The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Exhibit 5/19/15 Item No. 7 General Plan Amendment (dais) Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:05 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Stop Uncontrolled Growth and Density From: LimTak Cheung [mailto:ltcheung_98@yahoo.com] EXHID Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:03 PM To:City Council Subject:Stop Uncontrolled Growth and Density I just signed the petition, "Cupertino City Council members: Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino." i Andrea Sanders From: Grace Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:15 PM To: ,City Council Cc: City Clerk � Subject: FW: Cupertino General Plan Amendment From: Dewell,Todd [mailto•TDewell(cbkimcorealty.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:57 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava H I BIT Subject: Cupertino General Plan Amendment Dear Aarti/Gary, Thank you again for your time last week to discuss the'Cupertino General Plan and tonight's City Council meeting. We have reviewed the agenda and staff report for tonight's City Council meeting, and as a first matter we want to express our appreciation for all of staff's hard work on the proposed "community benefits"structure for Cupertino. As you know,while Kimco does not have immediate plans for redevelopment of the Cupertino Village shopping center, Kimco is engaged on an ongoing basis in strategic planning and visioning for Cupertino Village. To that end,we have been following the City's process closely, and have reviewed the proposed General Plan amendment procedures in detail internally and with our outside consultants in order to assess the impact on future planning activities. We will be at tonight's meeting to listen and provide comments as necessary, but we also wanted to pass along the following comments to staff before the meeting so you might have an opportunity to consider the comments in advance. 1. The proposed annual date for consideration of processing of General Plait mewilmen ats is o inclutionsded o in the `d`raft procedures. It would be helpful to understand when the Council anticipates private property owners can factor the relevant timeline into their strategic planning and budgeting. require he 2. Aonce-per-year review limitation could be extremely burdensome on City staff and couleview the extensive subm ttalsrequi edtfortheotion of significant staff resources away from other projects in order o General Plan amendment annual process. Has the City fully considered whether it desires to divert its limited staff resources on an annual basis, particularly when the current system allows the City to obtain community benefits through the discretionary review and approval process for General Plan amendments? ty Council to pursue or 3. There is no waiver or exemption process for private development do include an exemption for city-sponsored ored believes would be important to the community. The proposed process r General Plan amendments, but no exemption or waiver pro ate aincluded oexample, f arhot I developer ivate pwishedltoant tax generating uses,or any other project proposed y p p develop a significant tax generating use in the City, depending s nn twhich would resulthe exact time the deven al signifp a poloper ss of time that beforeuse could potentially have to wait for a year to even beg processing,g TOT revenues began accruing to the City's General Fund. minor and major 4. The draft procedures make no distinction-between a ed even l for amendments. a m nor modification lof significant given the likelihood that a General Plan amendment would be req -allocation of existing development capacity is desired. Further, many Table LU-1 in the General Plan if atransfer or rethe dments that are often stion or desire typrojects require minor or insignificant General Plan amen arocedu ethe gsewill tie the City s l handswith (setback requirements, sidewalk widths, minor text amendments). The drat p 1 respect to minor General Plan amendments, make entitlement processing less flexible and more time consuming, and possibly result in sub-optimal projects. 5. The draft procedures could halt or slow progress in the City and could drive desired development to adjacent communities. The new procedures are unnecessary given that the City has complete discretion in processing any proposed General Plan amendment today under existing procedures. Todd D. Dewell,SCDP Director of Construction I Western Region . KIMC �� REALTY 15 Southgate Avenue,Suite 2011 Daly City,CA 94015 T:650.746.7503 1 M: 925.788.99711 F: 650.756.3390 E:tdewell@kimcorealty.com Bloa I Facebook I Twitter I Linkedln I YouTube This email and any attached files may contain content that is considered proprietary and/or confidential.All email content and files are intended solely and strictly for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you should not read, copy, or forward this email. Please notify the sender immediately by a reply email if you are not the intended recipient and delete the email. Subject to the foregoing, if you are not the intended recipient,all disclosure, distribution,and reproduction,or taking any other action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Unless it is expressly stated in this communication, nothing herein is intended to constitute a binding offer or agreement of any kind.Warning:Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses or malware content are present in this email,we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attached files. i I 2 .3 ,'i Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:13 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:Irresponsible Growth - development at Vallco { AF &10.0 M, 13 From: Rajeev Joshi [mailto:pvrjoshi@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:13 PM To: City Council Subject: Irresponsible Growth-development at Vallco A few yrs ago,there was a proposal from the then owners of Vallco to develop that parcel into housing, despite objections from the neighborhood (those are the folks most impacted by these changes),it carried-subsequently there was a referendum which put a stay on this activity. I hope the present council learns from this and once for all stops any attempts to change the face of retail in Cupertino. If the current owner of Vallco feels this does not meet their profit objective they should move on.With the sprawl around the Apple Campus in the same neighborhood we'cannot have more housing and congestion. Please act responsibly-the residents in this community are fed up with not seeing their concerns heard and acted upon. Rajeev Joshi i Andrea Sanders From: Nagapriya K Tiruthani <nagapriyak@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:04 PM To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino Cc: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com Subject: Rescind the approved Community Vision 2040 - Resolution 14-211 Hi all, A H 1 1 attended the Dec 3rd Cupertino Council meeting where the Housing Element(HE) and General Plan Amendment(GPA) were on the agenda. During the meeting, the council members deliberated and decided that only HE related documents will be approved as there is a time constraint and then GPA discussions will be postponed. Here's the video, that captures the deliberation: http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promised-to.htmI Then somehow the Community Vision 2040 was approved at the end of the same meeting. At the City's website, http://www.cupertinogpa.org , we see this below statement about the General Plan Amendment. Community Vision 2040 On December 4, 2014, the City Council formally adopted an amended General Plan for Cupertino known as Community Vision 2040. The General Plan is a State-mandated document and provides the vision for Cupertino's future. It sets the City's policy direction in a number of areas including land use, mobility, housing, open space, infrastructure, public health and safety, and sustainability through specific goals, policies and strategies. What did we miss there? How did the resolution suddenly get passed without any deliberation when it was just discussed that the GPA will be postponed? Did the Council just say what the residents wanted to hear and proceed with their pre- planned agenda?This discrepancy does not let me think any differently. Ok, then I thot that the GPA pertaining to the parts of the HE was only approved. But when looking carefully at the Community Vision 2040, it doesn't really look like-a General Plan Amendment but in fact a rewrite of the General Plan 2005 that supports the request from SandHill for Vallco development. Lot of important sections have been removed from the General Plan without informing the public. The workshop that was held to address the community's request talked only about Heights and Setbacks.Does the GPA only include those 2? Of course NOT! Also, the locations discussed in that workshop were anything other than Vallco. So, does that mean that Vallco will abide the 2005 GP? Here's are some of the topics that are completely overlooked in the Community Vision 2040 document: Schools: The school superintendents from CUSD and FUHSD said that there is still room for accommodating students from all the development proposed in HE when the community seriously doubted it. Recently, FUHSD presented a document to present its case against a 123 parcel transfer from the Campbell Union HSD. The document presented a table that claims that the FUHSD is currently 101 students over capacity and is expected to be over capacity by 1,309 by the 2020-2021 school year. 1,309 over capacity in just 5 years? 1,300 is half the enrollment of a very large high school! Here is the snippet from the document that is attached (only the first page of the document is attached): "Though, our community recently passed a new General Obligation bond to help pay for new"classrooms, it will be a race each year to see if we can meet the demand for space. Adding any amount of new students to this already skyrocketing enrollment number, will be a tremendous detriment to our students, staff and community," Are we moving towards over-crowded schools?We do not have any plan or land to add a new school if our estimates are off. Shouldn't a plan be recorded in the GPA as to what we will do if the schools go over-capacity? Sewage: Here is the letter from Sanitary department: https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAY3BBQktneFdPTGQOUklyUV8yQXFOZiFiblcw/view The Cupertino Sanitary department clearly states that it does NOT have the sufficient capacity treatment plant for the proposed General Plan. So, is there a section in the GPA that talks about fixing it before development starts? Cupertino City Centerlocation is near full capacity and we still go ahead and add more residential units and office spaces at the same location where the sanitary department is almost full?What actions have been planned to make sure the new offices, housing units that flush their toilets don't overflow into the streets? Former Planning Commission Chair Mr. Brophy's Letter: Mr. Paul Brophy's letter to the City Council on Oct 27th, 2014 (extracted from pages 69-70, Appendix CCI Late Comments, Dec 2nd CC meeting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAYIBUYUtmeDQwdia/view?usp—sharing You can also find the letter at: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/374/CC LateCommentsMemo pdf As you can see, Mr. Borphy has detailed why we shouldn't add too much office space. He was the Chair of the Cupertino Planning Commission and still the City Council completely overthrew his recommendation to add 2M sq feet office space to Vallco at the last minute before approving the resolution. Then why have a planning commission if the City Council is just going to overthrow any good recommendation it gets?When the City Council deals with many issues pertaining to City governance, the planning commissions only motive is to plan a good city. Shouldn't the recommendation be at least discussed? Sections omitted in the new GPA: The Community Vision 2040 has a lot of sections omitted. A cursory look at the Section 4 "Circulation" in "2000-2020 General Plan" to compare with Chapter 5 "Mobility Element" in "Community Vision 2040" alone shows the following sections being removed. Deleted Strategy(Pape 5) Strategy 2 Jobs—Housing Balance Minimize regional traffic impacts on Cupertino by supporting regional planning programs to manage the jobs-housing balance throughout Santa Clara County and the Silicon Valley. Deleted Policy(Page 12) Policy 4-6: Traffic Service and Land Use Development Maintain a minimum LOS D for major intersections during the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. Achieve this standard by imposing reasonable limits on land use to ensure that principal thoroughfares are not unduly impacted by locally generated traffic at peak traffic hour. Deleted Strategy(Page 13) Strateov 3 Allocation of Non-residential Development In order to maintain a desired level of transportation system capacity, the city's remaining non-residential development potential shall be pooled and reallocated according to the city's development priority tables as shown in the Land Use Element of this Plan. So, what about the other sections? The Community Vision 2040 is a big document. People might lose track on what they read. The Council members are normal people too. Will they be able to keep track of what has been changed? Therefore, I would like the City Manager to first come up with a document that lists the differences between the 2005 General Plan and Community Vision 2040. Unless we have a document like that, it is impossible to know what changes have been made. When approving documents that will change the City of Cupertino, the residents and the Council need to know clearly what changes have been made and what sections have be removed. City of Palo Alto seems to follow process to clearly show the differences, check out this link: http://vmw.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BusinessEconomics.pdf 2 It lists very clearly, which policy remains the same, which one is edited and which one is new. See Page 3 for Highlights of Changes. That's a great summary of changes.Then, in the end from Page 23, there is a Disposition table that details all of the policies in the previous general plan and what happened to it. This is what an 'amendment' should be like. When looking at this document, the Community Vision 2040 that Cupertino City has adopted looks like a complete rewrite. The above facts clearly states the not much discussion has taken place on the newly adopted Community Vision 2040. The consensus was only to approve on Dec 3rd that was needed to get the Housing Element portion done and nothing regards approving a document(Community vision 2040) that has huge changes.So, I would like the Council to rescind what was passed as resolution 14-211 (B - Draft Resolution 14-211, Adoption of General Plan Amendments.pdf in Dec 2nd, 2014 agenda). Thanks, Nagapriya Tiruthani PS: Please record it as part of the public record for the May 19th City Council Meeting. 3 Andrea Sanders From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:57 AM To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: Job-housing Balance Attachments: job-housing-Mayl9.pdf EXHit; imigm Dear City Councils, I would like to bring your attention of a change in the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040. Please find the attached slides on the deletion of Policy of Job-housing Balance. As I watch your deliberations at the Dec. 3, 2014 council meeting, you all gave speeches on how schools are the staples of our community; It make me wonder how could a Policy that contains Strategy of School Impact be deleted so easily in the General Plan? As I compare the development allocations, I am surprised to find out that the only change is the 2 MILLION offices at Vallco. Admittedly, 2 million offices'is a big number, however,'can this change justify to take away this policy? Should a city wide policy trump the 2 million office allocation? If we cannot achieve the job- housingbalance, should we consider not to make such allocation? I understand that to achieve the job-housing balance in our city is a challenge,but I would rather we do not throw in the towel so early. Please reconsider the resolution 14-211 which deletes this policy and allocate the 2 million office. Thank you very much. Xiaowen Wang Cupertino Resident I would like to include this correspondence to the public record of May 19 council meeting. 1 t: Xr1IBIT Job - Housing Balance Xiaowen Wang General Pl.a'n Amendment / • IT\' Omend to CUPERTCF INO � ` � GENERAL PLAN , , �• ,�x.��tf w�i r 2000 - 2020 M � 4 � 7r ! U A 2005 General Plan -- Community Vision 2040 2005 .General Plan Strategies: 1. Housing and Mixed Use. Allocate housing or mixed-use development0on certain commercial, office andc"e1erever findustrial sites, consistent withs hn'�elong-term City revenue projec- d prospered .tions(See Policy 2-38 Economicd workablebeen;at theDevelopment Plan). rer;:THRIVING,BALANCED COMMUNITY12. Housing Impact.Since the qualiof Cupertino schools (elementary an Policy 2-19:Jobs/HousingBalance high school) is a primary asset of the Strive for a more balanced-ratio of jobs City,care shalCbe taken°[o ensuieanq new lousing will nomadversely=impact and housing units. thesesystems: , CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAIN Community Vision 2040 • Search key words: balance/school/job • balance: 9 matches • .school: 25 matches • job: 2 matches • No more policy and language as that in 2005 General Plan. CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES Policy LU-11.7_Connectivity Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new Balanced Community developments and community facilities.Review existing The City seeks to balarcz future growth and development neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for in order create a more complete community.This includes students to walk and bike to schools,parks,and community ensuring a mix of land uses that support economic,social facilities such as the library. and cultural goals in order to preserve and enhance Cupertino's great quality of life. The CAP is based on 2040 growth projections for Cupertino and identifies policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a municipal and community-wide level. ® Similar to most neighboring cities,Cupertino has historically had an imbalance of land uses(housing,services and i6l;N with a roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the •• • 6 automobile.When this imbalance is multiplied at a regional + ® A • . + m level,there are regional consequences including,traffic ®• . ® + congestion,high housing costs,increased air pollution and + lack of accessibility for the young,elderly and disabled. WHY? ® Do council members know this policy is amended out? ® Does this amendment ever discussed in any community outreach? Why not ask residents "do you support job-housing balance in Cupertino?" in the on-line survey? Do we need such dramatic change? TAA-2,A.Abrpmmc AZ—,k - Cm,:..d�l(•9W o4rus lw fU MaNtrocnl ■.•IEeml•lltlfll - +�W 1 51 -. ta59 w.e4 Sw'ua4 6,nloewli e+am,+,i 7mo•„m •�>dn�.x919 nen.9w)dwn VON aa.9w+,1•ma M_V 92,58; 99.695 431.153 456110 ' 825 M, IDA%Elie. � 178 178 m sA •nya a.+rs m,m u..ss rw.s ..+n .0 •x vs .n. m .w Fzyoe - 22D C>F-A: 17.620 11.774 CI.. .W Ceram •timed MG:, 1.40603 1,476,115 I 510.511 521851 132 �- 26Z 570 \Sf4x.Paf Seed+ I.i07,189 I.Po2546 7akG57 ,C&A5; 25C 764 1 471 111 15m+nrea2Rmd t9)673 19]6 97. 73 I M,45.•. 69,440 126 126 6tV 784 •xu awu• •w.n •t m •s c+r 0,Fc A— 1247 495.415 � 2[4.755 MAN � 6 IN ,q�u Cmpb,menS C<ne<n � 1 .- •�• um - - • a .4 L>✓Snn Bl.d 16657 51.37. 4 I.261,J21 =2661,6 133 - 1 49 146 ..•, .uru ....n+ - GryCm+n 64,144 roMI I]PSC,2r fzzJ:27 224 224 S56 6A VX.PnI J, 115.147 :55.147 2,981950 3.464676 555 514 ! 5S4 351 Bab R.,J 41S.IM 4:49.05 1 94 0�4:T.. � lib a•- •uw .rn. ..,. ,.•�. nm. v,,, +n L4ajx Emd+ncn I 635.455 I encs •nm rv. Cq,r4N 1,912542 4E50.9E2 8629,549 9.470AS 1,175 1,429 i ZI,'M 4,430,982 9,470,005 1,429 23,294 4,430,982 11,,470;005 1,429 23,294 Please reconsider the AMENDMENTS made in Community Vision 2040 . Back up Deference • 2005 General Plan: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/ app folders/view/20 • Community Vision 2040: htt www.cupertinocgpa.org/app folders/view/424 l Search results balance CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element INTRODUCTION The Land Use and Community Design Element is the keystone of Community Vision 2040.It unifies and informs the other Elements by providing an overall policy context t. , for future physical change.It deals with the issues of future e - growth and helps define the desired?.ra`f7r cE?among social, environmental and economic considerations,while enhanc- ing quality of life in the community. As Cupertino implements Community Vision 2040,it , - aspires to preserve and enhance the distinct character of each planning area to create a vibrant community with invit- ing streets and public spaces,preserved,connected and ` walkable neighborhoods,exceptional parks and community _ " services,and a vibrant economy with a strong tax base. " This Element includes goals,policies and strategies that ' provide direction on land use and design principles that will shape future change in Cupertino.In tum,each of the other Elements in Community Vision 2040 support the land use and design assumptions included in this Element . - LV-3 1 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 - _ City of Cupertino Many of Cupertino's pioneer settlers planted vineyards and wineries proliferated on Montebello Ridge,on the lower .- foothills,and on the flat lands below.The valley,which „ flourished with orchards,became known as"Valley of the " Heart's Delight'and was visited by tourists who came by - electric railway and later by rail car. In the late 1940s,Cupertino was swept up in Santa Clara Valley's postwar population explosion.In 1954,Cupertino's leaders began a drive for incorporation due to concerns related to unplanned development,higher taxes and piece- meal annexations by other cities.In 1955,the incorporation s approved by an election on September 27,1955. Cupertino became Santa Clara County's thirteenth City on - October 10,1955.Today,Cupertino is part of Silicon Valley, - home to major world-renowned companies in the high technology sector. Hillsides Cupertino's hillsides are an irreplaceable resource shared by the entire Santa Clara Valley.They provide important habi- tat for plants and wildlife;watershed capacity to prevent ' flooding in downstream areas;a wide vegetative belt that cleanses the air of pollutants;creates recreational opportu- nities for residents;and a natural environment that provides a contrast to the built environment.The City Elarces the needs of property owners in.hillside areas with those of the ' environment and the community by allowing low-intensity residential and other uses in these areas,while requiring preservation of natural habitat and riparian condors when selecting building sites. Neighborhood Preservation Cupertino is a city with diverse and unique neighborhoods that vary in character and composition.As Cupertino matures,the city must continue to look at preserving and LU-6 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community De=ign Element CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES ;.Balanced Community The City seeks to 5@agce,`jfutum growth and development in order create a more complete community.This includes ensuring a mix of land uses that support economic,social and cultural goals in order to preserve and enhance Cupertino's great quality of life. - E Policy LU-1.1:Land Use and Transportation Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service,and along major corridors. Policy LU-1.2:Development Allocation Maintain and update the development allocation table (Table LU-1)to ensure that the allocations for various land uses adequately meet city goals. Strategy LU-1.2.1:Planning Area Allocations. Development allocations are assigned for various Planning Areas.However,some flexibility may be allowed for transferring allocations among Planning Areas provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for Community Vision 2040. LU-13 1 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element while increasing opportunities for other modes of transportation. Strategy LU-8.3.3:Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements.Consider infrastructure and stmetscape improvementsinareas,such as the Crossroads or South Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian- oriented area that meets community design goals. Strategy LU-8.3.4:High Sales-Tax Producing Retail Uses. Consider locations for high sales-tax producing retail uses (such as life-style and hybrid commodity-specialty centers) provided the development is compatible with the surround- ing area in terms of building scale and traffic. Policy LU-8.4:Property Acquisition Maximize revenue from City-owned land and resources,and ensure that the City's land acquisition strategy is 6elaaced with revenues. Policy LU-8.5:Efficient Operations Plan land use and design projects to allow the City to main- tain efficient operations in the delivery of services including, community centers,parks,roads,and storm drainage,and other infrastructure. LU-35 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element utilizing that formula.Properties that have already been since subdivided in conformance with the above designa- tion have no further subdivision potential for residential purposes. Strategy LU-12.1.4:Existing lots in Foothill Modified and Foothill Modified 1/2-acre Slope density designations. Require discretionary review with a hillside exception for hillside or R7 properties if development is proposed on substandard parcels on slopes per the R7 and RHS zoning. Policy LU-12.2:Clustering Subdivisions Cluster lots in major subdivisions and encourage clustering in minor subdivisions,for projects in the 5-20-aae slope density designation.Reserve 90 percent of the land in private open space to protect the unique characteristics of the hillsides from adverse environmental impacts.Keep the open space areas contiguous as much as possible. Policy LU-12.3:Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides.Improvement standards shouldl-bdladce the need to furnish adequate util- ity and emergency services against the Strategy LU-12.3.1:Grading.Follow natural land contours and avoid mass of grading of sites during construction, especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas. Grading hillside sites into large,flat areas shall be avoided. Strategy LU-12.3.2:Roads.Roads should be narrowed to avoid harming trees and stmambeds. Strategy LU-12.3.3:Trees.Retain significant specimen trees,especially when they grow in groves or clusters and integrate them into the developed site. LU-d1 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 City of Cupertino Oak Valley Neighborhood llir S o Policy LU-29.1:Development Intensity Require development intensity for the single-family Oak Valley neighborhood to be consistent with the development agreement that includes the use permit and other approv- als.The development agreement describes development areas,intensity and styles of development,public park dedication,Vee protection,access and historic preserva- tion.The theme of the approvals is to�bsla;jcedevelopment with environmental protection by clustering development, setting it back from sensitive environmental areas and pre- serving large areas as permanent open space. Policy LU-29.2:Design Elements Require buildings to reflect the natural hillside setting as required in residential hillside zones with traditional architectural styles and natural materials and colors.Larger building elements should be scaled to respect the existing development in the surrounding area. LU-7d Search results schools CHAPTER Land Use and Community Design Element has made strides towards improving walkability and bike- ability by retrofitting existing streets to include bike lanes; creating sidewalks lined with trees along major boulevards; and encouraging development to provide a more pedestri- an-ortented frontage with active uses,gathering places and entries lining the street As the City seeks to implement sustainability and com- munity health objectives,future growth and retrofitting of existing infrastructure will create vibrant mixed-use, c rcial,employment and neighborhood centers; pedestrian-oriented and walkable spaces for the community to gather;and distinct and connected neighborhoods with easy walkable and bikeable access to services,including Echols',parks and shopping. Historic Preservation The Cupertino area was originally settled by the Ohlone Indians,who lived in the Rancho San Antonio area for over 3,000 years.In 1776 the area was explored by Spanish soldiers during an expedition let by Colonel Juan Batista De Anna.The area was later settled by European immi- grants who established farms on the valley's fertile land and enjoyed a thriving agricultural economy. In the late nineteenth century the village of Cupertino sprang up at the crossroads of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (De Anza Boulevard)and Stevens Creek Road.It was first known as the West Side.However,by 1898 the post office at the Crossroads needed a new name to distinguish it from other similarly named towns.The name"Cupertino"came from a local creek and winery owned by John T.Doyle,a San Francisco lawyer and historian.In 1904,the Cupertino name was officially applied to the Crossroads post office. At the same time,the Home Union Store at the Crossroads location was renamed the Cupertino Store and moved to the northeast corner of the Crossroads. - LL'-5 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element enhancing its built environment-Cupertino's vision is to , preserve the distinct character of neighborhoods;provide PriorityDevelopment Areas walking and biking connections to services including parks. In 2068 ABAG t and he MTC sc(ionrand shopping;and revitalize neighborhood centers created a regional.m,:-,lve _ as community gathering places.The City welcome to alfow local governments to citizens as partners in making sure that their neighborhood identify Priority Development , are the kind In which they want to live in the future. Areas.(PDAs)PDAs are areas - where new development will Regional Land Use Planning . support the day-to day needs The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of _of residents and wo,"rkers m a - - 2008(5B 375)calls on each of the State's 18 metropolitan pedestrian friendlylenvuophJent•;'• areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) served bY;transit:,While.PDAs,.:. ' to accommodate future population growth and reduce were originally established to greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.Plan address housing needs m infill Bay Area,jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association of communiues.they ave been Bay Area Governments(ABAG)and the Metropolitan -broadened to advance-fomsed Transportation Commission(MTC),is the region's first employment growth PDAs are Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the require- critical coin' f, imple merits of SB 375 through the year 2040. menting the region's proposed - - Plan Bay Area anticipates that the.Bay Area's population w ll long to m growth'strategy The' grow from about 7 million today to approximately 9 million level.of growth n,each PDA by 2040 with employment growth of about 1.1 million jobs. reflects its role m ache vmn The Plan provides a strategy for meeting 80 percent of the regional ci'ectrves.and how it t region's future housing needs in Priority Development Areas fits into locallg designated prior , (PDAs).These are neighborhoods within walking distance of ity'growlh plans.,Cupa nos_ - - _ frequent transit service,offering a wide variety of housing PDA area includes prop rues options,and featuring amenities such as grocery stores, within a quarter mile pf.Stevens,' community centers and restaurants. Creek Boulevard from Highway .85 to its eastern bolder and a- - Cupertino's Demographics portion of North and South be Cupertino's population has grown from 3,664 in 1960 to Anza Boulevards: , over 58,000 in 2010 per the U.S.Census Bureau.Most of the population growth has been from annexation of areas into the city and from tract development during the 1970s - and 1980s.The city's population is projected to grow to LU 7 -- COMMUNITY VISION 2040 e - City of Cupertino ' change in corridors that support all modes of transit, - providing neighborhoods with easy access tosc`}'a`1s parks and neighborhood centers. - - - _ 4. Land use and economics.The City will look to diversity the City's tax base,support and retain existing busi- _ - nesses,increase the vitality of aging commercial centers with redevelopment,seek to diversify shopping oppor- tunities so that the community has the opportunity to - satisfy their shopping needs within Cupertino. .. _ 5. Urban design,form and character-The City will seek high-quality development to achieve desired physical environment in Planning Areas,including walkable, connected neighborhoods,inviting sheets that allow for different modes of transportation,and vibrant and - - - walkable special areas,and neighborhood centers in .. keeping with Community Vision 2040. - - 6. Preservation of natural environment and hillsides. Cupertino is blessed with an abundance of natural - resources,including hillsides,creek corridors,and sensi- 'tive animal and plant habitats along the foothills.Much of this land is preserved in low-intensity residential and _ agricultural uses or open space.As redevelopment _ occurs,the City will strive to preserve these natural „ areas through land use and building design decisions. - 7. Economic Vitality and Fiscal Stability.As Cupertino's - - _. population grows and ages,demands on commu- nity resources will increase.In order to maintain and r - enhance the community's quality of life,the City will ' - ensure that existing businesses are encouraged to rein- . vest and grow in Cupertino,and that the city continues to attract new businesses and investment. - LU-12 CHAPTER 3 land Use and Community Design Element Policy LU-10.5:Annexation Actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated proper- ties within the City's urban service area,including the Creston neighborhoods,which will be annexed on a parcel- by-parcel basis with new development.Other remaining unincorporated islands will be annexed as determined by the City Council. Access to Community Facilities and Services The City will seek to improve connectivity and access to public facilities and services,including De Anza College. O p Polity LU-11.1:Connectivity Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new developments and community facilities.Review existing neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for students to walk and bike to'sdoo}r parks,and community facilities such as the library. �� Policy LU-11.2:De Anza College Allow land uses not traditionally considered part of a col- lege to be built at De Anza College,provided such uses integrate the campus into the community,provide facilities and services not offered in the City and/or alleviate impacts created by the college. LU-39 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 City of Cupertino Neighborhoods The City has many neighborhoods,each with its own distinctive character and setting.These neighborhoods play a vital role in supporting Cupertino's great quality of life.Neighborhood goals and policies help preserve and enhance the quality of life by protecting neighborhood character and improving walking and biking connections to parks,•,'sfs�and services.Neighborhoods typically offer a variety o'f housing choices to meet a spectrum of community needs.The following general goal,policies and strategies apply to all neighborhoods in the city. Policy LU-27.1:Compatibility Ensure that new development within and adjacent to resi- dential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character. Strategy LU-27.1.1:Regulations.Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single-family devel- . opment that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. Strategy LU-27.1.2:Neighborhood Guidelines.Identify neighborhoods that have a unique architectural style, historical background or location and develop plans that preserve and enhance their character.Support special zon- ing or design guidelines(e.g.,the Fairgrove Eichler neigh- borhood)and single-story overlay zones in neighborhoods, where there is strong neighborhood support. LU-r? CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element Strategy LU-27.1.3:Flexibility.When neighborhoods are in transition,add flexibility for requirements for new devel- opment that acknowledge the transition while continuing to respect the existing neighborhood. Strategy LU-27.1.4:Late Night Uses.Discourage late- evening entertainment activities such as nightclubs in commercial areas where parcels are especially narrow, abut single-family residential development,and cannot adequately provide visual and noise buffers. Policy LU-27.2:Relationship to the Street Ensure that new development in and adjacent to neighbor- hoods improve the walkability of neighborhoods by provid- . ing inviting entries,stoops and porches along the street frontage,compatible building design and reducing visual impacts of garages. Policies LU-27.3:Entries. Define neighborhood entries through architecture,or land- scaping appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Gates are discouraged because they isolate developments from the community. Policy LU-27.4:Connections. Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that improve access with neighborhoods to parks,s�,.d_disand local retail,and between neighborhoods.Support traffic calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce traffic impacts on neighborhoods. Policy LU-27.5:Streets. Determine appropriate street widths,bike lane,sidewalk and streetlight design to define the unique character of neighborhoods,where appropriate. LU-73 Search results job CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element enhanc ng its built environment Cupertino's vision t - Preserve the distinct character of neighborhoods,provide Priority Develop t Areas walking and biking connections to services including parks, a 12008 ABAG d theTC M schools and shopping;and revitalize neighborhood centers ,1ted g o I iniiiallve,;, as unity gathering places.The City will welcome -t II w I cal g m is to; `1 ci*e s as partners in making sure that their neighborhoods -_`d t Priority D I pm pt.„T 1 are the kind in which they want to live in the future. Ar as(PDAs)PDAs a Regional Land Use Planning c.whem new development will, 't The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of app nth day to-d y e ds= 2008(SB 375)calls on each of the State's 18 metropolitan f reId n1s and workers a acts to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) tr n fr endly n nrnerit'; ,serve'bitninsit Whit PDAs` to accommodate future population growth and reduce neo g nally a tabl h d to ` greenhouse gas emissions from cam and light trucks.Plan add s h Ing ed I nfill� .. Bay Area,jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association ofm,Ines;tit y h en e be ; Bay Area Governments MAGI and the Metropolitan e b.d e,d toad n fdcused Transportation Commission(MTC),is the region's first Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the req ne- on ply t g._vrth PDAs re. marts of SB 375 through the year 2040. ti I p e t f mpl _'. mentmg,tlia region'proposed,-, Plan Bay Area anticipates that the Bay Area's population will 'Jorg t rn growth trat gy Ther. grow from about 7 million today to approximately 9 Ilion -le 1 (g ovrth" h PDA' by 2040 with employment growth of about 1.1 milli,,4 �'reB ctsu olein ch 9;.- The Plan provides a strategy for meeting 80 percent of the ,reg n 1 61 clivi sland how it- region's future housing needs in Priority Development Areas .'('ta i t I ally d g i d prior (PDAs).These are neighborhoods within walking distance of Jty g v plans C p rts frequent transit service,offering a vide variety of housing PI)Aiieii includes pop rtes options,and featuring amen t es such as grocery stores, withina quarter mile f Stevens. community centers and restaurants. 'Creek Bou- levard f o H ghway '85 t is zstern b icier and a' Cupertino's Demographics %<Pon, of N'o`rth aric(SoiAhh6ii 'Anza B Cupertinos population has grown from 3,664 in 1960 to uleverds _ over 58,000 in 2010 per the U.S.Census Bureau.Most of the population growth has been from annexation of areas into the city and from tract development during the 1970s and 1980s.The ciH population is projected to grow to tua CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element 2006(AB 32)and Executive Order 5-3-05 set a target to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050.The City is in the process of completing its Climate Action Plan(CAP),which aims to achieve statewide and Bay Area emissions reduction targets. The CAP is based on 2040 growth pmjections for Cupertino and identifies policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a municipal and community-wide level. Similar to most neighboring cities,Cupertino has historically had an imbalance of land uses(housing,services andj6_ with a roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the automobile.When this imbalance is multiplied at a regional level,there are regional consequences including,traffic congestion,high housing costs,increased air pollution and lack of accessibility for the young,elderly and disabled. Economic.Vitality Cupertino is fortunate in its location in the heart of Silicon Valley.Despite its mostly suburban characteristics to the west and south,the city is home to a number of small, medium and large software,technology and biomedical companies.Community Vision 2040 includes more office growth to support a strong fiscal revenues and a stable tax base.In particular,policies focus on retaining and increasing the number of small,medium and major businesses in key sectors and provide flexible space for innovative startups that need non-traditional office environment.Policies for commercial areas seek to revitalize the Vallco Shopping District,and enhance commercial centers and neighbor- hood centers,which contribute to the City's tax base and serve community needs. LU-9 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:48 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Please stop uncontrolled high density development in our neighborhood as indicated in current GPA "A I BwFT g` H" I From:Tao Lin [mailto:ltao99@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:29 AM To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; svaidhyanathan@cupertino.or; Darcy Paul Subject: Please stop uncontrolled high density development in our neighborhood as indicated in current GPA Dear City Councils, I urge you to double think before you make any vote for current GPA as it's against to the major Cupertino residents' interests, and it's against to a healthy and sustainable community. As a civil engineer who has many years of experience in planning and construction, I am very concerned about current uncontrolled high density development due to GPA. Your service as a city council really determines the future of this beloved neighborhood. Please double double think your decision on your valuable votes, using your own conscience, from a perspective of the local residents instead of the developers. Thank you. Tao i Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:24 AM To: City Clerk X H B I Subject: FW:Vote NO! From:Susan Moore [mailto:susanmoore2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:17 PM To: City Council Cc:susanmoore2000@yahoo.com Subject:Vote NO! BE RESPONSIBLE - Vote NO to stop uncontrolled growth and density! Cupertino has too much traffic already. Schools will be overcrowded - how many more portables will there be? City cannot sustain more housing which means additional showers and flushing toilets in this drought. 1 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:11 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:General Plan review EXHIBI MU I a& From:AABH@aol.com [mailto:AABH@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:30 AM To:City Council Subject: General Plan review Dear City Council, I appreciate the work you do and the balancing act you manage as our city leaders. I served the planning commission for 7 years, 2 years as chair, and love our city as much as you do. I am glad to see a holding pattern on the recommendation to revamp our city corridors, increase our heights and density, and change forever Cupertino as we know it. We don't need to do that. Currently most of our corridors are zoned for 45 feet, but were built to just one or two stories, maybe . 10 or 20 feet high. New development would be at.the maximum heights and densities, as you know, and also these days we are typically building right up to the street. The result of height change for our corridor streets would be a total loss-of views of our hills, major impacts on traffic and school capacity, and a loss of our present suburban quality of life. Our residents don't really want that. I worry about 2M sq ft of office at Vallco because the traffic would be intolerable, and ABAG will require an inordinate number of housing units. I like Peter Pau. He has been a good partner for our city, and Vallco needs a redo. But all developers say that they need way more square footage than they really need to be profitable, and that they can't underground the parking and be viable, but those . of course are expected stances to be negotiated. Also it was very clear from the meetings we recently had that the voters don't want to grant size concessions in exchange for "community amenities." So good luck! I know you will find a way to define some small steps to enable modernism and still maintain our suburban character and quality of life. And that is what most of us really want. Best regards, Andrea Harris i Andrea Sanders From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:12 AM To: Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt; Carol Korade Cc: Colleen Winchester,City Clerk Subject: FW:Vallco not on May 19 agenda but I transcribe Vallco discussions form Dec 3, 2014 FYI.... H. -EX- From: Erin Cooke Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 7:43 AM To: Piu Ghosh-,-Gary Chao Subject: FW: Vallco not on May 19 agenda but I transcribe Vallco discussions form Dec 3, 2014 Question 2 of 2. Thanks again. From: Gary Latshaw [mailto:glatshaw0)gmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 7:19 AM To: Erin Cooke; Rick Kitson Subject: Fwd: Vallco not on May 19 agenda but I transcribe Vallco discussions form Dec 3, 2014 A friend sent me this. She find the critical parts of a previous council meeting. I gather then the council doesn't have to make a decision on the vallco parcel at this time. Gary ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Linda Sell<Indsell a,gmail.com> Date: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:32 AM Subject: Vallco not on May 19 agenda but I transcribe Vallco discussions form Dec 3, 2014 To: Tim Brand<tkbrandnsbcglobal.net>, Gary Latshaw<glatshaw@,gmail.com> Vallco not on May 19 agenda but I transcribe Vallco discussions form Dec 3, 2014 Council Meeting December 3,2015 [hours:minutes:seconds] [00:39:25] Barry Chang: For example the audience has spoke out, they feel Vallco project is too rushed so can we put Vallco project delay it and discuss it when they have a specific plan working with the resident to. come to some kind of agreement. Then we do a general plan amendment with approving the project at the same time. City manager: The general plan is the upper level of entitlement. No zoning. It is still zoned what it was last year. It was retail and that would continue until they got it rezoned. Barry Chang: Until they have the specific plan. Until the city approve it with the rezone at that time. If we can work it out. We don't approve. We don't rezone. .Attorney: If you want to tonight, you can amend the general plan to give Vallco the housing. Some number of housing units and to change the corresponding general plan amendment. But that does not give them the right to do anything. In addition to tonight's approval. They would need to comeback sometime in the next three years i and comeback and get zoning within the next three years and have a specific plan approved. Barry Chang: If we allocate the housing element then we are giving them the blank check and then we cannot stop it 100 :42:39] Attorney: If you do not want to give them a blank check Lou hold back approval for the projecti two Number one is zoning. lie- ways.MEN@ o i _Ec` ion M, �Te e,�t `$ e_ e Y o a�,o o ,o o a _...What we are identifying is just the options. That is all we are talking about the options. Rod Sinks: -My understanding is that-there have been some change recently then when we pick a housing element site. If we do assign-Vallco in the housing element. Provision that it is not entitle until a specific plan comes back to council. Obviously after a community process. If we see a broad support from the community. The council could elect to put it through its paces. If the public is not behind the specific plan or if the specific plan does not meet the requirements of the city can you talk to that Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager: MEW wha ear ousa `s t a 0u a_e {o oa. O. abbe os. rig e�rct�j ..mat h41��t%rn - Rod Sinks: Our residents are not comfortable Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager: 'a wol: e o W3 tib G'e ,=ewel per h. otng o., ant t°i Rod Sinks: On Nov. 10 we place some housing elements there but nothing is entitled until there is a specific plan and no rezoning.. Rod Sinks Deliberation: ...Right now over half that mall is shutter... What do you think is going to happen. Would it be great if someone was will to invest in a great retail. We would not need to do any office or any residential. I'd be fine with that. I am guessing the developer might be in the 400 million...500 million...we cannot put a park there unless you want to put up a bond measure and you all want to put a park there great.But man that is a lot of money for every resident in town. It is a order of magnitude beyond what the voters of the city accepting. Let it decay further is not an option. I talked.to a lot of experts not only the cities retail consultant. Folk that did Santana Row...I honestly don't think ani hi g Ies_ mxe = e i{ outo sln": �; o .ce .g®"gig to .;,or.- •. �;� e 3 ;-'c=o c of 9�malR 4�iat�cori=,�ue o pita o e pine o, best e�f= [2:59:06] Savita: Savita reads Sierra club letter that recommends housing near employment [3:02:13] Darcy Paul: Community sentiment is that Vallco needs to be redeveloped. We do not see these three 0 _ a e t et ill ot Eora o& [a T t o4 ob it= the e.tee oa not 3n: .s wox �-ae anchor stores surviving....I accept the idea that most people want to do somethinwith Vallco [3:00:02] Rod Sinks Are you okay with Vallco to comininate into a spefic plan.-designate as housing element site with not zoning, not set back, no heights,until the earliest of specific plans __ [3_00:35] :' ��tKa f �eduseclwith'�`taill®use g�arro fir vA [4:15:15] Rod Sinks die�e ,, as co xcen us ona T leas plc�l t a e _#ec t d4iti� toolMemo. o 1�aea cii xl'a"nbxze ht=forth �' D 1 te�c '. slroo Lin k $2 �ffee zliat Qes n ite�"aafli _ �__ . _ 2 . —MM [4:21::51] "...Vallcos going to go or it is not going to go. Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign oil; reduce military requirements Gary Latshaw, Ph.D. 408-499-3006 3 Andrea Sanders From: Liang C <Ifchao@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:48 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Fwd:An Environment Group Sued San Jose and Won Because its General Plan Creates Excessive Jobs 1 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please put this into the public record for Many 19th meeting for item 7b. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Liang C <lfchao c gmail.com> Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM Subject: An Environment Group Sued San Jose and Won Because its General Plan Creates Excessive Jobs To: City Council<citycouncil c cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office<CityAttorney�2ccupertino.org>, planning_gpertino.org I'd like to bring your attention to this recent lawsuit filed by an environment group against San Jose over their General Plan because the General Plan creates too many jobs. The San Jose General Plan "Envision 2040" forces urban sprawl, instead of avoiding it, because it would require 109,000 more housing units to be built elsewhere in the region. The environment group California Clean Energy Committee won and San Jose settled and paid for attorney fees. San Jose barely avoided having to throw out the new General Plan, but they have to redo a section of the EIR. Our new General Plan, as proposed in December, would create excessive jobs. That might get Cupertino sued by similar environment groups. Would our EIR hold up under scrutiny? Traffic analysis, sewage system, green house emission? Read the following article and change "San Jose" to Cupertino and the exact same problem exists in Cupertino General Plan "Community Vision 2040." San Jose's population is about 15 tunes of Cupertino. 109,000 divides 15 translates to about 7,000 jobs, in the scale of Cupertino. And Cupertino is creating much more than 7,000 jobs without any plan for housing or traffic mitigation. Apple Campus 2 is expected to create a demand of 14,000 new workers. Now that 2 million square feet of office is added to Vail-166", it will create another demand of 10,000 to 12,000 workers. Even if we are building 4,421 housing units,by 2040, we are still creating a huge demand for more housing. Much more than the 7,000 projected by ABAG. And San Jose has a problem with job deficiency, which is why they are creating more jobs in their General Plan. But Cupertino already has a 1.3 to 1 job-worker ratio. The allocation of 2 million square feet of office at Vallco, on top of Apple Campus 2, opens Cupertino up for a lawsuit. In addition, the EIR states the "future growth under the proposed Project would come incrementally over approximately 26 years," the EIR assumed a citywide office allocation of 4 million square feet over a period of 26 years, to be built up gradually. The EIR never estimated the impact of 2 million square feet of office to be built in 2 years, as soon as Apple Campus 2 finishes, within half mile of each other. 1 Please rescind Resolution 14-211. Your action to correct an unintentional mistaken would save Cupertino from potential lawsuits and many problems from urban sprawl, as pointed out by this article. And you will win the people's hearts. A good and transparent government that listens to the residents and that's not afraid to stand up and correct its course of action down a path that might ruin Cupertino in the long run. I hope people would be glad that they voted for you to represent the residents' interests. Thank you. Liang-Fang Chao Cupertino Resident ----------------------------- San Jose's Traffic-Intense General Plan Held Unlawful, May 7, 2015 http://www.californiacleanenerry.or san jose s traffic intenseeg neral plan held unlawful The California Clean Energy Committee has successfully over-turned the City of San Jose General Plan due to the failure to adequately analyze impacts resulting from a lack of housing for people employed in the city. The City's recent update of its general plan would require 109,000 additional housing units to be built elsewhere in the region for employees working in San Jose. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) described the effect of that kind of planning in its 2007- 2014 Regional Housing Needs Plan— In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan areas, cities with employment centers have historically planned for insufficient housing to match job growth. This lack of housing has escalated Bay Area housing costs. Unmet housing demand has also pushed housing production to the edges of our region and to outlying areas. San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito counties have produced much of the housing needed for Bay Area workers. People moving to these outlying areas has led to longer commutes on increasingly congested freeways and inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and land. Negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall quality of life in the Bay Area also result. The City conceded that it is "very apparent"in the Bay Area that"it is the physical relationship between the location of housing and jobs . . . that significantly contributes to several of the primary impacts of concern in the region, particularly air pollution and the excessive consumption of energy and land resulting from an inefficient sprawling land-use pattern.". In short,the proposed general plan update means more sprawl, more traffic, more costly regional transportation projects, more noise, more land consumed by transportation structures, greater contributions to climate disruption,more maintenance obligations for stretched government budgets, more air pollution, more transportation expense for individuals, more time consumed sitting in traffic, and less time for family and leisure. Moreover, the City has no plan in place to pay for the costs of dealing with the traffic its plan would produce. The City exhausted an innovative set of planning tools just trying to keep pace with the impacts from new traffic generated by its general plan update. Despite those efforts, the City still fell considerably short of even holding off new adverse impacts. 2 According to the City, "Traffic and the environmental effects of traffic, such as air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gases resulting from induced population' growth in other jurisdictions will result in significant environmental impacts." The California Legislature has enacted legislation in an effort to this kind of local planning and to ensure that communities are designed to reduce the amount of driving that people need to do to carry on their daily activities. (See Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.) The California Air Resources Board has set a target, calling for a 4 percent reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved through improved local planning. The City of San Jose now proposes to head dramatically in the opposite direction. Its proposed general plan would increase daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 19.8 million to 34.8 million by 2035. (See Final Program EIR at 882.) Even if the effect of population growth is factored out, the City's general plan update still represents a dramatic 32% increase in per capita VMT. x The City, relying on faulty advice from the Bay Area AQMM, failed to disclose the impact on GH-G- emissions resulting from lack of adequate housing and increased traffic. The California Supreme Court has made it quite clear that ignoring such impacts "results in an `illusory' comparison that `can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvertfull consideration of the actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent." (Communities fora Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District(2010) 48 Ca1.4th'310.) 3 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:53 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:An Environment Group Sued San Jose and Won Because its General Plan Creates Excessive Jobs mw R EAIHIB12ml= From: Liang C [mailto:lfchao@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:48 PM To: City Council; City Attorney-'s Office, City of Cupertino Planning Dept-.---- Subject: ept.--Subject:An Environment Group Sued San Jose and Won Because its General Plan Creates Excessive Jobs I'd like to bring your attention to this recent lawsuit filed by an environment group against San Jose over their General Plan because the General Plan creates too many jobs. The San Jose General Plan "Envision 2040" forces urban sprawl, instead of avoiding it,because it would require 109,000 more housing units to be built elsewhere in the region. The environment group California Clean Energy Committee won and San Jose settled and paid for attorney fees. San Jose barely avoided having to throw out the new General Plan,but they have to redo a section of the EIR. Our new General Plan, as proposed in December, would create excessive jobs. That might get Cupertino sued by similar environment-groups. Would our EIR-hold up under scrutiny? Traffic analysis, sewage system, green house emission? Read.the following article and change "San Jose" to Cupertino and the exact same problem exists in Cupertino General Plan "Community Vision 2040." San Jose's population is about 15 times of Cupertino. 109,000 divides 15 translates to about 7,000 jobs, in the scale of Cupertino. And Cupertino is creating much more than 7,000 jobs without any plan for housing or traffic mitigation. Apple Campus 2 is_expected to create a demand of 14,000 new workers. Now that 2 million square feet of office is added to Vallco, it will create another demand of 10,000 to 12,000 workers. Even if we are building 4,421 housing units,by 2040, we are still creating a huge demand for more housing. Much more than the 7,000 projected by ABAG. And San Jose has a problem with job deficiency, which is why they are creating more jobs in their General Plan. But Cupertino already has a 1.3 to 1 job-worker ratio. The allocation of 2 million square feet of office at Vallco, on top of Apple Campus 2, opens Cupertino up for a lawsuit. In addition, the EIR states the "future growth under the proposed Project would come incrementally over approximately 26 years," the EIR assumed a citywide office allocation of 4 million square feet over a period of 26 years, to be built up gradually. The EIR never estimated the impact of 2 million square feet of office to be built in 2 years, as soon as Apple Campus 2 finishes, within half mile of each other. Please rescind Resolution 14-211. Your action to correct an unintentional mistaken would save Cupertino from potential lawsuits and many problems from urban sprawl, as pointed out by this article. And you will win the people's hearts. A good and transparent government that listens to the residents and that's not afraid to stand up 1 and correct its course of action down a path that might ruin Cupertino in the long run. I hope people would be glad that they voted for you to represent the residents' interests. Thank you. Liang-Fang Chao Cupertino Resident ----------------------------- San Jose's Traffic=Intense General Plan Held Unlawful, May 7, 2015 ht!p://www.califom�iacleanenergy.org/san jose s traffic intenseeg neral_plan held unlawful The California Clean Energy Committee has successfully over-turned the City of San Jose General Plan due to the failure to adequately analyze impacts resulting from a lack of housing for people employed in the city. The City's recent update of its general plan would require 109,000 additional housing units to be built elsewhere in the region for employees working in San Jose. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) described the effect of that kind of planning in its 2007- 2014 Regional Housing Needs Plan— In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan areas, cities with employment centers have historically planned for insufficient housing to match job growth. This lack of housing has escalated Bay Area housing costs. Unmet housing demand has also pushed housing production to the edges of our region and to outlying areas. San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito counties have produced much of the housing needed for Bay Area workers. People moving to these outlying areas has led to longer commutes on increasingly congested freeways and inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and land. Negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall quality of life in the Bay Area also result. The City conceded that it is "very apparent"in the Bay Area that"it is the physical relationship between the location of housing and jobs . . . that significantly contributes to several of the primary impacts of concern in the region, particularly air pollution and the excessive consumption of energy and land resulting from an inefficient sprawling land-use pattern." In short, the proposed general plan update means more sprawl, more traffic, more costly regional transportation projects, more noise, more land consumed by transportation structures, greater contributions to climate disruption, more maintenance obligations for stretched government budgets,more air pollution,more transportation expense for individuals, more time consumed sitting in traffic, and less time for family and leisure. Moreover, the City has no plan in place to pay for the costs of dealing with the traffic its plan would produce. The City exhausted an innovative set of planning tools just trying to keep pace with the impacts from new traffic generated by its general plan update. Despite those efforts, the City still fell considerably short of even holding off new adverse impacts. According to the City, "Traffic and the environmental effects of traffic, such as air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gases resulting from induced population growth in other jurisdictions will result in significant environmental impacts." 2 The California Legislature has enacted legislation in an effort to this kind of local planning and to ensure that communities are designed to reduce the amount of driving that people need to do to carry on their daily activities. (See Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.) The California Air Resources Board has set a target, calling for a 4 percent reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved through improved local planning. The City of San Jose now proposes to head dramatically in the opposite direction. Its proposed general plan would increase daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 19.8 million to 34.8 million by 2035. (See Final Program ETR at,882.) Even if the effect of population growth is factored out, the City's general plan update still represents a dramatic 32% increase in per capita VMT. The City, relying on faulty advice from the Bay Area AQMD, failed to disclose the impact on GHG emissions resulting from lack of adequate housing and increased traffic. The California Supreme Court has made it quite clear that ignoring such impacts "results in an `illusory' comparison that `can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and.subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent." (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air.Quality Management District(2010) 48 CalAth 310.) 3� Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:08 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Cupertino GPA EXrfliEIBIT -----Original Message----- From: Sabrina Rizk [mailto:sabrina.rizk@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:06 PM To: City Council Subject: Cupertino GPA Dear Honorable Council Members, Thank you for your service to our community.You have some tough decisions to make. I wanted to provide my two cents, so that you hear a voice other than the negative ones who seem to take issue with anything that is proposed. This is the Cupertino I would like to see in the future: -One that has a better balance between jobs and housing and one that has a greater diversity of housing options for all income levels and age groups. I'm not concerned about Cupertino becoming a 'company town' should more Apple employees live here, as there are too many other employers in the area (unlike an isolated northern or mountainous mining/lumber town), and Apple does not control the town general store and the price of basic.goods, unlike the company towns of yore. -One that offers transit alternatives, be it separated bike lanes, Community shuttles, mini school buses, and any other alternatives where the evidence shows people will use it and where it will reduce our carbon footprint.Alternatives should exist for people of all income groups, ages, and life-circumstances. -Village centers with at least some basic services to neighborhoods, to encourage more walking/bike and reduce distances of car trips. Potential locations could be South DeAnza between Rainbow and Prospect (on the Cupertino side), and the Stevens Creek/Bubb Road area, as a start. - More mixed-use/residential density along Stevens Creek between DeAnza and Stelling and on DeAnza between Bollinger/Stevens Creek.There are several single story plazas along here that are ripe for redevelopment in what would truly be the 'Heart of the City'. I could even see Senior Housing (apartments), going in where the Pizza Hut is, if we could find a willing developer. - I also support the redevelopment of The Oaks as residential mixed-use, as well as Vallco. On this issue of office space at Vallco, if the Council truly believes it is necessary to support economic diversification, then go for it. If Apple is just going to lease it all up,then it doesn't serve our purposes. - If the school districts and utilities say they can accommodate demand, and if Council continues to work with transit authorities, the private sector, and to support the building of separated bike lanes, then I support moving forward on transforming Cupertino into a more dynamic city. 1 - I believe Cupertino residents are underserved in the sit-down restaurant and shopping categories. Many of the new eateries seem to be catering to people who work in the city and who just need to grab a quick lunch.While I believe that that population needs to be served as well, I would like to see more restaurants like a California Pizza Kitchen or Opa, where families can go and enjoy dinner together. -Since part of the purpose of the GPA was to replenish hotel stock, and since it would have little impact on schools and to a lesser extent traffic, I support moving ahead with Cupertino Inn's request for additional height/hotel rooms. Since the other proposals that included hotel rooms are mixed-use projects, I see them returning under the competitive process proposed by staff. - I am concerned that we just spent 2 years on a process that didn't get us very far and don't think it's fair to property owners who have already expressed interest in improving their properties. While I believe in due diligence and community input, I think we need to keep in mind that economic circumstances can change in a moment. I would be hesitant to wait too long to approve/deny development proposals. That said,the new annual competitive process looks like an efficient and consistent approach to considering major development proposals in the future. Finally, I strongly urge all Council members to make evidence-based decisions that will benefit the greater good and that will meet our climate change goals. Sincerely, Sabrina Rizk Cupertino Resident 2 Andrea Sanders From: Chen Shi [chenshi66@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:16 PM To: City Council; Chen Shi Cc: City Clerk Subject: Re: From a registered voter and Cupertino resident: Please Rescind Ordinance 14-211 to Correct the Innocent Mistake LIME= x Cupertino City Council Member, I urge the Cupertino City Council to rescind Resolution 14=211, a total rewrite of the General Plan, because they were misinformed and the Council did not spend time deliberate such important document. The residents and the Council members deserve the time they require to study and discuss different aspects of the plan in detail. Plus, the Council promised to postpone GPA on Dec. 4, 2014 already. As a registered voter and Cupertino resident, I urge the Cupertino City Council to • Save Cupertino Schools from uncontrolled growth. a Keep Cupertino as a suburban city. • Keep "2000-2020 General Plan" (a.k.a. 2005 General Plan) until the year 2020. • Discontinue Developer/community Benefits program or any form of it. • Consider GPA request one project at a time. Grow the city sensibly and sustainably with infrastructure enhancement. Name: Shi Chen Email: chenshi66(a'D-yahoo.com Address: 10594 White Fir Ct. 95014, Cupertino CA i Andrea Sanders From: Cailan Shen [shencailan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:12 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: From a registered voter and Cupertino resident: Please Rescind Ordinance 14-211 to Correct the Innocent Mistake 1�2T Cupertino City Council Member, EXHIB04' I urge the Cupertino City Council to rescind Resolution 14-211, a total rewrite of the General Plan, because they were misinformed and the Council did not spend time deliberate such important document. The residents and the Council members deserve the time they require to study and discuss different aspects of the plan in detail. Plus, the Council promised to postpone GPA on Dec. 4, 2014 already. As a registered voter and Cupertino resident, I urge the Cupertino City Council to • Save Cupertino Schools from uncontrolled growth. • Keep Cupertino as a suburban city. • Keep "2000-2020 General Plan" (a.k.a. 2005 General Plan) until the year 2020. • Discontinue Developer/community Benefits program or any form of it. • Consider GPA request one project at a time. • Grow the city sensibly and sustainably with infrastructure enhancement. Name: Cailan Shen Email: shencailan(cDgmail.corn Address: 10594 White Fir Ct. 95014, Cupertino CA i Andrea Sanders To: Grace Schmidt Subject: RE: [Better Cupertino WG] Civil Grand Jury From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:38 PM 'wBIT To: City Clerk Subject: FW: [Better Cupertino WG] Civil Grand Jury EXH From: Randy Shingai Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:17 PM To: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com Cc: City Council Subject: Re: [Better Cupertino WG] Civil Grand Jury Hi Xiaowen, Here is the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury web site. There are links for complaint forms a few lines down. I was going to wait until after the meeting to see if the Council will rectify the situation, as there is no way the Civil Grand Jury will investigate before the Council meeting. We have lots of requests to the Council to back out the items that they promised they wouldn't consider, so we have a nice video and paper trail of trying to get thing rectified. It's not like something bad will happen to the City or Council if the Grand Jury writes a scathing report, but anyone running for office probably doesn't want a scathing report on their record-. That sort of thing can kill a political career. Especially if there are people out there with longs memories that hold grudges, and will keep the information in the public eye. Like most of this group. :) The other great thing about Civil Grand Jury reports is that news outlets and opinion columns like to use them. Randy On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Xiaowen Wang<xiaowenwg=ail.com>wrote: Hi, Randy, i Do you know how to file compliant with Civil Grand Jury? I Thanks, i Xiaowen 1 On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Randy Shingai < wrote: It just occurred to me that we can complain to the Civil Grand Jury about this: http•//bettercupertino blogspot com/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promised-to.html t I found this: http://www.sescourt.orWcourt divisions/civil/c2j/2014/PA.pdf i Visit our Home Page http://Nvww.bettercupertino.org/ Visit out facebook page https://wNvw.facebook.com/BetterCupertino You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 'Better Cupertino Work Group" is t group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to better-cupertino-work- group+unsubscribe(cil,�,googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to better-cupertino-work-groupac googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/grou ibetter-cupertino-work-groLip. To view this discussion on the web visit https:Hgroups google.com/(i/msgid/better-cupertino-work- group/CALmgSXaE9o7ifnc l eGSU2NDepyXNTVuEBdB7i VdEDpbNOCbkA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https:Hgroups.google.com/d/optout. Visit our Home Page http://www.bettercupertino.org/ Visit out facebook page https://www.facebook.com/BetterCupertino You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Better Cupertino Work Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to better-c pertino-work- group+unsubscribe ggooglegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to better-cupertino-work-group a og oglegroups.com. Visit this group at http•//group s.goo com/group/better-cupertino-work-group. To view this discussion on the web visit https //g_roups.google.com/d/msgidibetter-cLjpertino-work- group/C ok-ff-lHbKv Cfa6wOTQxGXj4q-HknbW2-efi08jP2TkYRxbJw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 2 Andrea Sanders From: Liang C <Ifchao@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:07 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Fwd: Housing Element Sites Are NOT Evenly Distributed Please put this into written communication for agenda item 7a Housing Element. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message--------- �"OIBIT - From: Liang C < fchaoigmail.com> Date: Mon, May 18; 2015 at 9:56 AM Subject: Housing Element Sites Are NOT Evenly Distributed To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk<Cit Clerk ,cupertino.org>, planning_@,cup ertino.org One resident after another pleaded to the City Council during Dec. 2nd Public Hearing to please evenly distribute the Housing Element sites across the City of Cupertino. However, the Council eventually put most of the Housing Allocation along Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road. Near the intersection of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road, there are already 4 major construction projects, recently finished or still ongoing: Biltmore Adjacency, Main Street,Nineteen800 (Rosebowl) and Apple Campus 2. Plan A, determined by the Council, puts 600 units on Hamptons, 389 units on Vallco, 200 on the Oaks Shopping Center, 200 units on Marina, and 11 units on Barry Swenson, for a total of 1,400 units. (The allocation on Vallco is pending a specific plan by May 2018.) Plan B, which will be adopted only if Vallco did not get rezoned to allow housing, put 750 units on Hamptons, 235 units on the Oaks Shopping Center, 200 units on Marina, 58 units on Glenbrook and 11 units on Barry Swenson, for a total of 1,386 units. Note that ABAG only requires 1,002 units with a recommended 25-40%buffer. Are the Housing Element sites evenly distributed across the City of Cupertino? There are in fact 19 potential Housing Elements sites under consideration. But the Council only focused on a few large sites along the main arteries where the traffic is most congested. There will be 800 more housing units along Stevens Creek, in addition to the 80 units at Biltmore Adjacency, 204 units at Nineteen800, 120 units at Main Street. And along Wolfe Road, there will be 989 more housing units, in addition to the 204 units at Nineteen800. These housing units are NOT evenly distributed across the city, as the Council promised to do. The Council only considered the High School Attendance area during the council meeting. But some middle schools and elementary schools already in the most crowded area of Cupertino will get most of the impact. This is a spreadsheet, which corresponds each selected housing site with school attendance areas. Students from a total of 789 housig units will go to Lawson Middle School, in additon to 80 units from Biltmore i Adjacency. Students from 400 units will go to Sedgwick Elementary, in addition to 324 units from Main Street and Nineteen800. Students from 400 housing units will attend Garden Gate Elementary. Students from 600 units at Hamptons will attend Wilcox High School, Peterson Middle School, and Laurelwood Elementary School. In reviewing EIR of Cupertino GPA, Santa Clara Unified School District sent a letter, which points out potential school impact that should be mitigated, including safe routes to school, pollution, air quality and also the impact of students generated from the proposed 5.38 million square feet of office and commercial space. Furthermore, Cupertino will lose three major retail shopping centers to mixed use construction: Oaks, Marina and Vallco. A mixed use project could contain any use, hotel, office, housing and retail. It is a land use designation that sets no limit on any particular use. Often, it ends up with a project with only about 10% of the square footage for retail with tiny stores and tiny parking space. Such kind of mixed use retail center might work in other cities where pedestrian traffic or mass transit brings in most of the customers. In Cupertino, such kind of mixed use retail center hasn't provided prosperous retail sales, except due to foot traffic from nearby high schools. There are 19 housing sites. Some pure housing sites and a few retail centers. Some located in different corners of the city. Yet, the housing sites selected by the Council are not evenly distributed and they would most likely reduce the much needed retail space in Cupertino. On May 19th, the Council will approve the Housing Element. Although it might be too late to modify it due to the ABAG deadline, the council, the community and the school district should be aware of the potential impact on schools and our daily life. Reference: Housing Element Sites School Impact Summary for Plan A and Plan B Spreadsheet (https•//drive google com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAR3E5TzAOUWxOVzA/view?usp=sharing) Letter from Santa Clara Unified School District about School Impact for GPA (https•//drive google com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAWH16Z2FSMmF5bkk/view?usp=sharing) Content also available at blog: http•/ibettercupertino bloi4spot com/2015/05/are-housing-element-sites- evenl html Liang-Fang Chao Cupertino Resident 2 Andrea Sanders From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:02 AM To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt; Rebecca Tolentino;Aarti Shrivastava Subject: How many Policy LU-13.7 in Community Vision 2040 Dear City Staff, I am reading the Community Vision 2040 and find this mistake. There are two policies that are labeled 13.7. Please see below screen shot. The link that I am reading is http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/439/CupGP Ch3 LandUse noblank FINAL 12.04.2 014.pdf. Policy LU-1 3.7: Streetscape and Connectivity I B I T Create a walkable and bikeable boulevard with active uses and a distinct image for each subarea. Strategy LU-13.7.1 : Streetscape. Provide active uses along the street frontage, bike lanes, sidewalks that support pedestrian-oriented activity, improved pedestrian crossings at street intersections, and attractive transit facilities (e.g., bus stops, benches, etc.). Policy LU-13.7: Neighborhood beers. Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting single-family residen- tial areas from visual and noise impacts. Please keep this for the public record of GPA hearing on May 19, 2015. Thanks, Xiaowen Wang Cupertino residents i Andrea Sanders From: Liang C <Ifchao@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:56 AM To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Housing Element Sites Are NOT Evenly Distributed One resident after another pleaded to the City Council during Dec. 2nd Public Hearing to please evenly distribute the Housing Element sites across the City of Cupertino. However, the Council eventually put most of the Housing Allocation along Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road. Near the intersection of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road, there are already 4 major construction projects, recently finished or still ongoing: Biltmore Adjacency, Main Street, Nineteen800 (Rosebowl) and Apple Campus 2. Plan A, determined by the Council,puts 600 units on Hamptons, 389 units on Vallco, 200 on the Oaks Shopping Center, 200 units on Marina, and 11 units on Barry Swenson, for a total of 1,400 units. (The allocation on Vallco is pending a specific plan by May 2018.) Plan B, which will be adopted only if Vallco did not get rezoned to allow housing, put 750 units on Hamptons, 235 units on the Oaks Shopping Center, 200 units on Marina, 58 units on Glenbrook and 11 units on Barry Swenson, for a total of-1,386 units. Note that ABAG only requires 1,002 units with a recommended 25-40%buffer. . Are the Housing Element sites evenly distributed across the City of Cupertino? There are in fact 19 potential Housing Elements sites under consideration. But the Council only focused on a few large sites along the main arteries where the traffic is most congested. There will be 800 more housing units along Stevens Creek, in addition to the 80 units at Biltmore Adjacency, 204 units at Nineteen800, 120 units at Main Street. And along Wolfe Road, there will be 989 more housing units, in addition to the 204 units at Nineteen800. These housing units are NOT evenly distributed across the city, as the Council promised to do. The Council only considered the High School Attendance area during the council meeting. But some middle schools and elementary schools already in the most crowded area of Cupertino will get most of the impact. This is a spreadsheet, which corresponds each selected housing site with school attendance areas. Students from a total of 789 housig units will go to Lawson Middle School, in additon to 80 units from Biltmore Adjacency. Students from 400 units will go to Sedgwick Elementary, in addition to 324 units from Main Street and Nineteen800. Students from 400 housing units will attend Garden Gate Elementary. Students from 600 units at Hamptons will attend Wilcox High School, Peterson Middle School, and Laurelwood Elementary School. In reviewing EIR of Cupertino GPA, Santa Clara Unified School District sent a letter, which points out potential school impact that should be mitigated, including safe routes to school, pollution, air quality and also the impact of students generated from the proposed 5.38 million square feet of office and coimnercial space. Furthermore, Cupertino will lose three major retail shopping centers to mixed use construction: Oaks, Marina and Vallco. A mixed use project could contain any use, hotel, office, housing and retail. It is a land use designation that sets no limit on any particular use. Often, it ends up with a project with only about 10% of the i square footage for retail with tiny stores and tiny parking space. Such kind of mixed use retail center might work in other cities where pedestrian traffic or mass transit brings in most of the customers. In Cupertino, such kind of mixed use retail center hasn't provided prosperous retail sales, except due to foot traffic from nearby high schools. There are 19 housing sites. Some pure housing sites and a few retail centers. Some located in different corners of the city. Yet, the housing sites selected by the Council are not evenly distributed and they would most likely reduce the much needed retail space in Cupertino. On May 19th, the Council will approve the Housing Element. Although it might be too late to modify it due to the ABAG deadline, the council, the community and the school district should be aware of the potential impact on schools and our daily life. Reference: Housing Element Sites School Impact Summary for Plan A and Plan B Spreadsheet (https://drive og_ogle com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAR3E5TzAOUWxOVzA/view?usp=sharing) Letter from Santa Clara Unified School District about School Impact for GPA (https:Hdrive oogle com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhtfAWH16Z2FSMniF5bkk/view?usp=sharing) Content also available at blog: http•/ibettercupertino blogspot com/2015/05/are-housing-element-sites- evenly.html Liang-Fang Chao Cupertino Resident 2 Andrea Sanders From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:53 AM. To: City Clerk Subject: Fwd: Please Rescind Resolution 14-211 a Total Rewrite of the General Plan Please put this into the public record of May 19 council meeting. . Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message---------- -From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com> Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM Subject: Please Rescind Resolution 14-211 a Total Rewrite of the General Plan To: City Council <citycouncil@,cupertino.org>, City Clerk<Cit. Cy Jerk a,cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttomeyacupertino.org>, planning a,cupertino.org Residents request the Cupertino City Council to rescind Resolution 14-211. a total rewrite of the General Plan, because they were misinformed and the Council did not spend time deliberate such important document. On Dec. 4, 2014, the Cupertino Council approved the General Plan Amendment (GPA) they promised Jo postpone, namely Resolution 14-211 Approving a General Plan Amendment to Reallocate and Replenish Development Allocation, Amend the General Plan Land Use Map. That resolution they approved turns out to be the 349-page new General Plan, named "Community Vision 2040", a total rewrite of the existing "2000-2020 General Plan" (a.k.a. 2005 General Plan). It contains many policies and strategies that define the future growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years. And the Council approved this brand new General Plan without any deliberation, with only Darcy Paul voting no. It is any one's guess how many people in Cupertino even knew that the GPA approved on Dec. 4 is a total rewrite of the existing General Plan. Maybe a handful. For 18 months, only a few hundred Cupertino residents were aware of the "General Plan Amendment" (GPA) and what it really is. Yet, they were led to believe that the GPA would "amend" the 2000-2020 General Plan with only necessary modifications. The April 1, 2014 Staff Report states "The General Plan Amendment process is a focused update of the 2005 General Plan. While the majority of the General Plan's content will remain the same,there are several major policy topics that will be addressed through new or updated goals, policies, standards or programs." And the scope of EIR (Environment Impact Report) is set from that meeting. The Project Description of the EIR indicates that EIR is performed based the assumption that only necessary modifications will be made to the 2000-2020 General Plan. The Staff Report from Oct. 7, 20114 Council Meeting still states "The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City's 2000-202o General Plan." i Yet, the Staff Report for Oct. 14, 2014 Planning Commission for the first time mentioned "the draft General Plan" and the document containing "Community Vision 2040" is revealed. Before that, there is only "GPA" mentioned with very general description. Yet, the public hearing of this important document, together with Housing Element, was scheduled 3 weeks later on Nov. 3, 2014. Leaving the public very little time to study it the 349 page new General Plan, a total rewrite of the General Plan and no redlined copy for comparison. The public hearing was postponed to Nov. 10 and then Dec. 2 due to various reasons. However, the agenda of both meetings still only mention "General Plan Amendment" without any indication of a new General Plan. The "2000-2020 General Plan" was just approved in 2005 and it took 4 years to finalize with extensive community input early on in the process. The City Council took time to study and deliberate before approving it. Yet, "Community Vision 2040," advertised as an amendment, took only 18 months and one City Council meeting without any deliberation. What was really changed in the new General Plan? No one seems to have a clue, not even the staff nor the Council members. On June 24, 2014, the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino requested a relined copy of the GPA, wh.ich highlights the changes made, but they have not received any response so far. What we have are two completely different General Plan documents. Here is a draft of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan Update (Amendment): http://www paloaltocompplan org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BusinessEconomics.pdf It lists very clearly, which policy remains the same, which one is edited and which one is new. See Page 3 for Highlights of Changes. That's a great summary of changes. Then, in the end from Page 23, there is a Disposition table that details all of the policies in the previous general plan and what happened to it. Such information should be provided for Community Vision 2040 also. We request the Council to rescind Resolution 14-211 containing "Community Vision 2040" for the following reasons: - Lack of notification. The public was not notified that the city is working on a new General Plan. - Lack of transparency. The public was never given information on what exactly was modified from the existing General Plan and why. - Lack of sufficient coverage in community meetings. For example, the chapter on Circulation was totally re-written and the fundamental concept of LOS (Level of Service) was removed. This was never mentioned in any staff report. For example, Priority Development Area (PDA) was identified and inserted into the General Plan without any community input. Numerous other examples of such modifications. - Lack of details in Staff Reports. None of the staff reports summarized the changes made, epecially policies that would change characteristics of Cupertino, like the removal of job-housing balannce and the removal of View Preservation policy. - Lack of Council deliberation. Even the Council members did not discuss and deliberate at all during the one Council meeting, where it was approved. Here are some letters to request the City Council to rescind the decision to approve Resolution 14- 211 , containing the new General Plan "Community Vision 2040". • Council Should Rescind Any GPA Item Unrelated to Housing Elements, by Randy Please Rescind Ordinance 14-211 to Correct the Innocent Mistake, by Liang Rescind "Community Vision 2040" - It's Your Moral Obligation, by Xiaowen 2 The General Plan is like a Constitution of Cupertino.The residents and the Council members deserve the time they require to study and discuss different aspects of the plan in detail. Plus, the Council promised to postpone GPA on Dec. 4, 2014 already. The Council mistakenly approved Resolution 14- 211, probably thinking that it only contains GPA items needed for Housing Element. The Council should correct the mistake and rescind.Resolution 14-211. vat CD Rescind (often called Repeal or Annul) You always have the right to annul or amend something already adopted. Quite often it is obvious that a great deal of preparation and support has been quietly organized before a motion is presented to the members. The motion is adopted before you even understand the true purpose and potential consequences of the motion. Fortunately there are no time limitations to annul or amend any motion. (Source: http://www.roberts-rules.com/parl20.htm) 3 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:31 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Please vote against increasing building heights! X H B From: Edwin Kang [mailto:edwin_kang@hotmail.com] Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2015 11:28 PM To: City Council Subject: Please vote against increasing building heights! Dear City Council members, As a Cupertino resident I urge you to vote against increasing building heights all over Cupertino on May 19. Please Stop Uncontrolled Growth in Cupertino!! I believe you work for Cupertino residents, not for developers. If that is not the case, I will join thousands of Cupertino residents to recall council members who voted for developers again and again! Best, Edwin Kang i 'z�A-7 FREVIIONI UNHOR HIGH SCHOUL DISTRICT r Cupertino High School I Fremont High School I Homestead High School L nbrooh High School Monla Vista High School Adult dJ Community Ed w, May 18, 2015 Rod Sinks Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Wendy Gudalewicz Superintendent, Cupertino Union School District 1309 S. Mary Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Hi Rod and Wendy, First and foremost, Rod, I truly appreciate your continuing efforts to improve the support for our schools. (— hope that Community Benefits can become a reality. When I wrote you last, I indicated that continuing funding is the key for us. One time funding is, of course, appreciated, but knowing that we have funding for 10 or 20 years creates a true impact. With such sustained funding we can hire staff and increase course offerings. I suggest those two options because we have heard from our parents and students that they want more -- opportunities to take additional courses. As public schools we believe that we need to be responsive to our community and under the new state-funding model,we are required to ensure that we have ongoing community engagement. We need to ask our students and parents to share their input and priorities for how we should spend our revenues. Every school district in California gathers and compiles this.information in a required document called the LCAP (Local Control Accountability Plan). By using the LCAP process and document,we can ensure that the dollars provided by the developers is spent in ways that our families desire. In many ways this guarantees that this money is a true Community Benefit. We have heard repeatedly from our families that they want more opportunities for their sons and daughters to take a full seven classes each year. They hope for more mathematics, computer science,science, engineering, music, art, business,social science,world language,writing,journalism,speech,drama, leadership,activities, authentic opportunities to try their wings in the real world and athletics. Our current funding does not allow us to increase the options for more classes, but long-term committed funding would-allow us to provide what our community wants. Each section of a class costs approximately$21,000. If a community benefit,for example, on any retail,office, hotel or residential construction could provide a dollar per square foot for twenty years for our schools, and we received an ongoing parcel tax equivalent on each unit in an apartment development,we would be far more likely to be able to provide what our community is clamoring for. Thank you again for working to help our whole community, by supporting our schools. All My Best, Polly M. Bove Superintendent of Schools 589 W.Fremont Avenue,PO Box F,Sunnyvale,CA 940871 TEL(408)522-22001 FAX(408)245-53251 WEB www.fuhsd.org SUPERINTENDENT:Polly M.Bove I BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Jeff Mae,?fancy A.Newton,Barbara F.Clunes,Hung Wei,Bill Wilson t i Superintendent Wendy Gudalewicz ; Board of Education Anjali Kausar Kristen Lyn Josephine Lucey Soma McCandless i ® ® Cupertino Union School District Phyllis Vogel 6 Office Address: 1309 S.Mary Avenue,Sunnyvale,CA 94087-3050 (408)252-3000 Fax(408)343-2801 Mailing Address: 10301 Vista Drive,Cupertino,CA 95014 May 15, 2015 EXHImffo�") IT Mayor Rod Sinks and Cupertino City Council Members: I want to thank you for continuing to keep Cupertino schools on the agenda via Community Benefits. If Community Benefits becomes a reality, and is provided in the form of ongoing funding, it will help ensure our students continue to have access to the best schools in the State. CUSD has just completed a parent and staff survey. The survey was designed to gather input for our Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which is a comprehensive three-year plan required by the California Department of Education. In the survey, our parents showed strong interest for STEM programs both during the school day and as after-school enrichment. Overall, our parent community would like to see more enrichment programs offered to all students (theater, arts, science, and language). By using the LCAP process, we can ensure the dollars provided by the developers are spent in ways the families we serve desire. In many ways, this guarantees this money is a true Community Benefit. We have heard repeatedly from our families that they want more opportunities for their children { 3 to experience hands-on activities both during the school day and afterschool. Community -Benefits can assist CUSD with adding Maker's Spaces in our schools and adding enrichment opportunities in art, theater, robotics, coding, and languages. Our current funding does not allow us to increase the options for more enrichment opportunities. Long-term committed funding would allow us to provide what our community wants. If a community benefit, for example, on any retail, office, hotel or residential construction could provide a dollar per square foot for i I twenty years for our schools, and we received an ongoing parcel tax equivalent on each unit in an apartment development, we would be able to provide what our community wants with the enrichment activities they are asking for. Thank you, again, for working to help our whole community by advocating for Community f f Benefits and our schools. T_ I Sincerely, E Wendy Gudalewicz Superintendent r WG:pb is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r r: g I kh z t,0 ia"` U11'e Jl,r May 18, 2015 B I EXH10' Dear Council Member, We are in favor of the General Amendment Plan and will be attending the City Council meeting on the 19`x'. Through previous dialogue, our request is for our company Mirapath Inc's land use corrected from industrial to commercial and zoning changed from industrial to commercial. Right next to us is a commercial area. Our neighbors, the Oakmont Produce Market, Gochi Restaurant, and other stores all rest on a commercial land use zone. To encourage commercial diversity and to be able to sustain our site—changing the categorization will allow us to make sure our land use matches up with the city plans in the future. For any questions, please contact me at (408)207-1729 or email my assistant Tiffany Chen at tiffany.chen",&' mirapath.com Signed, f Doris:Yeh B Mirapath, Inc. 10950 North Blaney Ave Cupertino • CA • 95014 PH: 408.873.7883 • FX:408.521.0520 Andrea Sanders From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent; Sunday, May 17, 2015 10:16 PM To: City Council; City Clerk , Subject: A refresher - leading up'to May 19, 2015 Mayor and members of City Council, I was asked by some of the voting public to send this short list of comments/statements. Basically as a reminder, and a sort of 'quick glance'. Noteworthy statements from . . . ... . Rod Sinks I will be accessible and listen to all; when it comes time to vote, you can count on me to put residents' interest first. The council needs to be responsive to those who want to be heard. ...Make Cupertino a vibrant destination for shopping, dining and services. We have a tremendous opportunity with Apple moving forward on its new, world-class campus. How we choose to develop the surrounding area should come with no less vision, creating dynamic public and retail spaces for all to enjoy. The city can & should do more to support our schools and work together on issues for mutual benefit. Gilbert Wong I.have been an independent voice on behalf of the resident of Cupertino, asking the tough question and analyzing all aspects of the issues that come before me on the council. I am running for re- election for City Council because I want to maintain our quality of life and our suburban integrity for my family as well as yours. It is an honor and a privilege to serve the residents of Cupertino. In a recent survey conducted in October 2011, 97% of residents said that they were satisfied'with the services and quality of life in Cupertino. As your Mayor, I am committed to maintaining this high level of satisfaction. Cupertino truly is a place to work, play, and live. Through my focus on accountability, fiscal responsibility and improving dialogue between residents, businesses and schools, Cupertino will continue to live up to this promise. Darcy Paul I am running for city council to help lead our community with honest, effective, and civil discussions. I will continue assisting balance and smart development in Cupertino by listening to and acting upon community input. As a Council member, I will always listen to resident input and work to address the concerns raised in an honest and civil manner. Development needs to proceed in a careful and well-considered manner that actively seeks out community input. Savita Vaidhyanathan I want,Cupertino to be more responsible about growth. I want our city to be exciting for our residents for destinations beyond great schools. 1 I want our city to engage all neighborhoods and seek their active participation in shaping our future. I want to live in a sustainable city that is attractive to our youth and friendly to our seniors. The biggest issue facing Cupertino is the sense of frustration our residents feel about their views not being heard or incorporated into the city plans. There are issues like traffic, over- development, commercial establishments, pollution and other environmental issues that.many are concerned about. But in-each case, the citizens feel that they are unable to reach their representatives. We need a comprehensive vision for the city that we can clearly articulate and work.towards. Traffic and air quality do not respect city boundaries. We need a holistic and viable plan created in collaboration with other cities and agencies. I want to collaborate with agencies to expand mobility options for our seniors and propose housing in transit-oriented developments. Barry Chang With an open and independent mind, Barry listens to his constituents. His experience, leadership, and vision make him the best candidate for Cupertino City Council. . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lisa Waren 2 Andrea Sanders From. Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:18 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: PIs stop uncontrolled growth and density -----Original Message---- I B T - From: Stephen Tang [mailto:nttang99@yahoo.com] Sent:Sunday, May 17, 2015 7:29 PM To: City Council Subject: PIs stop uncontrolled growth and density Cupertino City Council Member, Community members are concerned that the Cupertino General Plan amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - More and taller buildings -Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools -Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city -Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: -Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. -Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1.The developer presents a plan for development 2.The community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco Sent from my Wad 1 Andrea Sanders From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:03 PM To: City Clerk; City Council;City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt Subject: Sewer System is at capacity Attachments: CU_sanitary_letter.pdf �X ' ' IB410T Dear City Councils, I would like to bring your attention of the letter from Cupertino Sanitary District dated on May 23, 2014. The letter is sent to the city regarding the impact on sewer system regarding the proposed GPA. Based on the number in this letter,just with the 2020 build out with the 2000-2020 General plan, we are almost at the capacity. The capacity is at 7.85mgpd while just with the build out, the city will reach 7.2mgpd. Which means that we do not have much buffer beyond the development allocation in 2000-2020 General Plan. The 2million sf office allocation at the Vallco alone will add 0.3mgpd based on 0.159pd per square foot use in this letter for office. Moreover, the letter also pointed out that "it was identified that sewer mains along Stevens Creek, Blaney and Wolfe would be at near capacity or would not have sufficient capacity to accept new developments beyond the City Center Project." Basically, we do not have sewer mains to support the redevelopment of Vallco for excessive number of new offices or housing units. At the end of the letter,.the district cautioned the city to take necessary actions to ensure the sewer'system can support the future development and not to be in a position that City of Milpitas was in back 2008, imposing a building moratorium. I would like to urge the councils to make sure the basic infrastructure, such as sewer mains, can support the development allocations and recommend to keep the allocations in 2000-2020 General Plan unchanged. Please put this correspondence to the publie records of May 19, 2015 City Council meeting. Sincerely, Xiaowen Wang Cupertino Resident 1 MAY 19TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR UPER'TINO COUNCILMAN DARCY PAUL 1. AGENDA ITEM 7-A Staff Recommendation 1 EXHIBI I Adopt Final 2014-2022 Housing Element (Resolution No. 15-042 - GPA-2013-02) 2. AGENDA ITEM 7-B Staff Recommendation 2 Make no further amendments to the General Plan (Community Vision 2040) adopted on December 4, 2014 (GPA-2013-01) a. VALLCO i. What is the current height zoning of Vallco? The heights for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area will be determined with the adoption of the Specific Plan. ii. Can Vallco be put through the same review process of any change of zoning? The Specific Plan process for Vallco will is substantially the same as a rezoning process. However,we expect that there will be additional opportunities for public review for Vallco given the complexity of the Specific Plan. b. SPECIFIC PLANS i. If the General Plan refers to a'"specific plan' such as "Vallco Specific Plan" does this mean that amendments to that plan are not restricted to the General Plan Amendment rules and procedures i.e. limited to 4 times per year?Amendments to a Specific Plan have to be made through a public hearing process and noticing. They are not restricted to 4 times a year. ii. Why are the specific plans not included in Community Vision 2040? Specific Plans are a vehicle specifically described in Government Code 65450-65457. Specific Plans are subordinate to the General Plan and must be consistent with it. The General Plan includes the policies and "vision' for the entire community, including each df the Special Areas. Specific Plans include the details for the implementation of the vision for a specific area and the zoning regulations for the area. iii. Are these specific plans considered part of our General Plan? No, Specific Plans by law are subordinate and must be consistent with General Plans. The General Plan vision and policies are meant to provide general policies and programs while the Specific Plans provide more detailed regulations for a certain, specified part of the City. The details are not included in the General Plain,but must be consistent with the General Plan. (1) If not, why? A Specific Plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the 1 General Plan.It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the General Plan and the individual development regulations in a defined area. Section 65451 of the Government Code mandates that a specific plan be structured as follows: • A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: o The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land,including open space,within the area covered by the plan. o The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage,water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. o Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation,development, and utilization of.natural resources, where applicable. o A prograin of implementation measures including regulations, programs;public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). • The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. iv. If not, what are the steps to modify them? Does the public get notified? How? The process of preparing, adopting, and amending a specific plan is generally the same as that for a General Plan per State Government Code. The process requires public notice, appropriate environmental review, Planning Commission recommendation and Council action. In addition to the public, owners of property in the Specific Plan area and local agencies (which provide services to the property) that are significantly affected are also required to be notified. 3. AGENDA ITEM 7-B Staff Recommendation 3 Adopt Resolution No. 15-043, a policy establishing a process to review General Plan amendments a. COMMUNITY BENEFITS/VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY AMENITIES i. I would like to know why the workshop on Community Benefits was canceled and who made the decision? Staff is not recommending a community benefit program at this time. Community Benefits programs typically require additional height or allocation to be built into the zoning of an area. Because staff is not recommending additional heights or development allocation, a Cominunity Benefit program would not be applicable. Therefore a community workshop was not held. Staff is however recommending a change in procedure for General Plan 2 amendments. The new procedure would require Council authorization in order to proceed with the processing of General Plan amendments. The meeting, at which proposed General Plan amendments would be considered for authorization, would be publicly noticed and the public would have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposals before the Council makes a decision on which applications would be processed. ii. What are the "voluntary community amenities"? "Voluntary community amenities" are defined in the recommended policy as facilities, land and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan amendment application enhances the quality of life in the City. Amenities that are not"voluntary" are those that are typically required by the City as impact fees, to satisfy zoning regulations or to mitigate environmental impacts. The policy lists the following as "voluntary community amenities:" Facilities, land and/or funding contributions towards (1) school resources, (2) Public open space, such as parks and trails (e.-. .land and/or improvements, (3) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility, and (4) transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, transit center/stations, etc. iii. What are the amenities that are currently required by our city ordinances? Under the current ordinance projects pay impact fees for affordable housing, parkland dedication, etc. But these are not voluntary and are required to offset impacts of development. What'are the amenities that can be counted as voluntary? See first sentence of response to Question 3.a.ii. above. Only funding or in-kind improvements that cannot be legally required can be considered voluntary. iv. What kind of terms can be negotiated in the developmental contract? Development agreements (DAs) provide public agencies greater flexibility in negotiating the terms and conditions of a proposed development, such as development conditions, exactions and fees, because development agreement provide a contractual method for cities and developers to mutually agree upon development agreement provisions. Practically, any terms so long as they are not illegal(e.g. agreement to discriminate) can be included in a DA if both parties agree. How legally binding are these terms?Per state law, development agreements are adopted by ordinance. They are an agreement between the City and a.property owner or proponent and area legally binding and enforceable contract between the parties. So, they would be enforced by law in the manner that any contract can be enforced. v. What are the city's and community's option if the contract cannot be fulfilled? Fundamental to the concept of an enforceable agreement is the notion that each party will do what it promises to do in the agreement.To underscore that notion, the development agreement law requires local agencies to include at least an 3 annual review of the project proponent's compliance with the delineated terms of the development agreement, including obligations it agreed to perform.The review must require the proponent to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement.If a local agency finds,based on substantial evidence, that such compliance has not occurred, the agency may modify or terminate the agreement.In addition,the development agreement law provides that the development agreement is "enforceable by any party." A development agreement typically contains provisions specifying procedures for notice and termination in the event of a default by either party. The City would include such provisions in its development agreements in order to ensure compliance by the developer, as required by Municipal Code Section 19.144.060(K). In addition, typical legal and equitable contract remedies (specific performance, injunction, damages)may also be available. vi. Can a park required by the Quimby Act be counted as community amenity? Per the recommended policy, the "voluntary community amenities" are those that are provided on a voluntary basis. The park fee per the Quimby Act is a fee that is required for all residential development. Therefore,it would not be considered a"voluntary community amenity." vii.Would the City have a manual for negotiations on community amenities and what kind of legal term would be put into the development contract to ensure the enforcement of the contractual term on community amenities? As noted above, the City would include such provisions in its development agreements in order to ensure compliance by the developer, as required by Municipal Code Section 19.144.060(K). b. PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROCESS i. Would projects that do not submit applications during the annual review be allowed to be considered at other times during the year? Projects from applicants will not be considered outside of the annual review. Applicants who do not submit applications in time for the current annual review may choose to be considered for the next annual review. ii. Is there a maximum number that would be selected in any one year? Under existing State law (Government Code 65358(c), a City may only amend its General Plan four (4) times per year. However, within each of the four amendments an unlimited number of General Plan amendments can be made. As per this state law provision, there is no maximum or minimum number provided in the policy. However, the Council will consider a number of issues including staff time and resources as well as the pace of growth, overall benefit of the proposed General Plan changes and any other consideration(s)before making their decision. iii. Would the.4 amendments/year go away? No. This is a requirement per State law. Accordingly, general law cities, such as Cupertino, are limited to considering four 4 (4) General Plan amendments per year. iv. When exactly would the amendment/re-zoning/etc. take place for a project? The General Plan amendment/rezoning/etc., will take place at a publicly noticed hearing by the City Council. Prior to Council action, the Planning Commission will be required to provide a recommendation at a publicly noticed hearing. (1) If it is prior to final plans being approved, what will prevent the developer from selling the land (with the new amendment change) to some other developer that does not have the agreement with the city?By law, Development Agreements typically contain assignment and transfer provisions to ensure that a subsequent owner will be required to comply with the terms and provisions of the development agreement. These provisions imposed by the agreement constitute "covenants running with the land" and that the burdens and benefits bind and inure to all estates and interests created in the subject property and to all "successors in interest" of the original parties. Therefore, the new owner will obtain the benefits of the agreement and will be required to comply with its terms. (2) Is there a provision for reversing the amendment change if the developer does not follow through? If a project is not yet built and the plans do not comply with those approved by the City Council as part of the General Plan amendment for the project, or the developer has not met its obligations under the DA, the City Council would have the remedies outlined in the development agreement. If the agreement is terminated, the City could consider subsequent amendments to the General Plan to return to the previous language. If a project receives subsequent approvals and is already built per the approvals, then compliance issues are related to the performance under the Development Agreement. In that case, the compliance procedures per the Development Agreement will be implemented. (3) Is there a provision to prevent the sale/rental of the land/project or tenants from moving in at all until all provisions of the agreement are met? The City cannot control sale of a parcel or parcels to property owners once a parcel is created. However, the City can prevent the project from being occupied until all the applicable DA provisions are met. Conditions of project approval and development agreements typically include a phasing plan for a project,which would allow the City to ensure that certain conditions are met before issuance- of building permits and/or certificates of occupancy. For example, if a condition or development agreement requires that a park be completed prior to the occupancy of a residential project, then the developer will not be able to receive occupancy permits (i.e. tenants cannot occupy the building) until the 5 park is completed. (4) How much time would the public be given to review these documents? Typically, in a General Plan amendment process,,the public has a minimum of three to four opportunities to review various portions of a project. A project applicant is required to host a neighborhood or community meeting and collect input. If a project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), there is a scoping meeting for public input on items to study in the EIR. Additionally, there are publicly noticed hearings at the Planning Commission and Council. Typically, the packet for the Planning Commission is available about a month to six weeks before a Council meeting. v. When would this review process take effective after its approval? Would the. projects currently in discussion, such as Mariana, Vallco be subjects of this review process? The policy is only applicable to projects that require a General Plan Amendment. If any of the above property owners wish to request a General Plan Amendment in terms of additional height, or adding development allocation to the General Plan, then the project would be subject to the new policy if it is adopted. Vallco will not be subject to the proposed General Plan amendment process because the Council decided on December 4, 201.5 that a Specific Plan must be prepared for Vallco. vi. For any parcel, which is a candidate for a GPA, the property owner should notify all neighbors within 500 feet. Such notification should be mandatory. The city should also notify all residents who elect to be notified of any GPA request. The recommendation is to enact a policy where citywide notification will be sent to all postal customers in the City of Cupertino for the GPA authorization process. The postcard will have a link where the public can view individual applications in addition to the staff report and attaclunents. vii.For any GPA request, the property owner should justify the request with sufficient study reports. A simple letter of demand should not be enough. The proposed policy requires conceptual site plans,building plans, elevations, perspectives and graphics that help to explain all aspects of the project, a listing of all General Plan amendments requested (using graphics), and a list of voluntary community amenities offered. This will provide the Council, public and staff a clear idea of the project and the General Plan amendments requested. viii. School impact should be considered when GPA request is reviewed since school impact cannot be legally considered once the GPA is granted. If the parcel is in an area whose schools are already near capacity, no GPA request should be granted. State law (SB50) does not allow a jurisdiction to consider impacts on schools if the project is required to pay the statutory school impact fees. ix. Traffic impact should be considered when GPA request is granted. If the parcel is in an area whose traffic LOS (Level of Service) is rated D or worse, the GPA 6 should not be granted. Traffic and other environmental impacts will be considered prior to granting approval of any GPA. The policy would make it easier to review the GPAs at one time before the review process begins. This would give all parties, an initial look at the proposals ahead of time and give the Council an opportunity to pace projects. 4. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES a. I would also like to know who made the rule that council members cannot ask speakers questions? Council at its retreat, agreed to refrain from asking questions of speakers during the Oral Communication portion of the agenda, to be fair to both the public and all Council members. b. Can we make the early release of staff report a regularity?Typically, City Council reports are due the Wednesday before the Council meeting. However, for projects that are large and of community interest, the Council may request packets to be provided in advance of that date. c. Since the agenda breaks it into Items 7a and 7b, are we allowed to speak on both or just Item 7? Since 7a and.,7b are part of one item, the Council can allow public input to be taken for both items at the same time. 7 } 5/19/2015 EXH L3 1 ............ a ks XBQ 3 „ sr Or'K 3 �1t • State-mandated update to Housing Element initiated in November 2013 • General Plan Amendment initiated in August 2012 to: — Replenish office and hotel allocations — Inform Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan — Consolidate individual requests from property owners — Address State Law — Text clean-up • Combined with General Plan Amendment process to: — Allow a better evaluation by the Community and City — Discuss issues in one comprehensive outreach and planning process 1 5/19/2015 _ 3 • Only Element of the General Plan that needs review and certification by CA HCD • 2014-2022 Housing Element must be adopted by Jan. 31, 2015(plus a 120-day grace period{May 31, 2015}) • If adopted, next Housing Element update in 2023 • If not adopted, must be updated in four years(2019) Content dictated by State Law and includes: — Needs Assessment — Constraints to new housing production — Description of goals, policies and strategies to achieve objectives — Housing production objectives consistent with RHNA&site inventory — Evaluation of accomplishments — Consistency with other elements 2 5/19/2015 � �' � Ho ��n�Eler�aenEt`�date�� D��it Haa� �a�'Eiemnt � �. • Draft Housing Element reviewed by: — Housing Commission on August 26, 2014 — Planning Commission on October 14, 2014 • City Council authorized submittal to HCD with edits to sites after review on November 10, 2014 and December 2, 2014 • HCD found that Draft Housing Element complies with State Law with some edits to: — Address key issues and — Respond to comments received by HCD during public review period HUUSIiI a et1 1 - oust ComrnIssIoh�� e61'26 ✓i �... pa- ! ...........,..x«.'„�........,.......,.k�".;....ww. ..._..... ',........,,.�°;.a»..,..,......w........:._..__ :.«...alz..«.w.m.. `s;.`�'n..2::•nit.°".....,....:.,;�w.......�.:. Housing Commission recommended approval on 5-0 vote — Public comment: Two persons expressed concerns about: — Development on the East side; — Development on the West side 3 5/19/2015 '" E � x usingemet [ P1r�nigam �Ss' i Aprlt , C� yl a ! Planning Commission recommended approval on 5-0 vote — Public comment: Four speakers — Commission comments: — Concerns about concurrent change in BMR _ Could number of units fees and updated fee not being reflected in adopted Housing Element. proposed in HE be reduced? • Fees change from time to time and State Law But did not recommend does not require an update of HE every time changes given HCD guidance fees are updated. — Concerns about impacts to schools,traffic and deadline for adoption and traffic around schools. — Concerns that Housing Element • ElRcertified byCity Council on 12/4/14 law does not require housing identified impacts and mitigations related to traffic and other env.topics.State Law requires on priority sites to be cities to acceptfees mandated bySBS0 as affordable exclusive means of mitigating impacts to schools. — Concerns about connection between office development and future RHNA allocations 9 s Ju y ai. Housing Element Site Scenario A Realistic Capacity (units) Srte Al(The Hamptons) 600 net(rr add�troo of exist n 342 units) ... Site A2(Vallco Shopping District) 389 SIte;A3,(The Oaks Shopping Cen„ter) ; 2Qp .... Site A4(Marina Plaza) 200 Site 4 5(Barry Swenson) ...-.. .. 11 Total Units: 1,400 4 5/19/2015 R �Iew P�blllch ts • HCD Review and Comment period required following revisions: — Minor revisions and clarifications related to emergency shelters — Provide concrete timeframes for Strategies 8, 11,15,16 — Revisions in response to Law Foundation of Silicon Valley comments: • Nexus Study timeframe updated (Strategy 8) • Information provided on factors limiting affordable housing production in the past • Indirect economic displacement addressed (Strategy 18) • Other minor revisions: — Clarify text and remove redundant language — Update HOME program status — Update park impact fees for FY 2014-2015 3 FouSt Elernen� , N3xt ...nom....................... .:.fes.,. .,.„,,,.m...,....�..,....a..:,,.,...«..«. «.............� .1^;''3'1"' • Submit adopted Housing Element to HCD for Final Review — 90 day review period — If no substantial changes, Element should be found compliant — If new changes, HCD may request additional modifications to comply with State Housing law, and may find the Housing Element noncompliant 5 5/19/2015 V, F WE I S r y �y a Gi I.»» 11� ;r?� k' UI\{ i • On December 4, 2014, City Council took following action related to GPA project: — Adopted Community Vision 2040 — Authorized processing of a Specific Plan for the Vallco Shopping District with Development Allocation of a minimum 600,000 sf of retail, up to 2 million sf. of office and 389 units in the Housing Element with heights, setbacks and building planes to be decided in the Specific Plan — Deferred decision after additional community input on: • Development allocation for commercial, office and hotel uses, building heights and building planes • Community Benefit Program and • Specific land use designation amendments and associated zoning for two properties—PG&E site(10900 N. Blaney Ave) and Mirapath site(10950 N. Blaney Ave) 6 5/19/2015 gm t1E'Cc � 1"ii�IYtCIt®rMlitTlllll1CP�tJS1f3f11, • Workshop held on February 4, 2015 with over 80 participants • Small group(13 groups)discussions about: — Appropriate building forms and heights(including building planes)within different Special Areas,nodes and Gateways — Whether or not City should establish a Community Benefits Program • Building heights summary Most groups selected a 45 foot height limit in all areas except: — The Oaks—most groups selected a height limit of up to 60 feet — North De Anza Gateway—Groups were split evenly on a 60 foot vs.45 foot height limit • Community Benefits Program summary — Five groups in support — Three groups were divided on whether or not to support — Five groups did not support a Gener4IJ'" f�h_Ar }moi n w • Two parts—Part A: Building heights; Part B: Building planes and community benefits • 382 on-forum responses to Part A and 300 on-forum responses to Part B — 55%did not want to see an increase in building heights for six of the seven areas identified — 50%did not want to see a change to the 1.5:1 building plane requirement in some parts of the City — Over 65%thought Community Benefits program would be beneficial — Average priorities on support for amenities were ranked as follows: • Parks/Recreation • Transportation Enhancements(e.g.sidewalks,bike lanes etc.) • Community Services(e.g.Teen Center,library branch etc.) • In-lieu fee to City(e.g.contributions to school improvements or affordable housing) 7 5/19/2015 gr � pnr� t • Community Benefits Incentive Zoning(CBIZ) Programs — Zoning allows additional development or height based on community amenities provided — Range from formulaic to discretionary,non-formulaic • Growth Allocation Programs — Meter development allowing infrastructure to keep up with development — Growth is already planned in General Plan — Requires meticulous and time-consuming processes to score/rate • Land Use Regulation — Model from Vancouver,Canada requires payment of specific$amount for projects with rezoning. Not legally feasible. — Cities can regulate growth and development through: • General Plans,Specific Plans and zoning. • Implementation additional nexus fees and detailed design guidelines • Negotiated Development Agreements v �� r "� B1Z Prograr� ros Cct a . Pros Cons Formulaic programs provide ° Formulaic programs provide very little guarantees for what incentives discretion since incentives and benefits predetermined and codified and benefits are provided Discretionary programs require protracted negotiation and discussion before the City can determine that the offer warrants a grant of a bonus for development • Discretionary programs could create a lack of transparency,difficulty in administering program and lack of consistency between projects • Would require an update to the City's Zoning Code 8 5/19/2015 Pros Cons • Allow infrastructure time to • Require a change to the Housing accommodate growth Element and not advisable given • Can create a competitive adoption deadline process where projects • Still require the City to meet its housing showcase community benefits obligations • For non-residential development would • Works well in years where more provide much less flexibility projects than available Cumbersome to administer due to allocation compete detailed criteria,scoring • Does not work well in years that fewer projects than available allocation apply ,era, • Requiring community benefits (or payments in-lieu of) as an absolute condition of development, may constitute a taking under CA law • Proportional relationship between community benefit payment and impact of project may need to be established in order to require this as an absolute condition of development • Set up process that provides procedures for General Plan amendments which provides most flexibility and City has more discretion — WHY? Development/Growth assumptions are not built in to the General Plan — EXCEPTION: Housing Element sites 9 5/19/2015 K ' C� lCli361C�C '1eCPirssRfc��GPApiations �' �3 'Ax. • Not applicable to City-initiated General Plan Amendments (e.g. Housing Element update) • Council will consider timing and processing of GPA's annually • Application must include: — Conceptual plans — Specific GPXs being requested — Term sheet with list of voluntary communities being provided, if any Could include:support for School resources, public open space, public facilities and utilities and transportation facilities Cilntm � a ProcsF� Aappy atc�ns , • Preliminary review of the proposed projects using following criteria will be conducted: — General Plan goals achieved by project including: • Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility • Brief description of net fiscal impacts • Provision of affordable housing • Sustainability — List of GPXs requested (and other zoning amendment/variances requested) — List of voluntary community amenities — Staff time and resources required to process project • City-wide notification will be provided 10 5/19/2015 • Public City Council meeting will be held with public input and decision made on which projects authorized to proceed with GPA application • Only projects authorized to proceed will move forward on environmental and entitlement review • Subsequent project application has to be substantially similar to project authorized by Council to move forward • Projects not authorized, would have to re-apply in the next cycle • Council authorization only authorizes staff and other resources for processing of projects. Does NOT guarantee approval of projects. �en��a � �� en ��°i�'��, �roeess�fcsr�PAapplica ��as • Allows City to manage orderly processing of GPA's • Create a more competitive process when compared to current ad hoc approach to processing applications • Allow applicants to showcase their projects and their voluntary community amenities • Council, public and staff has better preview of projects before Council decision on which projects to process • Creates upfront and transparent process before projects authorized to move forward for processing • Other review processes such as Environmental and Design review,and compliance with applicable codes and laws would remain intact. 11 5/19/2015 15 w iii nay-r� iii rj, • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and circulated • EIR certified on December 4, 2014 • No actions related to environmental review are required by City Council 12 5/19/2015 ` e�erallan��nendi�ent �`e�t��S�teps • No changes to the General Plan except for adoption of 2014-2022 Housing Element • Final Community Vision 2040 formatted, renumbered (if errors), maps and graphics finalized and prepared for online posting and printing • Clean up edits recommended by SCVWD—should the City Council wish to incorporate these edits—will be brought back with future GPA • Applications for further GPA's will follow newly adopted Council policy and require authorization from Council for processing • General Plan fee �6 �3 33 deneral-K r�� en rrrent � nc i es • Council could alternatively: — Provide direction to staff to bring back amendments in specific areas to be heard at a future public hearing after Planning Commission consideration — Not adopt policy for authorizing processing of G PAs. • Process would then default to current way of processing applications as they come in 13 5/19/2015 J F F L. y n. s CL U • Adopt Resolution No. 15-042 adopting the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element (GPA-2013- 02); • Make no further amendments to the General Plan (Community Vision 2040) adopted on December 4, 2014 (GPA-2013-01); and • Adopt Resolution No. 15-043, a policy establishing a process to review General Plan amendments 14 CC S/1l 1S- EXHIBIT May 19th, 2015 Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 CUPERTINO Dear Cupertino City Council: I have been a proud teenage resident of Cupertino for about 11 years now. I am grateful to the city for everything it has provided for me, from a safe environment with first-class education, to a supportive community. However, as I find myself leaving California to attend college, I often ponder my experience growing up here as a youth. I question whether I would return to the city, and what I would change if I could do it all over again. The answer stands simple to both questions, I would not return unless I was able to see some changes in the businesses in the city, more community benefit programs, etc. I advocate the growth that is supported by the General Plan Amendment. Cupertino looks different in the eyes of a teenager. It is often referred to as a "bubble" that provides a "satisfying" living experience as opposed to a "marvelous" or "fantastic" living experience. The city currently lacks the vibrant and exciting scene that teenagers crave. Cupertino hosts a plethora of businesses that are not teen savy, has limited recreational programs, and has a dimmer ambiance. As a result, the younger population is less incentivized to actively take part in the social, economical and political aspects of the community. To counter this phenomenon, I humbly recommend you consider the concept of"creative destruction" in our city through the GPA. By amending the GPA, we are not just creating taller buildings, but paving the way to a bright future with a happier and more successful community. Regards, Hershey Sriraman Cupertino Teen Commission, Chairperson EXHIBIT Cc, 5-/o//s- *-7 Speaking for myself as well as a spokeperson for Concerned Citizens of Cupertino and in support of the Better Cupertino organization, (71:J.. , We recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution # 15-042, adopting the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element" in order to comply with the Regional and State mndate. We agree with the Staff recommendation that "No further amendments be made to the General Plan" especially the 2001 -2020 General Plan .4� And that Community Vision 20� General Plan adopted on December 4, 2014 be rescinded. We recommend that Resolution #15-043, a policy establishing a process to review General Plan Amendments not be adopted. I would also like to address the City Attorney whether the recessed December 4, 2014 meeting @ 2:00 am to 3:16 am was properly noticed since several important decisions were made regarding Resolution 14- 210, Resolution #14-211, Resolution #14-212, Resolution #14-213, Ordinance #14-2124 and Ordinance #14-2125, with a noticeable lack of the public present? - m' XHIBIT To: City of Cupertino and City Council Members From: Cathy Helgerson Regarding: Citizen's Concerns pertaining to Building Heights,Zoning and more. I live at 20697 Dunbar Drive in Cupertino and have lived here for 30 years and counting 1 would first like to address the issue of Commercial Building Heights I am not in favor of them being 75 ft. high or even 45 ft. high especially if these buildings are right next to a residential area. I will begin by giving is a prime example of what can happen if we the citizens are not watching what our City Staff and City Council members are doing my home is right next to Apple Computer's R& D Facility on Bandley Dr.,which has been a real problem to me over the years due to the pollution coming from this building. At one of the City of Cupertino's City Council meetings an Apple Computer Representative stated that they were upset and blamed the city for allowing Commercial Industrial zoning to be right next to a residential area. I was at the time involved in a court complaint against them for one year with the City of Cupertino, California Water Company and Apple Computer and had taken this up with them because of the pollution that was coming out of the building.So because I could not retain a lawyer without taking myself to the poor house and without any agency including the EPA that would go up against these people after one year of doing the court pleadings myself I dropped my case.Soon after this the City allowed a HVAC system to be installed on this very same building it was about 8 feet tall besides the height of the building and is terrible to look at I could do nothing about this HVAC system and this pollution next to my home it is still there. My street is in the picture on the other side of Bandley Drive that the advocates circulated and are protesting about along with other locations all over the City. Pollution is still a great hazard and the more zoning set up for commercial and industry will bring in more cars and traffic that will pollute our communities and I don't think this is the kind of city we want to live in.There should not be any high rise buildings next-to residential areas and let's not forget any R&D Facilities next to homes with our children in them being subjected to health hazards of all kinds. I also believe that Apple's new facility will have R&D Facilities across the street and right next to a residential area again this goes unnoticed by the City and the City Council or does it? I would also like to share with the City and the Public the possibility of something called eminent Doman in which the City could also tell me I must sell my property in order for them to put up any kind of building they like this really could be a possibility in any neighborhood citizens beware.The definition of eminent domain reads as follows—The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to,exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of the property and this also states that property value may be reduced because of noise, accessibility problems,or other agents leaving use open to all kinds of actions. I must ask the community and citizens is this the kind of city we all want to live in? I don't think so. How do Cities evolve into large mega metropolises they begin in just this way small at first and then quickly without regard for the people who really live in them so what can we do?Well we can consider an action plan that includes a formal petition, recalling the City Council members, a referendum, lawsuits and an initiative that will force the tables to turn.This is a long drown out process but in the end the question is will we win can we win?We must win for the future of our children depends on it. This and other problems with the City have been going on for a long time and I for one am happy about the citizens who want to do something about it and are organizing.There needs to be an honest avenue to follow without any deception of any kind we the public need to be protected against dirty politics because the corporations and the builders who only look for the profit they are greedy and inconsiderate. I have been told that there are many questions that need to be answered by the City regarding the changes in the proposed General Plan old and new plans need to be reviewed why was the citizen's intake not requested for these changes?What is the City and the Council Members trying to do you city workers work for us and you City Council members are elected by us this is not just your city but our city. I have not gone and mentioned the other issues that large growing cities face because we are probably well aware of these problems and so is the City but they are still problems that need to be taken into consideration so please do so. I don't want City growth spinning out of control and this is where we are heading please work with all the concerned citizens and the advocates for an honest City Government to bring about a place our children can live and be proud of. Thank you Cathy Helgerson CAP—Citizens Against Pollution 4 prepared=b Gatfaenne'Thaler General Pian eotnpet - - - rls,Pol�cce acct sir Vis;cor�predMAFtY of 1~IMf�1�1G$ _ - - 'Corres�or> ing - Si PFan. ® murVI sro; t 2t#4t1� Notes -- Cttapter-EnV ronment l f3 ur s All Goits and,t`+alfcies untl f 1N1' . 4INF-2& INF4 in:-- -- $ect7on 5-Eh lrorameritall. air ;3�rsta r>abilii#4y Element"&'Chapter Chapter 8 of"204e were net found m;the 2005-de- neraI Resou c Sustsmabuity IlnfrttwWatpre Element. _ -Pian and�:are.pre-s t4 be,neW., 7 Plarriittn for S�uatnabiltty - - - - 5=9:: Gornunity Gardens -. - none - -- Reddeed Use of Non irenewable Energy - - Resources- PYHI - I *a-2.7 Educational Programs, " 2 7 Energy Cogeneration 5ystetns ES=21 7___- - 54.9 4�se of Discref�anar�r DevelQprnen-�e�#fis, none - Possi�iy repleted'bar updated city ordinance or building cads 5-2,.f D` nar Effie ent'Trans rtetion Modes none -- i'ossanl r rep#aced try�rpc#at i ct ordinance ar building code y Enemy co -g And,Mcwnt Buildings-- -_ 5 3.- Bail ing enemy Audits none _ Health Air Qua#ttyLevels Fot Citizens lung 'Coca!Planning -- 1=54 2.4Ex arrded frorri one sentence,to ', 6-5.4 flour detailed ones: Quarries E3-x.2.5 Genera_1, took;out aarnes of I Frotectlor�of Spec#�i#AA eeis e#Natural - Vegetatfion 8►NtldTt#e Habitation As!rite gmi' Parts of the.Sustainable Envrrontnant. I - __" Miher�al Resource Areas TNK 11Arnct[tize - -- ---- - Comrpu�lty impacts And ldent#fi Future Uses - 5:f,5.1 - see above see=apav�; - 5above; lncoi atibl 't and uses roes Pvssrbiy_repia�ec! y updated:cam and rta"nce or Ouilding code Section S summaly - Page I 5 17 Ne v De elopr ent none, P sibly rep#aced by updated city ordinance or b�aoing code F protection earl Effficiant Llse of Wa#er R aures ESQ I 1 3, ES 14.4& - — ES-x.'11.Y &1;$fi11 2 E-bWnde IS 5-3 1�: -A$�irS-7.�1�1.7 - - — - -- Improved Quality►of Storm Witef Runoff-- 5-3 -- - INE-41 IeftofFf pollution 5-331.110ilt Discharge into Storn7 Qtarns Arid WVaterwa. s -- -- �-y - --none- -_ -- --- Possibly replaced by upttatecl city ordinance 5-35 Developjmnt on,Septic Systems_ none Possibly replaced,t y,updated city ordinance or building code _-- 5-36 IlvF-4 1 f, 5-37'P W Resistant LandsGapirig and Design -- Features none Possibly replaced by updated city,ordinance or building code - - A Salid MV Aste.Stream reduction Programs That M'ee#s or Exceeds State R"equfrements: 5 38 1 Increase Recyctag -- -none - - -- - 539.1 CoordinateW-ith Garbage Com'- none Possibly replaced:by gpdated day ord dance 539.2 Ewaste Recycling 1pne Possit5ly replaced,by updatedi city vrclinance' --- 5-39.3 Curstl�e recycling of yard w'n none Possibly, replaced by updatedr city.orclir�ance 5-40 _- LNE y.2.8�IAiE 7 3.1 - - 5-4Q 1 tOrdirranc, ravlo ns none FossEbly replaced by u elated city, ordinance 5-41 1'.Promdte Public education none - — - yo 9 P- rpgqu ut�es—= nvne . 542.2 Scft.. and`in none, -- - 5-43.1� 1 l isein�nat►on 4�f Recyc!Fng lnforrnatton. NA c - - - --- - - 5-43 2: Jse Jrtw'rr; ;t for lr►fxa#raxs 5-44.:i Posfil)e Alit(otr.8errtodei Protects; noire l?ass[b1y rgplace i,by itp tater c4,ord nance-or building code_ Reciuiro Private public pcvlects to use: - _ Ree tl.Mafer�als - none Possibly r laced b u aced ordihance or bdildln code - p.-replaced' y_ .pd_ - - - -;1 �►d �+� e�uu�e�^-Cepa_ - - - - _ 5-47 1 .'Prov cost sstrates of sewer,tritary - '.Jtnes � npnb�. bei in ra 5��ectio 'dup�te nurtt : d $66110h 5•Summa r 'Page 2 i General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes Chapter 6-Environmental Resources and Sustainability All Goals and Policies under INF-1,INF-2& INF-6 in Section 5-Environmental Element&Chapter 8- Chapter 8 of"2040"were not found in the 2005 General Resources/Sustainability Infrastructure Element Plan and are presumed to be new. Planning for Sustainability 5-1 ES-1.1 5-1.1 ES-1.1.1 5-1.2 ES-1.1.1 5-1.3 ES-1.1.1 5-1.4 ES-1.1.1 5-1.5 Community Gardens none Reduced Use of Non-renewable Energy Resources 5-2 ES-2.1 5-2.1 ES-1.1.2 5-2.2 ES-2.1.2 5-2.3 ES-1.1.3 5-2.3 ES-2.1.1 5-2.4 ES-2.1.3 5-2.5 ES-2.1.4 5-2.6 ES-2.1.5 & ES-2.1.6 *5-2.7 Educational Programs *5-2.7 Energy Cogeneration Systems ES-2.1.7 5-2.8 ES-2.1.8 5-2.9 Use of Discretionary Development Permits none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code 5-2.10 Energy Efficient Transportation Modes none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code i Energy Consrving And Efficient Buildings j 5-3 ES-3.1 5-3.1 ES-3.1.1 5-3.2 Building energy Audits none 5-3.3 ES-3.1.4 5-3.4 ES-3.1.2 Section 5 comparison Page 1 General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared Corresponding goal j 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes Chapter 6-Environmental' Resources and Sustainability All Goals and Policies under INF-1,INF-2& INF-6 in Section 5-Environmental Element&Chapter 8- Chapter 8 of"2040"were not found in the 2005 General Resources/Sustainability Infrastructure Element Plan and are presumed to be new. 5-3.5 ES-3.1.3 5-3.6 ES-3.1.4 i Healthy Air Quality Levels For Citizens Utilzing Local Planning Efforts 5-4.1 ES-4.1 5-4.2 ES-4.1.1 5-4.3 ES-4.1.2 f 5-4.4 ES-4.1.3 5-5 ES-4.2 5-5.1 ES-4.2.1 5-5.2 ES-4.2.2 ;. 5-5.3 ES-4.2.3-Added Landscaping ES-4.2.4-Expanded from one 5-5.4 sentence to four detailed ones. ES-4.2.5 (General, took out 5-5.5 names of Quarries) 5-6 Also 4-3 NA 5-7 ES-4.3 5-7.1 ES-4.3.1 5-7.2 ES-4.3.2 Protection of Special Areas of Natural Vegetation &Wildlife Habitation As Integral Parts of the Sustainable Environment 5-8 ES-5.1.1 5-8.1 ES-5.1.1 (Expanded &Added Landscaping) 5-9 ES-5.2 5-9.1 ES-5.2.1 5-10 ES-5.3 5-11 ES-5.3.1 5-11.1 ES-5.3.1 5-12 ES-5.3.2 & ES-5.4 Section 5 comparison Page 2 i General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes Chapter 6-Environmental Resources and Sustainability All Goals and Policies under INF-1,INF-2& INF-6 in Section 5-Environmental Element&Chapter 8- Chapter 8 of"2040"were not found in the 2005 General Resources/Sustainability Infrastructure Element Plan and are presumed to be new. 5-13 ES-5.5 5-14 ES-5.6 5-14.1 ES-5.6.1 & ES-5.6.2 j i Mineral Resource Areas That Minimize Community Impacts And Identify Future Uses 5-15 ES-6.1 5-15.1 see above 5-15.2 see above 5-16 see above 5-17 Incompatible Land Uses none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code i 5-17.1 New Development none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code 5-18 ES-6.1.2 i Protection and Efficiant Use of Water Resouces 5-19 ES-7.1 & ES-7.1.1 5-20 ES-7.2 5-20.1 ES-7.2.1 5-20.2 ES-7.2.2. 5-20.3 ES-7.2.3 5-20.4 ES-7.3.2 5-21 ES-7.3 j 5-21.1 ES-7.3.1 5-22 ES-7.4.3 5-23 ES-7.4.2 5-24 ES-7.5 5-25 ES-7.6 5-26 ES-7.7 5-27 ES-7.8 5-27.1 ES-7.8.1 Section 5 comparison Page 3 i General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes j Chapter 6-Environmental Resources and Sustainability All Goals and Policies under INF-1,INF-2& INF-6 in j Section 5 -Environmental Element&Chapter 8- Chapter 8 of"2040"were not found in the 2005 General Resources/Sustainability Infrastructure Element Plan and are presumed to be new. 5-28 ES-7.9 5-29 ES-7.9.1 5-30 ES-7.10 5-30.1 ES-7.10.1 & ES-7.10.2 5-31 ES-7.11 5-31.1 ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4& ES-7.11.5 ES-7.11.1 &ES-7-11.2 (Expanded) &ES-7.11.6 & ES- 5-31.2 7.11.7 I Improved Quality of Storm Water Runoff 5-32 INF4.1 left off pollution 5-33 Illicit Discharge into Storm Drains and Waterways none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance 5-34 INF-4.1.1 { 5-35 Development on Septic Systems none Possibly replaced by updated cityordinance or building code 5-36 I N F-4.1.3 5-37 Pest Resistant Landscaping and Design Features none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code A Solid Waste Stream Reduction Program That j Meets or Exceeds State Requirements 5-38 INF-7.1 5-38.1 Increase Recycling none 5-39 INF-7.3 5-39.1 Coordinate With Garbage Company none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance 5-39.2 E-waste Recycling none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance 5-39.3 Cursdie recycling of yard waste none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance 5-40 INF-7.2 & INF-7.3.1 5-40.1 Ordinance revisions none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance 541 INF-8.1.1 5-41.1 Promote Public education none Section 5 comparison Page 4 General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes Chapter 6-Environmental Resources and Sustainability All Goals and Policies under INF-1,INF-2& INF-6 in Section 5-Environmental Element&Chapter 8- Chapter 8 of"2040"were not found in the 2005 General Resources/Sustainability Infrastructure Element Plan and are presumed to be new. 5-42 INF-8.1 j 5-42.1 Recycling Opportunities none 5-42.2 Schools and Institutions none j 5-43 INF-7.3.3 5-43.1 Disemination Of Recycling Information NA 5-43.2 Use Internet for Information NA 5-44 INF-7.3.2 5-44.1 Post Demolition & Remodeling Projects none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code 5-44.2 Require Private& public projects to use Recycled Materials none Possibly replaced by updated city ordinance or building code Adequate Sewer Capacity 5-45 INF-5.1 5-46 INF-5.1.1 5-47 INF-5.1.2 5-47.1 Provide cost estimates of sewer tributary j lines none i *duplicate number in Section 5 i I I i Section 5 comparison Page 5 i C S � General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Summary of Differences Coals, Policies and strategies compared and mapped between General Plans Corres ondingLoa/ 2005 enera an Community ision2040 Notes Section 6 -Health and Safe-ty lRealthl Safe! lement•C a ter 7 HS-1 Regional Hazard Risks Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1-Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1.1-Monitoring and Budgets Not found in Section 6 HS-1,1.2-Mitigation Incorporation " IBIT Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1.3-Amendments& Updates Not found in Section 6 HS-1.2-Sea Level rise protection Exm Not found in Section 6 HS-1.2.1-Monitoring Sea Level HS-2 Emergency Preparedness Not found in Section 6 HS-2.2.1-Upgrades to E®C or other Location new Not found in Section 6 HS-2.6-Consider nearby Military facilities&airspace new HS-3 Hazards-Wiidland & Urban Fires Not found in Section 6 HS-3.3-emergency access for all new hillside development new 6-19, 6-20,6.21 HS-3.8 HS-4 Community Safety HS-6 Geologic&Seismic Risks HS-6 Hazardous Materials & Emag HS-7 Floods Not found in Section 6 HS-7.4.3-Nat'i Flood Ins.Community Rating System new HS-8 Noise Items In Section 6 2005 not found in 2040 6-11:Residential Fire Sprinklers none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-12:Smoke detectors none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-13:Wood Shake Rook Abatement none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-22: Residential Fire sprinklers-Hillsides none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-46.1: First habitable floor above 100y flood none Possibly replaced by.updated building code 6-52: Support stricter State laws on noise none immaterial 6-61: Construction Hours restriction none Possibly replaced by Cupertino regulation Discussion of Noise Contours Found in Appendix D-Community Noise Fundamentals Section 6 Summary General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared and mapped between General Plans Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes Section 6-Health and Safety Health &Safety Element-Chapter 7 HS ARegional Hazard Risks Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1-Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1.1-Monitoring and Budgets Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1.2-Mitigation Incorporation Not found in Section 6 HS-1.1.3-Amendments & Updates Not found in Section 6 HS-1.2-Sea Level rise protection Not found in Section 6 HS-1.2.1-Monitoring Sea Level 6-43 HS-1.2.2 j HS-2 Emergency Preparedness 6-34 HS-2.1 6-35 HS-2.2 Not found in Section 6 HS-2.2.1-Upgrades to EOC or other Location new 6-38 HS-2.2.2 6-36 HS-2.3 6-40 HS-2.3.1 6-36.1 HS-2.3.2 6-36.2 HS-2.3.3 6-36.3 HS-2.3.4 6-37 HS-2.3.5 6-39 HS-2.4 6-39.1 HS-2.4.1 6-39.2 HS-2.4.2 j 6-41 HS-2.5 6-41.1 HS-2.5.1 Not found in Section 6 HS-2.6-Consider nearby Military facilities&airspace new i HS-3 Hazards-Wildland&Urban Fires 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6 HS-3.1 6-7 HS-3.2 Not found in Section 6 HS-3.3-emergency access for all new hillside development new j 6-14 HS-3.3.1 6-15 HS-3.3.2 6-16 HS-3.3.3 6-17 HS-3.3.4 Section 6 comparison Page 1 General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared and mapped between General Plans Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes Section 6-Health and Safety Health &Safety Element-Chapter 7 6-18 HS-3.4 6-18.1 HS-3.4.1 6-18.2 HS-3.4.2 6-8 HS-3.5 6-9 HS-3.6 6-10 HS-3.7 6-19, 6-20,6.21 HS-3.8 HS-4 Community Safety 6-23 HS-4.1 6-25 HS-4.2 6-24 HS-4.2.1 6-27 HS-4.2.2 6-26 HS-4.3 HS-5 Geologic&Seismic Risks 6-1 HS-5.1 j 6-1.2 HS-5.2.2 6-1.5 HS-5.1.2 6-6.1 HS-5.1.3 6-2 HS-5.2 6-2.1 HS-5.2.1 6-2.2 HS-5.2.2 6-2.3 HS-5.2.3 6-2.4 HS-5.2.4 6-2.5 HS-5.2.5 1 HS-6 Hazardous Materials & Emag 6-28 HS-6.1 6-29 HS-6.2 6-30 HS-6.3 6-31 HS-6.4 6-33 HS-6.5 6-32 HS-6.5.1 6-32 HS-6.5.2. HS-7 Floods 6-42 HS-7.1 6-44 HS-7.2 6-44.1 HS-7.2.1 Section 6 comparison Page 2 i ® General Plan comparison prepared by Catherine Thaler Goals, Policies and strategies compared and mapped between General Plans Corresponding goal 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 Notes j Section 6-Health and Safety Health&Safety Element-Chapter 7 ji 6-44.2 HS-7.2.2 6-45 HS-7.3 6-46 HS-734 j 6-47 HS-7.4.1 6-46.2 HS-7.4.2 j Not found in Section 6 HS-7.4.3-Nat'l Flood Ins.Community Rating System new 6-48 HS-7.5 6-49 HS-7.6 6-49.1 HS-7.6.1 HS-8 Noise 6-50 HS-8.1 j 6-50.1 HS-8.2 6-58 HS-8.2.1 j 6-60 HS-8.2.2. I 6-63 HS-8.2.3 6-62 HS-8.3 6-51 HS-8.4 6-53 HS-8.5 6-54 HS-8.6 6-54.1 HS-8.6.1 6-55 HS-8.7 6-56 HS-8.7.1 6-57 HS-8.7.2 [Eli 6-11:Residential Fire Sprinklers none Possibly replaced by updated building code, 6-12:Smoke detectors none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-13:Wood Shake Rook Abatement none Possibly replaced by updated building code; 6-22: Residential Fire sprinklers-Hillsides none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-46.1: First habitable floor above 1 00y flood none Possibly replaced by updated building code 6-52: Support stricter State laws on noise none immaterial 6-61: Construction Hours restriction none Possibly replaced by Cupertino regulation Discussion of Noise Contours Found in Appendix D-Community Noise Fundamentals i i Section 6 comparison Page 3 Subject: One office question SURVEY Input from some residents-please add to May 19,2015 meeting � {� documents G� From: Lisa Warren(la-warren@att.net) To: graces@cupertino.org; 7-t 1:5 Date: - Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:17 PM Y Y � From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> l To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; PlanningCommission � <planningcommission@santaclaraca.gov>; City Clerk<cityclerk@cupertino.org>; David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:36 AM Subject:One office question SURVEY Input from some residents-please add to May 19,2015 meeting documents City Council members, Planning Commissioners, others, Based on a question posed by someone I spoke to, I chose to send a 'one question survey' out via 'Nextdoor'. I did this at the end of March and have decided that you should have the 'results'. There has been some discussion about Economic Diversity among council members during public meetings recently which makes this input very relevant. I have attached the collection of replies I had received by early April, 2015. The first 33 responses came within 4 days of post. There were 38 responses. The one question is included in the attached collection of responses. • 'C' was the overwhelming response- 6 'C's without any comments and another 18 with comments - 24 total with the actual 'C' included in feedback. • 'B' was selected by one person who added a comment. • 'A' was semi selected by one person (that person chose A/B and added comments) 12 residents commented without choosing either A, B or C. Same 'flavor'.in the comments though.. Out of the 38 comments, I think only 3 people chose to reply 'privately'. The rest made their thought available to all. There actually ended up being a 'spin ofF reply that got more discussion going, but was not as focused on 'the office question' so I did not include that info. Lisa Warren ps.. let me know if you need me to send the exact wording of my 'post, Summary of answers as of early April, 2015 The question is whether residents are willing to build more office to bring more jobs to Cupertino: A) For any company B) Only if we can get economic diversity C) Not at all RESPOND to this message with A, B or C Please add civil COMMENTS to help clarify your answer. C " Response and Comments : There were (as of March 30 6pm) 6(six) 'C' responses without any comments. Then there were these that had comments: Answer is C. More office space won't create more jobs for the residents here. However, we will take the consequence such as bad traffic, noise environment, high crime rate and etc. C - I think traffic and affordable housing is more important that office space. C. Cupertino is becoming Apple City. Before the city bring in more offices,we should focus on solving the school, traffic issues. My answer is C. I do not want more offices in Cupertino.When I moved here to Cupertino in 2007, the city only has—50K residents. The city also did not have many construction as now. During that time, traffic is not as heavy as now, and the air is not as bad as now. Since we will have Apple campus 2 in our city soon, I think this alone will generate a lot of cars and buses,which will make my travel time to go home longer(traffic jam and more traffic lights to stop), and also will make the air quality bad. C -1 am against new offices because every new office we add requires more housing. There's a formula, and I feel it is completely unfair to residents. And, while I realize the requirement is from the state not the city it is still unfair. C:there are lots of Apple-occupied offices would be empty once new headquarter finished. I don't think Cuptertino needs more office buildings. C. It won't bring much job opportunities to the residents, actually. I don't see much tax benefit compared what we have to pay off. C, it's obvious that the city is overcrowded and the traffic is jammed. C-Agree with XXXX's comment, that Apple's eventual vacancy of their current spaces should allow new businesses to move in to existing offices. Instead of having to build new space. C.All Cities need to focus on Traffic, Roads need repaired and the State has No Water or any means of Resolving the problem if the Drought continues. C. First let's make sure that all the new office space is occupied. The city can always come back and plan for more office space after Apple moves to it's new campus and checks the status of current office spaces rented by Apple. ---This forum has been great for me to learn and contribute. There has been a lot of information from people more informed than myself. It has been nice to throw my two cents into certain discussions. Personally, I feel that the consequences involved with growth and development are glossed over, and the entity who seemingly dictates public opinion is the one and only entity that clearly has something to gain. They also aren't as dependent on the outcome of their own agenda. If it fails or has a negative impact, we suffer far more than they do because this will impact our lives, every day for decades.... C -for the same reasons noted above in those that also voted C I wish there is another option that would be"Only if we can get it environment-friendly(e.g., traffic, noise, and chemical hazard neutral)". Among the three options, my vote would be C "Not at all". C - no comment is needed. It should be obvious C. What the heck is"economic diversity?" Isn't that just another way of saying "economic disparity"which is what we have plenty of around here? I'm in favor of responsible growth, but I don't want any part of the plans that have UN Agenda 21 at their roots. I vote c. At this time we are not in any way meeting the housing needs of low and medium income groups and arc ing more workers just compounds the issue and adds to traffic woes. C. I think we have enough office space as is and all this will do is require the city to again find more space to build more housing. It's a vicious cycle that we need to slow down and adding more office space won't help the current residents with resolving the issues we're already having with the city. " B " Response and Comments : My answer would be B...but it seems that diversity in Cupertino means Indians and Asians.. I'd it's to be a true diversity, then I want the same diversity given to African American, Caucasians, middle easterns, etc...Sorry this may not be the PC answer that you were looking for. ..buy this is how I feel "" A " Response and Comments : A/B I'm not clear what economic diversity is alluding to, but a variety of retail, dining, and service coupled with office expansion that's allows other companies than Apple to establish and flourish. Mixing residential in with store front along major thoroughfares while maintaining space in the residential neighborhoods. Comments without a A,B or C choice made (but you can get a great idea of what they are thinking) The Apple building will be completed in 2016. 1 think more housing is needed, especially for seniors and low income, to keep current ratio of residences to offices, if any new building occurs. Technically I'd prefer no building but demolition of some buildings and hard scape to add park land to Eastern part of Cupertino. ....................................... ....................................... Rezoning needs to be carefully thought out. Adding residents and/or workers will have an obvious impact on traffic, schools. Noise pollution, air pollution. Resources get strained. Water and energy will have increased demand. How will that affect us? The table in the original post doesn't show how many vehicles we are going to add to rush-hour. Yikes. Also, Multi-zillion dollar mixed-use projects aren't a fix-all solution on how to manage growth. Developer will always promise low impact. Senior housing, BMR units... But no one is trying to make average apartments. Developer makes more with luxury apartments. Adding a bunch of luxury apartments in new, dense population centers will mean an influx of wealthy residents who probably don't care about preserving open space or setbacks or height(they're buying into the densest style of living). And they'll mostly be new residents and likely won't care as much about history and tradition. And they'll get to vote, too. Do we want a"Santana Row"?And when we finish building ours, do we want to build another one? Santana row-style project means high rents or sale prices. For the businesses, too. So you end up with higher prices at a place like Santana Row. Restaurants have higher overhead, so the operator passes on those costs to you. small businesses or modestly-priced options cannot survive. Only high-end places or corporate juggernaughts can exist in these places. Infrastructure needs to be planned out BEFORE adding new residents or workers. Roads aren't only a city issue, either. Highways are involved. I don't think we need to add many new residents or office space. The mayor had stated that we needed more space because several companies moved out of Cupertino due to a lack of office space. When they left, that should have freed up the space they were using.And the obvious one, Apple, has stayed. We've cast our lot with that company. I'm not hungry for additional office space beyond campus 2. I'm not sweating "losing"whoever we"lost"while instead we retained Apple. I wonder what percentage of people who work in Cupertino also live in Cupertino? I bet it's a small number. Developer will always tell you that their project won't harm schools or traffic. Growth and change aren't frightening. Letting Sand Hill or someone like that plan it for you is what is frightening. It's rational for local citizens to want growth and development to not drastically alter our quality of life or diminish property values or educational quality. Building heights, setbacks, zones.... Usually shouldn't be changed. Usually. More dense population is something I don't want. Mixed use is usually lame. I don't think we desperately need more office space. Does anybody want all that? More people? More workers? More crowding in our schools and on our roads? More places to eat or shop but nowhere to park when get there? Looking at every open or underdeveloped place and trying to figure out how many square feet of office or retail plus housing units can we squeeze in? I say NO. ................................ ................................ Where will the water come from needing to flush the thousands of new toilets that will be needed for all the . new jobs that are being added right now. Every flush uses several gallons of drinking water, even in the most efficient toilets. However, I never hear about this aspect--wonder why. No new employees and no more toilets for Cupertino. ............................ ............................ I don't see the point of doing this survey.We already have more jobs than#employed residents. Besides with the 32,800 jobs we do have,there is a 26,700 in-flow of workers. Even if you build more office to have more jobs,there will just be more in-flow of workers. It won't increase the percentage of Cupertino residents who work in the city. Unless there is a certain incentive program to hire local workers, like Sunnyvale is moving towards. It's like the same argument they use for building more housing close to Apple II. Only about 15%of the apartment dwellers might work at Apple II or anywhere within walking distance.You'll get 75% net increase in traffic.So, it doesn't reduce traffic at all.And then there is the school and impact... and air,visual pollution. ............................... ................................ First, there is the seductive allure of modernization in ultra-urbanization. But there is a bigger challenge of misjudgement of its real impact if we cant see the forest for the trees. The fallacy in thinking and misjudgement just devolves into a tragedy of the commons. ................................. ................................. I think that the developers only want to make money. They are interested in only their interest, If they only want to go three high-density complexes is not true. They are after 5 or 6 high-density complexes so that no retail is developed. Look want happen in the old Kaiser hospital. It was supposed to be only three high-density complexes and it developed into four or five high-density complexes without us knowing.(Thats what I heard, true or not). ................................ Cupertino has tried mixed use in three high-density complexes and it has failed in all three of them, The developers don't want to put in the retail, they know it won't work, but the city forces them to do it. Customers hate it. The residents that live in the complexes hate it. It sounds good in theory though. .............................................. ................................. Lisa, it's important that residents realize that more office space leads to more housing because of state mandates. A city can't build only office space with the idea that since office space doesn't generate more public school students that they are not affecting the schools. Once you build office space,the state comes in and requires that you construct housing. The General Plan Amendment proposes 3.5 million square feet of office space (to put that in perspective, this would be about seven Transamerica pyramids). 3.5 million square feet of office space houses about 22,000 employees at current rates of square feet of space per employee, and the square feet per employee is falling so this number will go higher. If the state met its goal in terms of the ratio of housing units/employee, that would mean about 16,000 new housing units. At the current ratio of new students/new housing unit that means about 26,000 more students. Now developers and politicians will argue that a)that the state's ratio is just a goal and that the state will not enforce such a low ratio, b) a lot of single people,and couples with no children will buy the units they are building (Sand Hill already made this argument when they sneakily turned the senior housing at Main Street into regular housing), c) that the ratio of new students/new housing unit will be less than it was for previous projects in Cupertino, and d) the new units will generate more tax revenue than older units because they will have a higher tax basis under prop 13. But even if you cut the projected number in half, to 13,000, that's still a big scary number and a huge number of new portables. ............................... You lost me at"whether residents are willing to build more offices"Would we be building/paying to build? ............................... Diversifying the tax base is important in case something happens to Apple in the future. ................................. ................................. This is a complex question, and not enough information is provided. For myself, I don't know much about Urban planning or have enough experience to make a truly informed vote. I will note: Given the property prices in Cupertino, whatever business that will be located here, will have to be one that is very lucrative to cover the rent. I don't know if that will be good or bad... I suspect,small professional business such as law firms, accountants, medical specialists, over-priced retail, etc. This probably won't help to make Cupertino an interesting place to live and may not match the job skills of the residents who live here already. I just don't know.... If there is no corresponding increase in housing (and probably high density housing at that), then traffic will become more of an issue. Will corresponding increase in public transportation be included? No mention how parking will be done. If this adds to "Parking Lagoons" (Where there is a thin sidewalk with a busy street on one side and a big parking lot on the other), this will make foot traffic more unappealing. (Example: Sears along Stevens Creek). Maybe it would help if there were some office set asides for non-profits(as is done with Fort Mason in SF.) Put me down as Undecided... C14y Ltur- Akay OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL � � . 10300 70RRE:AUENUE-GUPERT.I_N0;CA 95014=3255 C-u p-E K .'N, (408)777-3308 FAX-,(408)777-3333' ,August 5,2014 _ Ms._Debby-Fernandez. City of Santa Clara PlanningDepartment De P �v U x204 . 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara,CA'95050: €�dl �c �- Re:Addendum 5403/54Q5 Sfevens'CYeekBotilevard Office Prayect Dear 1V&.-Fernandez:, Thank you fof allowing the City of Cupertino the opportunity"comment on the Phase 2 office project proposed at 5.403/5445 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The approximate height,of the proposed building is identified as.138-feet (pine=stories)cin.the Addendum to the Final.EIR. The, Phase 1 six-story-office.building on the site-, at"10.5 feet, is significantly taller:than existing buildin :in the area. While the-project is located in an area. ,gswhere four story buildings exist; the project site is also located close to_ a residential neighborhood where the maximum allowable_height is,limited to two stones.. The project is proposing a monolithic sidewalk anda. the amount;of 1'andsc4pirig along Stevens Creek Boulovard Pleasenote thatforprolects:along Stevens.CreekBoulevard,the City of Cupertino requires-the�i�stallation of a detached sidewalk and a double row of trees to buffer the mass and bulk of bu>Idi tgs from the street: Please also find-attached comments that'the City has,=eceived from-a concerned resident: I hope that the City of Santa Claravniill consider the.City of.Cupertino's_comments in the review of the proposed project to improve its interface with the surrounding neighborhood and community. Should you have any questions; please do not Hesitate to contact me at(408).777- 3308•or Pi_ug@cupertino:ore.. Sincerely, - a Piu Ohosh,AICP Senior Planner Cityof Cupertino Enclosed:Letter from Catherine Thaler re:Stevens Creek Office Building Catherine Thaler 10116 Stern Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)446-9266 City of Santa Clara Planning Commission 1500 Warburton Ave. Santa Clara, CA 95050 RE: Stevens Creek Office Building Dear Planning Commission; I am writing is response to the proposed plans for the second building at 6409 Stevens Creek Blvd. Although I was officially noticed by mail about the original project in 2012 I have not received anything in the mail about this issue. Luckily a neighbor mentioned it and I immediately contacted Debby Fernandez. She was most helpful in supplying documents and answering my questions on Friday. I have two major concerns,the scale of this project and the Iandscape plan. The scale of a 9 story project seems way out of proportion to the existing area.As you know,none of your Santa Clara residents are impacted by the office project,just many of us in Cupertino as we traverse Stevens Creek. Just behind this main street is a neighborhood of over 5,000 citizens that travel this area daily plus the many other commuters driving into work. Currently all surrounding building are at most 4 stories. The 6 story office building recently opened is the tallest building for quite a distance into Cupertino. The following pictures illustrate the actual views of the project and the scale for human beings and cars. This is the reality,not just plans on paper. I wanted you to see the project as we do. 1 L t , This picture was taken in front of my house on Stem Avenue. As you can see the existing new 6 story building is somewhat obscured by the 4 story hotel and masked by its location on the rear of the property. It is still quite impressive and we call it the`Cruise Ship'. Y Imagine this section of the building moved to within 60 feet of Stevens Creek and add 50%more to make it 9 stories! My lot is 60 feet wide,about 25 steps, so this is going to be very close to the street at.the end and very tall. Fig— rill _ _- x a -- — 2 This structure.will towel:-over everything near it. Four-,stories high is the most of anything within.sight.Although-itis an attractive building it,does not seem.to cornplirnent.and fit in with the surroundings. Given that the new building,will be in plain view with nothing,to hide it,the proposed landscape plan seems inadequate. The plan calls.for large shade trees;but the selected trees are Chhiese Pistache.Not only are they not large,but they are only slow to medium growers., It seems that this project requires the placement of many of-trees to soften the structure.. This view is just west of the,.Hotel,.and shows the current,office building.Notice the large shade-trees along-the-street. Inside,are-smaller,trees,closer to the structure. Comingfrom- the other direction the office building-is nicely masked. Since a.9 story tree doesn't exist;please consider making the street trees larger,faster, growing and require a larger specimen tlat 15 gallon listed on the plans. This is an impressive building whether 6 stories or 9, it should have impressive landscaping both inside and along.theL street. Thank you, Catherine Thaler cc: Cupertino Planning,Department. 3 Job Housing Balance prepared for May 19 Cupertino Council meeting General Plan Amendment April 1 , 2014 staff report General Plan Amendment Policy Topics The General Plan Amendment process is a focused update of the 2005 General Plan.While the majority of the General Plan's content will remain the same, there are several major policy topics that will be addressed through new or updated goals, policies, standards or programs. al j CITY OF Amend to CUPERTINO ---- A f GENERAL PLAN r �- ,LL. 2000 — 2020 December 4,2014 2005 General Plan Community Vision 2040 WHY? • Do council members know this policy is amended out? • Does this amendment ever discussed in any community outreach? • Why not ask residents " do you support job-housing balance in Cupertino?" in the on-line survey? ■ Vision • Search key words: balance / school / job • balance: 9 matches • schools: 6 matches • job: 2 matches • No more policy and language as that in 2005 General Plan. CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES Policy LU-11.1 : Connectivity Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new Balanced Community developments and community facilities. Review existing The City seeks to balance future growth and development neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for in order create a more complete community. This includes students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community ensuring a mix of land uses that support economic, social facilities such as the library. and cultural goals in order to preserve and enhance Cupertino`s great quality of life. The CAP is based on 2040 growth projections for Cupertino and identifies policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a municipal and community-wide level. GOAL LU-1 Similar to most neighboring cities, Cupertino has historically CREATE • BALANCED C• had an imbalance of land uses (housing, services and jobs) WITH • MIX OF • THAT with a roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the SUPPORTS THRIVINBUSINESSES, automobile. When this imbalance is multiplied at a regional ALL • • • ' • level, there are regional consequences including, traffic COMPLETE • • • • AND • congestion, high housing costs, increased air pollution and EALTHY • lack of accessibility for the young, elderly and disabled. 2005 General Plan Strategies: 1. Housing and Mixed Use. Allocate housing or mixed-use development on certain commercial, office and never industrial sites, consistent with and wherever societies have • long-term City revenue projec- flourished and prospered, tions (See Policy 2-38 Economic I creative and workable Development Plan). ` cities have been at the core. THRIVING, BALANCED COMMUNITY 2. Housing Impact. Since the quality01110, (SANE)Acoas] of Cupertino schools (elementary and Policy 2-19:Jobs/Housing Balance high school) is a primary asset of the Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs City, care shall be taken to ensure any new housing will not adversely impact and housing units. these systems. CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN ogle Side note: The California Clean Energy Committee has successfully over-turned the City of San Jose General Plan due to the failure to adequately analyze impacts resulting from a lack of housing for people employed in the city. Do we need such d change ? Table 2-A.Development Allocation. TABLE LU-1 Commercial(sq.ft.) Office(sq.ft.) Hot,(rooms) Residential(DU) CrrYWIDE DEVELOPMENT ALL• • 2014-2"0 •e 3010 Built Buildout 2010 Built Buildout 3010 Built Buildout 2010 Built Buildout (03 Neighborhood Monte Vista 92,387 99,698 431,153 456,210 828 902 8923 d 1M Oak Valley - - - - - - 178 178 City +-351,730 2115,000 7w.270 z.+7sN 2.46+.613 14413 .0e 5z6 uz 1.336 -5 469 Fairgrove - - - - - - 220 220 vea,n Other Areas 17,620 17,776 SpN^a +207.776 1.207.234 - 2.NO.000 zm,ow 10 389 191 369 369 4.+,233•• Commerdal Centers 11or.w,..6 Mete zn,eN 69.550 69,550 126 1M 6N 750 -so *Heart of the City 1,408,093 1,476,115 510,531 521,987 122 262 570 VallcoPark South 1,507,189 1,902,546 708,057 708,057 250 764 471 711 N.D.Aee x708 skm :.891.423 2.N1.an 123 133 .9 .y 97 Homestead Road 193,678 193,678 69,550 69,550 126 126 600 784 N.wem lean 137"0 ;069.676 3,W,176 3-5 315 ss. 1.15, eo0 Other Areas 497,247 495,415 268,735 250,604 - - 6 306 3.09 b- 351.20 35LM1 - 13a7N MIN - 6 6 Employment Centers N DeAnza Blvd. 36,657 51,372 2,181,021 2,266,206 138 49 146 a 134,753 .13.753 City Center 64,144 79,011 1,050,227 1,050,227 224 224 556 656 Vallco Park North 133,147 133,147 2,981,930 3,069,676 315 315 554 851 "+'"eY "M, wow s.m7 .43,1.0 asa735 13.595 We ale w va.e. Bubb Road 428,645 444,435 94 Other Areas 100 owl 1..,966 144.96. 1+9.896 119.8% +ao" 18.166 123 Major Employers 633,053 - - - 109.vn 893.053 523,1+e - - - Er*pbyre Citywide 3,932,542 4,430,982 8,629,849 9,470,005 1,175 1,429 21,344 23,294 c;,y,,;d, 3437.065 e43o.M M.917 aw6.1 9 11470.005 2553126 1'.16 +..z9 313 21,412 23.296 1.eu 4,430,982 954705005 1 ,429 23,294 • 4,430,982 1 ,429 23,294 Please reconsider the AMENDMENTS made in Community Vision 2040 . Reference • 2005 General Plan : httr) -//www. cupertinogQa . org/ amp folders/view/20 • Community Vision 2040 : http :jj www. cupertinogpa. ora/app folders/view/424 Search results balance CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element INTRODUCTION CONTENTS The Land Use and Community Design Element is the keystone of Community Vision 2040. It unifies and informsLU-4 Context the other Elements by providing an overall policy context Development for future physical change. It deals with the issues of future Land Transportation growth and helps define the desired balance among social, Historic Preservation environmental and economic considerations,while enhancHillsides - ing quality of life in the community. Neighborhood Preservation As Cupertino implements Community Vision 2040, it Re ,agininal Land Use aspires to preserve and enhance the distinct character of each planning area to create a vibrant community with invit- Demographics Climate ing streets and public spaces, preserved, connected and Sustainable Action- walkable neighborhoods, exceptional parks and community Principles services, and a vibrant economy with a strong tax base. Economic Vitality Citywide Growth and Community Benefits This Element includes goals, policies and strategies that LU-1 1 Looking Forward provide direction on land use and design principles that will shape future change in Cupertino. In turn,each of the other Policies Balanced Community Elements in Community Vision 2040 support the land use Community Identity and design assumptions included in this Element. Streetscape Design DevelopmentConnectivity Historic Preservation Arts and Culture Economic and Fiscal Stability ..nal Cooperation and Coor ...- .or SpecialAccess to Community Facilities and Services Hillsides LU-43 Planning Areas Goals and Policies .. LU-3 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 City of Cupertino Many of Cupertino's pioneer settlers planted vineyards and wineries proliferated on Montebello Ridge,on the lower foothills,and on the flat lands below.The valley,which flourished with orchards, became known as"Valley of the Heart's Delight" and was visited by tourists who came by electric railway and later by rail car. In the late 1940s, Cupertino was swept up in Santa Clara Valley's postwar population explosion. In 1954,Cupertino's leaders began a drive for incorporation due to concerns related to unplanned development, higher taxes and piece- meal annexations by other cities. In 1955,the incorporation was approved by an election on September 27, 1955. Cupertino became Santa Clara County's thirteenth City on October 10, 1955.Today, Cupertino is part of Silicon Valley, home to major world-renowned companies in the high technology sector. Hillsides Cupertino's hillsides are an irreplaceable resource shared by the entire Santa Clara Valley.They provide important habi- tat for plants and wildlife;watershed capacity to prevent flooding in downstream areas;a wide vegetative belt that cleanses the air of pollutants;creates recreational opportu- nities for residents;and a natural environment that provides a contrast to the built environment.The City balances the needs of property owners in hillside areas with those of the environment and the community by allowing low-intensity residential and other uses in these areas,while requiring preservation of natural habitat and riparian corridors'when selecting building sites. Neighborhood Preservation Cupertino is a city with diverse and unique neighborhoods that vary in character and composition.As Cupertino matures,the city must continue to look at preserving and LU-6 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES Balanced Community The City seeks to balance future growth and development in order create a more complete community.This includes ensuring a mix of land uses that support economic,social and cultural goals in order to preserve and enhance Cupertino's great quality of life. GOAL LU-1 CREATE . BALANCED • WITH A MIX OF • SUPPORTS ALL MODESOF SPO A • COMPLETEC•' ••DAND A HEALTHY • Policy LU-1.1: Land Use and Transportation Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service,and along major corridors. Policy LU-1.2: Development Allocation Maintain and update the development allocation table (Table LU-1)to ensure that the allocations for various land uses adequately meet city goals. Strategy LU-1.2.1: Planning Area Allocations. Development allocations are assigned for various Planning Areas. However,some flexibility may be allowed for transferring allocations among Planning Areas provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for Community Vision 2040. LU-13 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element while increasing opportunities for other modes of transportation. Strategy LU-8.3.3: Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements.Consider infrastructure and streetscape improvements in areas,such as the Crossroads or South Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian- oriented area that meets community design goals. Strategy LU-8.3.4: High Sales-Tax Producing Retail Uses. Consider locations for high sales-tax producing retail uses (such as life-style and hybrid commodity-specialty centers) provided the development is compatible with the surround- ing area in terms of building scale and traffic. Policy LU-8.4: Property Acquisition Maximize revenue from City-owned land and resources,and ensure that the City's land acquisition strategy is balanced with revenues. Policy LU-8.5: Efficient Operations Plan land use and design projects to allow the City to main- tain efficient operations in the delivery of services including, community centers, parks, roads, and storm drainage,and other infrastructure. LU-35 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element utilizing that formula. Properties that have already been since subdivided in conformance with the above designa- tion have no further subdivision potential for residential purposes. Strategy LU-12.1.4: Existing lots in Foothill Modified and Foothill Modified 1/2—acre Slope density designations. Require discretionary review with a hillside exception for hillside or R1 properties if development is proposed on substandard parcels on slopes per the R1 and RHS zoning. Policy LU-12.2: Clustering Subdivisions Cluster lots in major subdivisions and encourage clustering in minor subdivisions,for projects in the 5-20-acre slope density designation. Reserve 90 percent of the land in private open space to protect the unique characteristics of the hillsides from adverse environmental impacts. Keep the open space areas contiguous as much as possible. Policy LU-12.3: Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Improvement standards should balance the need to furnish adequate util- ity and emergency services against the Strategy LU-12.3.1: Grading. Follow natural land contours and avoid mass of grading of sites during construction, especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas. Grading hillside sites into large,flat areas shall be avoided. Strategy LU-12.3.2: Roads. Roads should be narrowed to avoid harming trees and streambeds. Strategy LU-12.3.3:Trees. Retain significant specimen trees,especially when they grow in groves or clusters and integrate them into the developed site. LU-41 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 City of Cupertino Oak Valley Neighborhood GOAL LU-29 RETAIN • D ENHANCE OAKVALLEY AS • UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDED BY • ' • AREAS AND PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACE Policy LU-29.1: Development Intensity Require development intensity for the single-family Oak Valley neighborhood to be consistent with the development agreement that includes the use permit and other approv- als.The development agreement describes development areas, intensity and styles of development,public park dedication,tree protection,access and historic preserva- tion.The theme of the approvals is to balance development with environmental protection by clustering development, setting it back from sensitive environmental areas and pre- serving large areas as permanent open space. Policy LU-29.2: Design Elements Require buildings to reflect the natural hillside setting as required in residential hillside zones with traditional architectural styles and natural materials and colors. Larger building elements should be scaled to respect the existing development in the surrounding area. LU-76 Search results schools CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element has made strides towards improving walkability and bike- ability by retrofitting existing streets to include bike lanes; creating sidewalks lined with trees along major boulevards; and encouraging development to provide a more pedestri- an-oriented frontage with active uses,gathering places and entries lining the street. As the City seeks to implement sustainability and com- munity health objectives,future growth and retrofitting of existing infrastructure will create vibrant mixed-use, commercial,employment and neighborhood centers; pedestrian-oriented and walkable spaces for the community to gather;and distinct and connected neighborhoods with easy walkable and bikeable access to services, including schools, parks and shopping. Historic Preservation The Cupertino area was originally settled by the Ohlone Indians,who lived in the Rancho San Antonio area for over 3,000 years. In 1776 the area was explored by Spanish soldiers during an expedition let by Colonel Juan Batista De Anza.The area was later settled by European immi- grants who established farms on the valley's fertile land and enjoyed a thriving agricultural economy. In the late nineteenth century,the village of Cupertino sprang up at the crossroads of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (De Anza Boulevard)and Stevens Creek Road. It was first known as the West Side. However, by 1898 the post office at the Crossroads needed a new name to distinguish it from other similarly named towns.The name "Cupertino" came from a local creek and winery owned by John T. Doyle,a San Francisco lawyer and historian. In 1904,the Cupertino name was officially applied to the Crossroads post office. At the same time,the Home Union Store at the Crossroads location was renamed the Cupertino Store and moved to the northeast corner of the Crossroads. LU-5 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element enhancing its built environment.Cupertino's vision is to preserve the distinct character of neighborhoods; provide Priority Development Areas walking and biking connections to services including parks, In 2008,ABAG and the MTC schools and shopping;and revitalize neighborhood centers created a regional initiative as community gathering places.The City will welcome to allow local governments to citizens as partners in making sure that their neighborhoods identify Priority Development are the kind in which they want to live in the future. Areas(PDAs). PDAs are areas Regional Land Use Planning where new development will support the day-to-day needs The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of of residents and workers in a 2008(SB 375)calls on each of the State's 18 metropolitan pedestrian-friendly environment areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) served by transit.While PDAs to accommodate future population growth and reduce were originally established to greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan address housing needs infill Bay Area,jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association of communities,they have been Bay Area Governments(ABAG)and the Metropolitan broadened to advance focused Transportation Commission(MTC), is the region's first employment growth. PDAs are Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the require- critical components for imple- ments of SB 375 through the year 2040. menting the region's proposed Plan Bay Area anticipates that the Bay Area's population will long term growth strategy.The grow from about 7 million today to approximately 9 million level of growth in each PDA by 2040 with employment growth of about 1.1 million jobs. reflects its role in achieving The Plan provides a strategy for meeting 80 percent of the regional objectives and how it region's future housing needs in Priority Development Areas fits into locally designated prior- (PDAs).These are neighborhoods within walking distance of ity growth plans. Cupertino's frequent transit service,offering a wide variety of housing PDA area includes properties options,and featuring amenities such as grocery stores, within a quarter mile of Stevens community centers and restaurants. Creek Boulevard from Highway 85 to its eastern border and a Cupertino's Demographics portion of North and South De Cupertino's population has grown from 3,664 in 1960 to Anza Boulevards. over 58,000 in 2010 per the U.S.Census Bureau. Most of the population growth has been from annexation of areas into the city and from tract development during the 1970s and 1980s.The city's population is projected to grow to LU-7 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 City of Cupertino change in corridors that support all modes of transit, providing neighborhoods with easy access to schools, parks and neighborhood centers. 4. Land use and economics.The City will look to diversify the City's tax base,support and retain existing busi- nesses, increase the vitality of aging commercial centers with redevelopment,seek to diversify shopping oppor- tunities so that the community has the opportunity to satisfy their shopping needs within Cupertino. S. Urban design,form and character.The City will seek high-quality development to achieve desired physical environment in Planning Areas, including walkable, connected neighborhoods, inviting streets that allow for different modes of transportation, and vibrant and walkable special areas,and neighborhood centers in keeping with Community Vision 2040. 6. Preservation of natural environment and hillsides. Cupertino is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, including hillsides,creek corridors,and sensi- tive animal and plant habitats along the foothills. Much of this land is preserved in low-intensity residential and agricultural uses or open space.As redevelopment occurs,the City will strive to preserve these natural areas through land use and building design decisions. 7. Economic Vitality and Fiscal Stability.As Cupertino's population grows and ages,demands on commu- nity resources will increase. In order to maintain and enhance the community's quality of life,the City will ensure that existing businesses are encouraged to rein- vest and grow in Cupertino,and that the city continues to attract new businesses and investment. LU-12 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element Policy LU-10.5: Annexation Actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated proper- ties within the City's urban service area, including the Creston neighborhoods,which will be annexed on a parcel- by-parcel basis with new development.Other remaining unincorporated islands will be annexed as determined by the City Council. Access to Community Facilities and Services The City will seek to improve connectivity and access to public facilities and services, including De Anza College. •A LIBRARYMAINTAIN AND ENHANCE COMMUNITY ACCESS TO SCHOOLAND PROVIDED" BY OTHER AGENCIES Policy LU-11.1: Connectivity Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new developments and community facilities. Review existing neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community facilities such as the library. Policy LU-11.2: De Anza College Allow land uses not traditionally considered part of a col- lege to be built at De Anza College, provided such uses integrate the campus into the community, provide facilities and services not offered in the City and/or alleviate impacts created by the college. LU-39 COMMUNITY VISION 2040 City of Cupertino Neighborhoods The City has many neighborhoods,each with its own distinctive character and setting.These neighborhoods play a vital role in supporting Cupertino's great quality of life. Neighborhood goals and policies help preserve and enhance the quality of life by protecting neighborhood character and improving walking and biking connections to parks,schools and services. Neighborhoods typically offer a variety of housing choices to meet a spectrum of community needs.The following general goal, policies and strategies apply to all neighborhoods in the city. GOAL LU-27 PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND ENHANCE CONNECTIVITY • NEARBY SERVICES • CREATE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS Policy LU-27.1: Compatibility Ensure that new development within and adjacent to resi- dential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character. Strategy LU-27.1.1: Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single-family devel- opment that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. Strategy LU-27.1.2: Neighborhood Guidelines. Identify neighborhoods that have a unique architectural style, historical background or location and develop plans that preserve and enhance their character. Support special zon- ing or design guidelines(e.g.,the Fairgrove Eichler neigh- borhood)and single-story overlay zones in neighborhoods, where there is strong neighborhood support. LU-72 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element Strategy LU-27.1.3: Flexibility.When neighborhoods are in transition,add flexibility for requirements for new devel- opment that acknowledge the transition while continuing to respect the existing neighborhood. Strategy LU-27.1.4: Late Night Uses. Discourage late- evening entertainment activities such as night-clubs in commercial areas where parcels are especially narrow, abut single-family residential development,and cannot adequately provide visual and noise buffers. Policy LU-27.2: Relationship to the Street Ensure that new development in and adjacent to neighbor- hoods improve the walkability of neighborhoods by provid- ing inviting entries,stoops and porches along the street frontage,compatible building design and reducing visual impacts of garages. Policies LU-27.3: Entries. Define neighborhood entries through architecture,or land- scaping appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Gates are discouraged because they isolate developments from the community. Policy LU-27.4: Connections. Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that improve access with neighborhoods to parks,schools and local retail, and between neighborhoods. Support traffic calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce traffic impacts on neighborhoods. Policy LU-27.5: Streets. Determine appropriate street widths, bike lane,sidewalk and streetlight design to define the unique character of neighborhoods,where appropriate. LU-73 Search results I ob CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element enhancing its built environment.Cupertino's vision is to preserve the distinct character of neighborhoods;provide Priority Development Areas walking and biking connections to services including parks, In 2008,ABAG and the MTC schools and shopping;and revitalize neighborhood centers created a regional initiative as community gathering places.The City will welcome to allow local governments to citizens as partners in making sure that their neighborhoods identify Priority Development are the kind in which they want to live in the future. Areas(PDAs).PDAs are areas Regional Land Use Planning where new development will support the day-today needs The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of of residents and workers in a 2008(SB 375)calls on each of the State's 18 metropolitan pedestrian-friendly environment areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) served by transit.While PDAs to accommodate future population growth and reduce were originally established to greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.Plan address housing needs in infill Bay Area,jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association of communities,they have been Bay Area Governments(ABAG)and the Metropolitan broadened to advance focused Transportation Commission(MTC),is the region's first employment growth.PDAs are Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the require- critical components for imple- ments of SB 375 through the year 2040. menting the region's proposed Plan Bay Area anticipates that the Bay Area's population will long term growth strategy.The grow from about 7 million today to approximately 9 million level of growth in each PDA by 2040 with employment growth of about 1.1 million jobs. reflects its role in achieving The Plan provides a strategy for meeting 80 percent of the regional objectives and how it region's future housing needs in Priority Development Areas fits into locally designated prior- (PDAs).These are neighborhoods within walking distance of ity growth plans.Cupertino's frequent transit service,offering a wide variety of housing PDA area includes properties options,and featuring amenities such as grocery stores, within a quarter mile of Stevens community centers and restaurants. Creek Boulevard from Highway 85 to its eastern border and a Cupertino's Demographics portion of North and South De Cupertino's population has grown from 3,664 in 1960 to Anza Boulevards. over 58,000 in 2010 per the U.S.Census Bureau.Most of the population growth has been from annexation of areas into the city and from tract development during the 1970s and 1980s.The city's population is projected to grow to LU-7 CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design Element 2006(AB 32)and Executive Order 5-3-05 set a target to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050.The City is in the process of completing its Climate Action Plan(CAP),which aims to achieve statewide and Bay Area emissions reduction targets. The CAP is based on 2040 growth projections for Cupertino and identifies policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a municipal and community-wide level. Similar to most neighboring cities,Cupertino has historically had an imbalance of land uses(housing,services and jobs) with a roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the automobile.When this imbalance is multiplied at a regional level,there are regional consequences including,traffic congestion, high housing costs, increased air pollution and lack of accessibility for the young,elderly and disabled. Economic Vitality Cupertino is fortunate in its location in the heart of Silicon Valley. Despite its mostly suburban characteristics to the west and south,the city is home to a number of small, medium and large software,technology and biomedical companies.Community Vision 2040 includes more office growth to support a strong fiscal revenues and a stable tax base. In particular, policies focus on retaining and increasing the number of small, medium and major businesses in key sectors and provide flexible space for innovative startups that need non-traditional office environment. Policies for commercial areas seek to revitalize the Vallco Shopping District,and enhance commercial centers and neighbor- hood centers,which contribute to the City's tax base and serve community needs. LU-9 I 04,Y Subject: I am blinded by the light!-more input for May 19,2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item �] From: Lisa Warren(la-warren@att.net) To: cftycouncil@cupertino.org,planningcommission@santaclaraca.gov, Cc: davidb@cupertino.org;aartis@cupertino.org,carolk@cupertino.org;cityclerk@cupertino.org; Bcc: la-warren@att.net; EXHIB- IT Date: Friday,May 8,2015 3:50 PM City Council members, etc. Pamela McDaniel will be unable to attend the May 19, 2015 City Council meeting, but would like me to share this very important information with all of you. Please see below..... both the written portion... and of course the visual aid. I attended the Santa Clara Planning Commission and City Council meetings on the subject,and met Pamela at that time(August 2014). In addition, I will be sending another email to all of you that contains the formal written response from the City of Cupertino- related to the proposed building. Please include Pamela's information in the public records for anything related to Cupertino's General Plan discussions, including the May 19, 2015 meeting Thank you. Lisa Warren ps...the photos were far more dramatic in person ----Forwarded Message----- From:Pamela McDaniel<Pamela.McDaniel@synopsys.com> To:Lisa Warren<la-warren@att.net> Sent:Friday,May 8,2015 2:25 PM Subject:RE:the glare/reflection in your home from the building on the'IHOP'site Hi Lisa, I apologize for my delay getting back to you. Attached is the email that I send the Santa Clara city council last year(that you saw at the meeting). Good luckl! -Pamela Pamela McDaniel pamelam(cilsvnopsys.com 1-650-584-1922 Dear Mayor Matthews,Vice Mayor Marsalli,Ms.Davis,Ms.Gillmor,Mr.Kolstad,Ms.Mahan,and Ms.O'Neill, I want to thank you very much for your unanimous decision to deny the addition of 3 floors to the already approved 6-story building on Stevens Creek Boulevard.I really appreciate your listening to my concerns(and to those of others who spoke and wrote),and then weighing the pros and cons of the resolution last night.I am very pleased with your decision. I can't say that I'm happy that there is another 6-story building going up behind my house.But I can say that I am very relieved that it is not 9-stories tall. Thank you again for your careful consideration. Best regards, Pamela From:Pamela McDaniel Sent:Sunday,August 24,2014 12:54 PM To:'MayorAndCouncil@santaclaraca.gov','Manager@santaclaraca.gov' Cc:Pamela McDaniel Subject:Reasons why I am opposed to 9-story building on Stevens Creek Blvd(8/26/2014 council meeting,agenda item 7A) Dear Mayor Matthews,Vice Mayor Marsalli,Ms.Davis,Ms.Gillmor,Mr.Kolstad,Ms.Mahan,Ms.O'Neill,and Mr.Fuentes, I am opposed to increasing the building height from 6 to 9 floors of the 5403/5405 Stevens Creek Office Project(item#7A on the 8/26/2014 City Council Meeting agenda).Because the first 6 story building in this project was completed earlier this year,we can use it to gauge the impact of the proposed increased in building height.I hope you will take the time to read my concerns below before voting on this resolution. As a resident of the Westwood Oaks neighborhood of Santa Clara,I would like to share with you some of my reasons for opposing the addition of 3 floors to the height of the currently approved/proposed six-story building on Stevens Creek Boulevard.This is not a complete list,and it is not in any particular order. - A 9-story building is too tall for this area.I have attached 3 pictures that show the visual impact of this building on the nearby residential neighborhoods. o It will have a negative visual impact on and decrease privacy for Santa Clara's Westwood Oaks residential neighborhood—a neighborhood of land 2 story single family homes.Please see the pictures that I've attached. One shows the existing 6-story building that is easily seen from this residential neighborhood.(Photo taken from corner of Dawson and Sullivan, facing south). Another shows the south-facing view from my bedroom window.This view is now dominated by the new 6-story building.The 9-story building would tower just to the left in this picture. o It will have a negative visual impact on and decrease privacy on Cupertino's Rancho Rinconada residential neighborhood just south of the proposed building.This neighborhood has 1 and 2-story single family homes. I've attached a picture taken on Stern Avenue(Cupertino)facing north. A 9-story building will increase the light pollution,and blinding reflections of the sun in the area.The current 6-story building focuses morning sunlight into a direct,blinding beam that reflects directly into the south facing windows all along the back of my house.Please see the attached picture taken this morning of this focused light reflecting into my windows. The additional office space will result in increased traffic and decreased safety on the area's streets. o Cupertino High School(with over 2,000 students)is located here.You can see many of the students walking,biking and driving to and from school. Many of these students are residents of Santa Clara,including 2 of my children. o Traffic already routinely backs up from Stevens Creek Blvd onto Lawrence Expressway and Highway 280,even when it is not rush hour. o There are 9 traffic lights on Stevens Creek Blvd in the 1.2 mile section from Cabot Avenue(in Santa Clara,across from Safeway)to Wolfe Road in Cupertino.That indicates how big an issue the traffic already is in this area. o Currently during morning rush hour traffic,it can take 30 minutes to travel the 1.2 miles on Stevens Creek Blvd from Cabot Ave to Wolfe Road.This is before these already approved additional projects are completed along this stretch Stevens Creek Blvd that will dramatically increase traffic.These projects were not all considered as part of the EIR originally. 204 two-and three-bedroom housing units at the Nineteen800 apartments complex next to Vallco Mall. The Apple campus with projected 14,500 employees along Tantau Road. The new Cupertino downtown featuring retail stores and a 180-room hotel that is currently under construction at the corner of Tantau Road and. The already approved 6 story office building(without the 3 story additional floors). o With the additional office space and resulting increase in commuters,people will continue to look for shortcuts through neighborhoods to decrease their commute time and avoid the Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Blvd gridlock.This will likely result in more traffic on Pruneridge Avenue in the Westwood Oaks neighborhood. o Based on the speed limit tracker in my picture from Stern Avenue,I am willing to bet that there are speeding and traffic issues in this Cupertino neighborhood already and people try to get to the recently installed traffic light at Stern and Stevens Creek.The additional office space will add to cars and traffic through this Cupertino residential neighborhood. I have a concern about the public notification of this agenda item.I believe that a larger area should be noticed because this is such a tall building and will be visible from a large distance.I spoke with the Associate Planner at the August 6th Planning Commission meeting.Together we looked at the city map on the wall.The Associated Planner agreed that posting fliers and sending notices along Hancock Drive(in Santa Clara)was appropriate,and promised to notify the residents on this street.It is Sunday,August 24 now.I have not seen any fliers posted on the street poles along Hancock Drive,and I have not received one at my house.I did see 1 flier posted on Stem Avenue next to the 7-Eleven store in Cupertino,but not on any street poles on the area of that street where residents would see them near their homes. I understand that it is desirable to have more office space in Santa Clara.But 5409 Stevens Creek Boulevard is not the correct location for a 9-story building.I am sure that Santa Clara can find other,much more suitable locations for 9-story tall buildings,perhaps in industrial areas away from residential neighborhoods in Santa Clara and in Cupertino. Please feel free to call or email me if there are any questions on my list above,my photographs,or on my views on this project. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Pamela McDaniel Voting resident of Santa Clara since 1990;Voting resident of Westwood Oaks since 1994 3888 Hancock Drive,Santa Clara,CA 95051 1-408-246-6888 pamel amasynopsys.com • r v rte 1 n-♦ r y c. I r r. l J w s • . .. • ... �' h�„ wo• r �� .,. fid• �� .. t �•/_� . i � 1 4.0 owe vp r • R f' r.•.� � w :moi• • � � � � � • i •a "mss `�� '-• � r � / �� , 1� 1vw;� .a fi .'h• ��, .f �' •r.;` j .- Y+L�t pkv.,Lrt�. ', �•. t 1• _ •yL' �!k.� . . .. t \. I• ., • � .`4`. - `•`• ," � ,��,�''. � r •`�j 1...• .�• :�•t •1 � ,L ♦ t t, 1.111,` .(..{. M1 ? -ST; • '. � > ry ,• ; Il i '.� --- � xAds, „�► _ � � .. I � r r a , • .• � � job, . ,, ► , s op C 1 k ar • " t t , . t ■� ", 4t Jv Y i i � VMS 10, IV LA - s � � fl to t^ 4 � � i _`♦ `, "� _■tom '� i ;t �'. • i! ♦ qr . . J # / ' P ,, '1 'n. '►. l,R '` + t, �• 1 C..z+ � � • jFi~ �- ^�'�• ` .. � I `/w r r 'e;—'�" T{.e son- jo. } . ,.. t. .1_. J - 'n • f' y i 1��_ d I fa �� 7„'.lr •.�. y�J�•- r� � , P 1 `' •ff►' ♦'• , "':. "1'a /,9•♦1� , r . I t• , a , -s. �'. �v �-' jib,.• y.,,; ,. (r , ,�• � �,��4'r ,� •"_ t.• � may._ 1, �f7�{,`'�` ,�. •i L {v 1'�r.,tiis X74•, ''.. , .t,� ,. . ., '� _ /�- rT +.. .,✓;��+�� ..�f ' f . ' tF , t. Y• e , } ��.�`rw'#,. ��_ - , ' s ;'� �' ' �1•r�-n`, �� ,• � lir• x ti ' ' r ii t dirt � '' �,�, + • �, �,4.,� �� k r ..0 hA s, f � s i a + a i tA it 4j 41, ilk Rip ��_ [ i — �•. r i y r k - - - - - , mr h - •S!y A � i"i� ,a: -. i � '�_..' - _ __. .. _- __ _�, _ __ _.____ �� '�FFA ' t o F g "v r ttlJIT1111 h I G 37% t Sunnyvale Town Center Vallco Sized Up Vallco Developer Plans Lot Size 36.5 acre 4 STC*137% 4 50.0 acre 50.0 acre =195899940 ft2 291789000ft2 29178,OOOft2 Retail 9919761 ft2 193589712 ft2 600900oft2 Office 315,000 ft2 413,550 ft2 2,OOO)000ft2 Housing 452,637 ft2 (292 units) 620,112 ft2 (400 units) 589,048 ft2 (380 units) 389 Hotel 133,256 ft2 (200 rm) 182,560 ft2 (274 rm) 256,518 ft2 (385 rms) ------------- -------------- ---------------- 198329278 ft2 2,5749934 ft2 3,4459566ft2 116% FAR 119% FAR 4 +37% 4 158% FAR = 37% Density Over SVTC + Parking Garages + Parking Garages + Parking Garages SUNNYVALE TOWN CENTER a Jor- �. ,- i At _ s WON An vFrI- F Ft !t '0. � r 9 t rte,. 'lop law i 44 16. a • A � fir'• '� �: Y' A r{ �' s s "M low .fir K r� , 1 9 t {'• ti - $Nor £. 7 w. d J kK �, mss:�^ +�► w; Tit 0# s ,w 416 IP • Y i df �/ 4� 4 •�a� T `'�A i is�. � •�S n ♦4j%w 04 A-41t �r �� r i ,r P Y l • ,:i+ ;.. . 4AP aw r � Y f Y ��! d +� ^�•�•`,� �� 5..., F wry. , .. R �1. `�••� •t j a �i l r. i.�$ �! v' J; 44 r MR - Plt'�•'R. SIS R7r:.`C T C R'!w+E•r!.T r £':. y I +2:. �t• I , - 7 6l A x viy i ' 77--, sy C iz 1R. t 44 �y INN '4k ATOP _._ MONO& Rimsn++ RIDGELIKE looking south across Alves Dr. i 41 ' it r ; ��+e'I t 4. y •r •_ �- _� •••` ~ � � li..- - ' 'R+ a .._ v. r RIDGELINE - looking eas n Stevens Creek Blvd at Stelling 1 1 ♦ oil To �� 1 —rte i _........ '•�� — Ir dMI 00 w RIDGELINE - looking east on Stevens Creek Blvd wy 85 •, R.'Y�� aero . :•r ,�.'' lo. ale vl {'t ti. � i� rf' y1ej. +t. !• �_-�� . -�, . ' ,7�t .• ... ��_ .,,.a �� •� ;'S�•�`�• � `` �c'iq� �. Yet. tw - r f 1 v RIDE •_� . `�:7 =3 ;� - y .: ' � ?'t e •+ •��' - "' may .� � �• Y •�. a.�,�•. 7s;• ./� _� ', y �! t i �.. I� 't y. � -':'1*t,r �►��\ /� .,rdrly�Mr !" .< •..� /� �• - �s �'' '» '-.'•� . - tet-r• -� •Z lw • '� i.. a%40 •� t Now ommo r, J t } 1 i r O 1 n 1 I i ! W io' �e 5^ i' i I 4 - 1 r- -1. iv -.. 1 tri n k, 9 OLin $e Til a ]19�e 4 E.i 1 s RIPW INE - looking south on De Anza FTWWTT Mob �* RIDGELINE - looking southwest across estp— ' IN a dW qtr la b ti i r i y , r AV 4V 1 •c2 ISA _ jai • ♦ .( �I \�/ �I r M I I I y y, r i Y r fl�a7b� .. � •7 �� . ��;.�.urar.��•• 7c .war ,�_ j �,• .n rs kp 4i I ,P"O, Pk A r k RIDGEUNE—a-nd-TREES-----looking west across Sears Parking Lot from Wolfe r ` C r s� t k' a t.. s May ,. y F r a �V 44 1 1 <1 �yo i " .r,\ •r� •{ ?'� ..!�' t��r�� 4 ry' �110'r� r S '.y'�it "i., ;,�+"� __...-. �t 7r i�i+ tD, .hvE�I� 4ti`•4.,Y.Ml111 ! a. 1�`('(.a4t14'�j w•r'�,.y• V r t "•. ?� -'�" .a r n4 A. �5 r `iib I ray 1 r:v 1 - • nip r �' 1� 1, 1Z c. II y n CD 1 r — :'c. i 1 I I mi 1 . ij • t 14 r z 1 !A t �j � j .0 A_ J; y. ;+ f t _ RII3GEUNE and TREES - looking south on De Anima-Blvd at 280 All you see are trees bwi- hiding behind these trees. r r 1• i r ru;r - I Y. f 1 � � • s G vPOW G` P P W I +� V 0 004 PIZ �A A. P w POM i ry . AA ,Sw _ i ;Alp T,, Mow TREES - mature trees can hide 3-story buildings. Pine trees canaybe hide a 4-story building. n � � ` I 1 F si it !1 1 r ' .f 1 n• 77 q r.��E sae �. _. ..ir X • - - -- LEFT - the New Cupertino - ®with No trees. RIGHT - the of Cu ertino EMS:,. p with tr - - 1. i ►�� y,•' 1 k, l ' I � 1 Ir I t P u i _ n Fti...-✓`'-'-+....- -vet i7::. w ... , 0 War n - E - s :-r=�.._. - -� -•--^-may .F- The New Cupertino the ridgeline narely viSIDle between the buildings, :i � ter,, � - •. .. `ate �,.=._�.,r,,..�...- t r � ^ k4 w s - �PNO .- amu` t ... - f A^ i i s 1 .f t � +4 ftit •e�• - �x �� .�.. .. ._ � "•VSO's*' • °• . - • `�, �' �,, �i �� ;1 �. � �• .s ,, �� `'.._ � �� p. w � � .t ... �� y� �r�..�� '�� r �. . - �� .�. .f I ._ � r �. ., .. . , ,. .� �a�.a .��, i �\�� ' �, ++' yr7i � ��iQ• - � �;I�I r .�.- J� ` I _�/ �_ <, 1 .r 'r _ t ,_ � @ ,� a, • � ';' � . j �.� --u �, � + Tti ,it r� � .'; 's � � f r' .5 W e 5 i . I • N 74 r r ��r• � r ! q� h I&• � I I � F n ' r S 0 P a _ � 7 :r- a lop t '-40�`7 •k..� d� --fir i� AWN!14 'I -T ft Trees hide 2-story office building on Bandle . Trees won't hide a 75 ft 6 story) building! _ -� Me � at► � h f� 71YW ,. ., ryf ' A '�"` '.. a ''�ai't � •nt, _y,�, r � r � 4 i f A � S — � is � T S g.} ilr � d n . T4 4 W I w e � r tyl�.'k , .1 a yti i �.{,elft Y�+ �L•` -� �.' �' q R� 1 � ! Y.a y i L' P I f � I P u ir P -O OF 10 g� may.• rl� ,'� ,y "� L • t 1 f, •. .. �r� � ° SSP' � �-1•"�.�1�� Pah• h� � f1� 'M � " s . � pop J t Ai s T r �, 1.M+ 1 'MhL 14 I jar #k4' tf 4 pimp1 4 a r� jml)jNV ' n 1 �a .l IL 1 1 � . w � 6 .11'� f -M AA44 4-1 in �I b. da I' s °•� 7 +� — 141 t +