CC 06-21-2022 Item No. 17 Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study_Written CommunicationsCC 06-21-2022
Item No. 17
Stevens Creek
Boulevard Vision Study
Written Communications
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Clerk
Subject:Please support Item 17 (Stevens Creek Corridor Study) + add more land use language to the CAP 2.0
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:20:00 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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a community member in Cupertino who would like City leadership to be as ambitious as
possible on tackling climate change. In particular, I strongly believe The Climate Action Plan
2.0 (CAP 2.0) needs more language and suggestions on housing policy and land use reform.
Currently, the land use chapter (Chapter 9) has almost no land use suggestions, despite it
being called the land use chapter. Additionally, I strongly believe Cupertino should join San
Jose and Santa Clara in the Stevens Creek Corridor Study (Item 17).
Staff's research shows that 60% of Cupertino emissions are transportation! Our ask to
Cupertino leadership is simple: We absolutely need ALL four of the following to maximize our
small city’s impact on mitigating transportation emissions and to transform our city and region
for the better:
1. Bold steps toward universal building electrification (currently supported in CAP 2.0). We are
excited by the bold plans concerning electrification of buildings in Cupertino.
2. Emphasizing infill development (avoiding sprawl) as a key way to reduce vehicle miles
traveled in Cupertino–which constitutes the largest source of emissions in the Bay Area. This is
currently not supported by Cap 2.0
3. Transit-oriented planning. Cupertino, like most of the Bay Area, was designed around
needing to drive everywhere. Cupertino’s daytime population doubles during the day, as most
daytime residents cannot afford to live here. This forces long super commutes that are not
accounted for in the current emissions inventory conducted in CAP 2.0. We aren’t serious
about climate change if we do not focus on building housing near transit. While CAP 2.0 makes
some vague references to transit, it fundamentally focuses on electric cars and bicycles
improvements–which are in their own right important. Additionally, Cupertino must pledge its
full support and participation in the Stevens Creek corridor study, another item on the 6/21
agenda.
4. Connecting CAP 2.0 to the Housing Element update specifying how and where we will plan
for 5,000+ homes in Cupertino–and vice versa. The two must go hand-in-hand as ambitious
polic visions for the next several years.
Studies by the UC Berkeley Cool Climate California Local Government Climate Policy Tool
reveal that infill development and reducing car reliance are two of the most essential ways to
mitigate climate change for Cupertino.
But our City Council has resisted the promotion of infill development, making it difficult to build
housing in the city by enforcing harsh zoning and parking restrictions, and limiting both height
and density. This means that we are forced to build further outward to meet our needs.
Until this feedback is incorporated into CAP 2.0, I do not believe the plan is ambitious enough
for reducing transportation emissions in Cupertino.
Neil Park-McClintick
cupertinoforall@gmail.com
801 Miller Avenue
CUPERTINO, California 95014
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council
Subject:Item Number 17 City Council Meeting, Stevens Crk. Blvd Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:53:07 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:
I would like to have item 17 pulled from Consent Calendar for Discussion.
I am concerned about the intent of this West San Jose Stevens Creek Blvd.Vision Study.
Last week on June 13, 2022 the San Jose City Council voted in unison to ban parking across
The city.
I am very concerned about Cupertino donating money to this study if the intent is to reduce
Traffic lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. I think the intent of this study is to eliminate cars
On Stevens Creek Blvd and that is not a good option for Cupertino. We have cars and we use
Cars. I don't think that is being factored in in this big San Jose dominated study.
I don't think it is appropriate for Cupertino to donate money to this study if San Jose City
Council is sending the signal they don't like cars by voting as they did last week to eliminate
Parking in their city.
Cupertino does not want to eliminate Parking in Cupertino..Why should we spend 150 k on a
Study from San Jose that will just say eliminate cars and parking as a solution.
The 150 K could be spent to fix up the Stokelmeyer House or Provide meals to the homeless
People at the 280 offramps.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin