PC 03-22-2022 Written CommunicationsPC 03-22-2022
Item #2
PDA Planning Grant
Funds for Heart of City
Specific Plan
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 1:16 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian
Subject:FW: Dear Planning Commission
Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
cyrahc@cupertino.org
(408) 777‐1374
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:24 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com>
Subject: Dear Planning Commission
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 Planning Commission,
Though it seems weird to turn down a grant, the PDS Planning grant is problematic in many ways. Please do not accept
the grant!
Our focus needs to be on site selection for the Housing Element (HE) throughout the city, not just the Heart of the City
(HOC).
We need transportation in underserved areas of the city.
Schools must be considered in the HE and most are not in the HOC. Loss of local schools increases traffic elsewhere,
decreases walking and biking, decreases park access, and access to emergency response (ARCs are on school property).
Equitable access and distribution of produce markets, grocery stores, etc. make for a balanced community. We must
reduce our areas of inequity.
The EMC Group already has a very full agenda. They are already behind schedule. Adding additional requirements will
not help.
The Planning Commission meeting on site selection has been cancelled twice already. Notifications have not been going
out as expected.
2
Planning Staff are already overworked. Staff time has already been spent meeting with an ABAG/MTC Grant Manager to
prepare “Attachment 3 PDA Planning Grant Draft Scope of Work” when it could have been focused on our Housing
Element. It probably also involved the EMC Group’s time.
Cost: the real cost of missing or producing an inadequate Housing Element is complete loss of local control. This is a
price we don’t want to pay.
The City’s application for this grant specified starting the HOC Specific Plan in June 2024 and completing it in December
2025. Accepting this grant would force the City to begin now (April 30, 2022), over 2 years earlier than the staff
planned!
As the staff wisely stated in their Staff Report, if the City does not accept this grant, it will continue to be eligible to apply
for grant funding in a new funding cycle. Documents produced previously for our Housing Element could be used as part
of applying for a new grant.
Many of the guidelines and suggestions in “Attachment 4 PDA Planning Grant Guidance” can be used to help the city
complete its Housing Element without being tied to additional requirements for the grant.
Thank you for your service,
Caryl Gorska
10103 Senate Way
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:04 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Item Number 1- PDA Planning Grant Funds, Planning Commission, 3/22/22
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.
Dear.Planning Commission:
I am very concerned about taking money for the PDA Planning Grant from ABAG or MTC.
Heart of the City does not have anything to do with ABAG or MTC. I am worried that Accepting such money would come
with strings attached that might make the City have to rezone the Heart of the City.
Heart of the City is a unique part of Cuoertino and it should be kept separate. It has nothing To do with the Housing
Element or RHNA numbers or SB 9 or SB 10.
People may try to take Heart of the City away if we accept any of this money. This money May come with "conditions".
There are s o many attempts to take away local control from HER And ABAG and MTC, they they might try to take our
Heart of the City away if we accept This grant. Better to be safe, than sorry.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:19 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Item 2
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.
Planning Commission Chair, Vice Chair and Members,
Regarding Public Hearing Item 2 on tonight's Agenda, I ask that you do not recommend,
to City Council, any portion of the draft resolution at this time. In fact, I prefer that you
recommend against the three listed actions in the draft.
The Housing Element should be priority one, for reasons that Staff, Consultant and
Officials have stated. EMC Planning Group has a job to do. A job that they are being
paid handsomely for. I have not seen the expected level of service being provided, or a
true urgency in actions. We should collectively be 'worried' about lack of HE progress
and guidance.
Neither the city nor any outside consultant should be tackling Heart of the City, or any
related grant proposal, at this time. The focus must be on Housing Element.
Until there is a successful plan in place for HE, it would be entirely illogical and
irresponsible to extend a contract to EMC Planning Group for any upcoming planning
project.
With great concern,
Lisa Warren
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:21 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: 2022-03-22 PC Meeting - Agenda Item #2 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 City Clerk,
I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
REQUEST: I would appreciate it if you could read my email below during public comments on Agenda Item #2 regarding
the PDA grant.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peggy Griffin <Griffin@compuserve.com>
Date: March 20, 2022 at 11:49:03 AM PDT
To: PlanningCommission@cupertino.org
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: 2022‐03‐22 PC Meeting ‐ Agenda Item #2 PDA Planning Grant
Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,
I do not think the city should accept this PDA Planning Grant for the following reasons:
1) Our immediate need ‐ focus on and complete our Housing Element by January 2023.
a) Do not confuse people by adding the HOC.
b) Focus on site selection.
2) Needs to cover the entire city ‐ not just one area.
a) We need to bring transportation to areas of the city that are underserved.
b) Schools are one community asset that are required to be considered and most are located outside the HOC area.
c) Loss of local schools impacts traffic elsewhere, decreases walking and biking opportunities, decreases access to
parks, and possible access to emergency response (ARCs are located on school property).
d) Equitable access and distribution of produce markets, grocery stores, etc. are critical to ensuring our entire city
thrives and grows. We must reduce our areas of inequity.
3) The EMC Group already has a very full agenda. Don’t overload them.
a) They are already behind schedule. Adding additional requirements will not improve this.
b) The Planning Commission meeting on site selection has been cancelled 2 times already.
c) Notifications have not been going out as expected.
2
4) Our Planning Staff are already overworked.
a) Limited City Staff – our staff has mentioned multiple times that they are stretched thin.
b) Continually hiring new Planning Staff – give them time to become familiar with our city, it’s specific plans and
zoning.
c) Staff time has already been spent meeting with an ABAG/MTC Grant Manager to prepare “Attachment 3 PDA
Planning Grant Draft Scope of Work” when it could have been focused on our Housing Element. It probably also
involved the EMC Group’s time.
5) Cost
a) The real cost of missing or producing an inadequate Housing Element is complete loss of local control. This is a
much higher price to pay.
b) The City’s application for this grant specified starting the HOC Specific Plan in June 2024 and completing it in
December 2025. Accepting this grant would force the City to begin now (April 30, 2022), over 2 years earlier
than the staff planned! This is not what the staff planned!
6) Opportunities for future funding
a) As the staff wisely stated in their Staff Report (Page 6/9 last bullet), if the City does not accept this grant, it will
continue to be eligible to apply for grant funding in a new funding cycle.
b) As stated in the “Attachment 4 PDA Planning Grant Guidance” document, documents produced previously for
our Housing Element could be used as part of satisfying a new grant.
7) Work effort
a) Many of the guidelines and suggestions in “Attachment 4 PDA Planning Grant Guidance” can be used to help the
city complete its Housing Element without being tied to additional requirements for the grant.
REQUEST: Please recommend to the City Council that they DO NOT ACCEPT the PDA Planning Grant at this time.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 4:26 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Item 2. Accepting Funds from PDA Grant (Plan Comm. Agenda 3-3-22)
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.
Dear Planning Commission:
I don't think it is a good idea to have to have a CAC (Citizens Advisory Committee) or a TAC (Technical Advisory
Committee) as specified by the constraints of Accepting this PDA Grant. Who are these people and what are they trying
to do? It sounds More like an attempt to take away local control. We don't need all of these extra people And groups.
The Heart of the City has nothing to do with the Housing Element at all. I don't think it is a good Idea to mix Heart of the
City in the Housing Element/RHNA Numbers.
The RHNA Numbers came with their own problems and are still under analysis because of the Audit.
Heart of the City is something particular to Cupertino that other groups outside of the City Don't like and, with the
problems generated by the RHNA numbers and the on‐going Housing Element Drama with HCD, it is not a good idea to
get Heart of the City mixed up in the RHNA/ Housing Element at all.
Let's keep our Heart of the City as something protected in Cupertino.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
PC 03-22-2022
Item #3
Public Hearing
Appealing
R-2021-056
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Laura Lu <lauralelu@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 21, 2022 10:35 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Support Barnhart new house plan for the public hearing 3/22
Attachments:BARNHART SUPPORT LETTER R2021-056_副本.pdf
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 planning commission,
I'm the homeowner of 18890 Pendergast Ave., Cupertino. I strongly support the proposed new house in my
neighborhood as attached. The design is beautiful, decent and fits in the neighborhood very well. It will benefit the
whole community by enhanced beauty and value. Thank you!
Laura
18750 BARNHART AVECUPERTINO CA 95014 APPEAL SUPPORT LETTER
(R-2021-056) TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 2,271 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY HOME WITH
A 561 SQ. FT ATTACHED ADU.
Dear Cupertino PlanningCommission:
I am the property Owner at: ________________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBand I would
like to express my support for the two-story project at 1875 Barnhart ave Cupertino
conforming to the City’s setback and design guidelines.
Signature: ___________________________ Date:________________________
Contact Information;
18890 Pendergast Ave.
3/21/2022
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Zhu Ji <zhuji_ee@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:06 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Support of 18750 BARNHART AVE two-story project
Attachments:BARNHART SUPPORT LETTER R2021-056.pdf
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 am an owner of a house in this community. I am sending this email to
express my support for the two-story project at 1875 BARNHart ave Cupertino, which helps to improve our
neighborhood. Thanks for your consideration.
Please see my support letter in the attachment.
Best,
James
18750 BARNHART AVECUPERTINO CA 95014 APPEAL SUPPORT LETTER
(R-2021-056) TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 2,271 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY HOME WITH
A 561 SQ. FT ATTACHED ADU.
Dear Cupertino PlanningCommission:
I am the property Owner at: ________________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBand I would
like to express my support for the two-story project at 1875 Barnhart ave Cupertino
conforming to the City’s setback and design guidelines.
Signature: ___________________________ Date:________________________
Contact Information;
10279 S Tantau Ave., Cupertino
3/21/2022
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jackson Lu <Jackson-lu@outlook.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 8:45 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:R-2021-056 Supporting letter from neighbors
Attachments:barnhart neighborhood signature.pdf
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 planning commission
We would like to submit the following 9 supporting letters for our project at 18750 Barnhart Ave Cupertino for
the Appeal.
Please see attached document for tonight's meeting.
Best regards
Jackson
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:shall_3@netzero.net
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 1:27 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Planning Commision comments Item #3 3/22/2022
Attachments:Add to comments #1.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.
Comments for Planning Commission teleconference March 22, 2022 are attached for agenda item #3. Reversal of
appeal denial.
To: Planning Commission
Email: planningcommission@cupertino.org
Subject: Agenda Item #3
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Time: 6:45 PM
From: S. Hall
Comments to Reverse denial of appeal and initiate Project denial
at 18750 Barnhart Ave, Cupertino
Denial of appeal should be reversed and Proposed Project should be denied because it does not fit
either Accessory dwelling unit or Junior Accessory dwelling unit definitions. Minimum size of
accessory dwelling is 800 sq ft. Proposed size of accessory dwelling unit is too small to be allowed at
551 sq ft (CA State (Cupertino) code for accessory dwellings). While the accessory unit seems to fit the
size for a junior accessory unit, it does not qualify as a junior accessory unit because the
owner/applicant for the permit is not in required owner‐occupancy. The current structure has been
occupied by tenants without owner‐occupancy for well over 3 years.
Denial of appeal should be reversed and Proposed Project should be denied for nonconformity to the
area norm with regards to proposed setback violation. Local rear setbacks in the area conform to 20
foot or more setbacks (Barnhart Ave from Wunderlich and east to Sterling). On Prendergast, to the rear
(south) of this proposal, lots conform to 20 ft or more setbacks. This proposal does not have conforming
setbacks.
Denial of appeal should be reversed and Proposed Project should be denied because of the proposed
second level. The R1‐5 zoning (5,000 to 5,999 sq ft) of this lot is on the low end of the zone at 5,047 sq
ft. The size of the planed project is overwhelming the lot size. While there are a few two story
structures in the area, all are built on either corner lots or larger R1‐5 zoned lots. This structure dwarfs
other structures in height and is out of place in the middle of the block.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2022 4:06 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Item 3- Planning Com(3-22-22) Agenda, Adu and House on Barnhart
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 Planning Commission:
1.The back of the proposed house on Barnhart (18750 House Number) is very close to the back of The property where
the power poles run. It is difficult to tell from the map on the notes how Close this adu unit would be to the power
poles. There is a five foot utility easement across The back of the property and putting the Adu next to or in the
easement is not a good idea.
Could you all please verify where the back yard fence is (north side of property) and where They are planning on putting
the adu. In Los Angeles there needs to be a ten foot clearance from Utility easements. That is why it would be a good
idea to n it out the Ad u in the utility Easement or so close to it.
2. Side setbacks: What are the required setbacks for this house, and then this house and the adu?
It is not clear what the adu is trying to do vs the house setbacks. Ideally, the house and the Ad u Should try to have at
least five feet from each side of the lot since this is such a big house and It is spread out all over the lot. The four foot
setbacks from the Ad u should be five feet on each Side of the lot as the lot is so small (5000 square feet) and the house
plus adu is so big at 2700 Square feet. This lot would normally have a house of 2250 because it is only 5000 square feet.
3. Why is this resulting house so big? The maximum house size would be 2250 and then For some reason the large adu is
being built on the back of the property. The house and The adu should together only be 2250. That would mean a 1600
or 1700 square foot house (Which is still a big house with room for three bedrooms) and then a 500 square foot adu.
Why is the adu size added not the house size? The resulting house and Ad u appear to be Too big for the lot.
4. Considering the issues raised by the construction of the adu, it would be a good idea to Have a city wide study session
on A.building adus or buildings next to or in public utility easements, B. The issues raised from having houses and adus
four feet from adjacent (side) or possibly Rear (if no utility easements) property lines and C. Why Houses with adus are
too big for the Property under certain circumstances.
The City could have this study session or study sessions to discuss these important topics Which have never been
discussed in public before.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin