Exhibit CC 10-20-16 Item #16 Community Vision 2040 (General Plan)2015-10-20 Cupertino City Council Meeting-Agenda Item #16-Peggy Griffin
cc fo(~o/L s;-
#t&
What happened in December 2014 with the General Plan Amendment was wrong in many, many ways!
One of the major accomplishments was to build mistrust between our local government and the residents
of Cupertino.
After months of complaints, on May 19th, 2015 the City Council requested a red-lined version of the
changes made to the 2005 General Plan. Instead, we received Comparison Tables listing the
corresponding Policies and Strategies between the two versions of the General Plans. As you can see, the
changes between these two documents were extensive.
Since rescinding the December General Plan Amendment was not going to hapRen, several of us met with
the City Staff to go over every line of these Comparison Tables. This consisted·~ meetings, each
averaging 3 hours each, with Rebecca, Pju, Aarti, a member from the Transportation Dept and several
representatives of Better Cupertino. 't fl,t pu/;}r:_.
I want to thank Aarti, Piu, Rebecca and the staff for always being patient with us. Always treating us with
respect and listening to our concerns. This was tremendously tedious work and they worked with us to
come to an agreement on the issues we presented.
I also want to thank Piu for posting this information way in advance of the 3-day requirement so that
people had more time to review the material. We hope this will become a city policy to help both the
public, our commissioners and City Council members be better prepared.
In your Agenda Item #16 packet, Attachment A-entitled Resolution-087 the staff has provided an actual
red-lined (although it's not red) version of the portions of the new General Plan that are being changed.
It is so much more transparent to see this red-lined version when you are reviewing changes.
I'd like to thank the staff for providing this and hope this will also become a city policy for better
transparency and clarity.
We are requesting 2 additional changes regarding Vallco
CHANGE #1 Table LU-1 change "will consider" to "shall remove"
Table LU-1 says "** Buildout totals for Office and Residential
allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a
Specific Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific
Plan is not adopted by that date, City uri11 cnn~idPr thP rPmov::1l nf
shall remove the Office and Residential allocations for Vallco
Shopping District."
CHANGE#2
1) Add this same "**Buildout ... " paragraph to the Land Use Map.
This is the residents understanding of what would be done.
On May 19, 2015, Council reviewed the:
• Final 2014-2022 Housing Element and General Plan for
potential changes to development allocations for
commercial, office and hotel uses, building heights and
building planes; and
• Proposed policy for establishing procedures for
processing General Plan Amendment (GPA) applications.
I+uvv:/t-lb
10/20/2015
1
Included:
• Incorporation of text from 2005 GP to ensure consistency
with goals, policies and strategies in Community Vision
2040
Did not include:
• Revisions to specific policies contemplated and adopted
as part of Community Vision 2040 such as Housing
Element and Vallco Shopping District including heights,
densities and land use designations (except for Mirapath
property),
• Revisions inconsistent with policies/strategies in 2005 GP
•Additions of new policies/strategies not part of 2005 GP
• Reviewed item on September 22, 2015 and took
following actions:
-Voted 5-0 to recommend that City Council adopt resolution to
make text, policy and figure edits
-Vote 4-1 (Lee: no) to recommend that the City Council adopt a
change to the General Plan Land Use map regarding a change to
the land use designation of the Mirapath property
-Vote 4-1 (Lee: no) to recommend that the City Council adopt a
change to the City's Zoning Map regarding the zoning
designation of the Mirapath property
•Comments:
-Agreed with the recommended changes to the policy, text and
figures
-With regard to the Mirapath property, Comm. Lee disagreed due
to concerns regarding preservation of industrial property to
retain industrial services, such as, auto repair etc. within city limits
10/20/2015
2
•Comparison Tables made available June 9, 2015
•Online comments collected through July 31, 2015
•Interested individuals and groups were contacted
to arrange meetings for discussion
-Several meetings held through July, August and
September 2015
• Requesting inclusion of specific 2005 policies
-E.g. Jobs/Housing Balance, View Preservation, Housing Impact (on
schools), Traffic Service and Land Use Development (Level of Service
[LOS] thresholds)
• Wanting to address items outside scope of project
-Amend existing policies -e.g. Change policy on granting additional
height in S. Vallco Park Special Area or wanting additional height in
N. De Anza Special Area
-Proposing additional/new policies
-Proposing to remove policies related to Vallco Shopping District
• Requesting rescission of resolution adopting Community
Vision 2040 in December 2014 including policies related to
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
10/20/2015
3
• Recommendations for re-insertion of language, corrections
and clarifications have been made based on:
-Input received from the meetings,
-Online comments and
-Staff review
• Recommendations do NOT include additions of new
policies or strategies or amendments to heights, densities
or other development regulations (except Mirapath)
•Text Edits in five categories
-Re-insertion of 2005 General Plan text, policies and/or strategies
-Re-organization
-Corrections
-Clarifications
-Internal Consistency
• Figure Edits in two categories
-Clarification/Corrections
-New Figures
• General Plan Land Use Map Edits and Appendix A
-Mirapath property
10/20/2015
4
• Revise document title to "Cupertino General Plan
(Community Vision 2015 -2040)"
• Introduction Chapter -edits to Guiding Principles
• Land Use and Community Design Chapter
-Edits in Hillside Views; Provision of Outdoor Areas; Collaboration with
Business Community
-Re-insert: Multiple-story buildings and Residential Districts;
Jobs/Housing Balance; Library Service;
• Mobility Chapter
-Edits in Regional Transportation Planning; Transportation Impact
Analysis (related to LOS standards); Multi-modal Improvements;
Protected Intersections, Adjacent Land Use; Land Use and Goal 5;
-Re-insert: Suburban Road Improvement Standards and Traffic Calming
• Environmental Resources and Sustainability -
-Edits to Goal ES-3
-Re-insertion: Community Gardens
• Infrastructure
-Edits to Outreach
• Recreation
-Edits to Partnerships and Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths
-Re-insert: Library Service
10/20/2015
5
10/20/2015
• Infrastructure
-Relocate Strategies INF-1.1.3and INF-7.3.2
• Health and Safety
-Relocation of narrative text in Strategy HS-7.4.3
• Land Use and Community Design
-Oaks Gateway Node: Remove office uses
-South De Anza Area Conceptual Plan: Remove reference to
Homestead Road Special Area
-Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas: Complete sentence
-Community Benefits Program: Remove Policy and associated
strategies
•Mobility
-Reduced Travel Demand: Corrected text
6
• Land Use and Community Design
-Street Interface
•Mobility
-Connecting Special Areas and Community Impacts
• Environmental Resources and Sustainability
-Home Occupations and Goal ES-7
• Health and Safety
-Geologic Review and Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials
• Infrastructure
-Operations and Funding
• Land Use and Community Design
-Removal of references to the Community Benefits Program in all
policies/strategies
• Appendix A -Land Use Definitions
-Addition of a new land use category (related to Mirapath)
10/20/2015
7
• Clarifications/Corrections:
-Community Form Diagram (Fig. LU-1 ):
• Boundary correction
• Clarifying density
• Addition of Neighborhoods box
• Re-insertion of 2005 GP language
-Circulation Network (Fig. M-2): Update legend
-Waste Water Service (Fig. INF-1): Clarify where properties may not
connect to Cupertino Sanitary District service and must develop on
septic systems
• New Figures:
-Neighborhood and Special Area Figures: for contextual reference of
existing land uses
-Noise Contour Map (Fig. D-2): provides noise contours for 2040 time
frame
• Include specific agreement language in RPC Element:
-"Maintain and strengthen collaborative agreements and relationships
with the Santa Clara County Library District to ensure progressive
excellence in the facilities, programs, materials and learning services
provided to the diverse and growing Cupertino population."
• If Council wishes to adopt this language, RPC-6.2 could be
amended as follows: (Underline -PC recc. language;
Underline/Italics -new language; &trilwout4talics -remove)
-Policy RPC-6.2: Partnerships. Enhance the city's recreational
programs and library service through partnerships with other
agencies and non-profit organizations. Maintain and strengthen
existing agreements with agencies and non-profit organizations.
including the Library District, to ensure progressive excellence in the
facilities. programs, and services provided to the diverse and growing
Cupertino population. If higher !eve.' of librarv service is desirnd,
cooperatioR with the GovAty ofSaRta Glaca to e><oaRd service aAcJ/or
faci.'ities ma;)/ be required.
10/20/2015
8
• Request from property owner to revise land use and zoning
designation as follows:
~
ML-fa
Industrial/Commercial/Residential P{ML/CG)
-Allows site to be used for commercial office and continue light
manufacturing uses
-Adjacent to existing commercial land use and therefore, compatible
• Recommended by PC in October 2014
• Considered in December 2014 by CC but decision held
• On May 19'h CC directed staff to present proposed changes
at a future meeting
• General Plan Land Use Map Edits:
-Re-categorize existing "Industrial/Residential/Commercial"
designation on land use map to "Industrial/Commercial/Residential"
• Appendix A:
-Since no land use category for "Industrial/Residential/Commercial" in
Appendix A, add updated land use category and definition to
Appendix A (Industrial -primary use; Commercial -secondary use;
Residential -if it supports other uses; or some compatible
combination)
• Recommended by PC on September 22, 2015
10/20/2015
9
• EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA which covered majority
of changes proposed;
• Since proposed changes meet threshold for preparation of an
addendum, an addendum is proposed to be adopted;
• Analysis indicates that proposed changes either fall within
scope of EIR or will not create any new or substantially more
severe significant effects on environment;
• Supplemental Memo prepared by consultant dated Sept. 22,
2015 addressing two maps that were inadvertently left out of
original Addendum dated Sept. 11, 2015. Supplemental memo
indicates that inclusion of these maps do not alter meaning of
GP policies or Zoning Ordinances and are for reference only;
• ERC recommended adoption of Addendum on October 1,
2015
• Upon adoption of the resolution, staff will:
-Ensure typographical errors are corrected
-Incorporate the adopted figures into body of document
-Finalize color scheme with the City color and final layout.
10/20/2015
10
• That the City Council adopt Resolutions:
-Adopt the Addendum to the certified General Plan Amendment,
Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning Environmental
Impact Report (El R), EA-2013-03;
-Adopt Resolution No. 15-087, "A resolution of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino approving a General Plan Amendment to
Community Vision 2040 (General Plan) Policy, Text And Figures
pertaining to citywide issues, and a change to the General Plan land
use map to change the land use designation of one property located
at 10950 N. Blaney Ave from Industrial/Residential to
Industrial/Commercial/Residential," EA-2013-03 and GPA-2015-01,
adopting amendments to Community Vision 2040 (General Plan)
• Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 15-2135, "An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
rezoning a 0. 98 acre parcel from Light Industrial with
Special Development Conditions (ML-fa) to Planned
Development Zoning District with Light Industrial And
Commercial Uses P(ML, CG)," Z-2015-01 (Attachment B)
10/20/2015
11
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Grace Schmidt
Monday, October 19, 2015 11:37 AM
Grace Schmidt
Subject: FW: Please Enact Transportation Impact Fee Before Approving Any New Project
From: Better Cupertino [mailto:bettercupertino@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 9:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please Enact Transportation Impact Fee Before Approving Any New Project
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,
Please enact Transportation Impact Fee to help mitigate accumulated citywide impact created by new
development projects, as specified in the new General Plan, as soon as possible. Please do not approve any new
project until the Transportation Impact Fee is in place.
Policy M-10.1: Transportation Improvement Plan
Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to
meet the City's needs.
Policy M-10.2: Transportation Impact Fee
Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation
Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee
for new development.
Such fee should be imposed on all new projects whether or not an EIR is required. The mitigation measures
suggested in the project-specific EIR normally only mitigate project impacts in the immediate surrounding
areas. But the citywide accumulated impacts are not mitigated. ·
The EIR of 2014 GP A concluded that the traffic condition of Cupertino is "Significant and Unavoidable." The
consultants then presented a long list of mitigation measures to enhance the situation. However, the consultants
did admit that even after all of the :mitigation measures are implemented, the condition would still be
"Significant and Unavoidable."
Given that situation, we cannot afford to sit and do nothing and just watch the condition to become worse with
each project. The EIR already made it clear that it is not possible to even :mitigate the cunent traffic congestion.
However, having a long term transpmiation plan, paid for by Transportation Impact Fee, is better than not doing
anything.
Please consider to start actions to enact the Transportation Impact Fee.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
1
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Grace Schmidt
Monday, October 19, 2015 11:38 AM
Grace Schmidt
FW: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
From: Better Cupertino [mailto:bettercupertino@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 11: 15 PM
To: City Council; David Brandt; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the growing number of
residents. This can be achieved by charging Development Impact Fee, as many other cities have done.
These fees help mitigate the aggregated impact of new development projects on basic city services, like parks,
library, community centers, public safety needs, city staff and facility needs, sewage and water systems. Every
new development should contribute to the Development Impact Fee.
For example, Palo Alto has Development Impact Fee that covers Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public
Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities.
Palo Alto Development Impact fee (incl. Park, Comm Ctr, Public Safety) 8-17-15 .pdf
In addition to the Development Impact Fee, Palo Alto also charges a Transportation Impact Fee as Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee $3,439 per net new PM peak hour trip. (Also specified in the document above)
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the residents. Every new
development, whether or not it requires GP A, should contribute to the Development Impact fee.
Eventually, such impact fee can help fund additional library branches, community centers, police and fire
stations or a new city hall. Other cities have also assessed impact fees for emergency services, sewage and water
systems, etc.
Cupertino should not reply on community benefits (or voluntary cmmnunity amenities) derived from granting
exception for the General Plan to pay for basic city services. Ifwe do, there is some flaw with the city's
financing structure and it should be fixed.
Note that these fees, if adopted, give the Council negotiation power. When necessary, the Council can always
give developers a discount as an incentive to promote a certain type of development in certain areas, as San Jose
has done. And when economy is slow, the Council can also suspend the collection of the fee for a short time at
your discretion.
1
Please consider adopt the Development Impact Fee to truly mitigate the impact of new development projects on
basic city services. With so many projects already built and so many new projects being proposed, Cupertino
desperately need to adopt Development Impact Fee to provide basic city services.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
2
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Grace Schmidt
Monday, October 19, 2015 11:39 AM
Grace Schmidt
FW: Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure
From: Better Cupertino [mailto:bettercupertino@qmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 11 :47 AM
To: City Council; David Brandt; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Plaiming Commissioners,
I have changed the subject line to read "Infrastructure Impact Fee" for clarity, since in some cities
"Development Impact Fee" refers to the mitigation fee for affordable housing.
Why do we need Infrastructure Impact Fee? Why is the BIR not sufficient to mitigate all development impact?
Take the exainple of the EIR for GPA. It tries to estimation the impact of a 30% population growth from 60,000
people to over 90,000.
In the section on "Public Services and Recreation". Every category is reported as "Less Than Significant,"
including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Library Facility Services, Park and Recreation. The reasons used
are either there are already general plan policies or municipal code to ensure a proper level of service or that this
growth will happen incrementally over a 25-year period of time. (See quotes from EIR at the bottom of this
email.)
However, general plan policies or municipal code do not provide funding sources to ensure the level of services
needed. The growth will happen incrementally, but the property tax from growth does not pay for all facilities
needed for increased civil services.
Here is what the current EIR process does. It declares each project as "less thai1 significant" on city services.
After 10 projects, the accumulated impact will eventually become significant. And the next EIR will say this:
"The impact is already 'significant' and it remains 'significant' witl1 this new project. Thus, there is no need to
mitigate the impact." So, as a result, none of the project would need to mitigate the impact on city services.
Then, who will eventually pay to build a new library when the current one is too crowded?
Who will pay to build community centers?
And who will pay for a new city hall? We the taxpayers.
The city needs to plan for the future and make a financial plan for the future.
Not one project at a time. And get a loan for each project.
If any of the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) you have in mind falls into the category
of basic services, like fire, police, library, park, community center, bike path, ... They should be take care of
tlrrough Infrastructure Impact Fee.
Any project which does not need any GP A would also pay their share of Infrastructure Impact Fee.
1
If the developer is willing to offer more beyond the mandatory Infrastructure Impact Fee, that is then considered
community benefits (or voluntary community amenities). Of course, you can always waive Infrastructure
Impact Fee if the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) is beyond the mandatory amount.
Please make a long term investment for the city and a long tenn financial plan.
-----------------------from EIR Section 4.12 Public Services and Recreation------------------
GPA EIR 4.12-8 Fire Protection Service=> Less than significant
"The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate fire protection
services are available for the residents of Cupertino .... Consequently, compliance with the State and local
regulations, in conjunction with confirmation by the SCCFD that facilities, staff, and equipment would be
adequate to accommodate anticipated future growth,. .. "
GPA EIR 4.12-12: Police Protection Service=> Less than significant
"Further, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed Project would significantly increase the degree or
incidence of need for mutual aid from neighboring agencies
because anticipated growth under the General Plan would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year
buildout horizon."
GPA EIR 4.12-24: Library Facility and Services=> Less than significant
"While an overall increase in residents is expected, service growth under the proposed Project would occur
incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon; therefore, potential impacts resulting from increased demand for
library services would not occur in the immediate future."
GPA EIR 4.12-32: Parks and Recreation=> Less than significant
"Overall, the proposed Project would result in development allocation increases throughout the city that would
increase population, and subsequently the demand to parks and recreation facilities throughout the city.
However, because buildout would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon, and future development
would be subject to comply with the Municipal Code Chapters 14.05 and 18.24, and the General Plan policies
listed above that would ensure that future development provide their fair-share of parks to help meet the City's
target of three acres per 1,000 residents, impacts would be less than significant."
----------Fo1warded message----------
From: Better Cupertino <bettercupertino@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015at11:15 PM
Subject: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>,
planning@cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Cupe1iino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the growing number of
residents. This can be achieved by charging Development Impact Fee, as many other cities have done.
These fees help mitigate the aggregated impact of new development projects on basic city services, like parks,
library, community centers, public safety needs, city staff and facility needs, sewage and water systems. Every
new development should contribute to the Development Impact Fee.
For example, Palo Alto has Development Impact Fee that covers Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public
Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities.
2
Palo Alto Development Impact fee (incl. Park, Comm Ctr, Public Safety) 8-17-15 .pdf
In addition to the Development Impact Fee, Palo Alto also charges a Transportation Impact Fee as Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee $3,439 per net new PM peak hour trip. (Also specified in the document above)
Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the residents. Every new
development, whether or not it requires GP A, should contribute to the Development Impact fee.
Eventually, such impact fee can help fund additional library branches, community centers, police and fire
stations or a new city hall. Other cities have also assessed impact fees for emergency services, sewage and water
systems, etc.
Cupertino should not reply on community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) derived from granting
exception for the General Plan to pay for basic city services. Ifwe do, there is some flaw with the city's
financing structure and it should be fixed.
Note that these fees, if adopted, give the Council negotiation power. When necessary, the Council can always
give developers a discount as an incentive to promote a certain type of development in certain areas, as San Jose
has done. And when economy is slow, the Council can also suspend the collection of the fee for a short time at
your discretion.
Please consider adopt the Development Impact Fee to truly mitigate the impact of new development projects on
basic city services. With so many projects already built and so many new projects being proposed, Cupertino
desperately need to adopt Development Impact Fee to provide basic city services.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
3
October 19, 2015
Legacy Partnership Group
19972 Homestead Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
E-Mail: wgongaia@gmail.com
Office of Community Development
City of Cupertino
Attention: Piu Ghosh
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Staff Report Recommendation of Amendments to Para. I, Item C: "Change to the
General Plan Lm1d Use Map" Planning Agenda Date: September 22, 2015 -for
Mirapath Property@ 10950 N. Blaney Avenue, Cupertino
Dear Ms. Ghosh:
As we discussed last Friday on October 16, we are extremely concerned with the staff recommendation
to allow the change of use of the site to include commercial use or a real estate office use.
Please forward a copy of this letter to the City Council expressing our deep concern with allowing an
additional use for this site as the decision to include the "commercial" use will increase the vehicular
traffic with greater parking problems. For more than 17 years, I have been the property owner of the
adjacent commercial parcels and in the past 2 or 3 years since the Mirapath business occupied the
location, we have noticed their parking areas are constantly full. I have witnessed a lot of spill-over
parking onto our parking lots. We have posted courtesy parking violation notices when Mirapath's
employees or customers have used our parking lots. Just last week, Mirapath had a lunch event with a
catering van on October 14 beginning at 10:00 AM until 2:00 PM. Their employees' and patron's
vehicles were parked in our parking lots. A real estate office will definitely cause more parking issues
also.
By allowing this commercial use to be added, this could open the door for more "mixed-use"
possibilities. On June 16, 2015, I met with a planning staff at the counter mid questioned the possibility
of rezoning our 1.6 and .6 acre parcels from commercial to mixed-use. The planner then stated that the
City of Cupertino has placed all such mixed-use possibilities on hold. By allowing the Mirapath parcel
to be rezoned, this will put it in a similar category to "mixed-use". Early on, I recall that the City's
master plan was to convert light industrial land over to residential zoning. !las the City's master plan
specifically changed in this area?
In conclusion, my concern is the increase in vehicular traffic since there is an elementary school nearby
and the lack of adequate parking at Mirapath's location. Mirapath's continued abuse of parking in my
parking lot will result in continued violations of the CVC22658(A) and thus towing of unauthorized
vehicles. We sincerely hope that there will' be more public comments before the City Council allows
this zoning change.
Grace Schmidt
From: Grace Schmidt
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:45 AM
Grace Schmidt
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 18: Provide verbatim minutes as needed for important items
From: Better Cupertino [mailto:bettercupertino@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 6:36 PM
To: City Council; David Brandt
Subject: Agenda Item 18: Provide verbatim minutes as needed for important items
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,
Thank you very much for considering our request for summary minutes for City Council meetings. We
understand that the cost would be too high to provide verbatim minutes, as the Planning Commission's minutes,
for every Council meeting.
However, we respectful request you to provide verbatim minutes on important topics or development
projects or other topics of high interest as needed. This provides. transparency and good governance that the
Brown Act is meant to promote. Also, your constituents can read the minutes and see clearly how you reached
your decision and how you've brought up their concerns in the deliberation process.
We hope that the Council would consider providing verbatim minutes for important development projects or
topics. The cost of providing such verbatim minutes could even be included as a part of the project costs
for these development projects or long-term capitol projects like Vallco project or Civic Center Project.
Compared with the amount of dollars we are paying the consultants to write reports. The amom1t to provide
verbatim minutes is negligible.
The staff report states "The City Clerk's office has used a transcription finn in the past at $60 per hour. Each
hour of meeting time takes three-six hours of transcription time. For an average five hour City Council meeting,
the cost would nm at least $900 per meeting for verbatim minutes."
For example, Mayor Rod said that the seismic engineer explained clearly during July 7, 2015 Council meeting
that the new City Hall is the best option. If a summary minutes or verbatim minutes is available, Mayor Rod can
easily justify the need of a new City Hall since it's readily available in text format. Had a summary minutes is
available, one can do text search and easily locate it.
Take a look at the meeting minutes of July 7. 2015 Council meeting when Civic Center Master Plan was
approved. Can you understand why the Council approved the new City Hall? What seismic problem is there?
Can you even find out what's the cost of the project?
The meeting minutes of Planning Commission has always been pretty detailed. For example, in the minutes of
Oct. 20, 014 Planning Commission meeting, you can read it easily to know what each Commissioner said to
support or oppose office or residential allocation at Vallco. There is a short summary for each speaker who
spoke during Oral Communication or on an agenda item. There is also a summary of staff report, consultant
1
reports, questions to consultants or staff and their answers. Furthennore, one can easily do a word search of
Valko and get to the discussion on Valko.
The Council made an unconditional commitment to "transparency, good governance and compliance with the
Brown Act." The first step is to provide a summary or verbatim minutes for City Council meetings in the same
amount of detail as the minutes of Planning Commission meetings.
If such verbatim minutes is provided only for important meetings, either at the request of Council or residents or
Commissioners, the cost will
not be so high. Compared with the cost of non-transparent government process, the anxiety it creates among
residents not knowing how a decision is derived or what a consultant said to justify the decision and the hours
many concerned residents or even staff need to search through the videos, the cost of a few hundred dollars for
important issues that have long tenn effect on the future of Cupetiino is not so high.
The cost is negligible especially when it's compared with the large amount we are paying the consultants to
write the reports and the amount we are paying them to appear in Council meetings to present and answer
questions. What's the use of paying hundreds of thousands dollars to hire consultants to write reports
when we cannot even pay $900 extra to get a verbatin minutes to provide residents a clear picture of what
transpired in a Council meeting?
We hope that the Council would consider providing verbatim minutes for important development proj eels or
loug-term capitol projects or other projects of high interest. The cost of providing such verbatim minutes could
even be included as a part of the project costs for these development projects or long-term capitol projects like
Civic Center Project.
Sincerely,
BetterCupertino
2
Grace Schmidt
From:
Sent:
To:
Grace Schmidt
Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:57 PM
Grace Schmidt
Subject: FW: New Policies for Safe Schools Despite of SB 50
From: Better Cupertino [mailto:bettercupertino@qmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 3:14 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: board@cusdk8.org; School Board@fuhsd.org
Subject: New Policies for Safe Schools Despite of SB 50
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Policies to consider school impact before a development project is approved were simply removed due to SB 50
in the new General Plan. There was no attempt to rephrase the policies to comply with the law, but still consider
other aspects of school impacts.
SB 50 still allows traffic, air quality, noise and other environment factors to be considered around schools
as a condition of approval on projects. New policies should be put in place to ensure a minimum level of
standards for these environmental factors when a development project is considered and especially when
GPA is considered to increase the building density and intensity.
New policies should be put in place to ensure that development projects provide more than sufficient
traffic mitigation measures to improve traffic condition not only around school, but also all routes leading to
schools for either biking, walking, driving or shuttling. It is not sufficient to leave it up to the Environment
Impact Report to protect the environment around schools.
SB 50 should not be used as an excuse to ignore impacts on schools. The City should be proactive and introduce
new policies that both comply with SB 50 and protect schools from negative impacts created by new
development projects.
Perhaps, a special School Traffic Fee could be created to cover the expenses to provide safe routes for schools
for all modes of transportation. Such fee could cover:
-bike paths around schools and paths from various parts of the attendance area to schools.
-pedestrian sidewalk enhancement for safer routes.
-speed limit meters to show drivers their cun-ent driving speed to promote safer speed around schools and
routes to schools.
-signaled side walk to raise awareness of pedestrian sidewalks.
-traffic lights around schools that are activated only during school rush hours.
-funding for school buses for those who live further away from schools.
-bus pull off area so that school buses do not block the traffic.
-And fund a garbage pickup program modification so that garbage cans do not block bike paths. Either
pay an extra driver or designate a special area on the sidewalk for cans.
Regards,
1
BetterCupertino
2