CC 06-02-2020 Oral Communications_Written CommunciationsCC 06-02-20
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 12:07 AM
To:City Council; Deborah L. Feng; City Attorney's Office; Heather Minner
Cc:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Gian Martire
Subject:RE: Support Oaks/Westport Project IF DEED RESTRICTIONS and PENALTIES are in place
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
P.S. You all have the time to make this happen before the June 2, 2020 City Council meeting. The resolutions can be
modified to require this. It is critical to improving the City’s development project process!
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 12:00 AM
To: 'City Council' <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; 'Deborah L. Feng' <DebF@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office
<CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; HeatherM@cupertino.org
Cc: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; PlanningCommission@cupertino.org; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>
Subject: Support Oaks/Westport Project IF DEED RESTRICTIONS and PENALTIES are in place
Dear City Council, City Manager and City Attorney,
Many of us are not happy with the height, setback and BMR distribution waivers for the Westport Project. Other than
making Building #2 completely BMR senior housing, I do not see any reason why BMR housing cannot be dispersed
throughout Building #1 and the non‐age restricted Townhouses and Rowhouses.
That said, I think overall this project is good for Cupertino BUT deed restrictions need to be placed on the individual
parcels to protect the City’s, the BMR residents and the public’s rights in exchange for giving up so much height, setback
and BMR distribution. No one knows what the future holds or what circumstances may change which might cause a
change in ownership or management of the individual buildings or parcels. So, it behooves the City to ensure that it
receives and continues to receive the benefits it agreed to in exchange for these serious waivers.
The City is about to approve the Westport/Oaks Project with ground floor retail and with 3 density bonus waivers for
1) Height (max 45 ft)
a) Building #1 is over double the maximum height at 91.75 ft!
b) Building #2 is 28 ft over at 73’9”
2) Setbacks requirement of 1:1
a) Building #1 is 1:2.08 (less than half of the required setback!)
b) Building #2 is 1.1.47 (about 2/3rds of the required setback)
3) Lack of BMR distribution throughout the project area
Past approvals for another project, Main Street, were based on a certain square footage of ground floor retail in 2 office
buildings available to the public and senior housing. Both of these have been failures. Height, setbacks, etc. were given
without receiving the expected benefits and no provisions for enforcement!
2
This project can be different! The City can start by putting in place mechanisms to ensure the key elements continue to
be followed regardless of who owns the parcel, who rents or manages the individual buildings. If one or more parcels
are sold or management of Buildings 1 and 2 are different, these benefits remain constant!
REQUEST1: Put deed restrictions on the 2 individual parcels as described below.
PARCEL #1 ‐ DEED RESTRICTION for senior housing parcel includes
1) Ground floor retail
a) ALL ground floor retail in Buildings #1 and #2 are open to the public and are not used as residential amenities!
i) Building #1 has 17,600 sf of retail
ii) Building #2 has 2,400 sf of retail
2) Both Buildings #1 and #2 are senior housing only
3) All amenities in Building #1 will always be available to residents of Building 2 on the same days/hours
a) Building #1 amenities:
i) Library
ii) Theatre
iii) Lounge
iv) Exercise Room
v) Vehicle drop off/pickup
vi) Retail space (17,600 sf)
(1) Medical offices
(2) Restaurant
(3) Café
vii) Any other amenities provided
4) All amenities in Building #2 will always be available to residents of Building 1 on the same days/hours
a) Building #2 amenities:
i) Community Room
ii) Roof deck (1,200 sf)
iii) Retail space (2,400 sf)
iv) Any other amenities provided
PARCEL #2 ‐ DEED RESTRICTION FOR parcel containing Townhouses and Rowhouses:
1) Prevent double dipping using the Density Bonus Law‐Since the density bonus has already been applied to BOTH
parcels but all BMR will be built on the first parcel (senior housing), the Bonus Density Law should not be allowed to
be used again later on the second parcel (townhouses/rowhouses) should the ownership or economic situations
change. A max density based on the approval of 70 Townhomes and 18 Rowhouses should be specified. This is
particularly important before anything is built on the parcel. It can be done in a deed restriction!
a) The City of Milpitas has a provision for this case
i) LINK: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/plan_plan_tasp_chapter3.pdf
ii) Page 10 of 42, page 3‐10
iii) “…On all sites throughout the Transit Area, densities can be averaged over an individual project which
covers multiple parcels. Densities may also be averaged over separate projects, if so requested by
developers and approved by the Planning Department, provided that legal instruments are recorded for
individual parcels to ensure that the minimum and maximum densities established by the Plan are met…”
b) Maybe specify the max density as approved.
3
If the developer is sincere about providing the agreed upon benefits, then he should not be hesitant about agreeing to
these deed restrictions!
REQUEST2: Require that the deed restrictions be approved by the City Manager, the City Attorney and RECORDED
with the County of Santa Clara PRIOR TO ISSUING ANY construction document. It’s too late if you wait until the
Occupancy Permit. The City has no leverage to ensure any of it is followed. With Main Street, leases were signed
excluding all retail for up to 25 years! It took 6 months to correct meanwhile the developer was receiving rent,
employees were in the building and there was no strong incentive to correct the error. It’s still not what was intended
as ground floor retail!
REQUEST3: Put in place a legal instrument (municipal code, etc.) with daily penalties if deed restrictions are not
followed!
From the past, we know that City Council Resolutions are not law and are not enforceable. Put in place something that
IS enforceable! Please protect the City, the BMR residents and the public.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 7:16 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Oak Trees at The Oaks/West Port
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
FYI. Please include with Public Record. Thank you. Also, for the June
2, 2020 City Council meeting.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
To: CityCouncil@Cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 07:10:49 AM PDT
Subject: Oak Trees at The Oaks/West Port
Dear City Council:
Why are we cutting down all the oak trees at The Oaks Shopping Center?
There were many oak trees on the property. There were also many
young oaks that were replanted at the shopping center in 2007.
This was done at City Council directive because we had many
in depth City Council meetings and Planning Commission
meetings about it as well as ERC meetings. I mean we went
tree by tree by tree.
The two oaks at the Stevens Creek Blvd. Oaks Shopping Center
entrance were replanted as a result of this. I remember we had the
maps of the shopping center and the City Council went tree by
tree by tree. This is why Cupertino looks the way that it does.
We care about our city. We care about the trees in our city.
I am proud that my city took the time to replant oaks at a
shopping center in my city.
Sacramento may not care about oak trees, but Cupertino does.
Everything that is bad about the Big Housing bills comes out
when Sacramento tries to mow down young oak trees in a
parking lot. What does this say to the people of the state?
We hate your trees? The symbol of California?
Please do everything you can to protect our oak trees.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Munisekar <msekar@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:47 AM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Cc:Munisekaran Madhdhipatla
Subject:June 2, 2020: Oral Communications.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Muni Madhdhipatla, a resident of Cupertino. I am here representing myself as a resident. I would like to
discuss two topics that are important and time sensitive.
Topic 1: I sat through the planning commission last week on the OAKS development proposal being reviewed by the
commission. I spoke along with several other residents about this project. Vast majority of the residents liked the project
including myself for the mix; it is a for sale housing project with some senior housing and retail. No office space and
hotels. But the proposal of 91 feet tall buildings concerned me and several other residents. The commissioners sought
clarification from the city staff and our city legal consultant. To my dismay, they all played dead and the most of talking
was done by the property owner attorney. If this is how pathetic our legal counsel is going to be, I highly recommend to
get external legal help outside of the contracted lawyers to weigh in on the projects compliance to General Plan and
State law allowances. We do not want to see 91 feet tall buildings when the General plan says it should be 45 feet. If this
is how the developments are going to be handled, we might as well throw the general plan in dustbin, fire the planning
and legal staff to save some $$s and blindly approve all projects. I know this is not what you want; so, please get
external legal help.
Topic 2: From the recent George Floyd incident in Minneapolis and the body slamming of Indian Grandpa in Feb 2015 in
Alabama (see report link below and video in the link; very troubling video), it is clear that the law enforcement used
excessive and unwarranted force causing irreversible damage to the targets. George Floyd is no more with us and the
Indian grandpa is permanently paralyzed for life. There was absolutely no need for someone to kneel on someones neck
in trying to restrain and unarmed person; there was absolutely no need to body slam a 57‐year old grandpa to concrete
like a practice exercise with a toy. I understand the law enforcement has to perform their duties under difficult
circumstances; I appreciate their service in trying to keep us safe. It is justified to use maximum force in dealing with an
armed assailant; not when dealing with unarmed helpless community members.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian‐america/assault‐charges‐dropped‐alabama‐cop‐who‐partially‐paralyzed‐indian‐
grandfather‐n573806
I request that our city attach some conditions to Santa Clara Sheriffs contract so that they are given sensitivity training
on when to use max force vs. handle humans like humans. Also attach conditions that has zero tolerance for any racial
behavior. I want to avoid seeing anything like either of the above referenced incidents happen in our city.
I also request that City not reduce law enforcement spend despite budget challenges as safety of our community is most
important in these uncertain times.
I will attend and read a shortened version of this in Oral Communicatios.
Please register this as part of public records.
2
Thanks
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 4:03 PM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:written communication, Item Oral Communication, Establish Library Field as a Park, 6/2/2020 Council
Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members Chao, Sinks, and Willey, and City
Manager Feng:
Please include this item as written communication for Agenda Item Oral Communication, "Establish
Library Field as a Park" for the 6/2/2020 Council meeting.
I request that Council schedule an agenda items to recognize today's Library Field as a city
park. As Cupertino's population grows, so will its demand for ground level, flat parkland,
suitable for play and relaxation.
The ratio of parkland-per-resident decreases from west to east across Cupertino. Under Plan Bay
Area 2050, it seems the State would require Cupertino to add 5,000 or more residences within the
next 8 years, mostly in neighborhoods east of HWY 85. Under Plan Bay Area 2050, Cupertino would
add about 20% more housing to the neighborhoods already under served by parks.
Vallco will add housing, but who knows how much. Hamptons has entitlements to add 600 more
homes, but it could come back for more. Fountainbleu apartments recently sold to a prominent
residential real estate investor; possibly it would act on entitlements to add units, if offered. More
residents mean more demand for parkland for recreational play, organized sports, and shade and
cooling rest spaces.
Please protect Library Field as the treasured 3.0 acre or larger open space that the community
enjoys today by designating it as a park. Please do not carve up Library Field for parking lot use or
trail use. Encourage transportation and parking alternatives suggested in the communication posted
to Council on 2/10/2020 instead of expanding the Civic Center parking lot. For the trail, encourage
residents to use existing Pacifica Dr sidewalks and roadway for access.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
2/10/2020 communication to Council:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=761896&GUID=A1CFD5C4-3556-4158-8926-
4846C58EF8F8