CC 02-01-2022 Study Session Item No. 1 PDA Grant_Written CommunicationsCC 02-01-2022
Study Session #1
PDA Planning
Grant & Heart
of the City Plan
Update
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:46 PM
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Feb 1, Agenda Item 1, Study Session, PDA planning grant
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, Vice mayor and city council members:
I support this application for a PDA planning grant. It will help with the goals of the Housing Element. I urge you to vote
yes.
Sincerely, Connie Cunningham
Chair, Housing Commission ( self only)
34 year resident
From Connie's iPhone
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:06 PM
To:Christopher Jensen; City Attorney's Office
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:2022-02-1 City Council Study Session - Is this a contract? Can a contract be in a Study Session?
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 City Attorney Chris Jensen,
In preparation for tonight’s City Council Study Session at 5:30 pm, I was reading the Staff Report. Buried on Page 4, last
paragraph is the following:
I was under the impression that a “Study Session” does not have actionable items yet if the City Council agrees with this
work, they are actually deciding to extend EMC’s contract to include the HOC work.
Q1: Is this Study Session to decide whether to extend EMC’s contract?
Q2: If so, shouldn’t it be discussed in a regular CC meeting?
Q3: If this is a “contract” (which it looks like it is but without names), shouldn’t it go out to bid?
Q4: Is this for the entire $400k?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Sean Hughes <jxseanhughes@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:31 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Cupertino Study Session & City Council Agenda - 2/1/22
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.
Hello,
I would like to submit the following in response to posted materials for the study session and city council agenda items
on 2/1/22:
Regarding the Study Session presentation made public, I have the following comments:
Based on the Housing Simulator tool and just anecdotal, lived experience having grown‐up in Cupertino for 18
years, the "Heart of the City" feels like the best area for ambitious high‐density development and progress
towards making housing. I hope Council accepts the PDA Planning Grant, as re‐zoning the HOC will likely be
crucial to the kind of community and transit‐oriented development needed to ensure a sustainable future for
Cupertino (and hit RHNA numbers).
I oppose the current SB 9 Interim Ordinance, and hope the Council considers revising the Interim Ordinance on
objective standards and regulations for SB 9 ministerial approval. In particular, the cap on unit sizes at 2,000
square feet and difference in size requirements appear arbitrary, especially considering that there are currently
duplexes existing under current municipal code off Rodriguez Ave that have a ~1000 sq foot (100%) difference in
size from one unit to the next ‐ the exact same kind of difference prohibited in the interim ordinance. If there
are legitimate and objective reasons to include a square footage cap, please publish them, because as of now it
just seems like this clause exists to restrict development by adding another random hoop to jump through.
Furthermore, while I understand a maximum height limit of 28 ft is consistent with existing standards, I think
this height restriction is a ridiculous, completely subjective restriction serving no societal or legitimate
government interest ‐ so naturally I wouldn't like to see it in either the interim standard, or the pre‐existing
standards.
I strongly oppose the emphasis in the 2022 legislative platform on "[opposing] additional state powers to
overturn local planning decisions". Fundamentally, cities have no legal authority than what is given to them by
state governments, and "home rule" comes with conditions ‐ when cities make policies that frustrate state goals
like climate change or public health, it is entirely reasonable for states to exercise their discretionary powers in
override local control. The housing crisis in California is fundamentally tied to success in both climate change and
public health (homelessness) goals, and I think Cupertino's past record is clear in a lack of objective outcomes
(virtually no new homes / housing units in a decade). The present continues to serve up more examples (like the
interim ordinance piece, Vallco delays, "missing" HCD's letter regarding our density bonus program), so I don't
see why this is a part of our 2022 legislative platform and it is embarrassing for it to even be present.
Further regarding the 2022 legislative platform, I do not believe "[monitoring] organized retail theft and law
enforcement response to public protests" deserves attention or legislation ‐ there are far more important
problems than this perceived issue, and I would argue that more law enforcement would not be an appropriate
response to this anyways.
Finally, regarding council agenda topics:
2
I support both projects being considered on the westside of the city off Foothill (Canyon and the former Bateh
Bros site). While these are small projects in relative transit desert areas, any small bits help and both areas have
been relatively dilapidated for some time.
I am encouraged by and strongly support the inclusion of residential homes in the electrification support clause.
Regards,
Sean Hughes