CC Exhibit 11-18-2014 Oral Communications ����� l�Y
. �-�-� .
Xiaowen Wang
� 20010 De Palma Ln., Cupertino,CA 95014
Nov. 18, 2014
City Councils of Cupertino
Dear council members,
As a Cupertino resident, I am writing to you to urge you dismiss the very flawed school report which the EIR
is based on and all the subsequent GPA recommendation based on the current version of EIR.
All the data or statements I am going to discuss here are all from the Appendix F of EIR, School Enrollment
and Fiscal Impact Analysis
(http�//www cut�ertinogpa orq/files/manaQed/DocumenU210/AppendixF PublicServices.qdf). Based on this
analysis, EIR finally concludes that the current GPA and Housing Element proposal has LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT impact on schools. However, this analysis is fundamentally flawed.
1. The school enrollment number is significantly underestimated.
There are some interesting analysis of factors that affect enrollment in section 4.2.3. Enrollment from All
Housing. In which, employment is identified as one of major factor that drives up enrollment. The report even
uses Apple Campus 2 which has about 2,800,OOOsf OffICe SpaCe as an example. Hawever, in this report
that supposes to estimate the school enrollment impact by GPA which includes 4,040,231sf office space,
completely ignores this factor but uses only enrollment numbers generated by new housing projects.
How could this report ignore the major enrollment impact factor itself identifies?
Moreover, there is an interesting statement in the same section talking about the possible singles live in
proposed housing project or even live in more hippie SF's future plan.
��Yet the preferences of these young employees are likely to change as they age, have families, have less
interest in San Francisco activities, and have an increased aversion to the time spent in commuting. The
quality of local schools will influence their choice of housing location. It is also likely that the average income
of these employees would be adequate to afford housing in Cupertino. This would create demand by young
families for housing in the Cupertino District. However, there is no factual basis on which to quantify with
accuracy the extent of change it may bring to student generation. "
So the truth is that all these single hippies will become parents one day. A lot of them would like to live in
Cupertino. The low SGR used in the report might be true for a while, it would not stay true. We can not just
cover our eyes and not plan for it.
2. The logic and presentation of data is biased.
Even we accept the enrollment projection as it is now, the logic and data presentation is severely biased.
The major argument for LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT is that the enrollment increase caused by the new
housing project is just a small percentage of the overall enrollment projection. For example, CUSD is going
to have 12,511 students in elementary school by 2040 but only 899 come from the new housing project. But
, if you take a close look at the data in the report, e.g., Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 (summarized in
https�//docs aooQle com/spreadsheets/d/1T6urxEaoWv8172iwwx5eTrqkOERYZaLrlvsOzDPIkF8/edit?usp=sh
arin4), you would find basically, without the new housing, by 2040 elementary school enrollment will be
down by 189, therefore all the enrollment increase are coming from proposed housing element. In some
schools such as Collins, 274 out of 309 enrollment increase is coming from new housing project.
How could we say the impact is marginal when in some schools almost all the enrollment increase is
coming from the new housing project? The only way to say this is to distribute housing units evenly at
every school's attendance area, which is not what GPA is proposing.
The report also does acknowledge the fact that our schools are already very stressed now. Then to use the
logic that since it is already bad, it is ok to make it a little worse is simply disgusting.
3. Not all school impacts are addressed.
In section 2 School Facility Standard, standards on classroom, other building, land area and accessibility are
introduced. It is then acknowledged that a lot of our school is overstressed on all the areas, not only we have
more than state recommended potables (27% vs. 20% in elementary schools now) but also as noted in
section 4.2.1 Housing Projection,
"Some educational support facilities-cafeteria/general purpose spaces, administrative offices, support
classrooms for music/art or for students with targeted needs, playground space and facilities, etc. -are also
below standard.��
However, in section 4.4.3 Facility Improvement Plan, only one improvement option is discussed, i.e.,
building a two story classroom building. In this section, the report make the statement that the mitigation fee
from the projects is far from enough to build any new school and Table 4-15, shows 5 schools now already
lack of land area which include Collins that is going to be hit big by the new housing projects. But instead of
suggesting expansion plans to address this issue, it is just used as an argument to go for a two story
building instead of more portables.
How could the impact on school be evaluated as LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT if at least 2 out of 4
facility standards can not be met?
In summary, this report is inaccurate, incomplete and biased. I would strongly urge council members not
vote for the GPA based on this EIR. Moreover, this report is only part of one appendix of total nine
appendices of this 6 chapter EIR. I don't know how many such errors exist in other part of the EIR. Please
go back and carefully examine the EIR and other consultant reports. I also urge you to look into the
background of the consultants working for this GPA and make sure they are objective. We are talking about
potential billion dollar 10 year project here, please be responsible for all the current and future
Cupertino residents.
Sincerely yours,
��� �
,_ .___
Xiaowen Wang
c � i► /�����
. . � r�-�-��
San Diego : 172 page, Bicycle Master Plan
By Alta Transportation Consulting
_ ___ ___ Goals:
. ,. ,
_ _ _ __ ____- ---
PLAN REPORT
CITYOFSAN DIEGO 1. Promote, Increase & Improve Bicyc e
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Transportation
� 2. Increase the Benefit of Bicycling
��_� �,�� ��.
y . �� ���
.� ��p-�- Ob�ectives:
Table 5.i
Bikeway Facilities Cyclists Prefer 1. M a ke a 20-yea r b i cyc I e m a ste r p I a n
What ty�e of bike�uay jacrlity do you prefer?
Response Total � 2. Implement a logical network
f-streeY paths 44 48.9�
Qn-street Lanes 3$ aZ.z� 3. P rov i d e f o r b i cyc I e a r k i n
Oo-street neighborhoad routes 8 8.9�C
TOTAL 40
s. J� 4. Promote education and awareness
"�b 5. Increase government and public
■Wnwrns abou[safety
-- ■l.ick of bikeway fadlilies
���;W�°ads °NE�e�"°��e'„��a«ess recognition of bicyclists equal rights to
� ���'�ty OWeatheddarkness
Rack of bike parking/storage
�
°`„'1PfP1O° public roads
Source: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/transportation/pdf/bicyclemasterplan.pdf
Dangerous Intersection Report:
� J � "�
_ __ *.+� �� 7
�� � ��
y�� 6d �
.11�._ � �`�'�``� r ;
l , . :�#� t � `�, -
Y� ^� ,�e, s'.
�� . .. .. � .. ' ;:
�.' �
c-`^;
�,-.�'� � ����,"��i�t.`� ..s� �•f
�.�� 'y< �,- � /
� ,
�
,;y' _yR � � Jl�
i� �tr ��m � � ��p,—,v,��,p ,1� ;p.
.. MI ^ .+T 1 ^�.� •��. .' "`-�" '� .
.Y�.���' .`,y . ' . .. �.
p� ta� i
Y- ��p��• � - .
. . ��,.'i " '
.
�. � qa {e��
. „
� - . �4 � `',� . .
� 4�
�, � � _
. ,, ..� ; t .
.
� .� � . _ ��.�
. : - -
. .. . �,
. ,, .. . A,. ,�-
. .
.�
. � . -
.: �;
E �
� .
� : ��. �
�� -1�a� - ■ ,�.,,�`� , � �� ��°: „�� � �>
�.��,h � a11' / .�-.� � F� �' .
s
.
�� �. ♦ �.� . � .%+ S-i �• •''�l�.�r'�
.
.. . .�:x r
i�' ' ' �� �•' ` �n'q;, �.
. � . . �� �l . £ - � .
y�� . . � ._�V � � � �, �
`T� . .. � � � . � � *. yyy� �
- , • y �) "�{y_ �'<�'
`��
�
� � � . �� c� j_ ...' i��.Y�
3G
.
_ y� y
� .� .J < . A' . "4!'w
� ' , . � ''- �M1 i
� ` �
`�'1fy4`�'� � O � ti�. ��� �.�w�, . �q� F.�'�, '
Y�
m g
a � `� ! y �
�, . .* p ._ ''���� ' h� ������{�„��"� ,xC�
K
+ y .:�.r , . ,�rif '':" ?.,�L;. , �� _ ..d.,.: x�� �
•� '�,. ' .t i '� '9�� A�s�" � , y 71�� �I �� �
,
.
.
�, w• _;. :� .e
.
�
... .. �
,,. Y . ., • " �,,�g '� > ^"a'°j1�t. 71� ' S"�. '�. 4
. i �' �w - e - :ol �
M . � ., . ... .., ' �a ei� ��'- -- � � ..s.,�rr� �• .',� , x
a . . - . .� ..: �
, '. � _ .. Q '. ; ''_ ■� q �F
_ f �
�r , r � a �.
�
:�
� �
. i �c�r F'' � r i I ��.
�i�5 >.u!'M�'�, �► i �fi-` � � �, 5�� �,..
!' <t � �"�
,
.
` :
- �.-� di �.
, .
,. ,
_l� '�'`, s �-
� af .
„ , . , � ` �
. � ,
„�, . , -
.r, w; � k., . „ ��. •
.' .�a�°„ .w�tel� � .a� . -�' ;r � � , A .,,�,`
.
_ ,
-" � �` ,�`� .� _ �p
_:
- -�. r.= � � �: -
' _,. �. ':
_
=_ - —�`'�- _ _._.' � _ �-�_ ,r_ w ._ .,._
('�r� rar�'t �P� arna,�nr� �-nrn�
� -� ,� � � �¢ x�
�
�� _,£�
_�.. �`� �`-� � _ =_��f�''-"���.r �-- �"' �-�
Examples of Priority Projects & Budgeting:
Table 6.2
Top Priority Proposed Bikeway Projects Project 1: Bicycle Parking Program
Class StreeUPath From To Mileage Cosc Descinations • Existing Problem:Lack of bicycle parkin;in some commercial districts,
schools,parks and civic locations
II ath Avenur Grape Slreet IS Freeway
II 3i°Avenue Laurel SVeet I-5 Freeway Commercial and
• Estimated Cost: $500.000 for ten years
3.00 $70,000 Retail,Destinations,
III 4th Avenue Washmgton SVeet Grape Street Uptown,Hdlcrest
iIl 5th Avenue Washington Street 15 Freeway ' �-'�^ �
II Park Boulevord I-S Freeway Upas Street Balboa Park.San � �
��.,.
III Park Boulevard Upas Street Adams Avenue Diego Zoo,Hillcrest. , �
a
UnNersity Helghts.
III Adams Avenue Park Boulevard Van ke Avenue "-�*1W^'
�' Old Trolley Barn � � �
III Aldfne Drrve Adams Avenue Monroe Avenue 8.75 $137,500 Par1c,Normal '. � � -
Heigh[s,Adams �� ' � � � �
III Monroe Avenue Aldme Dnve Collwood Boulevard � ;� ,, �" �„�-""°r `-
Avenue Park, � - �` �, . y �
n� EI Ca�on BoWevard 54th Street Montezuma Road Kensington,Coflege r� -
III EI Ca un Boulevard 70th Street La A9esa cit limit Area ��� � -
II Island Avenue I-5 Freeway 28th SUeet `��` "'c'`
u Market SVeet 32nd Street 40th SVeet �'� - ' - �- �
II Market Street 42nd Street I-805 Freeway 355 $115.000 �entre Ciry,Euchd
Trolley S[r�tion
Ili Island Avenue 28[h Street 32nd Street Figures 8.1 3 and 8.14
ui Market Street 1-R05 Freeway Eucl�d Avenue Bicycle"eLocke�s"
ii College Avenue Unroerslly Avenue ciry Ilmrt SDSII,Colle�e
45° $�5°°° CfOVe�,.,�� • Keyless, electronic, pay parking
Ili College Avenue Navajo Road l�niversiry Avenue
li 54th Street Trojan Ave�iue Euclid Avenue 325 S�22.500 College Area
iu Euclid Avenue S4th Street �Aarket SVeet
� Also recommended changing rooms
& washrooms in some locations.
All-in-all, a pretty world-class report
Recommendations with Priorities:
.. . ���� ��� � :. ...�: .. 5�����.�.
�Y ...: . �
.
.. ...
.... .
.. .
� . ,ay a 5 �
�.: � ,��' �� �� � : � r:���`� `�, a��
uture s t re
_ °^,�» ,.
� { y iF u;
�: -���, � r,
, - �k'- � -
- T .
.-. ,
, .` .-� ra..�
.. �v �� - , b t •• .. . .:��.
1� �
- 4` �
.. #__ � .:'�. .� dr ... ,.
9 ^Ty i'� � 7" ' Zq "i �� � ���� �,oc.ri �
4 _... �Y g� � �� ��a.'
� �t * �;._+•
� �� �4�r:,2 Q •�e Nern�:, ..
.• � . V-��� ,�'lr 1 to _K }.f �.�" ��
1 �
� �� . �2A/• �.i�i ��
, , . �
� •
,ti
_ � � ��.�mu �
_ ; � a
N -= • �EOENo
. • — .
' ,:r ��,.� ■ _ _ � •
; e •• . �_ _ /�/ F.� s . �
''�- ' � dK'��, 5 ; ■ ti'e•n-a,p /�/ � �r u� a
�yp�`�' /�/ EisGngu d::16
: ' .
�v;
1 1JCl f�� f� u TOK PnoriryP oPn ,.- .:.
� *- . - Tnp Pnanty Prc�c .. , ..
. � •
. �+� ` _ :_".. .�. _ ', , � Tap PtloriN Propo r r a ?�i .
_ g�, r
* ..:.,.. - - E..^*cY � ...... ���.�� .sM..r'� � 3,. •K � ToG Priunry Pruaonea Cia s:�� � o
,+ '• H� •�•� b � q � �= • , p ��.�' - CtherPraPa�dClas 1 91.ewa
� n � • .FY�P.�• E��°:. .
�Y..�� :.• -Ly __I�.,bl� �� i � �:� �., _. � . _ •1 _._. �IherPropofldC13a5�OfiRiL...
• � . '
.
G.'J...1� . • _r._...,..5!_ • �
•
._.�.. � _ ��•e
�.,m. * h. ,�� �:..s �• �� „ ,dr���o ' . . e:�. Exi�YingBicrckPar�inq� rf,�
.N���N � .. .
� A
� ��n.,.,.. .. �:�.,�:�� ..1Y�A�i�'� . v : � • .i ♦ �#�-._.n�. PmPosed6irydeFarY �
� ,
• -. � ��� .. � . , �.- k+r,rrme�. s �* r�� . Exi4rgAmenrtv�� li
y i va �.
� • . . � ' � ,/�R � _ q�' � .• �� �^ San G e�o rn-i . _:��u
�` � a � c,y� . 4LJ • � � w .o.,m.::,.• "
ar� � _
x � C_py,Spr C mmu>r F.
,� _ � h "i ,, .• ...�..� �F : *, � and 7Yat n
� ' '� �p y''i •+ . ■ Prouo9erJr ..it:�='ir'
'�� . � � *" � ... . 't � aP � . o�e9e F'.9f�.9 1 F
•� �i� I . y _ 4 � � r��• ...,.,� ol��.e9as�i i .�
*'_. ��.1' F��., . ��� W �1ndiJfr . i._
�. } �,u�C+r i � rN_
: ���y � ::�'� � .
* -ir t e��rr�_
�",m�.� ��;� . .•��, ���, .� Pan�.
",��'�'�:��.' . ...�.m,i.. . . . ��.� �_ � _
Existing Conditions Map :
- - --- _ -- _ __`.� _ _
_ � _ _ -- ___ �y� _
� � �
� ,�.�>.�,`�,
�-'
.w� � � ' �,�"�
�
�
��:� ��� � A,''�' �, i
'� . + �a � * .:� �e' � 'yu+�a,� :•9 r fi
f
� t �� n* kLe3, ��
�.'� ,�'� _' P1bow rt �
�. � * /
Q't � _ �
�� �. a�b"" ^ � � �3 ��
, �" � �
.�� � '-� .r '�><; €
� �
� - �i� � `sa.
� � _ �v `?�P�e
_,. � .. ;._ y� * �. �,�- i��� .r�
�& . .� � .... �,� �� �' �� „ _ `A'' �f'n
� � � �ti
_ � � � � .`q �
� ' _ �� �
,;
� � • �_� _
. ::,. T � � � : - d'4'::w�.
�`�'"£,`' b . � _:r�� ���i� � ' '._
` _ LEGEND
e„«.m,
� pr� �it Fi �v Existing Class 1 Bikeway
�, , �r, ��,a Ne�,d Y Y N Existing Class 2 Bikeway
� : � _,� —_ � �
" ` ^ Ae o^� ,*- ' N ExisRing Class 3 Bikeway
�e��, 1�9 _ � E�uaa� �; Existing Bicycle Parking Facility
,
�— .��.�,� . . � _
�. .� �ak �r ....w,
*.�,�, � ,-. ,,a � 6cisting Shower and Locker Facilifj
m. , ��,� . H>.�„� i o�..,
,�u�n�, .., _.. , _ -. . �;�{.. .
,,,,,�,,, , �^„' _ W r San Diego Tro aRd Sation
� ,<��' ley
�� •�� . . � . ,r;�,,,ud: ........ *.. C er a�
� ^vn - - - � a aester Commut
� • and StaCon
°. �. w"'°" a�5�i., .� �yt ,iF„ � ., w m.,-.ac.. * Park-and-Ride
'�i . .. . :�:;.
� a � E � CollegesNniversities
3 �b s * - a �, c���.,90 lei Stadiums/Pvenas
1 n
1� �- � �� a 'I •,^•� l4rports
r� He.m, � y�� ;� � � ��� �
\ * .. .�� � ; * ActiviNCenteis
\ " �; � �..�°''� Parks
- �.__>'� .�:z E �� �r�az�.�
Usage Trends Ta61e 5.4
Bicycle Counts in San Diego
I lumber of Bicyctists (6-9 am, 3-6 pm) Percentage Change
Location 1987 1990 1993 1997 1987-1990 1990-1993 1993-1997 1987-1997
Laurel St 1 6th
A�e 152 162 107 99 6.6% -3�.t� -7.5� -34.9%
Harbor Dr / Ferry
Landing 116 222 tg4 197 91.4� -10.4% -1.�D� 69.8�
Imperial Ave !
Euclid Ave 68 71 58 36 4.4% -18.39� -37.9% -47.1%
Howard Ave /
Idaho St 104 1 13 70 42 8.7� -38.1� -�40.0� -59.6�
Harbor Dr / 28th
Street 1�6 137 95 93 -6.2�'0 -30.7� -2.1� -36.3`?a
Paradise Valley
Rd / Woodman St 49 66 35 18 34.7� -47.0� -48.6� -G3.3%
Camino de( Rio
S�uth /
Fairn�ount Ave 20�1 195 66 3�# -�.4� -66.2� -48.5� -83.3%
Montezuma Rd /
Cotlege Ave 1175 712 495 342 -39.4� -30.5% -30.9'� -70.9�
Torrey Pines Rd 1
Genesee Ave 330 20� 175 i 92 -37.6�0 -15.0°� 9.7� -�1.8�
East Mission Bay
Dr / Clairemont
Dr 290 2iJ5 9�3 15�# -24.3% -5�.1% 63.8% -46.9�
Balboa Ave I
Genesee Ave 344 138 72 81 -59.9� -47.89� 12.5� -76.5�
Rose Canyon Bike
Path / Gitman Dr 209 227 196 129 8.6% -13.7�'0 -34.2� -38.3°5
Black Mountain
Rd /
Mira Mesa Btvd 265 234 134 136 -9.8% -43.9% 1.5`� -48.7�'0
TOTAL 3,615 2,785 1,862 1,632 -23.0°� -33.1°� -12.496 -54.9%