Desk Items 07-30-2019I um
tl �' �.�m I�
1' I
Beth Ebben
Fo•®ova: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
9�V
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 1:09 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City
Manager's Office; City Council; City Attorney's Office; City Clerk
Subject: I support the adoption of the 7/30/2019 CPC proposed Amendments to the City's
General Plan
Dear Planning Commissioners, Planning Staff, City Manager, City Council, City Attorneys, and City Clerk,
As a Cupertino resident since 1976, 1 want to thank the new Cupertino Planning Commission, City
staff/manager/attorneys, and new City Council for the thorough research, community outreach, and evidence -
based analysis that resulted in the 7/30/201.9 proposed Amendments to the City's General flan, Zoning Map,
and. Municipal Code, and Addendum to the Final EIR related to the Vallco Shopping Dist7ict Special Area.
1. support the adoption. of these four Draft Resolutions which would: 1) remove office as a permitted use, 2)
establish height limits and enact residential development standards, 3) eliminate Municipal Code referen.ces to
the Vallco Specific Plan (VSP) & create a zoning designation of P(R3,CG), and 4) amend the zoning map to
rezone to P(R3,CG) 13.1 acres to Mixed Use Planned Development.
Cupertino residents, in defeating Measure D (the hills at Vall.co), signing/qualifying the Referendurns;opposing
the VSP, supporting and electing a City council that listens to residents not just special interests, and opposing
the illegal ministerial approval of the SB35 Vallco Town Center Project, have consistently voiced their strong
disapproval. of a nearly 2M sgit office development at Vallco, a development which would exacerbate our
inc:reasingl.y dangerous traffic gridlock and Significantly worsen Cupertino's job to housing balance.
Adopting these draft resolutions will continue Cupertino on its path to recovery after, over four years of division
and strife that began in. 2014 with Peter Pau's purchase of Vallco.
Sincerely,
James (Jim) Moore
* * * Please make this part of the Public Record * * *
lLl
Beth Ebben
From: Frank Geefay <fgeefay@yahoo.com>
Sepik: Sunday, July 28, 2019 7:29 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; City
Council
Subject: VALLCO DOWNZONING HEARING - PLANNING COMMISSION
Dear Chairman Nang and Planning Commissioners,
I, as a concerned citizen, am extremely concerned at the Commissions proposal to downzone the Housing
Element of the General Plan for Vallco property which in effectively limits, on this very larger site, fewer than
400 units of R3 type housing. The 2015-2023 RHNA housing allocation for Cupertino is:
Extremely to Very Low Income: 355 EMR units
Low Income: 207 EMR units
Moderate Income: 231 EMR units .
Total EMR: 793 units
Above Moderate Income: 270 units
Total RHNA: 1063 units
The Vallco site is by far the largest available property for housing in our city. All approved projects with
housing not yet built have been on voluntary hold for more than three years while construction cost have
continued to increase. There is no assurance that any of these projects will ever be built. The Planning
Commission has not proposed where all of this BMR housing will be built as a backup in the event most of the
approved housing is not built. Even with the 15% mandatory EMR requirement there is no backup plan for
where market rate and EMR housing can be built other than less than 400 total units at Vallco.
There appears to be no attempt to consider the viability of any developer to build housing or anything else on
such a valuable and expensive Vallco property. The elimination of all office and limitation ofhousing make this
property very unattractive for future development, potentially opening the city to a huge lawsuit by the current
owner should they not be able to build there.
This GPA, if approved, gives the appearance of a city that is opposed to further housing development and
refusalto build the minimum housing requirement as determined by the RHNA. This opens the City to lawsuits
from a number of organizations and governing bodies and actions by the State.
I feel that passing such a GPA would not accomplish its intended purpose and would unnecessarily place our
City in financial jeopardy. I implore you to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences of what you are
proposing to do.
Sincerely,
Frank Geefay
Cupertino Resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
0.3
Beth Ebben
t
From:
Lauren Sapudar
Sent:
Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:49 AM
To:
Beth Ebben
Cc:
Benjamin Fu
Subject:
FW: Inadequate Public Notice for Vallco Changes at Public Hearing at Planning
Attachments:
Commission, June 30, 2019
Cupertino_Courier_20190726_A29_2=Vallco Notice.pdf
IL���_�rr=i� ��.�F�u�•Jc:r
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
i , 5-�i II
- H01
'.
From- Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Sent. Monday, July 29, 2019 8:13 PM
To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino:org>; City Council
<CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Steven•Scharf<SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao<LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Rod
Sinks <RSi`nks@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>
Subject: Inadequate Public Notice for Vallco Changes at Public Hearing at Planning Commission, June 30, 2019
Good morning,
I am appalled at the failure of the city to provide adequate notice for public engagement for the General Plan
Amendments. Public noticing and outreach require 10 days notice via a legal ad in a newspaper of general
circulation (see staff report). The original item appeared in July 12 issue of the Cupertino >Courier for the
agenda of the canceled July 23 meeting. That notice was republished this week, on July 26, noticing the July.30
meeting, BUT this is just 5 days before the Public Hearing, not 10 days. See the attached PDF.
More importantly, this public hearing on July 30 is rushed when much of the general public is out of town, so
needs to be deferred until this fall to more fully engage the public, as promised by new members of
council. General Plan Amendments are major decisions on land use which ordinarily involve lengthy public
engagement and environmental review to consider unintended consequences. NONE of this has
happened. This is NOT good governance.
Frankly, this feels like the imposition of Measure C - which an overwhelming 61 % of voters rejected.
Pleased defer this Public Hearing until community meetings are held.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
11120 Santa Teresa Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014
VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER, LLC
July 29, 2019
Cupertino Planning Commission
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
glj�n,inogQ oin(yi
I'm
Vallco Property Owner, LLC ("Vallco") owns the site of the Vallco Fashion Mall (the
"Vallco Site"). Vallco was recently notified that the Planning Commission is considering
amendments to the general plan and zoning map that would, among other things, limit the
development of housing and eliminate the development allocation for office uses on the Vallco
Site. We disagree with any change to the Vallco Site's planning standards that seek, directly or
indirectly, to restrict the ability to add significant levels of residential development, as has, been
proposed and is being implemented with the approved SB 35 project.
As you know, a project for the Vallco Site has already been approved under SB-,35. The
proposed amendments are inconsistent with the approved SB 3 5 project, but they will not give
the City of Cupertino (the "City") any grounds to block or alter the SB 35 project. There is,
therefore, no urgency to the proposed amendments. The City is nevertheless moving forward, as
quickly as it can, without any consultation with technical experts or the actual property owner,
and scant notice to the public.' This is a hazardous proposition.
First, it is apparent to us that the proposed amendments are simply another effort by
elected and appointed City officials to work in concert with "Better Cupertino," whose members
and sponsors populate this Commission and the City Council. Those officials apparently hope
that, in the unlikely event that Better Cupertino prevails in their litigation against the SB 35.
project, these General Plan amendments will render any development of the Vallco Site
economically infeasible, and make the'Vallco Site functionally ineligible for any future SB 35
project — or any mixed -use housing development at all. Surreptitious coordination with a special
interest group is against the public interest to begin with,, but there also are practical reasons this
is not a valid strategy, as set forth below.
Second, the amendments are anti -housing. Given the sorry state of Cupertino's
compliance with state -mandated housing goals — at present, Cupertino has permitted, only
quarter of its share of housing, almost none in the very low or low income categoryI — this is a
noxious objective. Under the proposed amendments, only 58 below -market -rate units are
required — this is a fraction of the 1,201 units approved in the SB 35 project, and of the 572 units
approved in the now -repealed Specific Plan.. This Council boasts about how many housing
entitlements it has granted, but when those homes are not built because their ultimate
entitlements were infeasible, can the City really take credit? The amendments to the General
I The Staff Report indicates that 36 notices were mailed to agencies, service and utility providers,, but
there is no mention of tribes affiliated with the area, which, is -required by Government Code § 65352.3.
Plan here remove a critical economic driver that snake residential development at the Vallco Site
viable and possible and would have a similar effect: another infeasible entitlement in Cupertino.
The City's own economic studies confirm that office development is the economic driver for any
residential development that might be proposed 6r. considered for the Vallco Site:
[M]arket rate housing and office uses generate positive residual
value for the project, while below -market -rate apartments, retail,
hotel, and civic uses must be subsidized. Office uses are
anticipated to be an essential value generatorfor the vroject.2
]Further, while eliminating the primary 66value generator," the City proposes to maintain
not only uses that 66must be subsidized," but also other high cost items, such as a "complete
redevelopment," creation of a new "street grid" and requiring a minimum of 600,000 square feet
of retail uses. As carefully documented in the report ;from The Concord group last year, given
changes in the broader market and existing regional retail competition, the site can only absorb
approximately 400,000 square feet in retail over the next five years, meaning that the extra
200,000 square feet the City continues to require "would result in (i) extraordinarily high `carry'
costs and operating losses and (ii) extraordinarily`high lease transaction and construction coStS:93
So the City's proposal continues to impose requirements that cause a significant 66drag" on
project economics, yet is only effectively allowing 3S9 residential units(15% of which roust be
affordable) to snake up for these losses.
It does not take much to realize that no project could ever pencil under the City's
proposal. lather than allowing a development program that would include some office and
enable significant affordable housing, Bettor Cupertino, and its .City allies, prefer the Vallco Site
to remain vacant and undeveloped. the City's attempt to hide behind a statement that it is
64on y" removing office is disingenuous.. The purpose'of this amendment is to prevent, any sort of
development on site. The concept of feasibility is well known to the City, as it previously
engaged a consultant during the Specific Plan process to test the feasibility of various scenarios.
In fact, this very analysis informed the City that in order; for a minimum of 600,000 square feet
of retail to be 66in the realm of financial feasibility"', the City would need to entitle — and allow
"by right" - a minimum additional development program of 1,779 residential units (with no
more than 15% allocated as affordable) and 750.000 square feet of office. 4 Ignoring the good
practice of assessing financial feasibility, the City has reshed forward to advance the political
and litigation goals of a few members, without assessing the best interests of the community, or
principles of sound planning strategy. It's clear the proposed General Plan amendments are
nothing more than a deceptive strategy for the City to appear "housing -friendly" -while actually
preventing the development of housing.
Third, approval of these amendments will violate the California Environmental Quality
Act. we understand that the City believes that these amendments were already analyzed and
...............
z September 11, 2018 Report by Economic & Planning Systems, Inca
3 june 1, 2018, Analysis of Cost Reductions Associated with Reduced Retail in Vallco Town Center
Project, The Concord Group.
4 September 11, 2018 Report by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1 17571.0014818-4754-2685.9
disclosed as part of the 2014 Environmental Impact Report that the City prepared as part of prior
General Plan amendments (the "2014 EIR"). That assumption is wrong. The City must prepare
and certify a subsequent environmental impact report because the proposed amendments are a
substantial change to the project that was approved in 2015, and the amendments will cause new
significant impacts not discussed in the 2014 EIR.
In 2014, the Vallco Mall was 85 percent occupied. The General Plan amendments
proposed in 2014 were intended to facilitate and encourage redevelopment of the Vallco site to
"create a new 'downtown' for Cupertino," and the 2014 EIR analyzed the reasonably anticipated
impacts from that change.
Today, the Vallco ball is almost completely vacant. A portion of the Vallco Mall has
been demolished. The currently -proposed amendments will prohibit office uses on the site, even
though that was one of the central uses that was contemplated in the 2014 EIR. The current
amendments will block redevelopment of the Vallco Site, and will have the apposite effect of the
aImendlrtents that were proposed in 2014. The Mall's newly -vacant condition will be prolonged
by these new amendments, perhaps indefinitely. The protracted vacancy of such a large property
will cause blight to surrounding properties, because they - if the City and Better Cupertino have
their way — will be directly adjacent to a partially or completely demolished, fenced -off,
completely vacant, former mall site. Urban decay and all of its. typical symptoms — multiple
long-term vacancies, dumping, graffiti and vandalism., little; abandoned vehicles, etc. -- can be
expected if the Vallco Site is not redeveloped to some productive use in the near future.
The passibility of blight was not analyzed, at all, in the 2014 EIR. The public is entitled
to know that urban decay is a reasonably likely outcome of these General Plan amendments, as
well as the severity of those impacts, if the City intends to make any effort to mitigate that
impact, alternatives to the General Plan amendments, and all of the other disclosures that are
required by CEQA.
Fourth, the amendments suffer from another fundamental and fatal defect..,The Vallco
Site is identified as a "Priority Housing Element Site" in the City's Dousing Element, A site
included in the Housing Element inventory must be "suitable and available for residential
development," meaning that it has a "realistic and demonstrated -potential for redevelopment
during the planning period." The City's approach is a classic anti -]housing city play --call: put a
site on the inventory that it knows with certainty has no possibility of actually developing. But
the days of Housing Element shenanigans are over, as the Legislature has made.clear that
inventories must be real sites, meaning that they must be economically feasible. Housing
Element law requires that the City remove governmental constraints to developing housing on
inventory sites. Here the City is proposing to do the opposite and, if adopted, will render
housing infeasible -on the Site. 5 As the City's own financial feasibility study recognized, office
is "an essential value generator" for any large project on the site. Removing office ensures the
s I have enclosed a preliminary report.from The Concord Group, dated today, assessing the feasibility of
development of the Vallco Site if these General Plan amendments are adopted, based on. the conclusions
and analysis from the 2018 EPS Report. in short, the proposed amendments will result in a negative land
value, even before considering our land cost basis and the constant site costs incurred in any development
scenario. It is plain that the amendments will render redevelopment of the Vallco-Site infeasible.
17571.001481 s-4754-2685.9
site will never be redeveloped, in which case the Site must be removed from the Housing
Element inventory and other replacement sites identified. Of course, since this will require
amendments to the Housing Element, the City must provide the proposed amendment to HCD
for its review and comment. The City's General Plan, if amended in the way that is currently
proposed, will lack a Housing Element that complies with state law.
Fifth, because the proposed amendment is designed to deny Vallco economically viable
use of the Vallco Site, the City would be liable for loss of value to Vallco.
SLxth, we remind the City and Planning Commission that Kitty Moore must recuse
herself from any consideration, discussion (including on social media, even when purportedly
G4representing (her)self only"), or vote on these proposed amendments. She is a co -Plaintiff in
the, SB 35 litigation, together with better Cupertino. She is plainly abusing her role her a
Planning Commissioner to better her position in that litigation - if, for example, the parties were
to ever disc -Liss settlement, she would certainly cite the General Plan amendments that she
recommended as a point of significant leverage in her favor. Her attorney might file some brief
in the trial court, citing the amendments as a point in her favor in the litigation. The
amendments, in short, present opportunities to Ms. Moore and: Better Cupertino to improve their
litigation position, and. Ms. Moore's participation in the process of recommending the
amendments for City adoption would be an abuse of her position, and a conflict of interest. This
isespecially true because the amendments so directly target the Vallco Site. Further, to the
extent Ms. Moore may currently be liable for attorneys' fees, depending on the outcome of
litigation, this situation gives her a financial interest in the proposed amendments.
Finally, one must consider the fiscal ramifications of the proposed action., The City's
decision to, speed through a pointless legislative exercise will simply generate more litigation and
require I depletion of the City's general fund to pay for attorneys to defend the City's ill-advised
decisions.
There is no rational justification for the proposed amendments to the General Plan. For
the foregoing reasons, conscientious Planning Commissioners should refuse to act on the
amendments, disapprove them or, at a minimum, defer them to study environmental and Housffig
Element impacts.
Hill Property Company
Authorized Representative, VaUco Property Owner LLC
Cc: Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director [benigi�ii UVWj
Deborah Feng, City Manager
Enclosure: Preliminary Feasibility Impact of a Revised General Plan Scenario for the Vallco
Redevelopment in Cupertino, California, The Concord Group, July 29, 2019
17571.0014818-4754-2685.9
UPC) 6
Preliminary. Feasibilityhppgct of a ][devised General Plan Scenario. for the Vallco.Redevelo ment
in to ?erfino: California. The concord Caron . I
--gly 29: 2019
17571.00148184754-2685.9
v THE
.: PE'iaee
AdvisersReaE
Memorandum
To: Vallco Property Owner, LLC
From: The Concord Group
Date: July 29, 2019
Re: Preliminary Feasibility Impact of a Revised General Plan Scenario for the Vallco
Redevelopment in Cupertino, California
Vallco Property Owner, LLC ("VPO") is pursuing the redevelopment of the site of the Vallco Fashion
ivlall (the "Vallco Site"), a 5I-acre site located in Cupertino, California. The City of Cupertino
("City") is currently entertaining,a General Plan amendment that will effectively downzone the
Vallco Site. VPO has retained The Concord Group ("TCG") to assesses the financial feasibility of
the proposed amended General Plan Scenario.
The review described herein will be based primarily or completely on assumptions and valuation
conclusions from a report issued by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. ("EPS") dated September
11, 2018. These conclusions have been applied to the proposed General Plan Scenario to
evaluate its likely financial feasibility.
The following represent our key preliminary conclusions;
The proposed General Plan Scenario excludes office, limits residential to 459 units (85% market
rate; 15% BMR); requires at least 600,000 square feet of retail and provides for a 191-key hotel on
the 51-acre property.
1. The EPS report - presented to the City on September 11, 2018 - evaluates two. tiers. of
development. The proposed General Plan Scenario shares some basic similarities with
EPS's Tier 1 program. Please see the table below.
The proposed General Plan Scenario eliminates all office and condominiums, reduces the
apartments from 932 units to 459 units, and leaves retail and hotel uses the same.
Program Comparison
i Tier 1 Mr.do.osed GP Charge
Apartment
Market Rate 792 390 (402)
BMRApartment 140 69 (71)
Condominium
Market Pate 720 0 (720)
BMRCondo 127 0 (127)
Traditional Office 750,000 0 (750,000)
Mail 600,000 600,000 0
Hotel 139,000 139,000 0
2. By using per unit/per square foot/per key residual valuation conclusions from the Tier 1 EPS
analysis and applying them to the proposed General Plan Scenario, preliminary valuation
impacts can be identified.
Vallco Property Owner, LLC Page 1 July 2019
19446.00
Preliminary Conclusions
The majority of the economic weight of EPS's Tier 1 development scenario was carded by product
types eliminated in the Proposed General Plan Scenario. In fact, based on EPS data, 84% of the
total Residual Value Before Site Costs can be attributed to Office and Condominiums, two
product types eliminated in the Proposed General Plan -Scenario. See Figure I on Page 5 of the
EPS report.
From the report: "The analysis finds that Tier I is in the.realm of financial feasibility assuming that
the majority of the 1,779 units of housing is developed as for -sale product. With just - over 50% of Tier
I housing developed as condominiums, Tier I appears financially viable. The need for for -sale
housing in the program derives primarily from the relatively high value of market rate condominium
units and the fact that the City's below-market-wrate (BMR) policy for ownership units targets
Imedian - and moderate4ncome households, as compared to the deeper affordability required
for below -market -rate rental housing."
Additionally: "As shown, market rate housing and office uses generate positive residual value for
the project, while below -market -rate apartments, retail, hotel, and civic uses must be subsidized."
impact Table
Eliminating high -value product types from the proposed General Plan Scenario has, significant
impacts on project feasibility. Using assumptions completely from EPS's report, we have compiled
the following table demonstrating the impact of the proposed change in product mix:
EPS Mer I Dova=rts
.Land.Use Value VaIuepsrUnWW dram, pasumpigyalue
Apartment
Market Rate 792 $156,156,107 $197,166.80- 390 $76,924,628
BMRApartment 140 m,182,519) (s322,732'p.a) 69 ($2.2,220J 1 T,
Condominium
Market Fbte 720 $256.920,406 $356,834 0 $0
BMRCondo 127 $14,983.914 $117,984 0 $0
Traditional Office 750,000 $121,596,757 $162 0 $0
retail 600,000 ($33,175,543) ($56) 600,000 (-W,175,543)
Hotel 139,000 139,000 ($6,1981717)
fbettlual Value Before Ste Costal Fee Credits
M Codd Fee Credits
Impact Fso Credits
Demoldlon
Basta GteWork
Open Spam Improvements
Fbrk!artd In-Ueu Fee
Rghl-ol-Way and Backbone Infrastructure
Additional Off-slai Improvementsi Mitigation
Financing Costs and Developer RAm on Ste Costs
$466,100,405 (515,8o,293)
($1 tk7,700,05)
($135,799,417)
$32,467,671
None Assumed
00G,000"
NoneAssiand
(.20 We 30)
(0-0 , 0"C'mir),
i
$0
01 Xw
WO'sApproAmate Land Cost Basis
Estimated "ad Residual; $0
The elimination of product types (namely condominium housing and office) renders the project
underwater as the total Residual Value Before Site Costs/Fee Credits' is in negative territory at
($17MM). With Site Costs of more than $135MM and a land cost basis of more than $358MM the
proposed General Plan Scenario is clearly infeasible.
I Site Costs of the Downzone scenarios are based on Figure 5 on page 14 of the EPS report, where costs associated
work, and additio no[ off -site improvements/mitigations remain the some but costs associated With open space imp
assumed to be $0 and costs associated with parkland in -lieu fees reduce to $21,068, 100 (based on the City's. policy
Vallco Proper ty Owner, LLC Page 2
19446.00
emolition,.basic site
v , pments ' are
j waive the fee for
I.
July 29,20 1
imun Fau
,jzr� -�Fs' 2 7/3-9/M
From: Joan Trampenau <trampenau2000@comcast.net>
Semite Monday, July 29, 2019 2:20 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; City
Council; Steven Scharf, Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey
Cc: CupertinoMatters@gmail.com
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Items 2 and 3
am a 46 year resident of. Cupertino, and my home on Colby Ave. is about 500 feet from Vallco. When Sandhill's original
renovation of Vallco was proposed, I was proud to think that Cupertino, the home of Apple, would have another
impressive landmark:
As time has passed, my feelings have gone from disappointed to disgusted. Better Cupertino (in my opinion the
ultimate NIMBY group) and the majority of the current City Council members are turning Cupertino into a laughingstock,
with all their regressive proposals and actions.
I fear that, in addition to the cost of the city's reputation, they are also causing increasing financial costs to the city. I
believe Sandhill has made good faith efforts to work with the city, while being attacked time and time again. These
attacks and delays caused by Better Cupertino and the City Council have led to various perks to the city being eliminated
due to the cost of Sandhill having to defend its plan, as well as to currently escalating legal costs.
I strongly urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to do what is best for Cupertino and drop their opposition
to the current Vallco plan.
Joan Trampenau
Cupertino resident
1
From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN <geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:43 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; Deborah L. Feng; Benjamin Fu; City Clerk; Sandy James; Reed Moulds; Jean
Bedord; Ian Greensides; Richard Lowenthal; Anjali Kausar; Rick Kitson; Orrin Mahoney
Subject: Concerns regarding your July 30, 2019 agenda
Planning commissioners:
I have three main concerns regarding your agenda for tomorrow:
1) Lack of public input. We learned in public administration grad school that successful
resolution of complex planning issues often requires as many as 200 meetings. That's TWO
HUNDRED meetings. The recent Council election results give neither you nor the City
Council -license to forgo extensive community discussion of such an important change.
2) Financial viability. Your suggested Vallco limitations may make development there
financially unfeasable.
3) Liabili . Inverse condemnation (reducing the value of land without paying for it) was
successfully invoked in a lawsuit by a developer in Palo Alto when I lived there. Your Vallco
changes could put the City of Cupertino at considerable financial risk..
So please - slow down, involve the whole community, and be fully aware of ALL the
ramifications of what is being proposed tomorrow evening.
Regards, Geoff
Geoffrey Paulsen
Former Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission
408/480-7509 cell
Total Control Panel
To: beniaminf@cupertino.org
From: geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
Login
1
713- - c,�ti
��� O
;�C'iiI il111Il ilI'.
From: Stephanie Pressman <sap@frogonthemoon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:33 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
S ub�ecte rezoning of Vallco
Please reject any amandments to the General Plan that would quash the Vallco project and limit the number of housing
units to be built. I personally never shop in retail stores any more as I do much of my shopping on-line.I have lived in
Cupertino for over 50 years. Had I voted for limiting housing when I first moved here, we would not have such a strong
community. Many of you would not even be living here. The Vallco project is a good one which provides open space to
walk and much of what is needed for our community.
Stephanie Pressman
Rainbow Drive
� �� 4 P 3 7/?, oll �
From: Abert liu <albertoliu@yahoo.com> PC -
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 5:32 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Save Vallco's future - VOTE NO on General Plan Amendments
You folks are acting without,any considerations from other Cupertino residents. Your unilateral way is very much like our
president Trump. Is that the democratic way ? You are bringing lawsuits which are costly and will be paid by Cupertino
residents ... unwillingly. What are you doing this,for ? Not for the real better Cupertino. I don't see anything better about
what you are doing. Are we becoming snobbish ? We don't allow low income housing to Cupertino ? Do you know who
are the people needing lover income housing these days ? Not welfare recipients. Not the homeless. The teachers, the
office workers, the bank tellers, the police, the firemen, ... regular working people. Because of the high price housing
market, they have to have low incoming housing in order to live close to where they work, not having to commute for 45
miles away. I am sure everyone of you know this, but you still carry on with your agenda.
I think some of you are not in the interest of the public. You have personal issues with this developer and you use them in
disguise as
"Better Cupertino". Shame on you.
Albert Liu
35+ years Cupertino resident
Benjam�n Fu 713ollO�
rc
From: Chi Yen <ckyeh@sbcgloba ."et -
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 5:23 PM
To:' City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Save Vallco's future - VOTE NO on General Plan Amendments
As a 30 year resident of Cupertino who has raised family in this city, I urge you not to pass the down zoning -
amendments that are under consideration at tonight's meeting.
These amendments will block any feasible project that would provide sorely needed additional housing to Cupertino and
would leave the valuable Vallco property unused and wasted for yet another generation.
The proposed rezoning increases the retail the City previously required and plans for additional low -wage jobs, while'
cutting all forms of housing, including a 95% reduction in low-income housing!
The rezoning is being considered without community input or further study. General Plan updates typically include
extensive months -long community outreach processes, separate from normal Council and Commission meetings. Plus,
no environmental studies have been done. This reactionary proposal is following the CityCouncil's action earlier this
spring to repeal the Vallco Specific Plan without putting the referenda to a public vote, despite an entire campaign
dedicated to promising that vote.
This action sends the wrong message about Cupertino's values, shrinks the City's role in addressing the region's
affordable housing crisis, exposes the City and its taxpayers to significant legal liabilities, and attempts to ruin any
chance to restore the Vallco site to viable use.
It is most distressing to me as a long time resident that our local government is potentially acting so irresponsibly and I
urge you to table these rezoning proposals pending community input and more serious discussions about the effects of
these potential changes.
Best,
Chi Yeh
Sent from my iPhone
From: Doug Rowe <douglas.rowe@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:50 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Save Vallco's future - VOTE NO on General Plan Amendments
Please do not deny others a chance to live in this community. These amendments cut out our teachers a chance to live in
Cupertino. Do the right thing and stick with the SB 35 plan.
Regards,
Doug Rowe
Cupertino resident and registered voter
1