Exhibit CC 05-01-12 #18 Vacate Finch Avenue cc S [ � 18
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:45 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Fwd: Vacation of Finch Avenue, May 1, 2012, Meeting-Agenda Item#18
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Keithdd1527 a aol.com" <Keithdd1527 a aol.com>
Date: April 30, 2012 7:28:56 PM PDT
To: City Council <CityCouncil @cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk @cupertino.org>
Subject: Vacation of Finch Avenue, May 1,2012, Meeting-Agenda Item #18
Regarding: Vacation of Finch Avenue, May 1, 2012, City Council Meeting, Agenda Item#18
Dear City Council
Please consider carefully your action to"vacate" Finch Ave. and to trade that public street's acreage
back to the adjacent parcels owner's, Sand Hill Properties, so that public land can be better used for their
own Main Street Project, but only as a consequence of your approval of their application which
must include comparable new public amenities offered in trade to better service our growing community.
Please make sure your City Council has negotiated the best trade for our public lands and those
agreements must be found to be 100% in our public's greater good and benefit, both now and in
questionable times of financial turmoil for our local developers.
Why our community must also take into account any future financial down turns which might put in
jeopardy Sand Hill's own ability to finish their approved Main Street project and perhaps default, doing
so after they assume ownership of the vacated Finch Ave's public right of way and removed the
improvements, despite any development agreement you made with them in good faith.
Your constituents are concerned that if the vacated Finch Ave. street acreage is reconstituted back into
Sand Hill's own parcels and control, with Finch Ave. no longer bisecting Sand Hill's own parcels, and by
sad misfortune Sand Hill should loose financial backing and investment in there development plans,
would their parcels become distressed commercial property, consisting of newly subdivided parcels
with all of Finch Ave's road infrastructure also removed, including; the road bed, median planters, lighting,
street trees, gutters, storm drains and signage- then, could a future new owner leverage the now
vacated public right of way to there own benefit, perhaps seeking rezoning for 100% housing at some
future date with a future city council found to be under pressure to provide ABAG housing due to
Apple's future office development in our city?
Perhaps... which is not a far fetched possibility and then a fair conclusion, why this issue is a
key constituency concern.
Ask yourself, would any future city council enforce an expired permit or a failed project's CCR's on a new
developer, if the prior Main Street concept had failed as was envisioned after completing the most
exhaustive public review and input process imaginable one which included the South ValIco
Development Study and many additional hours of public out reach as you encouraged Sand Hill to
complete first, for further consideration of their Main Street project application?
1
Surely any new developer would cry foul and ask for financial relief-perhaps a future city
council giving the vacated public land with demolished street infrastructure to the next
new developer, but given away at our tax payer's expense(?!)
Could this public land be used to increase development density on those newly entitled South Vallco
parcels, one's re-incorporating the now vacated street acreage into them, perhaps becoming rezoned by
a future City Counsel for market rate housing, perhaps pressured by ABAG to off-setting Apple's office
allotment in the North Vallco area, giving up on this one last vestige of commercial & retail tax base in the
South Vallco area forever?
How would the public's interest in a public right of way have been maintained and perhaps leveraged to
our greater benefit, "if" our South Vallco commercial & retail district and its supporting tax base for our
city's general fund had been lost forever due to a lack of foresight and imagination on the parts of our
current City Council?
+ 'wu - p N i A a 8• *. .i• 6 es e I esi e" d nee f t 4 ¢a�,- , -, �. ,4 x d no p ,- ae 9'' � 9' . 4 '.ky 1: tb°*
)• t�df a tl # • • �-oviti tFd ® a r t re/Clii?4
n
p• •. b lc ddlao
Our resident's can fairly weigh each proposed exchange for our public right of way, like those offered by
Sand Hill, if that vacated public land's current market rate value for both the land and the improvements
on it, are first researched and made publicly known by an impartial authority- and that includes the
intrinsic value that the public easement has for our public's use for accessing local retail I- if this
key issue might be lost on both the City Council and the developer.
The current property exchange offered by Sand Hill, for our public right of way, also includes
enhancements to that same property too, as several parcels of there own land will be developed for trade;
one for a public park and one for a public town square infrastructure, both to be maintained and
subsidized in perpetuity by either Sand Hill or all future property owner's themselves, but allowing for both
public pedestrian &vehicle passage, on a new street grid, located between Stevens Creek Blvd to Vallco
Parkway, as can only be confirmed and enforced for the ages with registration of the CCR's.
;Al. ''',4,14$„&;-..ii t '-'0 c a . °'. 4 '. ' ' ,,l-s1"..,,,-'11^_. x. i.,;.'
,
i wou v es�! Y Yggtwkua �#,op a #•. p = 4 • .q.: , -4 . - :1m ,
part'as+the o tion of°Finch AYii01-ai a 'f 1 o' ` • , : ', : RV x•j _ u
in,FJncta A e's public right;:of way.Isfinot"o` t:= %:,,,i# • ` • i' Ver x"1".6.10,.::: � -fad
public land, allenged ►y y future ar ` $ • :ill's Z ' '§:C:# *bam - 1 t �• to be a
distre :. lade#ailed prpjectiand.pa thap. Q t • MOB .` r ' r .4 •.rte
entitierhents Included, includingI a vaca ed'Y *Mi p t iah w triMb t= _.• .a n. a i`itY-' re&
infrastructurr`e.
During the review of a different project application a few years ago, our former Cupertino City Attorney
Charles Kilian, suggested that a performance bond be placed on the owners of the Marketplace
Shopping Center, as the Evershine Property Management had continuing issues with not completing
prior phases of redevelopment on there own property- as surrounding neighbors had bitterly complained
for years- naively, Evershine countered back to the City Council that it's own financial woes were to
blame for the stalling of their construction efforts; this naive arrogance on the part of the applicant was
precisely why the past City Council conditionally imposed a performance bond be purchased
by Evershine to insure the timely completion of the last phase of redevelopment of the Marketplace
shopping center- this completion or performance bond was a first in our city's history as I recall; this
bond action promoted sound and timely development as a result.
During several community group meetings with Kevin Dare of Sand Hill Properties, constituents
discussed bonding Sand Hill as a condition for the vacation of Finch Ave.; bonding was not considered
to be an imposition on the project, if support from the community was behind the project, but I
would allow Mr. Dare to fully explain his own view on bonding.
The vacation of Finch Ave. and bonding could also be linked to the overall "phasing"of the entire project
build out; either for building it all at once, or phased in smaller parcels, but I would leave that decision up
to the developer who knows his company's financial situation and future tenants needs far better then the
general public or even the City council might, with all due respect, but I would like to see the retail
2
component and public areas (public park and the public square) built as soon as possible and not be
contingent on any other aspect of the project, like the parking garage, office buildings, senior housing
or the hotel and associated amenities.
A performance bond can and will provide the same motivations and guidance to Sand Hill and the Main
Street project while also protecting the public's greater interest, insuring their vacated public land and
street infrastructure is not lost by incompetence or negligence on the part of the applicant and then
leveraged to destroy future retail development in the South Vallco area.
A performance bond should be supported and proposed by the entire city council as part of the vacation
of Finch Ave's public right of way; if Sand Hill can't perform in a timely manner or financially defaults for
any reason, our resident's of Cupertino will get back there public right-of-way AND any demolished street
infrastructure replaced at actual cost by Sand Hill alone - not by OUR public tax dollars- in example; the
acreage, the road bed and its current alignment, median and plantings, street trees, lighting, gutters and
signage- everything should be bonded for there full current replacement value.
I have some concern that our city officials might attempt to improperly vacate Finch Ave. before the City
Council has first resolved all of the newly proposed and confusing modifications to the Main Street Project
and doing so while those modifications are under our public's supervision, which can only be done at
properly advertised public hearings being held in there proper sequence.
Please concur with the city attorney as to the proper sequencing of the vacation of Finch Ave in
conjunction with the Main Street application's final approval, so that application's final approval is what the
street vacation will be ultimately be legally tied to.
I hope you will impose a bond condition, either a performance, completion or surety bond of some sort,
perhaps the city attorney could offer suggestions of the bond types to apply and discuss them at the
public hearings for the Vacation of Finch Ave, as I know I will be asking for those options to be discussed
at the hearings.
Please don't kill retail and office development in the South Vallco area due to unwanted interference from
Apple; our city spent a$100,000 of our tax payer's money to politely dialog with Apple about both
the North and South Vallco's entangled future. Apple would not elaborate openly on
mitigating mutual impacts to all stake holders in both the North & South Vallco area and in our community
at large, specifically for housing impacts, so lets support Sand Hill today; they have an application
which has been before you for many years now.
Apple will have their own day: I have no fear of threats of Apple leaving if South Vallco is developed first, I
do have many fears if they stay, like Apple killing off local retail and office development in the South
Vallco area out of pure corporate zeal that answers to none of your constituents while also
selfishly trampling our last hopes of a Main Street project in the South Vallco area.
Thank you.
Keith Murphy
10159 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
CARe &CCC
3
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:44 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Fwd: Vacation of Finch Avenue-Agenda Item#18 May 1, 2012 City Council Mtg
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lisa Warren <la-warren @att.net>
Date: April 30, 2012 8:47:15 PM PDT
To: Mark Santoro <MSantoro @cupertino.org>, Orrin Mahoney <Omahoney @cupertino.org>,
Barry Chang <BChang @cupertino.org>, Rod Sinks <RSinks @cupertino.org>, Gilbert Wong
<gwong(&cupertino.org>, City Council <CityCouncil(a7cupertino.org>
Cc: Amy Chan <AmyC @cupertino.org>, Carol Korade <CarolK @cupertino.org>, Timm
Borden <Timmb @cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava<AartiS @cupertino.org>, Aki Honda
<AkiH @cupertino.org>
Subject: Vacation of Finch Avenue-Agenda Item #18 May 1, 2012 City Council Mtg
Dear All,
Mark Santoro,Mayor
Orrin Mahoney,Vice Mayor
Barry Chang,Council Member
Rod Sinks,Council Member
Gilbert Wong,Council Member
Amy Chan,Interim City Manager
Carol Korade,City Attorney
Timm Borden,Director of Public Works
Aarti Shrivastava,Director of Community Development
Aki Honda Snelling,Senior Planner
Darrell Lum was kind enough to share his written thoughts with me regarding the vacation of Finch Avenue- related
to Sand Hill's"Main Street" project.
I would like to echo the suggestions that he has made (see below).
In addition : Not knowing if this is an appropriate time to state this... I would like to add that I believe the traffic pattern
around the proposed 'town square' should be limited to one way traffic- maintaining two way entrance/exit to/from
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Vallco Parkway.
"We support the vacation of Finch Avenue if it results in the substantial
community benefits of the construction of Mainstreet Cupertino Town Square
and its surrounding roadway and Stevens Creek Blvd. and Vallco Parkway
entrances and exits, public access and their maintenance by the property
owners.
1
However, since the 2009 approved Mainstreet Cupertino project has been on
hold and the present modification has requested a 5 year extension, there may
be some concern regarding its completion. Therefore, some conditions may be
necessary such as:
If Mainstreet Cupertino does not proceed, a right of first refusal for the City to
re-acquire the Finch Avenue property for the same consideration as it was
vacated.
If the existing Finch Avenue improvements have been removed partially or
completely and the project is unable to be completed, there should be a
bond to restore Finch Avenue to its existing state and function as a public
right of way or to complete the Town Square and its surrounding roadway
and the Stevens Creek Blvd and Vallco Parkway entrances and exits."
I want to mention that there has been community discussion on both of these points and this email
seems to summarize the thoughts of many.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
2
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Keithddl527 @aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:29 PM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Vacation of Finch Avenue, May 1, 2012, Meeting-Agenda Item#18
Regarding: Vacation of Finch Avenue, May 1, 2012, City Council Meeting,Agenda Item#18
Dear City Council
Please consider carefully your action to"vacate" Finch Ave. and to trade that public street's acreage back to the
adjacent parcels owner's, Sand Hill Properties, so that public lard can be better used for their own Main Street Project,
but only as a consequence of your approval of their application which must include comparable new public amenities
offered in trade to better service our growing community.
Please make sure your City Council has negotiated the best trade for our public lands and those agreements must be
found to be 100% in our public's greater good and benefit, both now and in questionable times of financial turmoil for our
local developers.
Why our community must also take into account any future financial down turns which might put in jeopardy Sand Hill's
own ability to finish their approved Main Street project and perhaps default, doing so after they assume ownership of the
vacated Finch Ave's public right of way and removed the improvements, despite any development agreement you made
with them in good faith.
Your constituents are concerned that if the vacated Finch Ave. street acreage is reconstituted back into Sand Hill's own
parcels and control, with Finch Ave. no longer bisecting Sand H ill's own parcels, and by sad misfortune Sand Hill should
loose financial backing and investment in there development plans, would their parcels become distressed commercial
property, consisting of newly subdivided parcels with all of Finch Ave's road infrastructure also removed, including; the
road bed, median planters, lighting, street trees, gutters, storm drains and signage- then, could a future new
owner leverage the now vacated public right of way to there own benefit, perhaps seeking rezoning for 100% housing at
some future date with a future city council found to be under pressure to provide ABAG housing due to Apple's future
office development in our city?
Perhaps... which is not a far fetched possibility and then a fair conclusion, why this issue is a key constituency concern.
Ask yourself, would any future city council enforce an expired permit or a failed project's CCR's on a new developer, if the
prior Main Street concept had failed as was envisioned after completing the most exhaustive public review and input
process imaginable, one which included the South Vallco Development Study and many additional hours of public out
reach as you encouraged Sand Hill to complete first, for further consideration of their Main Street project application?
Surely any new developer would cry foul and ask for financial relief-perhaps a future city council giving
the vacated public land with demolished street infrastructure to the next new developer, but given away at
our tax payer's expense(?!)
Could this public land be used to increase development density on those newly entitled South Vallco parcels, one's re-
incorporating the now vacated street acreage into them, perhaps becoming rezoned by a future City Counsel for market
rate housing, perhaps pressured by ABAG to off-setting Apple's office allotment in the North Vallco area, giving up on this
one last vestige of commercial & retail tax base in the South Vallco area forever?
How would the public's interest in a public right of way have been maintained and perhaps leveraged to our greater
benefit, "if" our South Vallco commercial & retail district and its supporting tax base for our city's general fund had been
lost forever due to a lack of foresight and imagination on the parts of our current City Council?
� t a
410:01h1°$'1" t Strew O ect:i "S 4titY. 6.0, to icceed et we don't need t bps ouy, a lfOri* _ tarty "Ir 6#413� i#!t t� feSt v &s..,.,..`' �' ;'.
'Its. td i� ny a ►tll>Corr l t i`''1iifr strfi to a Irnp otrE�rr eitf,`s�i'1 uilt t on�i hat'spubff lf& , o
1
Our resident's can fairly weigh each proposed exchange for our public right of way, like those offered by Sand Hill, if
that vacated public land's current market rate value for both the land and the improvements on it, are first researched and
made publicly known by an impartial authority- and that includes the intrinsic value that the public easement has for
our public's use for accessing local retail!- if this key issue might be lost on both the City Council and the developer.
The current property exchange offered by Sand Hill, for our public right of way, also includes enhancements to that
same property too, as several parcels of there own land will be developed for trade; one for a public park and one for a
public town square infrastructure, both to be maintained and subsidized in perpetuity by either Sand Hill or all future
property owner's themselves, but allowing for both public pedestrian & vehicle passage, on a new street grid,
located between Stevens Creek Blvd to Vallco Parkway, as can only be confirmed and enforced for the ages with
registration of the CCR's.
I rwouli respectfully suggest that you,ourCity tQouncil,jTnpos a Performance Bond on Sand 11 ill as pafkof the
vacation of Finch Ave'a* final approval to l 00%'guarantee thatfth public`s greater Interest in Finch Ave's public right of
way is not lost In a y utui*court°battle overownershi gh o tj,at vagat d public land,Sa rtgeetby ny fu r
ow er's df �, i� j l , za ,
n ..s 0n Hiil per pettyr, - A n t gip? §0,;ta �0 Ot! ® . r.-: Q'tded
to sellGoffthere pare vntkany apprpv'ed entitlementsncncluded, roll°ding.the.vaoate�Flrach Av- i,.1,.* _C A r.1• . .:
demolished:and;removed°street:infrastYucture
During the review of a different project application a few years ago, our former Cupertino City Attorney Charles Kilian,
suggested that a performance bond be placed on the owners of the Marketplace Shopping Center, as the Evershine
Property Management had continuing issues with not completing prior phases of redevelopment on there own property-
as surrounding neighbors had bitterly complained for years- naively, Evershine countered back to the City Council that
it's own financial woes were to blame for the stalling of their construction efforts; this naive arrogance on the part of the
applicant was precisely why the past City Council conditionally imposed a performance bond be purchased
by Evershine to insure the timely completion of the last phase of redevelopment of the Marketplace shopping center- this
completion or performance bond was a first in our city's history as I recall; this bond action promoted sound and timely
development as a result.
During several community group meetings with Kevin Dare of Sand Hill Properties, constituents discussed bonding Sand
Hill as a condition for the vacation of Finch Ave.; bonding was not considered to be an imposition on the project,
if support from the community was behind the project, but I would allow Mr. Dare to fully explain his own view on
bonding.
The vacation of Finch Ave. and bonding could also be linked to the overall"phasing"of the entire project build out; either
for building it all at once, or phased in smaller parcels, but I would leave that decision up to the developer who knows his
company's financial situation and future tenants needs far better then the general public or even the City council might,
with all due respect, but I would like to see the retail component and public areas (public park and the public square) built
as soon as possible and not be contingent on any other aspect of the project, like the parking garage, office buildings,
senior housing or the hotel and associated amenities.
A performance bond can and will provide the same motivations and guidance to Sand Hill and the Main Street project
while also protecting the public's greater interest, insuring their vacated public land and street infrastructure is not lost by
incompetence or negligence on the part of the applicant and then leveraged to destroy future retail development in the
South Vallco area.
A performance bond should be supported and proposed by the entire city council as part of the vacation of Finch Ave's
public right of way; if Sand Hill can't perform in a timely manner or financially defaults for any reason, our resident's of
Cupertino will get back there public right-of-way AND any demolished street infrastructure replaced at actual cost by Sand
Hill alone- not by OUR public tax dollars-in example; the acreage, the road bed and its current alignment, median and
plantings, street trees, lighting, gutters and signage- everything should be bonded for there full current replacement
value.
I have some concern that our city officials might attempt to improperly vacate Finch Ave. before the City Council has
first resolved all of the newly proposed and confusing modifications to the Main Street Project and doing so while
those modifications are under our public's supervision, which can only be done at properly advertised public hearings
being held in there proper sequence.
Please concur with the city attorney as to the proper sequencing of the vacation of Finch Ave in conjunction with the Main
Street application's final approval, so that application's final approval is what the street vacation will be ultimately be
legally tied to.
2
I hope you will impose a bond condition, either a performance, completion or surety bond of some sort, perhaps the city
attorney could offer suggestions of the bond types to apply and discuss them at the public hearings for the Vacation of
Finch Ave, as I know I will be asking for those options to be discussed at the hearings.
Please don't kill retail and office development in the South Vallco area due to unwanted interference from Apple; our
city spent a $100,000 of our tax payer's money to politely dialog with Apple about both the North and South
Vallco's entangled future. Apple would not elaborate openly on mitigating mutual impacts to all stake holders in both the
North & South Vallco area and in our community at large, specifically for housing impacts, so lets support Sand Hill today;
they have an application which has been before you for many years now.
Apple will have their own day: I have no fear of threats of Apple leaving if South Vallco is developed first, I do have many
fears if they stay, like Apple killing off local retail and office development in the South Vallco area out of pure corporate
zeal that answers to none of your constituents while also selfishly trampling our last hopes of a Main Street project in the
South Vallco area.
Thank you.
Keith Murphy
10159 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
CARe &CCC
3
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 4:45 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: FW: Vacation of Finch Avenue/May 1, 2012 City Council Meeting-Agenda Item#18
Attachments: Finch Avenue .pdf
From: Darrel Lum [mailto:drlumpacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 4:36 PM
To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; City Council
Cc: Amy Chan; Carol Korade; Timm Borden; Aarti Shrivastava; Aki Honda
Subject: Vacation of Finch Avenue/May 1, 2012 City Council Meeting-Agenda Item #18
Mark Santoro, Mayor
Orrin Mahoney, Vice Mayor
Barry Chang, Council Member
Rod Sinks, Council Member
Gilbert Wong, Council Member
Amy Chan, Interim City Manager
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Please see attachment regarding comments on the vacation of Finch Avenue for the Mainstreet Cupertino project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Darrel Lum
1
VACATION OF FINCH AVENUE
Some other vacation of public right of way:
Olive Drive
Olive Avenue was vacated between 10230 Imperial Avenue
(Cupertino Supply) and 10280 Imperial Avenue (Imperial Automotive:
There is a nearby current cell phone tower in the area at 1 021 8/1 022
Imperial Avenue, on roof
Sprint
Nearby cell phone tower in former Measurex (2011 )
AT&T
Cell phone tower in Jollyman Park (2012). During discussion that it
was noted that current market leasing rate for a cell phone tower is
$10,000 per month.
Poppy Avenue (2003)
Murano project by Prometheus and Centex.
Two single family homes on Poppy Avenue
Restricted width of Poppy Avenue.
2004 Agenda Item #23 Poppy Way
The costs for acquistion of right of way, removal of the existing
curb, gutter and sidewalk and installation of new improvements
range from approximately $300,000 to $500,000.
It was subsequently determined that the public/city received the
right of way on Poppy Way as part of the project approval.
As a result the removal of the new existing curb, gutter and
sidewalk installed by the Murano project and installation of new
improvements was $80,000.
Mary Avenue (2010)
The City was asked to vacate a portion of the public right-of way
on Mary Avenue for the Mary Avenue Senior Housing project at no
cost and to prepare the site for construction. Memorandum of
Understanding denied on February 2, 2010.
Macy's Parking Lot (2011 )
The city was asked to vacate of the City's air rights and
subterranean rights to property APN 316-20-088 without any
consideration. Postponed on July 5, 2011 . No further action to
date.
Finch Avenue
Silicon Valley Business Journal
$66.1 million / 17.4 acre = $3.798851 million per acre
Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners 9/5/08
Finch Avenue Vacation: 56,492 sf = 1 .3 acre
Estimate
1 .3 acre x $3.798851 million per acre = $4.938505 million for Finch
Avenue
We support the vacation of Finch Avenue if it results in the substantial
community benefits of the construction of Mainstreet Cupertino Town Square
and its surrounding roadway and Stevens Creek Blvd. and Vallco Parkway
entrances and exits, public access and their maintenance by the property
owners.
However, since the 2009 approved Mainstreet Cupertino project has been on
hold and the present modification has requested a 5 year extension, there may
be some concern regarding its completion. Therefore, some conditions may be
necessary such as:
If Mainstreet Cupertino does not proceed, a right of first refusal for the City to
re-acquire the Finch Avenue property for the same consideration as it was
vacated.
If the existing Finch Avenue improvements have been removed partially or
completely and the project is unable to be completed, there should be a
bond to restore Finch Avenue to its existing state and function as a public
right of way or to complete the Town Square and its surrounding roadway
and the Stevens Creek Blvd and Vallco Parkway entrances and exits.
Thank you for your consideration of the above.
Darrel Lum