home.
• Loss of use of my home. Since high-density apartments were built next door to my
home, I can no longer sleep in my master bedroom. I have to sleep in a small bedroom
on the other side of my home, due to the constant car alarms, early morning honking,
late night conversations, and noise in the parking garage of the complex.
• Loss of sleep. I hear a steady stream of talking and slamming car doors, if I try to use my
own master bedroom, since apartment residents also park along the entry lane near my
bedroom windows, and sometimes have prolonged loud conversations near their cars. I
have literally been jolted awake at 1 or 2 a.m. by slamming car doors and trunks, nearly
every day of the week, until I gave up and began sleeping in another room in my house.
• Noise at all hours. Likewise, residents leave their apartment unit windows open at night
and crank up their music and televisions during warmer weather, so it is impossible to
use my master bedroom in summer months, since I hear apartment dwellers' music,
movies and programs, and the steady boom, boom, boom of mega-bass speakers, until
1 or 1:30 a.m. almost every summer weekend night. If I call the Sheriff's office, they
want me to go out there and find out which apartment is making the noise. As a senior
woman, I am unwilling to do that.
• Broken sleep. I am also jarred awake at 6:30 a.m. on weekdays from apartment noise (I
regularly worked some consecutive late nights on my job with the County, so this was a
real problem when I had a short turnaround). Noises include slamming car doors,
yelling, and people honking several times directly outside my master bedroom windows
s
to pick up late apartment carpoolers. If apartment carpoolers did not come after one or
two honks, the drivers just keep honking, not thinking that there might be night workers
in the area.
• After the two-story apartments were built,their residents' windows overlooked my
master bedroom, and another bedroom, and my bathroom windows, as well as my front
and back yard. My privacy was completely lost.
Like many Cupertino single family homeowners who have been here for many years, as a
retiree I can't just pack up and sell my home, since I have Prop. 13 property tax relief on my
home, which makes my home affordable on my pension. I am stuck with the mess the City
created with my custom-designed home when it allowed re-zoning for high-density apartment
units next door, practically under my bedroom windows, and reduced not only my quality of life
and ability to sleep in my master bedroom or enjoy my backyard, but the appreciation values on
my home as a result. As I have said, everything has been downhill since the apartments were
built next to me.
When the City says there will be no impact to existing single family homeowners or area schools
from new high-density multiuse or residential developments near current single family home
neighborhoods,that statement seems neither realistic, accurate, nor honest, based on any of
my real life experience, having had a high density development built next door to my formerly
peaceful and private single family home.
Catherine Alexander
Cupertino, California
Best,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siliconvalleylibrarian.com/
9
WINE M.W
Ivor E.Samson ivocsamson@dentons.com Salans FMC SNR Denton
Partner D +1 415 882 2491 dentons.corn
Darters US LLP
525 Market Street
28th Floor
San Francisco,CA 94105-2708 USA
T +1 415 882 5000
F +1 415 882 0300
October 13, 2014
BY E-MAIL& FEDERAL EXPRESS
(planning@cupertino.org)
Mr. Paul Brophy
Chair, City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Sears' Comments on Proposed General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Brophy:
Sears Holding Corporation ("Sears") respectfully withdraws the comments submitted in my letter of
October 9, 2014 and will no longer be participating in the proceedings related to the proposed General
Plan Amendment.
Thank you (and the Planning Commission staff) for your consideration throughout this process.
Very truly yours,
Dentons US LLP
Ivor E. Samson
I ES/kzc
cc: Aarti Shirvastava
83227585\V-1
SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY
October 13, 2014
Via Overnight Delivery and E-Mail
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Re: General Plan Amendment: Office Allocation for Vallco Shopping District
Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company ("Sand Hill") regarding the treatment
of the Vallco Shopping District("Vallco") in the General Plan Amendment, Sand Hill is in
the midst of acquiring the Vallco parcels for potential redevelopment, so we are keenly
interested in working with the City of Cupertino ("City")to develop a feasible plan that can
benefit all stakeholders. I am writing to request that the Planning Commission recommends
to the City Council that the General Plan include an office allocation for Vallco.of 2,000,000
square feet and the height limits set out in"Alternative C,"as analyzed in the draft General
Plan's environmental review. Without this specific office allocation,as well as the necessary
retail and housing components, there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible
for Sand Hill, or any other prospective developer,to successfully redevelop Vallco.
Vallco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched
in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City, yet for many reasons, it
has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandoned or have
failed. Sand Hill has the financial capacity and proven track.record with such projects and is
poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic downtown
where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans to completely transform the
current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainable mixed-use neighborhood.
Our plan envisions a balanced mix of 600-700 residential units, approximately 600,000
square feet of retail,a full service hotel,and 2,000,000 square feet of office space. The
overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented"town center"consistent with the
General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects, such as
Main Street.
sf-3467260
2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241• MENLO PARK, CA 94025•(650) 344-1500•FAX(650)344-0652
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Two
The benefits to the City of such a project go well beyond creating a sense of place. With
600,000 square feet,the retail component of the project would be the same size as Santana
Row and would generate millions in sales tax revenues way in excess of what is being
collected today. Property taxes would also increase significantly, perhaps by 800%, given
the billion-dollar plus investment Sand Hill is prepared to make in the City of Cupertino. In
addition, we recognize that in order to obtain increased height limits for Vallco under
Alternative C, projects must comply with the new General Plan's community benefits
program. Although our specific project plans are still developing,the community benefits
we anticipate providing include ground floor retail components and [transit improvements
and amenities, space for public entities, senior housing, construction of a new, or expansion
to, a community facility/community gathering place, creation or dedication of new or
expanded park, cash in-lieu contribution for such community benefits]. We would also be
amenable to exploring, with other property developers,the potential of providing a
community shuttle program in order to provide transportation between employment and
community centers. As required by the General Plan, these community benefits will be
equivalent to at least 15 percent in value of the parcel attributed to the increase in height.
The opportunity to transform the Valleo site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan, the
capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with the City and the
community. Prior attempts at Vallco redevelopment have all run into the same problem: full
ownership of the site is needed for a successful project, and the current split and passive
ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After nearly three years
of intensive negotiations with the various Vallco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the
process of completing purchases for the entire mall. Single ownership will remove the key
barrier to redevelopment that has hampered the site for decades. However, in order to close
on the Vallco parcels, Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can build a project that is
financially viable. At present, the development allocation recommended in the Staff Report
precludes such a project, and thus, a feasible redevelopment of the property. In particular,
the Staff Report's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75
feet(west of Wolfe Road) and 90 feet(east of Wolfe Road) does not work for our plan, or
any plan for that matter.
Redevelopment of Vallco is a substantial undertaking. It entails demolition of approximately
1.2 million square feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown
over 50 acres. The General Plan's vision for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a"town
center"layout, a newly configured street grid, an expanded Wolfe Road bridge of I-280 to
accommodate a bikeable and walkable "boulevard," a new town square and plazas
interspersed throughout. The General Plan calls for high-quality architecture and materials
befitting a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision, but such elements are all very costly.
While retail uses are critical for completing the overall vision, such uses do not support the
type of amenities we and the City want to provide. In order for complete redevelopment to
sf-3467260
2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 -MENLO PARK, CA 94025-(650)344-1500-FAX(650) 344-0652
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Three
be financially feasible, the project must include 2,000,000 square feet of office already
studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office square footage, while also
respecting the neighborhoods to the west, increased height must be allowed, including up to
160 feet on the east side of Wolfe Road.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the General Plan allocate to the Vallco Shopping District:
• 2,000,000 square feet of office space;
• Include the site in the Housing Element, including at least 600 units of housing;
600,000 square feet of retail; and
• Heights analyzed in "Alternative C"be permitted(i.e., up to 85 feet west of Wolfe
Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with community benefits).
Sand Hill is proud of what it has done in the City of Cupertino. We have partnered with the
City and the community on a number of successful commercial, retail and residential projects
since the 1990's. As with those prior projects, we view Vallco as a long-term investment.
We are a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the City.
Mahn Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016.
We look forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the
redevelopment of Vallco.
Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize a long-term community
vision for a revitalized Vallco. The development team and funding is in place to move
forward now. However, we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City
Council that without the necessary office, residential and retail allocations outlined above,
we will not be in a position to redevelop Vallco and it will likely continue to languish for
decades to come.
Thank you f your consideration.
pec 1 ubmitted,
Pet r Pau
Principal and Founder
sf-3467260
2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK, CA 94025•(650)344-1500-FAX(650)344-0652
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Four
Sand Hill Property Company
cc: Mayor Gilbert Wong
Vice Mayor Rod Sinks
Councilmember Barry Chang
Councilmember Orrin Mahoney
Councilmember Mark Santoro
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director
Reed Moulds, Sand Hill Property Company
sf-3467260
2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK, CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX(650) 344-0652
IRVINE COMPANY
Since 1864
October 14,2014
Mayor Gilbert Wong& Members of the City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino,CA 95014-3202
Dear Mayor Wong& Members of the City Council
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the desire of the Irvine Company to redevelop the Hamptons
site located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino.Situated on 12.4 acres,with 342 existing
Apartments, the redevelopment of this site strategically located next to the new Apple Campus 2, is
smart growth.
The staff report has recommended a lower density which makes redevelopment infeasible given the
economics of such an undertaking. Irvine's prior letter dated February 2014,suggested a redevelopment
range of 65 to 110 DUs per acre. Indicating our preference was to reach the higher range of 110 DUs per
acre.Staff has recommended below that range at 55 DUs per acre, 120 units less than the lowest end of
the range. In fact, one of the goals sited in the staff report for the Balanced Plan, indicates the plan
should, "Provide densities for existing sites that allow enough of an incentive to assume that the sites
would be developed in the 2014-2022 period (HCD criterion)". Unfortunately only adding 344 units to
the existing site containing 342 productive apartments does not incentivize redevelopment.
After studying the project further over the last several months, and learning more about the
expectations for public benefits,Wolfe Interchange assessment district participation,green building
standards, school fees, and designing a project with first class architecture, landscape architecture and
community amenities,the amount of units needed to support redevelopment of the Hampton's falls
mid-range of our original estimate at 88 DUs per acre, 274 units less than the high end of our range.
That would allow redeveloping a total of 1,090 units on the site,with 342 existing and 748 new units.
Therefore, we request that the City Council consider increasing the number of units on the Hampton's
site to a minimum of 748 new units,added to our existing 342 to meet the criteria established by HCD
providing the incentive to invest in Cupertino and upgrade the area with Class A Apartment Homes and
the improvements required for redevelopment.
Redevelopment of the Hampton's makes practical sense for the following reasons:
1. The Hamptons are located within walking and bicycling distance from Apple's new campus,
Cupertino's biggest employer.The Hamptons also provides housing for existing and future
employees throughout the region and will provide the added benefit of reducing VMT for those
employees who choose to live closer to where they work.
690 N. McCarthy Blvd., Suite 100 1 Milpitas, CA 95035
2. Irvine Company and Apple have agreed to language for the General Plan to lower heights on the
Hamptons to 60 ft. within the 50 ft.setback where the project is adjacent to Apple's boundary.
In addition, in the interest of working with Apple on issues of privacy and security and buffering
between the two properties,we have provided a draft Cooperative Agreement to Apple for
their review.This document will guide the redevelopment of the Hamptons between the two
parties.
3. The redevelopment of the Hamptons will contribute to the improvements to the Wolfe
interchange on a fair share basis.
4. The redevelopment of the Hamptons does not impact Cupertino Schools.The project is located
in the Santa Clara Unified School District for K-12 education. Irvine Company has begun
discussions with Santa Clara on mitigation for school impacts.
5. The Irvine Company has the resources to design and build an outstanding project in the City of
Cupertino; we also have a tradition and history of not selling off assets. We will be the
landowner, developer and property manager for the long term.The City and residents can be
comfortable with the reputation, quality and financial resources that come with the Irvine
Company brand.
We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Cupertino on the successful redevelopment of
the Hamptons and will be able to do so with the appropriate allocation of units to the site.
Please do not hesitate to contact me,should you need anything further on this matter.
Sincerely,
CarleneMatchniff �
VP, Entitlements& Public Affairs
Irvine Company
cc: Vice Mayor&Council Member Rod Sinks
Council Member Barry Chang
Council Member Orrin Mahoney
Council Member Mark Santoro
Planning Commission,City of Cupertino
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager& Director of Community Development
From: Darrel Lum [mailto:drlum@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:56 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: 2014 General Plan Amendment& Housing Element
Concerned Citizens of Cupertino has submitted 2 comprehensive documents
of its concerns about the 2014 General Plan Amendment and Housing Element,
at the beginning and at the end the Environment Impact Report comment period;
since many of the comments were not responded to in the final Environmental
Impact Report by your consultants because they were not directly related to the
environment, we suggested that you read our comments because they deal with
the direct impacts on the City and its residents.
A late entry into this discussion is the recent disclosure of the change of
ownership of Vallco. The City of Cupertino seems to be having the property
owners master plan projects without the input of its residents; has a specific
Vallco Specific Plan been discussed yet?
J. VOLCKMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Real Estate Investments and Development
October 16, 2014
City Council &Planning Commission of Cupertino:
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
We appreciate the substantial efforts of the City of Cupertino and all those that have been
involved in the General Plan Amendment & Housing Element over the last year and a half. We
feel as if a tremendous amount of thought and work have gone into the process and hope the
ultimate decision reflects both what is good for residents/neighborhoods, as well as the city and
its economy.
For 40 years, our family has owned Stevens Creek Office & Retail Center and been an occupant
of the building. We have seen both difficult and prosperous times at the property and have been
dedicated to reinvesting and maintaining it to high standards. The property shows well, but as we
saw with the Good Earth Restaurant, sometimes preferences change and upgrades must be made
(Peets & Panera). We are determined to hold the property in our family for another 40 years, but
there will come a time when the property has outlived its useful life and needs to be redeveloped,
which we believe to be within the 25 Year Plan. Already, tenant preferences have shifted away
from dated buildings such as ours, but we have been fortunate that in prosperous times, Apple
has occupied enough of the existing Cupertino real estate that demand remains high. This is not
always guaranteed and definitely felt in down markets, which is why we are urging the City to
allow for a 60 foot height limit at the site. In today's market where high ceilings are demanded,
this would equate to a four story building and is the lowest height required to make a
redevelopment economically feasible. We intentionally did not propose the larger height
increases other sites/areas requested and instead focused on what the minimum requirement
would be to allow eventual redevelopment. We feel as if our site is well located for a future
redevelopment given it sits in the Heart of the City, is bordered to the east by a new retail
development and Target, west by Whole Foods, south by Cupertino Crossroads retail center, and
north by neighborhood housing, which affects to residents can be mitigated given the depth of
the site. Given there is an existing center, it will also allow us to take our time and thoughtfully
plan the redevelopment, working with both the city and neighborhoods. Finally, it would make
the conversion of the existing office building along Stevens Creek to retail/open space feasible,
promoting the Heart of the City Plan and improving the pedestrian environment.
20863 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 480 • Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: (408)252-7902 * Fax: (408)252-1233
We absolutely believe in a "Balanced Plan" and respect everyone's opinions, but given our long
term ownership and close involvement in the real estate economy, must think about the future.
Limiting future office growth over the next 25 years to 0-500,000 square feet will discourage
redevelopment and ultimately companies from staying in or moving to Cupertino, as seen by
Amazon's move to Sunnyvale. Our worry is this could be absorbed by one development, as seen
before or with Vallco's future, eliminating any allocation for long term owners such as ourselves
to improve our properties. We are definitely not lobbying for large scale development throughout
the city or even massive allocations as seen in other cities throughout Silicon Valley, but a
thoughtful approach to growth that will allow certain sites to keep up with the times.
Again, we greatly appreciate the thought and consideration that has gone into these initiatives
and respectfully ask that you take the above into account.
Please do not hesitate to contact us, as we would be more than happy to sit down and further
explain our reasoning or answer questions from the community.
Regards,
STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES
By: J. Blair Volckmann By: John Volckmann
�- 6
20863 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 480 • Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: (408)252-7902 * Fax: (408)252-1233
JOHN F.WARDA,JR.
Certified Public Accountant
October 17,2014
Pin Ghosh,AICP,Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014-3255
SUBJECT:City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2014-2022
20021.Stevens Creek Boulevard(APN:316-23-033)
Dear Piu Ghosh:
I am the trustee of the above subject property.I am in receipt of your letter dated
October 8,2014.
Kindly remove the above subject property/site from the Housing Sites Inventory list.
Please call the undersigned if you should have any questions.
Ver t y yo S,
Jolm.Warda,Jr.
Via nited States Certified Mail#7013-3020-0001-4260-7028
114 Sansome Street,Suite 820•San Francisco,California 94104•Tel 415-398-1512•Fax 415-398-3075
Tom L.Hall or Eleane Hall in trust
As Co-trustees of the"Hall Family 1992 Trust"
13410 Old Oak Way
Saratoga,CA 95070
(408)867-6923 Fax(408)872-1653 T�����
E-mail tomna,tomhallcna.net R
ED
OCT 2 4 2014
October 23,2014 BY.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
Piu Ghosh,AICP
Senior Planner
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014-3255
Re:19220 Stevens Creek Blvd.(APN:375-06-007)
Piu Ghosh
This letter is to say NO we do not want the referenced property included in the City's
Housing Element Update 2014-2022.It is included in the heart of the city general plan
and should stay there.There is currently Retail/Commercial located on the property and
is should stay that way.
DO NOT include this property as Housing Element Update 2014-2022.
Thank yop.
iLiall/f/y
Co-Trustee
'Alaw-
Eleane Hall
Co-Trustee
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT I N®(408)777-3251•FAX(408)777-3333
October 8,2014
HALL TOM L AND ELEANE TRUSTEE
13410 OLD OAK WAY
Saratoga,CA 95070
Re:City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2014-2022
19220 Stevens Creek Blvd(APN:375-06-007)
Dear Sir/Madam:
The City of Cupertino is in the process of updating its Housing Element of the General Plan.
The Housing Element is required to provide an inventory of land adequately zoned or planned
to be zoned to accommodate its fair share of housing allocation.The Association of Bay Area
Governments'(ABAG)Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA)indicates that the City
must plan to accommodate 1,064 units for the upcoming Housing Element Update.The City
must adopt a California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)certified
Housing Element,which includes the Housing Sites Inventory,by January 31,2015(with an
additional 120-day grace period).
As part of the process,the City has reviewed several sites within the city limits for residential
potential.Your property located at 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd,Cupertino,CA 95014(APN:375-06-
007)has been identified as one of the potential sites.
An Environmental Impact Report(EIR),available online at www.cupertinogpa.org,has been
prepared analyzing the environmental effects of residential development at the potential sites.
An earlier letter was sent to you indicating the selection of this property as a site for inclusion in
the EIR and provided you an opportunity to request removal of your property as a potential
Housing Element site.Your receipt of this letter confirms your continued interest and the
potential inclusion of the listed property in the Housing Sites Inventory list.If you do not wish to
have this property be included in the Housing Sites Inventory list,please send written
communication indicating your request for removal of the site by Friday,October 31,2014.
You are invited to attend the following upcoming Housing Element meetings where the Final EIR
will be discussed and the Planning Commission and the City Council will consider including this
Tom L.Hall or Eleane Hall in trust
As Co-trustees of the"Hall Family 1992 XqWm
13410 Old Oak Way
Saratoga,CA 95070�gz�
(408)867-6923 Fax(408)872-1653
E-mail tom tomhallc a.net a•a�
FSE
October 23,2014 4�TQ1h
Department of Community Development�Y
Planning Division
Piu Ghosh,AICP
Senior Planner
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014-3255
Re:19280 Stevens Creek Blvd.(APN:375-06-006)
Pin Ghosh
This letter is to say NO we do not want the referenced property included in the City's
Housing,I Tent Update 2014-2022.It is included in the heart of the city general plan
and should'"stay there.There is currently Retail/Commercial located on the property and
is should stay that way.
DO NOT include this property as Housing Element Update 2014-2022.
Thank you.
C�'steeg4
��Ck2eQ,'0/
Eleane Hall
Co-Trustee
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT I N O(408)777-3251•FAX(408)777-3333
October 8,2014
HALL TOM L AND ELEANE TRUSTEE
13410 OLD OAK WAY
Saratoga,CA 95070
Re:City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2014-2022
14280 Stevens Creek Blvd(APN:375.06-006)/
Dear Sir/Madam:
The City of Cupertino is in the process of updating its Housing Element of the General Plan.
The Housing Element is required to provide an inventory of land adequately zoned or planned
to be zoned to accommodate its fair share of housing allocation.The Association of Bay Area
Governments'(ABAG)Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA)indicates that the City
must plan to accommodate 1,064 units for the upcoming Housing Element Update.The City
must adopt a California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)certified
Housing Element,which includes the Housing Sites Inventory,by January 31,2015(with an
additional 120-day grace period).
As part of the process,the City has reviewed several sites within the city limits for residential
potential.Your property located at 19280 Stevens Creek Blvd,Cupertino,CA 95014(APN:375-06-
006)has been identified as one of the potential sites.
An Environmental Impact Report(EIR),available online at www.cupertinogpa.org,has been
prepared analyzing the environmental effects of residential development at the potential sites.
An earlier letter was sent to you indicating the selection of this property as a site for inclusion in
the FIR and provided you an opportunity to request removal of your property as a potential
Housing Element site.Your receipt of this letter confirms your continued interest and the
potential inclusion of the listed property in the Housing Sites Inventory list.If you do not wish to
have this property be included in the Housing Sites Inventory list,please send written
communication indicating your request for removal of the site by Friday,October 31,2014.
You are invited to attend the following upcoming Housing Element meetings where the Final EIR
will be discussed and the Planning Commission and the City Council will consider including this
Resent-From: <GilbertWongDistributionList@cupertino.org>
From: "aderidder@juno.com" <aderidder@juno.com>
Date: October 24, 2014 at 5:25:16 PM PDT
To: <gwong@cupertino.org>
Cc: <rsinks@cupertino.org>, <omahoney@cupertino.org>, <msantoro@cupertino.org>,
<bchang@cupertino.org>
Subject: new developments
To: the City council of Cupertino
We found a paper on our doorstep about additional developments scheduled to be
heard at the November 3rd meeting of the council.
We were shocked to hear you would even consider adding another 1451 new
residential units to our already burdened infrastructure. We have been warned by an
environmental impact report of the monumental traffic problems we would have with the
new Apple facility. This was approved after the Main Street development was
approved. Add to this the impact of the Rose Bowl development impact and we have a
real problem on our hands.
One real big problem will be the Hamptons redevelopment. The council approved a
massive left turn access from Apple onto Wolfe Road. and Pruneridge Ave will be the
only way out of this redevelopment. This will result in a massive headache for anyone
who would be foolish enough to live in that development.
The development behind Vallco was denied a few years ago as foolish because the
only access to the area is via the Vallco parkng lot. I just hope you do not approve this
request, but consider a previous council' decision a valid one.
Finally,why do we need to demolish a business site and replace it with residences? If
that business is not profitable, you should try to find another tenant. This is commercial
property and should not be rezoned and cause more impact to our fine city.
In closing I would like to remind you that this city is Cuppertino, not San Francisco or
downtown San Jose. Please listen to the people and keep Cupertino a place where we
have some open space, where we do not feel crowded and we can feel safe.
Thank You for reading this whole letter
Sincerely
Alvin and Shirley De Ridder
19146 Anne Lane
Cupertino
_fir 73
ARE YOU KIDDING ME2
CUPERTMO CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO ALLOW:
0 VC111CO: Homestead Rd .
00 new residences +
1 r`r illiOrl sq ft office r
,090 new
residences ( tear down
342 existing residences) i
United Furniture : 0
103 new residences
ON TOP OF CURRENT PROJECTS; 00.
i
Rose Bowl,
04 new residences
* MaIr Street :
120 new residences +
180 room �i of 1 +
,00 sq ft office .
li teas creek Blvd
�kle Cow
2 .8 million sq ft office
JTraf RC congestion and air quality are already
out of control in this part of Cupertino!
Lei your voice be heard ! City CouncH decides 7on
Tuesday., November 3rd at 6:45pm
Cupertino City Hall next to the library
Bead an Email to City Counch.- Gilberi VViDng - gWOngOCUP r II(10�Org
Rod finks - r;inkS0cuporlireo.,a{g I Orrin Mahoney - o mahonvyG c uperlino.org
wk Surfloro inson10toQDr-uperRn ,o'9 I Marry Chang - bchano0cu rMi ,org
11 rnore information ctt ww -r-upertinogpo.org
Resent-From:
<GilbertWongDistributionList@cuperti no.org<mai Ito:GilbertWongDistributionList@cuperti no.or
g>>
From: Urs Mader
<Urs.Mader@ maxim integrated.com<mailto:Urs.Mader@maximintegrated.com>>
Date: October 25, 2014 at 10:03:41 AM PDT
To: "gwong@cupertino.org<mailto:gwong@cupertino.org>"
<gwong@cupertino.org<mailto:gwong@cupertino.org>>,
"rsinks@cupertino.org<mailto:rsinks@cupertino.org>"
<rsinks@cupertino.org<mailto:rsinks@cupertino.org>>,
"omahoney@cupertino.org<mailto:omahoney@cupertino.org>"
<omahoney@cupertino.org<mailto:omahoney@cupertino.org>>,
"msantoro@cupertino.org<mailto:msantoro@cupertino.org>"
<msantoro@cupertino.org<mailto:msantoro@cupertino.org>>,
"bchang@cupertino.org<maiIto:bchang@cupertino.org>"
<bchang@cupertino.org<mailto:bchang@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Nov 3rd City Council on new Development Units
Dear City Council:
I have known Cupertino since there were still fruit trees along DeAnza and 280 was still being
built. I have lived here for 14 years. I am not against development and consider it an inevitable
part of living here. I think the city needs to become smarter about development to be sure that
developers don't leave the rest of the city holding the bag once they are done.
Please consider a $500-$1000 bedroom development fee as condition for allowing these
developments from now on. This would be to help pay down the new bond debt on the ballot
this election for School Infrastructure. It is not right that new classroom development is paid for
by all, it should come from those that add more bedrooms to the city.
Traffic Light Synchronization on Wolfe. A single pedestrian can cause so much havoc and traffic
slowdown and there are more pedestrians in the area with the incoming Apple busses. I like
that people walk and bike, but the city should be able to do more to make things smoother.
Apple Busses. They are good, but they are also too aggressive on the road for their size.
Trouble spots for my bike commute on Tantau are the right turn on Valco Parkway and Busses
entering and exiting parking lots on Tantau. It's not clear what to do here... I imagine that there
is trouble in other areas of the city too. I rarely see these busses filled even through the
darkened windows. Perhaps it would be good for the city to ask for occupancy on these busses
to see if smaller busses could be used. They are just too big.
Open up Rodriquez Creek for bikes and joggers. This will just improve quality of life and actually
do more than just literally paint our streets green. It will create a good east-west corridor for
bikes to the city hall/library from the eastern neighborhoods to avoid traffic on Steven's Creek. I
have already sent a comment to your bike planner. I know this requires cross-agency
coordination. Please staff that effort with the $$$you now have.
Also, please consider that Apple may or may not be here in 10 years. Silicon valley companies
don't have a good track record once the corporate palace is erected. All of this newer higher
density housing without regard for quality of life has high risk of creating a long term problem.
Young professionals paying off student loans will be willing to accept noisy neighbors for the
chance to put Apple on their resume, but once the boom town phase is over, it will become low-
rent or convert from Condo to rent and has the potential for increased trouble if the city is not
careful. Please be sure the building codes are such that the construction has extra noise
proofing and other higher end construction codes so that what is being built today will also be
desirable down the road even if Apple isn't here. Don't build housing next to freeways; keep
this for office space as a buffer. Mandate laundry inside the units. Also mandate children's play
areas and small parks. Simple things can make a big difference. Cheap construction is only
desirable for the first 5-10 years after which the demographic will slowly change. At that point
the developer has already made his cash and the city is left dealing with the aftermath.
Developer's profits conflict with quality housing in the current situation. It will need a strong
city council to make sure things are done right and I do think the city is watching. Please be sure
you leave a legacy that you can be proud of.
Urs
Urs Mader
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff IC Design
Office: +1 (408) 601-5878
Maxim Integrated I www.maximintegrated.com<http://www.maximintegrated.com>
October 27,2014
Mayor Gilbert Wong
Honorable Members of the Cupertino City Council
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014-3255
Dear Mayor Wong and Members of the Council:
The objective of this letter is to articulate the proposal that my firm, KT Properties, Inc. has for the renovation and
repurposing of The Oaks Shopping Center, 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd.,Cupertino.
KT Properties, Inc.is a privately held firm that has been headquartered in Cupertino since 1988.Our expertise is
both housing and commercial development. For the past 26 years,we have worked in Silicon Valley,successfully
transforming key properties such as The Oaks using innovative and creative construction and design techniques.
Some recent examples are the 20-acre mixed use Hacienda Gardens Shopping Center,the 22 story(329 units)Axis
Condominiums,and 23 story(312 units)One South Market Apartment Development in Downtown San Jose.
The repurposing of The Oaks Shopping Center presents precisely the challenges at which our firm excels.We have
been closely following the work of the City Staff in its preparation of the General Plan Update,the EIR,and the
allocation of the housing numbers required by the California HCD.We believe that our vision will complement
Staff's recommendations.We hope that the Council will agree.
We would therefore ask that the Council concur with the Staff recommendations for the following:
• Allow the development of 235 residential units. The properties size and location can easily accommodate
additional residential units beyond 235 should the Council decide such at this time;
• The maintenance of viable retail sized for today's economy. Retail on the ground floor of the residential
buildings should accommodate flexibility in building heights;
• Market-driven office development of 200,000 square feet. The site can accommodate additional office
development at the discretion of the council;
• Building heights at a minimum of 60 feet with active retail. The property's excellent location along major
transit corridors(Stevens Creek and Highway 85)provides the opportunity for creative design with
additional height.
o We believe that building elevations of 75 feet or more are warranted in this location, and would
allow maximum flexibility when repurposing the site.
The site is the western "gateway"to Cupertino. Its access to Highway 85 and Interstate 280 means that residents
and workers will use these freeways for transportation, reducing the load on Cupertino City streets. Increased
building heights will have less impact on surrounding properties because of the site's proximity to the freeway and
DeAnza College.As the bus transportation on Stevens Creek corridor is improved,residents will be able to use this
mode for access to nearby city restaurants,services and employment.
KT Properties, Inc. believes that we have a unique opportunity to partner with the City of Cupertino to improve a
key area of the city.We ask that the Council strongly consider our proposal.Our firm will deliver on its promise to
build a quality product and to make our community a showplace for innovation in both housing and active
commercial development that will encourage our residents to work and shop close to home.
With my byest,regards,
Mark E.Tersini, Principal
From: Max K. Agoston<mkagoston@msn.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Subject: New Developments
To: "gwong@cupertino.org" <gwong@cupertino.org>
To council member Gilbert Wong:
I moved to Cupertino in 1976 and bought my house here in 1981. It was a nice quiet town
in those days, but since then I have seen a lot of changes to the city. All the open space
is gone and the traffic can be bad at times. Yet the city councils have kept voting for
more and more developments. I have watched these developments with disgust but since
there is never an option to vote for "none of the above" I have been helpless to prevent
the move to make Cupertino into a little "metropolis."Now that there is essentially no
more open space, I suppose the next thrust(if not by this council then by future ones)will
be to move up and to create more high-rise buildings.
I am not a politically active person and have not been involved in Cupertino politics;
however, things have gone too far for me to continue watching passively from the byline.
I am really fed up.
I hope you will REJECT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT for Cupertino that increases the
building density or creates more housing; otherwise, I would very much like to have
answers to the following questions:
1. Please tell me who (aside from developers and the planning department who would
have less planning to do) is actually clamoring for all this new development? Are these
people here for the long term or are they planning to move in a few years hoping to cash
in on increases in property values?
Maybe all non-trivial changes to the master plans for the city should be put up for an
explicit city-wide vote. People do not always have a real choice when voting for
council members and just because he/she was elected does not prove that all their favorite
development projects were supported.
2. Do you think that traffic has gotten better in recent years? Is there not enough traffic,
or do you believe that building more has no effect on traffic, or you do not mind the
increase?
Stevens Creek Boulevard is getting very congested. Highway 280 is the last good
highway on the peninsula, although it also has gotten worse. Do you think that
contributing to increasing the traffic congestion on our roads is a price "worth" paying?
In election after election candidates have mouthed platitudes about being for
"controlled" growth and "managing" traffic congestion. The result of years of such
"controlling" and "management" is clear! I can do without it.
3. Do you think that Cupertino is too small population-wise and would you like to have
more people move here?Again, who is clamoring for that?
4. Have you given any consideration to people who have lived here a long time and who
intend to stay here? Shouldn't they have more to say about what happens than those who
are only passing through? What actual percentage of ALL voters in Cupertino have
actually supported all the new building over the years? I do not know anybody who wants
the city to keep growing and growing.
Finally, how do you think that new developments would change the issues raised in the
above questions? You probably have heard the statement that an insane person is one
who keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I hope
therefore that your response is not going to be that your plans for more development will
have no or little bearing on traffic and population. Just exactly who supports your vision
of a "greater" Cupertino?
It feels like a case of the dog biting the hand that feeds it, in that people are "allowed" to
move here and then they take over and screw the long-time residents that were here long
before them and will be here long after them.
Sometimes the justification that is given for more developments is that the city needs the
money that it provides,but why don't we just make do with the money that we have and
see what happens. It is said that people want to move here because of our good school
system. Let's maintain our schools but we don't need more people moving here. Let's not
get into the cycle where spend more money on schools, which has more people moving
here, which requires more money for schools,which ...
I have always supported our schools in the past and voted for all school bond issues and
taxes. I will stop doing that in the future if the need for school money is used as an excuse
for more housing and businesses!
If new developments raise property values, that is only an issue for those who move here
for financial reasons. I want to stay here and could not care less about those who want to
make money and then move away, leaving people like me behind with the mess.
Thank you for your response,
Max K Agoston
19787 La Mar Drive
From: Paul Brophy<pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Date: October 27,2014 at 6:22:40 PM PDT
To: Gilbert Wong<gwong@cupertino.org>,Barry Chang<bchang@cupertino.org>,Mark Santoro
<msantoro@cupertino.org>,Orrin Mahoney<omahoney@cupertino.org>,Rod Sinks
<rsinks@cupertino.org>
Cc:Aarti Shrivastava<aartis@cupertino.org>,Gary Chao<garyc@cupertino.org>,Winnie Lee
<winnieleedds@yahoo.com>,Alan Takahashi<alantcup@gmail.com>,Don Sun<book.sun@gmail.com>,
Margaret Gong<margiegong@icloud.com>
Subject: General Plan Amendment under consideration
Reply-To:Paul Brophy<pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Dear Mayor Wong and Council members,
During the almost seven years that I have been privileged to serve on our Planning Commission,
I have always taken the position that I should not lobby Council members on matters that have
come before us. The minutes of our meetings and the votes taken should stand by themselves
for you to consider when making up your minds on planning and land use items.
However, given the importance that possible General Plan Amendment increase in allowable
additional office space development would have on the long term quality of life in Cupertino and
because my views are at variance with the Planning Department's recommendations, I am writing
you today to argue that I strongly believe that no additional office space above that existing in the
existing General Plan (540,000 sq. ft.) should be approved. If you believe that is too restrictive, I
would urge you not to increase the amount of allowable office space beyond that in Alternative A,
which would provide an additional 500,000 sq. ft, for a total of 1,040,000 sq. ft. Alternative A is
the compromise amount that was supported by three Commission members (Winnie Lee, Don
Sun, and myself), as compared to the staff recommendation of 2,540,000 sq. ft.
The EIR for the Housing Element/General Plan Amendment points out that the city already has
an excess of jobs above our residential labor force. This is before the Apple 2 campus opens
with an additional 14,000 jobs. The Apple 2 EIR was clear in saying that the traffic to be
generated by that project would have significant and unavoidable impact upon traffic congestion,
despite the tens of millions of dollars that Apple has committed to spending on mitigation
measures. The Apple campus was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by both Planning
Commission and City Council because we recognized that the benefits for our community from
supporting the company's growth outweighed the adverse impacts.
It needs to be remembered, though, that we have not yet experienced the increased traffic and
congestion from that project. Also there will be an additional 1500 to 2000 employees who will be
commuting to the office component of Main Street plus the second office building that will be
placed on the IHOP site, immediately adjacent to Cupertino (I am using 4 employees/1000 sq. ft.
for this and future calculations). Unhappiness in our community over traffic congestion will only
grow just from the projects already in the pipeline.
Under our existing General Plan, an additional 540,000 sq. ft. is still available, which would house
2000 employees above all that. If the Alternative A option is approved, we will need to support
over 4000 additional employees. And if the Planning Department's "Balanced Plan" preferred
alternative of over 2.5 Million additional square feet of allowable office space is approved, the
EIR's proposed "mitigation" measures will not begin to address the nightmare traffic conditions on
Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd., as well as secondary roads such as McClellan, Stelling,
Wolfe and Tantau as drivers desperately look for alternatives to gridlocked arterial streets caused
by the addition of over 10,000 more employees working here.
In a city with lots of vacant land in which to expand both office and residential development, an
increase such as that proposed by the Planning Department might well make sense. However,
Cupertino is fully built out. Yes, there are some sites that were developed 30, 40, or more years
ago that could be redeveloped at higher densities. However, given that we have limited ability to
add residential units (and great concern in the community about the impact of the few units we
can add upon school enrollment and increased congestion), allowing substantially more office
space means that we will take a city that is already unbalanced as to the relationship between
jobs and housing and make it much more so.
Let there be no mistake. A vote for adding large amounts of additional office space in our
General Plan is a vote against sustainable development. It is a vote that goes against the
principles of AB 32 and SIB 375 as employees commuting to Cupertino will have to live in distant
towns, since the nearby municipalities are also approving large scale office projects without the
willingness or ability to approve offsetting homes. Most of all, it will degrade the quality of life in
our community that is already stressed by traffic congestion and will be more so just from existing
development underway.
I would like to end by saying that while I strongly disagree with staff recommendations on this
General Plan change that I have treated only with personal and professional respect by Planning
Department staff,just as I have been during my entire tenure on the Planning Commission. It has
been a pleasure to work with them and occasionally, for us to disagree over various matters
before us. The arguments made in favor of permitting far more intensive development than is
currently permitted has been echoed by planners and elected officials in many other communities
in the Santa Clara Valley and the Peninsula. I believe that they are almost all wrong. I know that
they are wrong in the case of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Paul Brophy
From: Claire Arnold<clairea 2006@hotmail.com>
Date: October 30,2014 at 12:47:45 PM PDT
To:<mana e�pertino.org>
Subject: Schools
HI There,
Could you tell me how space for schools are being fitted into planning for Cupertino?
Thanks,
Claire Arnold
From: Claudio Bono [mailto:cbono@cghotelgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 3:06 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Subject: Letter to be added for November 10th
Dear Piu;
It was a pleasure meeting you on Wednesday, October 29th 2014.Thank you for taking the time
to meet with me.
As promised, attach, please find the letter/reasoning regarding our request for a 110 Ft height
versus 90 feet.
Please confirm you received this email with attachment and that it will be included on the
November 10th hearing.
Wishing you a great weekend!
Thank you,
Best regards,
Claudio
Claudio Bono
Area General Manager
The Cupertino Inn &The Grand Hotel Sunnyvale
www.Cupertinoinn.com
www.svgrandhotel.com
Tel : 408.996.7700
Cell:305.450.0215
CUD Ftino Inn
Cupertino's Landmark Hotel
Friday, October 31, 2014
Good Year Tire conversion to Hotel use
This letter contains reasoning to the proposed height and use of the Goodyear site:
The Goodyear site is unique. It is on the transit corridor from Sunnyvale to De Anza
Boulevard or 280 north and south. So here is the importance of the site to Cupertino:
1. This hotel site compliments the existing Cupertino Inn so that enough mass of rooms can
support a regional function. The Cupertino Inn has 128 rooms and the new Hotel at 9 stories
tall has almost 280 rooms allowing for a base of 400 rooms which puts it in the category to
handle regional events and allow Cupertino to received bids on Citywide conventions.
2. The road system allows transit travelers as well as event guests to not impact the City
Street system for their Hotel arrival, stay, and departure. Visits to the city of Cupertino
proper are just as is needed or for restaurant use.
3. The Retail shopping center is complimented by the extra traveler business and this helps
the viability of the retail center.
4. The property itself has a relatively small foot print so in order to have enough rooms, it
needs to have 9 floors
5. The Hotel is committed to the entire first floor and one third of the second floor all to
conference event, restaurant and basically all community services of banquet, meeting or
any other event with the rooms to make it work. We are attempting to make the hotel 5
star and in order to do so in the style it needs to be requires higher plate heights. The Nine
floors if build as Aloft would be easily under 90 feet but with the great high ceilings of the
first floor and guest rooms with high quality we are asking that the floors be taller. A limit of
9 stories is more appropriate than a limit of 90 feet.
6. Floor plans and elevations are available.
From: Claudio Bono<cbono@cghotelgroup.com<mailto:cbono@cghotelgroup.com>>
Date: October 31, 2014 at 6:43:50 PM PDT
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mai Ito:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Revised attachment
Piu;
I apologize for the revised version but had omitted the conclusion of the email.
In all,we are asking for 108 feet to the top of the parapet screening. 102 to the top of the roof.
Let me know if you have questions.
Thank you;
Claudio
Claudio Bono
Area General Manager
Cupertino Inn &Grand Hotel
www.cupertinoinn.com<http://www.cupertinoinn.com>
www.svgrandhotel.com<http://www.svgrandhotel.com>
Cell :305.450.0215
CUD Ftino Inn
Cupertino's Landmark Hotel
Friday, October 31, 2014
Good Year Tire conversion to Hotel use
This letter contains reasoning to the proposed height and use of the Goodyear site:
The Goodyear site is unique. It is on the transit corridor from Sunnyvale to De Anza
Boulevard or 280 north and south. So here is the importance of the site to Cupertino:
1. This hotel site compliments the existing Cupertino Inn so that enough mass of rooms can
support a regional function. The Cupertino Inn has 128 rooms and the new Hotel at 9 stories
tall has almost 280 rooms allowing for a base of 400 rooms which puts it in the category to
handle regional events and allow Cupertino to received bids on Citywide conventions.
2. The road system allows transit travelers as well as event guests to not impact the City
Street system for their Hotel arrival, stay, and departure. Visits to the city of Cupertino
proper are just as is needed or for restaurant use.
3. The Retail shopping center is complimented by the extra traveler business and this helps
the viability of the retail center.
4. The property itself has a relatively small foot print so in order to have enough rooms, it
needs to have 9 floors
5. The Hotel is committed to the entire first floor and one third of the second floor all to
conference event, restaurant and basically all community services of banquet, meeting or
any other event with the rooms to make it work. We are attempting to make the hotel 5
star and in order to do so in the style it needs to be requires higher plate heights. The Nine
floors if build as Aloft would be easily under 90 feet but with the great high ceilings of the
first floor and guest rooms with high quality we are asking that the floors be taller. A limit of
9 stories is more appropriate than a limit of 90 feet.
6. Floor plans and elevations are available.
In all, we are asking for 108 feet to the top of the parapet screening. 102 to the top of the
Roof. Thank you for your consideration.
From: Steve Gazzera [mailto:steve.gazzera@SRSRE.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 4:04 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Cc: 'sgazzera@yahoo.com' (sgazzera@yahoo.com)
Subject: 19930-19936 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino
Hi Piu: Thank for taking the time to meet with me yesterday. I appreciate it.
At this time, I would prefer that our site be removed from the Housing Element designation list.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Thank you.
Stephen P. Gazzera
Senior Vice President
SRS Real Estate Partners
SRS
Real Estate Partners
1871 The Alameda,Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95126
408.216.2319 Direct
408.553.6135
Fax 408.553.0896 1 Cell 415.699.5445
DRE#00859021
Steve.Gazzera@srsre.com I www.srsre.com
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM, George Anderl
<george_25056@msn.com<mailto:george_25056@msn.com>>wrote:
already the traffic is awful without Apple and Main Street being open--how can these
additional cars move on these already clogged roads and where will their kids go to school? I
cant believe you are already planning on more residences and business when we already have
full roads full roads and freeway access. when I moved to cupertino in the 70's, I wanted then
and now a nice residential community; not one that would be controlled by developers with
traffic so bad that that one is limited when and where he can go.
I hope that you exercise restraint in further high density development arround stevens creek
and wolf----I live behind Elephant Bar and am already affected by the traffic increase!
George Anderl
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:09 AM,Jialin Song
<jialinsong@gmail.com<mailto:jialinsong@gmail.com>>wrote:
Dear City Councilmen,
We were shocked reading from the letter and Cupertino general planning website that
Cupertino city council are considering approving 600 new residents in Vallco, 1090 new
residents in Hamptons and 103 new residents at United Furniture site, especially, given that this
is on top of current 300+condo project on Rose Bown and Main street! We strongly oppose the
residential development plan near Wolfe Road for the following reasons.
Cupertino citizens are proud of our good schools. However in rencent years, as we all know, our
elementary, middle and high schools are already overcrowded and the student to teacher ratio
are much higher than before. Our library is always packed with people. Our streets are seeing
more and more daily congestion especially close to the current Apple campus on De Anza and
new Apple II campus on Wolfe Road.The 1800 new residents along Wolfe Road will further
congest Wolfe Road, HW 280 and Stevens Creek.They will also add large number of new
students to the nearby elementary, middle and high schools, which are already seeing
overflows.The new residential development along Wolfe will just make schooling unacceptable
for the existing Cupertino residents.
The residential project may create short term revenue for the City of Cupertino. However,for
the long term, since property tax goes to the county, Cupertino will lose revenue comparing to
making these sites for commercial use. Cupertino citizens are proud of living near the head
quarter of Apple. Other than that, we don't really have very big company, decent downtown,
shopping center, hospitals, medical facilities in our city. We believe it's more beneficial for
Cupertino to develop those site for commercial use and attract more business like great
companies, stores, restaurants and medical clinics and boost long term city revenue.
Please vote NO to the residential development plan.
Thanks very much for your dedicated work for the people of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jialin Song and Hongliang Chang
10218 Cold Harbor Ave, Cupertino.
From: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>>
Date: November 1, 2014 at 10:28:22 PM PDT
To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>>
Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website
Reply-To: <info@cupertinogpa.org<mailto:info@cupertinogpa.org>>
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Karen Farrelly
Organization: resident
Email: karenfarrelly@hotmail.com<mailto:karenfarrelly@hotmail.com>
Possibly Regarding Page:
/app_pages/view/10
Subject:
multi unit condos
Comment:
regarding:
The Housing Element
It seems like more and more,that multi-unit apartments or condos under construction are
being built very close to main streets with just a little bit of sidewalk separating the building
from the street.They also seem very boxy and similar from city to city. The close proximity to
streets and boxy shape creates a congested or very urban feeling, in my opinion, and one in
which less sun can make its way down to the public space. I have seen this with recent
construction on Stevens Creek in Cupertino and other nearby cities like along El Camino. I wish
there would be more consideration for more separation between street and new housing (and
commercial) buildings-- room where more soft scape can exist and more natural light can shine
through.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:39 PM, <vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net<mailto:vtamcupt@sbcgloba1.net>>
wrote:
Dear Councilman Wong,
I, Virginia Tamblyn, have participated in many meetings regarding the future of Cupertino. I am
alarmed at the present plans for the future of the city. If approved, the city will suffer from
overbuilding, congested traffic, and a damage to the quality of life as we know it. The present
citizens of Cupertino deserve better than this.
The letters in the packet from Apple representatives, and citizens express my concerns.
Sincerely,
Virginia Tamblyn
vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net<mailto:vtamcupt@sbcgloba1.net>
19721 Bixby Dr. Cupertino
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Eric Schmidt
Email: ericrschmidt59@gmail.com
Subject:
School District Representation at Thursday Workshop
Comment:
regarding:
The General Plan
As you know,there is a lot of concern regarding the impact of the
additional students for the Cupertino area schools with the additional
housing elements in the General Plan. I would suggest there is
representation from the Cupertino school district as well as the Fremont
HS district (or Cupertino HS) at Thursday's Workshop (11/20/2014) so
they can hear the concerns first-hand.
One of my biggest concerns is the whether we are properly accounting for
the number of students per housing unit in Cupertino.The city/school
district may need to plan for additional schools to support the
additional students,which I don't think has been considered at this
point in time.
Eric Schmidt
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Gary E Jones
Organization:The Silent Majority
Email: Gjoneshome@yahoo.com
Subject:
More Housing
Comment:
regarding:
The Housing Element
Please approve more housing than the 1400 under consideration at this
time.There will not be another chance in the near future and we want to
be a Valley team player to money from ABAG,VTA and other matching
sources to repair and improve our City infastructure.
The Silent Majority
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Eric Schmidt
Organization: None Given
Email: ericrschmidt59@gmail.com
Subject:
Housing Element: School Enrollment Increase Underestimated
Comment:
regarding:
The Housing Element
With the plans to increase the number of available housing elements in
the General Plan, I am concerned the actual increase in school children
is being significantly underestimated. My understanding is the housing
elements assume 0.25 children per unit,while in Cupertino with the high
quality schools,this could be closer to 2 per unit, 8 times more than
stated in the EIR.This explosive, unplanned growth in enrollment would
have a negative effect on the quality of schools and life in Cupertino.
I support the growth of the city, but it must be properly accounting for
all the impact.
Eric Schmidt
Fairgrove Neighborhood
From: Jean Shu [mailto:jeancws@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 6:07 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: Cupertino Community Workshop on the General Plan Amendment and the
Housing Element
Dear George and your planning department colleague,
Is this some kind of trick? Do you people really care about what we say at this time? Will
the planning department rewrite your recommendation based on what you hear at this
Nov 20 meeting?
How about December 2nd meeting, is that a trick too? If you people do not want to
change, please tell me so and do not waste my time.
As to proper notice, your department still does not get it. About the above mentioned
meetings, do you still only notify people who already know about them? How come I
met people who still do not know about these meetings? By the way, I have not
received a formal letter in the mail notifying me about these meetings yet, and I am still
waiting. In that notice letter, you should put that your department plan to put all the
housing units required (over 1000 units) in the Stevens Creek & Wolfe/Miller area. You
should also put the size of office space &the number of residence units you want to give
to Vallco builder/owner as they wish and people who live on Miller Ave and near the
area should thank the department for the benefit-traffic congestion and air pollution of
their wise planning.
That's what a notice is.
I am sorry. But I really don't know whether these are tricks or not. I am still waiting for a
regular notice letter that highlight these major points.
Sincerely yours,
Ching Shyu
From: Scott Hughes [mailto:scottahughes@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:28 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: RE: Cupertino Community Workshop on the General Plan Amendment and the Housing
Element
George,
Thank you for the extra weekend effort on this endeavor. As I suspect you heard, there are
many concerned residents regarding the Housing Element of the General Plan.
To that end, I was curious about the format of the workshop. Will it be similar to the one
regarding pedestrian/bike/school safety which I attended on 11/6?
Specifically,will there be large maps on each table? If so, would it be possible to get 3 school
district maps on each table?
It would be ideal if these could be plotted to the same scale as the City street maps and further
if they could be transparency overlays with color boundaries for each school.
By 3 maps I mean, one for FUHSD, one for CUSD middle schools, and one for CUSD elementary
schools. If this is not possible, then any hardcopy maps which show school boundaries within
each of the districts would be helpful.
In my opinion, one of the ingredients that is missing from the work done to date on the Housing
Element in the General plan is a more detailed breakdown
Of the impact of each potential scenario on each school. The impact on neighborhood school
population directly impacts public safety and quality of life for every resident.
The total rollup of projected students is not enough detail; a school by school breakdown of
enrollment changes vs. time is what is really needed.
Thanks in advance for your effort toward this request.
Regards,
Scott
Hello, George.
Thanks for sending this out. I hope this email is read by all my "Next Door" online
neighbors who are complaining repeatedly about not being informed of the process.
As a City commissioner, I'm puzzled by the intensity and the number of "Next Door"
postings from people who are, so late in the process, voicing their opposition to more
housing. I'm also concerned about the negativity of the responses - and I've told them
SO.
What these people need at this point is to be listened to and taken seriously. Hopefully
they will have an opportunity to vent, which will enable them eventually to calm down
and work with the staff and Council on creative ways to accommodate our inevitable
growth.
I learned in my MPA program that it sometimes takes 90 meetings to accomplish major
community change. Although you probably feel like you're approaching that many, I
encourage you to hang in there and be patient.
We face two serious risks here: 1) that the City Council will cave into the loudest voices
and approve a solution that will be problematic in the long run, and 2) that the Council
will move forward in a way that makes these anti-growth folks feel alienated and bitter.
Of course, you already know this. I just want you to know that I think you and your
colleagues are doing a great job. I look forward to great things for Cupertino.
Regards, Geoff Paulsen
Vice Chair, Cupertino Parks & Recreation Commission - although writing as a private
individual.
Geoffrey Paulsen
408/725-1044 h
408/480-7509 c
From: Sue Tippets
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:17 PM
To: 'George Schroeder'
Subject: RE: Cupertino General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update -
Planning Commission #2
George,
Will the city be revising their Safety Element with this Housing Update as required by AB
162? Have I missed it somewhere?
'..,"TATE DFCF.LIF6RNIA$l1�IN_�u.TRANL;PCRThTID4 AN�LiD'JFN f�hCE4CY ARNQL❑5CFhVA32EHE GDR.=.5vsrrar
DEPARTMENT F HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
3.0 TYirtl 62D53 SIIhe 43G .
A.6.9ox 5a2R53
Sepal,CA 942E2-MS3
J916)323-31 T7 a FAX�915}aU2643
w 1crica9w
September 16r 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR: Pla+ngirecto �nd In� ted Parties
FROM: Catell, Deputy Director
Diving Policy Development
SUBJECT: Application of Government Cade Section 65302
Chapter 369, Statutes of 200T(AB 162)
For your informationr Government Code Section 65302 requires all cities and counties to
amend the safety and conservation elements of theirgeneral plan to include analysis
and policies regarding flood hazard and flood management information upon the next
revision of the housing element on,or after, January 1,2009. Government Cade Section
65302 also requires cities and counties,effective January 1, 2008,to annually review the
land use element for those areas subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping
prepared by the Federal Management Agency(FEMA)or the State Department of Water
Resources(DWR)-
Any amendments to the safety, conservation,and land use elements,based on the
requirements of Govemment Code Section 65302,will require a review of the housing
element for intemal cap sistency, which may in turn,require amendments to the housing
element- For exampie, if sites identified in the housing element as suitable far housing
development are subsequently identified as inappropriate for development,other sites
inay need to be identified- Annual review of the land use element will assist future
updates of the housing element and faciIRate identfiaation of appropriate sites to
accominodate the regional housing need- Local jurisdictions may contact D4VR's
Division of Road Management for assistance in obtaining the most current floodplain
mapping information needed for the analysis- Contact information is available on DWR's
ebsite at http_lh%=-dwf.water-ca-go v1800drrgmVrafmo1fmb1
The Department hopes this information is helpful- If you have any questions or would
Iike additional information or technical ass!stance r please contact the Division at
(916)448-4728-
From: Catherine Alexander [mailto:cdjalexander@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:37 PM
To: George Schroeder; City Council
Cc:judygl052@gmail.co; Laura D Lee; CD Alexander
Subject: Re: Cupertino General Plan Amendment/Housing Element Update Council
Meeting
Hello George,
Thank you for this update.
There is no parking available at City Hall from 10 to 9 p.m. on Tuesday nights, since the
library is open at those hours.
As a Zone 4 Block Leader, I request that ALL City meetings associated with the GPA and
other topics, always be held at Quinlan Center, so all residents who wish to, may
actually participate. (Some residents have tried to attend scheduled City meetings at
City Hall, yet found no available parking during library open hours, so they had to return
home.)
Cupertino City Council members, let's be fair to residents by actually scheduling City
meetings residents may logistically attend. This may be accomplished easily by utilizing
the large meeting hall at Quinlan Center, which tends to vacant and underutilized on
most evenings.
Thank you,
Catherine Alexander
http://www.siIiconvaIleylibrarian.com/
From: Littlehales, Jody [mailto:Jody.Littlehales@vta.org]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:18 PM
To: Salvano, Ray; Vanoosten, Matthew (matthew.vanoosten@sanjoseca.gov);
'davids@cupertino.org'; Bhatia, Pratyush (Pratyush.Bhatia@sanjoseca.gov); 'Dennis Ng';
Nguyen, Thuy (DOT) (Thuy.Nguyen @sanjoseca.gov); Fernandez, Debby; Smith, Ying;
"Leila.Hakimizadeh@sanjoseca.gov'; Borden, Timm; Augenstein, Chris; Gary Chao;
George Schroeder; Velasquez, Alan (alan.velasquez@sanjoseca.gov); Brilliot, Michael
(Michael.Brilliot@sanjoseca.gov); Augenstein, Chris; Aoun, Alisar
(Alisar.Aoun@sanjoseca.gov); Lim-Tsao, Lily; Kobayashi, David; Unites, James
Subject: Stevens Creek BRT Project- Rapid 523
Hi Everyone,
I wanted to share a link to TP&O memo
http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A000000lfYQPIA2,
as VTA is planning to study a Rapid 523 for the Stevens Creek Corridor. Based on
current ridership demand in the Stevens Creek corridor, VTA is proposing to implement
a Rapid 523 service as a near term improvement and early deliverable of the Stevens
Creek BRT Project. We want to build on the conceptual engineering work for the
Stevens Creek BRT Project, and in coordination with all of you to improve transit service
similar to Rapid 522, and also look at ways to improve the bicycle and pedestrian
environment. We are aligning the planning effort and implementation schedule to open
with Berryessa BART Station in 2017, which the Stevens Creek Limited 323 (now Rapid
523) will serve. The memo discusses the planning effort and schedule and we will
update you as work moves forward, but I wanted to share the TP&O memo for this
Thursday's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more
information on any of this.
Thank you,
Jody
From: Littlehales, Jody<Jody.Littlehales@vta.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:20 AM
To: Salvano, Ray; Vanoosten, Matthew; 'd avid s@cupertino.org'; Bhatia, Pratyush;
'Dennis Ng'; Nguyen, Thuy (DOT); Fernandez, Debby; Smith, Ying;
"Leila.Hakimizadeh@sanjoseca.gov'; Borden, Timm; Augenstein, Chris; Gary Chao
(GaryC@cupertino.org); 'George Schroeder' (GeorgeS@cupertino.org); Velasquez, Alan;
Brilliot, Michael; Augenstein, Chris
Subject: Stevens Creek BRT Project- City Update
Hi Everyone,
I know we haven't met in a while so wanted to give you an update on the Stevens Creek
BRT Project. Per our last meeting I am attaching the results of the revised traffic
analysis for existing, year 2018, and 2040 conditions. The build condition assumes the
full dedicated lanes alternative, and these results reflect the improvements to the VTA
regional model to provide more reasonable results. This analysis will be included in the
final conceptual engineering report, which we hope to complete this fall. VTA will
conduct additional traffic analysis as the planning process moves forward, and we will
continue to work with the Cities as the analysis continues. Please review and let me
know any comments you have.
We are on schedule to have the Limited 323 Transit Signal Priority Project completed by
the fall, and I appreciate all of City staff efforts! VTA also plans to do a before/after
study for the Limited 323 TSP project, which similar to the Rapid 522 study should
provide some interesting information. Please let me know if you have any questions or
need additional information.
Thank you,
Jody
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Littlehales, Jody
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:26 AM
To: Salvano, Ray; Vanoosten, Matthew; davids@cupertino.org; Bhatia, Pratyush; Brilliot,
Michael; P. E. Bill Hurrell (HurrellWE@cdmsmith.com); 'Dennis Ng'; Nguyen, Thuy (DOT);
Fernandez, Debby; Smith, Ying; 'Leila.Hakimizadeh@sanjoseca.gov'
Cc: 'Velasquez, Alan'; Timm Borden; Augenstein, Chris; Gary Chao; 'George Schroeder'
Subject: Canceled: Stevens Creek BRT Project- Monthly VTA/City Update
When: Occurs the third Wednesday of every 1 month effective 2/19/2014 from 10:30
AM to 11:30 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: City of Cupertino, Santa Clara &San Jose (Meeting will rotate each month
between cities- I will confirm location with meeting agenda).
Importance: High
I am cancelling this month's meeting as I don't have any updates right now. I am happy
to talk on the phone one on one if you have any questions, or need more
information. We will get back to our monthly meetings soon!
Thank you,
Jody
************************************************************************
Per my e-mail last week to some of you, based on the suggestion of the City of San Jose
we would like to combine the monthly VTA/City meeting to have all three cities meet as
we discuss the Stevens Creek BRT project. The purpose of the meeting is to give a
monthly update on the project, and it would help VTA to hear about the shared work
the Cities are doing in the Stevens Creek corridor. I proposed some dates/times and
this seemed to work for most and I wanted to send out the calendar invite to confirm
and hold the date in your calendar as I know you are all busy. This meeting would
replace the other meetings we had with the Cities and I will send out the cancellation
notice shortly.
We will rotate the location of the meeting between the cities and I will send out a
meeting agenda prior to each meeting that will confirm the location, as well as share the
notes from the previous meeting. The invitees will get the meeting
agenda/notes/handouts from each meeting to help keep all the stakeholders in the loop
about the planning process. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you in the
new year! Please let me know if you have any questions or need more
information. Happy Holidays!
Thank you,
Jody
Jody Littlehales
Senior Transportation Planner
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street, Building B2
San Jose, CA 95134-1927
T: 408.321.57691 F: 408.955.9765
jody.littlehales@vta.org
Resent-From: <GilbertWongDistributionList@cupertino.org>
From: Vaitheesh Kolady<mail@changemail.org>
Date: November 5, 2014 at 4:15:15 PM PST
To: <gwong@cupertino.org>
Subject: 5 new petition signatures: Vaitheesh Kolady, Zhi chen...
5 new people recently signed Cupertino Residents's petition "Orrin Mahoney: Say NO to
re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino" on Change.org.
There are now 250 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and
respond to Cupertino Residents by clicking here:
http://www.change.org/p/orrin-mahoney-say-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in-
cu perti no/responses/new?response=518206fac3e9
Dear Gilbert Wong,
Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino
Sincerely,
250. Vaitheesh Kolady Cupertino, California
248. Zhi chen Cupertino, California
246. Kanchan Patalay Cupertino, California
244. Xiang Yang Cupertino, California
242. Amanda Huang Cupertino, California
Resent-From: <GilbertWongDistributionList@cupertino.org>
From: Hoi poon <hoipoon@gmail.com>
Date: November 7, 2014 at 10:21:42 PM PST
To: <gwong@cupertino.org>, <rsinks@cupertino.org>, <bchang@cupertino.org>,
<omahoney@cupertino.org>, <msantoro@cupertino.org>, <kausar_anjali@cusdk8.org>,
<liao_ben@cusdk8.org>, <Iucey_jo@cusdk8.org>, <Iucey_jo@cusdk8.org>,
<mccue_gary@cusdk8.org>, <vogel_phyllis@cusdk8.org>,
<gudalewicz_wendy@cusdk8.org>, Nishihara Jeremy<nishihara_jeremy@cusdk8.org>,
<bill_wilson@fuhsd.org>, <barbara_nunes@fuhsd.org>, <hung_wei@fuhsd.org>,
<nancy_newton@fuhsd.org>, <jeff_moe@fuhsd.org>, polly bove
<pol Iy_bove@fuhsd.org>
Cc: <CUSD-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, <McBB@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: City of of Cupertino Proposed Housing Development and Its Impact on
CUSD/FUHSD
Dear All,
I wanted to get confirmation from the City of Cupertino and CUSD/FUHSD officials
regarding some of the information that has been circulating regarding the proposed
housing development in the City of Cupertino and its impact on CUSD/FUHSD.
a) City of Cupertino plans to approve —4400 housing units.
b) The EIR estimates that this will only add —1105 students to the CUSD/FUHSD schools.
This is based on some state formula with connection to reality such as City Census
numbers.
c)The plan allocates all of$9 million dollars for the additional —1105 students (assuming
that number is accurate)
d) The City of Cupertino's position according to Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, (In email to
Claire Arnold on 11/7/14) regarding the impact of of the proposed housing on school
districts, is as follows
"The school districts are responsible for their own capital improvement plans, including
planning for long term growth. You'll have to discuss that with them."
Is this correct?
e) Piu Ghosh also contends ( In email to Claire Arnold on 11/6/14) that
"The school districts have been consulted in the preparation of the EIR."
Is this correct? If it is,
1) Who are the CUSD/FUHSD officials that were consulted in the EIR?
2) What was their input?
3) Do they agree with the EIR which states that 4400 new housing units will only add
1105 additional students?
4) Do they agree that $9 million will be enough to alleviate the effect of what is probably
more like 5000 additional students?
Please clarify these matters ASAP. It will be helpful to have the information before
Monday Nov. 10 public hearing.
Thank you.
Hoi Yung Poon
CUSD parent
PS: Copying parents on CUSD and McBB egroups.
From: Gilbert Wong
To: David Brandt; Carol Korade; Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Timm Borden; Gary
Chao; Gilbert Wong
Subject: General Plan Amendment and Housing Element change.org petition
https://www.change.org/p/cupertino-city-council-members-say-no-to-re-zoning-the-
commercial-sites-in-cupertino
Subject: Comments regardin development agenda
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:39 PM, <vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Councilman Wong,
I, Virginia Tamblyn, have participated in many meetings regarding the future of
Cupertino. I am alarmed at the present plans for the future of the city. If approved, the
city will suffer from overbuilding , congested traffic, and a damage to the quality of life
as we know it. The present citizens of Cupertino deserve better than this.
The letters in the packet from Apple representatives, and citizens express my concerns.
Sincerely,
Virginia Tamblyn
vtamcupt@sbcgloba1.net
19721 Bixby Dr. Cupertino
Subject: Concerns and Objections to the Cupertino new residential development plan
along Wolfe Ave
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Jialin Song <jialinsong@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Councilmen,
We were shocked reading from the letter and Cupertino general planning website that
Cupertino city council are considering approving 600 new residents in Vallco, 1090 new
residents in Hamptons and 103 new residents at United Furniture site, especially, given
that this is on top of current 300+ condo project on Rose Bown and Main street! We
strongly oppose the residential development plan near Wolfe Road for the following
reasons.
Cupertino citizens are proud of our good schools. However in rencent years, as we all
know, our elementary, middle and high schools are already overcrowded and the
student to teacher ratio are much higher than before. Our library is always packed with
people. Our streets are seeing more and more daily congestion especially close to the
current Apple campus on De Anza and new Apple II campus on Wolfe Road. The 1800
new residents along Wolfe Road will further congest Wolfe Road, HW 280 and Stevens
Creek. They will also add large number of new students to the nearby elementary,
middle and high schools, which are already seeing overflows. The new residential
development along Wolfe will just make schooling unacceptable for the existing
Cupertino residents.
The residential project may create short term revenue for the City of Cupertino.
However, for the long term, since property tax goes to the county, Cupertino will lose
revenue comparing to making these sites for commercial use. Cupertino citizens are
proud of living near the head quarter of Apple. Other than that, we don't really have
very big company, decent downtown, shopping center, hospitals, medical facilities in
our city. We believe it's more beneficial for Cupertino to develop those site for
commercial use and attract more business like great companies, stores, restaurants and
medical clinics and boost long term city revenue.
Please vote NO to the residential development plan.
Thanks very much for your dedicated work for the people of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jialin Song and Hongliang Chang
10218 Cold Harbor Ave, Cupertino.
From: Sabrina Rizk [mailto:sabrina.rizk@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 5:38 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: Cupertino General Plan Amendment/Housing Element Update Council
Meeting
Is this the Second Reading, or is it true that the vote on Monday, November 10 is invalid
and this will be First Reading again?
Sabrina Rizk
From: chrisbencher@comcast.net [mailto:chrisbencher@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 9:26 PM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: Cupertino General Plan Amendment/Housing Element Update Council
Meeting
Dear George,
Thank you very much for the notification. I do have one question about the December
2nd meeting: Will we have another opportunity to provide oral communication to the
Council on this topic? Or on December 2nd are they just going to start with the
deliberations, which is where they left off at 5AM on the Nov 10th meeting?
Sincerely,
Chris Bencher
Subject: Future Housing Element Analysis is Flawed
On Nov 10, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Mitchell Ai-Chang<mitchell@aichang.com>wrote:
Hello City Council Members,
My name is Mitchell Ai-Chang and I'm a Cupertino resident. I'm writing in regards to the
City Council Special Meeting to be held on November 10, 2014.
I'm opposed to the city's plan to add more dwelling units at the following site
names: Vallco Shopping District (west), Hamptons, and United Furniture + other.
I'm opposed because the decision making process used to identify future housing sites
was flawed. The planning committee should have presented the city council with
multiple alternatives to consider. However, the city council was presented with only
one alternative. The decision making process was flawed; specifically the development
and analysis of alternatives.
I read the "Planning Commission Staff Report", Agenda Item No. 1, Agenda Date:
October 14, 2014, Attachment I: Planning Commission Staff Report (10-14-14) , found
on the Cupertino City home page at http://www.cupertinogpa.org/
Merriam-Webster defines "alternative" as something that can be chosen instead of
something else: a choice or option (http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/alternative)
All housing alternatives presented to the city council must meet the state's Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Plan Bay Area requirements. If the alternative
does not satisfy the RHNA and Plan Bay Area requirements, it is not option or choice
and, hence, cannot be an alternative by definition.
In the report, three "alternatives" were discussed (A, B, and C). The report stated
alternatives A and B did not meet the city's evaluation requirements which included
RHNA and Plan Bay Area requirements. The two sentences below are from the report:
"Alternative A increases city-wide office and hotel allocation but does not
increase allocations in the commercial and residential categories."
"Alternative A, which is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and Alternative
B which only meets 75%of the Plan Bay Area targets, do not achieve the regional
target. "
By definition of the word "alternative", alternatives A and B are NOT alternatives
because neither can be chosen because both fail to meet the city council's housing
evaluation requirements. Hence, alternatives A and B were incorrectly presented as
alternatives and should not have been used in the decision making process and
alternative analysis.
Furthermore, the content data in the "Balanced Plan" columns in tables 2 and 3 are
based upon balancing alternatives A, B, and C. Since alternatives A and B are not
alternatives, both alternatives should not have been used to develop the "Balance
Plan".
Hence, the "Balance Plan" is not a logical plan because it is derived from two
"alternatives" that were not alternatives by definition.
Therefore, the city council was presented with only ONE implementable alternative to
select (alternative C). There were no other alternatives to chose from. Selecting from
one alternative is not sound decision making.
I propose the city council request the planning commission provide the city council
more than one alternative to solve our state mandated housing requirements and the
study use a more sound decision making approach to alternative development and
analysis. The city and the city council deserve more than one alternative to address
such a critical issue that will affect the city's future.
In the "Housing Sites" section, there is the "Other Criteria for Site Selection". I propose
adding another selection criterion that evaluates the overall aggregate impact of the
selected sites to the local neighborhood. For example, Table 3 lists the six
recommended sites. Three of the six sites are located in one neighborhood near Vallco
Shopping Center. The aggregate of the three sites will contain 75.5% of the new
dwelling units in a one square mile area. [Calculation based on Table 3's "Balanced Plan
(Recommended)" column. Total of 1047 dus from priorities 2, 3, and 4 divided by 1,386
total dus = 75.5%].
The additional 1047 dwelling units in combination with the new Apple building will
overload the local traffic and school capability.
Also, on page 5, the Calculation of residential density was recently modified. The report
did not provide a rationale for the decision to revise the calculation. What was the
rationale? What would be the difference in the list of sites in Table 3 if the original
residential density calculation was used? I propose the planning committee provide the
rationale and another table 3 using the original calculation for Cupertino residents. This
action would be consistent with city council's goals of full transparency. Without the
rationale for the calculation change, readers can accidentally misinterpret that the
calculation change was made to influence the housing element sites given the
calculation change timing and housing plans development.
Calculation of residential density—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 lot area (which does not include adjacent streets).
This change has been made to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The density
and residential yield of Housing Element sites reflects this change.
I understand being a city council member is a very tough job having to balancing state,
local and residential requirements. I truly thank you for your service. I know it's not
easy.
Best regards,
Mitchell Ai-Chang
881 Alderbrook Lane
Subject: New Meeting Date to hear agenda items from City Council Meeting of Nov
10th, 2014
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sowmya Subramaniam <sowmnar@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I was at the Nov 10th City Council meeting earlier this week. What a marathon session! I
have heard from many Cupertino residents expressing frustration and dismay that they
missed the City Council's Nov 10th meeting about the General Plan Amendment and
Housing Element! This was due to the date confusion on the website. The Cupertino.org
website currently shows the adjournment of the Nov 10th meeting to Nov 18th.
But, I am hearing now from the group "Better Cupertino" that the Nov 10th meeting has
been invalidated, and agenda items will be heard and addressed in their entirety on
December 2nd. Can you please clarify if this is indeed the case, and when the meeting
regarding this is now going to be held? It is immensely frustrating and outrageous that
the Cupertino.org website has not been updated to reflect the new date. There is also
no information about the Nov 10th meeting being invalidated. Residents are beginning
to feel disenfranchised, and feel that the city staff and council are deliberately keeping
them in the dark, and creating confusion about the date. I am sure this is not your
intention, but it definitely comes across as such. To say the very least, it is very
irresponsible of the city staff to add to this confusion....AGAIN! The website needs to
reflect the CORRECT DATE AND TIME always!
I would really appreciate it if you could confirm at the very earliest when this meeting is
going to take place. The residents of Cupertino deserve complete clarity and
transparency from the City Council they elected into office!
Thank you for your time!
Sowmya Subramaniam
Sent from my iPad
Subject: new projects adding to congestion on stevens creek,wolf,deanza and Lawrence
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM, George Anderl <george_25056@msn.com>wrote:
already the traffic is awful without Apple and Main Street being open--how can
these additional cars move on these already clogged roads and where will their kids go
to school? I cant believe you are already planning on more residences and
business when we already have full roads full roads and freeway access. when I moved
to cupertino in the 70's, I wanted then and now a nice residential community; not one
that would be controlled by developers with traffic so bad that that one is limited when
and where he can go.
I hope that you exercise restraint in further high density development arround stevens
creek and wolf----I live behind Elephant Bar and am already affected by the traffic
increase!
George Anderl
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Eric
Organization: Homeowner
Email: Schmidt
Subject:
Timeline for Long Meeting Recordings
Comment:
regarding:
The General Plan
The recording for the November 10th Council Meeting on the GPA was
something like 9 hours long. I would assume the upcoming December 2nd
meeting will be long as well.
To make it easier to digest the recording, it would be helpful if
someone were to provide some kind of index with timestamps so a person
can jump to sections of the recording of interest. Someone could note
these subject changes as the meeting is being recorded.
I show an example of what I mean below
Eric Schmidt
00:00 - Meeting start, Review of past meeting
00:17 - Discussion regarding zoning changes
00:45 - Presentation from Community Group X
01:05 - Questions regarding traffic
... and so forth
From: Ruby Elbogen [mailto:rgelbogen@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:47 AM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: Re: Cupertino GPA/HEU FAQ& Community Meeting Tonight
Hi, George - I'm tired of all "your" Hocus Pocus Focus Groups. Instead of hiring out of
town expensive consultants--please--just ask interested residents what they want. Call
meetings with residents and not the business community unless that person actually
lives here, be prepared for a huge turn-out and listen to what the residents say and just
do it. For instance, if you had just gotten a group of residents together, told them what
the state has mandated and asked them/us/we to help solve it you wouldn't have this
huge Measures D & E-like situation you have right now. Cupertino is populated by some
of the most brilliant people in the entire world who know how to solve problems. What
you, at city hall, are doing makes no sense at all. Ruby
Thanks & Regards,
Ruby Elbogen,
Editor/Publisher The C Magazine & Cupertino-News.com
408/355-0575
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Eric Schmidt
Organization: Homeowner
Email: ericrschmidt59@gmail.com<mailto:ericrschmidt59@gmail.com>
Subject:
New GPA FAQ is Great
Comment:
regarding:
The General Plan
I just checked out the updated GPA FAQ and it is great. It answers a lot
of my questions and has a lot of relevent information and background.
I know something like this takes a lot of work to put together. Good
work.
Eric Schmidt
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Eric Schaefer
Organization: Cupertino resident
Email: eschaefe@us.ibm.com<mailto:eschaefe@us.ibm.com>
Subject:
Request for basic city fiscal summary and some specifics for Cupertino
Comment:
The General Plan
At the Nov. 20 workshop the Retail consultant touched on some basic fiscal
considerations of municipal government. He said that a revenue source (e.g., retail
taxes) is required for amenities like public parks.
This is an important concept, but it must be developed and detailed so that Cupertino
residents can see the risks and benefits of various City development options. I request
that City work with MIG to provide this information at
cupertinogpa.org<http://cupertinogpa.org>. BTW, the recent FAQ was a nice addition
to the site. The Nov. 20 workshop was a step in the right direction, too. Thank you!
(Unfortunately, the well-attended workshop and the FAW has been too little too late).
Details of City government business would answer questions like these: What are the
revenue sources for the City, and how much does each source contribute to the whole
pie for Cupertino? E.g., what is the slice from retail sales taxes? Getting more specific,
what is contributed by Vallco in the current state? What could be contributed by a
retail-optimal Vallco (per the Retail consultant's analysis). Perhaps this question is most
accurately answered by reading the consultant's report. But let's be reasonable: How
many residents are going to read the thousands of pages and understand the technical
analysis of all the reports that have been created for this planning project? Help the
public, please. If the City cannot provide this information at
cupertinogpa.org<http://cupertinogpa.org>, I request an audience with the very
knowledgeable City staff so that—with several other community members--we can
provide this information via the bettercupertino.org<http://bettercupertino.org>web
site.
Thanks for your consideration.
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Shankar lyer
Organization: None Given
Email: shankar.giyer@gmail.com<mailto:shankar.giyer@gmail.com>
Subject:General Plan Amendment and re-zoning of Vallco
Comment:
All
I strongly oppose the proposal to re-zone Vallco. My concerns are the
following:
- I already see the traffic congestion on Stevens Creek and Homestead
Roads in westerly direction in morning and easterly direction in the
evening. This is a recent event.
- When the Apple campus opens, and the current block of apartments are
fully populated I expect this to get much worse. Even if it was
predicted, this is not acceptable.
- We need more services in this area -fire, police, pedestrian, bicycle
access, etc.
-The city should consider any further development in the Vallco area
only after these issues have been resolved in a measurable way.
From: Scott Hughes <scottahughes@comcast.net<mailto:scottahughes@comcast.net>>
Date: November 22, 2014 at 12:10:27 PM PST
To: 'George Schroeder' <GeorgeS@cupertino.org<mailto:GeorgeS@cupertino.org>>
Cc: <info@cupertinogpa.org<maiIto:info @cupertinogpa.org>>
Subject: RE: Cupertino GPA/HEU FAQ& Community Meeting Tonight
Hello,
Thanks for your patience and professionalism Thursday night. A few comments and one
question;
Comments;
- As much as I was a bit embarrassed by the impoliteness of some of the residents,
the open question/answer format(which does not eat into one's 3 minute time limit)
was well overdue; especially on a subject as complex as this one. Although painful for
the City, I think this might be useful for other contentious subjects in the future. The
suggestion of a strong moderator and Robert's Rules of Order might help streamline it a
bit. In this case, hopefully some of Thursday's "venting" will make the next Council
meeting go a little smoother.
- Could you please try to answer all the "I'll get back to you" well before the 12/2
meeting and also post it to the generalpa website for all to see? Hopefully, all these
were captured but a few which were echoed by many and I think should be posted(and
possibly added to the staff report to council) are;
o Tally "actual student generation" data vs. "projected SGR" for all housing
developments for the for the previous two 8 year HCD cycles
o Clarify misperceptions about property tax assessment for recent housing
developments in a clear and concise manner. i.e., for each development in the previous
2 cycles, does each resident pay the same as an "R1" resident? If not, exactly how much
less do they pay in % and $.
o Repeat this property tax tally for each of the proposed housing element sites and
update Attachment T to include this data
- Please be weary of some of the map markups. On the 11/6 workshop on public
safety there was a representative from the City marking or overseeing the markups so
they represented the consensus of the table. Unfortunately, since your proposed
workshop was sort of hijacked, I witnessed several people marking up maps on their
own and even going to other tables and marking up those maps. Although all input is
fair input, this type of NIMBY approach should not be weighted too heavily.
Question;
I appreciate that you have posted a massive amount of information on the
website. However, I could not find any map where the Site Ws match the Site No. in the
first column of Attachment T (Potential Housing Elements Sites). If such a map exists,
could you please clarify and/or re-post it as another attachment? Please add a note to
the posting that this map corresponds to Attachment T. However, please do not use the
type of map provided Thursday night; many of us found this map to be a bit weird and
hard to read; i.e., major streets were not drawn and not well designated to the point
where some people really did not know where certain small sites were exactly located.
Thanks again for your ongoing effort on this task.
Regards,
Scott
From: Claire Arnold [mailto:clairea_2006@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:44 PM
To: Gudalewicz Wendy; Gilbert Wong; Piu Ghosh
Subject: Re: General Plan of Cupertino
Hi Wendy,
Thank you so much for helping clarify some issues last night for parents in Cupertino. I
know this must be quite a challenge to deal with parents asking all these questions.
I live near Sedgwick and am directly across from Hyde so I was hoping you have some
information for me that could help me understand some things I didn't follow through
last night with you.
You mentioned that 70 families are choosing different schools to go to even now to help
with Sedgwick's 900 population. Or will do in the future. How will these families be
getting to the alternative schools? Instead of kids walking to their local school there will
have to be more cars on already congested streets getting these kids to the alternatives.
That means children getting up earlier and parents under more stress to get them out of
the house. From personal experience when my specials needs kid needed to ride the
bus here in Cupertino it took a hour on the bus to get him from Hyde Avenue to
Regnart, so I know bussing is not a great alternative either. His last year at Meyerholz
started out with the suggestion he spend over an hour on the bus to get to Meyerholz, a
10 minute drive from our home.
I concur with the participant last night who is wondering why CUSD isn't more on the
parents side about increases of student population in Cupertino. I know you are new but
I was one of the active parents that helped get the initial parcel tax through and has
voted for every one ever since. The parents helped the school district at a time when it
needed us. The lack of concern for the inevitable increase of students, regardless of the
current fall, is hard to take, as you saw from another active parent in parcel tax
campaigns. There is a predicted 22% increase in population cited in the GPA and it is
discouraging to hear the solutions put forward by both the Council and the school
district.
I continue to be concerned on the quality of life for kids that get shunted out of their
local schools because of over population and I continue to be concerned about the
traffic issues that will only get worse around schools.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, would life be easier if you could repopulate
schools whose populations are declining?
Regards,
Claire Arnold
Referencing figures in the Housing element
Table 4.11-1 includes the ABAG's 2013 Projections for the City of Cupertino and Santa
Clara County. The projections estimate that by 2040 the population in Cupertino is
expected to grow to 71,700 people and the number of households would grow to
24,180, an increase of approximately 22 percent and 19 percent from 2010,
respectively. These rates are lower than the ABAG's projected population and
household growth of approximately 36 percent for Santa Clara County as a whole during
the same period.22