CC 10-01-2024 Oral Communications (2)CC 10-01-2024
Oral
Communications
Written Communications
From:Liang Chao
To:Santosh Rao; City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Request to Remove Restrictions on Oral Communications and Restore Full Public Input at City Council
Meetings.
Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:24:40 PM
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for
the upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record
unless a councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming
council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that
community voices are included in written communications of council meetings as
requested, rather than at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently
leave out some minority voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 11:29 AM
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu
<pamelaw@cupertino.org>
Subject: Request to Remove Restrictions on Oral Communications and Restore Full Public Input at
City Council Meetings.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for oral
communications (which is an item on agenda).
Dear City Council members,
Please forward the below to city clerk requesting these be included in
written communications for the council meeting on 10/01/24
Subject: Request to Remove Restrictions on Oral Communications and
Restore Full Public Input at City Council Meetings
Dear Mayor Sheila Mohan and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my growing
concern over the recent changes made to oral communications at city
council meetings, as well as modifications to the rules regarding written
communications. These new measures greatly restrict residents’ ability to
engage with their elected officials and participate in the democratic
process.
The limitations imposed on oral communications—capping the time to 30
minutes at the start of meetings, deferring remaining comments to the very
end, and reducing individual speaking times to as little as 60-90 seconds—
are deeply troubling. Many residents are unlikely to wait until the end of a
meeting, which can run late into the night, to speak. This discourages
public participation and leads to disillusionment, leaving residents feeling
that the city does not value their input. It is critical that Cupertino’s elected
officials prioritize hearing from the public, especially when residents take
the time to attend and share their concerns.
In addition to the oral communication restrictions, I am concerned about
the recent changes regarding written communications. It appears that
written comments for items not on the agenda are no longer being included
in the official records. However, I would like to remind the council that
oral communications is an item on the agenda, not an item "not on the
agenda." By not publishing written communications related to oral
communications, residents are being kept in the dark about the input the
council receives from others. This is particularly concerning in cases where
input from advocacy groups—such as YIMBY groups or bike advocacy
groups, which may push for radical changes—may not be visible to the
broader public. Without access to these written communications, residents
are unable to offer their own counterarguments or alternative input in a
timely manner, preventing a balanced public dialogue.
I respectfully request that the council revert to its long-standing practice of
publishing all written communications related to the oral communications
agenda item. Transparency is essential to maintaining trust between the city
and its residents, and this step is crucial for ensuring residents have full
visibility into the input being received by the council.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to make the following changes to
restore openness and fairness in city council meetings:
1. Do not limit oral communications to 30 minutes, and allow all public
comments to be heard upfront, as was the practice previously.
2. Restore the 3-minute speaking time per resident to ensure sufficient
opportunity for public input.
3. Resume the practice of publishing all written communications related
to oral communications, allowing residents to stay informed and
engaged in the decision-making process.
4. Continue the tradition of council members following up with
questions to staff and the city manager after hearing oral comments to
demonstrate that input is being seriously considered.
Mayor Mohan, you have the discretion to hear all oral comments before
moving on to other agenda items, and I strongly encourage you to exercise
this discretion. If necessary, I ask that this matter be put to a vote, ensuring
that the council reaffirms its commitment to transparency, resident
engagement, and open communication.
It is your responsibility, as elected officials, to listen to and act upon
resident input. These recent measures, unfortunately, suppress the very
public participation that is vital to good governance. I trust that you and the
council will act swiftly to restore these essential practices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your
response and the council’s actions.
Sincerely,
San Rao
From:Liang Chao
To:Srividya Sundaresan; City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Resident Input
Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:23:09 PM
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for
the upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record
unless a councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming
council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that
community voices are included in written communications of council meetings as
requested, rather than at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently
leave out some minority voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Srividya Sundaresan <vidya.sun@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:00 PM
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor
<tinak@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Resident Input
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
Hope you are all doing well.
I write to you to express my concern over proposed changes to getting citizen's input during
council meetings that would be a backward step for community participation and transparency
in all matters important to the welfare of our city.
Therefore, I urge you to:
1) Not limit oral communications to 30 minutes, and allow all public comments to be heard
upfront, as was the practice previously.
2) Restore the 3-minute speaking time per resident to ensure sufficient opportunity for public
input.
3) Resume the practice of publishing all written communications related to oral
communications, allowing residents to stay informed and engaged in the decision-making
process.
4) Continue the tradition of council members following up with questions to staff and the city
manager after hearing oral comments to demonstrate that input is being seriously considered.
Mayor Mohan, I call upon you to support the voice of your constituents by improving and
facilitating all means by we can voice our opinions.
Yours sincerely
Srividya Sundaresan
From:Liang Chao
To:Deepa Mahendraker; City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Request to Remove Restrictions on Oral Communications and Restore Full Public Input at City Council
Meetings
Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:21:58 PM
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for
the upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record
unless a councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming
council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that
community voices are included in written communications of council meetings as
requested, rather than at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently
leave out some minority voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Deepa Mahendraker <deepam@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor
<tinak@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Request to Remove Restrictions on Oral Communications and Restore Full Public Input at
City Council Meetings
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for oral communications (which is an item on
agenda).
Dear Mayor Sheila Mohan and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my growing concern over the recent changes
made to oral communications at city council meetings, as well as modifications to the rules regarding
written communications. These new measures greatly restrict residents’ ability to engage with their
elected officials and participate in the democratic process.
The limitations imposed on oral communications—capping the time to 30 minutes at the start of meetings,
deferring remaining comments to the very end, and reducing individual speaking times to as little as 60-
90 seconds—are deeply troubling. Many residents are unlikely to wait until the end of a meeting, which
can run late into the night, to speak. This discourages public participation and leads to disillusionment,
leaving residents feeling that the city does not value their input. It is critical that Cupertino’s elected
officials prioritize hearing from the public, especially when residents take the time to attend and share
their concerns.
In addition to the oral communication restrictions, I am concerned about the recent changes regarding
written communications. It appears that written comments for items not on the agenda are no longer
being included in the official records. However, I would like to remind the council that oral
communications is an item on the agenda, not an item "not on the agenda." By not publishing written
communications related to oral communications, residents are being kept in the dark about the input the
council receives from others. This is particularly concerning in cases where input from advocacy groups—
such as YIMBY groups or bike advocacy groups, which may push for radical changes—may not be visible
to the broader public. Without access to these written communications, residents are unable to offer their
own counterarguments or alternative input in a timely manner, preventing a balanced public dialogue.
I respectfully request that the council revert to its long-standing practice of publishing all written
communications related to the oral communications agenda item. Transparency is essential to
maintaining trust between the city and its residents, and this step is crucial for ensuring residents have full
visibility into the input being received by the council.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to make the following changes to restore openness and fairness in
city council meetings:
Do not limit oral communications to 30 minutes, and allow all public comments to be heard upfront, as
was the practice previously.
Restore the 3-minute speaking time per resident to ensure sufficient opportunity for public input.
Resume the practice of publishing all written communications related to oral communications, allowing
residents to stay informed and engaged in the decision-making process.
Continue the tradition of council members following up with questions to staff and the city manager after
hearing oral comments to demonstrate that input is being seriously considered.
Mayor Mohan, you have the discretion to hear all oral comments before moving on to other agenda items,
and I strongly encourage you to exercise this discretion. If necessary, I ask that this matter be put to a
vote, ensuring that the council reaffirms its commitment to transparency, resident engagement, and open
communication.
It is your responsibility, as elected officials, to listen to and act upon resident input. These recent
measures, unfortunately, suppress the very public participation that is vital to good governance. I trust
that you and the council will act swiftly to restore these essential practices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response and the council’s actions.
Sincerely,
Deepa
From:Liang Chao
To:Jim Lentfer; City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Concern with builder proposed waivers in document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, June
13, 2024”
Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:20:44 PM
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for
the upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record
unless a councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming
council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that
community voices are included in written communications of council meetings as
requested, rather than at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently
leave out some minority voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Jim Lentfer <jim.lentfer@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 12:10 PM
To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <Piug@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu
<pamelaw@cupertino.org>; City Council <Citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk
<cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Concern with builder proposed waivers in document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda
Vista Drive, June 13, 2024”
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below as written communications for items not on agenda for the
upcoming city council meeting.
Mayor Sheila Mohan
Cupertino City Council Members
City Manager Pamela Wu
City Planners Luke and Piu
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Document “Preliminary Application, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, June 13, 2024”
Dear Mayor, Cupertino City Council Members, and City Manager Wu:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed waivers shown in the subject
preliminary application for the project at Evulich Court. I believe that allowing these waivers
will have severe impacts on the existing neighborhood. I do not believe that the builder has
provided the necessary evidence that waivers of development standards are required
(showing that otherwise the development standards would have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of this new development at the densities required).
Please note that all adjoining homes to the Evulich Court properties are a mix of one and
two story homes. Specifically, the builder is requesting multiple waivers that would
significantly deviate from standard requirements:
1. Height Waiver: The proposal is for buildings up to 39 feet high, which is 9 feet higher
than the current 30-foot limit for the R3 zone in the area, and significantly higher than other
buildings in the neighborhood. I believe that the height can easily be reduced (without
making the project infeasible) with modifications such as:
a. Reduction in story heights from 9 feet to 8 feet (this would have the
additional benefit of smaller conditioned space volume leading to long term energy savings
and reduction of global warming impact).
b. Utilizing low-slope gable or hip roofs, low-slope parapet roofs, mansard
roofs, or dormer-style roofs, or a combination of these roof styles.
c. Use of an underground parking structure.
2. Setback Waiver: The plan includes setbacks as small as 11 feet (first floor) and 15 feet
(second floor) for Linda Vista Drive “front” street side, compared to the standard 20 feet for
first and second floors. The builder could meet the required setback without waivers
(without making the project infeasible) with modifications such as:
a. Revise the site plan to accommodate the required setback by pushing the
project to the west.
b. Revise the floor plans to accommodate the required setback.
c. Use of an underground parking structure.
3. Floor Area Coverage Waiver: The proposed floor area ratio is 127% of the net lot area,
far exceeding the standard 70% maximum. The builder should be required to justify the
need for this waiver, without which the project would become infeasible.
4. Parking Waiver: The plan proposes 2.6 parking spaces per unit, below the required 2.8
spaces per unit. The builder could meet the required parking requirements without waivers
(without making the project infeasible) with modifications such as:
a. Revising the site plan to accommodate the required parking.
b. Use of an underground parking structure
These builder proposed waivers would result in a development that is dramatically out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood, and could lead to significant negative
impacts:
1. The extreme contrast in building height and proximity to property lines will significantly
impact the privacy, sunlight, and overall quality of life for neighboring residents.
2. The reduced parking requirements could lead to increased street parking and traffic
congestion in an area not designed for such density.
I believe modifications to the proposed development could provide a solution that
addresses both the need for increased housing and the community's desire to preserve the
essential character of the neighborhood, all while adhering to established development
standards. There might also be long term energy savings and reduction in global warming.
In light of these concerns and the proposed alternative, I ask that the City Council maintain
oversight of any waivers considered for the subject development, add agenda item(s) at the
earliest possible meeting prior to formal responses to the builder, and to provide ample
notice to all affected residents to ensure their participation in this crucial discussion.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response
confirming the scheduling of any agenda items and to participating in a thorough discussion
of these critical issues relating to waivers at Evulich Court.
Sincerely,
Jim Lentfer
22024 Baxley Court
From:Liang Chao
To:Sashi Begur; City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Linda Vista Rezoning
Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:17:26 PM
Attachments:page16image57272272.png
page16image57273936.png
page16image57322672.png
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for the upcoming council meeting, your email will not be
included in the official record unless a councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC
2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that community voices are included in written communications of
council meetings as requested, rather than at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently leave out some minority voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: S B <sashibegur@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 7:55 PM
To: Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Linda Vista Rezoning
Dear City Clerk and council members,
Please include the below as written communications for items not on agenda for the upcoming city council meeting.
Thank you in advance
Sincerely
Sashi Begur
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mayor Sheila Mohan
Cupertino City Council Members City Manager Pamela Wu
City Planners Luke and Piu
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the recent zoning change of the properties located on Evulich Court in Cupertino, with
Associated Parcel Numbers (APNs) 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06-003, & 356-06-004. I believe this zoning change may not have followed the
proper legal procedures, particularly those governing the selection of housing element sites in California, community input, and will have severe
impacts on the existing neighborhood.
The zoning change in question has dramatically altered the permitted density for these parcels:
1. Original zoning: R1 (single-family home zoning, 1-5 units/acre) 2. New zoning: R3/TH (20-35 units/acre)
This represents one of the most significant density increases among all the sites listed in the Housing Element, raising concerns about the fairness
and appropriateness of this particular change. To illustrate this point, I'd like to draw your attention to other R1 sites in the Housing Element and their
proposed changes:
1. Site ID 12 (APN 316-04-064, 19820 Homestead Rd): - Original zoning: R1 (1-5 units/acre)
- Proposed zoning: R3 (10-20 units/acre)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2. Site ID 24 (APN 359-13-019, 20865 Mcclellan Rd): - Original zoning: R1-10 (1-5 units/acre)
- Proposed zoning: R3 (10-20 units/acre)
3. Site ID 31 (APN 327-20-034, 10231 Adriana Ave): - Original zoning: R1 (1-5 units/acre)
- Proposed zoning: R3/TH (5-10 units/acre)
As you can see, while these sites are also experiencing increases in density, none approach the dramatic jump from 1-5 units/acre to 20-35
units/acre that the Evulich Court properties are facing.
Furthermore, I must emphasize that all adjoining homes to the Evulich Court properties are zoned R1. This dramatic zoning change creates a stark
inconsistency in the neighborhood. More alarmingly, the builder is requesting multiple waivers that would significantly deviate from standard
requirements:
1. Height Waiver: The proposal is for buildings up to 39 feet high, which is 9 feet higher than the current 30-foot limit for the R3 zone in the area.
2. Setback Waiver: The plan includes setbacks as small as 5 feet for street sides and 6 feet for interior sides, compared to the standard 12 feet and
6-16 feet respectively.
3. Floor Area Coverage Waiver: The proposed floor area ratio is 127% of the net lot area, far exceeding the standard 70% maximum.
4. Parking Waiver: The plan proposes 2.6 parking spaces per unit, below the required 2.8 spaces per unit.
These waivers, would result in a development that is dramatically out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and could lead to significant
negative impacts:
1. The extreme contrast in building height and proximity to property lines will significantly impact the privacy, sunlight, and overall quality of life for
neighboring residents.
2. Such a dramatic change in neighborhood character may negatively affect property values of surrounding homes.
3. The reduced parking requirements could lead to increased street parking and traffic congestion in an area not designed for such density.
4. The infrastructure of the neighborhood, designed for low-density housing, may not be
adequate to support such a significant increase in population density.
5. The excessive floor area coverage could lead to issues with stormwater management and reduce green space in the neighborhood.
Of particular concern is the apparent lack of proper notification and community engagement in this process. Neighbors living on Linda Vista Drive do
not recall receiving any notification about the upzoning process. This raises serious questions about the transparency and fairness of the decision-
making process.
In community surveys conducted by the consultant, this site received the lowest positive rating among all proposed housing sites. Specifically, the
favorability score for this site was a mere 18%, and it received the highest number of responses. This extraordinarily low score, combined with the
high response rate, clearly indicates overwhelming community opposition to such a dramatic change in this neighborhood. It's worth noting that this
score falls far below the 40% threshold that the city planners identified as a priority for council consideration, indicating that this site should be
immediately reevaluated and likely removed from consideration.
Given these concerns, I strongly urge the City Council to consider alternative zoning options that could increase housing density while still
maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Specifically, I propose that the Council explore the possibility of rezoning the site as R1-5000. This
zoning designation could potentially increase the number of homes that can be built on the site without dramatically altering the existing
neighborhood character. This approach would:
1. Moderately increase housing density to help meet the city's housing goals
2. Maintain a single-family home character that is consistent with the surrounding area 3. Likely face less community opposition, given that it
represents a more modest change 4. Better balance the city's housing needs with the concerns and preferences of existing residents
5. Ensure that development adheres to established setback, height, and parking requirements, preserving neighborhood aesthetics and functionality
Crucially, R1 sites, including the proposed R1-5000 zoning, are not eligible for the same density bonus waivers that R3/TH multi-family sites can
receive. This means that any development under R1-5000 zoning would have to comply with standard requirements for setbacks, height limits, and
parking. This would address many of the concerns raised about the current R3/TH rezoning proposal, including the extreme height of proposed
buildings (up to 39 feet), minimal setbacks (as low as 5 feet for street sides and 6 feet for interior sides), excessive floor area coverage (127% of net
lot area), and reduced parking
requirements. By choosing R1-5000 zoning instead of R3/TH, the City can ensure that any new development on this site remains in harmony with the
existing neighborhood while still increasing housing density, preventing the potential negative impacts associated with the extensive waivers currently
being requested under the R3/TH zoning proposal.
I believe this alternative could provide a compromise solution that addresses both the need for increased housing and the community's desire to
preserve the essential character of the neighborhood, all while adhering to established development standards.
In light of these concerns and the proposed alternative, I ask that the City Council schedule two specific agenda items for an upcoming council
meeting:
Agenda Item 1: A comprehensive review and discussion of the following points regarding the Evulich Court rezoning:
1. Details on the process followed for this specific zoning change, including documentation of all attempts to notify affected residents
2. Documentation showing how the city ensured compliance with state law regarding housing element site selection
3. An explanation for why this site was chosen for such a dramatic increase in density compared to other R1 sites in the city, especially given the
extremely low 18% favorability score and high response rate
4. Clarification on the criteria used to determine density increases across different neighborhoods
5. An assessment of the potential impacts on neighboring properties, including privacy, shadowing, and property values
6. A review of the infrastructure capacity to support such a significant density increase
8. A full disclosure of the community survey results related to this site and an explanation of how these results, particularly the strikingly low 18%
favorability score and high response rate, were factored into the decision-making process
Agenda Item 2: A proposal to restore the zoning of the Evulich Court properties to R1, with consideration of lower minimum lot size limits of 5,000
square feet (R1-5000 zoning).
Additionally, I request that this agenda include:
1. A review of the zoning change process for this site, with particular attention to the notification procedures
2. Consideration of transitional zoning or additional requirements to mitigate the impact on neighboring R1 properties
3. Presentation of a comprehensive traffic and parking study assessing the impact of the reduced parking requirements
4. Presentation of an environmental impact assessment, particularly regarding the increased lot coverage and its effects on local ecosystems and
stormwater management 5. A comparative analysis of how other sites with low favorability scores were handled in the planning process
I believe it is crucial that our city's development plans adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, and that changes of this magnitude are made
with full transparency and community input. The stark contrast between the density increase at Evulich Court and other R1 sites in the city, combined
with the potential negative impacts on the existing neighborhood and the overwhelmingly low 18% community support (despite high engagement),
demands immediate reconsideration of this site's inclusion in the Housing Element as an R3/TH zone.
I urge the City Council to schedule these agenda items at the earliest possible meeting and to provide ample notice to all affected residents to ensure
their participation in this crucial discussion.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response confirming the scheduling of these agenda items and to
participating in a thorough discussion of these critical issues.
Sincerely,
Sashi Begur