CC 02-19-2025 Item No. 9 Zoning Map Amendment_ Written CommunicationsCC 02-19-2025
Item No. 9
Zoning Map
Amendment to correct
zoning for Priority
Housing Site No. 24 in
6th cycle Housing
Element
Written Communications
From:Jean Bedord
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Agenda Item #9 Zoning Map Amendment, Council, Feb. 19, 2025
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:07:13 AM
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.
Please include this in Written Communications for this meeting
Honorable Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, and council members,
I urge you to unanimously approve this item without wasting additional time in correcting a
clerical error. The intent has been clearly documented by the planning staff. The effort to have
clean code for the General Plan is commendable, but has NO effect on the particular parcel
and the development project which has already been submitted and grandfathered under SB
330.
There is no benefit to the community to keep hashing this item. Please approve and
move forward on to substantial issues regarding the Housing Element.
Regards,
Jean Bedord, concerned Cupertino resident (and voter)
From:chuckmhse@aol.com
To:City Clerk
Cc:chuckmhse@aol.com; nshen@sbcglobal.net
Subject:Statement to City Council regarding item on 19 Feb 2025 Agenda
Date:Monday, February 17, 2025 3:37:49 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.
I am a Cupertino resident living on Bonny Drive. My property does not abut the property in the
proposed project at 20865 McClellan, but I am seriously protesting the proposed project due to the
effects it will have on my neighbors and myself. My objections fall into several categories
1. Density – The proposed density of 27 HU on the 0.99 acre site greatly exceeds the
surrounding properties. The site plan shows an access drive occupying about 25% of the site,
so that the actual HU density is nearly 37 HU per buildable acre. The surrounding HU density
is 7.5 HU per buildable acre (not including our own “access drive” of Bonny Drive). If you
insist on using the access drive in your HU density, then you should allow us to include our
own “access drive” in our calculations, which lowers our own HU density to about 5.6 HU per
acre. However one calculates the HU density of the proposed plan, it exceeds the
surrounding HU density by over 4.6 times. This number exceeds the guidelines contained in
the General Plan.
2. Traffic – The proposed project has a single driveway for 27 HU connecting to an already
crowded McClellan Road. This narrow driveway connecting to a two-lane McClellan Road will
lead to a complete standstill of traffic at the busy times of day – morning and evening
commute and school traffic times. Perhaps Council Members would like to experience the
McClellan traffic for themselves at present before they approve the increase due to the
proposed plan.
3. Parking – The available renderings of the project are vague about parking for the 27 HUs. It
can be inferred that the wider units have a double garage on the ground floor and the narrow
units have a single garage on the ground floor. There clearly is no accommodation for any
visitor vehicles on the site. Since parking is not allowed on the access driveway, visitors to the
project will have to park on Bonny Drive. Does this plan fit with the Cupertino General Plan of
projects “compatible with the surrounding environment”?
4. Design – The General Plan makes clear that “building layouts and designs are compatible with
surrounding environments” and that “taller heights are focused on major corridors, gateways
and nodes”. This project is not located on any of these. The project as proposed is totally
out of character with the surrounding environment. It towers above the five adjacent one-
story homes and even the three adjacent two-story homes.
5. Cupertino General Plan – Cupertino has finally received approval (Sept 2024) for a Housing
Element plan (March 2024) after a long and complicated process. Why is it necessary to offer
waivers to that plan at this time? The project is requesting a “Density Bonus (7 units) and
Density Bonus waiver” and is challenging many parts of the General Plan with regard to
compatibility with the surrounding environment. It is not situated along any gateway road
nor is it located adjacent to any tall structures or business corridor as the General Plan
encourages. It is located outside the Priority Development Areas in the General Plan. It is
located outside the “Heart of the City” in the General Plan. This project does not contribute
to a “Better Cupertino”. This project should be rejected as proposed.
Sincerely,
Charles Morehouse
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Public Comment City Council 2/19/2025 Agenda #9 re-rezoning
Date:Monday, February 17, 2025 3:18:44 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,
Agenda Item #9 pertains to fixing an error made by the Planning Department when the property
at 20865 McClellan Road was initially rezoned for the housing element.
The proposal is to change the zoning from R-3 to R-3/TH to “Ensure Consistency with the
General Plan And Housing Element.”
This is a very long nearly 1-acre lot on McClellan is between Bonny Dr. and Stelling.
According to City documents, a developer has expressed interest in developing the property
since 2021.
The developer intends to put 27 townhomes in six, three-story buildings on the site.
These new homes will have a direct view into the backyards of a number of single-family
homes.
Learn more about the proposed development here:
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major-
Projects/20865-McClellan-Rd
Commentary:
In the past, the City had been very sensitive to privacy issues for neighboring homes, requiring
offsets for balconies and privacy screens.
Residents have lost the zoning protections that they have bought into.
The impact of increasing density on this property is an increase in land prices – not a
decrease!!!
Another egregious error has been made by City Staff in that the initial list of housing element
sites was never brought back to the planning commission as had been anticipated.
In 2023, there were only 6 planning commission meetings!!!
Why weren’t the neighbors notified and would it have made a difference?
Why is it that when the staff makes an error that puts the developer at a disadvantage that it can
be fixed but when the staff makes an error that puts the residents at a disadvantage that it cannot
be fixed?
I have the distinct feeling that no matter what public concerns are voiced over this re-re-zone
(yes re-re-zone), that the outcome won’t change.
Questions:
Will the project go through ceqa?
Will current/future solar of neighboring homes be affected?
What can be done to mitigate the privacy issues?
Could the developer have translucent (not transparent) windows on windows facing back
yards)?
Could there be underground parking and have 2 stories instead of 3?
Will neighboring fire-insurance be impacted?
What about traffic concerns?
Below is the site plan and google earth view.
Some neighboring homes will have tall buildings looming over their backyards while others
will have the traffic (and pollution/noise) of a new driveway that runs behind their backyards.
It appears that the half-bulb on the cul-de-sac is in anticipation of a future project on Tula Ln
where there is a home on a very large lot. What are the intentions for Tula Ln? What about
cumulative impacts?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry