Loading...
Exhibit CC 03-31-2016 Item #2 Written Communications cc 3/31/2016 az Take a Stand Against CCSGI Now CCSGI Becomes Yours • If CCSGI is approved it becomes law and the City must enforce it • If there is a lawsuit to remove retail space or add retail space at Vallco, the suit will be against the City • If there is a lawsuit to build, or stop a 45 foot building in a neighborhood, the City will be the defendant • If there is a lawsuit because no CEQA study was done at Homestead Lanes it will be against the City 1 3/31/2016 Across the Street from My House - 3 Story House t . Valico Needs Change • CCSGI Freezes Valico as is — no office, no mixed use, no apartments, no housing, no reduction in retail space, no increase in retail space 2 3/31/2016 Can't Remove a Square Foot from Vallco or Add One — Is this What We are Preserving? .n •1'''. Itill - I - ::Iilt{ //111' , ,,,, W Y M _ • , 4.1! _t - -- I SEI_ ,• 1 161�'y ��7 �i� — — Mi i.; I if) s• _.ao Can't Do This Anymore ...-. .t.. r.. .. ....may .1 1 34:Ns, -Is ., ,. ...„.„..._ - .--...,..„...„,:„..:. ---„,-,...,,,... . • • ..„-: .. . Zc,. ,.... ... ,.. . , \ ........ , „ .....:.. . or w fi ., i.\ t kir k ..Y . , 1 E r - ,.,,,.,•, i ti � ' -mo'-� ♦ .... F-, .. r t t ......--,:,,,. .7,---,.2,---_,,,,-.., Yt cp r 1, h,iii 3 3/31/2016 Retailers Like Mixed Use a„loatatra MAIM, }IOa"1\l E\KL\'snE6 T0: + CUBE?TOMO t9.:a35�t.e,.CA 9,014•(438)2E7 62000 rC.. �MAIra on,,NG sefuNG2016 ' • CurEa .. i 43• 14 r11C" 40— • From CCSGI s Impact Analysis • It will reduce revenues to our community by $47 Million • It will reduce funding to our schools by $1.6 Million • It will reduce funding to parks by $3.15M • It will eliminate the High School innovation center • It will eliminate a new elementary school • It will prevent the conversion of portable classrooms to real classrooms • All to prevent 57 kids from joining our school districts— are you kidding? 3/31/2016 Thanks ! 5 �C 36/ (ac, To City of Cupertino City Council From: Cathy Helgerson Subject: Special Meeting Proposed Initiative File 16-1556 and Election Code Section 9212 File 16-1570 I would like to mention that the Cupertino Courier printed and article under opinions regarding the Vallco Town Center Special Plan Initiative proposed by the owners and developers which was extremely bias and in error. In all fairness the same considerations should have been given to the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative to state their case next to the article that was printed but it was not considered by the Courier I would like to know why not? I would like to ask the Council to adopt the CCSGI Initiative in which case this would save the City time and money the public has made their concerns evident. If there is no other way to make the publics demands heard then putting the Initiative on the ballot to be voted on will be Government of the People in action. My concern under Item 2 Resolution No. 16-029 Recommended Action has alarmed me because it stated that there is a question whether to direct the City Clerk to transmit the Initiative to the City Attorney for preparation of an Impartial Analysis and whether to authorize City Council members,or the Council as a whole,to submit ballot arguments against the Initiative. If in this case this is considered I think it is time to leave the decisions up to the public and the measure put on the ballot not sure about this Impartial Analysis who determines what is Impartial?What is this about the City Council members or the Council as a whole,to submit ballot arguments against the Initiative again what is going on here in all fairness I have to ask you? I am in favor of Recommended Action 1 a.Adopt the Initiative and or b.Adopt Resolution No. 16-028 ordering that the Initiative be placed on the Ballot for the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election, to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election. Item 3 Resolution No. 16-030 considering whether to authorize rebuttal arguments for and against the Initiative who decides what information is authorized in all fairness the publics concerns should be addressed. I would like to see a fair election in all regards and hope that the publics views are finally addressed. Thank you Lauren Sapudar CC SJi Ii(v 14<m112— From: +cmLZFrom: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:03 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative From: hhknoesel©gmail.com [mailto: On Behalf Of Herbert Knoesel Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:56 PM To: City Council Subject: I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative I am very much in favor of the "Hills of Cupertino". If this is going to be realized, Cupertino will have an identity - finally. We elect our representatives to manage our city in all aspects according to the current laws. And I am very pleased, how well the city of Cupertino is managed. Therefore I don't understand why the CCSGI initiative should be put on the November ballot. Why should the citizens make the decisions the city council members should make? Didn't we elect the city council members to do their job? I believe, the council members want always the best for all of Cupertino and have the resources to figure out the details. In contrast, the average voter lives more in the present (some in the past) and cannot imagine how a certain decision will fit into the overall picture in the future. I am against putting the CCSGI initiative on the November ballot. Herbert Knoesel Cupertino resident since 1986 Lauren Sapudar 1114 i le yv, N.. Z From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:02 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative -----Original Message---- From:Sabrina Rizk[mailto: Sent:Tuesday,March 29,2016 9:15 PM To:City Council Subject:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative Dear Council Members, I reluctantly went to Vallco to shop at Howard's Shoes for Kids,but disliked the experience every time. I'm glad to see that Howard's has moved to Main Street and have already been to their new location.I also try to avoid the AMC at Vallco because if its awfully designed parking lot and lack of desirable restaurants within the mall.I think the building is a monstrosity and out of date on many levels,including environmental. My view is that simply re-tenanting Vallco will not address the many concerns I have about it,nor will it meet the desires expressed by the community over the past several years for something better than what's there now. I am also opposed to increasing the heights in neighborhoods from 30 to 45 ft.While this may spread development throughout the city,I do not think it is something many of our two-lane streets could support.I also think it would be harder to implement some form of mass/shared transit if development is spread too thinly. From a governing perspective, I think initiatives are a terrible solution to address the concerns that prompted them in the first place.In my view,initiatives interfere with due process,just like this one did.It is for these reasons that I am asking Council to oppose the CCSG Initiative. Sincerely, Sabrina Rizk Cupertino Resident 1 Lauren Sapudar CC 3131)167 I ICA4 Mo . From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:01 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative From: albert liu [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:37 PM To: City Council Subject: I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative The CCSG Initiative will kill not only a new revitalized Vallco but also the prosperity of Cupertino itself. I don't have an issue of voicing opposition as CCSG does, but to let a minority group dictate its wants to deter the benefits for the majority is ridiculous and unconstitutional. Albert Liu Cupertino, CA 95014 1 et. 31'2,1 1)L, From: Toni Oasav-Anderson To: City Clerk Subject: RN: I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative Date: Thursday,March 31,2016 8:02:49 AM From: Ravi Kumar [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:58 PM To: City Council Subject: I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative Ravi Kumar Mobile- Cc312A1I 2 From: Toni Oasav-Anderson To: City Clerk Subject: FW:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative Date: Thursday,March 31,2016 8:01:36 AM Original Message From:Jim kung[mailto: Sent:Wednesday,March 30,2016 5:43 PM To:City Council Subject:I Request the City Council Oppose the CCSG Initiative Jim Kung Sent from my iPhone CC Hec N° Z March 31 , 2016 Dear City Council, After reading the 9212 Report for CCSGI, I see many flaws in their Initiative. But I want to especially focus on the section about neighborhoods. In the 9212 report on page 24, it states that this provision increases the heights from 30 feet to 45 feet. Increasing the heights in our neighborhoods will ruin the character of our community. I accept the 9212 report and reject the CCSGI Initiative. "Perhaps the most significant of the Initiative's amendments regarding standards is the provision in the proposed new Policy LU- 3.0 that increases maximum building heights for the bulk of the City. Specifically, the second sentence of this Policy (on page 5 of the initiative) provides that "[o]utside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1 , building heights may not exceed 45 feet."The only areas of the City that are "outside of the Special Areas" are the City's Neighborhoods, which comprise approximately three-quarters of the City's land area. Both the adopted General Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance establish a maximum height limit of 30 feet (or less) for the Neighborhoods. Accordingly, this provision of the Initiative increases the maximum height limit in Neighborhoods by fifty percent (50%) from 30 feet to 45 feet." I approve ordering a 9212 for the Vallco Initiative which is such an important study. Donna Austin Cupertino Resident Lauren Sapudar G�. "I 3 Iw ) - I `x Subject: FW: The Hills at Vallco From: sean devaney [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:34 PM To: City Council Subject: The Hills at Vallco To Whom It May Concern, I oppose any development at Vallco that does not include more affordable housing. We can not continue to retail and industry in Cupertino without providing more housing for all the new jobs created. Without housing traffic will just get worse and worse. We also need a new schoo; or two for the children of the workers. Thanks, Sean Devaney Lauren Sapudar CC 3)S If i )k No. 2_ Subject: FW: CCSGI would not raise building height anywhere in the city From: Liang C [mailto: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:30 PM To: City Council Subject: Re: CCSGI would not raise building height anywhere in the city Perhaps,this is an easier explanation on comformity: CCSGI: "building heights may not exceed 45 feet." Municipal Code: "Total principal building height-28 feet,no more than two stories." The Municipal Code conforms with CCSGI.So,there is no need to change the Municipal Code after CCSGI is adopted. "Conform"=whether it complies with the rule. "building height-28 feet"complies with"building heights may not exceed 45 feet." Thus,no change. On Thu,Mar 31,2016 at 2:18 PM,Liang C< wrote: Additional info: In municipal code 19.28 for RI -max height 28ft, 19.28.070 J I =>28 feet, R3-19.36.070 B=>30 feet.All no more than 2 stories. On Thu,Mar 31,2016 at 2:00 PM,Liang C< wrote: Dear Mayor Chang and Councilmembers, I hope that the Council would not present misinformation to mislead the public intentionally or not. The Council has the best respect of the community. CCSGI doesn't raise building height anywhere in the city. And it is impossible for RI zoning to have 4 story or 5 story buildings since it violates RI zoning code. Municipal Code Section 19.28.SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONES.The height limit there already conforms with CCSGI.Thus, Municipal Code Section 19.28. Section J. Maximum height- I. Total principal building height-28 feet,no more than two stories. This height limit conforms to CCSGI's requirement"may not exceed 45 feet"and there is no need to change.Besides,there is a limit of 2 stories that that's not ouched by CCSGI.No arguments there. want to point out that the City Attorney did not mention the increase in the Title and Summary of CCSGI,which is the only legal description of CCSGI.Until he City Attorney issues a formal statement to amend the Title and Summary or admits the omission in the Title and Summary,the claim that CCSGI would ncrease building height in residential neighborhoods should be regarded as false. I hope that the Council has the wisdom and integrity to not help to spread alse information. sere is the policy in CCSGI regarding building height: "Policy LU-3.0:Community Form The maximum heights and densities for the special areas shown in the Community Form Diagram(Figure LU-1)shall not be exceeded. Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet." )nce CCSGI is adopted, all specific plans and municipal code need to be amended to conform with CCSGI. For any area with an existing limit of uilding height of 30 feet, it already conforms with "may not exceed 45 feet".Therefore,there is no change needed. .nyone with a basic understanding of the function of the General Plan should know that.The General Plan specifies certain constraints.As long ther plans fall within that constraints,they are conforming.There is no need to amend all other plans to use the exact same constraints pecified in the General Plan. incerely, iang Chao 1 Lauren Sapudar CC Si 1/61", L From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 5:11 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: CCSGI would not raise building height anywhere in the city From: Liang C [mailto: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:00 PM To: City Council Subject: CCSGI would not raise building height anywhere in the city Dear Mayor Chang and Councilmembers, I hope that the Council would not present misinformation to mislead the public intentionally or not. The Council has the best respect of the community. CCSGI doesn't raise building height anywhere in the city. And it is impossible for RI zoning to have 4 story or 5 story buildings since it violates R1 zoning code. Municipal Code Section 19.28. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONES. The height limit there already conforms with CCSGI. Thus, Municipal Code Section 19.28. Section J. Maximum height - 1. Total principal building height - 28 feet, no more than two stories. This height limit conforms to CCSGI's requirement "may not exceed 45 feet" and there is no need to change. Besides, there is a limit of 2 stories that that's not touched by CCSGI. No arguments there. I want to point out that the City Attorney did not mention the increase in the Title and Summary of CCSGI, which is the only legal description of CCSGI. Until the City Attorney issues a formal statement to amend the Title and Summary or admits the omission in the Title and Summary, the claim that CCSGI would increase building height in residential neighborhoods should be regarded as false. I hope that the Council has the wisdom and integrity to not help to spread false information. Here is the policy in CCSGI regarding building height: "Policy LU-3.0: Community Form The maximum heights and densities for the special areas shown in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1) shall not be exceeded. Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet." Once CCSGI is adopted, all specific plans and municipal code need to be amended to conform with CCSGI. For any area with an existing limit of building height of 30 feet, it already conforms with "may not exceed 45 feet". Therefore, there is no change needed. Anyone with a basic understanding of the function of the General Plan should know that. The General Plan specifies certain constraints. As long other plans fall within that constraints, they are conforming. There is no need to amend all other plans to use the exact same constraints specified in the General Plan. Sincerely, Liang Chao