CC Exhibit 5/19/15 Item No. 7 General Plan Amendment Andrea Sanders
From: Liang C<Ifchao@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:28 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk `
Subject: . Fwd: Please Rescind Resolution 14-211 a Total Rewrite of the General Plan
Please put this in the public record of May 19 Council meeting.
--------------------------------------------------
We would like to request the Council to rescind Resolution 14-211 tomorrow.
We are not requesting it just to slow down growth. We request it because it is such an important document that
it deserves to be deliberated and studied in detail.
The legal process should be followed and one should not rescind a decision unless absolutely necessary.
I think in this case, Resolution 14-211 is such a case.
First of all, the necessity. Resolution 14-211 is the new General Plan "Community Vision 2040". The
constitution for the future growth of If it is not reviewed in detail, the impact on and its
residents is profound and irrevocable.
I heard that the previous Council when through the Heart of the City Specific Plan line by line.Yet, this Council
hasn't even gone through the 349-page new General Plan chapter by chapter.
Second,,the process. The first draft of"Community Vision 2040" appeared in the Oct. 14 Planning Commission
meeting. There was no other draft available for review earlier. The only thing available earlier was the very
simple Concept Alternatives. Then, the public hearing was scheduled on Nov. 3rd, only 3 weeks after.
If this version of the GPA is only an "amendment" as it should be and the redlined copy is available to point out
specifically what is changed. 3 weeks for public to review would have been fine. But the draft "Community
Vision 2040" is more than 300 pages long. In the Staff Report for either Oct. 14.or Nov. 10, the modifications
were not summarized and the staff didn't mention'that it is a total rewrite either. So, it didn't occur to people to
compare the two versions. And it didn't occur to people to check what was removed that's not mentioned in the
staff report. -
So, Third,misinformation. The staff did not communicate clearly with the public that "Community Vision
2040" is a total rewrite and what were changed and why they were changed.
Fourth, lack of review and change management process: For such an important document, every change should
be documented and the reason of the changed stated. we found a lot of great policies were removed and we
don't know why. Among them, a policy that maintains job-housing balance, a policy that preserves view of
ridge line from residential homes, a policy that maintain traffic at a tolerable level and an annual traffic analysis,
and a policy that protect the community from transportation noise and hazards. And we haven't had time to go
through everything since we just found out last week that "Community Vision 2040" is a total rewrite of the
2005 General Plan.
Last, I truly believe Resolution 14-211 was approved by mistake in the confusion. Even the latest article written
by Matt Wilson stats that only the Housing Element and Vallco Specific Plan were passed on Dec. 4. I.think
almost everyone was confused in the wee early hour of Dec. 4. Almost everyone thought Resolution 14-211
only contains GPA items related to HE. Probably even-the.Council members-who voted on it.-_
1 "
The Council should rescind Resolution 14-211 and study "Community Vision 2040" in detail. Provide redlined
copy to_list exactly what's changed and reasons for the change.
It is the proper thing to do for a responsible government with integrity.
Thank you.
5.- -Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
---------- Forwarded message----------
From: = C @ 4il.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 WIN
s .org>, Cit Clerk .org>, City Attorney's Office
org>,planning@. @ org
Residents request the 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 " !' 1 Council approved the General Plan Amendment (GPA) they promised
to 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 �= 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 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
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 B1` (Environment Impact Report) is set from that meeting. The Project Description of the GE
indicates that MM is performed based the assumption that only necessary modifications will be made to
the 2000-2020 General Plan.
The Staff Report from Oct. 7, 2014 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."
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
2
public very little time to study it the 349 page new General Plan, a total rewrite of the General Plan
and no 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 requested a
relined copy of the GPA, which 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 ofAlto's Comprehensive Plan Update (Amendment):
http://www. I
org/M-content/uploads/2014/05
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 (ME) 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, fi
policies that would change characteristics of like the removal of job-housing 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 b
Rescind "CommunitV Vision 2040" - It's Your Moral Obli ation by, ,
_The General Plan is like_a Constitution of •'- 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-
3
211, probably thinking that it only contains GPA items needed for Housing Element. The Council
should correct the mistake and rescind Resolution 14-211.
X
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: htlp://www. -rules.com/par120.,40 )
4
Andrea Sanders
From: M iron Crawford <Mcrawford@bergvc.com>
Sent:
To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul
Cc: City Clerk; Piu Ghosh
Subject: Staff Report CC Meeting 5-+19-15 Objection To Annual Bidding Contest
Attachments: CCUP Mayor 23 general plan .pdf
BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS.INC.
10050 Bandley Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014-2188
Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax(408) 725-1626
merawford@bergvc.com
5115115
Mayor"& Council Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ph 408-777-3308 3251 Fax 408-777-3333
rsinks@cupertino.or ; bchanQ@cupertino.orQ; QwonQ@cupertino.orQ; svaidhyanathan@cupertino.orQ;
dpaul6beppertino.org
citycterk@cupertino.org; piug a,cupertino.or�
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
Reference: General Plan GPA-2013-01 (EA-2013-03)
Subject: Staff Report CC Meeting 5-+19-15 Objection To Annual Bidding
Contest
Mayor & Council Members,
We always believed that in the United States the principals of government were:
a. Provide fair and equal access to the governmental process for all.
b. The best government is that, that governs least.
c. The government should not only strive to reduce its operating cost and
tax on its citizens but on its businesses as well.
d. The government should try to minimize its impact on business and
thereby reduce overall cost for its citizens.
The staff report suggests that:
-a-General-General_plan amendments should be. limited-to-one per year even though-4
are allowed.
b. That all of those projects vying for approval be pitted against each other.
i
The suggested staff recommendations are wrong on several accounts:
a. Business operates every day 365 days a year, not once a year. The general
plan may be amended up to 4 times per year and that should not be
changed. Why should any business have to wait an additional 9 months
every year to embark on a new building program and incur additional
costs because of that additional autocratic delay the City proposes.
b. Why should one business be pitted against the other in order to obtain
building approvals, they should not be:
b.1 The City should establish the basic governmental needs for
infrastructure, parks, services and governmental facilities and establish
fair and equitable impact fees and process every project as it is presented
charging fair and predictable impact fees and not expose business to
running a withering, unpredictable, and punitive public price gauntlet
and at the same time add more bureaucracy and time delays created by
the bidding gauntlet process.
b.2 By pitting one building applicant against another you are not only
unfair to those competing for approval you are in effect extorting
exactions under the guise of voluntary contributions.
b.3 By pitting one building applicant against another under the guise of
voluntary contributions you are raising the costs of long term rents by in
effect raising the cost of building. You will be the very same
councilmembers who in years to come will complain that small and other
businesses cannot come to Cupertino because the rents are too high and
you will have been responsible for those rents because of your prior
actions. If you put your program into effect you will have to come back
latter and put individual patches on the program because you will have
distorted the building economics. Don't distort the market now with inept
programs and you won't have to fix it later.
b.4 Individual developers should not be squeezed out of the speculative
building market simply because an individual corporation can massively
out bid the independent developers. There is nothing wrong with
corporations but your proposed actions will stack the deck against the
independents and smaller corporations.
b.5 Schools and affordable housing should not be built on the backs of
businesses having to out bid each other for building entitlements. The
schools are well know for massive overheads, bureaucracies, bloated
salaries and pensions, they should have to trim their cost and compete
and earn their own way at the state level for necessary funding, not on
the backs of individual projects. No one is entitled to free housing or
subsidized housing for the rest of their lives, the state should be funding
these programs not individual projects.
b.6 Cities should not be justifying building entitlement wars just because
another City is doing it. Pointing to another City to justify your actions is
not justification it is an abrogation of your responsibility to be fair and
just to your citizenry and business community.
b.7 Cities should not be advancing one project over another because of so
called green offerings, many programs such as LEED are highly
bureaucratic and much of the cost goes for unwarranted administration
and paper work. Because of AB32 the cost of energy is going to double and
2
triple, the market will drive building and HVAC/lighting equipment
improvements, government fiats are not needed. Water cost have gone up
10% per year for the last 5 years and are going higher and because of poor
to complete lack of planning on the part of federal, state and local
governments and agencies to properly plan for water storage, we are in a
crisis, you don't have to tell industry to do the obvious and add another
layer of bureaucracy on them.
Local, state and federal governments should stick to the basics, provide for
streets, roads, highways, public utility systems, police, fire and public health
systems while keeping operating costs and fees as low as possible and stop
meddling with social engineering. Stick to the basics and the rest will take care
of itself. Never forget that it is the individual, company and corporation taxes
that allow your City to exist.
Thank you for your consideration,
Myron Crawford
3
Andrea Sanders
From: Barbara E. Kautz <Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com>
Sent: "r1 a,; Mp: 15 2 �1S %N PM
To: Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt
Cc: Carol Korade; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh; Colleen Winchester, Cheryl Mannix-Smith
Subject: RE: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after 1AM on Dec.
4, 2014
It seems from all that has been said that if the CC does not like the provisions in the general plan as adopted in
December or wishes to reconsider them, it would need to initiate general plan amendments.The CC adopted a
resolution approving the General Plan amendments,and the statute of limitations for challenging the adoption ran out
90 days later(around March 1).
My own recollection is that they continued only some very specific items relating to community benefits and
development allocations.
Barbara Kautz
Goldfarb&Lipman LLP
1300 Clay Street, I]"'Floor
Oakland, CA. 94612
5I0-836-6336
bkautz(a,gold arblipman.com
From: Aarti Shrivastava [mailto:AartiS@cupertino.org]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:25 PM
To: David Brandt
Cc: Carol Korade; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh; Barbara E. Kautz; Colleen Winchester; Cheryl Mannix-Smith
Subject: RE: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after 1AM on Dec. 4, 2014
1 would like to add that the new GP was on the website for a full month before the Dec 2nd meeting.
Aarti
From: David Brandt
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 9:18 AM
To: Aarti Shrivastava
Cc: Carol Korade; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh; Barbara Kautz; Colleen Winchester; Cheryl Mannix-Smith
Subject: Re: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after 1AM on Dec. 4, 2014
There IS a legal issue. Reconsidering the previously approved GPA has not been agendized for the May 19th
meeting. Currently, there is no action to hold over. Staffs recommendation is to do nothing. If the majority
wants to revisit their previous decisions, I believe we will need to bring all that back at a separate meeting in
June. (Probably a special meeting between the 2nd and the 16th). I'm not inclined to recommend that,but if the
Council wants to revisit the adopted general plan after the 19th/20th meeting then they can ask for it to come
back.
Sent from my iPhone
i
On May 15, 2015, at 7:50 AM, Aarti Shrivastava<Aar S a cupertino.org>wrote:
They took action and it was made clear to them at the time. I don't know why we are discussing
this if the Council hasn't brought it up. I talked to Rod and Savita and they are not interested in
doing do. We can advise the Council of what direction they can give hopefully after all the action
items are resolved. We revised policies to be in compliance with several new laws, to reflect
Council wishes on density, residential and retail on mixed-use sites, to remove policies that
cannot be legally implemented and Council wishes over the years on mixed-use and in the
various planning areas.
They cannot take action on the General Plan since we don't have a Reso for them. Only the
Housing Element and the policy on processing GPAs.
Aarti
On May 15, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Carol Korade<Caro1Kgggpertino.org>wrote:
this is an issue that staff needs to address and determine a position- not a legal
issue for they could have legally done this action. the question is whether they
want to reconsider: whether knew what they were doing?
how are you going to deal with this allegation for it has been made by others?just
wait and see? get advance infor such as reviewing the tape yourselves? going to
poll the maker of the motion and second? i am guessing that the legal notice on
may 19 does not include this as a possible action-adoption of reso 14-211 - so
need to confirm if the council wanted to rescind the reso, what would have to be
done- i presume continue the item. yes? but what would be the effect on the
housing element? if the council want. is someone going to talk to rod?
as i said, not a legal issue but sure would help to have a staff and clerk position on
this before monday. of course and as usual, we remain available to assist
thanks from carol
On May 15, 2015, at 1:46 AM, Liang C <lfchao(c��gmail.com> wrote:
I went over the video again and again.
It is very clear that Barry, Savita and Darcy all think the GPA
should go through thorough discussion over maybe two meetings
before it is approved since it is a long term plan for Cupertino. All
agreed that the general plan should be amended for Housing
Element only just to be "internally consistent", as Aarti pointed
out.
2
Yet, when Gilbert motioned for Resolution 14-211, "Community
Vision 2040," there was no question and no discussion. Council
members voted on it right away with no hesitation.
My first reaction was that the Council members were irresponsible
for approving such an important and complex document without
any discussion.
And the second reaction was that this is unethical for the Council
members to recant the earlier promise to postpone GPA. Many
residents share the same shock.
But I don't think that's case. I believe that our Council members
were just exhausted and confused when Resolution 14-211 was
voted on. And an unintentional mistake was made.
The new general plan "Community Vision 2040" was not approved
yet on Dec. 4 when Resolution 14-211 was considered.
When the staff said that the general plan needed to be amended to
be internally consistent with the Housing Element, everyone
assumed that the existing 2000-2020 General Plan needed to be
amended. And every Council member agreed that only amendment
needed for Housing Elements would be done on Dec. 3rd.
So, when Gilbert motioned for Resolution 14-211 and read
"approving a General Plan Amendment to ....", everyone assumed
that's the amendment for the existing 2000-2020 General Plan to
be consistent with Housing Element.
Everyone including Council member Barry Chang, who insisted
this Wednesday, May 13, that only GPA items related to Housing
Element was approved on Dec. 4th during the Economic
Development Committee meeting. And everyone including Jason
Lundgren, the Apple representative who is very knowledgeable
about Cupertino GPA and related issues,who also insisted that
only GPA items related to Housing Element was approved on Dec.
4th.
So, I thought. It must be an innocent mistake to amend a not-yet-
approved General Plan "Community Vision 2040" for the Housing
Element on Dec. 4th. Resolution 14-211 should have been an
amendment of the existing 2000-2020 General Plan only for items
needed to be consistent with Housing Element sites.
I urge the Council take the necessary steps to correct this innocent
mistake.
Rescind Resolution 14-211 and approve a corrected version by
amending the existing 2000-2020 General Plan to be consistent
with Housing Element.
"Community Vision 2040" is an important document that defines
the future of Cupertino.
3
It deserves to be discussed thoroughly with the new council
members and the community.
Cupertino residents are eager to be involved in the discussion of
this important document.
Let's correct that innocent mistake and move forward with a
positive attitude.
Thank you.
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Liang C
<lfchao ,gmail.com>wrote:
I and many residents specifically remembered that the council
promised to postpone GPA and only consider Housing Element on
Dec. 3rd. Barry, Darcy and Savita all said that they would rather
take time to give GPA more thorough discussion.
Then,we found out that one of the ordinances passed on Dec. 4 in
fact contains "Community Vision 2040", a 349 page document,
which is the new General Plan. The very General Plan that 3
council members said that they want to postpone.
After lam,this ordinance was passed without any discussion
between the council members. I doubt whether any of the council
members, except Gilbert, even knew what they were voting on.
I went through the video and jotted down quotes-from the Dec. 3
Council meeting. My note is summarized in the blog article below.
I and many residents are confused.
We would appreciate an acknowledgement from each of the
council members whether you meant to approve the 349-page of
new general plan "Community Vision 2040" without any
discussion on Dec. 4, 2014.
We've been comparing this new general plan with the 2000-2010
General Plan. We found many issues that were never discussed
with the community in any of the outreach meetings. Many
policies and strategies were removed from 2000-2010 General Plan
without any explanation. We are very concerned that the new
general plan is approved without any discussion at the city council
meeting. This is a plan that determines the future growth of
Cupertino in the next 25 years. Not only it lacks community input,
as recognized by the mayor and 3 other council members during
the Dec. 3 council meeting, it even lacks input from the council
members.
And I would also like the city attorney to confirm whether this
process is even legal to approve the 25-year general plan without
4
any discussion at the city council meeting and specifically after the
council acknowledge a consensus to postpone it.
Thank you.
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA,but
Recanted after IAM on Dec. 4, 2014
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/cupertino-city-
council-promised-to.html
(Video included in the blog
hLtps://www.youtabe.com/watch?v--fffBSTgwE70)
Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA,but Recanted
after 1 A on Dec. 4, 2014.
This is the story of how Cupertino City Council adopted the 349-
page document "Community Vision 2040," which defines the
future growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years, in 5 minutes.
On Dec. 3, 2014, Cupertino City Council promised to postpone
GPA(General Plan Amendment)because the two new council
members, Darcy and Savita, and most of residents need time to
understand it. Darcy, Savita and Barry suggested to discuss GPA in
details over two meetings at a later time.
However, that same night a little after IAM on Dec. 4, when most
residents went home,with literally no discussion, the Council
adopted the 349-page document "Community Vision 2040," which
defines the future growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years with
only Darcy Paul voting No.
Earlier in the meeting, Darcy said, "In the last couple of years, a
lot of development is happening quickly. If we were to look at
the entire breath covered by the GPA right now, it would very
significantly alter Cupertino. My preference would be to handle
this on a more incremental basis. Perhaps, it's something of a.
selfish reason."
Savita chimed in, "Thank you, Darcy. I don't think it's selfish. It's
two plus the entire community." Savita added, "Just to clarify. I
am not saying we do repeated amendments. What I am saying is
we spread it out over a couple of meetings. So,the new Council
members have a little more time."
Aarti,_the Assistant City Manager,_clarified, "Let's say you make
all the changes related to the Housing Element sites. And you
adopted those changes. Next year, you decide to have a couple of
5
additional meetings. You want to understand this. You want to
have question& answer session. You-want the public to have a
little more input before you make the decision on the other
elements of the general plan. That's possible. Because you are still
looking at all of this comprehensively." Savita added, "Just not at
today's meeting."
Rod concluded, "What I hear so far is that we have a consensus
with Barry, Savita and Darcy to work on the Housing Element
tonight, to take the actions in the GPA that we must do in
order to fulfill the Housing Element." Rod asked Barry, Savita
and Darcy, "Are you ok with the idea of bringing this back, say in
one or two months,the parts of the General Plan Amendments that
aren't under consideration, so we get a unified view across the
city."
Barry confirmed, "On the General Plan Amendment, I would say,
bring it back in a month or two and give a thorough
discussion and give the audience time. I would suggest next time
cut it off at 11 o'clock. If we cannot hear it out, delay to the next
day. If we still have problem, we give it some time because the last
General Plan Amendment took 4 years." Paul and Savita
confirmed that they are ok with it also.
However, that same night after IAM on Dec. 4, when most
residents went home, Gilbert Wong motioned, to adpot Resolution
No. 14-211 approving a General Plan Amendment to reallocate
and replenish development allocation, amend the General Plan
Land Use Map and Development Standards, Comply with State
Law and Reorganization, and Improve Presentation and
Readability." Barry Chang second. This Resolution No. 14-211 is
the new General Plan of Cupertino "Community Vision
2040." With literally no discussion, the 349-page document
"Community Vision 2040," which defines the future growth of
Cupertino for the next 25 years was passed with only Darcy
Paul voting No.
In fact, after IAM, with literally no discussion on any item, Gilbert
Wong motioned one item after another item to push almost
everything through. It seems most other Council members are quite
confused on the content of each item,but no one questioned in
depth.
So, this is how "Community Vision 2040" was adopted by the
Cupertino City Council.
In the Dec. 3 meeting minutes, there is conveniently no record of
the promise made by the council members to postpone GPA.
Fortunately, it is captured in the video.
"Community Vision 2040," rushed through in 18 months, turns out
6
to be a complete rewrite of the previous "2000-2020 General
Plan," which took 4 years to approve with much more community
outreach meetings and many discussions in council meetings. The
council did leave some items out of approved "Community Vision
2040" and the remaining items are on the May 19th Council
Meeting agenda. They are building heights,building planes,
setbacks and the so-called Community Benefits program.
Reference: Dec. 3 Council Meeting Video time 02:00:00 for the
consensus to postpone GPA for a more thorough discussion later.
This transmission is intended only for the use of addressee and may contain privileged information, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,.please immediately notify the
sender by replying to this communication or by phoning sender at (510) 836-6336. Thank you.
Andrea Sanders
From: An*ali Kausar <anjal2cu ertino-chamber.org>
Sent: S a-1, I?,,
To: City Council
Cc: David Brandt; City Clerk
Subject: Letter from the Chamber
Attachments: GPA Support Letter Signed.pdf
Hello All
Please read the attached letter from the 2015 Chamber President Rich Abdalah.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Regards
-----------------------
Anjali Kausar
Chief Executive Officer
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
20455 Silverado Ave
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)252-7054 Ext 11
Fax(408)252-0638
Cell(408)838-0502
Cupertino Business Directory
1
C4W
Cupertino Chamber®9 Commerce May 14, 2015
Your Partner In slilcon Valley
20455 Silverado Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014 Mayor Rod Sinks and Cupertino City Council
Tel(408)252-7054 1
Fax(408)252-0638 0300 Torre Avenue
www.cuperfino-chamber.org Cupertino, CA 95014
iKausar
Chef Executive Officer Re: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce support for the General Plan Amendment,
Chief
2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Dear Mayor Sinks and City Councilmembers,
BOARD OFFICERS
Richard Abdalah,President The Chamber is urging the Council to support the recommendations stated
Abdalah Law Offices
below for the General Plan Amendment. The Chamber is also urging the Council
Mike Rohde,President Elect&VP to finish the hard work that has been done since March 2013,when this process
Special Events
Vailco Shopping Mail bega n.
Art Cohen,VP Membership
BlueLight Cinemas 5
From the Cupertino Staff Report:
Sandy James,VP HR&Staffing
Sand Hill Properties
"On August 21,2012, the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan
Scott Jeng,VP Finance
HSBC Bank USA,AI A. amendment in order to:
Kevin McClelland,VP LAC •Replenish office and hotel allocations(after the office allocation was reduced to
Leeward Financial&Insurance Services under 15,000 square feet since the Main Street project received most of the
Inc. remaining office allocation in the city-wide allocation pool);
BOARD MEMBERS Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan;
Consolidate individual requests from property owners;and
Claudio Bono Update to address State law, and address clean-up,
Cupertino Inn P P•
Catherine Chen The General Plan Amendment process has involved over 18 months of extensive
State Farm Insurance community discussions and input provided during 24 public meetings, workshops,
Janicechua online comment surveys, and study sessions and hearings with the Housing
Bitter+sweet Commission, Planning Commission and City Council."
Jessica Epstein
SILVAR The Chamber further recommends that the Council finalize 1400 units for
Mike King residential units, move forward with 1 million square feet for the Office
Recology South Bay
allocation and maintain the additional 500,000+square feet set aside for"major
PG&E
Lin employers". The Chamber also recommends the Council to support"Alternative
Jason Lundgaard
C".
Apple Inc.
Elizabeth Marchu The Chamber urges the Council to support these numbers and pass the General
Technology Credit Union Plan Amendment so that the Community can move forward with discussions
Andrewwalters about Cupertino's future.
San Jose Water
Keith Warner Best regards,
Pacific Workplaces
Matt wheeler, I�
LMGW Public Accountants (J
Tim Wildman
Law Office ofTlmothyD.Widman Richard Abdalah
Keiichiro Yoshida Chamber President-2015
Cc:Council Members
City Manager -- - -
City Clerk
Andrea Sanders
From: Arthur&Luh art.h w,rld9992 mai l.com>
Sent: IF iNffr, N R W 7�U jv,Fln
To: City Council; City Clerk; Carol Korade; Cupertino City Manager's Office;Aarti Shrivastava
Dear Council Members,
After read below email, I request all Council Members to void all approval on Dec. 4th, 2014 meeting
especially resolution 14=211 (2040 Vision). The Dec 4th,2014 meeting should only approved the Housing
Element as all council members promised on Dec. 3, 2014. Thanks!
Arthur Lu
Cupertino Resident
Dear Cupertino Council,
Yesterday,May 13,2015,I attended the quarterly Economic Development Committee meeting. At the meeting,Aarti Shriamgtava said that at
the Dec.3,2014 City Council meeting,the Council had reached agreement on elements of the General Plan other than the Housing
Element. Councilman Barry Chang strongly disagreed with Ms. Shrivastava,as did Jason Lundgaard. Both said that there was only
agreement on the Housing Element portion.
Consider blog entry:
http://bettercupertino.b to gspot.com/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promi sed-to.html
The video segment posted in the blog entry is from about 2:02:30 or so into the City's meeting video for the Dec.3,2014 continuation
meeting. Here is the link for the full meeting video:
htip://cupertino.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=18&clip id=1794
In the video segment captured and presented in the blog entry,it was clear that the Council was only going to consider the Housing Element,
and was going to postpone dealing with other elements until the two newest council members were"up to speed".
This agreement was apparently overlooked,and according to the meeting minutes other elements were considered and agreements were
reached. I'm not interested in how it happened,but I think it is not in the public interest for agreements other the ones pertaining to the
Dousing Element to stand.The blog entry correctly points out that once the agreement was reached to only consider the Housing Element,
many members of the audience may have gone home due to fatigue. The ones that remained in attendance,including Mr.Lungaard,
Councilman Chang and myself,likely became inattentive when topics outside of the Housing Element were discussed.
I want to point out that the Dec.2,3,4 Council meeting itself was a redo of an earlier meeting that was rescinded due to a violation of the
Ralph M.Brown Act. Proceeding with those agreements intact would undermine trust in government. I therefore request that any
actions taken on General Plan elements other than the ones pertaining to the Housing Element be rescinded by the Council.
At the very least,I would like a discussion of this at the May 19,2015 Council meeting. I would also like this included in the public
comments for that meeting.
1
Andrea Sanders
From: Xiaowen Wan <xiaowenw@gmail.com>
Sent:
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; David Brandt
Subject: Resolution 14-211 on Dec.4, 2014
Dear City Councils,
After carefully comparing the current GPA Community Vision 2040 and the previous General Plan, I realized
that this GPA is not an amendment but a completely rewrite. Hence I would ask you to rescind resolution 14-
211 on Dec. 4, 2014 because this is not what you promised to do during this long meeting when everybody were
still awake.
I was at the Dec. 3, 2014 City Council meeting together with hundreds of my fellow citizens. We all heard from
councils that you were not going to make decisions on GPA on that meeting,but to postpone the decision to a
later day in order to get more community inputs and also give the two new council members more time to
understand the matter. Most of people left before midnight. I was there until 1 am. Even before I left, the
discussion was still about raise the height limit for a few housing element sites to satisfy the state mandate on
housing element. When I left, I was under the impression that this was the last item on the agenda.
However I was disappointed when I found out the complete rewrite of General Plan was actually approved on
Dec. 4, 2014 with resolution 14-211. But still under the impression that this is just a placeholder and we are
going to go through the all the issues later. With that in mind, I actively participated the workshop and city
council meeting in hoping that we, the community and city-councils are working together for a better plan for
our city. The recent staff report make me realize that most of part of GPA was already casted in stone. This is
really not what the councils promised to the citizens at the Dec. 3/4 meeting. The promise before 1 am was that
only state mandated Housing Element would be discussed and changes to the general plan would be made per
Housing Element requirement.
If you look at the current document, a lot of policies in the 2000 - 2020 General Plan were taken out as well as a
lot of policies were put in. For example, in the 2000-2020 General Plan,job-housing balance is an important
policy, however, this policy was taken out of the General Plan. Similarly, in the new Community Vision 2040, a
lot of language (more than one page) is about the Priority Development Area. However, such deletions and
assertions have nothing to do with the required Housing Element. Without any discussion on the council
meeting, all these important changes just slipped through when you all agree to just discuss only part related to
Housing Element. Moreover, neither the deletion of job-housing balance nor assertion of PDA is discussed
during the so called 27 month "extensive" community outreach. I wonder do you really think that this is an
appropriate act for a good government?
I hereby urge you to consider rescind the resolution 14-211 and do what you promised to hundreds of citizens
that day, i.e., only make relevant changes on General Plan to make it consistent with required Housing Element.
I understand that whatever you said before midnight Dec. 3, 2014 may not be legally binding,but as elected
officials, you at least have the moral obligations to all the voters, do what your words mean.
Thank you very much.
Xiaowen Wang
Cupertino residents
1
Andrea Sanders
From: Randy Shingai <
Sent:
To: City Council; City Clerk; Carol Korade; Cupertino City Manager's Office;Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Re: Dec. 3,.2014 Council meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Council,
I was looking at Ordinance 14-2123 that allows any Councilmember to initiate a review of a decision. It
referenced Chapter 2.08 of Title 2. Here is that:
http://www.amleg_al.com/nxt/ ag teway.dll/California/cupertino/cityofcupertinocalifomiamunicipalcode?f=
templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amle ag l:cupertino ca
While it looks like we missed our 60 days to ask for a review using the mechanism in Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of
the City of Cupertino's Municipal Code. I think the Council can still revisit the ordinances and resolutions
passed on 12/3-4. The discussion can be restarted and the Council can decide to modify, reconfirm or reject
prior work.
This egregious circumvention of the public's right to know and participate in the democratic process on
December 3-4, 2015 should not be allowed to stand. Do the right thing!
Please include this in the public comments for the May 19,2015 Council meeting. Also,please redact my e-
mail address from everything I have submitted for public comments that have yet to be made public.
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Randy Shingai < wrote:
Dear Cupertino Council,
Yesterday, May 13,2015, I attended the quarterly Economic Development Committee meeting. At the
# meeting, Aarti Shrivastava said that at the Dec. 3, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council had reached
agreement on elements of the General Plan other than the Housing Element. Councilman Barry Chang
strongly disagreed with Ms. Shrivastava, as did Jason Lundgaard. Both said that there was only agreement on
the Housing Element portion.
i
Consider blog entry:
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.coin/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promised-to.html
The video segment posted in the blog entry is from about 2:02:30 or so into the City's meeting video for the
Dec. 3, 2014 continuation meeting. Here is the link for the full meeting video:
i
http•//cupertino �ranicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=18&clip id=1794
In the video segment captured and presented in the blog entry, it was clear that the Council was only going to
consider the Housing Element, and was going to postpone dealing with other elements until the two newest
council members were "up to speed".
This agreement was apparently overlooked, and according to the meeting minutes other elements were
considered and agreements were reached. I'm not interested in how it happened,but I think it is not in the
public interest for agreements other the ones pertaining to the Housing Element to stand. The blog entry
correctly points out that once the agreement was reached to only consider the Housing Element, many
members of the audience may have gone home due to fatigue. The ones that remained in attendance, including
I Mr. Lungaard, Councilman Chang and myself, likely became inattentive when topics outside of the Housing
Element were discussed.
I want to point out that the Dec. 2,3,4 Council meeting itself was a redo of an earlier meeting that was
rescinded due to a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Proceeding with those agreements intact would
undermine trust in government. I therefore request that any actions taken on General Plan elements other
than the ones pertaining to the Housing Element be rescinded by the Council.
At the very least, I would like a discussion of this at the May 19, 2015 Council,meeting. I would also like this
included in the public comments for that meeting.
i
Thank You,
Randy Shingai
z
Andrea Sanders
From: Liang C <Ifchao@gmail com>
Sent: Fr.�da r, II1Z 15 Apr'S ;'I
To: City Council; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk; David Brandt
Subject: Re: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after 1AM on Dec.
4, 2014
I went over the video again and again.
It is very clear that Barry, Savita and Darcy all think the GPA should go through thorough discussion over
maybe two meetings before it is approved since it is a long term plan for Cupertino. All agreed that the general
plan should be amended for Housing Element only just to be "internally consistent", as Aarti pointed out.
Yet, when Gilbert motioned for Resolution 14-211, "Community Vision 2040," there was no question and no
discussion. Council members voted on it right away with no hesitation.
My first reaction was that the Council members were irresponsible for approving such an important and
complex document without any discussion.
And the second reaction was that this is unethical for the Council members to recant the earlier promise to
postpone GPA. Many residents share the same shock.
But I don't think that's case. I believe that our Council members were just exhausted and confused when
Resolution 14-211 was voted on. And an unintentional mistake was made.
The new general plan "Community Vision 2040" was not approved yet on Dec. 4 when Resolution 14-211 was
considered.
When the staff said that the general plan needed to be amended to be internally consistent with the Housing
Element, everyone assumed that the existing 2000-2020 General Plan needed to be amended. And every
Council member agreed that only amendment needed for Housing Elements would be done on Dec. 3rd.
So, when Gilbert motioned for Resolution 14-211 and read "approving a General Plan Amendment to ....",
everyone assumed that's the amendment for the existing 2000-2020 General Plan to be consistent with Housing
Element.
Everyone including Council member Barry Chang, who insisted this Wednesday, May 13, that only GPA items
related to Housing Element was approved on Dec. 4th during the Economic Development Committee meeting.
And everyone including Jason Lundgren, the Apple representative who is very knowledgeable about Cupertino
GPA and related issues, who also insisted that only GPA items related to Housing Element was approved on
Dec. 4th.
So, I thought. It must be an innocent mistake to amend a not-yet-approved General Plan "Community Vision
2040" for the Housing Element on Dec. 4th. Resolution 14-211 should have been an amendment of the existing
2000-2020 General Plan only for items needed to be consistent,with Housing Element sites.
I urge the Council take the necessary steps to correct this innocent mistake.
Rescind Resolution 14-211 and approve a corrected version by amending the existing 2000-2020 General Plan
to be consistent with Housing Element.
"Community Vision 2040" is an important document that defines the future of Cupertino.
It deserves to be discussed thoroughly with the new council members and the community.
i
Cupertino residents are eager to be involved in the discussion of this important document.
Let's correct that innocent mistake and move forward with a positive attitude.
Thank you.
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Liang C <lfchao(,gmail.com>wrote:
I and many residents specifically remembered that the council promised to postpone GPA and only consider
Housing Element on Dec. 3rd. Barry, Darcy and Savita all said that they would rather take time to give GPA
more thorough discussion.
Then, we found out that one of the ordinances passed on Dec. 4 in fact contains "Community Vision 2040", a
349 page document, which is the new General Plan. The very General Plan that 3 council members said that
they want to postpone.
After lam, this ordinance was passed without any discussion between the council members. I doubt whether
any of the councitmembers, except Gilbert, even knew what they were voting on.
I went through the video and jotted down quotes from the Dec. 3 Council meeting. My note is summarized in
the blog article below.
I and many residents are confused.
We would appreciate an acknowledgement from each of the council members whether you meant to approve
the 349-page of new general plan "Community Vision 2040" without any discussion on Dec. 4, 2014.
We've been comparing this new general plan with the 2000-2010 General Plan. We found many issues that
were never discussed with the community in any of the outreach meetings. Many policies and strategies were
removed from 2000-2010 General Plan without any explanation. We are very concerned that the new general
plan is"approved without any discussion at the city council meeting. This is a plan that determines the future
growth of Cupertino in the next 25 years. Not only it lacks community input, as recognized by the mayor and 3
other council members during the Dec. 3 council meeting, it even lacks input from the council members.
And I would also like the city attorney to confirm whether this process is even legal to approve the 25-year
general plan without any discussion at the city council meeting and specifically after the council acknowledge
a consensus to postpone it.
Thank you.
i
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
i
Blog: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA,but Recanted after 1 A on Dec. 4, 2014
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promised-to.html
v
(Video included in the blog https://www.youtiibe.col-n/watch?v=fIfBSTgwE70
Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after IAM on Dec. 4, 2014.
j This is the story of how Cupertino City Council adopted the 349-page document "Community Vision 2040,"
which defines the future growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years, in 5 minutes.
2
t
On Dec. 3, 2014, Cupertino City Council promised to postpone GPA(General Plan Amendment)because the
two new council members, Darcy and Savita, and most of residents need time to understand it. Darcy, Savita
and Barry suggested to discuss GPA in details over two meetings at a later time.
However, that same night a little after 1 A on Dec. 4, when most residents went home, with literally no
discussion, the Council adopted the 349-page document "Community Vision 2040," which defines the future
growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years with only Darcy Paul voting No.
j Earlier in the meeting, Darcy said, "In the last couple of years, a lot of development is happening quickly.
If we were to look at the entire breath covered by the GPA right now,it would very significantly alter
jCupertino. My preference would be to handle this on a more incremental basis. Perhaps, it's something of a
selfish reason."
Savita chimed in, "Thank you, Darcy. I don't think it's selfish. It's two plus the entire community." Savita
added, "Just to clarify. I am not saying we do repeated amendments. What I am saying is we spread it out
over a couple of meetings. So,the new Council members have a little more time."
Aarti, the Assistant City Manager, clarified, "Let's say you make all the changes related to the Housing
Element sites. And you adopted those changes. Next year, you decide to have a couple of additional meetings.
You want to understand this. You want to have question& answer session. You want the public to have a little
more input before you make the decision on the other elements of the general plan. That's possible. Because
you are still looking at all of this comprehensively." Savita added, "Just not at today's meeting."
Rod concluded, "What I hear so far is that we have a consensus with Barry, Savita and Darcy to work on
the Housing Element tonight,to take the actions in the GPA that we must do in order to fulfill the
Housing Element." Rod asked Barry, Savita and Darcy, "Are you ok with the idea of bringing this back, say
in one or two months, the parts of the General Plan Amendments that aren't under consideration, so we get a
unified view across the city."
' Barry confirmed,-"On the General Plan Amendment, I would say,bring it back in a month or two and give a
thorough discussion and give the audience time. I would suggest next time cut it'off at 11 o'clock. If we cannot
hear it out, delay to the next day. If we still have problem, we give it some time because the last General Plan
Amendment took 4 years." Paul and Savita confirmed that they are ok with it also.
However, that same night after 1AM on Dec. 4, when most residents went home, Gilbert Wong motioned, to
adpot Resolution No. 14-211 approving a General Plan Amendment to reallocate and replenish development
allocation, amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Development Standards, Comply with State Law and
Reorganization, and Improve Presentation and Readability." Barry Chang second. This Resolution No. 14-211
is the new General Plan of Cupertino "Community Vision 2040." With literally no discussion,the 349-
page document "Community Vision 2040," which defines the future growth of Cupertino for the next 25
years was passed with only Darcy Paul voting No.
! In fact, after IAM, with literally no discussion on any item, Gilbert Wong motioned one item after another
item to push almost everything through. It seems most other Council members are quite confused on the
content of each item,but no one questioned in depth.
So, this is how "Community Vision 2040" was adopted by the Cupertino City Council.
In the Dec. 3 meeting minutes there is conveniently_no record of the promise made by the council members to
postpone GPA. Fortunately, it is captured in the video.
3
"Community Vision 2040," rushed through in 18 months, turns out to be a complete rewrite of the previous
2000-2020 General Plan," which took 4 years to approve with much more community outreach meetings and
many discussions in council meetings. The council did leave some items out of approved "Community Vision
2040" and the remaining items are on the May 19th Council Meeting agenda. They are building heights,
building planes, setbacks and the so-called Community Benefits program.
Reference: Dec. 3 Council Meeting Video time 02:00:00 for the consensus to postpone GPA for a more
thorough discussion later.
4
Andrea Sanders
From: Randy Shingai <
Sent: daWy7, ff&y y 2,n1
To: City Clerk; City Council; better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com
Subject: High schools already over capacity
Attachments: fuhsd capacity.pdf
Please consider this e-mail and the attached scan as public comment for the May 19, 2015 meeting.
The 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!
I copied the following from that document:
"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."
I have attached the first page of the document from the FUHSD.
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
i
e r' F'REMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
i2§ Cupertino High School I Fremont High School I Homestead High School I Lynbrook High School I Monta Vista High School I Adult dT Community Ed.
Though the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) understands the petitioner's desire to
attend our schools,the District opposes the proposed property transfer due to the negative
impact it would have on our students and schools.This opposition-is due to the district's rapidly
increasing enrollment, capacity restrictions at our schools and the possible precedent setting
effect it could have on the large'number of similar properties along our boundaries. The
District does not feel that the transfer request adequately meets the 9 criteria outlined in Ed.
Code §35709 &35710 and believes that the concerns listed in the petition are not fully valid.
Unlike many districts,the Fremont Union High School District is experiencing skyrocketing
enrollment growth for the next 5—7 years, pushing all of our schools further beyond capacity.
Currently,the District is 101 students over capacity and next year that number nearly doubles.
By the year 2020, our projected-enrollment will be 1,309 above current capacity.
Dist Totals :'.Current, 2015=16 2016.17, 2018 9_, .`2020-21
Enrollment 10,733 10,816 11,054 11,644 11,941
Capacity 10,632 10,632 10,632 10,632 10,632
Over Capacity,; 101 184 ,, ,422. 1;012 „1,309
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.
The current student generation rates for neighborhoods in the Lynbrook High School (LHS)
Attendance area are quite high. Using the neighborhood adjacent to the petitioner's
neighborhood, but in the LHS attendance area,we can come up with a very good student
generation rate (SGR)to help calculate the possible enrollment impact this transfer would have
if approved.
The adjacent neighborhood bordered by Johnson Ave., W.Walbrook Dr., Brook Glen Dr. and
McKellar Dr. contains 105 single family homes (Figure 1- below). In the 105 homes, 32 students
currently attend Lynbrook High School. This equates to an SGR of.30. Applying this SGR to the
113 homes in the petition,we can estimate that 34 additional students would attend Lynbrook
High School if this petition were to pass.
Adding an additional 34 students would have a tremendously negative impact on our district's
students, staff and community:
1. It would require the construction of one additional classroom to meet the capacity
demands of 34 additional students—this would take approximately 2 years and cost
approximately$1,200,000.
589 W.Fremont Avenue,PO Box F,Sunnyvale,CA 94087 1 TEL(408)522-2200 1 Fax(408)245-5325 1 wEB www.fuhsd.org
SUPERIMENDEM:Polly M.Bove I BOARD OFTRUSTEES: Jeff Moe,Nancy A.Newton,Barbara F.Nunes,Hung Wei,Bill Wilson
Andrea Sanders
From: Rand Shingai <
re
Sent: , da, M,5 O ' 2d p]S KIS
To: City Council; City Clerk; Carol Korade; Cupertino City Manager's Office;Aarti Shrivastava
Cc: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com
Subject: Dec. 3, 2014 Council meeting
Dear Cupertino Council,
Yesterday, May 13,2015, I attended the quarterly Economic Development Committee meeting. At the meeting,
Aarti Shrivastava said that at the Dec. 3, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council had reached agreement on
elements of the General Plan other than the Housing Element. Councilman Barry Chang strongly disagreed
with Ms. Shrivastava, as did Jason Lundgaard. Both said that there was only agreement on the Housing
Element portion.
Consider blog entry:
http://bettergupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promised-to.html
The video segment posted in the blog entry is from about 2:02:30 or so into the City's meeting video for the
Dec. 3, 2014 continuation meeting. Here is the link for the full meeting video:
http://cupertino.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=18&clip id=1794
In the video segment captured and presented in the blog entry, it was clear that the Council was only going to
consider the Housing Element, and was going to postpone dealing with other elements until the two newest
council members were "up to speed".
This agreement was apparently overlooked, and according to the meeting minutes other elements were
considered and agreements were reached. I'm not interested in how it happened,but I think it is not in the
public interest for agreements other the ones pertaining to the Housing Element to stand. The blog entry
correctly points out that once the agreement was reached to only consider the Housing Element, many members
of the audience may have gone home due to fatigue. The ones that remained in attendance, including Mr.
Lungaard, Councilman Chang and myself, likely became inattentive when topics outside of the Housing
Element were discussed.
I want to point out that the Dec. 2,3,4 Council meeting itself was a redo of an earlier meeting that was rescinded
due to a violation-of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Proceeding with those agreements intact would undermine
trust in government. I therefore request that any actions taken on General Plan elements other than the ones
pertaining to the Housing Element be rescinded by the Council.
At the very least, I would like a discussion of this at the May 19, 2015 Council meeting. I would also like this
included in the public comments for that meeting.
Thank You,
Randy Shingai
i
Andrea Sanders
From: Andrea Sanders
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:41 PM
To: 'Lisa Warren'
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE:I am blinded by the light ! - more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting
GPA Agenda item
Dear Ms. Warren,
Thank you for your entail, these will all be included in the May 19, 2015 public record.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sav►.d k
Senior Office .Assistant
City Clerk
City of Ctibpertino
n (408) 777-1312
www.cupertino.orZ
C vn el n4 G•e.r.
From: L' a Warren [mailto:la warren@att.net]
Thum,. y„ iMay � .2 ,P
To: Grace Schmidt;Andrea Sanders
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: I am blinded by the light ! -more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
I will send them again... just to you.
Thank you so much for the added effort.
It is appreciated !
Lisa
btw... Mayor Sinks did not ever reply to my request for student speakers to be able to
go earlier, rather than later.
I did create some blue speaker cards with the student designation on the top. I will try
to see that any students use those copies. It should be easier for you because they will
be blue on the 'front' and white on the back
Just in case he agrees to the idea.
i
From: Grace Schmidt<graces(cD-cupertino.org>
To: 'Lisa Warren' <la-warren(a)_att.net>; Andrea Sanders <Andreas(d�cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk<CityClerk(cDcupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:54 PM
Subject: RE: I am blinded by the light ! -more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
Lisa,
We are receiving many, many emails and are including them all in the May 19 permanent record. We were trying to be
responsive to each email,but probably missed some responses. If you want to forward those four to me again,we will
print them just to be sure.
Kind Regards,
Grace
From: Lisa Warren f mailto:la-warren a,att.net]
Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 1:31 PM
To:Andrea Sanders
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re:I am blinded by the light ! -more input for May 19,2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
Thank you Andrea.
I had sent some additional emails that I do not remember getting confirmation for.
I know that without specifically asking for confirmation of receipt, I can't expect to get one. That is completely
understood.
Since you kindly responded to this one in which I did not request confirmation... would you please confirm that
the four(4) email messages that I sent that are shown on the attached document(in list form) have also been
received and will be included for May 19, 2015 public record?
Thank you very much.
Lisa
From: Andrea Sanders<AndreasAcupertino.org>
To: 'Lisa Warren'<la-warren(@att.net>
Cc: City Clerk<CityClerk(@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday,May 14,2015 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: I am blinded by the light ! -more input for May 19,2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
Dear Ms. Warren,
Thank you for your email, it will be included in the May 19, 2015 public record.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sanders
Senior Office Assistant
City Clerk
2
City of Cupertino
t (408)777-1312
www.cupertino.or
Fp
' �.
Cvsa.�i in6 a•erw
From: Lisa Warren[mailto:la-warren(a�att.net]
Sent: Friday,May 08,2015 3:50 PM
To: City Council; PlanningCommission
Cc: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; Carol Korade; City Clerk
Subject: I am blinded by the light ! -more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
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-warrenaatt.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 luck!!
-Pamela
Pamela McDaniel
pamelam@synopsys.com
1-650-584-1922
3
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
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 1 and 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.
4
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 Stem 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 Stern 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
pamelamAsynopsys.com
5
4r
7A.' i
ilk - • �'\' �r �
F
' r 1
t • r
. .
r
r
r
tJ
J
..�+ „� i
- .'� t _� stir, - -s - ",'�? •y- � `'''
-. - �; •.ti's F��' ,� � r �, �'�,1 T �
•") ` -�',� a-' � � :'tQ�' Nig ._� '�` -�__
^Y
Andrea Sanders
From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:03 PM
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; David Brandt; City of Cupertino Planning
Dept.
Subject: Height on Vallco Shopping District Special Area
Dear City Councils,
As per the approved GPA, Community Vision 2040, Figure LU-1 of appendix of Resolution 14-
West of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet,or 60 with retail or 75 feet with community benefits(for a 200 ft.depth along
the Wolfe Rd property line and set back 200 feet from the Stevens Creek property
line).
East of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet, or 75 feet with retail, =90 feet with community benefits
211,
Vallco Shopping District has a height limit of 45 to 75 feet. As far as I understand such height limit is agreed on
the resolution. Also with the current staff report for 5/19, it was stated the there should be no change in height
from the Dec. 4 decision.
However, in the Community Vision 2040 on the GPA website, the height of Vallco Shopping District Special
Area has been changed to,
West of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
Per Specific Plan
East of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
Per Specific Plan
It confuses me a lot. Here are some questions I have,
1. Where can I find this Specific Plan?
2. What are the heights and setbacks in this Specific Plan?
3. Are we going to discuss the heights of Vallco on May 19 meeting?
I
Qpnortd 5/14-1
4. How many other sites are included in the Specific Plan or have a specific plan of itself?
5. How many such revisions in the current GPA differs from the GPA passed according to resolutions passed on
Dec. 4, 2014?
I would recommend Councils to vote on the heights consistent with resolution 14-211. Do not increase the
height on Vacllo. Moreover,remove the 2million office allocation on Vallco to be consistent with the height
recommendation in resolution 14-211.
Thanks. Please put this correspondence to the public record of May 19 City Council meeting.
Xiaowen Wang
Cupertino resident
2
Andrea Sanders
From: Liang C <Ifchao@gmail.com>
Sent: iTh��arlsd ,l' ai.1�. _,14 �P.,li �
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: List of the differences between "2000-2020 General Plan" and "Community Vision
2040"
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please put this into the public records also.
Do I need to resend it to the city council? As I understand, only letters sent 3 days before a meeting gets
recorded.
Liang
---------- Forwarded message----------
From: Liang C <lfchao&gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:19 AM
Subject: List of the differences between "2000-2020 General Plan" and "Community Vision 2040"
To: City Council <citycouncil a,cupertino.org>, David Brandt<davidb(cr�,cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava
<AartiSgcupertino.org>, City Clerk<CityClerkna,cupertino.org>
I would like to request that the city staff provide a document that spells out the difference between 112000-2020
General Plan", approved on 2005 and "Community Vision 2040," approved on Dec. 2014.
Here is a draft of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan Update(Amendment):
hqp://www.paloaltocompplan.org_/w_p-content/uplo ads/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.
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS ELEMENT UPDATE
GOALS,POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DISPOSITION
1998-2010 MOVED COMPLETE 2030
ON HOLD/
Business and TO/FROM /REPETITIVE/ NO EDITED SPLIT MERGED STATUS NOT Business and
Economics OTHER NOT CHANGE CHANGE FUNDED Economics
Element ELEMENTS APPLICABLE Element
GOAL B-1:AThriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto's Residential Character and Natural Environment.
Policy B-1 X B5.3
Policy B-2 X 84.2
Policy B3 Not
Applicable
9--nAl RT A nk,.-.Miv of fnmmmrrial Dnhail an,i Drnf—i—I C—A—
1
This is w, at an 'amendment' should be like. Not a total re-write as Cupertino does and no information is
provided on how the new general plan relates to the previous general plan.
I gave a cursory look at the Section 4 "Circulation" in "2000-2020 General Plan" to compare with Chapter 5
"Mobility Element" in "Community Vision 2040".
I found the following strategies and policies are removed from the general plan. Many more seem to be
removed or replaced.
I think the residents should be informed clearly of such change in our general plan.
Deleted Strategy (Page 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) Strategy 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.
I would like to request that the staff provide a list of differences between different sections of the two general
plans.
In the very least, a list of policies, strategies removed, edited and replaced. And a list of new policies.
Thanks.
Liang
2
Andrea Sanders
From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com>
Sent: Td�u,rsday, Cw -ray ,2 r ACVi
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David
Brandt; Rebecca Tolentino; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Put Vallco into the new GPA review process
Dear City Councils and City Staff,
I am writing this to comment on the new annual GPA review process.
First, the proposed annual GPA review process is a much more regulated and streamlined and fair process that I
think would be good for the city, residents and developers. But I do have the question regarding the relationship
of current projects and this process. If this process is adopted on May 19, what projects that would be put under
this annual process?
As we know, there are several projects in discussion all over the city. For example, owners of Mariana,
Cupertino Inn and Vallco are all expressed intention for redevelopment. Should these developers applied to this
new process in case that they need any change of current general plan?
Among all these developers, it seems so far that Vallco is treated differently that there is a Vallco specific plan.
I would recommend to reverse this specific plan, especially the 2 million office allocation and put Vallco into
the new GPA review process. This is because that first, according to Sand Hill, the design of Vallco has not
started yet, this change would not hinder their process. It is more fair for other developers that subject to this
process next year. It makes the community outreach more efficient and effective.
Thanks for your consideration.
I would like to put this email to public record of public hearing on GPA on May 19.
Xiaowen Wang
Cupertino resident
i
Andrea Sanders
From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw ail.com>
Sent:
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.;
Cupertino Recreation and Community Services; David Brandt
Subject: List of voluntary community benefits in May 19 staff report
Dear City Councils,
At first, I would like to applaud for the early release of the staff report. It gives both councils and community
more time to learn the issues at hand and be more prepared coming into the discussion on May 19.
In this staff report, a new annual review process has been proposed for GPA. It is a big step towards to right
direction. Such a process has the merits of providing a boundary for development and yet has the flexibility to
accommodate economic changes. The streamlined process also save staffs time and make the community
outreach easier. I would like also see more details on the community outreach program under this process.
However, in the staff report, there is "a list of voluntary community amenities" stated as part of the process. I do
think that we should be careful in putting such language into the General Plan.
First of all, what does "Voluntary" mean? It is shocking to me to learn recently that the park in Main Street is
not a community benefit or at least not "Voluntary". It is actually required by Quimby Act (and the current
usable area is actually already violate the Quimby Act). The reason that it is shocking for me is that whenever
community benefit is mentioned, PARK is one of the term high on the list. You can see this easily even in this
staff report that summarize the online survey done for community benefit. Then, should we have more clear
definition of what kind of park is required by the law and what kind of park can be counted as
"VOLUNTARY"?
Further more I would like to understand more about this one line statement on
1. What are the amenities that are currently required by city ordinances? What are the amenities can be counted
as voluntary?
2. What kind of terms can be negotiated in the developmental contract? How legally binding of such terms?
3. What are city's and community's option if the contract cannot be fulfilled?
I would also urge councils to contemplate these questions. Please don't vote for the "list of voluntary
community benefits" if you have any doubt to the answers of the above questions.
Thanks. Please put this correspondence into the public records of May 19 public hearing on GPA.
Xiaowen Wang
Cupertino resident
i
Andrea Sanders
From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com>
Sent:
To: City Council; City Clerk; David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; Karen B. Guerin; Rebecca
Tolentino; City Attorney's Office
Subject: Workshop on New Community Benefit Program
Dear City Manager and Staff,
cc: Cupertino City Councils,
First I want to thank you for releasing the Staff Report a week earlier than before. It indeed provides the
residents and councils more time to digest and understand the topics in the meeting.
There is indeed a lot of information in this staff report. The most intriguing part for me is the research on
different types of community benefits programs and the final recommendation of adoption of a GP amendment
procedure. All these are a lot of information and in my view should be discussed more among community.
I am very disappointed to find out that the expected workshop on this is cancelled. After reading the white
paper, I really want to learn more about the different programs and understand more about their pros and cons.
To be noted here also that these information has NEVER been discussed in any of the 20+out reach meetings.
For an issue important like this, should public have some inputs?
Thank you all for your hard work and effort. I would like this correspondence to be put into the public record of
May 19 City Council Meeting.
Xiaowen Wang _
Cupertino residents
i
Andrea Sanders
From: Andrea Sanders
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:29 PM
To: 'Ifchao@gmail.com'; City Clerk
Subject: RE: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after 1AM on Dec.
4, 2014
Dear Ms. Chao,
Thank you for your email, it will be included in the May 19, 2015 public record.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sa gders-
Senior Office Assistant
City CCel-k
City of Cipertino
n (408) 777-1312
www.cupertino.or
rV jfl �I
Ye
[ur2• IreO r-r—
From: Liang C Ito,lfchao .ai , �.. a
3F h sd!a a I F
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after IAM on Dec.4, 2014
And please put this into the public record.
Thanks.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA,but Recanted after 1AM on Dec. 4, 2014
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office<CityAttorney@gi pertino.org>, City
Clerk<Cit Cy lerk a,cupertino.org>, David Brandt<davidb ,cupertino.org>
I and many residents specifically remembered that the council promised to postpone GPA and only consider
Housing Element on Dec. 3rd. Barry, Darcy and Savita all said that they would rather take time to give GPA
more thorough discussion.
Then, we found out that one of the ordinances passed on Dec. 4 in fact contains "Community Vision 2040", a
349 page document, which is the new General Plan. The very General Plan that 3 council members said that
they want to postpone.
1
After 1 am, this ordinance was passed without any discussion between the council members. I doubt whether
any of the council members, except Gilbert, even knew what they were voting on.
I went through the video and jotted down quotes from the Dec. 3 Council meeting. My note is summarized in
the blog article below.
I and many residents are confused.
We would appreciate an acknowledgement from each of the council members whether you meant to approve
the 349-page of new general plan "Community Vision 2040" without any discussion on Dec. 4, 2014.
We've been comparing this new general plan with the 2000-2010 General Plan. We found many issues that were
never discussed with the community in any of the outreach meetings. Many policies and strategies were
removed from 2000-2010 General Plan without any explanation. We are very concerned that the new general
plan is approved without any discussion at the city council meeting. This is a plan that determines the future
growth of Cupertino in the next 25 years. Not only it lacks community input, as recognized by the mayor and 3
other council members during the Dec. 3 council meeting, it even lacks input from the council members.
And I would also like the city attorney to confirm whether this process is even legal to approve the 25-year
general plan without any discussion at the city council meeting and specifically after the council acknowledge a
consensus to postpone it.
Thank you.
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA, but Recanted after IAM on Dec. 4, 2014
http:/ibettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/cupertino-city-council-promised-to.html
(Video included in the blog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frfBSTmvE70)
Cupertino City Council Promised to Postpone GPA,but Recanted after 1AM on Dec. 4, 2014.
This is the story of how Cupertino City Council adopted the 349-page document "Community Vision 2040,"
which defines the future growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years, in 5 minutes.
On Dec. 3, 2014, Cupertino City Council promised to postpone GPA (General Plan Amendment)because the
two new council members, Darcy and Savita, and most of residents need time to understand it. Darcy, Savita
and Barry suggested to discuss GPA in details over two meetings at a later time.
However, that same night a little after IAM on Dec. 4, when most residents went home, with literally no
discussion, the Council adopted the 349-page document "Community Vision 2040," which defines the future
growth of Cupertino for the next 25 years with only Darcy Paul voting No.
Earlier in the meeting, Darcy said, "In the last couple of years, a lot of development is happening quickly. If
we were to look at the entire breath covered by the GPA right now, it would very significantly alter
Cupertino. My preference would be to handle this on a more incremental basis. Perhaps, it's something of a
selfish reason."
Savita chimed in, "Thank you, Darcy. I don't think it's selfish. It's two plus the entire community." Savita
added, "Just to clarify. I am not saying we do repeated amendments. What I am saying is we spread it out
2
over a couple of meetings. So, the new Council members have a little more time."
Aarti, the Assistant City Manager, clarified, "Let's say you make all the changes related to the Housing Element
sites. And you adopted those changes. Next year, you decide to have a couple of additional meetings. You want
to understand this. You want to have question & answer session. You want the public to have a little more input
before you make the decision on the other elements of the general plan. That's possible. Because you are still
looking at all of this comprehensively." Savita added, "Just not at today's meeting."
Rod concluded, "What I hear so far is that we have a consensus with Barry, Savita and Darcy to work on
the Housing Element tonight, to take the actions in the GPA that we must do in order to fulfill the
Housing Element." Rod asked Barry, Savita and Darcy, "Are you ok with the idea of bringing this back, say in
one or two months, the parts of the General Plan Amendments that aren't under consideration, so we get a
unified view across the city."
Barry confirmed, "On the General Plan Amendment, I would say,bring it back in a month or two and give a
thorough discussion and give the audience time. I would suggest next time cut it off at 11 o'clock. If we cannot
hear it out, delay to the next day. If we still have problem, we give it some time because the last General Plan
Amendment took 4 years." Paul and Savita confirmed that they are ok with it also.
However, that same night after 1 A on Dec. 4, when most residents went home, Gilbert Wong motioned, to
adpot Resolution No. 14-211 approving a General Plan Amendment to reallocate and replenish development
allocation, amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Development Standards, Comply with State Law and
Reorganization, and Improve Presentation and Readability." Barry Chang second. This Resolution No. 14-211
is the new General Plan of Cupertino "Community Vision 2040." With literally no discussion,the 349-
page document "Community Vision 2040," which defines the future growth of Cupertino for the next 25
years was passed with only Darcy Paul voting No.
In fact, after 1 AM,with literally no discussion on any item, Gilbert Wong motioned one item after another item
to push almost everything through. It seems most other Council members are quite confused on the content of
each item,but no one questioned in depth.
So, this is how "Community Vision 2040" was adopted by the Cupertino City Council.
In the Dec. 3 meeting minutes, there is conveniently no record of the promise made by the council members to
postpone GPA. Fortunately, it is captured in the video.
"Community Vision 2040," rushed through in 18 months, turns out to be a complete rewrite of the previous
"2000-2020 General Plan," which took 4 years to approve with much more community outreach meetings and
many discussions in council meetings. The council did leave some items out of approved "Community Vision
2040" and the remaining items are on the May 19th Council Meeting agenda. They are building heights,
building planes, setbacks and the so-called Community Benefits program.
Reference:-Dec. 3 Council MeetingVideo time 02:00:00 for the consensus to postpone GPA for a more
thorough discussion later.
3
Andrea Sanders
From: Darrel Lum <drlum@pacbell.net>
Sent: WON
u, , r 'r 15 7 Be P,
To: David Brandt
Cc: City Council; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Gilbert Wong;
City Clerk
Subject: 2014-2040 General Plan Amendment
Attachments: DRAFT GP.pdf
Please find attached two (2) requests by Concerned Citizens of Cupertino regarding the proposed
General Plan Amendment to be considered on May 19, 2015 as Agenda Item 713, according to
City Council Staff Report dated for the City Council meeting on May 19, 2015.
Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
fr
1
DRAFT REVISION of the 2015-2040 GENERAL PLAN
1. The perception of the term Community Vision 2040 does not equal
the term General Plan, which has been described as the blue print
for Cupertino. Obviously this perception misleads the public.to not
realize that the Community Vision 2040 is a change in the General
Plan. We recommend that the City title the proposed General Plan
Amendment as the 2020-2040 General Plan rather than Community
Vision 2040.
2. We request that the changes proposed in the draft 2020-2040
General Plan (Community Vision 2040) be formatted as a red-line,
blue-line, etc. in the 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted November 15,
2005, so that the residents of Cupertino can easily ascertain the
additions and/or deletions proposed for its revision, prior to the May
19th public hearing to adopt the 2020-2040 General Plan. There is
precedent for this, as it was the process for the Heart of the City
Specific Plan enacted January 17, 2012 with 10+ City meetings as
well as updates for its conformance with this Draft General Plan and
Housing Element. We previously requested such a copy in our
Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2014 General
Plan Amendment & Housing Element dated June 25, 2014 and
submitted by Concerned Citizens of Cupertino on June 25, 2014 and
received by the City of Cupertino on June 25, 2014:
"Is it possible to have a copy of the City of Cupertino 2000-2020
General Plan as amended to date since its adoption to highlight
the changes proposed by the current General Plan Amendments
under consideration so that'the public has the opportunity to
review the differences?"
No response as of today, May 12, 2015.
Andrea Sanders
From: Grace Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:05 PM
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: CORRECTION:Transparency when specifying parcels, clean-up and consistency
changes -Alpine Rd/Vista Knoll Drive re-zoned!
Attachments: Attachment A-Exhibit Z-1-REVISED Parcel details on Alpine Road.pdf
Print for record please.
Fro : Pe gy Griffin [mailto.griffin@compuserve.com]
S .to. e ro nesda, M ay
To: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Cc: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Subject: CORRECTION: Transparency when specifying parcels, clean-up and consistency changes -Alpine Rd/Vista Knoll
Drive re-zoned!
Dear City Manager and Staff,
Cc: Cupertino City Council, Cupertino City Attorney, Cupertino City Clerk
Parcel#3 in the attachment for Alpine Road has the parcel #incorrect.
Listed is 326-15-118 but it should be 326-15-108. It's still on Alpine Road and does not change the point I was making
but I felt you should have the correct list.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From: be-core oo le rou.so [ ,bc-core ooq leg rou s.com] On Behalf Of Peggy Griffin
To: David Brandt; 'Aarti Shrivastava'
Cc: 'City Council'; planning@cupertino.org; 'City Clerk'
Subject: Transparency when specifying parcels, clean-up and consistency changes - Alpine Rd/Vista Knoll Drive re-
zoned!
Dear City Manager and Staff,
When parcel numbers (APN) are specified in your documents, I am requesting that you also include the street address
of the parcel for clarity to the public and to our City Council members.
I do not think that the City Council members realize that on Dec. 16, 2014 they approved re-zoning 4 parcels on Alpine
Road (off Foothill)to R3. One of the four parcels backups up to Vista Knoll homes! (See below and attached document).
These changes came under the words"clean-up" and "consistency" but did not specify exactly what changes were being
done other than to list the APN number of the parcel. Every indication in the words of the agenda item and the
ordinance was that it was related to the Housing Element.
Changes made need to be clearly specified!
Suggestions:
1. Anytime a parcel number(APN) is used, also include its address.
1
` I
2. If"clean-up" is done, include a list of items to be "cleaned-up".
3. If"consistency" issues are being resolved, include a list of the exact issues.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
Cupertino resident
For example:
On December 16, 2014 City Council Agenda, Item #12 it reads:
City Couucil AGE= A December li,2014
12. Subject: Conduct Second Reading and Enact Aniendnaents to the Zoning� +�lap
and Municipal Code to conform to the General Plan and Housing Element.
:kn1etidnients. as well as test c miges to Cliapters in Title 1S and Title 19.of the
Municipal Code regarding zonin& density bonuses, below-n1arket rate housing.
and the addition of Chapter 13 (P.-ukland Dedication Fee) and other clean-up to
comply-Mth.state lar:. consistence and to improve readability.
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enactthe following:
1. Ordinance `o. 14-2124. "An Ordinance of the Citi- Council of tits City of
Cupertino Rezoning Certain Sites in the City For confonnance with the General Plan
and Housing Element." Zoning ivfap mendiuent.Z-2013-03: and
2. Ordu- mace No. 14-2125. "Aa Ordinance of the City Council of tike Cit; of
Ct pe:tino wnending curious Chapters in Title 1S and Title 19, including the
anrendnient of the Density Bona, Ordinance. the addition of a Chapter in Title 19 to
imx lenten; policies in the General Plan, the addition of a Chapter in Title 13 to
improc-e readability_ Code Amendment—MCA-2014-01.
Description: ?application No(s). Z-2013-01. %MCA-2014-01; Apphcant(s)- City of
Cupertino, Location city;aide
Staff RVort
A-Ordinance\o_ 14-2124
B-Ordinance No_ 14--2125
C-Suu=xzy of Aniencmeatts
D-Redline C:hat3ters 19.50 mid 19.144
ORDINANCE NO. 14-2124—This ordinance implies from the title that the changes are related to the recent housing
element and general plan decisions. No mention of random site rezoning.
2
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. 14-2124
AN ORDINANCE OF ITIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPS-IMNO
REZONING CERTAIN SITES IN THE CI ry FOR CONFORMANCE WITH
`ME GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT
EXHIBIT Z-1
Assessor Parcel No. Existing Zoning New Zoning
326-15-110 R2-z,25 R3
326-15-111 R2-4.25 P%3
326-15-108 M-4.25 R3
326-15-073 I;L7-4.25 R3
326-49-036 RI-10 PRI
326-49-040 R1-10 PR
359-25-049 1iI-6 PR
357-20-027 'ML-rc ?(CN)
326-09-071 TZ3PR
326-32-012 R2 R3
326-32-009 R2 R3
326-1.7-004 RI-10 PR
357-09-053 A PR
957-11-029 R1 PI-11
323-16-019 Al-43 BCZ
1
Pro Eerty shown on Exhibit Z-2 P(NIP) P(Res)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups MC Core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to be-
core+uns-Libscribeg
googlejUoLips.com.
To post to this group, send email to bc-coreggooglegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https:Hgrou]2s.google.col-n/d/msgid/bc-
core/OOfOOldO8dc3%245aaOc850%240fe258fO`/`24`/`40compuserve.com.
For more options, visit https:Hwoups.google.com/d/optout.
3
1-FROM R2-4.25 TO R3
Property Information-Assessor's Parcel Number(APN):326-15-110 SEARCH AGAIN
fort elle 0 Pttnt PCF Emas
Situs A,ddressresi 10385 ALPINE OR Ung A CUPERTINO 91,0140921 ®view Google Map
Mailing Address 1885 CANARY DR SUNNYVALE CA 94037-4833 Q Print Assessor s Parcel Map
Current Information 2014 2013 2012 School OtstrortlTax Rate Area Street View FAQ
z
PROPERTY INFORMATION 110 g 4e
s
iR m
Document No 222088200 Document Type GRAM DEED E n
Transfer Daae:V15Y1013 Tax Default Dace N,A
b
VALUE INFORMATION V(Assessed Informatwn as of&90,,201 S) Vew or Pay your Property Tax
NA Assessed
Real Property Business Exemptions
Value
Land: 5838.093 Fixtures SO Homeowner: so z z Q
Improvements. 5819.372 Structure $0 Other: so S
FWtha Y1Ai9!
Personal Property: SO P R`c •Apn-
a a
Total s1.555.4e5 Total. 50 Total SO 51,851165
h,pny fk
ai
�t
}i
Ir-f
•
J
2-FROM R2-4.25 TO R3
Property Information-Assessors Parcel Number(APN):326-15-111 =EARCHACIAN
ropt size aArl Pof Eurax
View Coogle,map Z 19
Ma,ng Adc— C"-.,s–,.- ?.CR SAN FFANC S'_:C,
Frv!AB--; P-1 Map dr 8
Current IM.—bon 2014 2013 2012 School Dist—VTax Rate Area Sheet V_ FAQ
PRCP`ERT,Y NF09MATICN V
Occum". No 16971169 Cacm-!Yl>e GRAM DEED
110353 Alpine Of
Tw,sief Dine 4 M2003 Tax Deraft Cate NA
VALUE wF0RmAnot4 4A(Assessed lrfoMXCn as o15:30:20141 Vew or Pay your Prop"Tax
Not Assessed
Real Property Business Exemptions Vakis z z
Land 5385,382 Fixtures 50 Ilomecef so QO 0
0
Improv:+ne" 5411,3e4 structure So Other so
C3 CID FoothAVA"e
Pemrsonal Properly so z z Apantheffis
C6 CL
Taal
57.7.230 Total SO Tow SO 6717,230
3-FROM R2-4.25 TO R3 (REVISED was APN 326-15-118 but should be 326-15-108)
Property Information-Assessor's Parcel Number(APN):326-15-108 SEARCH AGAIN
torn stze _ Pqm P',� Emat
Situs A--z z as) 10381 ALPINE OR CUPERTINO 9!-G 14-0002 Q View Goggle Map
Mailing Address 10381 ALPINE OR CUPERTINO CA 9°814-0000 Pmt Assessor s Pamel Map
Current Information 2014 2013 2012 School oistrictlTax Rate Area Street v-WW FAQ Z
8
C;
PROF= INFORMATION fd
m
Occurr=_-r—,0 22803793 Document Type GRANT DEED n
T-;-= _3;e 121&2014 Tax Defauhrate NRA y
9�
VALUE INFORMATION 4(Assessed Infcrmaw as of 8l30M14) Vew or Pay your Property Tax 1a 10381 Alpine Or ''2-
a
Real Property Business Exemptions Net Assessed 0
Value
Land S280,338 Fixtures. 50 Homeowner 57.000
Improvements S301,443 Structure: S0 Other. so
Personal Property 50 Z Z Q
Taal 550t7-79 Total 50 Total 57.000 "KM -n p
4-FROM R2-4.25 TO R3
Property Information-Assessor's Parcel Number(APN):326-15-073 SEARCH AGAIN
font size Prim PDF Email
Situs Address(es) 10334 ALPINE OR Unit 8 CUPERTINO 91014-0914 0 View Google Map
Show all 2 addresses
Mai/mg Address: P.O.BOX 1453 LOS ALTOS CA 94023-1453 0 Print Assessor's Parcel Map L
-n
8 C�
Current Information 2014 2413 2012 Sohool DistrictlTax Rate Area Street View FAQ —_
C,
ca
PROPERTY INFORMATION 4
s
rN
Oecumem No:21829252 Document Type.GRANT DEED
Transfer Dave.&'30!2012 Tax Default Date WA
b '
VALUE INFORMATION V(Assessed Infcvmaecn as of&'3 M14) Vew or.Pay your Property Tax
Net Assessed
Real Property Business Exemptions 9�
Value
L Z
Land $1.130,107 Fixtures 50 Homeowner So
Improvements 5378.702 Structure. $0 Other. so 2 -
FootNo YiNage
Personal Prope ty50 0. a. ■ apxnmems
Tcral. $1501309 Total. 50 Total 50 11.306,309
Poppy Or
10334 ALPINE DR Unit 8,CUPERTINO 95014-0914 G '
10377 Vista Knoll Blvd t
Cupervic-,CA950`.4 x
10334 ALPINE DR Unit 8,CUPERTINO 950140914 C.
._—a.-- - d.., .____...._._-......... ...
y 10367 Mata Knoll Blvd
Cupertino,CA 5501 d
37.329Us5,-!2t.u65+:1:
t y
4
t
Andrea Sanders
From: Grace Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:52 PM
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: May 19, 2015 Staff Report Agenda Item#7b - questions regarding TERMS USED IN
THE PROCESS
Print if not already done.
lip
.y.Griffin [mailto:griffin@compuserve.com]
MSURWAVY111
To: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Cc: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: May 19, 2015 Staff Report Agenda Item #7b - questions regarding TERMS USED IN THE PROCESS
Dear Cupertino City Manager and Staff,
cc: Cupertino City Council
Thank you for providing the Staff Report earlier than usual. I have read the May 19, 2015 Staff Report for Item#7b and
have specific questions related to the terms/phrases used:
TERMS USED IN THE PROCESS DESCRIPTION
1. Each cycle-On page 7, "The process would work as follows:...bullet 4, "Each cycle...",
a. What does'cycle' mean?
2. Substantially similar-On page 7, last bullet, "Only projects that..." are "substantially similar"
a. What does"substantially similar" mean?
b. What changes would be okay/not okay?
c. Who decides?'
d. Do you have a means to track, by project,the plans and each change that is approved and by whom?
L If so,would these be available to the public online?
3. Entitlement—On page 7, last bullet
a. What is"entitlement review"?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
Cupertino resident
1
Andrea Sanders
From: Grace Schmidt-
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:52 PM
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: May 19, 2015 Staff Report Item#7b - questions regarding AMENDMENT PROCESS
Print please.
From: Peg [ a'Ito: riffin compuserve.com]
Se Wa �'esda, y
To: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Cc: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: May 19, 2015 Staff Report Item #7b - questions regarding AMENDMENT PROCESS
Dear Cupertino City Manager and Staff,
cc: Cupertino City Council
Thank you for providing the Staff Report earlier than usual. I have read the May 19, 2015 Staff Report for Item#7b and
have specific questions related to the proposed process of amendments to our General Plan:
AMENDMENT PROCESS
1. Would projects that do not submit applications during the annual review be allowed to be considered at other
times during the year?
2. Is there a maximum number that would be selected in any one year?
3. Would the 4 amendments/year go away?
4. When exactly would the amendment/re-zoning/etc.take place for a project?
a. 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?
b. Is there a provision for reversing the amendment change if the developer does not follow through?
c. 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?
5. How much time would the public be given to review these documents?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
Cupertino resident
i
1'
1
Andrea Sanders
From: Grace Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 6:02 PM
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: May 19, 2015 Staff Report - request for link to individual attachments
Print.
From: liPeg y G 'ffinma'toa_rffi. c puserve.com]
e r: ed`nes- ay' ray 1 20=1 1...2 A
To: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: May 19, 2015 Staff Report- request for link to individual attachments
Dear City Manager and City Staff,
I would like to thank you for providing the May 19th Staff Report early so both the City Council and the
residents of Cupertino can have time to review it. To make it more helpful for some people, I would
recommend that you do the following:
- Change "Staff Report" to "Staff Report and attachments" —333 pages is a lot, until you realize the Staff
Report is 11 pages and the rest is attachments which also need to be read but some have appeared in
previous council packets -
- Also, provide individual links to the 11-page Staff Report and the individual attachments because it will
draw attention to the old/new material. In particular, "Attachment B.7 White Paper on Development
Management Programs" is new material that people should be aware of.
Having it in both formats allow people to either download the entire thing or pick and choose what they need.
Again,thank you for providing this report and it's attachments early.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Cupertino Resident
cc: Cupertino City Council, Cupertino City Clerk
1
From: Darrel Lum <drlum@pacbell.net>
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>
G;;: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <rsinks@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang
<bchang@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>;
Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupertino.org>; City Clerk<cityclerk@cupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:32 PM
Subject: 2014-2040 General Plan Amendment
Please find attached two (2) requests by Concerned Citizens of Cupertino regarding the proposed
General Plan Amendment to be considered on May 19, 2015 as Agenda Item 7B, according to
City Council Staff Report dated for the City Council meeting on May 19, 2015.
Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
RECEIVED
� MAY 13 2015
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
about:blank Page 1 of 1
DRAFT REVISION of the 2015-2040 GENERAL PLAN
1. The perception of the term Community Vision 2040 does not equal
the term General Plan, which has been described as the blue print
for Cupertino. Obviously this perception misleads the public to not
realize that the Community Vision 2040 is a change in the General
v Plan. We recommend that the City title the proposed General Plan
Amendment as the 2020-2040 General Plan rather than Community
Vision 2040.
2. We request that the changes proposed in the draft 2020-20.40
General Plan (Community Vision 2040) be formatted as a red-line,
blue-line, etc. in the 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted November 15,
2005, so that the residents of Cupertino can easily ascertain the
additions and/or deletions proposed for its revision, prior to the May
19th public hearing to adopt the 2020-2040 General Plan. There is
precedent for this, as it was the process for the Heart of the City
Specific Plan enacted January 17, 2012 with 10+ City meetings as
well as updates for its conformance with this Draft General Plan and
Housing Element. We previously requested such a copy in our
Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2014 General
Plan Amendment & Housing Element dated June 25, 2014 and ,
submitted by Concerned Citizens of Cupertino on June 25, 2014 and
received by the City of Cupertino on June 25, 2014:
"Is it possible to have a copy of the City of Cupertino 2000-2020
General Plan as amended to date since its adoption to highlight
the changes proposed by the current General Plan Amendments
under consideration so that the public has the opportunity to
review the differences?"
No response as of today, May 12, 2015.
Andrea Sanders
From: Grace Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:48 AM
To: Andrea Sanders
Subject: FW: please add to May 19, 2015 meeting documents
Attachments: Office Feedback as of early April 2015 (1).docx;ATT00001.htm
Hi Andrea,
Please print the email and attachment to scan as exhibit to May 19.
Thanks! Grace
From: Piu Ghosh
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:46 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: One office question SURVEY Input from some residents - please add to May 19, 2015 meeting documents
FYI...
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning_(a,cupertino.org>
Date: May 13, 2015 at 7:54:47 AM PDT
To: Planning Dept. <PlanningList@cupertino.org>, Alan Takahashi<AlanTCup c@gmail.coin>,
Don Sun<book.sun@,gmail.com>, Geoff Paulsen<geoffpaulsen a,yahoo.com>, Margaret Gong
<margie og_ng_@icloud.com>, Winnie Lee<winnieleedds@yahoo.com>
Subject: FW: One office question SURVEY Input from some residents - please add to May
19, 2015 meeting documents
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-warren@att.net]
Sent: Wed:nesd y, ay 3, 2'-41 MNONffACh
o: City Council; IanningCommission; City Clerk; David Brandt; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: One office question SURVEY Input from some residents - please add to May 19, 2015 meeting
documents
City Council members, Planning Commissioners, others,
J
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
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'
2
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 adding
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.
will note:
Given the property prices in Cupertino, whatever business that will be located here, will have to be one that is very
of
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...
Andrea Sanders
From: Piu Ghosh
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:54 AM "
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW:You said what? - more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA
Agenda item
Attachments: Santa Clara IHOP - Correspondence from Cupertino August 2014.pdf,ATT00001.htm
FYI...
Begin forwarded message:
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planningna,cupertino.org>
Date: May 11, 2015 at 8:16:43 AM PDT
To: Planning Dept. <PlanningList@gWertino.org>, Alan Takahashi<AlanTCpP@gmail.com>,
Don Sun<book.sun@gmail.com>, Geoff Paulsen<geoffpaulsengyahoo.com>, Margaret Gong
<mar egong_@icloud.com>,Winnie Lee<winnieleedds@yahoo.com>
Subject: FW: You said what ? - more input for May 19,2015 City Council meeting GPA
Agenda item
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-wa n att.net]
S - tr , ;,
ouncil; PlanningCommission
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; Carol Korade; City Clerk
.Subject: You said what? - more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
City Council members, etc.
As promised, I am sending the Cupertino Office of Community
Development's formal response to Santa Clara's development at Stevens
Creek Blvd and Lawrence Expressway (in Cupertino's 'backyard').
While the senior planning staff was aware of this response letter, I don't
think that any of the newer CC or PC members, if any, are aware of it.
It is a short letter and I hope that. you all take the time to read it within.the
next few days, before this email is 'lost'.
The letter is attached.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
i
i
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
M1
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95094-3255
P �,.'NO (408)777-3308•FAX(408)777-3333
August 5,2014
V ED
Ms.Debby Fernandez
City of Santa Clara Planning Departments �O �r
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara,CA 95050
Ike:Addendum 5403/5405 Stevens Creels Boulevard Office Project
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
Thank you for allowing the City of Cupertino the opportunity to comment on the Phase 2 office
project proposed at 5403/5405 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The approximate height of the proposed building is identified as 138 feet (nine stories) in the
Addendum to the Final EIR. The Phase J six-story office building on the site, at 105 feet, is
significantly taller than existing buildings-in the area. While the project is located in an area
where four story buildings exist, the project site is also located close to a residential
neighborhood where the maximum allowable height is limited to two stories.
The project is proposing a monolithic sidewalk and a reduction in the amount of landscaping
along Stevens Creek Boulevard.Please note that for projects along Stevens Creek Boulevard,the
City of Cupertino requires the installation of a detached sidewalk and a double row of trees to
buffer the mass and bulk of buildings from the street.
Please also find attached comments that the City has received from a concerned resident.
I hope that the City of Santa Clara will consider the City of Cupertino's coiriments 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
777-
3308.or Piug@cupertino.org.-
Sincerely,
e
o _
Piu Ghosh,AICP
Senior-Planner
City of 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
PIanning 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 landscape 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.
. l
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'.
LN
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 ve close to the street at the end and very tall.
2
This structure will tower over everything near it. Four stories high is the most of anything
within sight. Although it is an attractive building it does not seem to compliment 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 Chinese 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.
A
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. Coming from
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 that 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 the street.
Thank you,
Catherine Thaler
cc: Cupertino Planning Department.
3
Andrea Sanders
From: Piu Ghosh
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:49 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW:I am blinded by the light ! - more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting
GPA Agenda item
Attachments: RE: Reasons why I am opposed to 9-story building on Stevens Creek Blvd (8/26/2014
council meeting, agenda item 7A)
FYI
From: Aarti Shrivastava
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 4:00 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Subject: FW: I am blinded by the light ! - more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
Aarti
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-warren@att.net]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 3:50 PM
To: City Council; PlanningCommission
Cc: David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; Carol Korade; City Clerk
Subject: I am blinded by the light ! - more input for May 19, 2015 City Council meeting GPA Agenda item
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
1
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: Pamela McDaniel <Pamela.McDaniel(aD-synopsys.com>
To: Lisa Warren<la-warren(Datt.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 luck!!
-Pamela
Pamela McDaniel
pamelarnAsynopsys.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.
2
- 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 1 and 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 Stern 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.
3
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
1408-246-6888
pamelamAsynopsys.com
v
r
l
Y
k
4
w O !d
M w
w
vn
T
vt
r r,
MMOLM
T -
---d& how—
.
!
s'
—\ t
=1
^ ., r �'��'w �. T >� �:� '���C� ,s��r '�' ,i- ' � 'eco• � I?.
l � { ""-.'�R!�� obi. r- •rro 4 ! � ;�[.k�.+. '�,� ��.. 'c
�5 ' ' 'Ly. �'S, •l �•y,+, � � �y��; i• � ` `,, ,..� �:'. 1.
OL
iY •• y �• r
d 4 :fi r y
�s' 7
1
_ 4 ir. r
,
x• �
I ,
—
Andrea Sanders
From: Pamela McDaniel <pamelam@synopsys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:36 AM
To: 'MayorAndCouncil@santaclaraca.gov'; 'Manager@santaclaraca.gov'
Subject: RE: 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, 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
Pamela McDaniel
Resident of Westwood Oaks,Santa Clara
1-408-246-6888
pamelam@synopsys.com
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.
1
o It will have a negative visual impact on and decrease privacy for Santa Clara's Westwood Oaks
residential neighborhood—a neighborhood of 1 and 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 Stern 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.
2
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
pamelam@synopsys.com
3
_ 1 �
.�
�'
i vk 1 y f
f� ��
f. � � _ T9 a
�, ..
�s
-� �.�
• �
i
.' * _ _ ,
`44 .��
.`�� a
� T
i S t���
•r
. .r ' '• L
_ � � �
A� �
-` t��'��
,a
a
Rr VW
,.^
ah44
•w
f
s ♦.
40
s
I
kip-
47
- �,' ""�� �+•< �• �- may,w.eM"'T'"^" i ,
g
mop—
w.
Andrea Sanders
From: Darrel Lum <drlum@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 2:52 PM
To: Grace Schmidt; City Clerk
Cc: David Brandt; City Council; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan;
Gilbert Wong
Subject: Recent Communications to City of Cupertino
Attachments: DRAFT GP.pdf, May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting.pdf
Ms. Schmidt,
I am forwarding copies of recent communications to City of Cupertino for inclusion in the minutes of the May 19, 2015
City Council meeting:
Draft General Plan document was sent via e-mail prior to May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting, and an original was
delivered
and received by the City on May 13, 2015.
Document"May 19_2015 City Council Meeting"was presented at May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item
Thank You!
Darrel Lum
1
44--7
DRAFT REVISION of the 2015-2040 GENERAL PLAN
1. The perception of the term Community Vision 2040 does not equal
the term General Plan, which has been described as the blue print
for Cupertino. Obviously this perception misleads the public to not
realize that the Community Vision 2040 is a change in the General
Plan. We recommend that the City title the proposed General Plan
Amendment as the 2020-2040 General Plan rather than Community .
Vision 2040.
2. We request that the changes proposed in the draft 2020-2040
General Plan (Community Vision 2040) be formatted as a red-line,
blue-line, etc. in the 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted November 15,
2005, so that the residents of Cupertino can,easily ascertain the
additions and/or deletions proposed for its revision, prior to the May
19th public hearing to adopt the 2020-2040 General Plan. There is
precedent for this, as it was the process for the Heart of the City
Specific Plan enacted January 17, 2012 with 10+ City meetings as
well as updates for its conformance with this Draft General Plan and
Housing Element. We previously requested such a copy in our
Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2014 General
Plan Amendment & Housing Element dated June 25, 2014 and
submitted by Concerned Citizens of Cupertino on June 25, 2014 and
received by the City of Cupertino on June 25, 2014:
"Is it possible to have a copy of the City of Cupertino 2000-2020
General Plan as amended to date since its adoption to highlight
the changes proposed by the current General Plan Amendments
under consideration so that the public has the opportunity to
review the differences?"
No response as of today, May 12, 2015.
cc-
Presented at
City of Cupertino City Council Meeting on May 19, 2015: Agenda Item #7
by Darrel Lum
Speaking for myself as well as a spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of
Cupertino and in support of the Better Cupertino organization and CRSZ
action committee:
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 mandate.
We'agree with the Staff recommendation that"No further amendments
be made to the General Plan" especially the 2005-2020 General Plan
And that Community Vision 2014 sic (2040) 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?