CC Exhibit 05-05-15 Oral Communications cc s/,l- s
From:Paul Brophy<pauldbmphy@yahoo.com>
Date:October 27,2014 at 6:22:40 PM PDT
To:Gilbert Wong<gwong@cupertino.org>,Barry Chang<bchang@cupertino.org>,Mark Santoro
<msautoro@cVertmo.org>,Orrin Mahoney<on4honey@cupertino.org>,Rod Sinks
<rsinks@cupertino.org>
Cc:Aarti Shrivastava<aartis@cuperdm.org>,Gary Chao<garyc@cupertino.org>,Wimnie Lee
<winnieleedds@yahoo.com>,Alan Takahashi<alantcup@gmail.com>,Don Sun<bock.sun@gmaU.com>,
Margaret Gong<margiegong@icloud.com>
Subject:General Plan Amendment ander consideration
Reply.-To:Paul Brophy<pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Dear Mayor Wong and Council members,
During the almost seven years that l have been privileged to serve on our Planning Commission,
I have always taken the position that I-should not lobby Council.members on matters that have
come before us. The minutes of our meetings and the votes taken should stand by-themselves
for you to consider when making up your minds on planning and land use items.
However, n, e. ce `a=possible C eral Plan Amendment iricrease:in=all ab
ait_frna�a �'--=ar:-n rY a o t a long to 0-0I
-life
in U a iInrand
die use=my views-a a at=vartance-vuitia`the piannmg-Deparl`ment s recot`i�mendations, n'�.n '-�"
y. ergot s _ngl elieu �rto"alrld�tional!iWWZe:'s ace_above that epi_-
eGener _!an 50 ��� i P^� edL:If you believe that is to rea stnctive, 19
wo Id urge ou no-a increase a amount of allowable io ce space beyond that in Alternative A,
which would provide an additional 500,000 sq.ft,for a total of 1,040,000 sq.ft. Alternative A is
the compromise amount that was supported by three Commission members(Winnie Lee,Don
Sun,and myself),as compared tothe staff recommendation of 2,540,000 sq.ft.
The E1R for the Housing Element/General Plan Amendment points out that the city already has
an excess of jobs above our residential labor force. This Is before the Apple 2 campus opens
with an additional 14,000 jobs. The Apple 2 EIR was clear in saying that the traffic to be
generated by that project would have significant and unavoidable impact upon traffic congestion,
despite the tens of millions of dollars that Apple has committed to spending on mitigation
measures.The Apple campus was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by both Planning
Commission and City Council because we recognized that the benefits for our community from
supporting the company's growth outweighed the adverse impacts.
It needs to be remembered,though,that we have not yet experienced the increased traffic and
congestion from that project. Also there will be an additional 1500 to 2000 employees who will be
commuting to the office component of Main Street plus the second office building that will be
placed on the IHOP site,immediately adjacent to Cupertino(I am using 4 employees/1000 sq.ft.
for this and future calculations). Unhappiness in our community over traffic congestion will only
grow just from the projects already in the pipeline.
Under our existing General Plan,an additional 540,000 sq,ft. is still available,which would house
2000 employees above all that. If the Altsmative A option is approved,we will need to support
over 4000 additional employees. And if the Planning Department's "Balanced Plan"preferred
alternative of over 2.5 Million additional square feet of allowable office space is approved,the
EIR's proposed"mitigation"measures will not begin to address the nightmare traffic conditions on
Stevens Creek Blvd,De Anza Blvd.,as well as secondary roads such as McClellan,Stelling,
Wolfe and Tantau as drivers desperately look for alternatives to gridlocked arterial streets caused
by the addition of over 10,000 more employees working here.
In a city with lots of vacant land In which to expand both office and residential development,an
increase such as that proposed by the Planning Department might well make sense. However,
i -Iy`b'0flt Yes,there are some sites that were developed 30,40,or more years
i d
P'
ago that could be redeveloped at higher densities. However,given that we have limited ability to
add residential units(and great concern In the community about the impact of the few units we
can add upon school enrollment and increased congestion),allowing substantially more office
space means that we will take a city that is already unbalanced as to the relationship between
jobs and housing and make it much more so.
�e b errrr-rnistal ,�A tt ft�r adding toy-.ounts of addifeonai office space en our.
en MIle!Ian is 6Vo agamsf s staanable�developmen Itis a vote thaf gn s against the
__G
les FAW321arid'SB�37 as em toes co utin to Cupertino will have to live in distant
A p p y: 9 Pe
towns,since the nearby municipalities are also approving large scale office projects without the
willingness or ability to approve offsetting homes. Most of all, it will degrade the quality of life in
our community that is already stressed by traffic congestion and will be more so just from existing
development underway.
I would like to end by saying that while I strongly disagree with staff recommendations on this
General Plan change that I have treated only with-personal and professionai respect by Planning
Department staff,,just as I have been during my entire tenure on the Planning Commission. It has
been a pleasure to work with them and occasionally,for us to disagree over various matters
before us. The arguments made in favor of permitting far more intensive development than is
currently permitted has been echoed by planners and elected officials in many other communities
in the Santa Clara Valley and.the Peninsula. I belleve.that-they are.alrnost all=wrong.. I know that
they are wrong in the case of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Paul Brophy
CC
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Lisa Guinn
Subject: Summary of my Remarks and Requests
Thank you for allowing me to speak
Here are the key points from my presentation:
• Although we lost the street tree in front of our home,we strongly support
Cupertino's reforstation program.
• I ask that Public Works implement significant policy changes to keep
homeowners involved and informed about street trees.
• In particular, I would like to be notified in writing via US mail:
o When a tree is found to be ill or needs to be removed
o When a tree is scheduled for removal
o When a tree is scheduled for planting
• Except in cases of a hazard to the public, I think that two weeks' notice - or
even a months' notice -is reasonable to ask, considering the importance of
the trees to our homes and neighborhoods.
• I believe that increased communication will bring better cooperation and
appreciation for the street tree program.
(y L
Progress on 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation as of 3/27/15
Very Low Low Moderate Market Total
Rate
Cupertino 11% 14% 24% 172% 63%
Sunnyvale 41% 56% 152% 95% 86%
Santa Clara 30% 9% 16% 148% 78%
(City)
County aggregate 26% 27% 21% 120% 65%
Source:
Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation(RHNA)as of 3/27/15
http://www.abag.ca.gov/files/RHNAProgress2OO7 2014_032715.pdf
Cc 5-- -[ s
May 6, 2015
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Cathy Helgerson—CAP—Citizens Against Pollution
Regarding: Lehigh Southwest Cement and Quarry
This letter is to request that the City of Cupertino write a letter to the United States District Court
Northern District of California San Jose Division about the settlement agreement between the United
States of America and people of the State of California by and through the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board,San Francisco Bay Region(Plaintiffs)v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Company and
Hanson Permanente Cement, Incorporated (Defendants)Case: 15-cv-01896-BLF.
This is a citizen's request that the proposed settlement agreement amount shall be increased because of
the amount of pollution and destruction that has been taking place for the last 80 years and counting.
Lehigh cannot atone for the damage that they have done to the Silicon Valley,San Francisco Bay,
Permanente Creek,Stevens Creek,Stevens Creek Reservoir,the wells,aquifers and the Pacific Ocean.
This pollution has contaminated our ground water and is a major threat to all life forms and this crime
should not go unpunished.
The damage done to the aquatic life is the only reason given for this settlement this should not be the
only reason Lehigh has contributed to the pollution and contamination to the human and animal life
here and no one has even understood or tried to include this fact into the complaints. I am a citizen who
has been made ill due to the air,water and soil pollution from the Lehigh Southwest Cement and Quarry
and the Steven Creek Quarry and have continue to suffer along with my family and other over the years.
Money it seems is the only cure for the crimes committed and I believe this to be a very sad situation
because our lives and the quality of life is threatened and money will not change things.The Lehigh
Southwest Cement and Quarry settlement ruling is very short from any real cleanup and the only way to
clean up this mess is to first close them down and second turn the property into a Super Fund Site that
will take possibly decades to clean up.
The treat of Lehigh needing to mine a new pit is real and we should not overlook this possibility waiting
for them to start the wheel turning on this new pit will be to late we must act now, I am not in favor of
any new mining pit and I have made myself clear on this matter it is time for the City of Cupertino to
look at this real possibility and work to stop such a disaster.
The letter to the court may or may not make any difference but I am here to testify to the court
whenever necessary about the pollution and the violations from the Lehigh Southwest Cement and
Quarry as a victim of the crimes committed.
How much money is enough well there are 7 million people living in the Bay Area and all of them have
been suffering I suppose there should be enough to compensate somehow in some way.There should
be no further pollution but the only way to stop that is to close the polluters down once and for all.
C C
May 5 Oral
Communication
Xiaowen Wang
Philosophy
• How could limited land support the population and
economics growth?
Develop and support the implementation of improved land management
UN Agenda 21 practices which deal comprehensively with potentially competing land
requirements for agriculture, industry, transport, urban development, green
spaces, preserves and other vital needs;
Cities and towns are places for people to live, but they are much more than that.
They are places for people to also go to school, shop, work, and play. The
neighborhoods that make up the cities and towns vary in character, size, and
Plan Ba Area mix of activities that are offered.
Bay PDAs and PCAs are an integral part of the regional Plan Bay Area, an
integrated land use and transportation plan, tackling pressing issues such as
accommodating population growth while keeping the region affordable for all our
residents, preserving open spaces, protecting our environment, accommodating
transportation needs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
implementation :
Urbanization
� M\ a
�"t` \ ����G�,a, •G��1�@'. ��\V\x\\a\ChV\�i e ���\p\aaC aha \�< G �\\'�� \\�\,\��V� e \�, ��bh,�\°G\�\
M ore housing p e r acre
15
\ G \
Free up land for More worker per acre
w" eI-Au
ore schools
o vGay � a a
ALL
v
v-;a
Drive to work, school, shopping Walk to work, school, shopping
Necessary Conditions
• Critical mass in the eco system
• Enough people live, work, study, shop and entertain inside the
system
• Variety of work and retail opportunities to satisfy people's daily need
bs"I
Modern style andeffortless ffartless sagahist�cat� r?are r it,r Bn3aaf:, a� istxv s 4 s° r s2Ncdltilajz�,n-
i;t to ;. °. p�x,. rr,,c.
QA a< a.i,.,sc>Duo,C i36 new e ands in+ urtai�ca for
rent that arm perfer i for^aek!a° e CS e ,, °. ,, � asr3 €.i �rlss r a"+r( sr.a.st srs zt - -: §rt�ni cond€s ter rent.and tc�sntts�rrr Pear rntW fully Appointed
k^stt s"L c4s a, ;; t�iaTt ; .�,..A e tops,��ri,�rean styte c binetr}+harder ood style tC�aa�i ung, in-home��re�shers&dryers,and much rr�flre..
aik out round the clock in our stag sof the art fitness cei�ti r.E'arraper c ur het at tear het park father„awith fr�cnds rpt cur iirr plmce trauncde ��ittt r�s�rt-inspired i�rnnenitles,the i��p�srtrrn�ties arr
r; eF y
endless,f 1cs nc a' r crrta urrenent! Staaiya �i� n"tSdiate ase to rrar. ipty�+�r ' itican�ler lalrpfa�s tl nada`trrelrbl intrrrt�carral.dnlrng
0
l nt sh p irr �rccr t�rrn,an8e�arn arat, tturp,and acre.A iai, %vinnir schools, calf upadrrra c d o able;t�is 'lk nd rrde�a ike �rary her ,rs r tt a� �ng'toxa.
�:... .. tai 3, P ^t!"dl G�d9„r3 3 1 t3 hq 1C47i�C�, ?t 1h6d ivith c t: ,ityfo, �1�t E9,��H&e5��tVt ,i �{�b�Vn t,.,,p on� 5� ?��f4r.rdi�� �
Whe .re
• How many of workers around Vallco would live within working distance?
• Currently 1 out of 5 people work in"Cupertino live in Cupertino and. 87% of workers live in Santa Clara
county.
• Apple II, Main St. and proposed Vallco add up to 5.6 million sf. office and can host about 24, 000 workers
and Apple II alone has 14,200 workers.
• Nineteen hundred, Hampton and Main Street add up to 1226 housing units including 600 units yet to be
built at Hampton.
• How many retail space do we have around?
• In vicinity there are around 1 million sf. retail including Main Street, Rose Bowl, Cupertino Village and
proposed Vallco.
• Can public services support this eco system?
• School over capacity
• Fire, police, water, sewer, etc.
• Traffic and environment
Where should we
start ?
'
Conduct an independent study of
how to build a sustainable eco
rFa system around the whole Vallco area.
Y{E
Is Apple 11 Main Street and
�� 3{s fesr7 f;r ws ld^n.
existing offices enough
employment source for critical
s= mass?
zZ
Is massive transit a necessary
basics for such system?
*�� wean
�r"ry ro rder�r,,, � ��� How many housing and retail is
needed to keep enough people
inside the area?
•
is service
What is the cost on pu er
b rvC�fN N(k'i n -
r,r�atlf°� ,�Fsa� � to sustain such setup?
d&roret pp ti v r&r t7.+
?n a nas o h etl��mt , � iy7"a sF !t^§eatr Feaaeo 4 t
Refer-ences
• Market Study: httg :/Iwww. cuQertinogUa. oroLfilesZ
maria ed Document 392 P MarketStudy. r)df
Tale 7: Commute Flaw (a)
Employed Persons
Place of work Number Percenta2ee
Santa Clara County 21,330 _ 87.2%
San Jose 5,265 21,5'
Cupertino 5,060 20.7`
Sunnyvale 2,805 11.5%
Santa Clara 21660 10.9` ;
Mountain View 3.,645 6,7
Pala Alta 1,390 5.7%
Milpitas 555 2.310
Campbell 365 1.5%
Los,Altos 360 1,5%
Other Cities 490 2.0%
Unincorporated 735 3.0
.All Other Locations , 31,120
Total 24,450 100.0'
References ,
• Apple II : https://s3.amazonaws.com/apple-campus2-
project/Project_Description_Submittal
6. pdf
• Main Street: http://www.cupertino.ora/index. aspx?
page= 1127
• http ://webcache. gooqleusercontent.com/search?
a =cache:2F_L2XgVyGsJ :www. cupertino.orq/Modules/
ShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid
%3D393+&Cd =3&hl =en&ct=clnk&Ql = us
• http ://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=776
C)
CUPECITY
RTINO
GENERAL PLAN
2000 2020
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Allocating Development Potential
The (-;f)f_J1111U111t1; RIM ic-LUOR Of t1e , 1CVel._)pMv1( ikilkity shi,uld be con
Land U,-L- Ektrieni and. Fal!ure 2-P dvsLr&eJ 1 troll-A4ctKat
the overi[0 It seal sP trurture ct c_"
uVerumi ; Tlwre v;j finitewounr tit
The pa�etitsecli,)n flew develk4mnt ilk fl-w I un tike V Lire beff xc
A thv ()L�*, &SirLA Lram.
descrihey how I Ah_citAd (I-affit levels CXCL,
e wi W, forM" of Full"build.k7tit1tilix
t1d he 1A I g The Lp re of keel. an 4INT01t 01JR1 The uncommitt I leveloi
..............
hJ
ONTIen#,t 11 ii,Ulfnmezwl, offo-e and r"Ist rh;11 'ill 11"A
tut"=111111 iC_ r!-,(.N?t fUur,
C41M�vj:.ti�jwni wv.f,and N L.lIt�_,LxtL ';.?rt
a cast!-[ e. Civi ITL , allocato
Balancing Land Uses developy')ent P�,'+MALA. b, private dvelop,
L4Vvftjvw hmorically Ivis t1wre jk+> , wet nu Kiwd ar, Lhe cciffitnut-utv I-en-efits tejfj
tlim oei.n!7' FIL4MA WOUld Pr,"wisz"The rejwu=ucKma-
p ved m,m; "d by aJpaL`0 �Litr�ll will be anocar'A
.=nt�Icttws, lvt-are
N-Dotl,ll cvn4_lquejwes chat incluLk hi!+
mr, (e necc-*arto emu,&ni the Cttes ecj_,,
G-1.VS1l"Ntt'Y Di-.vlLc)PNm.N-i2-17
Table l-A, Development Alfocathm.
commesdarEsq.ft3 Office[sq.fp Hctel(roarms) Rimidemlaltft
2010 BUM Wid6at 2010 Baht Buildaut 2010 Bin"it Bulminn 2010& ft BuEldout
Neighborhood
M"d-jaa l rs.i 1? tti �;J:�;•: Ij 1,l i; 45r:,2 I0
Fairy curt 3 7 C? _-ht
,
Commesrclal Cutters
sIILLrrdrl-,.;C:ay IATJ a3 1,47?,,,113 ilol;it i'I,eti1 1_77 't,? yitf
vAlul Far.S.,nth l i137 j 9 1,902,546 'JK6,0; H16,0i 150 7-`_4 47 1 71.1
Oahe, Ai-ax :#`I,Z4 P5,41 i- i 3 :50,614 _ 6 MY)
Employment Centers
111LAUU0 t,€4•d. t,D-7 t i •i, V J
64.144 79.01 L 'I Lr)0 27-; l,i}'il?,?2i 124 X7=1 iifi nit•
'v'dkl-:iFSc•1-N,rth I y,14 113,147 7,L+51,qio 3^0,6?6 ili li 55= SSI
A&+P.trtd - 428,64; 1,M—A., u4
C1Qhtc.gtL`a 1CO
�ye:C Fcapl,vt r 63;3;05 i
C&fwide _':l''r_.A = 4.4 3:3 9.x7 ��_9 J±}g) �,- �t,iLtS I,l;i 1 "'' 31,144 3,2 Q4
#iItw•cacpmzr:; allin Ax.F 3earl t,ir:ltr(ATy..1rei :.rc stct Lit`rhr ViIIz:v 1'2& South smd.0-irq C-r_nzu:ut,.urw
Rinchr Rinconala.;and 11ak fi'Jltey Ficli r, ne,L;+fiurh,xi&have si_ll-•tcrhan,C1111!-and twi',
&tat contribute iv tbair disrina lcLa cr.e.r an_ stcv-V archatev tural stytes., while ethers- hive
aCCll[tXtlrral SCyL,&rj5ity err 5treex bGUnd- chu6en G;i ri°,Lain a zmngle-stoq ifppeAsance G.f
arms. These and all nei,:�hboThxuzds must fe unique -,lrchitecteual tea.turt-- rLmning far
planned carefully t;r be.sure that resid-enits five nek&bo.6---od> shciuld consider rroxirmity
safely and comfort.A.I$,.tk.0 theT have access and crrnnections to nec essiiry sen ices,altd
t0 sl'ioprinff and secreatiun and that their setttnu Design standards fOr pri.Vatc pr41gl4L�rty
po.;
citV of
i •
general plan amendment
p "�
., to
COMMUNITY-WIDEWORKSHOP •
October
Settings and Opportunities Report
Major Opportunities
• Ensure tha� any changes to the General Plan Llo not
a verse y affect CuPertino's quality of life or Pu tc
services, including sc oohs
■ Explore creating a community benefits incentives
program tied to new development
■ Analyze alternatives for increasing economic
opportunities and diversifying the local economy
• Improve multi-modal circulation, including transit,
pedestrian paths and bike lanes
■ Address State-mandated housing requirements in a
manner that works best for the community
Q3: • Cupertino
•
33.3%
Affordable housing
IS3x
MIN IN I 1
r 22x
ttsa f
Traffic 13.16
r
1731
Controlling growth usx
29%
Education 33•.
i
Crime
sx I
City's economic health u•; 02014
i
Environmental health ti ■2012
GA% ■2010
Protection of open space ❑2003
2%
0% 2VI 40
Pape 24
Note.ReaPonaes silt Mer Man 3 Percent m Wm have.wt been choned above.For mote detX*,refer brie epee repot m APPend+a C. October 2014
Support for Revitalization ofthe Vallco
Shopping
The residents.rere next asked to indicate whether they would support a revitalization of the Vailco Shopping
District In response.total support was 86.7 percent(`Strongly support"67.7 percent."Somewhat support'19 0
percent).Total opposition+:as only 8.3 percent,and 5 0 percent said they either d!d not know or had no answer
for this question
Strongly
Somewhat oppose OK-NA
oppose 3.0% 5.0%
Somewhat support
19.0%
Strongly support
3T.r�.
Theresidents A ere next asked to give their primary reason for choosing to live in Cupertino,in the current
survey results,"School system"again topped the list of responses by a large margin.with 39.4 percent
mentions This r as a small,but statistically Insignificant Increase from 2012.
Following this,13 6 percent of the residents cited"Friends or family here."while the response-Job.'garnered
11.4 percent mentions.These responses were followed by"Quality of life'at 9 9 percent'Grey-,up here'at 6.4
percent"Affordable housing-at 6.2 percent.and'Enjoyllike the city'at 5.7 percent.
Clearly,`School system"is a driving factor that has attracted residents to Cupertino.The results for 2014
overall are fairly consistent with the 2012 survey results,The chart illustrating these results is shown on the
next page.
!2: Reason for • in Cupertino
G�Ca9i 1xE5tAf2CtI,
(Contir„
50%
ati 47%
451%
-*-School system
30%. -111-Job
+-frlandslfamily here
t Grew up here
l +s-Enjoyrdke the City
20x -*-Affordable housing
i-Qual of life
,35. 1 13% .r•, ,a.ss �
tox
3 10+. 10X 13,
9.
0% r.
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
'N
lfoa Rebponses rYlr Mvr Nan 3 psnwt AOtntlofu twve�t been charted aEove ram ftWb rWW b Ne P 7?0
bpa+e repot In Appentltce C Ors3+er 'ra
PEAK DEMOCRACY
_—c.
500
r `Nhw are your views about the draft Community Benefits Program, and about
building planes?
Summary
t)I.Which of ih� following belt de.Crcbes you (soled ail that apply)
percent Coon
rr.....rldcnt of •.�ertlr.7 9 i.2a 257
t wo:k/;[u17:n�•xRtir�o �{ !d.f: %
3r11 ttrr^!Cnt'i rfJv�%r:pr l ey,
Q2 Which bulieir,3 plana do you prefer For the sovtt!side of Home:—.toad Road,be t+re+n Linnet Lane and Swallow
Drive?
iia sszwtnu da�.y»xu
Percent Ccrn:
' u.a�xvi me
tt—of the utx—.
I don•[ur:e.-.r�+,d efie.rre::rp, l i tax
I rycicr not tG]n5M'�lFc'lU!; O*, � a at Zn
Y�ich building plane do y-u arefe,f-, -I e north side of Ste-ens Creek Boulevard L-•Uttw n Permeter Road
and Tantau Avenues
Percent Gwnt
t aotev d 1!Lnnld;n7 W,tnr )1 Cf 9T
I brc(er a 1 5 bund ng ptary `A)(11, 152),
t don't,a,G:•rta:,d tt,cu t—
I(:refer not[c an1-1 civ_ St
Q4 Do you ha-.e addidona,thoughts,td•as or comm.encs about building planes alcng Cupertino's major streets?
--.d 5+
-Aipp.d 27E
building ..... ....... n
w
Job$ to P" 3461
Pw r
ITEM 1 `f�f�: t7� I"Ih1i'�t F!R t"►FlV�R,ZI PI AN Ah1FtdC)h:1F
� �� !► t3�:1�:3� �'t��:45:31 day
Cit, Council l��o�rember 9f�, �.0�4
Index Q �har� � l�e�v.nit�ad
t
,
I
s 4•
L f
A
llw ix-
mid rise off!ce
E vv-
A, ter
l �
3
Y �
y .Y f•rKr,,ya."
mid rise mixed-use office
I!elaj pue pluapisat asn-pamw asu y iy/piiu
�z
I► a ti 1
}}o)�ei�uapisa�asu y6iL{/p!w
1N m;
�,S�* $• '�� T'. r spy) t+ �''
i
r
60 ft
5 stories
145 ft
11-13 stories 145 ft
..... .:..:.......
11-13 stories
75 ft 145 ft
7 stories 11-13 stories
7'
6-7 stories 460 ft
75 ft 85 ft 1314 stories
6-7 stories 8 stories
75 f1tL6-7 stories
110 ft
10 stories
# of stories varies
based on ceiling height
�. X21
COMMUNITY-WIDE . •
Ociober
,a
i'
Major Opportunities
• Ensure that any changes to the General Plan do not
Y it of life or ppu is
services! incf—inc sc o0 no's uall
• Explore creating a community benefits incentives
program tied to new development
• Analyze alternatives for increasing economic
opportunities and diversifying the local economy
■ Improve multi-modal circulation, including transit,
pedestrian paths and bike lanes
• Address State-mandated housing requirements in a
manner that works best for the community
s
1 IL
k
;j.l
1
:M r .
i
Collins Elementary-> 12 Portable Classrooms
m ,
t t _
x � k.
Garden ,
4 5 Portable Classrooms
cv ^�
•.� --�Y 111;1 �__� I '�-� �, .......
v
� @w
Hyde Middle School- 12 Portable Classrooms
. w
P• rid
- Address the school impact first
- Address the traffic impact second
- Only then consider changing the General Plan
We owe it to our children
� � slslir
c cap
APPLE CAUTIONS
LIANG-FANG CHAO
MAY 5, 2015
Specific Plan from
Developer
lbdsdes General Plan Current Broket
Amendilent PrOCOSII proGess
Neighborhood
Outreach
Community Input
Revised Project
Plan
General Plan ,
Amendment
Apple Cautions
"The City May Have Unintentionally Limited its Discretion to Address Project-
level Concerns After Adopting Higher Density Limits in the GPA. "
California law provides that the density of a proposed project complying with
the applicable general plan, zoning and development policies cannot be
reduced. (GOV. CODE SEC. 65589.51!]]
There is a streamlined CEQA review for residential projects that are consistent4
with the general plan. . .. (PUB. RES. CODE SEC. 21083.3.1
A
Apple Cautions
"The City Should Set Forth in the GPA the Key
Issues that Need to Be Taken into Account. . . . , Since
Deferring this Step May Unduly Bind the City in the
Future. "
Apple Points Out
"We also have concerns about the impact buildings of
this height will have on view corridors, sunlight and
emission of light and glare."
For privacy and security, "we respectively request that
the updated general plan maintain longstanding height
limit of 60 feet for the hamptons site, for all structures
located within 50 feet of the parcel line abutting apple
campus 2 or pruneridge."
------------
s ,s
Apple
Points Out
"The proposed height increase elimination of setbacks for the
threatens the security of apple campus 2."
"We also request that setbacks, transitions, landscaping, or
other mitigations be imposed."
"The only way to remedy the issue is to limit heights and
impose setbacks, transitions, landscaping or other
mitigations, and require special findings that security and
privacy . . . will not be compromised."
b
E
i
Residents and Neighborhoods Have
the Same Concerns.
But We Are Not Given a Chance to
Comment on Projects in Our Own
Neighborhood'.
Apple Cautions
"The City Should Set Forth in the GPA the Key
Issues that Need to Be Taken into Account. . . . , Since
Deferring this Step May Unduly Bind the City in the
Future. "
Ed no
General Plan Current
Broken
Amendment
Process
PrOcess
Specific Plan from
Developer
Neighborhood
Outreach
Community Input
Revised Project
Plan �<
General Plan
Amendment
GPA Should Be
v � 3
Project Specific
.
Neighborhood
Should Be
Informed and - -
Provide Input. W
t:
�,� `�
GENERAL PLAN 2020-2040
Do Not Circumvent The Process Using Amendment
Require EIR Report that Reflects the Actual Impact.
Include Impact Of Office Allocation On Housing And Schools
Include Mitigation Plans for Traffic, Schools, Pollution, Noise.
�m
\ /\/ � \
\\�\ \
. ��� ,
<�\\ � _
:�%� ?
f �\� —
\�" �
\�\� \
� .w y .
� � d \ } ° :
\ � \
\
:��» )
.�> \
\
.���\�� � a
«a : .
, i . )� .
� . � \> � . � < \�« | \ Zv
! « � { \ � \ �