CC 05-31-2022 Late CommuinicationsCC 05-31-2022
Item No. 1
City Manager Report
regarding the Rise
(Vallco) development
modification of
approved SB 35
project pursuant to
Government code
section 65913.4
Written Communications
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council
Subject:Housing Bills
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:59:47 PM
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 Council:
The Housing bills that are being pumped out by Sacramento do not care about
Trees in this state.
All these five years of bills from 2017 try to cut down every tree in every city
In California.
It will be a miracle is any City has any tree left once these horrible bills are unleashed
Across our state.
There should be an immediate moratorium on these housing bills, especially SB 35,
In all of its never ending changes and manifeststions.
These housing bills have created the worst disaster every unleashed upon this state.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council
Subject:Save the Ash Trees on Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:49:24 PM
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 Council:
Please do not let Vallco cut down the ash trees on Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Road.
These trees are in the public right of way and no bill, not even SB 35, can cut down
Trees in the public right of way.
The trees belong to the city and do not belong to Vallco. The city has public right of way
Where these trees are and they do not belong to Vallco. That land belongs to the
City and are in Heart of the City.
We need to have a citywide protection of our ash trees.
Please save our city trees.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council
Subject:Schools Affected by Vallco The Rise Buildout
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:03:55 PM
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 Council:
It appears that there may be 750 students generated by the 2000 plus housing units
That the Vallco The Rise project will build.
Do we know yet where the students will go to school? At one point
The high school was supposed to be Cupertino High School. Is this still
True?
What about the middle school and the elementary school or schools?
I do hope that Sedgwick Elementary School would not be the target of
All these new students.
I do think that this number or students will affect the number of students in
The elementary schools and may effect the decision on whether to close primary
Schools.
I think we should have a discussion about the new students from the Vallc o The Rise
Project and where they will be going to school. Maybe th is can be addressed at
An upcoming meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Liana Crabtree
To:City Clerk
Cc:City Council
Subject:public comment, request for read aloud: 5/31/2022, Council meeting, Agenda Item 1, report regarding the Rise
(Vallco) development
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 6:21:06 PM
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 Clerk Squarcia:
Please read the comments below during the 5/31/2022 Council meeting, Public
Comment for Agenda Item 1, "report regarding the Rise (Vallco) development". Thank
You.
<START, public comment, Agenda Item 1>
I have 3 items for Council's consideration regarding the on-going care and handling of
the development site located north of Stevens Creek Blvd and north of Vallco
Parkway on both sides of Wolfe Rd (Stevens Creek/Wolfe project):
Ask 1) If land in Cupertino, independent of special district entitlements, is valued by
investors at $10 Million per acre, then the 52-acre Stevens Creek/Wolfe site would be
valued at approximately $500 Million. Development under the 2022 project
submission would include underground parking, 7.5 Million square feet of above-
ground office, residential, and retail use construction, and a complex, interconnected
roof canopy. Through an independent study conducted by the City of nation-
wide projects of comparable size and scale to the Stevens Creek/Wolfe project,
approximately how many years would it be before the site is 25% complete and
occupied? 50% complete and occupied? 75% complete and occupied? 95%+
complete and occupied?
Ask 2) The financial analysis provided by the property owner as part of the 2022
submission for the Stevens Creek/Wolfe project estimates net annual general fund
revenue of $4.3 Million from the site. Through independent financial analysis
conducted by the City, what are the estimated revenues and costs received and
borne by City when the site is 25% complete and occupied? 50% complete and
occupied? 75% complete and occupied? 95%+ complete and occupied?
Ask 3) Local residents have been consistent in their skepticism of the narrative that
adding high-density office development and market-rate homes to a region with
insufficient safe, affordable housing would improve long-term, housing outcomes for
residents with moderate and low incomes. Meanwhile, the State (through legislation)
and the County (through Court decisions) assert that massive mixed-use
developments like the one proposed under the Stevens Creek/Wolfe project are
necessary for the greater good of the region. If the results of Asks 1 and 2 above
indicate the greater good of the region comes at costs that are unreasonable
for a city of 57,000 people to bear alone, for Ask 3, I request the City to consider
Detachment, where the Stevens Creek/Wolfe project moves forward as now,
protected by State law, but under the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara,
where the entire County shares in the costs and benefits of the Stevens
Creek/Wolfe project.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
<END, as time allows, public comment, Agenda Item 1>
From:Joseph Fruen
To:City Council; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Liang Chao;
Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Item 1 - City Manager"s Report on The Rise (Vallco) project modification application
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 6:20:45 PM
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.
[To the City Clerk: Please accept this correspondence for public comment for the above-
captioned item on tonight's council agenda. This comment need not be read into the record,
but I would ask that you alert council to its presence during public comment.]
Mayor Paul and Councilmembers:
I thank City Manager Throop for a very thorough and data-filled report. I think the presence of
this information is helpful for the public's understanding of The Rise project and the analytic
process used to evaluate this modification application.
In addition to the points discussed in the staff report, please recall that SB 35 (as presently
amended) includes internal guidance for how an application under that law should be
examined. This guidance goes beyond the claim preclusive effects of both the 2018 approvals
and the litigation over those prior approvals. In particular, I draw your attention to
subdivisions (c)(3) and (n) of Government Code section 65913.4.
Subdivision (n) is a general guiding principle requiring SB 35 to be both "interpreted and
implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the
approval and provision of, increased housing supply." (Emphasis added). Subdivision (c)(3),
by comparison, is much more incisive in requiring the city's ministerial evaluation of a project
application under SB 35 to find a project consistent with local objective planning standards "if
there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the
development is consistent with the objective planning standards." In other words, unless no
reasonable person could conclude on the basis of substantial evidence that such a development
proposal is consistent with local objective planning standards, then the city must find the
application consistent.
Subdivision (c)(3) was grafted into SB 35 from a functionally identical provision in the
Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"). See Gov't Code § 65589.5(f)(4) ("For purposes of this
section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent,
compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a
reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is
consistent, compliant, or in conformity."). Subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA has received judicial
treatment at the appellate level upholding its constitutionality and affirming the sorting
function it serves. Cal. Renters' Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal.
App. 5th 820 (2021) ("CARLA"). The court notes, specifically, that this subdivision "is
intentionally deferential to housing development. It is also an excellent backstop to ensure that
the standards a municipality [is] applying are indeed objective." Id. 68 Cal. App. at 845.
The HAA's Subdivision (f)(4) is especially illuminating here because a court would ordinarily
interpret the same language in two statutes in pari materia to mean the same thing. The HAA
and SB 35 are two such statutes. As such, the court's application of Subdivision (f)(4) in
CARLA applies equally to SB 35's Subdivision (c)(3). I would therefore encourage
councilmembers and those interested in the public to review the CARLA case to best
appreciate the toolkit that staff must use in examining the modification application for The
Rise.
Many thanks,
J.R. Fruen
Cupertino resident
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk
Subject:Please add this link to Slide for Public Comment Agenda Item 1, Connie Cunningham
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:56:38 PM
Attachments:2022-5-31 City Council, Bird Safety, The Rise.docx
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.
Hi ! Could I ask you to add this link https://phys.org/news/2021-10-steel-
and-glass-fuel-global-climate-injustice.html
under the last line of my chart that I sent earlier? I can add it and re-send if you prefer.
Thank you,
Connie Cunningham
From:Jill halloran
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Dark skies and bird-safe design
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:36:23 PM
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 Paul, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Manager,
As a 30+ year Cupertino resident, I'm writing to urge you to protect humans
and essential wildlife by voting in favor of dark skies and bird-safe design.
The proliferation of LEDs, in billboards and otherwise, is not only extremely
distracting and annoying to drivers and others, but is disruptive to wildlife.
We don't need this and don't want it.
I also want to address Reed Moulds, Managing Director, Sand Hill Property
Company. Thank you for including open space in the design, but that's
almost negated by all the reflective glass that will inevitably kill hundreds or
thousands of birds per year.
THank you for reading this. I will attend tonight's meeting as well.
Best,
Jill Halloran