Exhibit CC 08-01-2017 Item No. 16C - Written Communications - The Oaks Shopping Center PLEASE ENTER THIS LETTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
July 26, 2017
Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA application
for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals ignore our General Plan, and would increase the
already terrible traffic congestion in this area and add more high density to our City.
I would like to submit an idea that would be a true enhancement to Cupertino. I respectfully ask our City
Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the Oaks property and add it to Memorial
Park. Something similar was done when the City purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is
located. A friend, who lived behind that property at that time, told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.
The citizens of Cupertino objected, and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center.
I have spoken to many friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial
Park, and posted the idea on NextDoor. There is much enthusiasm for this idea, both from NextDoor
responses as well as people I have spoken to personally. Cupertino could use more park and open space,
and this is great opportunity to add The Oaks acreage to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area.
The Oaks location would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events, with adequate
parking, which is not available near the current amphitheater(the existing open plaza possibly could be
incorporated into amphitheater usage). There would be capacity for an Arts and Crafts building, perhaps a
small performing arts theater, more space for children, teen and senior activities, and much more. Some of
the existing buildings could be converted for the usage mentioned above. Cupertino could then have a
recreation area similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center. The existing Memorial Park could be planted with
more trees, walking paths, and shaded areas for people to sit and enjoy the outdoors.
I feel we should keep and enhance as much greenery and recreation opportunities as possible in our City.
We don't have many parks for our growing population, and if this land becomes high density, it will never
become green again. This idea could provide a place for everyone in our community to enjoy, and a star
attraction in Cupertino.
Thank you for considering what many of us in Cupertino would like to see in our City—a place of serenity
and for community activities instead of more density and traffic problems.
Sincerely,
Q4"^-e—
Suzanne a'Becket
SPRINKLER FITTERS AND APPRENTICES
Stanley M. Smith LOCAL 483 Dylan M. Boldt
Business Manager Tony Rodriguez
OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS,
PIPEFITTERS AND SPRINKLER FITTERS OF THE Dan Torres
UNITED STATES AND CANADA AFL-CIO Business Agents
Jeffrey M. Dixon
John Medina Bill Bourgeois
Organizers Market Development
July 28, 2017 Representative
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: OPPOSE KT Urban General Plan Amendment-The Oaks
Dear Mayor and City Council,
On behalf of the over fifty Cupertino families that are members of SMART Local 104,UA Local
393, IBEW Local 332 and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 we are asking that the City Council deny
KT Urban's General Plan Amendment request for The Oaks development project.
Last year,KT Urban attempted to make an end run around the City Council's decision to deny a
similar application.As you recall,KT Urban failed in their attempt to place an initiative on the
ballot that would have overturned the Council's well-reasoned rejection of their previous
application.
On August 1,2017 the proposed project will be before you for consideration,we believe that you
should reject this iteration of their project. The Mayor and Council should also be concerned
about trusting this developer to do what is in the best interests of all Cupertino residents. They
have a track record of seeking profits for themselves at the expense of shortchanging their
workers and the communities they develop in.
For instance, KT Urban continues to be associated with a sub-contractor, Iron Mechanical that
has been accused of wage theft and has been forced to pay impacted workers who were not
paid for work performed as a result of lawsuits filed against it. Ken Tersini, President of KI'
Urban, has stated his strong support for Iron Mechanical in a February 5th, 2016 letter "In
fact, Iron Mechanical has recently been awarded a contract to perform the HVAC and Hydronics
work on the Silvery Tomer's project. "
Hundreds of local construction workers have been employed and paid below the area standard on
KT Urban projects. Local construction workers are the backbone of our middle class and they
need elected officials such as yourself to step up for them and stand up to greedy developers such
as KTUrban.
Recent news stories have revealed how KT Urban's Silvery Towers Project is utilizing the EB-5
Visa program to finance this project. That Visa program has been under increasing scrutiny for
abuse and mismanagement.
2525 Barrington Court • Hayward, California 94545
Telephone (510) 785-8483 • Fax (510) 785-8508
www.sprinklerfitters483.org
No commitment to hire local workers and pay them the area standard wage. No commitment
to support apprenticeship programs for Cupertino youth to have an additional pathway to a
middle- class career. Potentially shady financing of this project and the potential use of
contractors with a sordid history of wage theft. These are important issues that impact all of
Cupertino. Couple these issues with the many land use inconsistencies with your General Plan
and the wisest course of action is to reject KT Urban's application for The Oaks.
Since; ly,
Stan Smit A Local 483 Business Manager
CC: Dan Rodriguez, IBEW Local 332, Business Manager
Rudy Carrasco, UA Local 393 Assistant Business Manager
Rick Werner, SMART Local 104 Business Manager
9
CC 08/01/2017 Item No. 16C
r
From: Thorisa Yap [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 4:46 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Wesport Cupertino project
CityClerk at Cupertino city Hall
I support the Westport Cupertino project and thank you for your consideration.
Yours,
Thorisa Yap
From: Wilson Yap [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 4:44 PM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk;City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Mayor and the Cupertino Council,
I am in support of the Westport Cupertino project.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Regards,
Wilson Yap
From: Dee Marik(mailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31, 2017 11:16 AM
To:Steffanie Turini<steffaniet@cupertino.org>; Laura D Lee<LauraL@cupertino.org>
Subject:Outrage at city council meeting conflict with NNO
Hi Steffanie and Laura,
I don't easily get angered by things. However,
I am outraged that the city would schedule an important community meeting
at the same time as many of us have block parties planned for NNO. The City Council meeting
tonight,I believe,is to feature some discussion about development proposals regarding the Oaks
Shopping Center. This topic is of high interest to many of us and our neighborhoods. However,
their holding this meeting at the same time as NNO block activities is disrespectful of the Block
Leaders and Neighborhood Watch leaders and the respective programs and city leaders. It also
conveniently eliminates us(Block Leaders/NW Leaders are,in fact,community leaders who are
active,have strong opinions,and are not afraid to voice them) from the conversation as it takes
place.
If you agree,and are willing to feed this back to the city manager and city council,I would
appreciate it. Coming from you as leaders of these programs will carry more weight than a single
email from one Block Leader voice.
Thanks for listening.
--Dee
I
i
i
To Cupertino City Council Members: (�
As 49 year residents of Cupertino we strongly oppose the Oaks Redevelopment Plan in its present
form. In its amendment to the Master Plan it totally polarizes the character of Cupertino and the
deviation seems to result in significant excess(bang for the buck).
1. The present plan eliminates the overflow parking on Mary Avenue which accommodates civic
events at Memorial Park,De Anza college events and the De Anza Flea Market which have been
traditions that go back to the park's inception.
2. The trafic bottleneck at Stevens Creek and Mary will force drivers to reroute their point of
destination through nearby residential streets creating the potential for excessive traffic.
3. There seems to be a significant imbalance in the retail space versus the proposed office,hotel
and residential space.
4. 88 foot high structures would decimate the aesthetic character of Cupertino as we now know it
and the congestion would be intolerable.
The frequency of amending the Cupertino General Plan to accommodate major developers has
skewed the priorities of the city in their favor instead of the city residents. That certainly has not
been the case in our neighboring cities of Los Altos, Saratoga,and Los Gatos.
Irvin and Mary Webster
From: Liana Crabtree [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 3:31 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan;Darcy Paul;Barry Chang; Steven Scharf;Rod Sinks
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Reject Piecemeal Changes to the General Plan,Council Meeting Agenda Item 16,
8/1/2017
Dear Mayor Viadhyanathan,Vice Mayor Paul,and Council Members Chang,Scharf,and Sinks:
Please add my comments to the public record for the 8/l/2017City Council meeting agenda item
16: "Consider whether to authorize the formal submission of General Plan Amendment
applications for the three proposals received in the 2017 Second Cycle,including: 16A-Hotel at
Cupertino Village site; 16B-Hotel at Good Year Tire store site;and 16C-Mixed-use
development at Oaks Shopping Center".
I urge you to vote NO on the piecemeal General Plan amendment authorizations before you this
evening.Hotel allocations,land use authorizations,and density maximums must be considered
with city-and region-wide needs and resource and infrastructure limitations in mind.
Consider that piecemeal changes to the General Plan,such as the ones you are considering
tonight,were divisive in 2014(when density and land use changes were approved at the Vallco
Shopping District site despite strong resident opposition),and they remain divisive today.While
you have the power to approve amendment authorizations that undermine the General Plan and
thwart thoughtful,city-wide planning,you do not have the power to transform those
authorizations into project approvals that a majority of residents will abide.
As Cupertino residents have demonstrated successfully in the past,we are paying attention,and
we have the wherewithal to undo approved project proposals and absurdly well-funded ballot
measures.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
From: Lisa Warren rmailto:
Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 4:24 PM
To: City Clerk; Savita Vaidhyanathan;Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf;Rod Sinks
Subject: GPA Authorization Comments-For the Record-August 1,2017 City Council meeting
Mayor and City Council members,
This will come as no surprise to you,but I am sending this email so the input will become part of
public record for this subject and specific council meeting(Aug 1,2017).
Please consider this message as a recording of my request that you deny the KT Urban plan(s) -
both alternative 1 and 2-as submitted during the general plan authorization process. The project
referred to as'Westport' (aka The Oaks) should not be authorized for formal submission of GPA.
There are many,and varied,reasons that I make this statement.
The reason that encompasses so very many of the flaws in this proposal is the pure and enormous
lack of respect for the City of Cupertino's General Plan.
This process,and developer plans such as the two that the Tersini brothers are bringing forth
tonight are a perfect example of why the City and all residents'lost'when Measure C 2016 did
not pass. Measure C was a document created by the initiatives authors to protect our city's
General PLAN and future-and was made necessary when questionable actions were taken by
those who voting residents put in a place of'power'.
You will,no doubt,hear many opinions on both sides of this issue,and perhaps to some extent
the other GPA Authorizations being reviewed tonight. Four out of the five of you have already
seen and weighed in on a very similar proposal in 2016. 1 urge all of you to vote to deny
authorization of KT Urban's Westport project in any form. They appear to be deaf.
Respectfully,
Lisa Warren
From: Yan Yu [mailto:
Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 3:57 PM
To: Barry Chang
Subject:NO to overly dense OAKS development
I
I
Dear Council Member Chang,
As a cupertino resident,I respectfully ask you to recuse yourself from voting on KT Urban's
application for a General Plan Amendment for the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping Center
on August 1 st.
It's widely known that you once accepted campaign donations from a developer with multiple
properties in Cupertino.I believe it creates an appearance of conflict of interest.While it is legal
for you to accept donations from whomever you choose,many residents without discretionary
funds to donate thousands of dollars to local politicians worry a quid pro quo relationship exists
between you and the developer KT Urban. It is the campaign donations you accepted from KT
Urban principals that is the source of the residents' concerns.
Because of those campaign donations,you are in a bind with the Oaks Shopping Center/Westport
Cupertino project.
A vote in favor reinforces the belief in a quid pro quo relationship between you and the developer
because today's Westport alternatives 1 and 2 preserve the density from the failed Oaks project
proposal that failed in 2016.Today's alternatives are only a little bit different from the 2016
proposal.A vote against aligns your position with a majority of residents and will help create a
positive legacy you can be proud of,and that the people of Cupertino will remember you fondly
for.
Please consider recusing yourself from the decision affecting the Oaks Shopping Center/Westport
General Plan amendment. I hope this letter can be enclosed in the public record.
Sincerely yours,
Yan
From: Robert Garten fmailto:
Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 3:54 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan;Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf;Barry Chang; Darcy Paul
Subject:The KT Urban Proposals for the Oaks
Ifonorable City Council Members:
We strongly urge you to reject both of the proposals by KT Urban for the Oaks.
We are not against upgrading the Oaks within the General Plan guidelines.
The KT Urban proposals are significant violations of the General Plan guidelines.
A 7 story building along with the high density proposed does not fit with the local area character
around the Oaks.
The potential traffic problems that would result from the KT Urban proposals would create a
nightmare for local residents and those using the Senior Center.
The KT Urban proposals are little changed from the one that was rejected last year by a 4-1 City
Council vote.
What has changed that would cause City Council members to vote differently this time?
There has been little or no opposition to the proposed developments in the Marina Food area
because the developers have sought to comply with the General Plan and retain the surrounding
local character of the area.
So please represent us and vote against moving forward with the KT Urban proposals
Please do not provide them with exceptions to the General Plan that allows excessive building
heights and density.
Please ask KT Urban to come back with a plan that conforms to the General Plan requirements
and retains the local area character.
We ask you to represent the citizens who elected you and not the developers who seek to profit
excessively from exceptions they are requesting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn and Robert Garten
From: Yan Yu [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 3:54 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan
Subject: Please vote NO to overly dense OAKS development plan
Dear Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan,
I started to get involved in our community over the past 18 months due to the way things are
going in our community.
I am very concerned how the overly dense development plan is going to negatively impact our
home and community.
I still vividly recall one morning in late 2016.A fire truck tried to get through a typical jammed
Steven Creek near 280/85 exit,exactly where the Oaks is located.The street is so jammed that the
traffic almost totally stopped. It took a fire truck with the siren on almost 10 minutes to get
through half a mile on Steven Creek from Stelling to Bubb road.
Everybody is proud of the fact you became our first mayor of Indian descent. So far,you have
conducted yourself in high esteem that is making entire south asian community to stand tall.
Please continue to carry the torch on our behalf.
On the OAKS GPA agenda item coming up on Aug 1 st,it is public information that KT Urban
contributed$5,000 for your campaign. I know when people run for office,it is common practice
to accept donations from all sources as people seldom pick and choose who to accept donations
from.Moreover,there was no reason for you not to accept their campaign donation as they are
not any blacklisted enterprise.
Given this well known public information [Thanks to more informed community],you may want
to think about how you approach this agenda item. If you vote in favor of the GPA request,it
would appear optically that their donations had something to do with it; even if that is not the case
as you have demonstrated in the past by voting down their request in 2016.If you vote against
their request,it highly reinforces the confidence our community has in you as a person of
integrity that is not swayed by donations.
I also noticed Scott Herhold's article in San Jose mercury news that you wrote a strong letter to
San Jose officials asking them to respect Cupertino's 45 feet height limit; once again you showed
that you are with us;thanks for doing that. It would look odd for you to ask San Jose to honor
Cupertino's 45 feet heigh limit and turn around to approve 88 feet tall buildings within Cupertino.
I would hate to see Scott Herhold writing about it.
http://www.mereurynews.com/2017/07/27/border-war-san.Jose-and-Cupertino/
Please consider my request to stand tall and vote against OAKs/Westport GPA request.
Thanks
Yours Sincerely
Yan Yu
Cupertino Resident
From: `mailto: Sent:Tuesday,August
O1,2017 2:58 PM To: svaidhyanathon(a�cgpertino.org;Darcy Paul; Barry Chang;Rod Sinks;
i
I
Steven Scharf Cc: Iry and Mary Webster Subject:Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Oaks
Shopping Center to be covered at the August 1 st City Council Meeting
To Cupertino City Council Members:
As 49 year residents of Cupertino we strongly oppose the Oaks Redevelopment Plan in its present
form. In its amendment to the Master Plan it totally polarizes the character of Cupertino and the
deviation seems to result in significant excess(bang for the buck).
1. The present plan eliminates the overflow parking on Mary Avenue which accommodates civic
events at Memorial Park,De Anza college events and the De Anza Flea Market which have been
traditions that go back to the park's inception.
2. The trafic bottleneck at Stevens Creek and Mary will force drivers to reroute their point of
destination through nearby residential streets creating the potential for excessive traffic.
3. There seems to be a significant imbalance in the retail space versus the proposed office,hotel
and residential space.
4. 88 foot high structures would decimate the aesthetic character of Cupertino as we now know it
and the congestion would be intolerable.
The frequency of amending the Cupertino General Plan to accommodate major developers has
skewed the priorities of the city in their favor instead of the city residents. That certainly has not
been the case in our neighboring cities of Los Altos, Saratoga,and Los Gatos.
Irvin and Mary Webster
From: Liana Crabtree fmailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 3:31
PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan;Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf;Rod Sinks Cc: City
Clerk Subject: Reject Piecemeal Changes to the General Plan,Council Meeting Agenda Item 16,
8/1/2017
Dear Mayor Viadhyanathan,Vice Mayor Paul,and Council Members Chang, Scharf,and Sinks:
Please add my comments to the public record for the 8/1/2017City Council meeting agenda item
16: "Consider whether to authorize the formal submission of General Plan Amendment
applications for the three proposals received in the 2017 Second Cycle,including: 16A-Hotel at
Cupertino Village site; 16B-Hotel at Good Year Tire store site; and 16C-Mixed-use
development at Oaks Shopping Center". I urge you to vote NO on the piecemeal General Plan
amendment authorizations before you this evening.Hotel allocations,land use authorizations,and
density maximums must be considered with city-and region-wide needs and resource and
infrastructure limitations in mind. Consider that piecemeal changes to the General Plan,such as
the ones you are considering tonight,were divisive in 2014(when density and land use changes
were approved at the Vallco Shopping District site despite strong resident opposition), and they
remain divisive today.While you have the power to approve amendment authorizations that
undermine the General Plan and thwart thoughtful,city-wide planning,you do not have the power
to transform those authorizations into project approvals that a majority of residents will abide.
As Cupertino residents have demonstrated successfully in the past,we are paying attention,and
we have the wherewithal to undo approved project proposals and absurdly well-funded ballot
measures. Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident
From: John McGuigan[mailto; Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:40
PM To: City Council Cc:John McGuigan Subject:Please DENY KT Urban's Plan for the
Oaks...
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
I don't want Cupertino to become another Los Gatos,where one can't back out of one's driveway
because of the traffic!
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential, and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
I don't believe there has been a lane of freeway build in the South Bay since the 1980s! For KT
Urban and other developers who wish to build massive condo complexes,consider working with
nearby cities to build an"Infrastructure Fund",say$500K+per living unit,to double deck HW
85,280 and 101!!!
Regards,
John McGuigan....
From: Lia Longo [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:38 PM To:
City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Please Vote Yes on
Westport Cupertino
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang,
As a Cupertino resident I strongly support the revitalization of the Oaks and request that you vote
"Yes"tonight so KT Urban can move forward with the City and Community to determine the
optimum use for the property for now and decades to come.
I live at Cupertino. I have lived here for almost two years and think
that Cupertino is a great city and believe that the development of this site would only improve the
city.The current Oaks Shopping Center is in a state of disrepair and I urge you to take action and
consider the need for new stores,restaurants on the West Side of the city.
Please include this message as part of the public record.
i
I
I
I
Best regards,
Lia Longo
i
From: Mark Burns [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:54 AM
To: City Council Subject: Westport Cupertino j
i
Please include this message as part of the public record
Madame Mayor and Honorable City Council Members;
If I read the resolution correctly(Attachment A in the agenda packet);it means an affirmative
vote by the Council allows the GPA regarding The Oaks to be further studied and discussed.
Please vote yes to further study this issue:
(From Resolution NO. 17)
WHEREAS,the City Council decision to authorize one or more applicants to proceed with a
General Plan amendment application,does not in any way presume approval of any proposed
amendment or project . . .
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Burns
From: Mark Burns fmailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 12:05 PM
To: City Clerk Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Westport Cupertino on 8/1
Agenda
Please include this message as part of the public record
Madame Mayor and Honorable City Council Members;
If I read the resolution correctly(Attachment A in the agenda packet);it means an affirmative
vote by the Council allows the GPA regarding The Oaks to be further studied and discussed.
Please vote yes to further study this issue:
(From Resolution NO. 17)
WHEREAS,the City Council decision to authorize one or more applicants to proceed with a
General Plan amendment application,does not in any way presume approval of any proposed
amendment or project . . .
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Burns
From: Randy Shingai [mailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 12:39
PM To: City Council Cc: City Attorney's Office; City Clerk;David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava;
Piu Ghosh Subject: Item 16C on tonight's Council Meeting Agenda
Dear Cupertino Mayor and Council,
I have a concern with the proposal to increase the number of housing units to 605. I believe the
status quo and the other proposal will not materially increase the housing over 266 housing units,
which is what the KT Urban is already entitled to build.
My concern has to do with Scott Weiner's SB 35. This State Senate bill would allow projects that
include BMR to have a streamlined approval process.Here are some links for SB 35:
http://sdll.senate.ca.gov/sites/sdll.senate.ca.gov/files/SB%2035%20Fact%20Sheet l.pdf
http://sdl I.senate.ca.gov/sites/sdl l.senate.ca.gov/files/SB35%20Diagrampdf
My concern has to do with the traffic mitigation that will be required for the Oaks site. Both
alternatives require General Plan Amendments. Alternative 1 requires a GPA to increase the
housing units by 448,and another to increase the density to 56.7 du/acre. Alternative 2 requires a
GPA to increase the du/acre to 25.31 du/acre(probably inconsequential).
My concern is that once an entitlement is given to build Alternative 1 *and* SB 35 passes in
some form,the developer may invoke SB 35 to circumvent the regular approval process and build
the residential without doing any traffic mitigation.
Please take the time to study SB 35 and its likely terms and conditions *before*you approve
additional entitlements for housing. Because once entitled,a developer may be able to use SB 35
to circumvent the City's normal approval process.
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
San Jose resident.
From:Michael Mar[inailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 12:41
PM To: City Council Subject: Oaks Development
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf,and Chang;
I have lived in Cupertino and West San Jose my entire life.My family, friends,employer,and
home all reside in Cupertino.As someone who has seen many of the changes that the city has
i
i
gone through,I understand and empathize with the strong pushback on any significant
development.That being said,I strongly support the Oaks development.The housing shortage is
a major problem throughout the state,and ALL cities should be working to mitigate the
problem...particularly Cupertino since the Apple campus is a significant source of the problem.
For those opposed to the development,here are the benefits I see:
1)Housing will better accommodate the—10k Apple employees that will be added to the daytime
population as the Apple campus opens. I'm an Apple employee(at a Cupertino campus)myself
and literally none of my coworkers live in Cupertino.Any of them would love to move to
Cupertino which would help both the prop tax shortfall as well as reduce the congestion in bay
area highways.
2)There is a need for additional senior housing in the city.My mother has recently been looking
for senior housing after she moved out of my childhood home. I understand that senior housing is
not appropriate for everyone,but for my mother,its has been a life saver.
3)Mitigating increasing rents is important.Renters are part of the city too,and the high rents are
a major problem in Cupertino. It obviously requires a multi faceted solution,but there needs to be
a way to address the fact that the city's teachers are completely priced out of the city.Additional
housing is a first step towards a solution.
4)Developers can be bad actors. I think we can all acknowledge that.But legally,they have the
power to destroy these pockets of community that the city has.Vallco is an unmitigated disaster
right now.I do not want to see the same thing happen to the Oak's center.Please do not"fight for
more retail"if it's just going to result in another dead mall.Please work at finding a better
compromise with the developer.
5)Higher density housing is good for the community.I'm not necessarily a high density
proponent,but I've lived in both a single family home at the Cupertino/San Jose border as well as
in a condo at the Metropolitan.While it's true that a single family home is nicer in some ways,
the demonization of condos and`high density housing' seems totally out of line.The
Metropolitan worked closely with the Main Street and Rosebowl developments,and both look to
be reasonable successes.The tenants are happy Cupertino residents,their children go to
Cupertino schools,I have a 1 mile commute to Apple,and we worked with the Main Street and
Rosebowl developments to make it the successes they are today. It didn't become a blight on
Cupertino,and to me,it's actually a good example of the success that a mixed use community can
have if everyone compromises a bit.There is retail with Main Street,there's the SugarCRM
office space,and there's the Metropolitan residential.And while there are some rough patches,
it's not the high density armageddon that is often predicted with high density housing.Please
keep this in mind as the late night emotion rolls in tonight.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Mar
From:Aarti Parikh fmailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:21 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: Cupertino Oaks shopping center
Mayor Vaidhyanathan,
Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with 11,000
employees.Those people have to live somewhere. If Cupertino does not build enough housing,
they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino, especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in.More housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara
County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.
Thanks Aarti
From: Aarti Parikh [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:21 PM
To: Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino Oaks shopping center
Councilmember Chang,
Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with 11,000
employees.Those people have to live somewhere. If Cupertino does not build enough housing,
they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in.More housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara
County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.
Thanks Aarti
From:Aarti Parikh [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:21 PM
To: Steven Scharf Subject: Cupertino Oaks shopping center
Councilmember Scharf,
Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with 11,000
employees.Those people have to live somewhere.If Cupertino does not build enough housing,
they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino, especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in.More housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara
County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.
Thanks Aarti
From: Aarti Parikh [mailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:21 PM
To: Darcy Paul Subject: Cupertino Oaks shopping center
Vice Mayor Paul,
Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with 11,000
employees. Those people have to live somewhere. If Cupertino does not build enough housing,
they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino, especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in.More housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara
County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.
Thanks Aarti
From: Aarti Parikh [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 1:21 PM
To:Rod Sinks Subject: Cupertino Oaks shopping center
f
i
Councilmember Sinks,
Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple
with 11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere.If Cupertino
does not build enough housing,they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and
drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,
especially for the new office workers at Apple.This would help keep
housing prices lower,by adding more housing for people to live in.More
housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara
County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.
Thanks Aarti
Councilmember Sinks,
Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with 11,000
employees.Those people have to live somewhere.If Cupertino does not build enough housing,
they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in.More housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara
County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.
Thanks Aarti
From: Connie Cunningham[imailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,
2017 10:45 AM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan;Rod Sinks;Darcy Paul;Barry Chang; Steven Scharf
Subject: Disappointed in Better Cupertino flyer;I support Westport residential alternative
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Better Cupertino released a flyer that arrived at my home this weekend,completely disparaging
the proposals for Westport Cupertino.With a great lot of detail they hammered the hotel
proposal,and then dismissed the"residential only" alternative with a footnote at the bottom.
This flyer offered no specific improvements they would like to see.
The statement about our unfunded schools is hyperbole,at best.I have lived here over 30 years
and every bond requested by our school districts has passed.A high school,junior high school,
elementary schools,and De Anza College are very near the Westport Cupertino site.
We need housing in Cupertino. I urge that we could increase the amount of Below-Market Rate*
housing from 15%. also.The papers continue to report on the lack of new housing available to
homeowners in our region.I like to think that our City will rise to the challenge of providing our
share of those homes.I know that Cupertino can and will take care of schools,traffic,etc.
required for those homes.
*Note: Quality of the buildings should be carefully watched.BMR homes should be attractive,
with all the normal safety components,materials and construction of the homes sold at market
rate. All our citizens are important to the vibrancy we want to nurture in our community.
Thank you,
Connie Cunningham
From: Connie Cunningham [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,
2017 10:50 AM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan;Rod Sinks;Darcy Paul;Barry Chang; Steven Scharf
Subject: Westport Cupertino--Mixed-use Residential gets my support
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I like the Mixed-use Residential Plan for Westport Cupertino.We need to supply homes into the
struggling real estate market. Every week we read articles about the lack of homes for new
buyers. Surely,Cupertino can provide the necessary traffic design and the schools to support the
new families that are coming to our city for work. There is a complete array of schools near the
Westport Cupertino site,including a community college.The area is rich in schools! Please
approve the proposal for the developer to start its plans.
Thank you,
Dennis Cunningham
From: Todd David [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:12 AM To:
Savita Vaidhyanathan;Darcy Paul; Barry Chang;Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf Subject: SF
Housing Action Coalition's Comments on Cupertino General Plan Amendment
Ms. Mayor and members of the Cupertino Council,
On behalf of the 300 business and individual members that make up the San Francisco Housing
Action Coalition(SFHAC),we want to reach out regarding the General Plan Amendment for the
Oaks Shopping Center.
The SFHAC strongly encourages you to adapt any changes to your General Plan that will
increase home creation.As you know,the region's severe housing shortage has led to an
affordability and displacement crisis never before seen in the Bay Area.We're advocates for a
growing region and know how critical jobs are for future generations. You can help by building
homes for current and future employees and residents of the Peninsula and the Bay Area.
Please be thoughtful on the regional impact of your decisions,it affects us all.
Respectfully,
Todd David
Executive Director, SFHAC
Todd DavidfT �
Executive Director I San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
95 Brady Street, San Francisco,CA 94103
Office(415)541-9001 Cell(415) 373-8879
Email: todd@sfhac.org`s.Web: sfhac.olg
From:JM [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:27 AM To: Steven
Scharf Subject: Oppose the Westport Development Plan
I
Dear Council Member Scharf,
As a 33 year resident of Cupertino I totally oppose the proposed Westport development plan.
It is too much development in a constricted traffic location.
Respectfully,
James Murashige
From:JM [mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:18 AM To: Savita
Vaidhyanathan Subject: Oppose the Westport Development Plan
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan,
As a 33 year resident of Cupertino I totally oppose the proposed Westport development plan.
It is too much development in a constricted traffic location.
Respectfully,
James Murashige
From:JM rmailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:23 AM To:Darcy
Paul Subject: Oppose the Westport Development Plan
Dear Council Member Paul,
As a 33 year resident of Cupertino I totally oppose the proposed Westport development plan.
It is too much development in a constricted traffic location.
Respectfully,
James Murashige
From:JM[mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:24 AM To: Baily
Chang Subject: Oppose the Westport Development Plan
Dear Council Member Chang,
As a 33 year resident of Cupertino I totally oppose the proposed Westport development plan.
It is too much development in a constricted traffic location.
Respectfully,
James Murashige
From: JM[mailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 11:26 AM To:Rod
Sinks Subject: Oppose the Westport Development Plan
Dear Council Member Sinks,
As a 33 year resident of Cupertino I totally oppose the proposed Westport
development plan.
It is too much development in a constricted traffic location.
Respectfully,
James Murashige
From: Munisekar[mailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01 2017 8:16 AM To:
City Clerk Subject: Fwd:A Residents View: Second Panel Discussion on Retail Economy and
the State of Retail Market on July 27,2017
Please include this letter as part of the public record for items related to the redevelopment of the
Oaks Shopping Center and Vallco.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Munisekar<
Date:Mon,Jul 31,2017 at 7:48 AM
Subject:A Residents View: Second Panel Discussion on Retail Economy and the State of Retail
Market on July 27,2017
To: City Council<citycouncil a,cupertino.org>,svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org,
bchan-g@cupertino.org,ci clerk@cupertino.org,dpaul cr,cupertino.org,rsinks@cupertino.org,
sscharf(cupertino.org
Cc: Munisekaran Madhdhipatla<
I attended the panel discussion on retail on July 27,2017 organized by our city office.Thanks for
doing this as the panel was well qualified and were in the know on the topic; it was definitely a
positive experience compared to the previous session on Santa Clara 3.0.1 did see 3 of you
[Mayor Savita,Councilmen Rod&Darcy] attend this session as well;it is possible I missed other
councilmen.
I was disappointed that the room was more than half empty compared to the first session on Santa
Clara 3.0. It is possible residents chose to watch from their homes.
i
i
The biggest takeaways for me in the context of Cupertino are
1. Retail is alive and kicking;not dead as proclaimed by the developers and some in our
community.
2. There was no discussion about Urban Villages and retail doing well there; so,Urban Villages
is a non-starter from retail perspective.
3. It was very clear that ground floor only retail in mixed use development is not succeeding for
lack of THE EXPERIENCE.
4. As nobody is building any new malls from ground up and only redeveloping existing malls,it
is all the more important that Vallco Mall be redeveloped as a RETAIL DESTINATION for
residents delivering THE EXPERIENCE.
5. As clearly described by an example of 2 large target stores [140K SFT each] succeeding
across a freeway,given our population density and nearby towns,a retail only mall will succeed
at Vallco despite argument by the developer.
Here are my notes from meeting supporting above takeaways;auxiliary deductions are in
parenthesis below.
1. For retail to succeed,THE EXPERIENCE is the most important aspect.
2. Retail Environment is constantly changing;you have to foresee what is coming and keep
adjusting. [This makes sense given what we see in Valley Fair and Great Mall as there is always
something new].
3. Every area is different; old rules such as `No competition in 20 mile radius,20K residents per
grocery store' can not be applied any more.
4. Retailers look for 2 main thoroughfares and ample parking is important;especially ground
level parking.
5. Retailers want to be close to their audience; demographics,economic profile and trade
analytics play key role. [They could not get any closer to us than Vallco;right now,our residents
go to other cities for retail].
6. Co-tenancy, space layout and signage are important aspects;access to transportation is
important too.
7. Developers don't want to allocate space for retail in mixed use;mixed use concept makes us
drive further for groceries. [A definite negative against mixed use.]
8. Nobody is building new retail malls ground up anymore;most of them are redevelopments
taking a pure mall and adding entertainment and fitness.
9. Public space is important to any city and retail is important part of how city grows; sales tax
revenue is very important to any city. [Unfortunately our sales tax$$s are going to other cities].
10. Lots of malls are being repositioned and this is best time for independent retailers to succeed.
11. Millennials are deferring big purchases to later;things we bought in 20s,millennials are
buying in 30s;that is creating a gap in spending.
12. Shoppers are looking for experience;if we cannot deliver experience,they go online to get
what they want.
13. Value based shopping[Costco and Walmart] are thriving and high end retail is doing fine
too;the middle is getting squeezed.
14. All retailers should have a dual strategy to succeed;both online and physical presence are
important.
15. Cost of building is so high,some developers are holding back even after getting city
approvals to proceed with development.
16. City needs to be flexible to allow for retail to succeed;listening to the community and getting
them onboard is key for any development. [So relevant in our community]
17. Fitness centers are expanding; every community needs a gathering place;usually people
gather around retail experience. [We already have a successful fitness center at Vallco]
18. Ethnic grocery stores are competing with traditional ones;retailers have to keep a finger on
the pulse and constantly adjust to the change.
19. One of the panel member shared 4 major developments he handled recently locally,in most
of them,the retail component was big;like 30—40%. So,I posed the question asking if 10%
[OAKS] and 17% [Vallco] retail space proposed is a formula for success.Unfortunately my
question was watered down by handlers to `What%should be retail in a development?' which
got answered vaguely as `There is no formula'.
20. One of the panel member gave an example of 2 Target stores of 150K SFT size each just
across freeways thriving with$100 roil sales each while national average for Target store is$30-
$40 mil.
21. With online sales,delivery within hours becomes a differentiating factor; so,there is more
need for industrial use warehouse&delivery type of space; cities and communities oppose such
space in the middle of communities.
22. Somebody asked a question about Cupertino being described as retail desert by councilman
Steven Scharf,given the retail SFT#per capita stated by the questioner,the moderator said
Cupertino cannot be a retail desert purely based on SFT#s.But one of the panelist relocated from
Seattle with exposure to Cupertino agreed that Cupertino is indeed a retail desert as there is no
retail destination; she did not think Main Street qualified for that.
Hopefully,these data points from experts convince you to redevelop Vallco as a RETAIL ONLY
destination delivering THE EXPERIENCE for our residents and SALES TAX revenue to the city.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
From: Bruce Powell fmailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 9:44 AM
To: City Council;City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:WESTPORT
CUPERTINO
I support allowingWestport Cupertino to "go through the gate"to the next stage of Cupertinos
project application process.
Bruce Powell
From: Deanna Forsythe fmailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 9:45
AM To: City Clerk Subject: Fwd: KT Urban's GPA Application
Please add my July 8 letter to the public record.
Thank you.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: "Deanna Forsythe"<
Date:Jul 8,2017 6:42 PM
Subject:KT Urban's GPA Application
To:<ci1ycouncil(ab,cupertino.org>
Cc:
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf,and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Sincerely,
Deanna Forsythe
From:Michaela Murphy fmailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,
2017 9:46 AM To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:
Westport Cupertino Proposal Opinion
Please include this message as part of the public record.
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and members of City Council,
I hope this message finds each of you well.My name is Michaela Murphy and I am reaching out
to you today regarding the proposed redevelopment plan for The Oaks Shopping Center.Though
I would love to attend and speak in person today,I am currently working on a campaign in
Brooklyn,so I hope this written message will suffice.
Having grown up in Cupertino,going to elementary,middle,high school,and even having
attended De Anza College for the last year here,it goes without saying that I feel a deeply
personal commitment to the wellbeing of this city and all who are lucky enough to reside in it.
There's a certain attachment and nostalgia I feel regarding each and every piece of this city,
memories that rise as I pass by certain parks and buildings. I learned how to ride a bike next to
the Sunny View Retirement Community. I went on one of my first dates at BlueLight Cinemas. I
learned to drive in the parking lot of The Oaks. Coffee Society was where I finished homework
and college applications,and was where I found out I was accepted into the university I'll be
attending this coming fall. The point I'm making is simply that,for many of us,these buildings
and developments throughout Cupertino are not merely stores and restaurants and patios and
parking lots.They're private sentimental music boxes where many residents store some of their
fondest memories for safe-keeping. I don't mean to make a blanket assumption about why many
residents will attend the Council meeting later tonight and express their support or dissent for this
plan specifically,but I have a hunch that a love for their city and these memories is a strong
motivator for all in attendance,regardless of sentiment for the Westport Cupertino Project.
While there have been difficult moments watching this city change so significantly,especially
over the last few years,I do understand the necessity for growth in our community,and for that
reason I see value in at least allowing KT Urban's project through the gate. I recognize the
reservations that many in the community have regarding this project--size,current lack of
infrastructure to accommodate the increased traffic,impact and pressure on local schools, cost to
the community,etc. I,too hold a number of these concerns,but what I also hold is a certain level
of faith in the current process by which development occurs in the city,and a certain level of
hopefulness that the city council,KT Urban,and diverse community can find some level of
compromise and middle ground regarding the project,should it be let through this first stage.I
truly do believe that there is an enormous amount to be gained through responsible growth and
development in the city,so long as it is done the right way,by the right people,and is
appropriately challenged by members of the community and council.Whether or not the Westport
Cupertino Project fits this bill in your eyes is obviously for you to decide,but at the moment I am
very hopeful that KT Urban has a high enough level of integrity to be held to the high
expectations of the community and council and succeed in creating a project that is suitable for
this area and all of the people living within it.
Regardless of the outcome of tonight's meeting,I am genuinely optimistic for the future of our
city and home,if for no other reason than the immense outpouring of concern and involvement by
the citizens of Cupertino. Someone close to me once said that all we get to keep in life are the
things we refuse to let go of,and should the community refuse to let go of their commitment to
the wellbeing of the city and continue to challenge proposed development,should developers
hold onto their willingness to work with constituents to create a beneficial project worth building,
and should council never cease to hold these developers accountable for the great impacts they
may have on our home,I truly do believe that something beautiful can be pieced together.
I wish you all great luck in making the decisions that you will later this evening.
i
I
With kindness and abundant respect,
Michaela Murphy
From: Evan Sirokyfmailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 9:53 AM
To: City Council Subject: Please approve KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks on
August 1
To the City of Cupertino,
My name is Evan Siroky and I'm from Scotts Valley,CA. I am writing you today because the
San Francisco Bay has a serious housing shortage and needs more housing. People are
commuting over here to Santa Cruz County and beyond because there is not enough housing
where it is most needed which is close to job centers in Silicon Valley. Your town has a
responsibility to build more housing in the midst of this crisis since there are thousands of high-
paying jobs in your city.
Please approve KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. In fact,I encourage you
to see if the applicant can possibly build even more housing. It would be fantastic if they could
build over 1,000 housing units.
Evan
From:Munisekar fmailto: Sent: Tuesday,August 01,2017 8:18 AM To:
City Clerk Subject: Fwd: OAKS aka Westport Project GPA.
Please include this letter as part of the public record for items related to the redevelopment of the
Oaks Shopping Center.
----------Forwarded message----------
From:Munisekar<
Date:Wed,Jul 26,2017 at 3:51 PM
Subject: OAKS aka Westport Project GPA.
To: City Council<citycouncil@gWertino.org>
Dear Mayor and City Council,
As a vested resident of this city and community with desire to spend rest of my life here,I
respectfully request that you vote against OAKs/Westport project GPA request on August 1st.
I am in favor of approving the other 2 GPA requests as they both are requesting Hotel allocations
within the city and they are not trying to trample over our GP on heights and density. It makes
sense to accommodate business visitors to Cupertino offices within the city and gain tax
revenues.
On the other hand,OAKs/Westport developer is playing hardball with our city and we should not
be caving in for their hardball tactics.Here are the reasons why their GPA request should be
denied.
1.Their Plan 2 is almost identical to the plan you voted down in 2016 with 4-1 verdict against it.
2.Their Plan 1 adds too many residences to an area that is already congested;moreover,these
kids will go into Garden Gate elementary that has 50%classrooms as portables.
3.Adding any office allocation there further aggravates housing balance in Cupertino.We need to
stop this vicious cycle of imbalance as we are maxed out on what Cupertino can take.
4.Traffic at that exit is at dangerous levels.There is no alternate public transport option.
5.The developer could not get enough signatures to put their request on ballot measure.
If they are honest about developing that property,they need to bring forward a plan that is within
GP;not exceed 45 feet heigh limit,meet setback requirements and not exceed 200 housing units
allowable within current GP. If they refuse to honor the GP and Muni code,then you should show
your power by voting down their request.This is not a game of chicken to see who blinks first;
this is about future of our city;we could be causing irreparable damage to our city by approving
their request.
Alternately,you could consider buying out OAKS property and put it to city use like we did 30
years ago with Cupertino Sports Center property.That would be a perfect solution given that it is
located right next to Cupertino Sports Center,Memorial Park and Cupertino Senior Center.
The fact that the developer could not get signatures to support their project shows where residents
stand on this project.You are representing the residents who elected you;I hope you listen to the
voices of residents. I would hate to see this become another Vallco like contentious issue. I
believe Cupertino history is filled with residents standing up for what they believe in and
defeating any incursions through referendums.I would hate to see city resources wasted on such
efforts.
Please listen to your audience and serve them in good faith.
Thanks
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident.
From: Kent Vincent[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 6:16 PM
To: Darcy Paul;Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan;Barry Chang; Steven Scharf Subject:
Westport-residents are 86%against any GPA or GP exception
Dear Council member,
Perhaps you have been following the pulse of resident sentiment regarding the Westport
proposals and know that an on-going online poll shows 86%of residents are against any form of
GPA or GP exception for that site.Traffic congestion has become the over-riding concern of
Cupertino residents and there is no stomach for granting any concession to a developer that
causes an increase in congestion. I would like to encourage each Council member to vote against
any consideration of a GPA for the Oaks site.That sends the wrong signal to all developers as
well as residents who will go to the mat again to fight it,reopening the type of contention
experienced with Vallco.KT effectively wants to turn the Oaks into another horrific Cupertino
Town Square,a complex I have driven by everyday for more than a decade wondering how our
trusted officials ever allowed that blight on our city.
Cupertino's Crossroads strip mall is an excellent example of how a dying retail complex can be
successfully revitalized within the context of the General Plan.It's really hard to find a parking
spot there now.And while mixed use retail has proven successful in urban settings it is proving
very risky in suburban settings such as Cupertino. I'm sure you've read the property management
reports.
I
s
s
I urge you to put the open letters from Rich Lowenthal and Gary Jones in their proper perspective
as the predictable minority position of the Chamber of Commerce and not the residents.
Respectfully,
Kent Vincent i
Cupertino '
ps.I encourage you not to put major development decisions such as Westport at the end of the
Council Meeting docket where votes typically occur after midnight.This looks purposeful to the
residents to avoid an open discussion with anyone but the developer.
From:Anand Rajamani [mailto: comSent: Monday,July 31,2017 6:49
PM To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Westport
Cupertino
Hello,
my name is Anand Rajamani.I heard that KT Urban is planning on remodeling The Oaks and
thought I should write an email to support it. I love the Oaks,and I think revitalizing it will add
some spice to it.
Please include this message as part of the public record.
Thank you,
Anand Rajamani
From: Prabir Mohanty[mailto:
Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 7:16 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan
Subject: An appeal to stop the Oaks Project
Hello Savita,
My family has 3 citizens. They are:
Prabir Mohanty
Madhusmita Mohanty
Amreet Mohanty
All three of us are against Oaks project. So,please vote against it.
Also,you have taken huge funding from the builder for Oaks project. So,if you cannot vote
against it,you should recuse yourself from voting.
Best Regards,
Prabir
From:Prabir Mohanty fmailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 7:18 PM
To: Barry Chang
Subject: An appeal to stop the Oaks Project
Hello Barry,
My family has 3 citizens. They are:
Prabir Mohanty
Madhusmita Mohanty
Amreet Mohanty
All three of us are against Oaks project. So,please vote against it.
Also,you have taken huge funding from the builder for Oaks project. So,if you cannot vote
against it,you should recuse yourself from voting.
Best Regards,
Prabir
From: Susan Chau[mailto: Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 7:46 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Yes on Westport
Cupertino
Dear Sir/Madam:
My name is Susan Chau. I'm writing to you to request that you please allow the Westport
Cupertino plan to move forward.
I live around the corner of Monta Vista High School. I have three kids that are currently in that
high school. It would be nice
to have a nice,friendly,more modern and vibrant shopping center to replace the Oaks. The Oaks
is so run-down and empty
that not a lot of people are interested in visiting. My three kids are excited about the new theater
and bike hub.
Currently I have to drive them to Oakridge Mall in San Jose or the Century Theater in Mountain
View just for movies.
Also,Westport Cupertino is right by the freeway. With its new vibrant look it will be such a
pleasure to look at as you
enter or exit the freeway. With the new housing and hotel that means more money for our
local restaurants and grocery stores.
Please Please allow them to move forward.
Please include this message as part of the public record.
Sincerely,
Susan Chau
Currently reside on: Cupertino CA 95014
From: Diana Liu fmailto: Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 8:08 PM To:
City Council Subject: KT Urban Proposal
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Diana Liu j
University of California,Berkeley I Class of 2017
B.A.Economics,College of Letters and Science
B.S.Business Administration,Walter A.Haas School of Business
From: [mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,
2017 8:42 PM To: City Council Subject:KT urban's GPA application for Oaks shopping
Center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang:
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Pramod Sharma
From:Valerie Abid[mailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 8:52 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan
Subject: August 1 City Council Mtg
First,as a long time Cupertino resident,I would like to thank you for requesting the City of San
Jose to respect Cupertino's General Plan height restrictions when approving development plans
for new hotels and housing near Cupertino's borders.
I would also ask you to remember the General Plan when considering developers variance
requests for the Goodyear and Cupertino village projects coming before the city council at the
August 1 meeting.
Please dismiss both Oaks development proposals as both proposals ask for variances far
exceeding the General Plan. Rather than waste time and money on considering these outrageous
plans,please wait to begin the approval process until the developer has presented a proposal more
in keeping with the General Plan and the best interest of Cupertino's residents.
Thank you,
Valerie Abid
From: Valerie Abid [mailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 8:53 PM
To:Darcy Paul
Subject: August 1 City Council Mtg
First, as a long time Cupertino resident,I would like to thank Mayor Vaidhyanathan for
requesting the City of San Jose to respect Cupertino's General Plan height restrictions when
approving development plans for new hotels and housing near Cupertino's borders.
I would also ask you to remember the General Plan when considering developers variance
requests for the Goodyear and Cupertino village projects coming before the city council at the
August 1 meeting.
Please dismiss both Oaks development proposals as both proposals ask for variances far
exceeding the General Plan. Rather than waste time and money on considering these outrageous
plans,please wait to begin the approval process until the developer has presented a proposal more
in keeping with the General Plan and the best interest of Cupertino's residents.
Thank you,
Valerie Abid
From: Valerie Abid[mailto:
Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 8:53 PM
To:Barry Chang
Subject:August 1 City Council Mtg
First,as a long time Cupertino resident,I would like to thank Mayor Vaidhyanathan for
requesting the City of San Jose to respect Cupertino's General Plan height restrictions when
approving development plans for new hotels and housing near Cupertino's borders.
I would also ask you to remember the General Plan when considering developers variance
requests for the Goodyear and Cupertino village projects coming before the city council at the
August 1 meeting.
Please dismiss both Oaks development proposals as both proposals ask for variances far
exceeding the General Plan. Rather than waste time and money on considering these outrageous
plans,please wait to begin the approval process until the developer has presented a proposal more
in keeping with the General Plan and the best interest of Cupertino's residents.
Thank you,
Valerie Abid
From: Valerie Abid �nnailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 8:54 PM
To: Steven Scharf
Subject: August 1 City Council Mtg
First,as a long time Cupertino resident,I would like to thank Mayor Vaidhyanathan for
requesting the City of San Jose to respect Cupertino's General Plan height restrictions when
approving development plans for new hotels and housing near Cupertino's borders.
I would also ask you to remember the General Plan when considering developers variance
I
d
1
requests for the Goodyear and Cupertino village projects coming before the city council at the
August 1 meeting.
Please dismiss both Oaks development proposals as both proposals ask for variances far
exceeding the General Plan. Rather than waste time and money on considering these outrageous
plans,please wait to begin the approval process until the developer has presented a proposal more
in keeping with the General Plan and the best interest of Cupertino's residents.
Thank you,
Valerie Abid
From: Thorisa Yap [mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 1:33 PM To:
City Council Subject:Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Mayor and Members of the Cupertino City Council:
My name is Thorisa Yap. I have lived in the City of Cupertino since 1994.For the past 15 years,I
have worked as a Block Leader in the Rancho Rinconada Neighborhood. I am very proud of
Cupertino.I love the fact that it has grown and changed over the years that I have been here.
Starting in 2015,1 began hearing about changes at the old Oaks Shopping Center. Since then,I
have been eager to see the center torn down and for something new built on the site.My family
and I used to go to The Oaks.Now we do not bother even stopping by there.KT Urban has
proposed one project that would give our city a new hotel and a brand new office building on the
west side of Cupertino.This could be a place where my adult children and I will be able to go to
eat,see to a new movie theater,and shop.
We know that that there are two proposals and that Senior Housing will be a part of either of
them.That is a good thing as the Seniors will be living close to De Anza College and to the
Senior Center.They will no longer have to drive,but will be able to walk.They will be close to
stores and to the new fast bus routes.
Please vote on August 1st to let Westport Cupertino be a part of the city's planning process.I am
counting on you.
Thank you very much,
Thorisa Yap
From: yuwen su [mailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 8:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject:Westport Cupertino
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang:
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)
Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-used office,completely ignore
our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a
junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our
community,or our quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Yuwen Su
Cupertino
From: Bert McMahon [mailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 9:51 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan
Cc:
Subject: Please do not approve the Oaks Shopping Center Project
Dear Mayor Savita
I am writing you to let you know what I want for my city.
I have lived in Cupertino since 1964 and at that time it was a small quiet town.
Bicycling in the Cupertino was much safer and enjoyable than it is now.
Cupertino is not a small quiet town any more.
I do not want any more big projects like the Oaks Shopping Center project.
All of this growth is making the city of Cupertino a less enjoyable city to live in.
The traffic situation in Cupertino is already bad and we need to not make the traffic any worse.
I enjoy going to Sunnyvale and walking and dinning on Murphy street. I thought that is
what Cupertino Main Street project was going to provide. It did not. It appear that project was
just another big development where Apple Computer gets more and more office space.
I enjoy going to down town Los Altos and walking and thru the streets and looking around at
beautiful town and going into the small shops. I feel good when I go there.
I want Cupertino to be a city that I enjoy and feel good in. Cupertino has grown to big already.It
is not so enjoyable. I like shopping at Sears and Penney's and Macy's stores in Cupertino. Did
big business/big developers drive them out of our city?
Please do not approve the Oaks Shopping Center project. Please listen to what the citizens of
Cupertino want. We want a quiet enjoyable town. Work on developing the Oaks to be similar
to, old town Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Los Gatos.
Thank you for listening
Best Regards,
Bert McMahon
From: Bert McMahon fmailto:
Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 9:57 PM
To:Darcy Paul;Barry Chang;Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf
Cc:
Subject: Oaks Shopping Center Project-Not Approve this project
Dear Darcy, Barry,Rod and Steven
I am writing you to let you know what I want for my city.
I have lived in Cupertino since 1964 and at that time it was a small quiet town.
Bicycling in the Cupertino was much safer and enjoyable than it is now.
Cupertino is not a small quiet town any more.
I do not want any more big projects like the Oaks Shopping Center project.
All of this growth is making the city of Cupertino a less enjoyable city to live in.
The traffic situation in Cupertino is already bad and we need to not make the traffic any worse.
I enjoy going to Sunnyvale and walking and dinning on Murphy street. I thought that is
what Cupertino Main Street project was going to provide. It did not. It appear that project was
just another big development where Apple Computer gets more and more office space.
I enjoy going to down town Los Altos and walking and thru the streets and looking around at the
beautiful town and going into the small shops. I feel good when I go there.
I want Cupertino to be a city that I enjoy and feel good in. Cupertino has grown too big already.
It is not so enjoyable. I like shopping at Sears and Penney's and Macy's stores in Cupertino. Did
big business/big developers drive them out of our city?
Please do not approve the Oaks Shopping Center project. Please listen to what the citizens of
Cupertino want. We want a quiet enjoyable town. Work on developing the Oaks to be similar
to, old town Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Los Gatos.
Thank you for listening
Best Regards,
Bert McMahon
From: Liang Chao Lmailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 11:03 PM To:
City Council Subject: What Benefits Westport(for Oaks)Offer Cupertino Residents?
Through the new project-based General Plan Amendment(GPA)Authorization process,the
intention is to grant GPA only if it benefits Cupertino.
The land use allocation for Oaks in the current General Plan is 200-235 housing units,45 feet
maximum height,69,500 square feet of retail space and other setback requirements as other sites
along Stevens Creek.No office and no hotel.
The above allocation would already increase the density of the existing Oaks FIVE TIMES.The
GPA request would increase the density to 13.8 TIMES.What benefits does Westport provide to
justify such large density increase?
Why is FIVE TIMES the density not enough?Why should we waste staff time and residents time
to consider a GPA that's way out of the bound of the General Plan?
Marina Plaza was able to propose a mixed use plan within the bound of the General Plan in terns
of building heights and setbacks.Why can't KT Urban be satisfied with FIVE TIMES the existing
density?
Please consider these questions as you make decisions on whether to allow the GPA process for
Oaks to proceed.
Below is a comparison between the exception requested and the"benefits"Westport offers for
your reference.Many of the so-called"benefits"are not true benefits,which many Cupertino
residents will see clearly.
------------------
Westport(for Oaks)requests the following exceptions to the current General Plan and Municipal
Code.
1.Increase building heights to 75 feet(Alternative I) or 88 feet(Alternative II).
2. Increase residential allocation,office allocation and hotel allocation:
Alternative I: 605 units(15%affordable senior housing) and 69,500 square feet of retail.
Alternative 1I: 270 units(20%affordable senior housing),69,500 square feet of retail,280,000
square feet of office.
3.Reduce Common Open Space required for residential by 50%.And most of the provided
Common Open Space is on the rooftop.
4.Reduce setback from property line from 44 feet to 0 feet along 1-85.
5. Reduce slope along Stevens Creek for hotel and office buildings from 1:1 to 2:1 and 3:1.
The total square footage of all uses would be increased from 269,500 square feet(allocated in the
General Plan)to 724,525 square feet for Alternative I and 742,045 square feet for Alternative II.
The Oaks Shopping Center has 53,425 square feet of retail space today. So,the existing allocation
in the General Plan would allow the total square footage to increase to 269,500 square feet,FIVE
TIMES of existing Oaks Shopping Center.This is the option some people call "no growth".
The GPA request for Westport would increase the total square footage to 13.8 TIMES of the
existing Oaks Shopping Center or 2.75 TIMES of the amount allowed in the General Plan.
We must ask. What benefits does Westport provide so that the city should double the height and
triple the building mass of what's allowed in the General Plan?
What"benefits" do Westport project offer Cupertino residents?
1.Transit Center at the north end of the site is nothing but a bus stop with a small waiting area.
[Useless benefit] -But it only provides space for two bus parking for south bound bus route on
Mary Ave.No space for north bound bus route.And no existing or any future bus routes go
through this location to require a bus top there.It provides 50 underground parking spaces for the
Transit Center,while taking away 72 parking spaces along Mary Avenue.
2.4,000 square feet for Community Center. [Incomplete benefit] -But it only provides 16 parking
spaces.And for Alternative 11,the Community Center will double as conference facility for the
hotel.
3. 15-20%affordable"senior"housing-But the affordable housing is earmarked for seniors with
I
low and very low income. It doesn't benefit the young service professionals in Cupertino as some
promised and it doesn't fit the needs of Cupertino seniors either.
4.More office space to add property tax. [Not a benefit,but a burden] -But Alternative II would
in fact worsen housing crisis by deepening office-housing imbalance.280,000 square feet of
office space would accommodate at least 1260 office workers plus service workers,while
providing only 270 housing units.Additional office space should be located near mass transit or
in more affordable areas with sufficient space for housing.
5.More housing units-But based on RHNA(Regional Housing Needs Analysis)and transit
availability,ABAG(Association of Bay Area Government)allocated only requires Cupertino to
build 1002 units by 2023.This is because there is no mass transit here.More housing units should
be allocated near mass transit,such as Caltrain,light rail or BART. Among the 1004 units,only
275 units are market-rate housing. Cupertino has already approved 600+188 housing units(only
15 BMR units)for Hamptons and Marina.Thus,based on the regional housing analysis,
Cupertino needs ZERO units of market-rate housing,but much more BMR(below-market-rate)
housing.
6.Pedestrian bridge over I-85 to the interim. [Not funded and not realistic] -The developer,KT
Urban,didn't plan to provide funding or build that bridge and nor the developer nor the city have
any authority to decide whether such pedestrian bridge fits in Caltran's plan for I-85.Even in
some remote future some tarnsit goes through 85,it would make more sense to place the transit
stop near De Anza College,not near Westport anyway.
7.Vibrant mixed use center. [Existing GP would be more vibrant] -The amount of retail space is
the same between the existing General Plan,Alternative I and Alternative II.Westport proposals
do not add any vibrancy to the location,except more people.But the existing Oaks Shopping
Center is already right next to De Anza College with 30,000 students.The lack of potential
customers is not the problem of the stagnant mall.Poor management is.There are many more
mixed use centers with poor retail offerings in Bay Area and especially in Cupertino because it
doesn't fit into the car-centric style of this area.All parking spaces in Westport project are
underground.
The existing General Plan already allows FIVE TIMES the density of existing building.With so
little"true"benefits,why should we amend the General Plan to allow 13.8 TIMES the density of
existing building?
How about other arguable"benefits"mentioned by proponents of Westport project or any high-
density development?
1.Millennials prefer urban centers so that they don't need cars. [But not at Westport] -Those
millennials who prefer urban centers would rather live in developments close to reliable and
efficient mass transit,such as CalTrain,light rail or BART.Anyone living in Westport would still
need cars to get around due to the infrequent bus services in Cupertino and inadequate VTA
network to reach most destinations.
2.Due to aging population,Cupertino seniors need senior housing. [But not at Westport] -
Cupertino seniors are used to the suburban lifestyle in Cupertino.It is unlikely that they would
move into a high-density development with ONLY underground parking.Lower density for-sale
town homes would be more attractive to Cupertino seniors.For those who prefer the privacy and
autonomy of single-family homes,they would only move into senior centers with assisted living
and on-site medical facilities.But Westport proposals do not provide the type of senior housing
attractive to Cupertino seniors.Westport only provides senior housing for low and very low
income so they are likely very tiny studios,not suitable for majority of Cupertino seniors.
3,More housing will reduce traffic since more people could live close to work. [But not really] -
People tend to work where they are hired and live where they can afford and prefer. Some would
rather commute a distance to get a bigger apartment or purchase a house. Most couples or
families with kids won't be able to pick up and move when one of the parents find a new job.
Thus,most people won't live close to their work most of the time, except for young singles.But
young singles would rather live in urban centers near mass transit and vibrant night life.As a
result,apartments at Westport will generate more traffic since they won't be all occupied by
young singles.Westport Alternative II would definitely generate more traffic since there are 5
times more workers than the number of apartments.
4.Let the GPA process begin so that the traffic study can be done. [Worst reason to consider a
GPA request, especially when the result of the traffic study would be ignored under SB 375] -
There is no need to waste the staff time and the residents'time on any study if the benefits of the
Westport proposals do not overwhelmingly benefit Cupertino. It's worth noting that the Westport
site is located in designated Priority Development Area(PDA).As a result, SB 743 eliminated
traffic congestion as an environmental impact for infill projects under CEQA.Meaning: The
Westport project cannot be denied even if the traffic study concludes that the traffic impact will
be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
Cupertino resident of 17 years
From: [mailto: On Behalf Of Mark Plutowski Sent:
Tuesday,August 01,2017 7:48 AM To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning
Dept. Subject:Westport Cupertino
Hello,
I would like to express my support for KT Urban in their attempts to redevelop the Oaks Center
in their Westport Cupertino project.I've lived in the area for several years,and the lack of a
serious local commercial center,updated to modern expectations and standards,has always been
an issue,which I believe KT Urban will be able to solve.
Please include this email in the public record.
Mark Plutowski
Cupertino
From: John McCrory[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 5:48 PM
To:Rod Sinks Subject: KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks
Dear Councilman Sinks,
We are opposed to both of KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks on August 1.
Neither of their proposals fit within the height and setback limits of our General Plan,nor do they
match the buildings in the surrounding area such as the Senior Center and the De Anza campus.
In addition,the proposed projects would bring additional grid lock at a junction that is,at peak
times,already saturated with traffic.
We frequent the Oaks for dining and Movies and would like to see it updated but not with all of
the negatives associated with KT Urban's GPA application.
We also realize that you would like to see the Oaks updated.However,this is not a good plan.
Please tell KT Urban to come back with a plan that fits within the parameters of our General Plan.
Thank you.
Regards,
John and Marilyn McCrory
Cupertino Residents
From:Roger Day[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 12:14 PM To:
City Council Subject: Oaks Development Proposals on 1 Aug 17
Mayor and Council Members
I ask you to deny the two current proposals for development at the Oaks.
Since we have a sensible General Plan,I suggest you say,"Please bring us
proposals consistent with the General Plan".
I've walked/bicycled to the Oaks for 28 years.My family has routinely enjoyed the local coffee
shop,stores,movies and restaurants.
I applaud retail development that keeps the scale of the area as noted in the General Plan. I'd love
to see more green space.Although not directly applicable,look at Santana Row or Castro St.
Mountain View.
Traffic-wise,having driven Mary Ave for 25+years I believe it will become much worse. More
drivers will impact Garden Gate School,where I routinely see the sherrif trying to manage traffic.
Thank you for your consideration.
Roger Day
From: John McCrory [mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 5:38 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: KT Urban's GPA application
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan,
We are opposed to both of KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks on August 1.
Neither of their proposals fit within the height and setback limits of our General Plan,nor do they
match the buildings in the surrounding area such as the Senior Center and the De Anza campus.
In addition,the proposed projects would bring additional grid lock at a junction that is,at peak
times,already saturated with traffic.
We frequent the Oaks for dining and Movies and would like to see it updated but not with all of
the negatives associated with KT Urban's GPA application.
Please tell KT Urban to come back with a plan that fits within the parameters of our General Plan
and minimizes the traffic problems.
Thank you.
Regards,
John and Marilyn McCrory
Cupertino Residents
From:John McCrory [mailto Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 5:45 PM
To: Barry Chang Subject: KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks
Dear Councilman Chang;
We are opposed to both of KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks on August 1.
Neither of their proposals fit within the height and setback Iimits of our General Plan,nor do they
match the buildings in the surrounding area such as the Senior Center and the De Anza campus.
In addition,the proposed projects would bring additional grid lock at a junction that is,at peak
times,already saturated with traffic.
We frequent the Oaks for dining and Movies and"could like to see it updated but not with all of
the negatives associated with KT Urban's GPA application.
We also realize that you would like to see the Oaks updated. However,this is not a good plan.
Please tell KT Urban to come back with a plan that fits within the parameters of our General Plan.
Thank you.
Regards,
John and Marilyn McCrory
Cupertino Residents
From: [mailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,
2017 8:08 AM To: City Council Subject: Fwd: Westport Cupertino: Request for Support
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: July 30,2017 at 11:01:31 PM PDT
To: citycouncilAcupertino.com
Cc: cityclerk�a cupertino.or�,planning_@cupertino.org
Subject: Westport Cupertino: Request for Support
Please include this email as part of the public record.
Dear Council Members,
Please vote to allow the KT Urban Westport Cupertino project to "proceed through the
gate" and move forward with a formal development application,after which the two
alternatives for the project will be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by City Staff,the
Planning Commission,and ultimately the City Council.
I work in Cupertino,but live in Sunnyvale.
I hope the project includes many affordable apartments&below market rate condos as the
rents&cost of housing in this area are way too high for those of us in the low to middle
income range. If we have to spend the majority of our income on housing,we won't be able
i
i
to afford dining at restaurants or shopping at clothing or other retail stores or going to the
movies.
Please don't forget to include lots of parking spaces in the project. The traffic on S.Tantau
Avenue is really bad at dinner time due to lack of parking spots at the Loree Center.
Thank you,
Sharyn Kawamura
From: lmailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017
11:02 PM To: citycouncilAcupertino.com Cc: City Clerk;City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Westport Cupertino: Request for Support
Please include this email as part of the public record.
Dear Council Members,
Please vote to allow the KT Urban Westport Cupertino project to "proceed through the
gate" and move forward with a formal development application,after which the two
alternatives for the project will be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by City Staff,the
Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council.
I work in Cupertino,but live in Sunnyvale.
I hope the project includes many affordable apartments&below market rate condos as the
rents&cost of housing in this area are way too high for those of us in the low to middle
income range. If we have to spend the majority of our income on housing,we won't be able
to afford dining at restaurants or shopping at clothing or other retail stores or going to the
movies.
Please don't forget to include lots of parking spaces in the project. The traffic on S.Tantau
Avenue is really bad at dinner time due to lack of parking spots at the Loree Center.
Thank you,
Sharyn Kawamura
From: Munisekar[mailto: Sent:Tuesday,August 01,2017 8:15 AM To:
City Clerk Subject: Fwd: OAKS GP amendment-A resident's request.
Please include this letter as part of the public record for items related to the redevelopment of the
Oaks Shopping Center.
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Munisekar<
Date: Fri,Jul 28,2017 at 4:49 PM
Subject: OAKs GP amendment-A resident's request.
To: svaidhyanathan(&cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan,
You know that I have become an active participant in civic matters over last 18 months due to the
way things are going in our community.As an active member of community,I talk to lots of
residents in our community; especially,south asian community.
Everybody is proud of the fact you became our first mayor of Indian descent. So far,you have
conducted yourself in high esteem that is making entire south asian community to stand tall.
Please continue to carry the torch on our behalf.
On the OAKs GPA agenda item coming up on Aug 1 st,it is public information that KT Urban
contributed$5,000 for your campaign. I know when people run for office,it is common practice
to accept donations from all sources as people seldom pick and choose who to accept donations
from.Moreover,there was no reason for you not to accept their campaign donation as they are
not any blacklisted enterprise.
Given this well known public information[Thanks to more informed community],you may want
to think about how you approach this agenda item. If you vote in favor of the GPA request,it
would appear optically that their donations had something to do with it; even if that is not the case
as you have demonstrated in the past by voting down their request in 2016.If you vote against
their request,it highly reinforces the confidence our community has in you as a person of
integrity that is not swayed by donations.
I also noticed Scott Herhold's article in San Jose mercury news that you wrote a strong letter to
San Jose officials asking them to respect Cupertino's 45 feet height limit; once again you showed
that you are with us;thanks for doing that. It would look odd for you to ask San Jose to honor
Cupertino's 45 feet heigh limit and turn around to approve 88 feet tall buildings within Cupertino.
I would hate to see Scott Herhold writing about it.
http://vATww.mercunMews.com/2017/07/27/border-war-san jose-and-cupertino/
Please consider my request to stand tall and vote against OAKs/Westport GPA request.
Thanks
Yours Sincerely
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
From: Munisekar[inailto: Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 4:50 PM To:
Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: OAKs GP amendment-A resident's request.
Dear Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan,
You know that I have become an active participant in civic matters over last 18 months due to the
way things are going in our community.As an active member of community,I talk to lots of
residents in our community; especially,south asian community.
Everybody is proud of the fact you became our first mayor of Indian descent. So far,you have
conducted yourself in high esteem that is making entire south asian community to stand tall.
Please continue to carry the torch on our behalf.
On the OAKS GPA agenda item coming up on Aug lst,it is public information that KT Urban
contributed$5,000 for your campaign. I know when people run for office,it is common practice
to accept donations from all sources as people seldom pick and choose who to accept donations
from. Moreover,there was no reason for you not to accept their campaign donation as they are
not any blacklisted enterprise.
Given this well known public information[Thanks to more informed community],you may want
to think about how you approach this agenda item. If you vote in favor of the GPA request,it
I
would appear optically that their donations had something to do with it;even if that is not the case
as you have demonstrated in the past by voting down their request in 2016.If you vote against
their request,it highly reinforces the confidence our community has in you as a person of
integrity that is not swayed by donations.
I also noticed Scott Herhold's article in San Jose mercury news that you wrote a strong letter to
San Jose officials asking them to respect Cupertino's 45 feet height limit; once again you showed
that you are with us;thanks for doing that. It would look odd for you to ask San Jose to honor
Cupertino's 45 feet heigh limit and turn around to approve 88 feet tall buildings within Cupertino.
I would hate to see Scott Herhold writing about it.
http•//www mercurynews com/2017/07/27/border-war-san dose-and-cupertino/
Please consider my request to stand tall and vote against OAKs/Westport GPA request.
Thanks
Yours Sincerely
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
From: Deborah Jamison[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017
4:35 PM To: City Council Subject:The Oaks shopping center redevelopment proposals
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
The heights of buildings on both of the proposals are out of character with this area of Cupertino:
largest city park/open space;low level buildings along Stevens Creek Blvd. (some areas recently
redeveloped)in both directions on both sides of the street;lower level buildings and open space
of De Anza College; and adjacent to 1-2 level homes(apts.,condos,houses)residential area.
Furthermore,both of KT Urban's proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)
Alternative 2,mixed-used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality
of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic
backups.
Why do we have a General Plan,which many citizens spent 100s of hours contributing to devise,
if it is not adhered to?It seems like every re-development proposal down the pike requires a
Genera Plan Amendment.I think it discourages citizens to get involved in endeavors like working
on the General Plan. It's a slap in the face of all who did.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Deborah Jamison
From: De Carli,Jan rmailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 2:49 PM
To: City Clerk Subject: WESTPORT CUPERTINO
I support allowing Westport Cupertino to"go through the gate"to the next stage of Cupertino's
application process.
Janet Decarli
From: De Carli,Jan[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31, 2017 2:41 PM
To: City Council Subject:WESTPORT CUPERTINO
I support allowing Westport Cupertino to "go through the gate"to the next stage of Cupertino's
project application process
Janet DeCarli
From: De Carli,Jan rmailto: Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 2:14 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk;planning@cupertino.cor Subject:WESTPORT CUPERTINO
I support allowing Westport Cupertino to "go through the gate"to the next stage of Cupertino's
project application process,
Janet DeCarli
From: Dennis Martin rmailto:
Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 1:48 PM
To: City Council;City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: CC Meeting 8.1.17 Gatekeeper Application Westport Cupertino
Honorable Mayor and Council members,
I ask for your support for 8.1.17 meeting Agenda Item 16c,acceptance of the General Plan
amendment application for the redevelopment of the Oaks shopping center.This vote is a process
question,not an approval of the final project that the developer is proposing to build.The site,at
the western boundary of Cupertino's Heart of the City Specific Plan as you are aware,is at a vital
crossroads in the City's and the Region's future.This process would be an excellent opportunity
for the City to take action and shape the future through thoughtful mixed use urban planning.
Both land use alternatives provide for a transit hub,a bike hub, 3 levels of underground parking,
and retail which includes a 5-screen boutique movie theater.Both alternatives include a
significant number of affordable housing units,representing an excellent opportunity for the City
to take steps in meeting its Housing Element goals and RHNA requirements.The site is close to
the Senior Center,walkable,bike friendly,near public transit(VTA High Speed Bus Line 523)
1
i
and adjacent to a major commute artery.
In fact,this project application conforms in many areas to the General Plan and provides for
multiple additional benefits to the City of Cupertino.The real need and focus in front of you now
is to vote your approval for this application to"get through the gate," so that City Planners are
able to complete studies of the benefits,the impacts and the mitigations. I ask for your support for
the application to access the General Plan amendment process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dennis Martin
BIA Government Affairs
From: SUZANNE ABECKET fmailto: Sent:Monday,July 31,
2017 1:43 PM To: City Clerk Subject:PLEASE ADD THIS LETTER TO THE PUBLIC
RECORD
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.Both of their proposals ignore our General Plan,and
would increase the already terrible traffic congestion in this area and add more high density to our
City.
I would like to submit an idea that would be a true enhancement to Cupertino. I respectfully ask
our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the Oaks property and
add it to Memorial Park. Something similar was done when the City purchased the property
where the Cupertino Sports Club is located.A friend,who lived behind that property at that time,
told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.The citizens of Cupertino objected,and the City
issued a Bond to build the Sports Center.
I have spoken to many friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of
Memorial Park, and posted the idea on NextDoor.There is much enthusiasm for this idea,both
from NextDoor responses as well as people I have spoken to personally. Cupertino could use
more park and open space,and this is great opportunity to add The Oaks acreage to make
Memorial Park a larger recreation area.
The Oaks location would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events,with
adequate parking,which is not available near the current amphitheater(the existing open plaza
possibly could be incorporated into amphitheater usage).There would be capacity for an Arts and
Crafts building,perhaps a small performing arts theater,more space for children,teen and senior
activities,and much more. Some of the existing buildings could be converted for the usage
mentioned above. Cupertino could then have a recreation area similar to Sunnyvale's Community
Center.The existing Memorial Park could be planted with more trees,walking paths,and shaded
areas for people to sit and enjoy the outdoors.
I feel we should keep and enhance as much greenery and recreation opportunities as possible in
our City.We don't have many parks for our growing population,and if this land becomes high
density,it will never become green again.This idea could provide a place for everyone in our
community to enjoy,and a star attraction in Cupertino.
Thank you for considering what many of us in Cupertino would like to see in our City—a place
of serenity and for community activities instead of more density and traffic problems.
Sincerely,
Suzanne a'Becket,
Cupertino
From: Marj M [mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 11:42 AM To: City
Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: General Plan Amendment Application Proposals to be
considered at the August 1,2017 City council Mtg.
July 31,2017
Honorable Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Re: The Oaks Shopping Center/General Plan Amendment Application Proposal
One complaint I hear frequently by people opposed to development in Cupertino is their concern
it will increase traffic. I totally understand the concern about traffic,but it is important to keep in
mind that much of our traffic problem has little to nothing to do with any development in our city
and more to do with people passing through our city on their way to jobs in other parts of the
county. It seems prudent that Cupertino should take advantage of every chance to provide job
opportunities and housing so its residents would be less likely to have to commute.
I reviewed the two alternatives for Westport Cupertino(aka The Oaks Shopping Center).I prefer
Alternative 2.It offers Class A office space,a hotel,residential units as well as community
benefits and provides the sort of shopping base attractive to the retail businesses that would be
nice to have on the west side of Cupertino. Currently The Oaks is seriously underutilized and
offers little of what local residents,employees and visitors want or need.Allowing a developer to
reconfigure this site will ease this problem.
Your approval of the application will then allow the project to go through the city planning
process in which we,the Cupertino public,will be able to receive a traffic study and EIR at the
applicant's expense.This information would then allow the city and community to study these
reports in order to make a fact-based choice while considering final approval.
A final note. I would like to thank the City Council for approving and the City staff for arranging
for the series of speakers and panels to better inform us of the lay of the land relative to our future
needs as well as the current and projected state of retail space. I look forward to learning more as
I attend the remaining scheduled panels.
Respectfully submitted,
Marjorie Mancuso
From:Daniel Schaefer[mailto: Sent:Monday,July 31,2017
1:09 PM To: City Council;City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Support for
Westport Cupertino
Hello,
My name is Daniel Schaefer. I live at I have lived here
for 6 years. I enjoy going to the Westport shopping center for lunch/dinner and the movies.
However,it has been rundown in years and spots are just empty and drives consumers away. I am
in support of new shops and a movie theater. I also believe some affordable apartment housing
should be available to people.As well as an office building to spruce up the area.I support option
#2 on the flyer.I love eating and watching movies but it needs a major upgrade. j
i
Please include this message as part of the public record.
Sincerely,
Daniel C. Schaefer
From:parth bharwad[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 9:41
AM To: City Council<CityCouncilAcupertino.or >; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
<planning@cupertino.ora>;City Clerk<CiIyClerk@Wertino.org> Subject:WestPort
Cupertino
Please include this message as part of the public record.
To: Cupertino City Council&City Clerk,
My name is Parth Bharwad. I was recently a candidate for Cupertino City Council but more
importantly have been a youth member of this community for over 10 years.When I first moved
to Cupertino,I rode my bike around the Monta Vista neighborhood and other parts of Cupertino
exploring the area and getting to know my immediate surrounds.When I take those same routes
on my bike today,I feel as if Cupertino has not progressed with the rest of the Bay Area.The
Oaks shopping center was nearing its decline when I first moved here,and slowly the 24 hour
fitness left as well as some other small businesses.Most recently,we lost Coffee Society which
was one of the largest attractions at Oaks. I think it is more vital than ever for us to take this
opportunity to work with KT Urban in developing the Oaks shopping center into a place for
employees,students,and community residents to come together and enjoy.Most days of the
week,Main Street Cupertino is packed with people from all over Cupertino trying to sit and enjoy
food and drinks in a vibrant and eye catching environment.The West side of Cupertino is long
overdue for a development which can help add an attraction to this community and allow for a
gathering facility nearby.De Anza students long for a place to sit and study while also being able
to get good food and drinks after class.It is important that we do not harm the financial well
being of the city and do not stop development before giving it a fair chance at being placed before
the city council. Cities become prosperous as there is more money invested into the community to
better its visual appeal and the quality of life offered.I am hoping that the Westport Cupertino
project is approved so I can continue to spend money and help my local cities economy instead of
being forced to spend money outside of Cupertino.I encourage the city to dig deep into the long
term effects of shutting down a project like this and take into account the voice of the youth in
our community and their concerns of an otherwise mundane environment which Cupertino
offers.
-Parth Bharwad
Thanks,
Parth Bharwad
From: Chang Jene-Howard[mailto: Sent: Monday,July 31,2017 9:19
AM To: City Council Subject:Vote no on 8/1 against GPA of Oaks Westport Cupertino
Dear Cupertino Council Members, I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council
will not approve GPA on 8/1 requested by the Westport Cupertino. The GPA will hurt Cupertino
in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only allowing developer KT Urban to
make more money. Best regards Cupertino resident
From: Walter Li [mailto: Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 5:25 PM To:
Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject:No to the Oaks Center Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Counsel Member,
Please vote NO to the Oaks Center Development Proposal. With Mary Ave. the only ingress/
outgress access,there is no way this neighborhood can support such a large re-development.We
are sure you have already noticed the huge traffic issue everyday from HWY 85 to Bubb Road,at
Stevens Creek/Why 85, Stevens/N. Sterling, Stevens/De Anza Blvd.
We are 100%against this proposal. Please vote your NO vote according to our wishes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Walter and May Li
30 years Cupertino residents
From: Walter Li [mailto: Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 5:27 PM To:Darcy
Paul Subject:NO to the Oaks Center Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Counsel Member,
Please vote NO to the Oaks Center Development Proposal. With Mary Ave.the only ingress/
outgress access,there is no way this neighborhood can support such a large re-development.We
are sure you have already noticed the huge traffic issue everyday from HWY 85 to Bubb Road,at
Stevens Creek/Why 85, Stevens/N. Sterling, Stevens/De Anza Blvd.
We are 100%against this proposal. Please vote your NO vote according to our wishes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Walter and May Li
30 years Cupertino residents
From: Walter Li [mailto: Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 5:27 PM To: Barry
Chang Subject:NO to the Oaks Center Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Counsel Member,
Please vote NO to the Oaks Center Development Proposal. With Mary Ave.the only ingress/
outgress access,there is no way this neighborhood can support such a large re-development.We
are sure you have already noticed the huge traffic issue everyday from HWY 85 to Bubb Road, at
Stevens Creek/Why 85,Stevens/N. Sterling, Stevens/De Anza Blvd.
We are 100%against this proposal. Please vote your NO vote according to our wishes.
I
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Walter and May Li
30 years Cupertino residents
From:Walter Li fmailto: Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 5:29 PM To: Rod
Sinks Subject:NO to the Oaks Center Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Counsel Member,
Please vote NO to the Oaks Center Development Proposal. With Mary Ave.the
only ingress/outgress access,there is no way this neighborhood can
support such a large re-development.We are sure you have already noticed
the huge traffic issue everyday from HWY 85 to Bubb Road,at Stevens Creek
/Why 85, Stevens/N. Sterling, Stevens/De Anza Blvd.
We are 100%against this proposal. Please vote your NO vote according to
our wishes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Walter and May Li
30 years Cupertino residents
Dear Counsel Member,
Please vote NO to the Oaks Center Development Proposal. With Mary Ave.the only ingress/
outgress access,there is no way this neighborhood can support such a large re-development.We
are sure you have already noticed the huge traffic issue everyday from HWY 85 to Bubb Road,at
Stevens Creek/Why 85, Stevens/N. Sterling, Stevens/De Anza Blvd.
We are 100%against this proposal. Please vote your NO vote according to our wishes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Walter and May Li
30 years Cupertino residents
From: Walter Li (mailto: Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 5:29 PM To:
Steven Scharf Subject:NO to the Oaks Center Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Counsel Member,
Please vote NO to the Oaks Center Development Proposal. With Mary Ave.the only ingress/
outgress access,there is no way this neighborhood can support such a large re-development.We
are sure you have already noticed the huge traffic issue everyday from HWY 85 to Bubb Road,at
Stevens Creek/Why 85, Stevens/N. Sterling, Stevens/De Anza Blvd.
We are 100%against this proposal. Please vote your NO vote according to our wishes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Walter and May Li
30 years Cupertino residents
From:Bryan Lanser(mailto: Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 6:37 PM To:
Steven Scharf Subject: Concern over The Oaks
Hi Steven
Bryan Lanser here,long time Cupertino Resident. I live on Vai off of Bubb.
I'm very concerned about a post card that came through talking about some new developments
that City Council is considering,especially the one to re-develop The Oaks.
I attended the"open house"they had to promote their campaign to get this project approved,and
there was strong and loud disapproval from the people who attended.
In fact,during the QA,the owner of the property(who developed the high rises in downtown SJ)
got so flustered with the persistent concerns about traffic,building heights,and impact to the that
side of the City that he got fluster and stated."Maybe I'll just let it rot" or something to that effect.
I would rather have a rotting,dilapidated development in our midst than a traffic nightmare,and I
assure you if that development is passed,we will make life along the Stevens Creek Corridor
insufferable.
I voted for you because you were for sensible growth. I hope you will live up to your campaign
promises and ensure that we aren't the victims of greedy developers who will ruin our vistas,
further congest the 85/Stevens Creek interchange(which is already a nightmare) and signifcantly
reduce our quality of life.
Please oppose this development.The voters spoke loud and clear about how we feel about huge
developments.Let San Jose do that,but protect Cupertino from becoming the victims of ugly,
I
i
traffic-inviting urbanization.
Bryan Lanser
(
From: Bryan Lanser[mailto: Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 6:42 PM
To:Rod Sinks Subject: Concern about the Oaks
Hi Rod.
Don't know if you remember me,but we had a very good talk when you were out campaigning,
with specific focus on Vallco. I live on Vai off of Bubb.
It would seem that greedy developers didn't get the message about how the voters feel about
urbanization. I've seen the post card that came through the mail talking about some new
developments that City Council is considering,and the proposal to re-develop The Oaks was
included.
I attended the"open house"they had to promote their campaign to get this project approved,and
there was strong and loud disapproval from the people who attended.
The owner of the property(who developed the high rises in downtown SJ)at one point was so
bothered by the attendee's concerns about traffic,building heights, and impact to the that side of
the City that he got fluster and stated"Maybe I'll just let it rot" or something to that effect.
I would rather have a rotting,dilapidated development in our midst than a traffic nightmare,and I
assure you if that development is passed,we will make life along the Stevens Creek Corridor
insufferable.
This is a BAD project,that offers NO traffic abatement and will RUIN the quality of life for west
Cupertino residents.
I encourage you to strive for CONTROLLED growth,with SENSIBLE impact on traffic,air
quality,and general quality of life for us taxpayers. I urge you to OPPOSE this development as it
is currently planned. Please do NOT amend our General Plan to accommodate huge
developments that will cause irreparable harm to your consituents.
Bryan Lanser
(
From:Beth[mailto: Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 7:51 PM To: City
Council Subject: Oaks redevelopment plan
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
We have no room for more traffic around De Anna college. I can barely get home now in a
reasonable amount of time.
Suggest to KT Urban that they should make the Oaks more affordable for small commercial
businesses and make it a community shopping area again
Regards,
Beth Johnson
From: Shobhana Parruck[inailto: Sent: Saturday,July 29,2017 7:00 PM
To: City Council Subject: Say NO to KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks in Cupertino
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA application for
The Oaks on August 1st 2017
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan approved by Cupertino residents.
Regards
-Shobhana
From: grace In [mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 9:51 AM To: City
Council Subject: Please deny KT Urban's GPA applications for the Oaks shopping center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2) Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
i
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
i
Regards,
i
Grace Lu(a Cupertino resident)
From: David Singleton[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 10:09 AM
To: Steven Scharf Cc: David Singleton Subject: Oaks Mall rezoning,No!
Steven,
my name is David Singleton. I live at
I have lived here 19 years.I have talked to
quite a lot of the residents here,and the office team,and we are all
against the rezoning of the Oaks Mall for apartments.
There is already too much traffic from Stevens Creek to Mary in the mornings
and evenings.We all enjoy having a community here where we can go
for lunches,dinners,movies,and until recently a coffee.
If there are people at the meeting saying Glenbrook residents are all for it,
they are probably being paid by the developers to say that.The residents are
saying no.
Please vote no on the rezoning.
thank you
David Singleton
From:krishnanashwin Krishnan[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,
2017 11:23 AM To: City Council Subject: Please DO NOT let the GPA application for The
Oaks move forward
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers'constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Ashwin Krishnan,
Cupertino resident(x7.
From: Cathy Gordon Harr[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 1:36
PM To: City Council Subject: Deny KT Urban proposal(s)for The Oaks
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
I live near this area. It is already a total mess during both the morning and evening rush hours,
with frustrated people blocking the intersections,leading to MORE frustrated people.Those who
would normally take Stevens Creek are now spilling onto the side streets,causing additional
gridlock. I don't see anything in KT's plan addressing the increased traffic in any form
whatsoever. They obviously won't be living near their monstrosity,so why do they care...?
Cupertino has a General Plan for a reason. Please tell KT to design something that fits our
General Plan.
Regards,
Cathy Gordon
From: Andrew Wu[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 2:53 PM
To: City Council Subject: Please Deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA application for The
Oaks
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)_�lterxnative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community, or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Andrew
From: Connie Cunningham [mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017
4:51 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan;Rod Sinks;Darcy Paul;Barry Chang; Steven Scharf
Subject: Westport Cupertino--Mixed-use Residential gets my support
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I like the Mixed-use Residential Plan for Westport Cupertino. Two basic reasons:
1)We need housing in Cupertino. I urge that we could increase the amount of Below-Market
Rate housing from 15%.also.
2) Since there are two other hotels in the planning stage for this 2017 authorization process,plus
the other hotels already approved,I think we should focus on getting some other things,like
housing,that we need.I do understand that hotels are income generators,but they are no good to
us if we build too many of them.
Note: Quality of the buildings should be carefully watched.BMR homes should be attractive,
with all the normal safety components,materials and construction of the homes sold at market
rate.All our citizens are important to the vibrancy we want to nurture in our community.
i
Thank you,
Connie Cunningham
From: Gary Deng fmailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 7:52 PM To:
City Council Subject: Please deny KT Urban's GPA applications for the Oaks shopping center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Gary Deng(Cupertino resident)
From: Margaret Young[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:16
PM To: City Council;City Clerk;City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Beverley Bryant
Subject: Plans for the future of Cupertino:Westport
Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council:
I am a Senior citizen and I enjoy living in Cupertino.
I love Cupertino. I know there is concern about traffic congestion,now that our homegrown
darling tech company has invested to open its world headquarters here,with us. I think that's
wonderful. With all major life changes,we must make the necessary adjustments and provisions
to accommodate,in order to be successful. We must lead and prepare our community for the
future. I understand many worry that traffic will grind to a halt. It may happen. It's likely to
happen to us in the very near future,when the employees start streaming in and surrounding
business boom. There will always be uncertainty with change.
If we plan and work together,we may keep that inevitable traffic problem to a short fleeting
moment.
Together,we must be able to move forward and continue to work towards our long term vision of
a balanced city for all of our citizens. This includes building new,and refurbishing old
infrastructure and spaces.
I understand that a new development is being proposed for The Oaks Shopping Center. In
addition to upgrading the space,the plans include affordable homes for Seniors.These will be
right across from the Senior Center,and from De Anza College,and close to what I understand
will be a fast bus line to East Cupertino and San Jose.
Please vote"yes" on August 1 st,so that your staff may begin to plan this development! And
Please include this message as part of the public record.
Thank you for your continued service to our community.
Sincerely,
Margaret Young,retired Senior Citizen Commissioner, City of San Jose
Kirk Young
From:Nancy Noto rmailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:31 PM To:
City Council Subject: General Plan amendment
I am strongly opposed to amending the general plan to allow increased height and density at the
Oaks. I believe K.T.Urban's plan will exploit the community,and negatively impact traffic and
the quality of life in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Nancy Noto
Retired teacher--CUSD
From: Ken Yeung[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:37 PM To:
Barry Chang Cc: Ken Yeung Subject: Reject GPA for Oaks shopping center
Hi Barry
I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council will not approve GPA on 8/q
requested by the Westport Cupertino.
The GPA will hurt Cupertino in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only
developer KT Urban making money.
Best regards
Ken Yeung
Cupertino resident
From: Ken Yeung[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:39 PM To:
Savita Vaidhyanathan Cc:Ken Yeung Subject: Reject GPA for Oaks
Hi Svaid
I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council will not approve GPA on 8/q
requested by the Westport Cupertino.
The GPA will hurt Cupertino in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only
developer KT Urban making money.
Best regards
Ken Yeung
Cupertino resident
From:Ken Yeung fmailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:40 PM To:
Darcy Paul Cc:Ken Yeung Subject: Reject GPA for Oaks
Hi Paul
I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council will not approve GPA on 8/q
requested by the Westport Cupertino.
The GPA will hurt Cupertino in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only
developer KT Urban making money.
Best regards
Ken Yeung
Cupertino resident
From: Ken Yeung[inailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:40 PM To:
Rod Sinks Cc:Ken Yeung Subject: Reject GPA for Oaks
Hi Rock
I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council will not approve GPA on 8/q
requested by the Westport Cupertino.
The GPA will hurt Cupertino in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only
developer KT Urban making money.
Best regards
Ken Yeung
Cupertino resident
Sent from my iPhone
Hi Rock
I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council will not approve GPA on 8/q
requested by the Westport Cupertino.
The GPA will hurt Cupertino in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only
developer KT Urban making money.
Best regards
Ken Yeung
Cupertino resident
From: Ken Yeung[mailto1 Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 8:50 PM To:
City Council Cc: Ken Yeung at Subject: Vote no to GPA
of Oaks Westport Cupertino
Please send this email to Cupertino Citi Council Member
Dear Cupertino Council Members,
I am a Cupertino resident and my family hope city council will not approve GPA on 8/1
requested by the Westport Cupertino.
The GPA will hurt Cupertino in every aspects and has no benefit to Cupertino citizen,but only
allowing developer KT Urban to make more money.
Best regards
Cupertino resident
From: Vijay Mummaneni Finailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 6:56 AM
To: City Council Subject: Request to deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA application
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul,Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Vijay mummaneni
From: Peijuan Xie[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 2:01 PM To:
City Council Subject: The Oaks shopping center concern
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul,Sinks,Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's
GPA application for The Oaks on August 1.
i
i
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,
mixed-used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the
increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic
backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our
citizens that the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our
community,or our quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come
back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Peijuan?Xie
From: Kent Vincent[mailto: Sent: Saturday,July 29,2017 9:02
PM To: Darcy Paul Subject:Westport
Hi Darcy,
Just in follow-up to my email earlier this week,an on-going,several week Nextdoor poll now
shows that 86%of residents responding to the poll are AGAINST the Westport proposals.This
number supports my assertion that the vast majority of residents do not favor a General
Plan Amendment for that site.There is a very vocal group headed by Richard Lowenthal,Jean
Bedford and Gary Jones that is urging the Council to rule favorably.This is clearly a minority
view.
All the best,
Kent Vincent
From: Lieh-Wuu Wang[mailto: Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: City Council Subject: The Oaks shopping center
Dear Mayor Vaidhvanathan and Council Members Paul,Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GFA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Lieh-Wuu Wang
From:Yie-Fong Dan[mailto: Sent: Saturday,July 29,2017 9:49 AM
To: City Council Subject:Please deny KT Urban's GPA applications for the Oaks shopping
center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul,Sinks,Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community,or our
quality of life.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Thanks,
Yie-Fong Dan(Cupertino resident)
From: Daniel Bryant [mailto:
Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 9:58 PM
To: City Council;citvclerk a,cupertino.or;City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Westport Cupertino is Good for theCity og Cupertino and all of Silicon Valley
July 30,2017
RE: Oaks shopping center/KT Urban GPA application.
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang,
While I am not a resident of Cupertino; I am a frequent patron at Cupertino business. In addition
to my patronage;I spend a good deal of time on freeways in the Cupertino area.I am writing
because I believe it is naive to think that traffic will be reduced by additional inner city
development. The opposite is true.It is because cities fail to provide infrastructure to support the
businesses they house that congestion escalates.
I am not alone in choosing to cross the city of Cupertino on city streets because the highway is at
a standstill. I am aware that this problem will not be alleviated overnight;but I am equally aware
that the problem will only get worse if cities do not match their corporate development with
housing,hotels and businesses that meet the needs of the corporate tenants.
The KT Urban proposed development at the Oaks shopping center is a step toward providing the
facilities and services needed to support the decisions the City of Cupertino has already put in
place. In addition to the functional value of the Oaks development plan;it has the look and appeal
that will only add to Cupertino's stature and recognition.
I am writing to express my support for the redevelopment of the Oaks shopping center. Please
include this message as part of the public record. I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of
allowing KT Urban to move forward with their GPA application.
I am confident that a vote in favor of allowing KT Urban to continue forward with their GPA
application and to work with the city and the residents to make the Oaks shopping center the best
it can be is in the best interest of City of Cupertino and of the citizens of the larger urban area.
Thank you,
Dan Bryant
Dan Bryant
From:Trabookis,Tena[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 9:58
PM To: City Council Subject: Opposed to proposed development at Oaks Shopping Center
When is the city council going to get a clue that Cupertino residents are opposed to these dense
new development plans?
Time and time again we oppose them. Time and time again they resurface.
The environmental impact in the lives of Cupertino residents will be tremendous if you approve
the development
Please do not vote in favor of the Westport proposal.
Tena Trabookis
Tena Trabookis
Coldwell Banker
Broker Associate,MA
SRES
408-996-1100(Office)
From:dtschowAaol.com[mailto: Sent: Sunday,July 30,2017 11:45 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Savita Vaidhyanathan;Barry Chang;Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf
Subject: General Plan Amendment Public Hearing-August 1,2017
Mayor and City Council members,
The developers for the three projects that request amendment to the City's General Plan should
not been given authorization to proceed.The three proposed projects certainly will have
significant negative impact to "the quality of life"of the residents of Cupertino. The worst of all
three proposed projects is the proposed development project for the Oaks Center which is not
compatible to the"neighborhood" and will create significant traffic problems in the
neighborhood.All developers should have studied the General Plan and their respective proposal
should meet the requirements within the General Plan within seeking an
amendment. I understand some of you have received contribution to your re-election campaign
from the developers,their staff,and their consultants but I do hope these contributions do not
taint your decision and change your pledge to serve the citizens of Cupertino.There are so many
development projects already approved by the City Council and the City planners which already
will forever degrade the quality of life in Cupertino. More of these development projects will not
just degrade but destroy the"quality of life" in Cupertino.
As a 25 years resident of Cupertino,I do care about the City and I am opposed to amending the
General Plan to accommodate the investment return of the developers of these three projects.I
could not attend the August 1,2017 public meeting but this e-mail serves as my opposition to
granting an amendment to the General Plan for these three projects.
Sincerely,
Daniel Chow
From: Richard Lowenthal [mailto: Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 9:56
AM To: Grace Schmidt<graces6Dcupertino.org>;David Brandt<Davidb_,cupertino.ora>
Subject: West side neighbors want the Oaks upgraded
Grace and David-Please copy to the Councilmembers for the August 1 Council
Meeting. Thanks,Richard
Dear Councilmembers,
Well,the truth has surfaced.
For years,the Steve Scharf cult called Better Cupertino has ranted that folks like us who live on
the west side of Cupertino wanted Vallco fixed because it was far from our homes.The cult got
their way and killed Vallco.But what's happening now?
There's a proposal for upgrading the Oaks,and west side folks are in favor of it.We'd like to see
vibrancy there and something new. We want new retail and hotels and housing.
Yet the Steve Scharf cult has come out against it.Why?They hate all improvements to our city.
They want to go back to the 70s,and they make up lies about the folks that don't live in their
neighborhoods.They blame our current traffic problems on future projects--how does that make
sense?
We don't want another dead shopping center like Vallco.We want Westport Alternative 2.
Hypocrisy and fake news are now plain to see. I hope the good folks on our City Council can
stand up to the noisy negative folks.
Richard and Ellen Lowenthal
Jean and Charles Bedord
Gary and Barbie Jones
From: Cathy Wang[mailto: Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 3:25 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject:Mayor Savita,Please do not surprise your people
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan:
Last night I was chatting with my Indian neighbor about the Oaks Shopping Center GPA. The
wife was so much in rage but she would be out of town next Tuesday,so she makes sure her
husband will be there and will let her network of friends know about it. At the end of the
conversation,as they matter of factly mentioned Savita(assuming you would certainly be on our
side),I reminded thein that you took the campaign contribution from the very developer who is
I
i
pushing for the GPA. We simply couldn't afford surprises. They were shocked.
I understand the Cupertino Indian community has been very proud of its very first Indian female
Mayor—I would too. They assume that you would be the best person to present their interest,all
Cupertino residents' interest,because you share the same values as they do:best schools/good
education,tolerable traffic,a qualify suburban life resides in the small town of Cupertino. Please
do not surprise them.
As a Cupertino resident,I respectfully ask you to recuse yourself from voting August 1 on KT
Urban's application for a General Plan Amendment for the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping
Center.
In online political campaign record,people found you accepted$5000 campaign donations from
Oaks developer.While it is legal for you to accept donations from whomever you choose,many
residents don't have the ability to donate thousands of dollars to a local politician worry a quid
pro quo relationship exists between you and the developer KT Urban.It is the campaign
donations you accepted from KT Urban principals in 2014 that is the source of the residents'
concerns.
Because of those campaign donations,you are in a bit of a bind with the Oaks Shopping
Center/Westport Cupertino project. A vote in favor reinforces the belief in a quid pro quo
relationship between you and the developer because today's Westport alternatives 1 and 2
preserve the density from the failed Oaks project proposal that you voted against in 2016. (Same
proposal that managed to collect just 127 valid signatures when presented to voters as an
initiative petition.)Today's alternatives are different only in trivial ways from the 2016 proposal,
so what would justify a change in your vote in 2017?
Meanwhile,a vote against aligns your position with a majority of residents,but puts you in an
awkward spot with a major donor just one year before your bid for City Council re-election.
Please consider that your least fraught path is to recuse yourself from the decision affecting the
Oaks Shopping Center/Westport General Plan Amendment.I hope this letter can be enclosed into
public record.Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Yue
From: Cathy Wang[mailto: cSent: Friday,July 28,2017 3:04 PM
To:Barry Chang;Barry Chang Subject:A sincere request to my neighbor,Barry Chang
Dear Council Member Chang,
Often times my husband would mention that he ran into you at the filtered water station near
Ranch 99. He said you are down to earth and you couldn't tell he's our mayor(last year). I guess
you probably live nearby,hence my neighbor. I also gather you must be someone with passion
and dreams—any Chinese decides to serve for the public has to be an idealist first and foremost,
because you are ready to sacrifice for the public good.
I understand you have been demonized by your very own Chinese community because of Sand
Hill's Vallco project. That also displays that Chinese community would only side with issues vs
race. Or rather put it this way: We were proud elect someone from our community but we can
also dump you should you be against the very reason why you were elected—to represent the best
interest of the residents(that is arguable I know). *rMfij,7J,_&'NN Anyway,what I am
trying to say as a neighbor,a Chinese and a long time Cupertino resident is:please do think twice
when casting your vote on any decision that has huge impact to people who live in this city.
Here's the sincere ask: I respectfully ask you to recuse yourself from voting August 1 on KT
Urban's application for a General Plan Amendment for the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping
Center. It's known that you once accepted campaign donations from a developer with multiple
properties in Cupertino. I believe it creates an appearance of conflict of interest. While it is legal
for you to accept donations from whomever you choose,many residents without discretionary
funds to donate thousands of dollars to local politicians worry a quid pro quo relationship exists
between you and the developer KT Urban. It is the campaign donations you accepted from KT
Urban principals that is the source of the residents' concerns.
Because of those campaign donations,you are in a bind with the Oaks Shopping Center/Westport
Cupertino project. A vote in favor reinforces the belief in a quid pro quo relationship between
you and the developer because today's Westport alternatives 1 and 2 preserve the density from
the failed Oaks project proposal that failed in 2016. (Same proposal that managed to collect just
127 valid signatures when presented to voters as an initiative petition.) Today's alternatives are
different only in trivial ways from the 2016 proposal.
A vote against aligns your position with a majority of residents and will help create a positive
legacy you can be proud of,and that the people of Cupertino will remember you fondly
for. Please consider recusing yourself from the decision affecting the Oaks Shopping
Center/Westport General Plan amendment. hope this letter can be enclosed in the public record.
Sincerely yours,
From: Lynne Rock[mailto:
Sent: Friday,July 28,2017 10:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject:The Oaks Shopping Center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.
Both of their proposals,(1)Alternative 1,mixed-use residential,and(2)Alternative 2,mixed-
used office,completely ignore our General Plan,and do not face the reality of the increased
traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups. We need
to fix our traffic issues before we build more of anything. I'm also very concerned about the
disregard to our general plan and its height constraints.
If these proposals are allowed to go forward,you will be sending a message to all our citizens that
the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community, or our
quality of life. I have lived here since 1972;first in an apartment and then we decided to buy our
home here. I have seen a noticeable decrease in our quality of life. I understand the need for
growth and the need for housing,but I feel quality of life for those of us already living here
should count the most. I also have a little voice in the back of my head that greed is winning out;
I
i
very disheartening.
Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules,and come back with
a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan.
Regards,
Lynne
From: sunhwa park fmailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 6:39 PM
To:City Council Subject:The Oaks Shopping center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul,Sinks, Scharf and Chang;
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA
application for The Oaks on August 1.Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to
adhere to the rules,and come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General
Plan.
Regards,
Sunhwa
From: Caryl Gorska fmailto: og Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 6:47 PM To:
Barry Chang Cc: City Council; City Clerk Subject: Conflict of Interest re KT Urban
Dear Council Member Chang;
Please enter this letter into the public record.
We respectfully ask you to recuse yourself August 1 from voting on KT Urban's application for a
GPA for the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping Center.
That you accepted campaign donations from a developer with multiple properties in Cupertino
creates an appearance of conflict of interest.While it is legal for you to accept donations from
whomever you choose,many residents without discretionary funds to donate thousands of dollars
to local politicians worry a quid pro quo relationship exists between you and the developer KT
Urban. It is the campaign donations you accepted from KT Urban principals that is the source of
the residents' concerns.
Because of those campaign donations,you are in a bit of a bind with the Oaks Shopping
Center/Westport Cupertino project. A vote in favor reinforces the belief in a quid pro quo
relationship between you and the developer because today's Westport alternatives 1 and 2
preserve the density from the failed Oaks project proposal that failed in 2016. (Same proposal that
managed to collect just 127 valid signatures when presented to voters as an initiative petition.)
Today's alternatives are different only in trivial ways from the_2016 proposal. A vote against
aligns your position with a majority of residents and will help create a positive legacy you
can be proud of,and that the people of Cupertino will remember you fondly for.
Please recuse yourself from the decision affecting the Oaks Shopping Center/Westport General
Plan amendment. Sincerely, Caryl Gorska
References
According to the Institute for Local Government,"The law is a floor for public official
conduct,not a ceiling:just because a particular course of action is legal does not mean it is
ethical."
And in its publication Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics Laws,ILG further
states:
Because public trust and confidence is vital to the strength of a democratic system, ethics laws
sometimes set very high standards for public official conduct. Even though public officials may
feel at times that some of these high standards of conduct are unduly burdensome or intrusive of
their private lives,they must accept that adhering to these standards,including broad financial
disclosure rules for gifts and income,is simply part of the process of public service. Even so,it
is important to keep in mind that these standards are only minimum standards;it is simply not
possible or practical to write laws that prevent all actions that might diminish the public's trust.
For this reason,the laws should be viewed as a floor for conduct,not a ceiling.Just because a
given course of conduct is legal does not mean that it is ethical(or that the public will perceive it
as such). This means that public officials facing ethical issues are well-advised to engage in
a three-step analysis:
• Step One: What,if anything,does the law say about a given course of action?NA—it's legal
• Step Two: Is the given course of action consistent with one's own values and analysis of what
would constitute"ethical"conduct?
• Step Three:What will the public's perception be of the conduct,given the information
the public is likely to have available?
A helpful toolfor analyzing the third question is whether one would like to see the course of
conduct reported on the front page of the local newspaper source:hn://www.ca-
ilg.org/understanding-public-service-ethics-laws
From: Caryl Gorska [mailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 7:18 PM To:
Savita Vaidhyanathan Cc: City Council; City Clerk Subject: Conflict of Interest re KT Urban
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan:
Please enter this letter into the public record.
We respectfully ask you to recuse yourself on August 1 from voting on KT Urban's application
for a GPA for the redevelopment of The Oaks shopping center. That you accepted campaign
donations from a developer with multiple properties in Cupertino creates an appearance of
conflict of interest.While it is legal for you to accept donations from whomever you choose,
many residents without discretionary funds to donate thousands of dollars to local politicians
worry a quid pro quo relationship exists between you and the developer KT Urban. The campaign
donations you accepted from KT Urban principals in 2014 are the source of residents' concerns.
Those campaign donations put you in a bit of a bind. Your vote in favor reinforces the belief in
a quid pro quo relationship between you and KT Urban. this year's Westport Cupertino
Alternatives 1 and 2 have the same high-rise,full-lot coverage as last year's (2016)Oaks
proposal.
You voted against the 2016 proposal.You backed the right side;the proposal failed yet again last
year when it couldn't gather enough valid signatures on its initiative petition.
The footprint for the 2016 proposak is basically the same as 2017's Alternatives 1 and 2. How
will you vote?
I
I
i
i
Meanwhile,your vote against aligns you with a majority of residents,but puts you in an awkward
spot with a major donor just one year before your bid for City Council re-election. Your best
choice is to recuse yourself from the discussion and vote on the Oaks Shopping Center
application.
i
And it's the right thing to do.What sort of legacy do you plan to leave for our fair Cite?
Sincerely, Caryl Gorska
References
From The Institute for Local Government(IL,G)'s publication, Understanding the Basics of
Public Service Ethics Laws:
Because public trust and confidence is vital to the strength of a democratic system, ethics laws
sometimes set very high standards for public official conduct.Even though public officials may
feel at times that some of these high standards of conduct are unduly burdensome or intrusive of
their private lives,they must accept that adhering to these standards,including broad financial
disclosure rules for gifts and income,is simply part of the process of public service. Even so,it
is important to keep in mind that these standards are only minimum standards;it is simply not
possible or practical to write laws that prevent all actions that might diminish the public's trust.
For this reason,the laws should be viewed as a floor for conduct,not a ceiling.Just because a
given course of conduct is legal does not mean that it is ethical(or that the public will perceive it
as such). This means that public officials facing ethical issues are well-advised to engage in
a three-step analysis:
• Step One: What,if anything,does the law say about a given course of action?
• Step Two: Is the given course of action consistent with one's own values and analysis of what
would constitute"ethical"conduct?
• Step Three: What will the public's perception be of the conduct,given the information the
public is likely to have available?
A helpful tool for analyzing the third question is whether one would like to see the course of
conduct reported on the front page of the local newspaper. source:http://www.ca-
iliz.org/understandino-public-service-ethics-laws
From: Pam Hershey(m ailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 8:35
PM To:Barry Chang Subject: Recuse from KTUrban application for The Oaks Shopping
Center
Dear Council Member Chang:
Please enter this letter into the public record.
It is my request to respectfully ask you to recuse yourself from voting August 1 on KT Urban's
application for a General Plan Amendment for the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping Center.
That you accepted campaign donations from a developer with multiple properties in Cupertino
creates an appearance of the conflict of interest.While it is legal for you to accept donations from
whoever you choose,many residents without discretionary funds to donate thousands of dollars to
local politicians worry a quid pro quo relationship exists between you and the developer KT
Urban.It is the campaign donations you accepted from KT Urban principals that is the source of
the residents' concerns.
Because of those campaign donations,you are in a bit of a bind with the Oaks Shopping
Center/Westport Cupertino project. A vote in favor reinforces the belief in a quid pro quo
relationship between you and the developer because today's Westport alternatives 1 and 2
preserve the density from the failed Oaks project proposal that failed in 2016. (Same proposal that
managed to collect just 127 valid signatures when presented to voters as an initiative petition.)
Today's alternatives are different only in trivial ways from the 2016 proposal. Therefore,I am
asking you to consider recusing yourself from the decision affecting the Oaks Shopping
Center/Westport General Plan amendment.
Best regards,
Pamela Hershey
References
According to the Institute for Local Government,"The law is a floor for public official
conduct,not a ceiling:just because a particular course of action is legal does not mean it is
ethical."
And in its publication Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics Laws,ILG further
states:
Because public trust and confidence is vital to the strength of a democratic system,ethics laws
sometimes set very high standards for public official conduct.Even though public officials may
feel at times that some of these high standards of conduct are unduly burdensome or intrusive of
their private lives,they must accept that adhering to these standards,including broad financial
disclosure rules for gifts and income,is simply part of the process of public service. Even so,it
is important to keep in mind that these standards are only minimum standards; it is simply not
possible or practical to write laws that prevent all actions that might diminish the public's trust.
For this reason,the laws should be viewed as a floor for conduct,not a ceiling.Just because a
given course of conduct is legal does not mean that it is ethical (or that the public will perceive it
as such). This means that public officials facing ethical issues are well-advised to engage in
a three-step analysis:
• Step One: What,if anything,does the law say about a given course of action?
• Step Two: Is the given course of action consistent with one's own values and analysis of what
would constitute"ethical"conduct?
• Step Three: What will the public's perception be of the conduct,given the information the
public is likely to have available?
source: http://www.ca-ilg.org/understanding-public-service-ethics-laws
From: Pam Hershey rmailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 8:55
PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: Recuse from KT Urban application for the Oaks
Shopping Center
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan:
Please enter this letter into the public record.
• 5
f;
t
f
It is my request to respectfully ask you to recuse yourself from voting August 1 on KT Urban's
application for a General Plan Amendment for the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping Center.
That you accepted campaign donations from a developer with multiple properties in Cupertino
creates an appearance of the conflict of interest.While it is legal for you to accept donations from
whoever you choose,many residents without discretionary funds to donate thousands of dollars to
local politicians worry a quid pro quo relationship exists between you and the developer KT
Urban.It is the campaign donations you accepted from KT Urban principals that is the source of
i
the residents' concerns.
I
Because of those campaign donations,you are in a bit of a bind with the Oaks Shopping j
Center/Westport Cupertino project. A vote in favor reinforces the belief in a quid pro quo
relationship between you and the developer because today's Westport alternatives 1 and 2
preserve the density from the failed Oaks project proposal that failed in 2016. (Same proposal that
managed to collect just 127 valid signatures when presented to voters as an initiative petition.)
Today's alternatives are different only in trivial ways from the 2016 proposal. Therefore,I am
asking you to consider recusing yourself from the decision affecting the Oaks Shopping
Center/Westport General Plan amendment.
Best regards,
Pamela Hershey
References
According to the Institute for Local Government,"The law is a floor for public official
conduct,not a ceiling:just because a particular course of action is legal does not mean it is
ethical."
And in its publication Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics Laws,IL,G further
states:
Because public trust and confidence is vital to the strength of a democratic system,ethics laws
sometimes set very high standards for public official conduct.Even though public officials may
feel at times that some of these high standards of conduct are unduly burdensome or intrusive of
their private lives,they must accept that adhering to these standards,including broad financial
disclosure rules for gifts and income,is simply part of the process of public service. Even so,it
is important to keep in mind that these standards are only minimum standards;it is simply not
possible or practical to write laws that prevent all actions that might diminish the public's trust.
For this reason,the laws should be viewed as a floor for conduct,not a ceiling.Just because a
given course of conduct is legal does not mean that it is ethical(or that the public will perceive it
as such). This means that public officials facing ethical issues are well-advised to engage in
a three-step analysis:
• Step One: What,if anything,does the law say about a given course of action?
• Step Two: Is the given course of action consistent with one's own values and analysis of what
would constitute"ethical"conduct?
• Step Three: What will the public's perception be of the conduct,given the information the
public is likely to have available?
source:hiip://www.ca-ilg.org/understanding-pliblic-service-ethics-laws
From: Caryl Gorska rmailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 12:03 PM
To:Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk Subject:Add The Oaks to out parklands!!
Dear Council Member Chang;
The suggestion below was posted by one of my neighbors on NextDoor.It is such an excellent
and forward-thinking idea that I am asking you,the Mayor,and your fellow Council Members to
please consider it. I know many people who would support such a bond measure.
Regards,
Caryl Gorska
New thoughts about The Oaks
I would like our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the
Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park. Something similar was done when the City
purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located.A friend,who lived behind
that property at that time,told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.The citizens of
Cupertino objected,and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center. I have spoken to many
friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park,and there
is much enthusiasm for this idea.Cupertino could use more park and open space. and this is great
opportunity to add The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area.The Oaks location
would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events,with adequate parking,which
is not available near the current amphitheater.There would be space for an Arts and Crafts
building,perhaps a small theater,more opportunities for children's activities,and much more.
Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center.The existing
Memorial Park could then be planted with more trees,walking paths,shaded areas for people to
sit and enjoy the outdoors.I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as
possible in our City.We don't have many parks,and if this land becomes high density,it will
never become green again.This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy,and a star in
Cupertino's crown.
From: Caryl Gorska [mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 12:05 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject:Add The Oaks to our Parklands!
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan;
Please enter this correspondence into the public record.
The suggestion below was posted by one of my neighbors on NextDoor. It is such an excellent
and forward-thinking idea that I am asking you,the Mayor,and your fellow Council Members to
please consider it. I know many people who would support such a bond measure.
Regards,
Caryl Gorska
New thoughts about The Oaks
i
i
I would like our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the
Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park.Something similar was done when the City
purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located.A friend,who lived behind
that property at that time,told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.The citizens of
Cupertino objected,and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center. I have spoken to many
friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park,and there
is much enthusiasm for this idea.Cupertino could use more park and open space. and this is great
opportunity to add The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area.The Oaks location
would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events,with adequate parking,which
is not available near the current amphitheater. There would be space for an Arts and Crafts
building,perhaps a small theater,more opportunities for children's activities,and much more.
Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center.The existing
Memorial Park could then be planted with more trees,walking paths,shaded areas for people,to
sit and enjoy the outdoors.I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as
possible in our City.We don't have many parks,and if this land becomes high density,it will
never become green again.This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy,and a star in
Cupertino's crown.
From: Caryl Gorska fmailto: og Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 12:06 PM
To: Steven Scharf Cc: City Clerk Subject: Please add The Oaks to our Parklands!
Dear Council Member Scharf,
The suggestion below was posted by one of my neighbors on NextDoor. It is such an excellent
and forward-thinking idea that I am asking you,the Mayor,and your fellow Council Members to
please consider it. I know many people who would support such a bond measure.
Regards,
Caryl Gorska
New thoughts about The Oaks
I would like our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the
Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park. Something similar was done when the City
purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located.A friend,who lived behind
that property at that time,told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.The citizens of
Cupertino objected,and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center. I have spoken to many
friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park,and there
is much enthusiasm for this idea.Cupertino could use more park and open space. and this is great
opportunity to add The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area.The Oaks location
would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events,with adequate parking,which
is not available near the current amphitheater.There would be space for an Arts and Crafts
building,perhaps a small theater,more opportunities for children's activities,and much more.
Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center.The existing
Memorial Park could then be planted with more trees,walking paths,shaded areas for people to
sit and enjoy the outdoors.I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as
possible in our City.We don't have many parks,and if this land becomes high density,it will
never become green again.This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy,and a star in
Cupertino's crown.
From: Caryl Gorska [mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 12:07 PM
To: Darcy Paul Cc: City Clerk Subject: Please add The Oaks to our Parklands!
Dear Council Member Paul;
The suggestion below was posted by one of my neighbors on NextDoor.It is such an excellent
and forward-thinking idea that I am asking you,the Mayor,and your fellow Council Members to
please consider it. I know many people who would support such a bond measure.
Regards,
Caryl Gorska
New thoughts about The Oaks
I would like our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the
Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park. Something similar was done when the City
purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located.A friend,who lived behind
that property at that time,told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.The citizens of
Cupertino objected,and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center. I have spoken to many
friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park,and there
is much enthusiasm for this idea. Cupertino could use more park and open space. and this is great
opportunity to add The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area.The Oaks location
would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events,with adequate parking,which
is not available near the current amphitheater. There would be space for an Arts and Crafts
building,perhaps a small theater,more opportunities for children's activities,and much more.
Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center.The existing
Memorial Park could then be planted with more trees,walking paths,shaded areas for people to
sit and enjoy the outdoors.I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as
possible in our City.We don't have many parks,and if this land becomes high density,it will
never become green again.This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy,and a star in
Cupertino's crown.
From: Caryl Gorska(inailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 12:07 PM
To:Rod Sinks Cc: City Clerk Subject: Make The Oaks part of our Parklands!
Dear Council Member Sinks;
The suggestion below was posted by one of my neighbors on NextDoor.It is such an excellent
and forward-thinking idea that I am asking you,the Mayor,and your fellow Council Members to
please consider it. I know many people who would support such a bond measure.
Regards,
Caryl Gorska
New thoughts about The Oaks
I would like our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the
Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park.Something similar was done when the City
purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located.A friend,who lived behind
that property at that time,told me a hotel was proposed to be built there.The citizens of
Cupertino objected,and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center. I have spoken to many
friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park,and there
is much enthusiasm for this idea.Cupertino could use more park and open space. and this is great
opportunity to add The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area.The Oaks location
would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events,with adequate parking,which
is not available near the current amphitheater.There would be space for an Arts and Crafts
building,perhaps a small theater,more opportunities for children's activities,and much more.
Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center.The existing
Memorial Park could then be planted with more trees,walking paths,shaded areas for people to
sit and enjoy the outdoors.I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as
possible in our City.We don't have many parks,and if this land becomes high density,it will
never become green again.This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy,and a star in
Cupertino's crown.
From:Yonghui Mou fmailto:� Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 11:20
AM To: Steven Scharf; Subject: Oaks project
Dear Mr. Scharf,
Thanks a lot for listening to the voice of residents.We're happy that you were elected and now we
as residents have our own voice in the city council.
We strongly oppose current proposals of Cupertino Oaks project.Too many condos in such a
small plaza is too aggressive. Since people move to Cupertino mostly for the good school district,
does the school district have enough money and resources to support such high density area?
We strongly oppose changing general plan to allow high rise in this area. Currently Highway 85
traffic is already too bad.We don't want to see an even worse junction.
We strongly urge you to deny current proposals of Oaks based on so many concerns.Please ask
all the developers to give reasonable proposals and follow the general plan.
Thanks a lot for your consideration.
West Cupertino residents:
Yonghui Mou and Jie Ruan
From: Yonghui Mou fmailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 11:15
AM To: Darcy Paul; Subject: Oaks project
Dear Mr. Paul,
Thanks a lot for your always support and listening to the voice of residents.
We strongly oppose current proposals of Cupertino Oaks project.Too many condos in such a
small plaza is too aggressive. Since people move to Cupertino mostly for the good school district,
does the school district have enough money and resources to support such high density area?
We strongly oppose changing general plan to allow high rise in this area. Currently Highway 85
traffic is already too bad.We don't want to see an even worse junction.
We strongly urge you to deny current proposals of Oaks based on so many concerns.Please ask
all the developers to give reasonable proposals and follow the general plan.
Thanks for your consideration.
West Cupertino residents:
Yonghui Mou and Jie Ruan
From: Yonghui Mou rmailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 11:12
AM To: Barry Chang; Subject: Oaks project
Dear Mr. Chang,
We strongly oppose current proposals of Cupertino Oaks project.Too many condos in such a
small plaza is too aggressive. Since people move to Cupertino mostly for the good school district,
does the school district have enough money and resources to support such high density area?
We strongly oppose changing general plan to allow high rise in this area. Currently Highway 85
traffic is already too bad.We don't want to see an even worse junction.
We strongly urge you to deny current proposals of Oaks based on so many concerns.Please ask
all the developers to give reasonable proposals and follow the general plan.
Thanks for your consideration.
West Cupertino residents:
Yonghui Mou and Jie Ruan
From:Yonghui Mou [mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 11:10
AM To: Rod Sinks; Subject: Oaks project
Dear Mr. Sinks,
We strongly oppose current proposals of Cupertino Oaks project.Too many
condos in such a small plaza is too aggressive. Since people move to
Cupertino mostly for the good school district, does the school district
have enough money and resources to support such high density area?
We strongly oppose changing general plan to allow high rise in this area.
Currently Highway 85 traffic is already too bad.We don't want to see an
even worse junction.
We strongly urge you to deny current proposals of Oaks based on so many
concerns. Please ask all the developers to give reasonable proposals and
follow the general plan.
Thanks for your consideration.
West Cupertino residents:
Yonghui Mou and Jie Ruan
Dear Mr. Sinks,
We strongly oppose current proposals of Cupertino Oaks project.Too many condos in such a
small plaza is too aggressive. Since people move to Cupertino mostly for the good school district,
does the school district have enough money and resources to support such high density area?
We strongly oppose changing general plan to allow high rise in this area. Currently Highway 85
traffic is already too bad.We don't want to see an even worse junction.
We strongly urge you to deny current proposals of Oaks based on so many concerns.Please ask
all the developers to give reasonable proposals and follow the general plan.
Thanks for your consideration.
West Cupertino residents:
Yonghui Mou and Jie Ruan
From:Richard Lowenthal [mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017
10:56 AM To:Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang 4 Cupertino City Council;Darcy
Paul; Steven Scharf Cc: City Council Subject:West side neighbors want the Oaks upgraded
Well,the truth has surfaced.
For years,the Steve Scharf cult called Better Cupertino has ranted that folks like us who live on
the west side of Cupertino wanted Vallco fixed because it was far from our homes.The cult got
their way and killed Vallco.But what's happening now?
There's a proposal for upgrading the Oaks,and west side folks are in favor of it.We'd like to see
vibrancy there and something new.We want new retail and hotels and housing.
Yet the Steve Scharf cult has come out against it.Why?They hate all improvements to our city.
They want to go back to the 70s,and they make up lies about the folks that don't live in their
neighborhoods.They blame our current traffic problems on future projects--how does that make
sense?
We don't want another dead shopping center like Vallco.We want Westport Alternative 2.
Hypocrisy and fake news are now plain to see. I hope the good folks on our City Council can
stand up to the noisy negative folks.
Richard and Ellen Lowenthal
Jean and Charles Bedord
Gary and Barbie Jones
From:Yonghui Mou [mailto:� Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 11:03
AM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Subject: Oaks project
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan,
We strongly oppose current proposals of Cupertino Oaks project.Too many condos in such a
small plaza is too aggressive. Since people move to Cupertino mostly for the good school district,
does the school district have enough money and resources to support such high density area?We
strongly oppose changing general plan to allow high rise in this area. Currently Highway 85
traffic is already too bad.We don't want to see an even worse junction.Please ask all the
developers to give reasonable proposals and follow the general plan.
Since you accepted donors from the developer of Oaks in 2014 election,we strongly urge you
either deny current proposals of Oaks based on so many concerns,or opt out of the votes for
conflict interest.
Thanks for your consideration.
West Cupertino residents:
Yonghui Mou and Jie Ruan
From: Caryl Gorska[inailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 10:39 AM
To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: Stop making substantive issues late on the City
Council agenda!
Dear Mayor and City Council;
I ask that this correspondence be entered into the public record.
Looking at the agenda for August 1st meeting that was just published,I see the most important
agenda item for the day listed as Items#16, 16a, l6b& 16c. I am fairly confident that lots of
residents would be interested in this item and may come to attend the meeting in person; I plan to
attend for sure.
Given the level of interest in GPA items from our community,I would like to request to
advance this item to upfront immediately after Open Communications.This will help lots of
residents to weigh in on this matter and get back to their families and kids;also,helps with
elderly residents go to bed early. City Council can certainly continue discussing non-nal book
keeping items after the GPA topic.
I have seen city council shuffle agenda items in the past and defer items as well;hopefully,this
request is not too hard to accommodate as it helps with residents. I am sure you want as much
participation from residents as possible on such matters;if that is true,you want to make it easy
for them to participate.
Thanks
Caryl Gorska
From: Ryan Booth [mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 10:45 AM
To: Steven Scharf Subject: The Oaks Shopping Centre Redevelopment-Don't block this
Councilmember Scharf,
I'd like to voice my support for the redevelopment of this shopping centre.
I'm a resident of San Jose,and I work at Apple in the area.
i
My preference would be the development of the residential plan,as this would add the most
amount of housing to the area(a total of 91 BMR units along with 514 MR units),but the mixed
use development is suitable as well(54 BMR units with 216 MR units).We have a tremendous
housing affordability/supply crisis in the bay area,we should be trying to get as many units online
as possible.By saying NO to new developments we're only exacerbating the crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,Ryan Booth
From:Ryan BoothFmailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 10:45 AM
To: Barry Chang Subject: The Oaks Shopping Centre Redevelopment-Don't block this
Councilmember Chang,
I'd like to voice my support for the redevelopment of this shopping centre.
I'm a resident of San Jose,and I work at Apple in the area.
My preference would be the development of the residential plan,as this would add the most
amount of housing to the area(a total of 91 BMR units along with 514 MR units),but the mixed
use development is suitable as well(54 BMR units with 216 MR units).We have a tremendous
housing affordability/supply crisis in the bay area,we should be trying to get as many units online
as possible. By saying NO to new developments we're only exacerbating the crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,Ryan Booth
From: Ryan Booth[mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 10:45 AM
To:Darcy Paul Subject: The Oaks Shopping Centre Redevelopment-Don't block this
Vice Mayor Paul,
I'd like to voice my support for the redevelopment of this shopping centre.
I'm a resident of San Jose,and I work at Apple in the area.
My preference would be the development of the residential plan,as this would add the most
amount of housing to the area(a total of 91 BMR units along with 514 MR units),but the mixed
use development is suitable as well(54 BMR units with 216 MR units).We have a tremendous
housing affordability/supply crisis in the bay area,we should be trying to get as many units online
as possible.By saying NO to new developments we're only exacerbating the crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,Ryan Booth
From: Ryan Booth fmailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 10:45 AM
To: Rod Sinks Subject:The Oaks Shopping Centre Redevelopment-Don't block this
Councilmember Sinks,
I'd like to voice my support for the redevelopment of this shopping centre.
I'm a resident of San Jose,and I work at Apple in the area.
My preference would be the development of the residential plan,as this
would add the most amount of housing to the area(a total of 91 BMR units
along with 514 MR units),but the mixed use development is suitable as well
(54 BMR units with 216 MR units).We have a tremendous housing
affordability/supply crisis in the bay area,we should be trying to get as
many units online as possible.By saying NO to new developments we're only
exacerbating the crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,Ryan Booth
Councilmember Sinks,
I'd like to voice my support for the redevelopment of this shopping centre.
I'm a resident of San Jose,and I work at Apple in the area.
My preference would be the development of the residential plan,as this would add the most
amount of housing to the area(a total of 91.BMR units along with 514 MR units),but the mixed
use development is suitable as well(54 BMR units with 216 MR units).We have a tremendous
housing affordability/supply crisis in the bay area,we should be trying to get as many units online
as possible.By saying NO to new developments we're only exacerbating the crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,Ryan Booth
From: Ryan Booth[mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 10:45 AM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject:The Oaks Shopping Centre Redevelopment-Don't block
this
Mayor Vaidhyanathan,
I'd like to voice my support for the redevelopment of this shopping centre.
I'm a resident of San Jose,and I work at Apple in the area.
My preference would be the development of the residential plan,as this would add the most
amount of housing to the area(a total of 91 BMR units along with 514 MR units),but the mixed
use development is suitable as well(54 BMR units with 216 MR units).We have a tremendous
housing affordability/supply crisis in the bay area;we should be trying to get as many units online
as possible.By saying NO to new developments we're only exacerbating the crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,Ryan Booth
From: Francisco Melli-Huber[mailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 1:07
AM To: City Council Subject: Support The Oaks redevelopment
Hi,
I'm writing in to support the project from KT Urban to redevelop The Oaks shopping center. I
work in Cupertino and know that it desperately needs more housing,and this project is a sensible
step in the right direction.
Francisco
From: Kevin Burke f mailto: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 1:20 AM To:
Rod Sinks Subject: Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment
Councilmember Sinks,
I grew up in the Bay Area and I've lived here my whole life. I'd love to
keep living here;my parents are here,my girlfriend's family is here,jobs
are here,my friends are here. I'm worried the way rent prices are going
that this won't be feasible. I'm worried my kids won't have a chance to be
able to stay here.
Since 2010 Santa Clara County has added 158,000 jobs and only 30,000 new
housing units.More workers and little new housing means increased
competition for homes and apartments,prices have gone way up. Since
2010,average
Santa Clara rents
<https://www.rentiungle.com/average-rent-in-santa-clara-rent-trends/>have
increased from$1700 to$2930.This is a problem state wide: one third of
California renters pay*more than half their salary*in rent.That's really
hard for a lot of people and makes it hard for a lot of small businesses to
compete.
We're trying to save up to buy a home and it's way more difficult to do
this than it used to be,because homes are more expensive,and we have to
pay so much to the landlord every month.My girlfriend and I pay about as
much in rent per year as a homeowner with an$800,000 mortgage would pay.
It's tougher for us to save.
Fundamentally the cause of higher housing prices is we've added a lot more
jobs and a lot more people all through the Bay Area and we haven't added
enough housing for the new people-all of our children and people that
have moved to the Bay Area in search of a better job or a better lot in
life.This increased competition has driven housing prices up,and also
driven people to the outskirts of the Bay Area-Gilroy,Brentwood,Rio
Vista, Stockton,and Livermore all led the area in population growth last
year.That's not good for the environment because those people have lawns
and long commutes.That's also not great for Cupertino traffic,because
those people all have to drive long distances,through Cupertino,to their
jobs.
In particular Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus
for Apple with 11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere. If
Cupertino does not build enough housing,they will live in Belmont or
Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,
especially for the new office workers at Apple.This would help keep
housing prices lower,by adding more housing for people to live in.It may
be taller than the surrounding area,and bring more cars to the immediate
area,but I'd much rather have a views crisis or a traffic crisis than a
housing crisis.More housing will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,
and Santa Clara County's new college grads,afford to stay and live in the
area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.I
would love if you could approve the plan alternative that includes the most
new housing,though I understand this may be politically infeasible.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
Councilmember Sinks,
I grew up in the Bay Area and I've lived here my whole life.I'd love to keep living here;my
parents are here,my girlfriend's family is here,jobs are here,my friends are here.I'm worried the
way rent prices are going that this won't be feasible. I'm worried my kids won't have a chance to
be able to stay here.
Since 2010 Santa Clara County has added 158,000 jobs and only 30,000 new housing units.More
workers and little new housing means increased competition for homes and apartments,prices
have gone way up. Since 2010,average Santa Clara rents have increased from$1700 to$2930.
This is a problem state wide: one third of California renters pay more than half their salary in
rent.That's really hard for a lot of people and makes it hard for a lot of small businesses to
compete.
We're trying to save up to buy a home and it's way more difficult to do this than it used to be,
because homes are more expensive,and we have to pay so much to the landlord every month.My
girlfriend and I pay about as much in rent per year as a homeowner with an$800,000 mortgage
would pay. It's tougher for us to save.
Fundamentally the cause of higher housing prices is we've added a lot more jobs and a lot more
people all through the Bay Area and we haven't added enough housing for the new people-all of
our children and people that have moved to the Bay Area in search of a better job or a better lot in
life.This increased competition has driven housing prices up,and also driven people to the
outskirts of the Bay Area-Gilroy,Brentwood,Rio Vista,Stockton,and Livermore all led the
area in population growth last year.That's not good for the environment because those people
have lawns and long commutes.That's also not great for Cupertino traffic,because those people
all have to drive long distances,through Cupertino,to their jobs.
In particular Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with
11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere.If Cupertino does not build enough
housing,they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near
me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in.It may be taller than the surrounding area,and bring more cars to the immediate
area,but I'd much rather have a views crisis or a traffic crisis than a housing crisis.More housing
will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara County's new college grads,afford
to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.I would love if you
could approve the plan alternative that includes the most new housing,though I understand this
may be politically infeasible.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
From:Kevin Burke [mai1to: Sent: Thursday,July 27,2017 1:20 AM To:
Steven Scharf Subject: Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan
amendment
Councilmember Scharf,
I grew up in the Bay Area and I've lived here my whole life. I'd love to keep living here;my
parents are here,my girlfriend's family is here,jobs are here,my friends are here.I'm worried the
way rent prices are going that this won't be feasible. I'm worried my kids won't have a chance to
be able to stay here.
Since 2010 Santa Clara County has added 158,000 jobs and only 30,000 new housing units.More
workers and little new housing means increased competition for homes and apartments,prices
have gone way up. Since 2010,average Santa Clara rents have increased from$1700 to$2930.
This is a problem state wide: one third of California renters pay more than half their salary in
rent.That's really hard for a lot of people and makes it hard for a lot of small businesses to
compete.
We're trying to save up to buy a home and it's way more difficult to do this than it used to be,
because homes are more expensive,and we have to pay so much to the landlord every month.My
girlfriend and I pay about as much in rent per year as a homeowner with an$800,000 mortgage
would pay. It's tougher for us to save.
Fundamentally the cause of higher housing prices is we've added a lot more jobs and a lot more
people all through the Bay Area and we haven't added enough housing for the new people-all of
our children and people that have moved to the Bay Area in search of a better job or a better lot in
I
I
4
life.This increased competition has driven housing prices up,and also driven people to the
outskirts of the Bay Area-Gilroy,Brentwood,Rio Vista, Stockton,and Livermore all led the
area in population growth last year.That's not good for the environment because those people
have lawns and long commutes.That's also not great for Cupertino traffic,because those people
all have to drive long distances,through Cupertino,to their jobs.
In particular Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with
11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere. If Cupertino does not build enough
housing,they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near
me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in. It may be taller than the surrounding area,and bring more cars to the immediate
area,but I'd much rather have a views crisis or a traffic crisis than a housing crisis.More housing
will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara County's new college grads,afford
to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment. I would love if you
could approve the plan alternative that includes the most new housing,though I understand this
may be politically infeasible.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
From: Kevin Burke[mailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 1:20 AM To:
Barry Chang Subject: Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan
amendment
Councilmeinber Chang,
I grew up in the Bay Area and I've lived here my whole life. I'd love to keep living here;my
parents are here,my girlfriend's family is here,jobs are here,my friends are here. I'm worried the
way rent prices are going that this won't be feasible. I'm worried my kids won't have a chance to
be able to stay here.
Since 2010 Santa Clara County has added 158,000 jobs and only 30,000 new housing units.More
workers and little new housing means increased competition for homes and apartments,prices
have gone way up. Since 2010,average Santa Clara rents have increased from$1700 to$2930.
This is a problem state wide: one third of California renters pay more than half their salary in
rent.That's really hard for a lot of people and makes it hard for a lot of small businesses to
compete.
We're trying to save up to buy a home and it's way more difficult to do this than it used to be,
because homes are more expensive,and we have to pay so much to the landlord every month.My
girlfriend and I pay about as much in rent per year as a homeowner with an$800,000 mortgage
would pay. It's tougher for us to save.
Fundamentally the cause of higher housing prices is we've added a lot more jobs and a lot more
people all through the Bay Area and we haven't added enough housing for the new people-all of
our children and people that have moved to the Bay Area in search of a better job or a better lot in
life.This increased competition has driven housing prices up,and also driven people to the
outskirts of the Bay Area-Gilroy,Brentwood,Rio Vista, Stockton,and Livermore all led the
area in population growth last year.That's not good for the environment because those people
have lawns and long commutes.That's also not great for Cupertino traffic,because those people
all have to drive long distances,through Cupertino,to their jobs.
In particular Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with
11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere. If Cupertino does not build enough
housing,they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near
me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino,especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in. It may be taller than the surrounding area,and bring more cars to the immediate
area,but I'd much rather have a views crisis or a traffic crisis than a housing crisis.More housing
will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara County's new college grads,afford
to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment.I would love if you
could approve the plan alternative that includes the most new housing,though I understand this
may be politically infeasible.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
From: Kevin Burke rmailto: Sent:Thursday,July 27,2017 1:20 AM To:
Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan
amendment
Mayor Vaidhyanathan,
I grew up in the Bay Area and I've lived here my whole life. I'd love to keep living here;my
parents are here,my girlfriend's family is here,jobs are here,my friends are here.I'm worried the
way rent prices are going that this won't be feasible.I'm worried my kids won't have a chance to
be able to stay here.
Since 2010 Santa Clara County has added 158,000 jobs and only 30,000 new housing units.More
workers and little new housing means increased competition for homes and apartments,prices
have gone way up. Since 2010,average Santa Clara rents have increased from$1700 to$2930.
This is a problem state wide: one third of California renters pay more than half their salary in
rent.That's really hard for a lot of people and makes it hard for a lot of small businesses to
compete.
We're trying to save up to buy a home and it's way more difficult to do this than it used to be,
because homes are more expensive,and we have to pay so much to the landlord every month.My
girlfriend and I pay about as much in rent per year as a homeowner with an$800,000 mortgage
would pay.It's tougher for us to save.
Fundamentally the cause of higher housing prices is we've added a lot more jobs and a lot more
people all through the Bay Area and we haven't added enough housing for the new people-all of
our children and people that have moved to the Bay Area in search of a better job or a better lot in
life.This increased competition has driven housing prices up,and also driven people to the
outskirts of the Bay Area-Gilroy,Brentwood,Rio Vista, Stockton,and Livermore all led the
area in population growth last year.That's not good for the environment because those people
have lawns and long commutes.That's also not great for Cupertino traffic,because those people
all have to drive long distances,through Cupertino,to their jobs.
In particular Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with
11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere.If Cupertino does not build enough
housing,they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near
me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino, especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in. It may be taller than the surrounding area,and bring more cars to the immediate
area,but I'd much rather have a views crisis or a traffic crisis than a housing crisis.More housing
will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara County's new college grads,afford
to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment. I would love if you
i
could approve the plan alternative that includes the most new housing,though I understand this
may be politically infeasible.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
From: Kevin Burke fmailto: comSent:Thursday,July 27,2017 1:20 AM To:
Darcy Paul Subject: Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment
Vice Mayor Paul,
I grew up in the Bay Area and I've lived here my whole life.I'd love to keep living here;my
parents are here,my girlfriend's family is here,jobs are here,my friends are here.I'm worried the
way rent prices are going that this won't be feasible. I'm worried my kids won't have a chance to
be able to stay here.
Since 2010 Santa Clara County has added 158,000 jobs and only 30,000 new housing units.More
workers and little new housing means increased competition for homes and apartments,prices
have gone way up. Since 2010,average Santa Clara rents have increased from$1700 to$2930.
This is a problem state wide: one third of California renters pay more than half their salary in
rent. That's really hard for a lot of people and makes it hard for a lot of small businesses to
compete.
We're trying to save up to buy a home and it's way more difficult to do this than it used to be,
because homes are more expensive,and we have to pay so much to the landlord every month.My
girlfriend and I pay about as much in rent per year as a homeowner with an$800,000 mortgage
would pay. It's tougher for us to save.
Fundamentally the cause of higher housing prices is we've added a lot more jobs and a lot more
people all through the Bay Area and we haven't added enough housing for the new people-all of
our children and people that have moved to the Bay Area in search of a better job or a better lot in
life.This increased competition has driven housing prices up,and also driven people to the
outskirts of the Bay Area-Gilroy,Brentwood,Rio Vista, Stockton,and Livermore all led the
area in population growth last year.That's not good for the environment because those people
have lawns and long commutes.That's also not great for Cupertino traffic,because those people
all have to drive long distances,through Cupertino,to their jobs.
In particular Cupertino has added many new jobs in the form of a new campus for Apple with
11,000 employees.Those people have to live somewhere.If Cupertino does not build enough
housing,they will live in Belmont or Gilroy and drive up the price of apartments and homes near
me.
The Oaks Shopping Center plan would add more housing in Cupertino, especially for the new
office workers at Apple.This would help keep housing prices lower,by adding more housing for
people to live in. It may be taller than the surrounding area,and bring more cars to the immediate
area,but I'd much rather have a views crisis or a traffic crisis than a housing crisis.More housing
will also help Santa Clara County's worst off,and Santa Clara County's new college grads,afford
to stay and live in the area.
Please vote to approve the Oaks Shopping Center General Plan amendment. I would love if you
could approve the plan alternative that includes the most new housing,though I understand this
may be politically infeasible.
Thanks very much,
Kevin
;�. BRIDGE HOUSING
CORPORATION
6RiDGE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT COMPANY
SUILD:NG SUSTAIY.ING LEADING
BAY AREA SENIOR SERVICES, INC.
BRIDGE ECONOMIC
DE VELOPMENT CORPORATION
July 28,2017
City of Cupertino
Attn:City Council Members
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014-3202
Re: Proposed 70-unit Senior Affordable project at the Westport Cupertino redevelopment site
Dear City Council Members:
We are all fully aware of the housing shortage currently affecting the region and are excited with the
opportunity to participate with KT Urban on their proposed redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Center
which should provide some housing relief for the City and its residents.This proposed redevelopment effort
consists of a wonderful mixed-use,mixed-income community on the 40+year old iconic shopping center
site with plans to include a 70-unit Senior Affordable project. BRIDGE Housing has been invited to assist
in the evaluation and potential execution of developing a stand-alone affordable building and to help garner
the support from public and private stakeholders as well as provide for the necessary public and private
funding sources to allow for a financially feasible project.
As you may already be aware,BRIDGE Housing Corp. (www.bridgehousing.com)focuses on affordable
and mixed-income residential development and acquisitions throughout the West Region. Ranking among
the most successful nonprofit developer/owner/operators in the nation,BRIDGE Housing has participated
in the development and acquisition of over 16,000 high-quality multi-family units with another 5,000 units
in the pipeline. Of these total units already completed,approximately 3,400-units are categorized as Senior
Affordable projects. A few age-restricted Santa Clara County projects we've completed include the 124-
unit Fountains Apts.(Mountain View),the 100-unit Oak Circle Apts.(San Jose)and the 96-unit,Mabuhay
Court Apts. (San Jose). In addition to these projects,BRIDGE has enjoyed a successful track record of
partnerships with all levels of government,market-rate developers and other nonprofits and was recently
awarded an A+rating from Standard&Poor's,a first for a nonprofit developer.
We believe our plan for a Senior Affordable building on this property will help provide some relief of the
pent-up demand for age-restricted units within the City as well as the region providing residents with a safe
and affordable housing option. We look forward to your support of this project and would be available for
further workshops with staff after your initial approvals. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ryan Querubin
Sr.Acquisition Manager
cc: Brad Wiblin,SVP
600 CALIFORNIA STREET,SUITE 900,SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94108 TEL:415 989.1111 FAX:415.495.4898
20321 IRVINE AVENUE,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 TEL:619 231.6300 FAX:619 231.6301
2202 THIRTIETH STREET,SAN DIEGO,CA 92104 TEL:619 231.6300 FAX:619 231.6301
925 NW 19T"AVE.,STUDIO B,PORTLAND,OR 92709 TEL:503-360-1828 FAX:503-961-8897
-PROFIT,PUBLIC-BENEFIT CORPORATION
WWW.BRIDGEHOUSING.COM;BRIDGE HOUSING IS A NOT-FOR
I
.l I
SPRINKLER FITTERS AND APPRENTICES
Stanley M. SmithDvlan M. Boldt
483
Business Manager L��AL
OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS, Tony Rodriguez
PIPEFITTERS AND SPRINKLER FITTERS OF THE Dan Torres
UNITED STATES AND CANADA AFL-CIO Business Agents
Jeffrey M. Dixon e ,,
John Medina Bill Bourgeois
Orr anizersMarket Development
July 28,2017 Representative
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino,CA 95014
RE: OPPOSE KT Urban General Plan Amendment-The Oaks
i
Dear Mayor and City Council,
On behalf of the over fifty Cupertino families that are members of SMART Local 104,UA Local
393, IBEW Local 332 and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 we are asking that the City Council deny
KT Urban's General Plan Amendment request for The Oaks development project. l
Last year,KT Urban attempted to make an end run around the City Councils decision to deny a
similar application.As you recall,KT Urban failed in their attempt to place an initiative on the
ballot that would have overturned the Council's well-reasoned rejection of their previous
application.
On August 1,2017 the proposed project will be before you for consideration,we believe that you
should reject this iteration of their project. The Mayor and Council should also be concerned '£
about trusting this developer to do what is in the best interests of all Cupertino residents. They
have a track record of seeking profits for themselves at the expense of shortchanging their
workers and the communities they develop in.
For instance, KT Urban continues to be associated with a sub-contractor, Iron Mechanical that
has been accused of wage theft and has been forced to pay impacted workers who were not
paid for work performed as a result of lawsuits filed against it. Ken Tersini,President of KT
Urban,has stated his strong support for Iron Mechanical in a February 5th, 2016 letter "In
fact, Iron Mechanical has recently been awarded a contract to perform the HVAC and Hydronics
work on the Silvery Tomer's project."
Hundreds of local construction workers have been employed and paid below the area standard on
KT Urban projects. Local construction workers are the backbone of our middle class and they
need elected officials such as yourself to step up for them and stand up to greedy developers such
as KTUrban.
1
Recent news stories have revealed how KT Urban's Silvery Towers Project is utilizing the EB-5
Visa program to finance this project. That Visa program has been under increasing scrutiny for
abuse andmismanagement.
l
I
2525 Barrington Court • Hayward, California 94545
Telephone (519) 785-8483 • Fax (510) 785-8508
v�qvw.sprinkierfitters483.org
1
�
1
No commitment to hire local workers and pay them the area standard wage. No commitment
to support apprenticeship programs for Cupertino youth to have an additional pathway to a
middle-class career.Potentially shady financing of this project and the potential use of 1
contractors with a sordid history of wage theft. These are important issues that impact all of
Cupertino. Couple these issues with the many land use inconsistencies with your General Plan i
and the wisest course of action is to reject KT Urban's application for The Oaks.
Since ly,
Start Smitl A Local 483 Business Manager
CC: Dan Rodriguez,IBEW Local 332,Business Manager l
Rudy Carrasco, UA Local 393 Assistant Business Manager
i
Rick Werner,SMART Local 104 Business Manager
l
19925 Stevens Creek Stvd.,Suite 100
Cupertino,CA 95014-2358
I!ORKPLACESA� � F1C Phone: # 08,973-7800
fax. (408)725-8885
Cupertino@PacificWorkptaces.com
July 30, 2017
Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE:Westport Cupertino - Please include this Letter as part of the public record
Dear Councilmembers.
I am a Cupertino resident and one of the owners of Pacific Workplaces, a shared workspace
operator on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino.
Pacific Workplaces has incubated over two thousand companies in the past 30 years, many of
whom have grown from small one-person startups into thriving companies that have employed
tens, if not hundreds of people.
As Council Member, Rod Sinks, pointed out so well in his State of the City address a couple of
years ago, these growing companies don't have anywhere to locate their business within the
city,once they outgrow my small on-demand workspace or their home based operation.
I support the Westport Cupertino project because in talking with the principles there, they have
expressed an interest in building office space that could be utilized by medium sized companies,
as well as the possibility of a ground floor coworking facility to foster more innovation by
founders, entrepreneurs and freelancers.
The mixed-use vibrancy of housing, restaurants, shops and entertainment, is what today's
employees AND EMPLOYERS are looking for when they choose a space to grow their
business. Westport Cupertino will be a great place for all these things!
As you know, the vote on August 1s', is not for final approval, but simply a "gate keeper"event,
which, if passed, would allow the Community Development/Planning Department to review
plans, to commission a firm to do an EIR and other reports on the project, and ultimately to
make recommendations to the Planning Commission and to the City Council.
I urge you to let Westport Cupertino"thru the gate", so we can begin the process of reviewing
this project and investigating the impact it would have on our community.
:,ion
th Warner
Managing Partner
CyChoices
August 1,2017 Opening new doors for people with developmental disabilities
Mayor and City Council of the City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA
Re: Redevelopment of the"Oaks"site
Dear Mayor,Vice Mayor and members of the City Council,
Housing Choices is supporting Cupertino residents with developmental disabilities and their families to
advocate on behalf of rental housing in Cupertino that is affordable to people with developmental
disabilities,many of whom depend on SSI and are extremely low-income.
The"Oaks"development site is a critical affordable housing opportunity site,recognized as such in the
City's Housing Element. The two Oaks proposals include a minimum number of units for"low-income"
and"very-low-income"seniors—just the number to avoid triggering a mitigating contribution to the
affordable housing impact fund.
Under either of the two Oaks development proposals currently under consideration,an important
affordable housing opportunity site would be squandered with no impact on the City's ability to house
long-time extremely low-income Cupertino residents with developmental disabilities,who will be at
imminent risk of homelessness when their aging parents become too frail to house them. .
The City's Below Market Rate(BMR)housing ordinance itself acknowledges that the BMR income
standards and rent levels do not address the housing needs of the most vulnerable Cupertino
residents—those with extremely low-incomes. To serve this unmet housing need,the BMR ordinance
recognizes that the City must proceed with development proposals that incorporate affordable housing
Finance strategies and facilitate the income targeting of a percentage of the rental units to extremely
low-income people,who are otherwise completely excluded from the benefits of the BMR ordinance.
We urge that you not proceed with either of these two proposals unless and until they incorporate
some housing for people with extremely low-income,particularly those with developmental disabilities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ette E.Stokley
xecuti, Director
San Jose Office Watsonville Office
Serving Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Serving Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties
898 Faulstich Court,Suite B 349 Main Street,Suite 207
San Jose,CA 95112 Watsonville,CA 95076
Phone:408.498.5777 Phone:831.722.3954
FAX:408,498.5242 www.housingchoices.org 0 FAX:831.722.3958
i
I
a
SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP P GROUP
2001 Gateway Place,Suite 101E
Sen Jose,Cddomla 98110 i
(408)501.7884 aAgarg August 151,2017
CARL GUARDING
President&CEO
Board Officers: Cupertino City Hall
GREG=Chau
SVB Finendal Group 10300 Torre Avenue
STEVE t''MILLIGAN,
gi�Corwelion Cupertino,CA 95014-3202
JOHN ADAMS,Secretary/freasurer
Wells Fargo Bank
TOM WERNER,Farmer Chaff
SunPower RE; Silicon Valley Leadership Group Endorsement of Westport Cupertino
AARTDE GEUS,Former Chair
Synopsys
STEVE BERGLUND,Former Char
Trimble Inc. Y Y Dear Mayor Vaidh anathan and Councilmembers,
Board Members:
MARPNANSTICE On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership group,I am writing to offer our comments and
Lam Research
SHELLYEARCHAMBEAU express our support for the Westport Cupertino development by KT Urban.
MebicSbeam
GEORGE allMENTHAL
University of CailwnOHB« lo The Silicon Valley Leadership Group,founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-
KQED
CHRIS BOYD Packard,represents nearly 375 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers in issues,
Kaiser Pencrariento
RAMI BRANITZKY programs and campaigns that affect the economic quality of life in Silicon Valley,
Sapphire
GARYBRIGGS including energy,transportation,education,housing,health care,tax,and the
BILL COLEMAN environment.Collectively,Leadership Group members provide nearly one out of every
Veritas
CHRISTOPHER DAWES three private sector jobs in Silicon Valley.
Stanford Children's Health
MICHAEL ENGH,S.J.
Santa Clara FALN As proposed by KT Urban,Westport Cupertino strengthens the relationship between
HANK ORE housing and transportation as the site is located in proximity to nearby transit lines and
Conn—A destinations such as De Anza College.We commend the developer,KT Urban,for
KEN GOLDMAN
Yahoo! exhibiting thoughtful planning and bringing forth two mixed used alternatives for the
RAO GONZALEZ
Bank of America city's leadership to consider.Both alternatives add much needed housing to the city of
DOUG GRAHAM
Lockheed Martin Cupertino(including affordable housing for seniors),funding for transit infrastructure
LAURA GUIO IBM improvements,and an abundance of community amenities. .
JAMES GU77ERREZ
Insikt
STEFAN CK
NEaulo As supporters of high density and transit oriented developments,the Leadership Group
San FrandscoJOHNSON Clronicle seeks out and supports quality developments.The Westport Cupertino development by
MICHAELJOHNSON KT Urban will not only help alleviate the housing crisis,but will also increase the
r San San
Re9rona Medal Center Jose
""R'F'AM°ENN economic vitality within our region.Thank you for the consideration of our input.
ERIC KUTCHER
McKinsey&Comparry
ENRIOUELORES
HP Inc. Sincerely,
MATTMAHAN
Brigade
TARKANAMER
Nexenta
KENMCNEELY
AT&T
BEN MINICUCCIUCCI
Alaska Airlines
KEVIN MUR41
Synnex
MARYPAPAZIAN
San Jose Slate University
JES PEDERSEN
Webcor Builders
KM POLESE Carl Guardino
JOSEPH RUGGIEROf President&CEO
°en°
SHARON RYAN Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Bay Area News Group
RON SEGE
Echelon
DARREN SNELLGROVE
Johnson&Johnson
JED YORK
San Francisco 49—
Established In 1978 by
David Packard
July 29, 2017
Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan
Cupertino City Council Members
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014-3255
Re: Support for The Westport Project
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Cupertino City Council Members:
As a long-time area resident, I have watch the demise of The Oaks Shopping Center.Last
year, I supported the revitalization of this shopping center by KT Urban. Now the developer
has proposed two new development alternatives under the name, The Westport Cupertino
Project. Again, I supporttheir ambitious and innovative renovations.
Both Alternatives include: Senior Housing units adjacent to the Senior Center and Memorial
Park, at least 270 Residential units, a Community Center, a 5-screen movie theater to
replace the aging Bluelight Cinemas, bicycle parking and a transit hub, if the Light Rail
along CA-85 ever becomes a reality. Also, the very much needed variety of retail shops and
restaurants within walking and biking distance from the Creston, Monta Vista, Garden Gate,
Faria and Jollyman neighborhoods,as well as the DeAnza College student population.
Alternative 1 (Mixed-Use Residential) has only Residential units (605), while Alternative 2
(Mixed Use Gateway) also includes Residential units (270), Business Office space and a
170-room Hotel. I am in favor of the Mixed-Use Gateway because Cupertino is in short
supply of both small business space and hotel suites and will bring in double the tax dollars
to the city over Alternative 1.
The `Better Cupertino' group is weary of the increased traffic around the Westport Project.
Adding `Speed Humps' in the Garden Gate neighborhood on Mary Ave, Meteor Drive,
Amulet Drive, Castine Ave, Greenleaf Drive and Gardena Drive will slow the speeders and
protect the children at Garden Gate Elementary School. The commuter parking along Mary
Ave will likely be around for some time until a developer can find some openproperty to
build a multi-story commuter garage that will bring more income into the Cupertino city
budget.
When you vote on Tuesday, I hope you will vote to carefully review the plans for The
Westport Project. It will be good for the western Cupertino neighborhoods to have a modern
multi-use center that fits well in our community.
Please include this message as part of the public record.
I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration.
Timothy J. Turner