CC Exhibit 03-17-15 Item #Oral Communications CC
PEAK DEMOCRACY „t j
�-itiv/LIn
HOME i INFO SIGN 114 0 HELP
What are your views about the draft Community Benefits Program, and about
building planes?
Feedback
Demogr4hics Map 3.rrva:xe
Summary
Q1. Which of the following best describes you?(select all that apply)
Response Response
Percent Count
I am a resident of Cupertino 83.2% 257
1 worklstudy in Cupertino 18.1% 56
1 own a business in Cupertino 7.1% 22
own property in Cupertino 28.2% 87
am frepresenta developer ( �'
Other
L2iing plane do you prefer for the south side of Homestead Road, between linnet Lane and Swallow '
Response Response
Percent Count
ing plane(similar to other areas in 33.4%i lane(current r ui t 1.9% i ei0
None of the above 5.2% 15
1 don't understand the question t 1.0% j
1 prefer not to answer the question 8.4% Zh
Q3. Which building plane do you prefer for the forth side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, between Perimeter Road
and Tantau Avenue?
Response Response
Percent Count
1 prefer a 1:1 building plane 31.9% 97
I prefer a 1.5:1 building plane 50.0% 152
None of the above 7.2% 22
I don't understand the question 0.7% 2
I prefer not to answer the question 10.2% 31 -
Q4. Do you have additional thoughts, ideas or comments about building planes along Cupertino's major streets?
Answered :54
Skipped :257
Stevens Geek plane 1 1 5 example+wy buildings building t atl;fde Homestead»w th think street pta a more C.uWIno from homes took space trees larger set
back parking setback high
Sh,-Answr.
inn Stevens Creek the plane should be kept at 1:5:1 to be in line with the area you showed as an.exartnp(e. That area is very nice and especially
watkabte and f-",7177-777-
First,the pictures were pk)Or(y chosen,which causes confusion.It would have been better similar type buildings for both cases,rather than a
stairstep building in the 1:1 example and a shear building in the 1:1.5 example.Second,wouldn't it have helped if you had provided some
background as to why you are even asking these questions in locations that already have approved building pians and will be completed as designed
within a year. Le,most all of its assume that the south side of Homestead Rd. in the section indicated is part of Apple Campus 2;has existing,
approved design,so why would you be asking about this stretch at all?Very confusing.Similar comment for rhe North side of Stevens Creek between
Wolfe and Tantau,which once Main St. is completely will be fully developed. I assume that I am not the ontv one confused here;so would�
YOU wilt clarify the confusion,improve the questions/exp(anation/examples and give us another chance to provide feedback.
In some cases the 1:1 would be appropriate
1 think it really depends on the project.Overall,given Stevens Creek is a major thoroughfare,I would be ok with 1:1 given the objective in
improving street presence and incorporating sidewalks and projects.
The building platys should be varried otherwise everything looks like building blocks
ovt r arP vnr,r mans for eutra z and partes?1 see only more business buildings:,remember Cupertino is not an industrial estate,it's home to
rr>an . Apple and few companies around which is now there is enough.
And mimiruan 75 ft setbacks
The south side of Homestead Road is across from private residences,and I think 1.5:1 is a better baLwice visually to the hones across the street
when traveling along Homestead Rd.The north side of Stevens Creek Blvd is across from other businesses of similar height.
Allowing taller looking buildings(1:1 building planes)along specific main streets will give Cupertino a more impressive look.As it stands right now,
the tow profile took of the city makes it incredibly unmemorable for visitors.
I prefer a suburban took to a more city took.
The city appears to be allowing substantia(increases in residential units.Commercial space would provide more tax revenue with a lesser impact to
our schools and city services.Adding too many apartment units as opposed to town homes or even condominiums also degrades the city
Do not build on North side because it will block the sun on the homes to the north.
From the photos the 1.5.1 budding plane just looks so much more pleasant and aesthetically pleasing.
The best of Cupertino major streets was used to be Wolfe street between Homestead and Vattco Matt.The nice pari wclj the big beautiful trees a
long sidewalk and green£zdecorated divider.
The tatter the building,the larger Ow set back should be-I chose 1.5:1 because I think that generates the larger set back, if i mis understood and
the 1:1 creates the larger set back,then I would change my answer to 1:1
in order to allow for design flexibility.Vattco should not be subject to either of the 1.5:1 or 1:1 building plane standards.
Generally,more set back is preferred.
i wish to preserve Et extend the tree avenues as welt as the large offset between the sidewalks and the street.Where building densities will greatly
increase I would to see sidewalk widths increased.
i think more set back is needed,and space for side road, trees and greens are much appreciated.
Add additional space for more parking and tum in space
i think that building planes along Stevens Creek Boulevard should be allowed to be more steep(e.g.,0.75:1)to allow for a more urban,pedestrian-
friendly feet.
Safety first for pedestrians,bikes,enough space for parking Easy access for emergency personnel
How about a 1;1 bu(ding plan with a SU fool setback so peoptecam.n_walk or cycle?Be sure to provide plenty of parking both onstreet and on tots.Be
especially sensitive to the Sunnyvale homes on the North side of Homestea y concern is there little concem concer,nimg residential fomes,
churches,or other room for the fulfilling our human needs other than shops,restaurants,work .No recreation,privacy,worship places,or non
commercial areas.
I don't think we need more congestion in Cupertino,
I did NO v my residence in Cupertino tmpirtq that the city would change from a quiet suburban residential area into a high poputaiton-density
r '
city of high-rises. _ _-
The tatter a building the great the setback needs to be,A wider setback would accommodate dedicated sidewalks and bike Lanes as well as
landscaping.All our setbacks on commercial roads should be 1.5.1 in my opinion.
Buildings should be as unobtrusive as possible.
I don't find I Ithat the 1.5:1 Building Plane Example matches the Building Plane Diagram The Exar apte shows the building straight up,there is nri slope
as shown i the diagram.
no
please keep Cupertino's charm and beauty by not over bu'
No more commercial buildings!
My response assumes adequate(preferably undergroimdi parking is included in all pians so as to have a zero impact on existing businesses and
residences.
I don't understand how there could be an advantage of a 1:1 plane over the 1:5:1. The 1:5:1 plane has a larger setback,permitting more vegetation,
and does not rise as steeply,avoiding the feeling of being inside an'urban canyon'.
I view these as more'core'areas,meaning they are furdyer away from freeways and nearer residential areas.
I like the 1.5:1 because it opens up the sidewalk,and seems to allow for both walking and room to landscape,or place benches or patios.
More setback is preferred.Otherwise,the street will look too crowded and realty ugly.
Keep all existing building plane ratio.No increased and changed!
+N►
No
No
50 feet setback definitely desired.
Street-side buildings should be well set back so they do not appear so monstrous.
Please be considerate of the surrounding neighbors when thinking about heights and planes.We all have the right to conserve the privacy that we
bought our houses with. Please don't make our city took tike a concrete jungle.
t think that current building planes are suitable for Cupertino to reduce the intensity of the development
With all the constructions(apartments and office buildings tike apple)area in and around the Wolfe and Stevens Creek.near Cupertino High School
is becoming very crowded during school start and end Burs and traffic is becoming very bad.We should not be concentrating alt development
around the same place.
I think the wide boulevard with targe set-backs and targe mature trees is important to the Cupertino feet and experience.That makes sidewalks
also well set-back from the street for a more pleasurable walking experience. 4K
The setback of the building from street is very essentiat to maintain a suburban style.Rosebowl is one example of how the building should not be
a�p��ved,There rs no patch of green or setback in the Rosebowl complex..how was it even approved?Any mixed used development needs tohave
enough parking and green space. People(Tye in California to enjoy the natural sun all year around and not to get cooped inside a building.
NO increase on!wilting height and NO community benefits.
NO increase on building height and NO community benefits.NO re-zone.
For all Cupertinds major streets,there needs to be AT tEAST1.5:i building plane and plant more trees.
I prefer a target setback so the street won't took too crowded.
No
No high density buildings at all
no high density building....awe trees
• _ _ _ 7
Q5. Do you think a Community Benefits program would be beneficial to the City and commun y.
espouse Response
Percent count
66.5% Z06
Yes
30,6% 95
No
0.6% 2
i don't under_ d the question iJ>
1 would prefer t to answer n question
Q6. Should the City require ground floor retail stores as a required component for any bu ding requesting
additional height under the Community Benefits Program?
Response Response
Percent Count
- 21-0% 65
Yes
62_.6% 194
No
' 2.6% 8
I don't understand the question
I prefer not to answer the question
Q7. Please rank the following categories of community benefits in order of preferenc .
Average priorities over 311 responses
1. Parks/Recreation
2. Transportation enhancements(sidewalks,bike lanes,etc.)
3_ Community services(e.g.,teen center,library branch,etc.)
4. In-lieu fee to City te.g.contribution towards school in-V overnents or affordable housing)
Q8. Which parks and recreation amenities are the most need- 1n Cupertino and c be included in a community
benefit program?
Response Response
Percent Count
Regional parks and trails ® s 15.5% 47
Neighborhood parks � 24.3% 74
organized sports courtslfacitities ■ 4.9% 15
Pocket parks/tot tots i r 3.6% 11
All of the above C 26.3% 80
None of the above 9.2% 28
1 don't understand the question
1 prefer not to answer the question 15.1% 46
Q9. Which transportation amenities are the most needed in Cupertino and ca be included in a community
benefit program?
Response Response
tiai�cettt Golant
9.1% 28
A new community bus shuttle
Better citywide traffic management 17.3% 53
More bike lanes 6.896 21
More parg near stores 6.8% Zi
kin
Better sidewalks and crosswalks 6.8% 21
Traits 4.6% 14
25,1% 77
All of the above
None of the above
I don't understand the question
1 prefer not to answer the question 14.3% 44
. Q10. Which com unity services are the most needed in Cupertino and can be iric ud d in a community benefit
program?
Response Response
Percent Count
Public art centers/Museums 10.9% 33
Recreation Center 12.2% 37
Library branch 11-6% 35
Teen center i Z_6% 8
Senior center 3.6% 11
All of the above Z2.8% 69
None of the above 18,2% 55
I don't understand the question I 1.0% 3
I prefer not to answer the question 17.2% 52
Qi 1. Which of the following options could be included in a project as part of a mmunity benefit program?
Response Response
Percent Count
Land set aside for uses such as a park or other public
facility 28.1% 85
Providing building space in a project for a public facility 7.6% 23
such as space for a City program,school program,etc_
All of the above 27.4% 83
None of the above 14.9% 45
I don't understand the question ' 1.3% 4
1 prefer not to answer the question 16.2% 49
Other ■ 4.6% 14
Q12_ Should developers have the option of paying an in-lieu fee for communil benefits?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 57-3% 177
No 35.0% 108
1 don't understand the question ' 1.3% 4
1 prefer not to answer the question 6.5% 10
Q13. Do you have any additional thoughts, ideas or comments about the po ti I Community Benefits Program?
Answered :90
Skipped 221
CO m m U n i ty benef its zoninS Developers parks services development general buitd Cupertino into developer additional lieu fees able
building than residents want area They around schools more height parking jnaiev which tike traffic program wch chat wFed benefit do above allow All out
current people buildings bettei school don t so plan exceptions increased think good housing Get from feel way eery bury any s mut space problems please laws
rr Hide Answers
Community benefits are kickbacks for violating zoning codes.Developers must be required to meet codes no gotiation after the fact.The city
should negotiate parks and community services as part of the a opment agreement for development within existing codes.
For QiZ and in;erierat,at this time it seems that rant developer-.are diooling at the chance to build in Cupertino.Before discussing community
benefits,the bar for entry into discussion needs to be raised. i.e., the aper should pay additional in lieu fees just for being able to develop
here not for building higher than the majority of residents want in this area. These in-lieu fees should begin at seven figures and scale with the size
of the project. They should be prioritized toward improving public safety infaround our schools.
Not sure about in-lieu fees,but 1 believe they tend to be an easy fix for developers who want more height nor no parking and money can be put into
a slush fund which is hard to track
t':i}uncomfortable with this w1ho(e idea.It feels tike an'official method"for developers to'bribe'the City for entidemerits!approvals that they
would not otherwise be able to gain.Without a sound.forward looking traffic improvement program,the City should resist developer desires for
greater employment and/or residential densities. Community Benefits Programs make such resistance potentially more difficult.
I answer yes to k12 only if city councillstaff identifies what the fee is directed towards prior to approval.
Need to ensure community benefit actually does improve or provide a benefit to the Communityi do not view'for profit_'retail stores as a benefit
to the community.It should be something the comrnurity needs and wants.
The questions above did not allow for multiple choices other than All of the above.On Qt2 there should be an option for an in lieu fee but it should
be at the discretion of the city not the developer.
We will vote out current council people if they assume we agree with adding height to buildirms.Keeping growth down when we have water issues is
also mportant.We have limited natira resources and did not move here to 'roe m a city!
No
The business buildings that we have in Cupertino is enough and lets make it better by making it more livable rather than into a concrete jungle
Yes they should and these fees should be used to increasetimprove impacted scoots or to purchase land to open a new school-
Q8 i should be something we can multi select on rather than one or a((.For example,with Q9 i don't want more parking near stores--but I want
everything related to better pedestrian and bike options.
In lieu of fees but at a higher rate so the developer will not always choose in lieu fee. The city world be able to handle the additional cost to plan
and build
No building height exceptions,make developers stay within the current requirements.No public benefits for increased heights.
I think it would be good to add low income senior housing and low income family Musing.Student housing near De Anza College would be good too.
Think Cupertino needs to took more closely at what other neighbor communities are doing in this area.We should not be in competition with out
close neighbors.A more integrated approach would be helpful.
More building equates to more traffic and congestion.Get people off the road with better trartsportation exdusbve for Cupertino.Mountain View is
��..�.
offering shuttle services to various places such as supermarkets and restaurants and shopping centers,not just shuttle stops.With the influx of
money Cupertino is getting from new development and Apple,why can't we get the same?Add better bike(apes so people feel safe with the
increased traffic and cars oil the road.
I do not believe that developers should be able to trade community benefits in exchator for additional heights.it was clear at the community
meeting that most folks feet that way too,sot is is a very ea ing survey. I only weighed in to the choices to ave a say if the end result is to allow
such manipulation of the general plan,
Set the height restrictions and stick to them.Don't allow developers to'buy'favors
"rte.
The proposed community benefits is a pittance. The value of our community schools,roads,paries,tibrary.and corrgntunity services are far higher
than any combination of the benefits listed above. I entered"I prefer not to answer the question'in places that 1 assumed my answer would be miss
represented.
Cupertino is a prosperous city does not need any additional services or facilities or funds couched as'Community Benefits'. There should be no
zoning changes or building code exceptions traded off for such benefits.Period.
Community benefit programs and in-lieu fees sound like was for deep-pocket developers to circumvent existing height limits. This would cause
more congestion,noise,and traffic for Cupertino,aspects which the"benefits°and'fees'cannot undo.
I am not in support of a Comm ity Benefits Program so I did not wish to answer many of the questions.
None of the community beriefiti programs offer enough details for Cupertino residents to understand the longterm of allowing developers to
bypass the current zoninglbuil ing requirements. I attended the workshop regarding community benefits in Februar,and was very disappointed that
there was very little information in that workshop about the tang term impact on traffic,school,and overall infrastructure.Until those details are
made very clear to all the Cupertino residents,it's much better to not to have such Community Benefits Program.
The questions are not framed clear enough.our concern is the overbuild of the city. To be clear.We against plans for multi units in the area
Community�er�fits program-has GPA should be rules and ideli to beLa&9eq and followed,not-
something for sale. it is city's job to enhance citys infrastructure and fund these projects through proper venue.Expecting developer to do t e right
thing is naive and irresponsible.
Increased building heights affect residents owlity of life in several ways: -increased enrollment in a fixed number of school campuses Increased
traffic and decreased air quarty-increased consumption of ma—tu rat resources like water Increased strain on city services like sheriff and Parks and
Recreation services-Decreased views of sky,trees and hills as the main roads becomes"concrete canyons"with watts of tall buildings.We dotiL
want increased building heights for all above concerns,in addition, there should always be a transparent process for any General Pian exception,
and public hearingfinput 7571777—
..
I am not very familiar about the coninxunicty benefits program in ternns of wl at cost we need to pay to set some benefits from the devet yrs-Out i
• do want to share m'v thoughts about it that we at! want-living in Cupertino to be pleasant and worthwhile,develop a high density office and
residential around Vaico area is not what I consider a.good development pian for this area:Vatco arca should remain as retail space,and that is
much needed function for Cupertino residents.
It is slot rfeht for chem to be able to Ret a special deviation because they can pay their way out.The residents have spoken already about the height
restrictions and set backs.
iniprove access to freeways
Cupertino needs more office and hotel space-if such development does proceed,I'd much rather see vertical construction in freeway adjacent
locations across the city than along Stevens Creek.Community Benefits should obviously result from any such vertical construction.At the February
4 workshop,our table stated the following priorities:(1)funxfing to schools,(Z)traffic mitigation, (3)park space.
we need adequate,affordable housing for non tech middle ctass people whio make the city run:teachers,retail ifoodservice employees,bankers,
librarians.sheriff!fire,city employees.We need more parking in retail areas!
1 ,uppcse the city may already charge propriety tax,any additional fees may be a burden, hould he viewed as opttona(or part of special Cat(for
donations or funding(hopefully short tern as needed)
Cupertino development can develop by hindering fast development.Instead wive the transportation problems such as a community wide shuttle
that can take residents,employees and visitors to all places such as tight rail,Kaiser,Cat Trans,medical facitities,grade and high schools,library,
employers,as welt as shopping such as Valley Fair.Solve school site expansion problems while the land exisits. Think�of li feel de�ms
find it easier to develop fast and get out rather than see how the people develop the uses.Planning details can hinder unintended consequences.
I would recommend talking to the Cupertino Librarian about stand-alone automated checkout machines in lieu of an additional branch due to
limited funding to staff a branch.
For affordable housing would be good,
Do not allow exceptions to the height requirements. Restrictions are there for a reason to enhance the livability of a community.Providing
developers the apt.to try our just dimunrstnes the atmosphere of the region and degrades our quality of life.By all means,charge developers
fees for any negative impact their construction will have.but don't let them get around the rules just because they have money to buy the city off.
tun:funding to schools should be to help citizens of CUPFRTINO,not to the general student pope Cation,since many students are residents of other
cities that build housing in our school districts without regard to its impact on our ability to accommodate those additional students.
It should be a straight trade...the h her ymm development the more land you have to dedicate to open space,wider sidewalks, bike lanes,
underground parking as apposed to surface parking,and alternative transportation options.When funds go into the general fund unrestricted,
there's no telling what they will be use for.
Cupertino,on the far east side,between Mitten/Lawrence,Stevens Creek/Bollinger,has far less amenities than rest of the city.Would like to see
some improvement here.
I answered"i prefer not to answer the question"for several questions because I don't think community benefits are a good idea. if there are no
community benefits then the questions are irrelevant.
I do not.approve of a community Benefits Program and do not think developers should be,able to buy their way into General Plan changes.
In lieu fees are a cop-out for the d eloper and often are not used appropriately.
Cupertino gets a lots of funding frorr Apple,we should not exchange the building height for the developer's money. TheJ are way too many tall 8
ugly buildings in a small city like Cupertino.We DON'T LIKE MONSTER BUILDING,We DONT WANT MONSTER BUiLDING-
I voted question##5 because no flexibility is mentioned in allowing the height limit to be raised in certain of the listed areas BUT not allowed
in some of the areas.The danger of raising the limit in an area is making living conditions worse in that area;but if benefits(i.e.mitigation)is
allowed in another area,there is a disconnect there.
As a Cupertino residence,i care more about whether we would still en' thring in khis ci after 14,or 20 years, instead of how much the developer
would pay in exchange of m ing more profit.
Please secure public library,park,additional school site if Cupertino wants to expand more residential housing plan.Developers focus on their
profits and they will go once their profits in the pocket.City and residents have to live here forever-Please consider residents'benefits prior to
developers.
Parking spots need to be wider.Also,please do not allow the planting of any more Society Garlic(Tulbaghia vio(acea).ht's tow-maintenance and
pretty,but absolutely unacceptable because it makes it surroundings smell like skunk!
These usuat(y benefit the developers,not the residents(and certainly not the residents of the wrrounding cities)
Can Cupertino be bought?
One of the requirements should be that the cormmunity benefit program needs to be done first before any development starts,e.g if the community
benefit program is'more bice tans,better citywide traffic management etc."then this should be implemented and demonstrated that traffic is
better before any developiTient starts,
Please do not exts?rt money from builders or developers who are willing to invest in Cuperl ino bV using ttx lr own resources to crear_e housing aiid
businesses in Cupertino.
These surreys are poorly done.Some are single select as above,cant chose 2 areas of parks that need the most improvement,only"all"'crone"or a
single.Crazy survey-did any one test it first?Did you have a statistician took at it?I don't tent our city to make good decisions about changing the
height limits in retum for community benefit.
Shoutd not allow deep Pocket developers to work-around the city plans approved by citizens and their representitivet.
Trading hes ht f Cu rtino has provided dubious resider but has been profitable for developers-Palo Alto's version of
`community benefits"{"planned commmuve been hatted because of concerns of abuse.So-called'community benefits`areaway for buildings
to grow higher than the zoned height,and the benefit to the community is subject to the weak negotiations of the City.
we dolt need rommunity benefits.We don't watit devrlprrs to develop any more than currently allowed by the city code.We need to stick to
—
existing zoning as much as Possible.
The coormncnity benefits I checked above parks,transportation amenities,etc. -are things I iWlieVe the City needs,and t think the city should
insist on these as a condition for being permitted to(wild here:period. They should not be received as a reward for compromising on additional
height of buildings or reduced setbacks. That is saying,"We're fine with you building oversized urban canyons in our city,as tong as you pay us for
it."What is that worth, if we are left with a city that has lost space for Parks,gardens and views of the surrounding nourtains?New construction
near the Apple campus should be required to emulate and reflect what Apple is trying to do with its restoration of natural habitat,walking traits,
and trees.
I would rather not have the city overcrowded.
Think seriously about water use traffic school overcrowds over o ulation.Traffic from Apple is already an undesirable reality. Yes to water
wise wa ing traits,public safety,and our precious nature protection.Don't let moriey be your gold ng fight. Don't be like the city of Sunnyvale.
Follow the example of Saratoga.
Although in-lieu would give the Council much flexibility in using this income.I fear fund S$dilution.Better to have the developer BUILD whatever
we agree is important to us as beneficial to the community
m a bit concerned that an in-lieu fee would get lost,and rot directly benefit the residents of Cupertino in a way that would really offset the
problems associated with growth and increasing density.
I feetsitu that a formai Community Benefits program simply allows developers to their way into more he" ht and density,even if the
community doesn't want it.It encourages a se.The City can stilt have development agreements that include benefits to the community without
succumbing to the demands of developers to allow higher,denser construction because the City has already agreed to let them buy it in exchange
for"Community Benefits'-I AM NOi ACCEPTING THE DEFAULT PRIORITIES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT A COMMUNITY
BENEFITS PROGRAM iN CUPERTiNO.I AM DiAPPOINTEO THAT THE WAS OF THESE QUESTIONS IS IMPLYING THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY
BENEFITS PROGRAM,PERIOD.
iunity benefit is quite a misleading i arae.It will finally tum into developer's benefit.I hope city council to think it overd be very cautious
about using so-called community ne't. re us no way to accurately measure the negative effect of relaxed maximum hei t limitation,and ask
for a'community benefit'as return.
Follow existing ming laws,no community benefit program in exchange to increased height!No exceptions to our current zoning laws!
N
No
don't tike any of the choices in Q1 and would prioritize all of them 4/4 if I were given the option.I should have been able to check"None of the
above"for this question.Devet rs should rot be able to bu their way into chi es in the General Pian no matter how much money they throw
around.We still have to live in this city.
When people live in dense housing, they need open space like parks to decompress.Please require open green space for each dense housing building
that you approve,
No Cornmunity Benefit program. No exceptions to current zoning laws.
1 answered that 1 feel that we would not benefit from a community benefits Program.W�h�as�i�asked to�oswer Question about a p QNM I do not
feet should be in place?I answered with things I do feel would berrefit our community,but I do not believe they should be part of the program
described above.Ptease do not make exceptions to current zoning.
NO EXCEPTIONS TO CURRENT LONIN LA"NO COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGR4 ,.DEVELOPERS MUST ABIDE BY THE ZONING LAWS,NO EXCEPTIONS
BOUGHT WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS PQQ1;66�•
No community benefit program please!No exceptions to our current zoning taws
• It is not dear as to what alt romn+unity the benefitsare for. Is ft for the community surrounding the area of development or whole of CupeRi{w?
Also i think it will be wise to reduce traffic congestion arotoid the sdnoot areas,which given the current set of development at least around
Cupertino High school,will increase a tot.Not sure if any of the above community benefits can address any of that.
In general, i a i against commiwity benefits because it represents the laws as sl' sl s in which n o;d, o"but�the_ntsetyes'right to break �
law. The richer a developer,the utare he can t aw y o Bring community benefits.This is not the American waw which is equal
applicaiton of the law to all people.
Communit•Benefits program is a way of eiving developers a blank check to biAdiniz tatter buildings.Why have we seen so much traffic congestion
recently if t .-Impact from traffic of the new buildings and office occupants not shown much impact in the past.is the traffic impact report
accurate?We still dont have the new Apple campus or MainStreet opened for business yet.What measures have be taken to resolve the traffic
congestion that is bound to happen in 2016 when both these projects open up?City should not let developers do anything in the name of Community
r i
Benefits...,period!!
Your choices of community benefits are not enough to compensate for the proposed=In height requirements
Community Benefits would be good.
NO roti eaise ons building and NO conurunity benefits.
NO increase on buitdin height and No convnunity benefits_NO re-zone
The so call"Community Benefits Program"is not well defined,it may potentially bring more issues to the city due to additionai request from
developers.
Community benefit may out outweigh the negative effect of increase building height limit.1 prefer to keep the building height limit as current and
do NOT bargain with developer on any community benefit.lt's way too tricIaL
Q9 did not allow the selection of multiple items. I would select alt of the following:parking near stores,traffic management,trails.Even better
than parking,near stores is to NOT build so many stores on a lot such that the parking becomes inadequate.e,g,Crossroads at Stevens Creek ft
DeAnza Blvd. redevelopment,which now has insufficient parking.
No community benefit program!No exceptions to our curTent zoniru?laws!
No Community Benefits Program at alt
No CommunityBe�mnrefitits..It only benefits i RE traffic!MORE !MORE crowded schools!MORE
r� roomotlutes!MORE toilets,si�and vrater restrictions!MORE air pollution(spare the air day-s)!MOtiE asthma an eat pr ems.
Mm
ORE deand on p es an recreation servic and city services.MORE problems in public safety.Who will pay for fixing these pr ems?The tax
payers.We will deal with these problems for y ars to come while the developers are long gone with their profit.
Don't sell our city to the developers for fake Comnwnity Benefits.
Q7 is misleading question.I against the benefit program since it eventually will build more high density community which will ruin our environment,
traffic,safety,increasing school population.
This questionnaire is very misleading.
q7 is misleadung. I wont select any of them since I wint vote for high density building.
I don't want a crowded city.I would live in San Jose if I want to live near taller buildings.
March 10, 2015 Los Altos City Council meeting CC 311'-) 1( s
Video link VY= L� ►�
http://los-altos.granicus.com/MediaPIaver.PhP?view id=4&clip id=912
The item of interest is #5
beginning at 1 hour 12 minutes ends about 2 hours 10 minutes