CC 06-21-2022 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsFrom:Rick Kitson
To:City Clerk
Subject:Re Item #19, please Read Aloud the attached letter
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 8:43:37 PM
Attachments:Item 19 20220621 Letter to City Council.pdf
CCHC New logo Signatures-02.png
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 Madame City Clerk,
Thank you for reading aloud the attached letter during the public hearing for item #19, for
June 21, 2022.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Rick Kitson • Executive Director
O. 408-252-7054 x12
C. 408-355-4413
rick@cupertino-chamber.org
www.cupertino-chamber.org
#cupchamber
From:Kirsten Squarcia
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Written Communications Item 19
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 8:40:39 PM
Attachments:Binder_All_Invoices.pdf
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
KirstenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3225
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>
Date: June 21, 2022 at 8:39:52 PM PDT
To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>
Subject: Written Communications Item 19
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 Kirsten,
Please add the attached to the written communications for Item 19.
Sincerely,
Kitty Moore
From:Tej Kohli
To:Hung Wei
Cc:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Re: Follow-up to yesterdays Oral Communication
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 7:59:30 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.
Council member Hung:
Thanks for this. I'm wondering if you have heard back from the CityManager/Attorney?
Personally I have been through the SB9 documentation a few times. We meet all the
criteria set forth.
The only thing standing in the way is the current Cupertino City interim guidance thatdoes not allow us to cut the lot in the way that ALL our neighbors are also suggestingit should be cut.
SB9 was rushed. I am sure the city guidance was also rushed. This is probably justan oversight. A simple change to the interim guidance is all we are asking for. Cuttinga lot in the 50'x150 ft dimensions will not work for anyone on our street and as we
have presented is non optimal for multiple reasons.
Please guide us as to how to proceed. We would really like to get this behind us andget started on our new plans for the rebuild.
Thanks so much in advance.
Tej & Nitiu Kohli.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:15 PM Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org> wrote:
Thanks for your presentation, Tej. I have forwarded your request to the City Manager and
City Attorney for evaluation and response. Since SB9 is a pretty new law, we will need to
make sure the proper procedures are being followed.
Thanks for your understanding.
Best regards,
Hung
Hung Wei
Councilmember
City Council
HWei@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3139
From: Tej Kohli <jetkohli@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 11:10 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Follow-up to yesterdays Oral Communication
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.
Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Members Moore, Wei and Wiley:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present yesterday. Sorry I didn'tknow the protocol of having other attendees offer me their time before Istarted.
I am including the presentation here for your reference.
Our neighbors feel the split we have suggested makes the most sense bothfrom a neighborhood look and feel and also because it creates twoproportional buildable lots.
CouncilMember Wiley raised a point about flag-lots being allowed per theinterim ordinance. You are right! They are allowed but only for lots with less
than 60 ft frontage. Ours is 100ft frontage. That is the only change we
need in the interim ordinance to allow our split.
All the existing flag lots in the area surrounding us are all much greater than60 ft frontages.
Vice Mayor Chao had asked a question around "discretionary approval" for alot split. We would like to apply for such an approval right away.
What Covid has taught us is that time is really precious. We would like to
really get started as soon as possible.
Please guide us. Please let us know what kind of followup you require fromus.
Thank you for your attention and support.
Tej and Nitu Kohli
From:Joseph Fruen
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk; City Council;
Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Climate Action Plan 2.0 study session
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 5:33:56 PM
Attachments:image.png
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.
Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council:
Before you today is an ambitious update to Cupertino's Climate Action Plan and I urge you to
support it moving forward. That said, the Plan as written misses an important opportunity to
align our Housing Element update and our climate impact goals. Per UC Berkeley's Cool
Climate Project (see below for Cupertino's specific reduction potentials), three of Cupertino's
highest potential points for GHG reduction are all related to how and where we build homes:
heating electrification, urban infill, and VMT reduction. By building new housing near high
opportunity areas, we can reduce VMT, replace old buildings with new electrified ones, and
make better use of space. The current CAP 2.0 barely mentions land use as part of its strategy
for addressing GHG emissions. The Housing Element update provides us with an immediate
opportunity to fold our climate goals into a planning process that we must engage in anyway. I
urge you to direct staff to align these two processes in order to maximize our potential for
reducing GHG emissions.
Many thanks,
J.R. Fruen
Cupertino resident
From:Michael Mar
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 5:05:20 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
policy 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.
Michael Mar
megamar88@gmail.com
19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Unit 226
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Connie Cunningham
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 4:57:10 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.
5. I note that CAP 2.0 discusses fuel cells used by Apple. I understand that this issue alone
may derail our CAP. How are we planning to ensure Apple does the right thing? It is critical that
our major company support the CAP 2.0.
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.
Connie Cunningham
cunninghamconniel@gmail.com
1119 Milky Way
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Sheng-Ming Egan
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 4:53:46 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 lifelong 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. We need to think about not just the logistics
of transportation, but how we zone and where we live and work - otherwise it's just bandaids on
a land use problem. Thank you for your work.
Sheng-Ming Egan
nsmegan@gmail.com
11735 RIdge Creek Ct.
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Jean Bedord
To:City Clerk
Subject:City council Item #20 Historical Society for June 21, 2022
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:51:47 PM
Attachments:Bedord Council - 2022-06-22 Historical .pptx
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.
Kristen,
Can you put this on the screen for public comment tonight when I speak? Can you make it
full-screen when I talk? There are 3 pages.
Thanks much.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord