Loading...
CC Exhibit Item No. 9 and 13 - The Oaks Written CommunicationsFrom:Glenn Cabral To:Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject:Meeting Date:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 2:41:08 PM Subject : Oaks shopping center The first proposal for Oaks Shopping looked good and was turned down. Now a second proposal is being presented and the minority group are in force to fight it. They must have their heads in the sand trying to stop progress . My wife is 88 and I am 92 and residents of Cupertino for the last 56 years. We have seen what progress has done for Cupertino, but these last few years it seems a minority group has the influence to stop projects which are beneficial to City of Cupertino. We believe the City Council should make a decision beneficial to Cupertino not to a group who are speaking the loudest. Get heads out of the sand and leave Cupertino to progress. Respectively Glenn and Ann Cabral Sent from my iPad Total Control Panel Login To: svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org From: glcabral@msn.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block msn.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Park Chamberlain To:Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf Subject:Traffic impact of proposed Westport Development Date:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 11:02:27 AM Attachments:ATT00001.txt Oaks traffic message to City Council 2017 12 05.doc Garden Gate neighborhood map showing traffic flow to Oaks.pdf Total Control Panel Login To: rsinks@cupertino.org From: chamberlain54@comcast.net Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block comcast.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Grace Schmidt Subject:FW: No on Measure C Must Stand Date:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 8:24:45 AM Forwarding as requested. From: Gary [mailto:gjoneshome@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 2:30 PM To: council@cupertino.org Cc: David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>; Grace Schmidt <graces@cupertino.org>; Matt Wilson <mwilson@community-newspapers.com> Subject: No on Measure C Must Stand Open Letter to Cupertino City Council 12.4.2017 Honorable City Council Members: Some citizens of Cupertino seem unable to let go of Measure C's defeat in 2016. They are unwilling to accept the fact that the rest of us want to see good governance in the form of our normal city planning process leading to positive change at Vallco and The Oaks. There is a new and misleading Change.org petition circulating on social media in an attempt to influence this Council to hastily down-zone the Vallco property in a manner akin to Measure C. It clearly aims to exploit fears of excessive development following the passage of the State's new housing laws. After the Council's November 27 study session, you know these fears are misplaced. Nonetheless, I’m sure they will gather what will look like an impressive number of signatures. This petition has been sponsored by and circulated through the same organization that brought us Measure C; the same organization whose ballot arguments in favor of Measure C were struck by a court as false and misleading by clear and convincing evidence. That should be a plain enough indicator of their lack of respect for truth and willingness to deceive. With this letter I seek to remind this Council that there were over 14,000 Cupertino voters who cast ballots against Measure C. They voted down Measure C for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a preference for our normal city planning process. Now, the owners of Vallco and of The Oaks are returning in good faith to our regular city process to in order to redevelop these underutilized properties. The residents of Cupertino plead with this Council for good governance despite the angry voices of some. Those angry voices do not represent the whole of Cupertino, yet they persist in a campaign of misinformation, fear, and obstruction. Enough is enough. I and many others support our process--we elected you, those who represent us, to make difficult decisions. Vallco and The Oaks are difficult decisions. We plead with you to move these projects forward so our community can begin repairing the damage from what has become known as “The Cupertino Not-So-Civil War." Gary Jones, Cupertino Thrives Sent from my iPhone Gary Total Control Panel Login To: graces@cupertino.org From: gjoneshome@yahoo.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Connie Cunningham To:Savita Vaidhyanathan; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Steven Scharf Subject:GPA Authorization 2017-02, Westport, Pedestrian Above Grade Walkway Idea Date:Monday, December 04, 2017 9:49:28 PM Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I have read with interest the new documents being presented for GPA Authorization 2017-02, Westport Cupertino. I note the changes that are being made in the height of the office building and the increase of senior affordable units. Both of those are good. Since I am interested in the senior housing that will be added, I am, also interested in the pedestrian and bikeway improvements that KT Urban is planning. Pedestrian Above Grade Walkway Idea For safety of pedestrians, I would like to add the possibility of a Pedestrian Above Grade Walkway that I did not read in the documents. Because Mary Avenue lies between the new senior housing and the Cupertino Senior Center and Memorial Park, I think this would put much needed separation between cars and people. This could take many forms, 1. a two-way escalator and walkway rising over Mary Avenue, high enough to allow traffic, with proper people moving equipment to help elderly people safely enter and exit the walkway 2. an elevator rising up/down to a two-way walkway over Mary Avenue. 3. In some cities, walkways cross from one building to another to move people between tall buildings. Final point I was glad that there has been an increase to the number of BMR units. One point KT Urban made was that this will make our city inventory go up from 138 units to 215. I urge that existing BMR units not be lost to our inventory at a faster rate than developers can add new ones. I have read about this sort of thing in other cities, and hope that we can stay ahead of the curve. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham 1119 Milky Way Cupertino, CA 95014 408-446-1793 Total Control Panel Login To: bchang@cupertino.org From: cunninghamconniel@gmail.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Scott Hughes To:Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Steven Scharf Subject:The Oaks Date:Sunday, December 03, 2017 9:55:54 PM Attachments:NoGPAsForOaks_020216.pptx NoGPAsForOaks_080117.pptx Hello Council Members, As much as this topic is very important to me, this Tuesday’s meeting falls on my 25th Wedding Anniversary, so I will not be able to join you in person. I hope you will take a little time to read this email. I have also attached the exact documents which I presented on 2/2/16 and 8/5/17 as these contain a few points which I ran out of time to discuss orally. I do not believe you should grant the applicants request to postpone this item until January. Since this is just a ‘revisit’ of the 2nd round of 2017 GPA review, we need to get this item behind us now. I have tried to remain professional throughout this process, but this latest proposal is embarrassing. At this point, I hope that you will send a simple, direct message to the applicant to go ‘back to the drawing board’ and develop a proposal which meets all of the existing zoning for this location, does not require a single waiver or exemption and has a ‘look and feel’ which fits within the surrounding suburban community. If the applicant does not wish to pursue this path, then I think it should be recommended that he sell the property to someone who understands this concept. Another key requirement for this project is to focus the bulk of the housing on ‘for sale’ housing which is owner occupied. In general, there are many good reasons why our community needs more new ‘owner occupied’ housing and less new rental housing. As much as it is important to address affordable and senior housing, it is also important to consider this within framework of the present HCD cycle. You have already approved an increase of over 800 rental units combined in the Hamptons and Marina; the Oaks needs to be primarily ‘owner occupied’ to drive the balance for this cycle back to the more beneficial direction for our community. I typically do not prefer to ‘compare’ projects and this one is so out of touch with what would work at this location that it doesn’t warrant much comparison. However, I hope you will not be swayed by some of the applicants latest tactics to confuse people. You may hear the argument that ‘you already have 60’ height at Main St . . .’. In my opinion, this is not relevant, but more importantly I do not believe it is good policy to let past mistakes dictate future decisions. There is much to like about Main St. but I do not think there is a single positive aspect of Main St. which could not have been equally successful in a 45’ height limit. Rather, one may want to look at some aspects of Sunnyvale’s Lawrence Station. A mixed use development with ~10 years of public input and planning. One which realizes that mixed-use does not mean jamming 5 different uses into every development but instead focuses on the uses which will most benefit the future residents of a specific development; in this case lots of open space with minimal retail/dining. Also of note is a key guiding statement; ‘the only reason that we can consider higher density (than elsewhere in the city) is the existing Cal Train station within walking distance’. i.e., the density only works because the location already has the infrastructure to support it. Thanks in advance for your effort on this topic. Regards, Scott Total Control Panel Login To: sscharf@cupertino.org From: scottahughes@comcast.net Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Sandy Robin To:City Council Subject:Reviving The Oaks Date:Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:27:35 PM Dear City Council: In reviewing the proposed project at the Oaks I find it is way out hand. It is too huge, covering too much space and above all —does not fit in with the surrounding area’s architecture. The location for such a large compound is horrible, and will cause more traffic problems. 85/280 interchange at Stevens Creek is already a mess. How can we even consider such a huge undertaking at this site? Granted, the Oaks is in need of an upgrade. Keeping the low structure, with the same design to fit in with De Anza College and the Senior Center, are, in my opinion, crucial. There must be a way to re-do, and spruce up the center so that KT will make their money, because make no mistake..……that is what it is all about. KT is not looking to better Cupertino, their main agenda is a profit. We need to all keep that in mind. Sincerely, Sandra Robin, resident Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: sr6456@yahoo.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Valerie Abid To:City Council Subject:KT Urban Development Plans for Oaks Shopping Center Date:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:23:24 AM Council Members: I am a long time Cupertino resident living on Mary Avenue much too close to the proposed development plan for the Oaks Shopping Center. I hope that you will reject KT Urban’s latest proposal which has changed very little from the previous version. This plan is overbuilt for the site especially with regard to parking and traffic flow. There is no way a three story underground parking facility could be built large enough to house all the cars the residents, hotel guests and office workers will bring to the site each day. The one entrance and one exit will cause traffic jams of epic proportions and once the cars get onto the street, the traffic light at Mary and Stevens Creek will be overwhelmed. That also means those trying to avoid the garage or the overflow cars will be parked throughout the neighborhood. Already Mary Avenue parking spaces are filled each week day with De Anza students parking as well as commuters parking to ride company busses. I realize the Oaks will be redeveloped, and probably not the way I would prefer with more shops and fewer offices, but please rein in KT Urban and require their proposals meet the guidelines of the General Plan. Thank you, Valerie Abid Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: valerieabid@comcast.net Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block comcast.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.