CC 06-18-19 #1 Study Session Vallco Initial General Plan Amendments_Written CommunicationsCyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Monday, June 17, 2019 9:20 PM
To: Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Rod Sinks; Cupertino City Manager's
Office; City Attorney's Office
Subject: I support Option 2 to remove Office use at Vallco and set a height limit of 65' -75'
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, council members Paul, Willey, Sinks, City Manager Feng, and City Attorney
Minner,
I have read and researched the City Council Staff Report for the June 18, 2019 meeting. To refresh my memory, I again
viewed the 12/3/2014 continuation Council meeting in which a 2M sqft Office allocation and no height limit was given
to the Vallco developer (contingent on a Specific Plan being adopted by May 31, 2018).
As a resident of Cupertino since 197 6, my choice is Option 2. Options 1 & 2 both remove the Office land use
designation for Vallco given to the developer 4· 1/2 years ago, a gift which has caused intense strife, division and
anxiety in our community. Option 1, since it removes Office, is also acceptable.
Since Option 2 is my choice, I would respond to the "direction questions" as follows: No, YES, Yes, No, 65' -75', and
No. .
I look forward to participating in the noticed Public Hearings on these amendments before the CPC and the CCC.
Respectfully,
James (Jim) Moore
Total Control Panel
To: lianggiao@cupertino.org
From: cinco777@icloud.com
Message Score: 30
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block icloud.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Mt:dium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Login.
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>
Monday, June 17, 2019 10:34 PM
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey
City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Vallco Agenda Item 6/18/2019 Public Record Written Communication
Vallco2M800unit_Program_Level_EIR_Problem.pdf; Apple2MillionNoted.png;
EnsureCupertinoOfficeShouldBe2Million.png; PauMahoney2MI11ionSF Jpg
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Sinks, Paul, and Willey,
Please add these attachments to the public record for the 5:30 Study Session tomorrow.
The following is an excerpt of the attached PDF which I have submitted to the city previously with no response:
"V allco -General Plan BIR Inconsistencies
Contents
General Plan DEIR...., June 18, 2014-No Office Quantity for Vallco, no residential quantity for Vallco .... 1
Public Request Emails Request RE: Allocations to V allco: ........................................................................... IO
Measure D 9212 Report claims General Plan BIR studied Vallco 2 Million SF and 800 residential units: 15 ·
Summary: .
The Environmental Impact Report completed in 2014 for the city-wide General Plan Amendment for Cupertino's
General Plan Vision 2040 does not indicate specific allocations for Vallco Shopping District were studied. At issue is
whetb.er-th~city-perfonneda site.specific-RIRwithGertain allocations-at VaUco,-ornot.-'fhe eurrentpropertyowner ~--
( who did not own the entire site at the time of the BIR) and the consultant for the developer's failed Measure D ballot
initiative, the V allco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative, seem to agree that 2 Million SF of office and 800 residential
units were indeed studied in the city-wide program level General Plan BIR.
Who is correct?
Why does the same company conducting the EIR for Vallco's current Proposed Project believe thatthe BIR studied 2
Million SF office and 800 residential units in .the General Plan BIR back in 2014? How could this have occurred?
What are the penalties for studying a project level proposal in a General Plan program level. BIR? Why are cities NOT
supposed to do this?
The following is SOME of the information to support my statements:
General Plan DEIR-June 18, 2014-No Office Quantity for Vallco, no residential quantity for Vallco
The June 18, 2014 DEIR has no indication that 2,000,000 SF of office space would be allocated to Vallco Shopping'
District. There is no indication that 2,000,000 SF of office and other allocations were studied at that location for the
DEIR.
The following pages from the June 18, 2014 DEIR show that office was mentioned in the text to be in the Proposed
Project for the BIR study, but no amount of allocation was mentioned. Proposed Project is also referred to as
Alternative C." ·
I have long wondered about the 2014 GP BIR with regards to Vallco. It has always looked to me like piecemeal
planning and spot zoning. I have attached some other, perhaps helpful, documents.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Representing Myself Only
1
V allco -General Plan EIR Inconsistencies
Contents
General Plan DEIR •-June 18, 2014-No Office Quantity for Valko, no residential quantity for Vallco .... 1
Public Request Emails Request RE: Allocations to Vallco: ............................................................................ 10
Measure D 9212 Report claims General Plan EIR studied. Vallco 2 Million SF and 800 residential units: 15
Summary:
The Environmental Impact Report completed. in 2014 for the city-wide General Plan Amendment for
Cupertino's General Plan Vision 2040 does not indicate specific allocations for Vallco Shopping District
were studied. At issue is whether the city performed a site specific EIR with certain allocations at Valko,
or not. The current property owner (who did not own the entire site at the time of the EIR) and the
consultant for the developer's failed Measure D ballot initiative, the Valko Town Center Specific Plan
Initiative, seem to agree that 2 Million SF of office and 800 residential units were indeed studied in the
city-wide program level General Plan EIR.
Who is correct?
Why does the same company conducting the EIR for Vallco's current Proposed Project believe that the
EIR studied 2 Million SF office and 800 residential units in the General Plan EIR back in 2014? How
could this have occurred?
What are the penalties for studying a project level proposal in a General Plan program level EIR? Why
are cities NOT supposed to do this?
The following is SOME of the information to support my statements:
.General Plan DEIR-June 18, 2014-No Office Quantity for Vallco, no
residential quantity for Vallco
The June 18, 2014 DEIR has no indication that 2,000,000 SF of office space would be allocated to Vallco
Shopping District. There is no indication that 2,000,000 SF of office and other allocations were studied at
that location for the DEIR.
The following pages from the June 18, 2014 DEIR sh.ow that office was mentioned in the text to be in the
Proposed Project for the EIR study, but no amount of allocation was mentioned. Proposed Project is also
referred to as Alternative C.
' ,
17,113 sf 2,700,000sf + 2,682,887 sf
North Crossroads
Node
South vaJJco Part
Gateway West
Convnvruty
Recre~ion Ned_
750,000sf
339 roo 63 rooms
2.1oounas
Nirt9 sf"' ~ ftfl, dv/K • h ' 1111 ~_, ad'-t
1 . p~wt,,-~!ftd.il; ttda'lih• WJT¥tGfi-~ Plan
lb ~Vil I ntl
awehr.tUJl
+S4,371sf
+1.492ucits
2Sduf;;c
2Sdu/it
2Sdu/ac
35d!J/~
3Sd!J/ac/4
2Sdu/ac
3S du/ac
2Sdu/«,
3Sdu/ac
3Sdu/;c
4Sfeet
45
60
45 et
kit ~I~, Offl: BWcv,r:t Pd ~l rt I pr.a:-l4 the 111
Jnd ~-""" 1:1-.Mfa
~.utt
So,.i:rt• Oty ~ C ~rtino. 2014
4S eet
4Sfeet
3 .7.2 .1, STUD Y A EA 6 {VALLCO SHOPPI G DIST RI CT)
Existing Conditions
tudy Area (i (Y. llco Shopp . District) is would be located within the South Valko Park Gat~ y &st and
Wes mthin the Heart of the City Speci31 Area d is part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan · ea . As
shown in Figure i •l 7, the Srndy ea is bounded b, the 1-280 to the north. portions of North Wolfe d
.md Perimeter oad to the east. Stevens Crttk Boule'\-ard to the south, and mother portion of Peru1Mtet
RO.>d to the wen. Curre.ntly. thi5 tudy A.re.1 · physinll se ted by North Wolf; Road . b t connected vu
an clC\-atcd bridge . This tudy ~ is co · ercd the city' regional shopping dbtritt and consists of mauy
retail store • induding major na ·om1 retailers, such L'tcy 's, Se.ars • .and JC Peuney. The Valko ing
District also hott~ one of nvo movie theatres in the city, AMC Cupertino. Alo "with majar retailers, there
are numerous :restaurants. inducting ·onat ch,in remurants md high -end restaurants md a newly
C'ODStnlcted mixed use de-.-dopment with 204 multi•bmily units md 4S ,000 square feet of commerdal
development. The ailco Shoppm,o District is surrounded with commen:ul mes to the south-east and south-
,,rest of th sit and office/ industrill uses to th e.lft. ingle family residentw development is ocated to tbt:
w t of tb.e Study Area while there is a ml'ttd~use multi-bmil de'\"Clopment with 107 residential units
(i etropolitan) and a mixed-use office, rommercw and ·dcntw (120uni de\' men treet}
planned to the south-e t of the tndy Area . This Study Area includes nine bus stops providing public
transportition to &o . the tudy e , as sh on Figure 3-17 , and lies east of l. P. Collim Bau tary
School and Portal Pa.tit. md to the nortln,re.st of Cupertino High School.
This Study Are.1 is within th Commeraal/ "dential (CIR) General PLm land use desigaation d zoned
1$ Pb:oncd Development Regional opping (P(Regioml Shoppin .
Proposed Proj ec t
Under the proposed Project . tudy Area 6 (Valko Shopping District would ind de a major redesign of the
Valko Shoppino bll re.a to CTC,lte .1 •dO\vntown'" for upertino. Propos~d mes would indud com erdal,
office , residential, public / quasi•publi • and hotel. A majority of this tudy Area is 3ho a potcnti31 Housing
Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District excep Roseb~ I). In outh Vallro Park G te ~ West , m.ummm
heights would be 60 r~ or up to 8 feet . if a project fe tures rcuil comp nent .ind providt.1 community
bmefiu. Sc 11 ble 3-15 for a description of height alfowanced b parcel.
In South Vallco Park Gatewiy East . maximum height would be 15 feet or up to 160 feet if a project includes
a ret.w componm and pro\ides community ben~fits . Sese T abl 3-1 for a desaiption of height illowm~
by parcel As shown below in Tab le 3-1 S, zoning would be amended to Planned Development , Regional
Shopping, Profc-uional om~. md Re!idenwl (P(Regional Shopping . OP, Res)) to allO\ • for teff.trch md
del"Clopment offices md residenti.11 uses . Furth~:r. · the General Plan desigiutiom would be ch:mged to
CommeTciu/Officc/Residmti.tl (C /O/R) to allow for office USC's in addition to coDUllera.li and rcsidcntW
uses , which are the emting designations .
I 3-52 10 f I I 29 1 A
GUIEIIAl SUN AIIDDo1B l HCUIING 8£ll9lt U'OAIL AHO illSSOCIAJID G JECT
or, Of ~-0
IF , 3--17
s dy Area 6 (Vallco s opping o·strict)
---------------···--·-·-·-·--· ----·-·--·-· -•-·--· --····-· --···-·---· --· ------··--·-··--------------~·-·----·-------·-·--------·-----·-----··----
"1#"-",.S--.4,.."-~f,. '...,,,,., ""' ..... ,..._,,_,,..c;.,.,, ,-..,,.,.v,i,1t . ...,,.'6'" "-'"~--~;,,,., _,.,. ..,...,..,,;;_ '"'""""' .... ,..,,..,,,,,.,,~..._ ... "-" ._,,,~..,, ... \# $,11:•ll""o· • l(,.,;6
Cl'f'f OF CUPHTINO
PROJECI DESCRIPIION
TNU1H5 SMJJNM&~MJ.U>SltcllftlGl'l!llla)bSIIIGNeflll:NmlNlol'MaffSWIWllls
,.., .... GilillMI~ •••. ;..J_. . !el ~!!!a ....... !!!Jt!_
!!!f!I lnlt£U. --,.,.. -51111 f.lMlf ~ ... '!P!!d !!!Iii ........ ~ !!!I~!!~ .
mBltfOf#l ~ ~ 60fee.t
1 AMC~ 3,1$-20-10:i US;ic a.mst C'/1 aw,. ~ §o,/;1,4; 3$rdu,~ fi)fett i!SW Wafeflaad ~ ClP,~ asfeef
•••• ,,.-ii MUVlllli:c ~ ~ llS'-
2 ~ ~,_ Jl&.10-10!) O'R (/0/P. ~ ~ lSd4tR¢ 3$~ Q')fe,at 91ltfet"
OP,~ aw
~ 10mlf01b ct.m ~ ~ iil)feet
a Sl&-20-JOS US• ~ r.J0/1 ~ lSOlhc a$~ toW 1$1itet" ~ Wl:ifeAl:lad· d ~ OP,!!!} nw_
lOU!Horth -.»w ~ ... ·-4 Geriel'alMIII ·rJll C/0,'I ~ SSdw'laic 3$"1/¥, GOfat . i!SW wotitacaid ~ ~ 01'.!!!J asw
Parlq -~ ~ .,,_
s .. 'H/A SU.-20-!07 SMac ..,, (1ft C'JO/R ~ ~ 3$fN/« 3$~ --lSW
~. -ll;l
CP1!!.!l
~ .. ... ~ .,,..
' N/A m.»MS IJSac: ('Jil CJ0/1 . ~ S!.1$.t/• JSwJ.ac . GOW .. .... ~ 0,1!!!1 ,..
7SW
I •• U.1 •~u1,1, • • edf'eit'"' .lOM!llOC1h ~ ~
1 11$1 Frlda'(s SJ&..20-104 t.mac ,,__ C$ C/0/I .... ;s-,.. 3$~ tofed: aw WolfeltclN ~ OP,RISI $SW
.,.,...,s ~Nol'lh ~ .... "511eet
8 ~ W(llfelallf ~ 0-IIIS« 1,0,)B,f rJl Q0/1 ~· ~ IS~ JS~ 60feet 510fflet"
OP,Aesl aw ----l'iUA ... ~ .,_
9 MK(:. lload !JS-20-101 457ac: d t,fR C/OfR ~ ~ 3$.,.. 3hW.ac: ·-1SW °'="· -' .. ,., .. ~ .
Sel!Ssiore/ ---. 257MI ~ ~ 601-t
10 SJ&.2f.'KISO ., ... CIA C/0/R ~ IS_,_ .,S~ ... 7Sfeet" 8'VOAI WdfeRoaid ~ ~ OP,11!$J ISW
mlmtwlh ~ ... 60fttet
u Ad:o~ 'M)lfelloa,d ~ ,U'S&: l&Sllf (JR ~ ~ ·~ as.,_ -~ --?Sf.Mt"
°'·~ ~ ...... 18111'111•~~~
<;;tN!flrAL l'LA1'1 IIMil:NO'tll::HI. t"l(;IU:i,tN~ tttMl::1111 Ut'UA11:. llil<IV A:.SQ(,111!.l:f:lJ 1111:,tQNlhG UIUIH !:Iii!
------,--------------------------------.;;;;C;;.;11'.;.,Y.;;O;.;.F..;:C:;.;;l.l;.;.l'.:::;Ei:;.:TI..:,:l'i;:.;O::.,
PROJECT DESCRlfflON
_ ___.,..., ___ , __ ,.,._1H-•-----R•-,~--
14
_25 ____ ca __ •_11t_..,,. ____ "_•_~ __ w_,., ... ,~ ....... -, .. -rtaeattt ___ c,a __ CIO/R_ ..... , ---~-~-·-----~~F ..... !!!)_.,_,_as_~ __ as_duh.c ___ ti!A __ · ..:.:!::;:;. :;.;;::feet'=--
~ ~ ~ ~ !Swk,c Hdwlitt · ff/A
~.!!!}
Uf7,W.'!I
am~ uso~p-.~(lfooi$N:it __ ._~
*~ -'ll/•,rq,.Ml!f!ee;l!C•-"""'-"lfMllil!C ..... r:--,,fll/1'•-~
~-~Cl(IAl .. ~Gl!I.,~
~4JIUill-.;,.g::"'~~"'~lt•a~-~~.Of,ltm•~~~~~~~ ........... . .
...... Wolr!Jl!INlllllillt,..,.~Dlil!e!'ill:.
::. .... rtflllll .... i:t_._.~ -.-.~('niu~n•oir."-dwldt,_......,_.~ .. ..,.~tC,,NJ; ......... ill!U>1'Wiln-.-~
~Ci:'fr/1~~
---~O!lg,.-----,.,..,. "'-------.,---..... rr.-:::;::_ ~-~ ~ ,,.. --.,, •• 4 ... __, ...•
-___ ,_.,.
---.......:......
JS-'!l-lCW --"
--:.......-a J\1.:V'),4
,l_ L~ ---,_
-C.--15-.... :...-~-------------~ .,.....,.. __ -·-•'---•--
cu
,.r---1
I I I ..,,-----..--
1 -
C
eC
,-----------------·-----
ern iveC
Public Request Emails Request RE: Allocations to Vallco:
can
teed,
rhe heig is measured from grade i s built.
: ul 16 ft firs floor pla , 13 ft U floor p
do you need for 10 stones? e
A pa sho fit m 1 > ft.
'-arti
> On Dec 19, 2013, a 6:06 PM, •Reed cts• <rmoulds@s!'4Xo.com> wro
>
From: George Schroeder
To: PiM Ghosh ; Aarti Shrivastaya · Gary O)ao· Diana Pancholf
SUbject: FVI: CUpelttoo Housing Bement participatiol -Sand Property Company
Date: T esday, February 04, 2014 6 :05 :55 PM
:y1
From: Reed Mo ul ds [ma il to:rmo ul ds@shpco.com]
ient: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6 :05 PM
r o: Geo rg e Schroede r
Subject: CUpertino Hou sing Bement participation -Sa Hill Property Co mpany
;eo rge, t h is email serves to ind icate Sa nd Hill Property Compa ny's interest in participa t ing in t he
:ity's Hous ing Element process . As you know we are in contract to acquire o ne or m ore of the
/all co Shopping Mall parcels and wo ul d li ke the abili ty to develop at least 800 market-rate
·e sidentia l un it s, with out age restrictio n, at t he pr operty.
~eed Moulds
l&maging D' ector
:land H iU Prop.erty Company
?03 Redwood ShOfes Pafkway , S ·,e 200
~edwood City. CA 94065
iS0-344-1500 x11 0
In the following exchange it appears that Peter Pau of SHPCO believes that 2 Million SF of office is being
studied at Vallco:
rom:
HiRMd ,
L 1.1 know when yQII would • ~ 1M I. I'm av 10000m
toValleo?
Thank you
Pio not. lM new offic4t
2882 S.lnd ~ Ro.id, 241, lo Park. CA 94025
11_u_20u1
Here the developer is requesting a specific allocation to Vallco which, they believe was studied in the EIR
for that site:·
AND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY
October 13 , 2014
Via Overnight Delivery and E-Mai l
Chair Brophy and Members of the Plann ing Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 orr e Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
He : Gencnl Plan Am · ndm co f: Office Allocation for Valko hoppi ng District
Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission :
I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company ("Sand Hi111 regardi ng the treatment
of the Valko h.opping District ( .. Vallco ") in tlie Oem:ntl Plan Amendm ni.. Sand Hill is in
the mid st of acquiring the VaUco parcels for potential red evelopm ent, S-O we are keenly
intere ed in working 'th the City of Cupertino (°City'') to d v lop a fu iblc plan that am
ne t . ·e o ers. I am wntmg to request t nt the Planning Commission recominends
to the i1y Council that U1 • General Pl n inc lude an office llocation for VaJlco of21000,000
square feet and tl1e height limit set out in "'Alternative C," as analyz din the draft Oenerul
Plan's environmental review . Without this specific office allocation , as ,• II as the necessary
retru an ou mg components, ere w1 not e a equut<.l cm1c mass to nu e 1t posstb e
for Sand Hill . or any other prosp ective developer , to cccs fully redevelop Valko.
Vallco presents a unique opportunity for red evelopmen t and revitalization that is unma tched
in the City of Cupertino . The site. its la prime location in the City. ycc for many reaso ns, it
hllS long been neglected nnd numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandoned or h ve
failed . Sand Hill h the financi 1 cap city and proven track record with ch projects and i
pois d to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for : a dynamic do wntown
where the community can live. work and play . 'and Hill plan to compl et ly transform the
current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant , ustainab le mixed-use neighborhood.
Our plun envi ions a bal anced mi x of600-700 re idential unit s, approximately 600.000
square feet of retai l. a fu ll service hot el, and 2,000,000 square feet of oflicc sp ce. The
overarching vi ion is to create a pedestrian oriented "town center" cons i tent with the
General Plan vi ion that will have synergi be twee n the uses an d near by projects, such as
Main Street.
•f-3467260
382 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241 • ME LO PARK.. CA 94025 •(6SO) 344.1500 ,•FAX (650) 344--0652
Here the Deve loper reiterates their belief that 2 M SF office and 800 residential units were already
studied in the EIR for Vallco in the General Plan EIR:
Page 1
F r o m ; "Orrin Mah o ney" <orrinmahoney@comcast.net>
To: "P ublic Records" <PRA@cu pertin o .. o rg >
Oate: 4/212015 12:37:11 P M
S u bj ect: FW: Vallco -Email to Council
-· ------------------------------
fi mm : Onin Mahoney [mai1to:oninmahon ey@comcast.11€1:J
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:47 PM
To: 'Peter Pa u'
Su bject: RE: Vallco -Email to Council
P,et er,
No questions. No new news from me.
Orrin
----· -------------------·-----------------------------·· --------
F,om: Peter Pa u {mailto:poau@shoco.com]
Sent: Monday, Novernber 10, 20 14 U:50 AM
Ta: Orrin t"'3honey
Su bject: FW: Va loo -Email to Council
Importance~ High
Orrin:
Thanks again for getting together on Fr iday. We app reciate your support and
recogn ition of this once in a generation opportunity to finally redevelop Va lko.
Below is the specific request for ton ight's hearing specific to Valko . We request
you adopt these items tonight to provide the certainty for us to proceed :
600,000 sf of retail (already studied in the EIR}
2,000,000 sf of Office for Va llco (already stud ied in the EIR}
Vallco designated as Housing Element Site
o 35 DUA, avera ged across the Vallco s ite
o 600 Unit allocation for Vallco (down from 800 studied in the EIR)
Heights for Vallco in Alternative C in EI R/staff report
Val lco redevelopment to be subject to future community based Specific Plan
Process
Please le t me know if you have any question s . Th anks .
11_11_2015
Measure D 9212 Report claims General Plan EIR studied Vallco 2 Milli on
SF and 800 residential units:
Cover page:
REPORT
Elect ions Code 9212 Report on Proposed Initiative
In· 'alive adopting e Vallco Town Cen er Specific P, a to (1 J pr, vide that VaJJco . hopping Distdd Special Area
tAreaj contain s a mixture of residen ·a1. o ce. retail. civic a d education uses~ (2) requrre any developmerd to fund
or p 'de community be fits ch as transit, schools, a green rcof. and eeyded water; am:I (3) gra the property
o mer · · ·a1 en · emen s to develop in acmdance with the Initiative and es ablish a process for~ ure approva ;
and making re la ed amendmen s o Cvpe · o's General Plan a d unh;jpal Code.
Prepared for :
City of Cupertino
June 29 , 20 16
Pre pared by :
, Se ifel Co nsulting , Inc .
I
David J. Po ers & Ass ociates, Inc.
, Fe hr & Pee rs Transporta tion Consu ltan ts
9212 Report Valko Measure D Initiative P . 36 :
For edification, as applicable to SB 35 and Opticos Alternatives stating 2,400+ residential units:
at exreed r s own in • 0 Housf
Here the 9212 may be contradicting itself, because it states that the General Plan EIR " ... did not analyze
the impacts of redeveloping the Vallco Area at the same level of detail as would typically be prepared for a
proposed specific plan, and instead specifically anticipated that further environmental review would be
required.":
Here the 9212 state s sp e cifically: "The Ge neral Plan EIR assume d Vallco would be r edeveloperd with 800
residential units, 2 .0 Million square fee t of office uses, 625,335 square feet of commercial uses and 339
hotel rooms .":
Conclusion:
cernfied Geraa Plan BR (City .of pertino. Gener.a Plan
and
as
There appears to be either a non-disclosure of the contents of the General Plan EIR, which would be
highly inappropriate , or a serious misunderstanding in the developer and consultants' belief that 2
Million SF of office and 800 residential units were studied at Vallco in the General Plan Amendment EIR.
Neither of these options are good . Please conduct a thorough review which shall include requesting
exactly what Hexagon was told to study for the Vallco site specifically. Other consultants for the EIR
would also have needed to know where the office and housing allocations were to be spread around the
city and would be able to confirm what they were told to analyze. Additionally, the city staff should be
asked what they told the developer as to what had been analyzed in the EIR to determine why the
developer believes/believed they had studied the 2 Million SF of office and 800 residential units. Lastly, it
is very disconcerting that the consultant for the current Vallco EIR believe the 2 Million SF and 800
residential units had already been studied at the Vallco site, was the 9212 report inaccurate in many
places? Will the current Vallco EIR be full of inaccuracies?
Please make findings public .
Table 34 factor in the capacity to accommodate th e proposed App le Campus 2 a long with
a not her nevi, corporate campus equivalent in sca le to the re ce nt projects shown in Table 33, in
addit ion to the minimum demand e stimates th at we re develope d based o n proje cte d
e mploym e nt. As s hown, this results in a net new d e mand of approximately 2.9 mill ion square
feet by 2020 and 3 .6 million squa re feet by 20 35 . Given the recent s hortage of office spaces in
Cupe rt ino containing more than 0,000 contiguous squ a re feet, a ne w re comme nde d office
a llocation could al so allow for mu lti-tenant office developments, wh ich could create the s pace
needed for m id-size companies to grow in Cupertino as we ll as acco mmodate a new m ajor
technology company or fu t ure e xpansion o f an existing fi rm.
Ta b l e 34.: Proj e cted Office Demand, Cupertino, 2013 -2035 ·
Minlmum Demand Estimate
Gmss Demand (sq. ft .) (a)
Less: IEntit ed Office Development (sq. ft)
Net New Office Demand ABAG Proj ections (sq . ft.)
Sq. R Requir.ed for New Coiporate Campus (s f. ft.} {b)
Net New Square Footage of Apple Campus 2 (c)
Tota l New Demand for Office Space
As sum plil ons
2020
303,06 1
147,050
156,01 1
2,000.000
750,000
2,906,011
Projected Avernge .Annua l Demand for Office Space, West Va lley (sq . ft)
Cupe rtino Sha re of West Valley Office Emp loyme nt (e)
Projected Average Ann ual Demand for Office Space, Cuperti no (sq. ft)
Note:
2035
'152,477
147,050
805,428
2;000.000
750,000
3,555,4.2 8
404,766
10.7%
43,294
(a) Minimu m gross demand is esti mat ed based on annua l ave rage de mand fo r office
space in Cupertino
(b) Sq . ft req ui re ment est imated fo r a new corporate campus is based on corpo rate
campuses rece ntly proposed or approved by hi gh-tech compa nies in Sil icon Va ll ey .
(c) Apple Campus 2 net new sq . ft. are t reate d as new demand since outs ide scope of
ABAG projections.
(d) Re comm ended net new allocations ass um e that the App le Inc. retains all of the
space t hat it cur rent ly occup ies after App le Camp us 2 is built and that t he City shou ld
ha ve enough office square footage Inc. or another large company.in the all ocat ions
ba lance to acco mm oda t e a ne w corporate campus for App le
(e) Cupert ino sha re of West Va ll ey office empl oym en t is based on Cupertino 's share of
West Valley office absorption betwee n 2003 and 2012 .
Source : BAE, 2013.
----------------------~-----------•-----·--·-···-----------·-----~--
From : On-in Mah oney [ma il to :oninmahoney@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, Nove mb er 10, 201 4 3:4 7 PM
To: 'Peter Pau'
Subject: RE : Va ilco -Emai l to Co unci l
Peter,
No questi ons. No new n ews from me .
Orri n
From: Peter Pau [ma ilto :ppa u@s hpco .com ]
Sent: Mo nday, Novem be r 10, 20 1411:SOAM
To: Orrin Mahoney
Subject: FW: Vallco -Ema i l to Co unci l
Importance: High
Orri n:
Thanks ag ain for ge ttin g tog e t h e r on Frid a y. We a p pre ci ate yo u r s upp o rt and
re cognition of t h is once in a gene rat ion o p po rtun it y to fina lly re d eve lo p Va llco.
Below is th e specific requ e st fo r t onight's h ea ri ng spe cifi c to Va lko. We reque st
you a dopt th e s e it e ms to night t o provide t h e certa inty fo r u s to proceed :
600,000 sf of r e t a il (alrea dy stud ie d in t h e EIR)
2 ,0 00,0 0 0 sf of Office for Va llco (a lr eady st u di e d in t he EIR)
Valko d e signated a s Housing Ele ment Site
o 35 DU A, average d acros s t h e Vallco sit e
o 600 Uni t all ocation for Va Hc o (down fr o m 8 00 stud ied in t he EIR)
He ig h ts for Val lc o in Alte rn a t ive C in El R/staff re port
Va llc o re de ve lo pment to be s ubject t o future c om munity base d Specifi c Plan
Process
Please let me kno w if you have any questions. Th anks.
GE ERAL PLA AME DMENT -M AR KET STUDY
Tabl e 32: Annual Office Space Demand Based on Projected Employment, West Valley, 2010-2040
N;ewJobs Pe rcent Number of New Tot.a l Sq. Ft. Annua l Sq.Ft.
lndust[l'. Sec.tor 2010-2040 (b) Offioo {c} offrce•Jobs New Demand (d} 2010-2040
Ag · cul t urq & a tural Res o u rcss (162) Zl% (44) {10,9 55} (365)
ConsbuldtJon 3,293 24% 796 199,045 6 ,635
Ma nufacwring & Who f~ale 1,026 76% 179 194,642 6,48.8
Re tail 3,400 82% 2,005 701,205 23,373
Tra rnJl!JIOrta1l:ion, Ware hom:irn g, & Uti lities 930 M-'% tIDb ,01,607 .3,387
lnform,1't1on 4,391 91% 4 ,008 1,002,02.7 33,401
Fin anci al Activitue s 1,bB 1 9 1% 1,537 384,302 1:2,810
P~ofoss fi o na l Se.rvioo s 28,329 ea 23,182 5,79:5,548 193.,1 85
He.a lth & Eduoatf o 14,781 15% fl 1,ooJI 2,76S,0'56 7l., 69
l e is r-e, Hospiira1ify', & Otlhie r Senrl02!$ 10,381 33% 3,382 845,438 28,131
Govlol mme nt .232 lftb. ~ 1b5 0S4 ~
Tota l 68,990 70% 48,512 12,142,969 404,766
otes:
(a) Th e Wsist Vall ey sub. ar'k1,;1t d gfiiood for ~is · gu:r,;;, indlu~ Cam pb sUi, Cl.rp s rano , Sane Clara , and 'Surmyva fe .
(b) Nsw jobs by i111du5ftry are from the Job'$-HO U$i .g Conne cltio S1trat2gi1 ltmpbymm-r t Disttributio.n re leased by AM .., a d MTC i
May 2012.
i(c} · · e p m portio of offioo j;c/bs by industry is e,5tiimat,;;d !based o.n 2m 1 /JCS oooupatiiarn !by industry ata for Santa O ara Co, ni'J.
(cl} lotal n,av.r o ffice sp a cg cfom and is based n a n av.il rag e of:
250 sqU:arn foot p er offiic:,e iemp loyg e .
So urcoo: AMG & M C, 2012; ACS, 2'011 ; BAE, 20 13 .
. Recently Proposed Corporate Campuses
As doourn en ted above, C upe rtino is an imp ortant e mplo yme nt locat ion w it h a stron g office rea l
est ate ma rk et, w hic h s uggests hi gh exist in g and fut ure dem and fo r o ff ice deve lopment in t h e
city. D ue to t he Cuperti no's des ir ability as an o ffi ce location, t h e re is sig nificant pote nt i al for t he
C ity to attract an add it iona l corporate campus to ac co mmodate an exis t i n g ma j o r empl oyer o r
to attr act a new maj o r employe r. Fro m an e co n o m ic deve lopm ent pe rspective, t he City shou ld
hav e su ffi cient office allocations ava il able to all o w fo r a l ar ge corporate campus shou ld the
opportunity ar ise .
Ove r the past few years , a number of h igh-tech companies have proposed substanti al corporate
campuses i n Sil icon Va l ley cities that have recently been constructed, are current ly under
construct i on, or ar e see k ing entitl ements . The campuses shown in Tab l e 33 are among these
projects and range from approximately 500,000 to 2 .5 mi l l ion square feet, w ith the except ion of
Apple Campus 2, which has a much l arge r tota l squa re footage . To ensure that Cuperti no has
t he flex ib ili ty to respond to futu re , u nforeseen deman d , or demand at a peak in the business
cycle, an all oca t ion fo r office space should be at l east 2.0 m illion squa re feet.
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 12 :04 AM
City Council
City Clerk
June 18, 2019 CC Agenda -Vallco Study Session comments
Dear Honorable Mayor Scharf and City Council Members,
Thank you for considering changes to the Vallco land uses and allocations . I would like to encourage you to consider
doing the following:
1. Remove all office allocation from the Vallco site.
2 . Keep the 389 housing units but restrict them to the 11 acres required to meet the density. Keep the housing parcels
away from 1-280 for health reasons (noise and air pollution is very bad).
3. Restore height limits . On the west side, which borders the residential neighborhood, keep it low-no more than 35-45
ft . On the east side, no more than the height of the existing 1900 building or the newly built hotel. Make the heights
with no wiggle room. It's been abused too often.
4. Do not use the same South Valko height that specifies "45 feet/60 feet with retail" because this has been abused!
Just set a height, no exceptions .
NOTE/ISSUE: On the back parking lot(s) of the Valko area, the City has "air rights" which were intended to be used
to build a transportation area. Originally, I think it was when they thought there might be a BART station along 1-280 . I
think the City should think about how they can use those rights, possibly for the same purpose -to aid transportation .
Do not give up those rights! I'm pretty sure they are associated with at least the Simeon property, if not the adjoining
parcel, too .
Thank you fo~ all you do for our City!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Total Control Panel
To: citvcouncil@,cupertino.org
From: griffin@compuserve.com
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block compuserve.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com >
Monday, June 17, 2019 11:43 PM
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao ; Rod Sinks ; Darcy Paul ; Jon Robert Willey
City Attorney's Office; City Clerk
Height Limits at Vallco are 30' and 85 '
Height Limits Vallco.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Sinks, Paul, and Willey,
Attache4 is a summary of information regarding Vall co having height limits of a maximum of 30' and 85'. The city
provided this information in the Vallco Specific Plan EIR primarily and other height information is within the citywide
GP EIR from 2014 .
Please add this to the public record for tomorrow's meeting.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Representing Myself Only
Total Control Panel
To: jwilley@cupertino.org
From: ckittymoore@gmail.com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
1
There are two parcels, 316 20 080 and 316 20 081, within the proposed Vallco SB 35 Plan area
that are zoned P(CG). The other parcels in the plan area are all zoned P(Regional Shopping)
(Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Appendix B: Housing Element
Technical Report page B -180)
Cupertino Municipal Code Table 19.60.060 sets the maximum height for General Commercial
(CG) zones at "30 feet unless ot~erwise permitted by the General Plan or applicable Specific
Plan." "Regional Shopping" has no defined maximum height in Cupertino Municipal Code.
(Muni Code , 19.60.060)
Table 19.60.060: De,•elopmeot Standards
No minimum lot area o.c co~rerage.Must be in
conformance with the General Plan or applicable
A. Lot Area and Coverage Speci fic Plan.Most have sufficient area to satisfy
off-stceet parlcing and loading requirements . •. ;.,, d,i ., t it! ..
B. Height of Buildings and Structures 30 feet unless othern'ise permitted by the General
Plan or applicable Specific Plan.
®
w ::,
~ ~,I
~11;
OFFICE OF
@
~
@
~vt'-,:i
P.M,586-'1;!;,'!"" ,.,,.Ji
... ~9'. p: 1 . ,ti
ASSESSOR
\
~
7'~17
z,
~~ -15 ,,-,;,el 781,ll' .,J I .A... ~~--_-::::::---
SANTA
(@
I
'
~M
WfJ !
:11 PTN.PCL 1 11)
M
3-.368 A~ :n
'
-··· b VALLCO ::. -
@
,u~7 PCL A t
I
6§ ,1.~
ft , ..... q
CLARA. COUNTY,
.. "3"& .. -
CALIFORNIA
@)
PCL. 3
7,955 A<:. Net
1J.7
l[][]G9JI
J -'\J;-
' 1· = 300'
!I P.M, 4.38-M-13
~, c.c. 8405843
I 1!!;!
I<
~ :_t,
~ L.Gi w.u·~11~
Uf PCL.3 l~ ; • :\l , :i: iRACT NO. 10172
@)
-I-' 874-M-4 z P.M. 576-M-31
Mf.ri£Ji,,.,,,, .. #
',tj ~-
~ ,-
(j
0 g
t
"' ~
"' 0
"'!.
"' s=
:?
~
0
i
(Cupertino Property Information)
Cupertino DEIR Vallco, p . 162, PDF 198, circulated May 24, 2018 :
"Cupertino Municipal Code
The Vallco Special Area is zoned P(Regional Shopping) -Planned Development
Regional Shopping north ofVallco Parkway, and P(CG)-Planned Development General
Commercial south ofVallco Parkway (west of North Wolfe Road). The Planned
Development Zoning District is specifically intended to encourage variety in the
development pattern of the community. The Planned Development Regional Shopping
zoning designation allows all permitted uses in the Regional Shopping District, which
include up to 1,645,700 square feet of commercial uses, a 2,500 seat theater complex, and
buildings of up to three stories and 85 feet tall. 81
81 Council .A1ctions 31-U-86 and 9-U-90. The maximum building height identified was in
conformance with the 1993 General Plan and were identified in the Development
Agreement (Ordinance 1540 File no. 1-DA-90) at that time (Valko DEIR, p . 162, PDF
198) .
Therefore, the building height limits at the Vallco site are :
P(Regional Shopping): 85'
P(CG): 30'
Cupertino General Plan 2005-2020, shows Vallco heights at 60' Maximum:
Maximum Building Heights
i
f
'1 I ,._ I
NOTES ===============:::::;i
Setbac·k Ratios
Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1 :I slope llne drawn from the arterial
street curb line or lines except for the Crossroads and VaUco areas.
For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streets cape Plan.
For the Valko area:
Mainta in the primary building bulk below a 1.S:1 (I.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every
1 foot of building height) stope line drawn from the Ste\11:ns Creek Blvd and
Homestead Road curb lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and
Tantau Avenue curb line.
For projects adjacent to resldentfal aieas:
Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during
project review.
Figure 2-D. Maximum Building Heights.
__ .,
s.,.,_
lico5op~kcl
eq,~rtrcmf uti ry
structtl(M n,ayexceed
stip<Llo ,d ht!'ghr
lim~a ansiftbF/llll
m:los,4 centra/1),located
ontbl!roof atldn,:c ,i,;l,k
from adjacantsrreets.
Building height
for non·residentia!
centers not shown
is30feet.
I i City Boundary
Urban Service
Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Une
C=:J Unincorporated Areas
==-""'===--
(City of Cupertino General Plan 2005-2020, Chapter 2 Land Use Element, 2005, p . 11)
"Additional height may be approved at the Gateways and Nodes if a development meets certain criteria (e.g .
includes a retail component, is away from residential neighborhoods and/ or is near freeways) and provides
community benefits as described above to the satisfaction of City CounciL If development is proposed in
areas that abut single-family residential development, the development is expected to maintain an
appropriate setback to mitigate impacts." -GP EIR, 2014, p 3-15
['
(t) 0
500 1,000
, .. ,
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013 ; MIG , Inc, 2014 ; PlaceWorks, 2014 .
Maximum Residential Density
None
10 dwelling units per acre
20 dwelling units per acre
-25 dwelling units per acre
-35 dwelling units per acre
-40 dwelling units per acre
TAB!.E3-6 ExlSTING AND PROPOSED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Maximum Height
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Stevens Creek and
85Gateway
North Crossroads
Node
City Center Node
south vanco Park
Gateway West
South Vallco Park
Gateway East
De Anza College
Node
Communttv
Recreation Node
Civic Center Node
Remaining Proposed
17,113 sf 2,700,000 sf
695,629sf 750,000sf
339 rooms 639rooms
608units 2,100 units
Note: sf= square fe.et, du/ac = dwelling units per acre
a. except where otherwise indicated in the current General Plan
. b. South Va!lco area
c. South Vallco area with retail
d. with retail
Difference Existing Proposed Existing
+ 2,682,887 sf ·
+54,371sf 45 feet
60feet" ·
+300rooms
+ 1,492 units 25 du/ac0 25 du/ac
4Sfeet
60 feet"
25du/ac 35du/ac 45 feet
25du/ac 40du/ac 45 feet
2:Sdu/ac 2:Sdu/ac 45feet
35 du/acb 35du/ac 45 feet
60feef
35 du/acb 35 du/ac.
45feet
60feef
45 feet
e. with retail and community benefits in the surface parking lot along Stevens Creek Boulevard and existing parking garage to the rear
f. along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road with retail and community benefits
Proposed
45feet
45 feet
ooieet
75 feet'
60feet
75 feetd
7Sfeet
90feet°
llOfeet•
60feet
75feet°
85feet'
75feet
90feetd
160 feet3
45feet
g. with retail and ccmmunity benefits on the east side of Wolfe Road bounded by 1-280 to the north, Valko Parkway to the south, and Perimeter Road to
the east
-Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
Cupertino BIR, 2014:
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project , the General Plan land use designation would be changed from Commercial/
Residential (C/R) to Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O /R) and the Zoning designation would be
changed from Planned Development ,,ith Regional Shopping (P(Regional Shopping) to Planned
Development vvi th Regional Shoppin2:, Professional Office, and Residential (P(Reg:ional Shopping, OP, Res))
to allm-v for professional offices and residential uses . TI1e permitted residential density would remain 3S
du/ ac, and the maximum height would be 160 feet in the area bounded b y 1-280 to the north, Vallco
Parbvay to the south, and Perimeter Road to the east if Future development includes a retail component and
prm,ides community benefits . As shmvn in Table 3-21 , future development under the proposed Project
could result in up to 800 net residential mrits .
3-92 J UNE 16 2 0 1 4
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT , HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE . AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
,1ddition,1l concession, or financially eqwvalent incentive(s), to a deYeloper of a housing development who
agrees to construct a specified percentage of housing for lower income households , very low income
houseliolds , or senior citizens . The City's Density Bonus Program allows for a density bonus and additional
concessions for de,·elopment of 6 or more units that prmide affordable housing for families and seniors.
Possible concessions include :
• Reduced parking standards,
•
Reduced open spaoe requirements,
Reduced setback requirements, and
Approval of mixed-use zoning .
Housing Element Program 12 (E"-tremely Low Income Holl5ing and Housing for Persons \\ith Special
Needs) outlines the variom incentives the City may consider to facilitate affordable housing development,
including the provision of density bonus. HoweYer, the City's existing Density Bonus Ordinance is not
consistent "ith State law. ·Housing Element Program 11 (Density Bonus Program) commits the City to
updating the Density Bonus Ordinance concurrent with the Housing Element Update. Under the proposed
Project, the City will revise Chapter 19 .56 (Density Bonus) to reflect requirements in State law and ensure
consistency ,~ith Housing Element Program 6 (Residential Housing Mitigation Program). TI1e updated
Densitv Bonus Ordinance "ill identifv the recrulatorv concessions and incentives that ma · be considered bv
the City in conjunction \\ith a density bonus project. H eight ina·eases "ill not be considered as part of the
incentives, however.
3.7.5.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17021 .5 AND 17021 .6 COMPLIANCE
/CAADI l""\VC,C u,-,.u~11t..1,-.. · A l"T\
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
David Meyer <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 10:56 AM
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul ; Rod Sinks ; Jon Robert Willey
City Clerk; Kriti Garg; Michael Lane
SV@Home letter RE: Vallco Shopping District Special Area Initial GP Amendments
SVH Letter RE -Vallco GP Amendments 061819.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council members Paul, Sinks, and Willey:
On behalf of SV@Home and our members, we write today to reiterate our strong support for the Vallco Town Center SB35
proposal, which will bring 1,201 affordable homes to Cupertino. We're excited to see this project move forward and we
anticipate that the next phase of demolition permits will be approved soon. While we were disappointed to see the Vallco
Specific Plan repealed by the Council after months of engagement by community members, the SB35 proposal will be a major
step towards meeting the city's affordable housing goals .
Since the beginning of the 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, Cupertino has permitted only 19 new
homes for people who make very low incomes, 56 homes for people who make moderate incomes, and none for people with
low incomes . This leaves a gap of 719 affordable homes in the current cycle alone . But even this number doesn't paint the full
picture of the need for affordable homes in the city, as only 88 new affordable homes for people with low incomes or below
have been built since 2007 and there are currently only 169 affordable rental units for people with low incomes citywide.
Cupertino's jobs-housing fit ratio is among the highest in Santa Clara County, with nearly 14 low wage jobs for every one existing
deed-restricted affordable home. This means that many of the people who work in service jobs critical to the city's economy
cannot afford to live near their job or that they overpay or overcrowd to avoid long commutes.
We are concerned that the Council is considering actions that will undermine efforts to build more housing in Cupertino,
particularly housing for lower-income families . The best opportunity for Cupertino to make progress on its goals is through
significant affordable housing development at the Vallco site.
We urge the Council to take action to expedite the development of the Vallco SB 35 project so that 2,402 households can find a
place to call home .
Sincerely,
David
David Meyer
Director of Strategic Initiatives
david@siliconvalleyathome.org
(408) 462-1572
Website Facebook Newsletter Linkedln Twitter Become a Member
Total Control Panel
To : dpaul@cu pertino.or g Remove this sender from my allow list
From: david@siliconvalleyathome.org
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
1
Board of Di rec t ors
Ron Go nzales, Chair
Hispanic Foundation
of Silicon Volley
Janice Jensen , Vice Chair
Habitat for Humanity
East Ba y/Silicon Volley
Kevin Zwick, Treasurer
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Kathy Thibod eaux, Secretary
KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC
Shiloh Ballard
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA
Gina Da lma
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Katie Ferrick
Linkedln
Amie Fishman
Non -Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
Ja vie r Gonzalez
Google
Poncho Guevara
Sa cred Heart Community Service
Nathan Ho
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Jan ikke Klem
Te chnology Credit Union
Jan Li ndenthal
MidPen Ho usin g
Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home
Mary Murtagh
EAH Housing
Chris Neale
The Core Companies
Andrea Osgood
Eden Housing
Kelly Snider
Kelly Snider Consulting
Jennifer Van Every
The Van Every Group
Stiff
Les lye Corsiglia
Executive Director
ff RANSMITTED VIA EMAi
June 18, 2019
Honorable Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
sv @ home
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers Paul, Sinks, and Willey:
RE: Study Session regarding Valko Shopping District Special Area Initial General Plan
Amendments
On behalf of SV@Home and our members , we write today to reiterate our strong support
for the Vallco Town Center SB35 proposal, which will bring 1,201 affordable homes to
Cupertino . We 're excited to see this project move forward and we anticipate that the next
phase of demoliti on permits will be approved soon . While we were disappointed to see the
Vallco Specific Plan repealed by the Council after months of engagement by community
members, the SB35 proposal will be a major step towards meeting the city's affordable
housing goals .
Since the beginning of the 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA} cycle,
Cupertino has permitted only 19 new homes for people who make very low incomes, 56
homes for people who make moderate incomes, and none for people with low incomes .
This leaves a gap of 719 affordable homes in the current cycle alone . But even this number
doesn't paint the full picture of the need for affordable homes in the city, as only 88 new
affordable homes for people with low incomes or below have been built since 2007 and
there are currently only 169 affordable rental units for people with low incomes citywide .
Cupertino's jobs-hous i ng fit ratio is among the highest in Santa Clara County, with nearly 14
low wage jobs for every one existing deed-restricted affordable home. This means that
many ofthe people who work in service jobs critical to the city's economy cannot afford to
live near their job or that they overpay or overcrowd to avoid long commutes .
We are concerned that the Council is considering actions that will undermine efforts to
build more housing in Cupertino, particularly housing for lower-income families . The best
opportunity for Cupertino to make progress on its goals is through significant affordable
housing development at the Vallco site.
We urge the Council to take action to expedite the development ofthe Vallco SB35 project
so that 2,402 households can find a place to call home.
Sincerely,
¼~~
David K Meyer
Director of Strategic Initiatives
350 W . Julian Street, Build ing 5, Sa nilose, CA 95,U O'
408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info @si li co nva:lleyaul'tome.org
June 18, 2019
VL4EMAIL
VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER, LLC
Mayor Scharf and Members of the City
Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Downzoning at Vallco
Dear Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council:
I was disheartened to find out about the agenda item and read the staff report for the June 18,
2019 City Council study session. The report suggests the City is contemplating wasting time and
resources on a pointless exercise, rather than expending its energy on unifying the community
and moving forward with the approved project on site.
As you know, the City has issued an approval, under SB 35, to construct a cutting edge,
sustainable, mixed-use, mixed-income development on the site. The approval will bring
desperately needed housing to Cupertino, including an unprecedented 1,201 units of affordable
housing. '
The City has before it an opportunity, as well as a legal obligation, to issue permits for the
approved project at Vall co. The approved SB 3 5 project will be built. Your adopting new land
use regulations on the Vallco site now may create chaos, not to mention confuse Cupertino
residents, but it will not stop our project from being constructed. Regardless of the outcome of
this study session, we will continue to build the approved project we have in hand. If there is
any re-zoning that ought to be done, it should be to ensure the zoning is consistent with the
project approval -the City's efforts should be spent moving this real project forward; not on a
pointless planning effort (that only serves.to confirm the City's reputation as hostile to housing).
1. Yet Another Planning Effort for Vall~o Wastes Taxpayer Money-and Continues to
Disinform Cupertino Residents.
The study session appears to disregard the existence of the SB 3 5 approval for the Vallco site,
not to mention planning fundamentals. Instead of focusing on carrying out its obligations with
regard tb the approval, this Council appears set on spending significant general fund dollars on a
planning process that will have no effect on what gets built on the site. Holding hearings, hiring
consultants, and going through CEQA to plan for a "new" proj'ect is an exorbitant waste. ·
4824-2821-6730.5
Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council
. June 18, 2019
Page2
We, as the property owner, are proceeding with an approval that carries out the vision that the
City adopted for Vallco. Current councilmembers' resistance to the approval, and the underlying
vision, does not affect our right to proceed with the approved project. If the City carries out the
downzoning, the end result will be a constructed Vallco project that is a legal nonconforming
use.
, It is pointless to spend City resources to downzone the site. Although the Staff Report indicates
that staff will return with a cost estimate, to put this in perspective, the cost of the Specific Plan
planning process exceeded $3 million. 1 Yet another community process would· likely come at a
similar cost, particularly if the process is as involved as the City Council has professed they want ,
it to be. But unlike with the Specific Plan process, which would have been built had current
councilmembers not led its referendum, then repealed it, the end result of the proposed new
planning process will never be built. This is a monumental waste of taxpayer money, done for
political theater, and will serve no other purpose than to mislead the Cupertino public.
2. . The Suggested Options Violate Housing Element Law.
In addition to wasting money, the options suggested in the Staff Report violate the state Housing
Element law. The City has a legal obligation to remove barriers and accommodate housing, not
impose new constraints midway through a RHNA cycle.
Vallco is identified in the City's Housing Element as a "Priority Housing Element Site." It is
one of the sites identified to meet the obligation to include, in the Housing Element, an
"inventory ofland suitable and available for residential development." To be on this list, a site
must have a "realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period."
The sites included in this inventory must be sufficient to meet the City's RIINA obligations.
Gov. Code § 65583(a)(3).
Furthermore, the City is required to account for-and attempt to remove-both governmental
and nongovernmental constraints on developing housing on the inventory sites. Gov. Code
§ 65583(a)(5) & (6). If an inventory site requires a rezoning, this must occur within three years.
Gov. Code§ 65583(c). In certain circumstances, failure to meet that deadline requires that
housing on an inventory site be approved, even if the rezoning has not occurred. Gov. Code
§ 65583(g). Thus, if Vallco remains an inventory site, its development potential must be
"realistic," and such a showing must also be true for each Scenario B site, if the City elects to
reallocate units.
The options presented to Council in the Staff Report violate these principles. Option one
suggests removing the office and residential allocations and moving forward with the re-
1 We, of course, footed that bill. Now that we have an approved project that we are proceeding
with, we will not be funding this exercise.
4824-2821-6730 .5
Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council
June 18, 2019
Page 3
designation of a series of alternative priority housing sites, described as "Scenario B" in the
Housing Element. This would freeze the Vallco site with a retail-only use, which the City's own
economic and market consultants confirmed on multiple occasions throughout the 2018 Specific
Plan process is not feasible and will fail.2 However, the City cannot adopt Scenario B without·
reevaluating whether the alternative priority sites have "realistic" development potential.
Recent developments call into doubt whether development on these alternative priority sites is
realistic. For example, since the General Plan amendment in 2014, the City and The Irvine
Company have entered into a development agreement to increase the number of units at The
Hamptons, yet that project has not proceeded3• Increasing the number of units on site from 600
to 750 will not make development on the site realistic, and given it is a near 100% occupied
apartment community today would result in the displacement4 of over 300 households, a material
portion of Cupertino's renter population. Scenario B would increase units at The Oaks Shopping
Center from 200 to 235 units, but this site is not "realistic" unless the City also considers other
changes that the owner has proposed over the last five years, each of which the City has refused
to consider. Finally, Scenario B site Homestead Lanes is an existing commercial property with
several operating businesses whose leasehold interests likely outlast, and prohibit the
development of housing during, the current RHNA cycle.
The second option suggests that the City can remove the office allocation and alter the residential
requirement, such as by limiting the land area on which residential units can be built, or
potentially increasing the residential allocation for the site. As the City knows, through its and
its consultants well-documented analysis and our own exhaustive demonstration in the Concord
Group's "Analysis of Cost Reductions Associated with Reduced Retail in Vallco Town Center
Project," the site cannot support 600,000 square feet ( or more) of retail space. In order to invest
the millions of dollars required to proceed with any project, office development is necessary to
provide a strong economic engine. If the City eliminates office, the consequence and clear intent
would be to prevent any development on site. In that circumstance, the City could not consider
any housing on site to be "realistic."
3. Any Rezoning Must be Consistent with the General Plan
2 Because such a use is infeasible and would not proceed, this regulatory action would unlawfully
cause the loss of all economically beneficial uses of the property. As discussed herein, even removing
only the office allocation, and leaving the residential allocation, will result in an infeasible land use given
the significant costs associated with the General Plan's minimum retail/entertainment requirement.
3 The same circumstance applies to the Scenario B site Marina Plaza, which is governed by a
development agreement and whose owners have opted not to move forward with that development.
4 Displacement of existing renter population is also likely to occur at the Scenario B Glenbrook
Apartments site, an occupied apartment Community.
4824-2821-6730 .5
Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council
June 18, 2019
Page 4
The Staff Report suggests that the City can simply "repeal" the zoning that Better Cupertino did
not referend . Presumably, this would mean taking an action that would replace the current
zoning with the prior zoning. However, the prior PD zoning does not allow residential use and
instead contemplates the existing mall , so it is itself inconsistent with the General Plan that calls
for a complete redevelopment of the site with a new town center. Because of this inconsistency,
it would be unlawful for the City to revert to the prior zoning . Instead, if it desires to amend the
zoning, it must adopt a zoning amendment that is consistent with the General Plan .
4. The City Must Promptly Process all Permits for the SB 35 Project
Rather than expend efforts to "plan" for scenarios that will never get built, the City should focus
on issuing the various permits that Vallco has actually applied for, including the demolition
permit that has now languished for months , stymied by requirements not imposed on other
Cupertino projects . We are ready to build Vallco . We have a legal right to it, and the City has
an obligation to promptly and ministerially process our remaining permits . Any effort to stall ,
withhold , circumvent processes , or impose new conditions on such permits is unlawful and may
expose the City to substantial liabilities . While Planning Commission Chair Ray "R" Wang
responded that such liability would be a "small price to pay," we hope that the members of this
Council , as elected officials , will take their fiduci'ary duty more seriously.
Very truly yours ,
Reed Moulds
Managing Director, Sand H ill Property Company
Authorized Representative , Vallco Property Owner LLC
cc : Deborah Feng, City Manager, City of Cupertino [ manager@cupertino.org]
Benjamin Fu, Interim Community Development D irector , City of Cupertino
[BenjaminF @cupertino .org ]
Zachary Olmstead , Deputy Director, Department of Housing and Community Development,
Division of Housing Policy Development [ComplianceReview@ hcd.ca.gov ]
4824-2821-6730 .5
California Renters Legal Advocacy ai:id Education Fund
1260 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94103
hi@carlaef.org
6/18/2019
Cupertino City Council
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
~
CaRLA
cityclerk@cupertino.org; planning@cupertino.org; Steven Scharf, Mayor,
sscharf@cupertino.org; Liang Chao, Vice Mayor, liangchao@cupertino.org; Rod Sinks,
Council Member, rsinks@cupertino.org; Darcy Paul, Council Member,
dpaul@cupertino.org; Jon Willey, Council Member, jwilley@cupertino.org;
Via Email
Re: Housing Element Compliance
Dear Cupertino City CouncilMembers,
The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this
letter to inform you that the City of Cupertino has an obligation to abide by all relevant
state housing laws when considering General Plan amendments.
The purpose of a given housing element, as set forth by California state code section
65863, is to ensure that cities adequately zone for their regional housing needs
assessment allocation.
The City of Cupertino's 2014-2022 Housing Element designated the Vallco Mall site as
suitable for 389 units. Additionally, the Cupertino 2014-2022 housing element
describes a contingency plan, "Scenario B", to be considered in the event that the
Vallco Site did not receive a Specific Plan.
On May 7th, 2019 the Cupertino City Council voted to rescind resolution 18-0861 the
Vallco Center Specific Plan. Moving forward, the city of Cupertino may retain the
current residential.designation for the Valko site in the General Plan or remove the
residential designation and make up for the lost residential capacity elsewhere.
The staff report prepared for this meeting by the Cupertino Planning Department
describes three scenarios: Option 1 1 Scenario B; Option 2 1 Retain or Increase Housing
Allocation; Option 31 Do Nothing. Options 2 and 3 both require no modification to the
General Plan or modification only of the Vallco site designation. Option 1 however,
would involve designating a number of other sites for residential use or increased
density. Some of these sites are subject to more stringent standards due to changes
made to CA code section 65583.2 in 2017 (AB 1397).
It is important to note at this point that the Housing Element enacted in 2014 is not
. subject to these new rules by default. However, any amendments the city of Cupertino
would like to make to the Housing Element are subject to the rules as they are
currently written. CA code section 65583 states:
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter
the required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following:
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to
subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or
city and county submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section
65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this
section.
Switching from the current housing allocations in the General Plan to the contingency
scenario would necessarily involve amending the Housing Element. Any such
amendment would raise legal issues as "Scenario B" does not comply with existing
law.
"Scenario B" as listed in the 2014-2022 Housing Element, relies on sites with existing
residential uses for more than 50 percent of its allocation for low income households.
CA code section 65583.2 states:
(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1)1 when a city or county is relying
on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50
percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology
used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing
use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an
impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the
housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential
development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be
discontinued during the planning period.
Unless the city of Cupertino believes that the Hamptons Apts {Site Bl) and the
Glenbrook Apts (Site B5) are likely to be vacated and cease residential use, these two
sites cannot account for more than 50 percent of the City's low income housing
allocation.
Additionally, the city of Cttpertino should be aware that sites with existing residential
uses that have been included in housing allocations for multiple Housing Elements in
a row are subject to stipulations. Specifically, these sites can only count towards low
income housing allocations if they meet minimum densities listed in the statute and if
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund -hi@carlaef.org
1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
they are subject to by-right approvals, provided the project meets a 20 percent low
income unit threshold. This appears in code section 65583.2:
A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a
prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more
consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the
locality's housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the
housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current
housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities
consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in
the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the
planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at
least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. ·
A number of the sites identified for development in the 2014-2022 Housing Element
have been previously identified in past Housing Elements. Most notably, the
Hamptons Apts (Bl) and the Glenbrook Apts (BS) which both have existing residential
uses. For these sites to be included the city of Cupertino must zone them at the
minimum densities stipulated in the statute and must allow by-right development on
these sites for projects that designate 20 percent or more of their units as affordable at
low incomes.
It is important that the city of Cupertino carefully considers state law as it weighs
possible amendments to the General Plan. In particular the City should be very careful
when considering designating sites with existing multi-family residential uses for
additional housing. These sites are unlikely to be developed and likely to cause
significant displacement if they are developed.
CaRLA is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose m1ss1on is to restore a legal
environment in which California builds housing equal to its needs, which we pursue
through public impact litigation and providing educational programs to California city
officials and their staff.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Co-Executive Director
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund -hi@carlaef.org
i26o Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Eleanor Chan <eleanorchan6@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 2:16 PM
City Council; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk
Tonight's study session
I find it appalling that you, as City Council, are going back on your word that you approved Sand Hill's plan (SB50) on
Vallco . Now you are against it. Why don 't you just let them proceed as planned?
I am disappointed that you all do not listen to your constituents, other than those representing Bitter Cupertino . I find it
deeply disturbing that you do not represent me and my neighbors who would appreciate the additional housing that
Sand Hill will bring, including affordable housing. My children can't afford to live here . Sand Hill's plan would help
them to get housing near me .
I can't believe you are forcing Sand Hill to make Vall co completely retail. You, of all people, should know that retail
isn't brick and mortar anymore . Everyone buys online. You are condemning Vallco to its doom. The only reason
Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping works is because of the high end stores they have. It won't work at Vallco because
VF and Stanford already have a lock on those stores . And discount stores won't make it here. Do your homework!
For Vallco to survive, it needs to be mixed use.
I think you need to step back and really take a look at what you're trying to do to Cupertino. Right now, it 's a mess .
Eleanor Chan
Sent from my iPhone
Total Control Panel
To : cityclerk@cupertino.org
From: eleanorchan6@yahoo.com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjec;t:
Importance:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
mfm10@comcast.net
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 2:22 PM
City Council ; manager@cupertio.org ; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks ; Darcy Paul ; Jon
Robert Willey; City Clerk
June 18, 2019 Study Session on Vallee Project
High
Follow up
Completed
I have lived in Cupertino since 1987 and am dismayed to see what is happening to our City through the actions of the current
City Council. As a taxpaper I am very concerned that the current path the City Council members are on will lead to onerous fines
as well as a dead, vacant site.
I was shocked to learn the City notified the judge it is reversing course and joining the anti-housing group in opposing the 1200+
affordable housing community at Vallco it previously approved . This will eliminate the chance to provide sorely needed
affordable housing.
I beg the City Council to stop this current line of action and let Sand Hill proceed building under SB 35 . It is time for the City to
heal and to move on and support this project.
Marjorie Mancuso
Total Control Panel
To: cityclerk@ cupertino.org
From: mfm10@comcast.net
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block comcast.net
This message was delivered because the content jilter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
albert liu <albertoliu@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:47 PM
City Council; Steven Scharf; Darcy Paul
Please stop deviating from the original approved plan for Vallco Mall
You guys are wasting Cupertino budget and resources at our (Cupertino citizens) expense and for what? Your 'Better Cupertino'
? Your 'Better Cupertino' is not better for many Cupertino residents . Your action will defy SB35 which is a state law. You will only
slow down the development and get Cupertino into a major lawsuit against the state and the developer. Some of you are on your
personal vendetta against the developer. You think no one knows ?
Albert Liu
Resident of Cupertino for 35 years
Total Control Panel
To: sscharf@cupertino.org
From : albertoliu@yahoo .com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members:
Robert Brown <bfamily9@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:00 PM
City Council
City Council Meeting June 18, 2019
I have learned that there is a meeting tonight to consider changes to zoning
and perhaps other changes to the City Specific Plan regarding the Vallco land.
After exhaustive study and many delays, there is an approved project for
rebuilding Vallco. The city should proceed without delay to approve
construction of this project. As I understand it, the city and residents have
already lost the site owner's optional plan that would have brought a
substantial amount of money to pay for upgrades, infrastructure improvements
and other benefits to the city. If there are legal costs to the city involved
in further delay, I am completely against this unnecessary waste of taxpayer
money. Although the existing project is not perfect, in my mind, it is the best
we can hope for. We need to have something built on the nearly vacant Vallco
land so that we can realize tax and other benefits to the city.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Brown
18641 Pring Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
Total Control Panel
To : citycouncil@cupertino.org
From : bfamily9@yahoo.com
Message Score: 50
My Spam Blocking Level : Custom
Block this sender
Block yahoo .com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
I
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pas s
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Celia House <celiahouse@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:03 PM
City Council
Support fo r Vallco
I am writing to support the re-development of Vallco as planned by Sand Hill Property Company and outlined by Reed
Moulds :
http ://revitalizev allco.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Letter-to-Mayor-Scharf-Moulds-6.18. l 9.pdf
It is a travesty to see an entire block of wasted land not able to generate tax revenues , house our workers, or provide
local entertainment for our citizens . Stop being obstructionist in this and other developments . Downzoning Vallco and
blocking Regnart Trail are very short-sighted views that do not develop Cupertino to support our younger millennial
workers .
Please be more forward looking . Let the retirees who wish for a more rural community move on and out. Cupertino
Vallco area should be a vibrant urban center with lots of walk paths and bike paths to and from it and to the Library.
Celia House
Rancho Rinconada neighborhood
Total Control Panel
To : citycouncil@cup ertino.org
From: celiahouse@yahoo.com
M essage Score: 50
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block yahoo .com
Thi s message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filte r level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Kelly <svproperties4@gmail.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:09 PM
City Council
RE : Vallco S835 Plan
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members,
Housing is critically needed in our area as Apple now has grown dramatically while Cupertino has not addressed the
critical need for more housing for Apple employees and service workers! It is time Cupertino step up to the challenge
with high density housing at the Vallco site. It should be available to all employees that support the community. Santa
Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale all have dramatically added or have in the works more housing near Apple II campus
all while Cupertino has acted in bad faith to address the problem. You could easily double the housing units to 4,000
near the New Apple Campus yet you continue to make it adjacent cities problem. Step up and do your job plan for the
critically need for housing in your community as well!
Your Neighbor,
Steve
Steve Kelly
3093 Forbes Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95051
408-482-0318
~ Virus-free. www.avq .com
Total Control Panel
To : citycouncil @cupertino.org
From : svproperties4@gmail.com
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
All,
mmalikl@comcast.net
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:22 PM
City Clerk; City Counc i l; Cupertino City Manager's Offi ce
Study sess i on regarding Vallco GPA
While this study session may seem harmless, the staff report tilts toward Option 1, which is effectively the
set of land use designations of Measure C, which failed 61 % to 39%. Such a move would stifle any
option other than the current SB35 project from being moved forward and calls into question this council's
seriousness about discussing Vallco alternatives beyond a dead mall.
Furthermore, the sites identified in Scenario B of the Housing Element are much less likely to be built, which
raises the possibility of Cupertino simply falling out of compliance with its legal obligations under AB 879
(2017) and AB 1397 (2017) and the Housing Accountability Act-all of which dramatically increase the
likelihood of lawsuits against the city .
What is curiously missing from the staff report is any notion of how the city might create more housing rather
than less.
At a time when Cupertino lies under increasing scrutiny for its role in the Bay Area housing crisis, increasing
suspicion of Cupertino 's commitment to helping solve the problem seems unwise .
Be careful how you tread going forward in this matter !
Mike Malik
mmalikl@comcast.net
37 year Cupert i no resident
Cell : 408.464.1039
Total Control Panel
To : cityco un cil@c up erti no.org
From : mmalikl @comcast.ne t
Mes sage Score: 30
My Spam Blocking Level : Custom
B lock this sender
Block comcast.net
This message was delivered b ecause the content filter score d id not exceed your filter level.
1
H igh (60): Pa ss
Medium (7 5): Pa ss
Low (90): Pa ss
Custom (55): Pa ss
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:59 PM
City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Study session re : General Plan changes, June 18, 2019
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, City Council and City Manager,
1. I urge you to make decisions about the Vallco property that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities . Cupertino has a Below Market Rate (BMR) Program that needs more housing added . I note that the Scenario
B option does not currently have properties that support BMR that can replace Vallco.
Scenario A : Primarily, the Below Market Rate housing in the Marina and the Oaks provide Senior housing , which is
good, but no other, with is a problem. Even the Hamptons do not provide very much Below Market Rate housing.
Scenario B: The Homestead Lanes property does not have an existing proposal by the property owner that would
indicate that this is a viable way to obtain more Below Market Rate Housing . It is too small to replace Vallco .
2 . I, also, urge the Council to delete section LU 1.3 .1.3 in its entirety . A property owner cannot build residential units
without being explicitly designated as a Housing Element site and receiving a residential unit allocation. If you look at
the latest version of the Cupertino General Plan -Community Vision 2015-2040, you can see this on page 61 of the pdf
which includes this text: " On sites with a mixed-use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on
Housing Element sites and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area." This has already negatively impacted one
property owner on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Please ensure that if we are to change the General Plan that we show leadership toward the goal of increasing housing
for people of all incomes and abilities .
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham, self only
32 year resident
q Watch out for typos ; Siri might be on duty.
Total Control Panel
To : citycouncil@cupertino.org
From: cunninghamconniel@gmail.com
Message Score: I
My Spam Blocking Level : Custom
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pas
Low (90): Pas
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mayor Scharf,
Jennifer <jjsebast@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:14 PM
Steven Scharf
Vallco Revitalization
Please do not vote against Sand Hill Property Company in tonight's council meeting. I have lived in Cupertino for 50
years and saw the beginning of the mall where I spent much of my youth. I saw the decline of it in my early adulthood
and now I want this place to have new life. But in doing so, it needs to be done the right way. We cannot build more
retail space that won't fill up and where no one shops. That's what we had already. We need a living and working
space . We need more low income housing. We need more outdoor space. This is what is in the works . This project will
bring Cupertino citizens together. It will give them a common place to gather so we can get to know our neighbors . It
will take a dead area of our city and give it life again.
Please vote in favor of the Vall co Revitalization.
Thank you,
Jennifer Pressman
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Total Control Panel
To : sscharf@cupertino.org
From : jjsebast@yahoo.com
Message Score: 50
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block yahoo .com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From :
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
Peter Murray <murraypeter@fhda .edu>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:18 PM
City Council
Vallco Rezoning
I am completely disheartened with the actions the Council is considering with respect to Valko. What Cupertino is
going to end up with is an empty shell of a building as a monument to poor governance.
I hope the Council rejects this new plan to stop any renovation at the Vallco site. The Council is representing a minority
within Cupertino and not the majority of the residence. This should become evident at the next election.
Peter F. Murray
Cupertino resident over 40 years
21742 Columbus Ave
Total Control Panel
To : citycouncil @cupertino.org
From: murraypeter@thda.edu
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block thda.edu
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
GEOFFREY PAULSEN <geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:49 PM
To: City Council ; City of Cupertino Planning Commission ; Benjamin Fu; Cupertino City Manager's
Office; City Clerk
Cc: Jean Bedard ; Reed Moulds; Sandy James; Gary E. Jones; Richard Lowenthal; Anjali Kausar; Rick
Kitson
Subject: Vallco -tonight's hearing .
Hello, honorable and dedicated public servants.
Please consider the law.
Cupertino is financially squeezed by tax laws that have eroded, over the last 50 years, tax
revenues at the federal and state levels.
We may not like these laws, and we can't control how they impact the composition and financial
viability of local developments. But they are the law.
SB35 is also the law.
Rather than try to fight SB35 -an expensive proposition -let's work together within the
contraints of the law to focus on areas that we can control. Let's work with the members of our
great community as well as with developers on issues such as design, livability, and financial
viability.
Let's move forward.
Regards, Geoff
Geoffrey Paulsen
Former Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission
Board member, Canopy.org
408 / 480-7509 cell
Total Control Pan el
To : c ityco un c il @cup ertino.org
From : geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com
Message Score: I 0
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Block this sender
Block yahoo .com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pa ss
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lisa Warren < la-warren@att.net >
Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:49 PM
Grace Schmidt, MMC; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office; City Council ; City
of Cupertino Planning Comm i ssion
A letter from Reed Moulds -
October 13, 2014 Letter from Peter Pau Sand Hill to Brophy PC and CC'd .pdf; Paul Brophy Oct
2014 letter to CC and others VALLCO and GPA.pdf
City Clerk, Staff, CC and PC,
Please include this email and attachments in the packet for public records for tonight's City
Council meeting(s) June 18, 2019
It is very likely that you have seen the most recent (today) letter that Reed Moulds signed and
'posted'.
I am sending it myself because I think it is note worthy.
Why the CC agenda that has been available since last week is 'just now' coming to SHP
attention, is unclear.
In fact, SJ Mere published a story yesterday that both Reed Moulds and Scott Weiner were
quoted regarding the agenda item.
I think it is important to note that neither the SJMN story, or the letter from Reed Moulds
below points out that over a year has passed since City Council has had the ability to revisit
the December 2014 CC decisions regarding zoning on the Vallco Shopping District site .
Background: The City 's General Plan provides that the City Council will consider removing the Office and
Residential development a/locations in the Val/co Shopping District area if a Specific Plan for the area
is not adopted by March 31, 2018. (See Table LU-1, General Plan, p . LU-13.) The General Plan also provides
that height limits for the area will be set pursuant to a Specific Plan. (See Figure LU-2, General Plan , p. LU-17).
Nor does either the story or the letter acknowledge that each of the three (3) project plans
that have floated for the Vallco Shopping District site (Measure D, SB 35 and VSP -Tl or
T2) completely exasperate ( or 'blow up') the jobs to housing issues in, and around, our
city . In fact there is only a minuscule reference to office at all. This is a recurring theme.
This letter from Reed Moulds brings back memories of the letter that Peter Pau sent to the
sitting Planning Commission in 2014 PRIOR to closing escrow on the Vallco property(ies)
where he essentially demanded/threatened Planning Commission and others .
It also reminds me of the very sensible and balanced correspondence that was written by Paul
Brophy -Planning Commission Chai r (at the time Oct 2014).
I have attached both of these documents to this email message. I encourage a re -read fo r
anyone familiar with the October 2014 letters and feel strongly that anyone who is receiving
this message who has NOT seen the letters,prior to today, to take the time to read them in
full.
Here is on paragraph from Mr. Brophy's letter:
1
Let there be no mistake. A vote for adding large amounts of ad,
General Plan is a vote against sustainable development. It is a
principles of AB 32 and SB 375 as employees commuting to Cu
towns, since the nearby municipalities are also approving large .
willingness or ability to approve offsetting homes~ Most of all, it
our community that is already stressed by traffic congestion and
development underway.
begin forward of today 's letter fro m Reed Moulds :
I
From : Reed Moulds <info@revitalizevallco.com >
Date: June 18, 2019 at 1 :24 :43 PM PDT
Subject: A Coordinated Assault on the Future of Vallco
Reply-To: Reed Moulds <info@revitalizevallco.com >
June 18 , 2019
~
I
Friends,
It just came to our attention that tonight the Cupertino City Council will be
holding a very important meeting for Vallco's future , one that carries
implications for residents that could last a generation. The Council has placed
an item on the agenda to consider amendments to its General Plan that would
remove the potential for both housing and office components-and the entire
mixed-use town center vision-from any future plans for the site.
Yes , there already exists an approved project for Vallco. It was approved, not
by Council, but by City staff through a streamlined process established by state
law, SB 35, which only applies in cities that have not met their fair-share
2
housing goals. We intend to build it. Considering this, the proposed downzoning
may amount to nothing more than a gesture emblematic of the current
Council's aversion to housing, jobs, and progress.
However, while Vallco Town Center is approved, the project is being
challenged by "Better Cupertino" through a lawsuit that seeks to void the City's
2018 approval and terminate the project, and, in a recent court filing directed by
the new "Better Cupertino" stacked City Council, the City quietly and without
public fanfare notified the judge it is reversing course and joining the anti-
housing group in opposing the 1,201-affordable home project that it approved,
and began to defend, just last year.
The City Council's strategy here is obvious: see to Vallco Town Center's
demise in court and then ensure there is no viable zoning at the vacant mall to
fall back on. The project cannot move forward and would be force-ably
shelved. It is Measure C re-enacted ..
One of the reasons SB 35 came into existence was to prevent political
interference from elected NIMBYs and anti-housing activists as they manipulate
state requirements to plan for housing-or their own local development
standards to make it harder to permit it-especially in cities like Cupertino in the
depths of housing affordability crises. We are confident that the legal challenge
brought against the City's approval of our Vallco Town Center project will meet
the same fate as the many previous legal actions brought by "Better Cupertino"
and its affiliates, not to mention its members on the current Council, and be
dismissed. We are equally confident that permits will be issued and
construction will commence in the next few months, once the court rules that
City staff's professional review and approval of the SB 35 application last year
was proper.
But in the new City Council's dream scenario that the SB 35 project cannot go
forward, tonight's proposal would make the future of Vallco truly bleak. We
would say goodbye to the plan that brings 1,201 units of desperately needed
affordable housing and another 1,201 units of market-rate housing that will
3
Total Control Panel
serve families, young people, commuters and retirees. The project would
benefit both new and long-time Cupertino residents with its world-class design,
community-driven entertainment and retail district, cutting edge offices, and
signature elevated park featuring walking trails, gardens and recreational
features. Instead, a half-demolished mall would sit and continue _ to languish,
unable to be re-purposed under the City's strict zoning, and this Council will
work to ensure it remains that way for the next generation.
If you have not yet done so, now is the time to raise your voice and make your
concerns heard by this Council. Write to Mayor Scharf and the city. Attend the
meeting tonight, and speak your th ree minutes on this issue. Comment on the
many discussions taking place on NextDoor, Twitter and elsewhere. Send us
your letter and we will make sure it is shared. We are sorry we couldn't give you
more notice, but that seems to be how the current City Council wanted it.
The last generation has waited for action at Vallco, and the next generation is
depending on the right decisions being made by those whose sworn duty it is to
ensure the City meets the needs of its citizens and follows the law. Read .2.!:!I
opposition to the litigation and my letter to Mayor Scharf on tonight's
study session , and join us in standing up for what's right.
Regards,
Reed Moulds
Managing Director
Sand Hill Property Company
To : citycouncil@cupertino.org
From : la-warren @att.net
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level : Custom
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): !Pass
Custom (55): Pass Block this sender
Block att.net
This message was delivered because the conten t filter score did not exceed y our filter level.
4
SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY
October 13, 2014
Via Overnight Delivery and E-Mail
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Re: General Plan Amendment: Ofi'ice Allocation for VaJfoo Shopping District
Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company ("Sand HiH") regarding the treatment
of the Vallco Shopping District ("-Vall co") in the General Plan Amendment. Sand Hill is in
the midst of acquiring the Valko parcels for potential redevelopment, so we are keenly
interested in working with the City of Cupertino ("City") to develop a feasible plan that can
benefit all stakeholders. I am writing to request that the Planning Commission recommends
to the City Council that the General Plan include anoffice allocation for Vallco of 2)000,000
square feet and the height limits set out in "Alternative C,," as analyzed in the draft General
Plan1 s environmental review. Without this specific office allocation, as well as the necessary
retail and housing components, there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible
for Sand Hill, or any other prospective developer. to successfully redevelop-Vallco.
V allco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched
in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City, yet for many reasons, it
has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abando:ned or have
failed. Sand Hill has the financial capacity and proven track record with such projects and is
poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic dovvntown
where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans to completely transform the
current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainable mixed-use neighborhood.
Our plan envisions a balanced mix of 600-700 residential units, approximately 600,000
square feet of retail, a full service hotel, and 2,000,000 square feet of office space. The
overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented "town center" consistent with the
General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects, such as
Main Street.
sf-3467260
2882 SAND IDLL ROAD, SUITE 241 • MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 • FAX (650) 344-0652
ChairBrophy ang. Members of the PlanningCommission
October 13, 2014
Page Two
The ·benefits to the City ofsuch a project go well beyond.cteatin.g a sense.of place, With
600.,000 square feet~ the retail ¢btnponentpf the project wowd be the sam.¢ size as SaQ.tana
!low and wpuld.gen~ate milliqn,s iu sales. ~ revem1e_s way in .. excess ofwhaHs b~ing
coll~ted today~ J>rop¢y taxes woµld also i11crease significantJy, perhJ:!ps by SQQ%:, giveµ
the billion-d.ollar plus investment Sand Hil1 is prepared to make in. the City ()f Cupertfno. In
addition, we recognize tb:atin order to obtain fo:cteased height.limits for Vallco under
Aitematlve C, projects m:u;stcomp1y with'thenew Genera.IJ>lan's co:rrtt:n11llity benefits
p1.'Qgram~ AltiiC>ugh our specific project plai1$ l;\re still dev¢loping, the c9,mnuni_ty benefits
we anticipate prcrviding include ground floor re~il componep.ts@d [transit improveII.J,ents
and atrtehltiest space for public entities, senior housing" co:ristructi.on of a -new, Ot expansion
to,ra community facility/co:rnm:unity ;gathering place, creation or dedication of new or
expanded park, ·cashin.-lieu contribution for $\!Ch cpmmunity beneffti;]. We would ar~·be
aIQ.enable ±o expl<>rii:,g, with 9th.er pr9perj:y develc:>p~, the pot~'tjal qfproviding a
c,omm.$jty _sl;mtt_le .pi:-ogram j1:1 Qrder to pl'9vi,q1;1 ~portation l,etw~l\ employment M<i
cofurilunity centers. As requited by the General Plan/these comm:uriity benefits will be
eqti1valent to at least 15 percentin value of the parcel a'ttrlbuted to the increase iti'height.
'I'he opportwrlty to transform the Vallco site is n:ow. Sa:rid Hill has a real pla:ri, the
cEWabil(tfes fo. irnplernentit~ atid the history of worki11.g closely with tlie City and the
CQil®Wlity. Pri9r ~tteµipts at V ~l~o re4evel9pme11t have al.I I\111 Wt<> the ,sl:ll,Ile problem: full
ownetf!hip of the site is needed for a successful projecti and ·the current split and passive
ownership structtiie has made parcel assembi~e extremely difficult. Aflet neatly three years
ofmtensive negotiations with the 1tatrouS Vallco ownetahip entitles, Sand Hillis now'inthe
p1'oces$ of conipletmg putch~es for .tlie entire ma1L Single pwn.e:t$hip 'will rewove the key
b~ier t9 1'edevel9pxµeritthaf~ hampered the $ire for decades, H9wever, iµ 9rdert9 cl9se
on the V allco parcels, -Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can bmld a project that is
fmancially viable. At present~ the deveiopment allocation reccunmended in the Staff Report
precludes such a. prqJect, arid thus, a feasible tedevelqpment of th¢ prqpert;y. In partictilat,
tlie StaffRepoi:t'st~Qmqi.en"4ati9n$ to ijn;rlt Q:f:Qce f9 J,QQO;;()QO 1:1quwe feetand heigitts: to 75
feet{west of Wolte Road) and 90 feet { east of Wolfe Road) does not work for our plan, or
a:riy plan for that rnatter:.
:R.edevelopmentofVallco is a sttbstantil:ll mi.derlakiilg, ltentails demolition olapproxim.ately
1.2 rnilliq;n sqruµ-efeet of ¢xistillg bµ.ildings @4 ce>pstrµction of an entire new downtQwn
over 50 acres. The General Plan's visioh for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a "town
center'; layout. a newly configured street gttd, an expanded Wolfe Road bridge ofI'-280 to
accommodate a bikeab1e and walkable ''boulevard;' anew town square and plazas
interspe1'$ed throughout. Uie G~eral Plan ~alls for high-quality architecture and materials
befitting· a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision, b11.t sµch elerµents are aI,t very costly.
Whil~ retail uses are critical for tompieting the overfill vision. such uses do not support the _
type of amenities we and the City want to peovide. In order for complete redevelopment to
sf-3467260
2882 SAND Hll,LROAD, SUITE 241 • MENLO P~CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 • FAX (650) 344-0652
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Three
be financially feasible, the project must include 2,000,000 square feet of office already
studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office square footage, while also
respecting the neighborhoods to the west, increased height must be allowed, including up to
160 feet on the east side of Wolfe Road.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the General Plan allocate to the Vallco Shopping District:
• 2 ,000,000 square feet of office space;
• Include the site in the Housing Element, including at least 600 units of housing ;
• 600,000 square feet of retail; and
• Heights analyzed in "Alternative C" be permitted (i.e ., up to 85 feet west of Wolfe
Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with community benefits).
* * * * * *
Sand Hill is proud of what it has done in the City of Cupertino. We have partnered with the
City and the community on a number of successful commercial, retail and residential projects
since the 1990' s. As with those prior projects, we view V allco as a long-term investment.
We are a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the City.
Main Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016 .
We look forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the
redevelopment ofVallco.
Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize. a long-term community
vision for a revitalized V allco. The development team and funding is in place to move
forward now. However, we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City
Council that without the necessary office, residential and retail allocations outlined above ,
we will not be in a positionto redevelop Valko and it will likely continue to languish for
decades to come.
your consideration.
Principal and Founder
sf-3467260
2882 SAND IDLL ROAD, SUITE 241 • MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 •FAX (650) 344-0652
Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission
October 13, 2014
Page Four
Sand Hill Property Company
cc: Mayor Gilbert Wong
Vice Mayor Rod Sinks
Councilmember Barry Chang
Councilmember Orrin Mahoney
Councilmember Mark Santoro
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director
Reed M,oulds, Sand Hill Property Company
sf-3467260
2882 SAND IIlLL ROAD, SUITE 241 • MENLO PARK, CA 94025 • (650) 344-1500 •FAX (650) 344-0652
From: Paul Brophy <pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Date: October 27, 2014 at 6:22:40 PM PDT
To: Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupertino.org>, Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>, Mark Santoro
<msantoro@cupertino.org>, Orrin Mahoney <omahoney@cupertino.org>, Rod Sinks
<rsinks@cupertino.org>
Cc: Aarti Sbrivastava <aartis@cupertino.org>, Gary Chao <garyc@cupertino.org>, Winnie Lee
<winDieleedds@yahoo.com>, Alan Takahashi <alantcup@gmail.com>, Don Sun <book.sun@gmail.com>,
Margaret Gong <margiegong@icloud.com>
Subject: General Plan Amendment under consideration
Reply-To: Paul Brophy <pauldbrophy@yahoo.com>
Dear Mayor Wong and Council members,
During the almost seven years that I have been privileged to serve on our Planning Commission,·
I have always taken the position that l"shquld·not-lobby Councll:merribers on-matters that have
come before us. The minutes of our meetings and the votes ,taken should stand by-themselves
for you to consider when making up your minds on planning and land use items.
However,:given the. importance_that possible General Plan Am~ndment Increase in allowable
additional' offtce space ·development would have. on the long term quality pf.life'.in Cupertino and -
because my views·-are a:t variance with'the Planning_ Department's reoommendations,-1 am :writing
y~u today to argue that I strongly believe that no additional office:space above that existing in the
existing General Plan (540,000 sq. ft.) should be approved. If you believe that is too restrictive, I
would urge you not to increase the amount of allowable office space beyond that in Alternative A,
which would provide an additional 500,000 sq. ft, for a total of 1,040,000 sq. ft. Alternative A Is
the compromise amount that was supported by three Commission members (Winnie Lee, Don
Sun, and myself), as compared ta the staff recommendation of 2,540,000 sq. fl
The EIR for the Housing Element/General Plan Amendment points out that the city already has
an excess of jobs above our residential labor force. This Is before the Apple 2 campus opens
with an additional 14,000 jobs. The Apple 2 EIR was clear in saying that the traffic to be
generated by that project would have significant and unavoidable Impact upon traffic congestion,
despite the tens of milllons of dollars that Apple has committed to spending on mitigation
measures. The Apple campus was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by both Planning
Commission and City Council because we recognized that the benefits for our community from
supporting the company's growth outweighed the adverse impacts.
It needs to be remembered, though, that we have not yet experienced the increased traffic and
congestion from that project. Also there will be an additional 1500 to 2000 employees who will be
commuting to the off tee component of Main Street plus the second office building that wlll be
placed on the IHOP site, immediately adjacent to Cupertino (I am using 4 employees/1000 sq. ft.
for this and future calculations). Unhappiness In our community over traffic congestion will only
grow just from the projects already In the pipeline.
Under our existing General Plan, an additional 540,000 sq. ft. Is still available, which would house
2000 employees above all that. If the Alternative A option is approved, we will need to support
over 4000 additional employees. And if the Planning Department's "Balanced Plan" preferred
alternative of over 2.5 Million additional square feet of allowable office apace is approved, the
EIR's proposed "mitigation" measures will not begin to address the nightmare traffic conditions on
Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd., as well as secondary roads such as McClellan, Stelling,
Wolfe and Tantau as drivers desperately look for alternatives to gridlocked arterial streets caused
by the addition of over 10,000more employees working here.
In a city with lots of vacant land In which to expand both office and residential development, an
increase such as that proposed by the Planning Department might well make sense. However,
CUpertino is fully built out. Yes, there are some sites that were developed 30, 40, or more years
<
ago that could be redeveloped at higher densities. However, given that we have limited ability to
add residential units (and great concern in the community about the impact of the few units we
can add upon school enrollment and Increased congestion), allowing substantially more office
space means that we will take a cltythat Is already unbalanced as to the relationship between
jobs and housing and make it much more so.
Let there be no mistake. A vote for adding large amounts of additional office space .in our
General Plan is a vote against sustainable development. It is a vote that goes against the
principles of AB 32 and SB 375 as employees commuting to Cupertino will have to live in distant
towns, since the nearby municipalities are also approving large scale office projects without the
willingness or ability to approve offsetting homes. Most of all, It will degrade the quality of life in
our community that is already stressed by traffic congestion and will be more so just from existing
development underway.
I would like to end by saying that while I strongly-disagree .with staff recommendations on this
. General-Plan :ch~nge that I have treated only with-personal and professional respect'by Planning
Department staff.Just as I have been during my entire tenure on the Planning Commission. It has
been a pleasure to work with them and occaslonally, for us to disagree over various matters·
before us. The arguments made in favor of permitting-far more intensive development than is
currently permitted has been echoed by planners and elected officials in many other communities
in the Santa Clara Vall~y and.:the Peninsula,. I believe.1hatthey are.almost all wrong .. I know that
they· are wrong in the case of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Paul Brophy