Loading...
CC 10-01-2024 Oral_Late CommunicationsCC 10-01-2024 Oral Communications Written Communications From:Liang Chao To:Ravi K; City Clerk Subject:Fw: Request to Rezone Evulich Ct. Back to R1 Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:26:25 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: Ravi K <rkonduri@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:09 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: Request to Rezone Evulich Ct. Back to R1 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 -------- 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) 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, Ravi Konduri 22013 Baxley Ct, Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Oral Comms city council October 1 Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:24:28 PM Please enter this into the meeting record for tonight's meeting. Thanks. Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:01 PM To: City Council <Citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Oral Comms city council October 1 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. Question, Councilmember Wei has not attended regular city council meetings since July 16 and appears to have vacated her position from what I can tell by looking at the codes. Can you please explain whether she has vacated her position? And if so, what the city plans to do about it? Regards, Rhoda Fry From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk; Rhoda Fry Subject:Fw: Oral Comms city council October 1 Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:21:55 PM Please enter this into the written communication for 10/1 council meeting as I plan to refer to the information mentioned below at an appropriate time tonight. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:20 PM To: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Oral Comms city council October 1 Are you referring to this Gov Code 36513 (quoted below)? Another resident has brought this up too. And I looked it up. As far as I know, the last regular council meeting Councilmember Wei attended was the July 16 Council meeting. The two regular council meetings in August was canceled. She did not attend the 9/3 regular council meeting. For the 9/17 regular council meeting, it seems she had planned to attend since there were two locations listed in the agenda and one of the locations appear to be her home address. However, it seems after the 5:30pm press conference in front of the City Hall on 9/17, Councilmember Wei was not able to attend the meeting, either in person or remotely. For tonight's 10/1 regular council meeting, there is only one location announced in the agenda. Therefore, Councilmember Wei likely would not be able to attend either. That makes it 77 days from the July 16 Council meeting. Per Gov Code 36523, it does seem that there is "Absence without permission from council meetings for 60 days from last regular meeting". ===== Section 36513 - Absence without permission from council meetings for 60 days from last regular meeting (a) If a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 60 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a city council meets monthly or less frequently than monthly and a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 70 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy. Ca. Gov. Code § 36513 Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1558, Sec. 2. Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:01 PM To: City Council <Citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Oral Comms city council October 1 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. Question, Councilmember Wei has not attended regular city council meetings since July 16 and appears to have vacated her position from what I can tell by looking at the codes. Can you please explain whether she has vacated her position? And if so, what the city plans to do about it? Regards, Rhoda Fry From:Liang Chao To:Rocky Gunderson; City Clerk Subject:Fw: Please Rezone Evulich Ct. Back to R1 Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 5:03:01 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: Rocky Gunderson <rocky.gunderson@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 4:54 PM To: Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.gov>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <piug@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu <pamelaw@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Please Rezone Evulich Ct. Back to R1 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. Subject: Please Rezone Evulich Ct. Back to R1 ============================================= 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 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) 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, RS Gunderson 22074 Baxley Ct. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-314-3618 From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk; Peggy Griffin Subject:Fwd: 2024-10-01 City Council Meeting - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Include ALL inputs as Written Communications! Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 4:42:12 PM Please include in the meeting record. Get Outlook for iOS Liang Chao​​​​ Councilmember City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 3:57 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: 2024-10-01 City Council Meeting - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Include ALL inputs as Written Communications! 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear City Council, It is appalling that a decision was made to eliminate all written communications for items associated with “Oral Communications” unless a Councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk! There are many reasons this should be reversed: 1. This is a policy change and policy changes should be made by the City Council during an open meeting where the public and individual council members can provide input. 2. This is equivalent to censorship. Only those comments “good enough” to be passed onto the City Clerk are permitted to be published. This is discrimination! 3. Written Communications is a record, often used as reference, but what we now have is INCOMPLETE RECORDS! Some get recorded and others done. 4. Work load… a. This does not reduce the workload. All communication goes to the City Clerk and Council then if “chosen” go back to the City Clerk. So they have to process it 2 times doubling the email load and having to look at each one to see if they include it. b. When all communication was placed into the Written Communications document, it was one place a Councilmember could go to get a complete packet organized by agenda items. Now, they have to scroll through and pick and choose emails. c. Transfers the workload to the Councilmembers to forward the email to the City Clerk. 5. Hiding lobbying activities… a. Removing the emails from the Written Communications document hides lobbying activities being done by certain special interests. 6. Loss of transparency…What we end up with is a partial, incomplete, filtered view of the issues at the top of residents minds. With all the new steps implemented these last 2 years to eliminate public input, this completes it. a. Items that were discussed in public are now “Informational Items”. b. Items that were discussed in public are now “Consent Items” that can no longer be removed from Consent except by Councilmembers. c. Items that were able to be added by 2 minority councilmembers are now added to a list then removed before they make it on an agenda. d. Oral Communications now gets split to the beginning and after to the end of the meeting rather than splitting the time between all 7. The minority view is no longer even considered or tolerated. Please reverse this action. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Cupertino parkland funding and Finch Property Date:Tuesday, October 1, 2024 4:41:30 PM Attachments:image.png Please enter this request to the written communication if today's meeting since I plan to bring it up at some point. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Councilmember City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 4:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.gov> Subject: Fwd: Cupertino parkland funding and Finch Property Below is an email to have sent to CUSD as an individual council member. Since the city normally make any purchase on parkland from parkland impact fees, such as the funding use to purchase Lawrence-Mitty park. In order for the Council to make any kind of determination on any parkland purchase, I would like to have more information on 1. how much parkland impact fee the city currently have 2. Based in the list of approved projects, how much parkland impact fees they will generate? 3. Based on the list of pending project, how much parkland impact fees they will likely generate? 4. Based on the units planned in the Housing Element, how much parkland impact fees they will likely generate? The above information would help the city staff and the city council to do better planning. I hereby request an information memo on the item. Thanks. Liang From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 5:01 PM To: board@cusdk8.org <board@cusdk8.org>; Stacy McAfee-Yao <yao_stacy@cusdk8.org> Subject: Cupertino parkland funding and Finch Property Dear CUSD Board Members and Superintendent Stacy, Representing myself and my own opinion on this matter that's relevant to the City of Cupertino, where I serve as the City Councilmember. Some residents have brought to my attention the options being discussed for the Finch property, next to Sedgewick Elementary School. I noticed that the slide below mentioned "CUSD staff informed City has no funding" under "City Needs/Park, Other". (See the screenshot below) I hope to clarify that the City Council has never had any discussion on whether the purchase of Finch property would fit within our current or future budget. I hope that CUSD does not use informal verbal speculation by individual staff or even councilmember to inform your decision making process. I do hope to share that for each development project, the city does charge Parkland Impact Fee in order to mitigate the impact on parks and recreation resources of the city, based on a Nexus Study. Even with a reduction from a settlement agreement, the Parkland Impact Fee the city will receive from the Rise project (formerly Vallco Shopping Mall) will be $56M, reduced from the required $75M (The amount might be inaccurate as I am reciting from memory, but it is about that amount). With the newly approved the Housing Element that includes a total of over 6,200 units of housing, there will be more development projects which will contribute to Parkland Fees as they add more residents to Cupertino. I would not say for certain that the City has or has no fund to purchase the Finch Property as parkland or whether the City Council would decide on how to spend the Parkland Impact Fees. This is a decision that the City Council should deliberate together with more information about the current and estimated future funding from Parkland Impact Fees, and take public input, before making a decision . I hope that CUSD Board understands the background information. Of course, I am only providing information to the best of my knowledge. You should request more accurate information from the City directly. Reference: the agenda packet: https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/cusdk8/Board.nsf/files/D8ASV9747C87/$file/Open%20Session%20%20Finch- Cupertino%20Powerpoint%2008.16.24%20(1)%20-%20REVISED.pdf Liang Chao​​​​ Councilmember City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192