The URL can be used to link to this page

Written Communications (updated 2-11-20)CC 2/4/20 Oral Communications Written Comments Vallco Redevelopment Aarabhi Achanta Haritha Kumar Outline History and Timeline Public Opinion Proposed Plans Financial Analysis Marketing History behind the Issue Timeline 2014: $320 million 2015 Anchor Stores Leave →The Hills at Vallco 2016: Measure D 2018: Vallco Specific Plan 2018: Vallco SB 35 Ongoing Battle -Sandhill Property Company -Parking garage space counted as affordable housing space (not done with regular housing) -All proposed affordable housing limited to studio and one bedroom apartments -Impossible to bring mass transit Public Opinion 55 participants In our study, all of whom were Cupertino area students Demographics ●Majority Cupertino High School Students, a few Monta Vista and Homestead students ●Mixed grade levels, though mostly skewed towards seniors ●Want more students from various areas in Cupertino ●Would like adults to have partook in the study ○Homeowners ○Teachers/School Officials ○Grassroots groups ○Apple Employees ➔Majority students, especially Tino students = less variety of opinions◆Students primarily expressed that Vallco had childhood significance ➔Certain people have a vested interest in Vallco’s development◆Homeowners, business owners in nearby locations, grassroots groups, teachers and school officials, Cupertino residents in general ➔Would like to ask for more reasoning -we had students voluntarily report reasoning ➔Lack of data surrounding affordable housing in Cupertino specifically Limitations of our survey New Survey with Adults! -33 responses -Mostly tech -sector engineers and teachers -Some minimum wage workers and business owners -87.5% of respondents were residents of Cupertino -Overall results... -Long commute times -Most teachers’ commute time: over an hour →most teachers did not live in Cupertino and those that did live in the area bought their home over 10 years ago -Homeowners that bought their homes in the past 5 years were overwhelmingly high-paid tech sector engineers Quotes received Some quotes we received... -“There are too many new apartments/ town homes being built that are not only unaffordable, but replace retail stores and other forms of recreation.” -“Should be more houses because the population in Bay Area is increasing” -“There housing in Cupertino is extremely expensive, and new complexes that are built take away retail stores, parks, etc.” -“I'd like to see the city convert the space in Vallco to a park, instead of housing. I don't want the heavy traffic that will come with building anything like housing or retail at the Vallco area.” “High density anything is not to be encouraged.” Solution Proposal AFFORDABL E HOUSING Why it’s better than existing solutions ●Limiting retail to small businesses and senior care businesses: dialysis centers, community centers ●Affordable housing will include 1 to 4 bedroom homes for families ●Current plans: ⅓office space, ⅓housing, ⅓affordable housing —> works under SB 35 ●Retail scene extremely limited, reserves city for higher socioeconomic classes ●Limiting office space is extremely important because no mass transit in the local area ●Traffic issues, overcrowded underfunded schools Financial Analysis Job Multipliers ●1 tech job created = 4 service and local goods sector jobs ●Grocery Stores, coffee shops, office supply stores -baristas, waiters/waitresses, security, safety and maintenance workers ●Growing senior population in Cupertino + National Shortage in senior care services ●Can use Vallco location to provide certain senior services ○Dialysis, pharmacies, physical therapy centers, senior recreation services ○Housing for senior care workers ●$4 billion = current development cost ●Effort costs -time, litigation ●$35 million = construction tax revenue ●$13.2 million annual property tax Current Proposals vs Our Proposal ●As mentioned previously, Sandhill wants office space + housing ●Our plan is a compromise, but benefits everyone–residents, Better Cupertino, Sandhill, City of Cupertino ●⅓housing, ⅓affordable housing, ⅓retail is somewhat of a win-win solution Next Steps Marketing Strategy ➔Quell homeowner’s fears that property values will decrease, overcrowding in schools and roads ➔INTERACTION WITH COMMUNITY ➔Town halls, community meetings, Social media, press releases ➔Website! WEBSITE: https://aarabhiachanta.wixsite.com/website-1 Questions? References “Area Plan on Aging 2016-2020.” Sourcewise Community Resource Solutions, www.mysourcewise.com/sites/default/files/FinalDRAFT-Sourcewise_2016-2020_AreaPlanOnAging.pdf Cbs. “Over 8 In 10 Bay Area Residents Agree State In Housing Crisis, Poll Finds.” CBS San Francisco, CBS San Francisco, 18 July 2019, sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/07/18/housing-crisis-bay-area-california-quinnipiac-poll/. Davenport, David. “Who's in Charge of the California Housing Crisis?” Washington Examiner, 30 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/whos-in-charge-of-the-california-housing-crisis. “Health Care Shortage for Seniors.” Common Ground Health | Senior Healthcare Shortage, 30 Oct. 2019, www.commongroundhealth.org/issues/senior-health. “Health Care Shortage for Seniors.” Common Ground Health | Senior Healthcare Shortage, 30 Oct. 2019, www.commongroundhealth.org/issues/senior-health. “New Study: For Every New High-Tech Job, Four More Created.” Bay Area Council, 10 Dec. 2012, www.bayareacouncil.org/community_engagement/new-study-for-every-new-high-tech-job-four-more-created/. “Retail Space vs. Office Space-Which Do You Need?” Hartman Income REIT, 3 June 2014, www.hi-reit.com/retail-space-vs-office-space-need/. CC 2/4/20 Item #6 Vallco SB 35 plan review and inspection Written Communications 1 Cyrah Caburian From:James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, January 30, 2020 12:40 AM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office Cc:City Clerk Subject:Please pull Consent Calendar Item #6. An expenditure totaling over $22M needs discussion Hi, Why is our City outsourcing over $22M for the Vallco Town Center SB35 Project? No verdict has been rendered by the judge on the SB35 Lawsuit, and the Vallco Property Owner continues to ignore multiple City easements on the property site. Please pull this item from the Consent Calendar for the 2/4/2020 CCC meeting. This item needs to be discussed and explained to residents, with an opportunity for residents for Oral Communications. Awarding $22M in contracts at this time is nonsensical. James Moore Resident volunteer PS: I tried to view the Staff Report on this $22M Item and received an Error_Message_Main. Please make this Staff Report viewable. **** Please include this in the Public Record **** 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Sashi Begur <sashibegur@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 2:06 PM To:City Council Subject:A few quick reminders before your meeting today Dear Council memebrs, I wanted to remind you of a few things before the council meeting today: ‐ As per the master plan from Parks & Rec, there is no provision for accepting the “green roof” as parkland. As per the Master Plan the current ratio of 3 acres/1000 residents needs to be increased to 3.7 across/1000 residents. So we need to make sure that all new construction has enough parkland to meet this requirement, since we are a landlocked city there is no other way around the problem. ‐ Also Item 6 on the agenda ‐ award of construction inspectionServices, Plan review services and Public works Inspection Services contracts for Vallco ‐ I request and strongly recommend that this item be pulled from consent as the Vallco Project is still under litigation and needs to be postponed until a decision on the approval of Vallco Town Center SB‐35 project as lawful is received. Since it is a private project, it is responsibility of the property owner and not the City to maintain communication and expenses associated with the service contracts as specified in the Development Agreement. Best regards Sashi CC 2/4/20 Item #10 Recology Household Waste (HHW) and Rate Adjustment Request Written Communications 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:05 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng Subject:CC Agenda Item #10 - Recology Franchise Agreement - Share the burden across ALL customers equally Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul and Council Members, In reading the material for Agenda Item #10, it states that fees for single family homes will increase $2.24/month and all others will increase 3.9%. This $2.24/month increase is over an 8% increase to our monthly bill and this is after we just received an annual increase of 3.9% ($1.04) in November 2019! WHY are single family homes taking the brunt of this increase? WHY is this increase not shared equally (percentage wise) across all customers? WHY are apartments and businesses not pulling their fair share? PLEASE reconsider these amounts and distribute them fairly across ALL customers! Sincerely, Peggy and Terry Griffin 5‐YEAR RATE INCREASE HISTORY: We live in a single family home and pay for 3 bins: ‐ 1 brown yard waste bin’ ‐ 1 blue recycling bin ‐ 1 small gray 32 gallon trash bin Below is 5 years of payment history: $23.90/month through Oct 2015 Increased to $24.58/month in Nov 2015 an increase of $0.68 or 2.8% increase increased to $25.23/month in Nov 2016 an increase of $0.65 or 2.64% increase increased to $26.03/month in Nov 2017 an increase of $0.80 or 3.17% increase increased to $26.88/month in Nov 2018 an increase of $0.85 or 3.27% increase increased to $27.92/month in Nov 2019 an increase of $1.04 or 3.9% increase PROPOSED increase of $2.24/month An 8% increase for single family homes on top of a recent 3.9% increase 1 Cyrah Caburian From:user512002@yahoo.com Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:51 PM To:City Council Subject:Recology proposed rate hike Hi, My question are: 1) why is there another increase proposed by Recology when there already was an increase last year in November? 2) Can Recology offer a monthly trash collection plan for families who are following zero waste policies and generate minimal trash? 3) can Recology allow residents to use their own bins that pass Recology standards, so we don't have to keep paying "rental fee" on the bins we are forced to use. Thanks. Cupertino Resident CC 2/4/20 Item #13 Weed Abatement Program Written Communications 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:34 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng Subject:CC Agenda Item #13 - Improve Weed Abatement Process Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul and Council Members, The weed abatement process needs to be improved immediately! It would be clearer if the City specified that the first time a property owner be allowed to correct the problem when first notified and show proof of this correction by a certain date. If corrected, they don’t get put on the list at all! Many people don’t know about weed inspections. Once a property owner is contacted/notified the first time regarding a problem, they should be given a chance to correct the problem and NOT be placed on the list at all! Most people, once they are aware of what they need to do, will make sure it doesn’t happen again. Requiring an owner to completely re‐landscape in order to “qualify” to not be placed on the list is ridiculous and favors those people who can afford to re‐landscape over those who can just afford to correct the problem. Our City’s processes should not have inequities built into them! Allow a homeowner to fix the problem identified ‐ period. The 3 home owners that appeared at the CC meeting January 21, 2020 all had done significant work to correct the problem. 1‐ one lady hired a regular gardener 2‐one man cleaned up and organized his from area 3‐one owner had her tree significantly pruned and the grass was cut below the 6‐inch requirement All 3 of these home owners came prepared with photos and/or documents to prove they had addressed the issues identified. None of them should be added to the list! Please improve this process to allow home owners a first‐time ability to correct the problem and not get on the list at all. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Munisekar <msekar@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 4:39 PM To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Item #13: Weed Abatement List Dear City Council, Manager and Clerk, I see in the agenda for tomorrow council meeting Item #13 on the topic of weed abatement in our city. As I have reported few times before, there are 2 homes right across my home that have been neglected, empty and in blighted condition over last 8 years I have lived in this city. I do see one of those homes at 20616 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 listed in the weed abatement list; in fact the house next to it should be added to the list as well. Both of these homes are owned by someone living in Saratoga and are being held as investment properties. Ideally, I would like to see these blighted homes brought to code and rented out to some families to live given the housing shortage we have in bay area; instead, these 2 homes are being hoarded as investment properties aggravating housing situation. Hopefully you can act on these blighted homes. Cheers Muni Madhdhipatla Cupertino Resident. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Richard Lowenthal <richard@lowenthal.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:27 AM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject:Weed abatement Honorable Councilmembers, We're on your list of folks with weeds that need abatement. It’s the property that we're donating to the City to create a trail from McClellan Ranch to Linda Vista Park. We are happy to pay the abatement fees and do not want an exemption. It seems that if other residents have to pay it, we should too. Best regards, Richard and Ellen Lowenthal 1 Cyrah Caburian From:sara arzeno <s.arzeno@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 4:41 PM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:No Exemptions for Weed Abatement: Basic homeowner safety responsibility - Pls confirm receipt of this message Dear City Council Members and City Manager, We noted with disbelief and dismay that requests to exempt several properties from weed abatement responsibilities are being considered. In an era of increased fire hazard, and the resulting personal loss and economic devastation that have ravaged many of our communities, it is simply inconceivable that Cupertino would give exemptions for this basic aspect of home ownership and responsibility to the Cupertino community. We strongly urge the Council to do the right thing and hold all property owners responsible for abiding by our city codes and the Santa Clara County Fire Department guidelines. Allowing exemptions for this critical fire prevention responsibility would be wrong, would endanger the community at large, and as such, be a black mark on the Council's safety voting record. Kind regards, Sara Arzeno PS ‐ Kindly confirm receipt of this message