Loading...
Exhibit CC 11-10-14 Item No. 1 GPA, Housing Element, �I Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:53 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI... From: Dan Amsden [mailto:damsden@migcom.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 8:17 PM To: Piu Ghosh; Terri McCracken; Ellen 3. Garber; Genevieve Sharrow; Veronica Tam; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Fwd: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI, this comment came via the project website today. sent from mobile device ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: <infoc,cupertinogpa.org> Date: Nov 9, 2014 7:22 PM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website To: <info&upertinogpa.org> Cc: Comment Submitted by: Name: Eric Schmidt Organization: None Given Email: ericrschmidt59@gmail.com Subject: Housing Element: School Enrollment Increase Underestimated Comment: regarding: The Housing Element With the plans to increase the number of available housing elements in the General Plan, I am concerned the actual increase in school children is being significantly underestimated. My understanding is the housing elements assume 0.25 children per unit, while in Cupertino with the high quality schools, this could be closer to 2 per unit, 8 times more than stated in the EIR. This explosive, unplanned growth in enrollment would have a negative effect on the quality of schools and life in Cupertino. I support the growth of the city, but it must be properly accounting for all the impact. Eric Schmidt Fairgrove Neighborhood 2 Cc ho / )y BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive . Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Piz (408) 725-0700 Far(408) 725-1626 mcra,vi,ford@bergvc.com 11/7/14 Piu Ghosh Senior City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-777-3308 Dir 408-777-3277; Fax: 408-777-3333 Email: piug eupertino.or� Reference: New General Plan-Housing Element Subject: 20605 20705 Valley Green APN 326-10-046 Piu, Please note that Berg and Berg aka Berg Family Partners, LP is desirous of having the above property remain on the site inventory for future potential housing. It is possible that Apple could vacate a number of facilities south of I280 creating a redevelopment of the property. Please include this in your council presentation. Thank you, Myron Crawford I 3d J..l � 1 --9M Q tv V-y- oy-r j o -?cu? q-i t n 3-H t. to, 2,1 g W y r —�--)(V f/ G1,vVi Snj— 'n Nt 0 )17bn 40 -vi - l V Pi-D ; �� p #f T6Rd o S iivk1 ' %! v DO, ci R,iIN0 FArI� OF VIILLL® v. o) 1- fl fir°i JV C N t [ I o) J_i = OU U U LO /41101101e =C i e4 Ter n1 l o R L) -T\) 6. ' 1J V Q WT -F,-,U- 1 )\J .14 9.A IVTA PM VQ L)W- TV V4 C-7. i'7-'-S M l l>Si%3An/6 'S ©P1rVJDn1 U LL y F,+iye ., vo i i� u A LLJ✓ L=T) -JI+D n)i 7 13 U I L 1 11,►T n>>4 bQ D � J L L l� �U 1V D 1 r J � �—Ed M�9-r�.! S�n��f✓12.E bu l+Ve NO ()P- 06LP-N WiTH7^Its U1L01 OI— H ©P- �c,�S hl K 0 U *AN6 < 17tol6e IT $� I 70 . M, lc/ N5, rib T p?Ce COUPT cuPERT fiVO OF 0 N'by, l 4 JNO 1 SWP 'T LLC O. ) F /4 M GW ►vTai s r3uICT- Alve) W E-7 110ec- I T IK t4i I✓ o P) ,aN iNO0M ONO, (-J9 tl,,tvG �Jn ESi A ,MN T,4NA 00W - TIPS„ I USS6AAjJS I IV 16 16I A-F S A i iu'A UJ - I S H li s T 01- 1 T-S a H V A L Lc-: - ► ) JA LLQ a'Y; T MC 06 c� p�2S TH 1,2 G " T M Pf K S A rv'—lo D„/l l� l(-, TKO EG LT C U p C --1/V o U y tJU .BAN6 1 (S !+'VP AT VA L1_ C© JI�A jvELU . C)Wi u i CAJ G I-t Of'6 1T ►les T i A EA N'7A-NIA R c W•- T I P e. IT)S. H y H US QA(VO ` )-,jnJ ”T fl A T SA-N i/-�-NA lq i)(J G e:T. N oS i F, i'TS SHoMBN & WD LLEy i .. AND 1f VALLL ULA NOT I A-V ATT✓/{L l W4" S 1-f 0°zaL P LJ Wo rPDRLUi'rL.1T(+G U Lv61 AJF l-i-Gid,9' -fir Ncei t✓ -c c, a Ij l TrQ E -0c) i C' iJ ti2 i I NCS FAT 15 fel% V 4 L L-C 0 av IO Zol � 0 Af IVO .4 ,� Ar V)i-u( 0 , 1 ) /U EJ (3mberolw(n ce-IVTG� ii Olewc, 4-rper(A-T& — -Y-► - W -A,4 v N 0 l k,-)-err S r L ri �S ft k) i/-N)-q L�(,ley P e , l T S' l`'i�/ i-� y s i3 &Yu b `S' ©P 7 of l b"A-) (f ' Yv'T/k NA 0 I� 1T-& S )fO 1J IOGX S 631,11.,` � T4 tiA K 01A) v l�"d�V� � �U LO iV &'T– r-r Pol C I ED ►v S H P 60 6K S e .-1,4 U 06 L e-Hl WiTil OP a U , fly � c Karen B. Guerin From: John Bozek <jsbozek@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:41 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino Development Projects Cupertino City Council Members, I have lived in the same residence in Cupertino going on 55 years. I have seen many changes, most have benefited the residences. I also believe some of the development efforts in the Vallco (City Center) are contrary to the Vision Statement in the 2005 General Plans. Frankly I don't understand how the Vallco development will improve the lives of the citizens of Cupertino. Most Council Members live 3+ miles away,from the huge apartment complexes that are being built and are not subjected to the problems accompanied with the high density housing. Unfortunately those who live close by are.The Vallco development is a done deal, but before addressing current and future projects, please review the Vision Statement of the 2005 General Plan. Please give priority to the citizens of Cupertino over that of business interests or potential tax revenues. Respectfully, John Bozek 6387 Atherwood Ave. 1 Y Karen B. Guerin Y From: Andrew Chum <achum@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014.4:18 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Barry, Congratulation on your re-election! I would love to see-you serving Cupertino more. I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. 1 ' Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 201412:36 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com); Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves@migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW:Vote NO to high density construction FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:35 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Vote NO to high density construction From the general planning mailbox: From: Isabel Tserng fmailto:isabeltsCabyahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:13 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Vote NO to high density construction Dear City official's, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps,the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. 1 - Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." Regards, Isabel Tserng 10095 Bret Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:10 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd(United Furniture location) Dear Gilbert, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic Js in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St,_Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt.our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. i Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:12 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek-Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Orrin, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:11 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Rod, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). oppose this development. Cupertino ed too fast and too much. With Main has been developed I strongly opp p p p Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely,' Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. 1 Karen B. Guerin From: inhn?shii <iohnishii@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:00 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Chang We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would-caution,the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The vehicular--and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during,the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4.1 Wolfe"Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local'schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessiveseising developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii z Karen B. Guerin ` From: John Ishii <johnishii@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:59 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Santoro We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any.projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and.potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion,we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii z Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii@hotmail.com*> Sent: Monday, November 10, 201412:58 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Mahoney We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns,. for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area . may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The.vehicular and pedestrian'traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The.traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when'campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some,Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii Z Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:57 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Sinks We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area . may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. .This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian,bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii 2 Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014.12:56 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Wong We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon.This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that'lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. l In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii Z Karen B. Guerin From: Grace Schmidt Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:02 AM To: City Council Subject: FW: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI for tonight's meeting. From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:53 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI... From: Dan Amsden [mailto:damsden(a migcom.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 8:17 PM To: Piu Ghosh; Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber; Genevieve Sharrow; Veronica Tam; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Fwd: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI,this comment came via the project website today. sent from mobile device ---------- Forwarded message -----=---- From: <info@cupertinospa.org> Date:Nov 9, 2014 7:22 PM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website To: <info(a�cupertinogpa.org> Cc: Comment Submitted by: Name: Eric Schmidt Organization: None Given Email: ericrschmidt59(a gmail.com Subject: Housing Element: School Enrollment Increase Underestimated Comment: regarding: The Housing Element With the plans to increase the number of available housing elements in the General Plan, I am concerned the actual increase in school children is being significantly underestimated. My understanding is the housing elements assume 0.25 children per unit,while in Cupertino with the high quality schools,this could be closer to 2 per unit, 8 times more than stated in the EIR. This explosive, unplanned growth in enrollment would have a negative effect on the quality of schools and life in Cupertino. I support the growth of the city, but it must be properly accounting for all the impact. Eric Schmidt Fairgrove Neighborhood z Karen B. Guerin From: Gilbert Cupertino <gilbertcupertino@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:56 PM To: Eric Schaefer, Grace Schmidt; David Brandt; Carol Korade; Karen B. Guerin Cc: Gilbert Wong Subject: Re: Nov. 10 Council meeting: Request to group speakers Upon arrival to the Council meeting,please identify yourself to the City Clerk, Grace Schmidt on the process. We welcome you tonight at our public hearing! Gilbert Wong Mayor Sent from my iPad On Nov 10, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Eric Schaefer<eschaefegus.ibm.com> wrote: Honorable Mayor Wong, At tonight's Council meeting, several residents have presentations that are somewhat related. If we can be sequenced in adjacent time slots, I believe that our messages will be clearer to the council members. 1. Eric Schaefer(3 minutes) 2. Tom Pyke's group (5 minutes) 3. Sushma Shirish (3 minutes,) 4. Chris Bencher's group (10 minutes) 5. Ying Yu (3 minutes) Thank you for your consideration. b Eric Schaefer Karen B. Guerin From: Eric Schaefer <eschaefe@us.ibm.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:00 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Nov. 10 Council.meeting: Request to group speakers Honorable Mayor Wong, At tonight's Council meeting, several residents have presentations that are somewhat related. If we can be sequenced in adjacent time slots, I believe that our messages will be clearer to the council members. 1. Eric Schaefer(3 minutes) 2. Tom Pyke's group (5 minutes) 3. Sushma Shirish (3 minutes) 4. Chris Bencher's group (10 minutes) 5. Ying Yu (3 minutes) Thank you for your consideration. Eric Schaefer 1 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:35 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Rebecca Tolentino Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com);Veronica Tam; Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves@migcom.com); David Brandt;Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are satisfactorily informed FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:34 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are satisfactorily informed From: The Roberts Family [maiIto:larsonroberts(alsbcgloba1.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:24 AM To: Nancy Roberts Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are satisfactorily informed Dear City officials, I am writing to object to the approval of the General Plan Amendment. The city has been working on this for 18 months.At every step of the way,the city did not satisfactorily communicate their plans to the residences of Cupertino. This communication breakdown has been so substantial that the majority of residences are not even aware of the city's plan to rezone and all the consequences and impacts that will follow. We vigorously urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are satisfactorily informed. This communication should be put in clear and easy to understand language. And special attempts should be made to fully inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Due to this communication breakdown, our voices have essentially been silenced during this entire 18 month process rending your residents of Cupertino disenfranchised on this pivotal issue. The city might have sent out postcards with the intent to inform, but for whatever reason,the residences did not get the message.Perhaps,the description or the wording may have been misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done.And the majority of residences are still not aware of the General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council would postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment and discuss ways to satisfactorily inform residents, especially in the neighborhoods directly impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed sufficient time to review EIR and its data and provide feedback 1 A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment will transform our neighborhoods for the next four decades. Substantial efforts must be exercised to ensure that all residents are fully informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, If my neighbor wants to construct the smallest of things, he/she needs signatures from the neighborhood. But when the city builds over 1000+apartments ...we are not even notified.Y" By not postponing the approval,you are sending the message that you consider yourselves above the law and have no regard at all for the voice of the residents of Cupertino. Think about what that sounds like. Regards, Ronnie and Nancy Roberts The Roberts Family 408.252.2916 Home 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 201412:35 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com);.Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves@migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:34 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox: From: Liang C fmailto:Ifchao@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:32 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way,the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matteris that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed.of rezoning and its impact.Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made-to inform neighborhoods directly affected'by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent'many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. i A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things,he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR(Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Liang-Fang Chao 10175 McLaren Place, Cupertino, CA 95014 z Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November.10,201412:34 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com); Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves@migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed From the general planning mailbox: From: xinhua wang fmailto:xinhua2000ahotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:09 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. To: Gilbert Wong gwong@cupertino.org, rsinks@cupertino.org, omahoney@cupertino.org, msantoro@cupertino.org, bchang@cupertino.org, manager@-cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org, Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way,the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the.city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps,the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences.The end-result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. 1 A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment.The"residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly.This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? ....this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city toPostpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review.ElR (Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Xinhua wang 866 betlin ave, cupertino 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc:. Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com);Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves@migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox: From: Rui Xu [mailto:rachel xuer(&hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:53 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods,'directly affected by rezoning.., Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However,the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps,the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. 1 A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? ....this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR (Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Rui (Rachel) Xu 10773 Brookwell Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves@migcom.com); Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general plaiuling mailbox: From: Meng Ma [mailto:mengma@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:30 PM Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date,of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City, officials, I am working on my house remodeling and spend a lot of time to prepare the public hearing of our expansion project. I need approval from all my neighbors but when city builds over 1000+ apartments, I am not event notified- this is frustrating. The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. i A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for.the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR(Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Jessie and Jun 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com); Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves@migcom.com); Veronica Tam; Grace Schmidt; David Brandt Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:31 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox: From: Nichole J fmailto:ysixsix0)cimail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:47 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry'Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. we urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences'. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. .Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to _ Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. 1 ' And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR (Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, N. J. Parents from CUSD 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com);Veronica Tam; Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves@migcom.com); David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:31 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino From the general planning mailbox: From: Nagapriya KTiruthani [mailto:nagapriyak@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 2:41 PM To: Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gilbert Wong Subject: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino Dear Cupertino city officials, There has been a lot of discussion among the city residents regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of site in the city. First of all,the Cupertino residents are not adequately informed.A few years back an amendment was made in the notification process of City Council meetings.Therefore,most of the city is now left in the dark Though all the information is available in the city's website,it is not humanly possible for us to check out the website every week to scan what is being discussed and which measure we should focus on-The city could use the broadcast email or telephone messages to inform the resident,if it wants to save paper,on what is being discussed esp projects of big magnitudes Eke the General Amendment plant But leaving it to the citizens to figure out what is going on in the council is not right.Only those parties that are interested in what is being discussed are present for these meeting and therefore,you hardly hear from the public.I have signed up for the email notifications,but that does not give me any information.It points to the link where I need to dig information.So,the notification process needs to be brought up for discussion and should have the residents involved in the discussion. Regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of sites,please take a look at this petition and also don't forget to read all the comments from Cupertino residents.There is one thing that is loud and clear..DO NOT OVER DEVELOP THE QTY.Yes,developers do want to build every square inch of the city but as the people residing here,we are the long term sufferers of this over development/over crowding of the city. Cupertino City Council members:Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino d Projects: ox Top or cu Mur; Cupertino City Council me y -Rose Bowl: ;w residences+ 25T-new resident mbers: Say NO to re-zoning >n sq ft office .Main Street: th,,, Ltons:1.090 new 120 new resldent nces(tear down 180 room hotel+ Dear Cupertino City Council member fisting residences) i 260,000 sq rt offtc s,We DO NOT agree i,-ith the proposa 3 Furniture'--,- Apple campus tt 1 of rezoning of sites for conformance :w roSldencas •2.8 ml!Ilai sq ut of with General Plan and Housing Elem your voice be heard!City Counce dec ent.All... Monday,November loth at CA[Sprt View on www.change.org Preview by Yahoo Cupertino City Hall next to the Ilbrar ' 1 Here are some of quick pointers why we SHOULD NOT allow over development of the city: • High Density:According to the proposed plan,all high density housing are concentrated on part of the citywhich connects with neighboring cities like Sunnyvale,Santa Clara and San Jose. • Over crowding:According to the EIR document,the schools'are saying that it cannot accommodate more children is a clear indication that the city is overcrowded.Our schools are big and have been adding classrooms regularly.If we cannot accommodate more kids in spite of adding extra classrooms,then there is unprecedented growth in the area which needs to be curtailed • Taxes:The mitigation fees that the developers give the school district might pay towards the building costs for increasing the number of classrooms,but the operational costs will end up as Parcel tax for the residential owners and not property developers • Schools:It also does not correct for the EIR report to saythat the"impact is less significant"for the school district with mitigation fees as a solution.The mitigation fees helps to add classrooms but does it help to increase the field,outdoor sports,band,classroom size, number of electives,teachers,recruitment and sustainability of teachers.How many teams will they have for a sport?How many kids will be in each classroom when all this project is completed.)Will kids get enough attention and projects from teachers?Did the EIR think about the impact of Core Curriculum which emphasizes on group learning?What will be the size of these groups?Yes,these are outside the prospect of this report.but as city officials,you need to think about the future citizens that this city will be producing. • Housing:If the state mandates the cityto build more housing,why not make lands for individual houses instead of high density apartment,townhouses,or condominium buildings? • Shopping:Why not make an open shopping mall like Santana Row in Vallco.There's Rose Bowl and Main Street for residential proximity if Vallco becomes Cupertino's Santana Row • Traffic:This is one of the biggest concerns of this city....Traffic.Have you reallytried driving on De Anza blvd or Stevens Creek blvd at 6.30 to 7pm on weekday evenings?You would know how many cars are lined up for each green light.All this before the completion of Main Street,Rose Bowl and Apple Spaceship campus. • Parlflng:Parking has become a nightmare at the library.Do you know why?Because the number of residents has been constantly growing in Cupertino.Just look at how many residential houses are on the rectangular plot that is lined with Rodrigues Ave,Stevens Creek Blvd,De Anza Blvd and Portal Ave.Waytoo manyfor that small area.How did we let that happen? • Community:Cupertino is known for its quiet community neighborhood style.It is not a citylike San Francisco or SanJose.People moved here because of the communityfeel,parks,quiet streets and less crowded roads.If all the proposed housing comes up,every park,road,and shop is going to.be so crowded that it is going to be unpleasant for people to continue living here. • Environment:All these will directly or indirectly affect the environment.Approximately,every household has 2 cars.So,when the number of households increases,the number of cars on the road multiplies as well.Imagine the number of cars that will be on the road. This will facilitate rash drivingand more accidents on our city roads.Kids will not be able to safely walk or bike to school.The air will be tY Y filled with pollution. • Demand:The developers would want to build every square inch that is available in Cupertino because the real estate market is very hot. But when there is economy crisis,with all this over growth,Cupertino will be the first cityto hit crisis.So,by building too many houses for today's demand might end up the city in bigger problem in the unforeseen future. • Health Crisis:One of the major reasons for a cityto NOT BECOME over populated/crowded is: when a health crisis like Ebola arises,the spreading of disease is much faster for a high densitychythan a low density city.If a problem like that hits Cupertino,we may not be able to control it as the hospitals will not be able to accommodate all the patients.How come Cupertino has not been approached by a hospital to build a facility here? Please take the Cupertino citizens concerns into your decision making process. You are all the leaders that the city looks up to for making Cupertino a favorable place to live.Please don't make decisions just based on rules and building codes,but do consider the emotions of passionate residents of Cupertino. Thanks, Nagapriya Tirutham (408)768 4919 2 , Karen B. Guerin From: Rick Kitson Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:43 AM To: City Council cc: Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt Subject: Concerns re general plan This came in to Access Cupertino Thursday night. Due to the topic, it has also been referred to Community Development staff that are working on the issue. I request one of the councilmen to give me'a call in regards to the'rezoning plan ;I think't is plain dumb;to increase the moreand rnore;;high.d'ensity residence:,n the:area SNhere doyou".live7.Do`you know.,liow crowded ourschools a're?and how meny:cars on our streets?: I voted for.you, don't let me°-down: Shemin Gau,', 408403 3320 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Roger Qing <mail@changemail.org> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: 100 new people signed: Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino 100 People Recently Add Their Names To %{Petition Creator}'S Petition "%{Petition Title}" That Means More Than 500 People Have Signed On There are now 704 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Cupertino Residents by clicking here: http://www.change.org/p/cupertino-city-council-members-say-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in- cupertino/responses/new?response=77aa66bafaa4 Dear Orrin Mahoney, Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino Sincerely, 704. Jiten Vaghela Cupertino, California 702. Sandeep Sharma Sunnyvale, California 701. Saihong Song San Jose, California 700. Roger.Qing Cupertino, California 699. Muzhou Shao Cupertino, California 697. Shu Chen Cupertino, California 696. Qinyu ma Saratoga, California 695. Khushi Valia Cupertino, California 694. Lai Chen Saratoga, California 693. Christina wang Saratoga, California 692. Grace hu Saratoga, California 690. Ying Zhou {7 , California 689. Feiqi su San Jose, California 686. Bethany Stephan Cupertino, California 685. Maria Mokrzycki Cupertino, California 684. ming ma Santa Clara, California 683. Saravanan Coimbatore Cupertino, California 682. Hatem Fahmi Sunnyvale, California 680. Matthew Stephan Cupertino, California 679. sundar narayanan cupertino, California 678. Rahul Ravulur Cupertino, California 677. Anna Black-Hogins Cupertino, California 676. Tristan Lorach Cupertino, California 675.NELSON D'SOUZA Cupertino, California 674. Jing Liu Cupertino, California 670. Joe Chang Cupertino, California 668. Xiaoru Hu Cupertino, California 667. FAN PENG KONG Cupertino, California 1 666. James Shih Callahan, California 665. wenting tang Cupertino, California 664. Ralph Riddle Cupertino, California 663. Wendy Chang Cupertino, California 662. Adan Martinez Cupertino, California 661. Vickie.Chin Cupertino, California 660. Lanlan Hu Sunnyvale, California 659. Yinghua Huang Cupertino, California 658. Sushma Bannur Cupertino, California 657. Ying Shoh Cupertino, California 656. Huihui yong Cupertino, California 655. Lei Wang W--bL fiitT, California 654. Sherry Wu San Jose, California 653. Julie Gleaves Cupertino, California 651. Yeping Zhao San Jose, California 650. Tingting Wang San Jose, California 649. Ray Huang San Jose, California 648. Dekun zou Cupertino, California 647. Yan Li Cupertino, California 646. Yongmei Xue Cupertino, California 645. David Ma San Jose, California 644. Yanrong Zhu Cupertino, California 642. Lillian Li Mountain View, California 640. Jonathan Green Cupertino, California 639. Rong Rong Santa Clara, California 638. Wei Zhong Santa Clara, California 637. Yan Wang PIAVEM, California 635. Xiaowei Yee San Jose, California 633. Jennifer zeng Cupertino, California 632. Peter tian Cupertino, California 630. Huiqin Tang Cupertino, California 628. Bin Liao Santa Clara, California 627. Tao Lin Cupertino, California 626. Sioe Tjhan Cupertino, California 625. Don Yuh Cupertino, California 624. rueyeh chen Cupertino, California 623. Nancy Boyle Cupertino, California 622. Aanchal Gupta Cupertino, California 621. Yi Ke Wang cupertino, California 620. Irene wang cupertino, California 619. Julia Zhou Redwood City, California 618. John Tolan Cupertino, California 617. Deepika Kapil Cupertino, California 616. Matangi Raj amani Cupertino, California 614. Edward Puccinelli Cupertino, California 613. Chuan Hsueh CUPERTINO, California 612. Tom MacDonald Cupertino, California 611. Qian Zhao Cupertino, California 610. steve herhusky cupertino, California 608. Vidya Venkataraghavan Cupertino, California 2 607. Jimmy McAfee Cupertino, California 606. Deepali Narula Cupertino, California 604. Parul Gupta Cupertino, California 603. Sridhar Seshadri Cupertino, California 602. bertha molina sunnyvale, California 601. Angus Chen Cupertino, California 600. sammy wang cupertino, California 599. dorothy cheng cuptertino, California 596. gayathri jayanthi Cupertino, California 595. bill black-hogins cupertino, California 594. keiko black-hogins Cupertino, California 593. Xiao Zha Cupertino, California 592. Deepa Rao cupertino, California 591. Qi Wang San Jose, California - 590. Dong Han Sunnyvale, California 589. Sapna Gupta Cupertino, California 588. Ram Laxmanan Cupertino, California 587. Yonghui Zhang Cupertino, California 586. Vaishnavi Sridhar Cupertino, California 585. Rohini Kashibatla Cupertino, California 584. Li Chen Cupertino, California 582. Hong Luo San Jose, California F 3 SILICON VALLEY-,, LEADERSHIP GROUP 7001 Gateway Place,Suite 107E San lose,California 95710 (408)501-7864svIyorg November 10,2014 CARL GUARDINO President&CEO Board Officers: The Honorable Gilbert Wong,Mayor STEVE BERGLUND,Chair City of Cupertino Trimble Navigation GREG BECKER,Vice Chair 10300 Torre Avenue SVBFinancial Group Cupertino, CA 95014 JOHNADAMS Secrelary/Treasurer Wells Fargo Bank TOM WfRNfR,Former Chair SunPowewer RE: General Plan Amendments and Housing Element AART DE GEUS,Former Chair Synopsys MIKE SPLINTER,Former Chair Mayor Wong and Council Members: Applied Matedals Board Members: MARTINANSTICE On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to urge you to move forward with Lam Research SHELL YEARCHAMBEAU the General Plan Amendments and Housing Element update that is current being considered by Melncstream,Inc. the City Council. We request that the Council approve sufficient office space allocations and ANDYBALL Suffolk Construction housing allocations to help Cupertino remain competitive from an economic development GEORGE BL UMENTHAL ers ective and meet the City's housin needs and obli ations over the Ion term. University of California,Santa Cruz p p g g g JOHNBOLAND KQED The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, CHRIS BO YD Kaiser Permanente represents more than 375 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, programs and BRADLEY)BULLINGTON campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valley, including energy, DAV/DCUSH transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, economic vitality and the Virgin America CCAUDE DARTIGUELONGUf environment. Leadership Group members collectively provide nearly one of every three private BD Biosciences sector jobs in Silicon Valley. MICHAEL ENGH,S.J. Santa Clara University TOMFALLON Specifically,we request that the City of Cupertino adopt up to 3.5M sf of office space in its long InfierBRANTFISH term plan to help companies both large and small start, grow and stay in Cupertino. We also Chevron Corporation recommend that the City continue to set aside its current allotment of square feet specifically for HENRY FORE Comcast "major employers"agpin to attract and retain companies in Cupertino and the region. KEN GOLDMAN Yahoo! RAQUELGONZALEZ It is also worth noting that on an annual basis, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group surveys its Sanko/America members in order to highlight the good and bad elements of doing business in Silicon Valley. DOUG GRAHAM Lockheed Martin Space Systems Each year, housing is cited as a top impediment. Housing affordability along with cost of living LAURA GUIO issues serve as a choke point for recruiting and retaining top talent to Silicon Valley. Housing IBM KENKANNAPPAN persists as a key issue for people who struggle to work and live in the Valley. Demand continues PlantrER GARYLAUER to lag behind supply creating a tight housing market. , eNeakh ENR/QUfLORE HP We encourage the City to adopt the Housing Element with 1,400 homes or more to meet the MATTMAHAN City's long term needs in smart ways. The City has the opportunity with properties like the Brigade TARKAN MANfR struggling Vallco Shopping Mall to combine retail,jobs and housing a near major transportation Nexenta corridors. Mixed use neighborhoods reduce auto dependency, provide walkability and create a KEN MCNAT&T sense of lace and community. The also provide for Ion term economic development, AT&T i� 'Y• Y p g I� KEVINMURAI diversification and stability for many communities. Synnex JES PEDERSON Webcor We appreciate and commend the City's extensive community process over the past year and KIMPOLESE C/earslreet encourage adoption of the both the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element as MO QAYOUMI described above. San Jose State University VIVEK RANADIVE TIBCD Sincerely, STEVEN ROSSI Bay Area News Group ALAN SALZMAN / VantagePomt Capital Partners / RONSEGE Echelon Corporation ROSEMARYTURNER I �•`t �-( UPS \\\ R/CKWALLACE - KLA-Tencor DAN WARMENHOVEN NelApp,Inc. Carl Guardlno JED YORK President&CEO San Francisco 49ers - Established in 7978 by ' DAVID PACKARD Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:20 PM To: City Council Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject: General Plan Amendment, Housing Element and Rezoning Dear City Council: The No Project Alternative is the best plan for Cupertino at this time.The other plans are too radical and will make too much change. I also do not think changing the building setback alongthe whole length of Stevens Creek Blvd. from east to west to 1:1 ratio is a good idea.The frontage of Main Street on Stevens Creek Blvd. is 1:1.5 and Main Street was designed with that concept. The buildings there look nice with the 1:1.5 ratio and do not give the "canyon" feel a 1:1 ratio would. I don't think all of Stevens Creek Blvd. would look very nice with a 1:1 ratio and a "closed in" boxy feel, especially as the buildings got taller. Please don't let the 1:1.5 ratio be taken away from the Main Street frontage on Stevens Creek Blvd. and please don't let the rest of Stevens Creek Blvd. be 1:1 from now on.This is too much of a blanket change. Main Street is not yet finished and already the zoning is trying to be changed. Also, we don't know what the future holds for the rest of Stevens Creek Blvd. I don't think the Stevens Creek Blvd. building setback frontage should be all changed to 1:1 at this time. It creates vertical canyons. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin i Karen B. Guerin From: Rick Kitson Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:43 AM To: City Council Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt Subject: Concerns re general plan This came in to Access Cupertino Thursday night. Due to the topic, it has also been referred to Community Development staff that are working on the issue. I request one of the councilmen to give me a call in regards to the rezoning plan. I think it is,plain dumb to increase the more and more high density residence in the area.'Where do you live? Do you know how crowded our schools are?and how many cars on our streets? I voted for you, don't let me down. Shemin Gau' 408-203=3320 1 Sificon hilley Association of REALTORS' November 10; 2014 Honorable Mayor Gilbert Wong and Council.Members Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 9501.4 Dear Mayor Wong and Council Members, The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORSO(SILVAR) is a trade association representing over 4,000 real estate professionals in the counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo.Our Association has historically been an advocate for homeowners and fair public policy. We would like to comment on Agenda Item. 1,public hearing,on tonight's Agenda. The City of Cupertino will be facing critical issues in the coming years related to growth. The citizens of Cupertino elect council members to make decisions about wbat.is best for the city. We ask that this Council adopt a plan that allows future councils the flexibility to accommodate changes in the business community and population. Limitations on housing growth lead to increased cost of housing because there is not enough supply.These limitations also increase traffic because people need to drive long distances to get to their jobs. This Council.should adopt policies that allow future councils to approve, or not approve, individual projects as the council sees fit based on the needs of Cupertino at that time. Cupertino is at the very center of Silicon Valley, an area known globally for innovation and forward thinking. Land use policies should reflect that ethos and allow councils the flexibility to lead the city into the fixture. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment regarding this item. Sincerely, J slea �pste�n � overnment Affairs Director Silicon Valley Association ofREALTORS9 Cc: Vice Mayor Rod Sinks Councilrrlember Barry Chang Councilmember Orrin Mahoney Councilmember Mark Santoro 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd„ Suite 1.00 « Cupertino, CA 9501.4 Phone: 408.200.0100 • leas: 408.200.0101 • www.silvar.orr Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:13 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Mark, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. 1 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:44 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber@smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz@goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden@migcom.com);Veronica Tam; Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves@migcom.com); David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: City Council Meeting Attachments: Ltr._from_Robert_McCullock_11.10.14.pdf FYI... From: Jennifer Jodoin rmaiIto:jjodoin ktpropertiesinc.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:43 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: City Council Meeting Good Afternoon Piu, Attached please find a letter we received from a neighboring property owner: Please include as a desk item for tonight's City Council Meeting. Furthermore,please confirm you received my email and were able to open the file. Best Regards, Jennifer Jodoin Project Manager KT Properties, Inc. 21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200 Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone- (408) 257-2100 x104 Fax (408) 255-8620 1 November 10, 2014 Mayor Gilbert Wong Honorable Members of the Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014-3255 Dear Mayor Wong and Members of the Council: . My name is Robert McCulloch. My wife and I have lived at 21324 Dexter Drive, Cupertino with our two boys for the past 15 years. We love living here. Cupertino is a unique city, with so much going for it, and clearly any development this close to our home is important to us. Our community is undergoing a period of change, and from our perspective, that change is positive. I am confident that you, as leaders of our city, care deeply about'Cupertino and will work to ensure that Cupertino keeps pace with these changes and is a leader in providing both housing and jobs to ensure Cupertino at least maintains or improves it's stature.To that end, I would ask you to consider the following: Please review and consider the SK Properties General Plan for the development of housing, new retail properties, and offices on The Oaks Shopping Center Site. © I understand the ownership of The Oaks site has changed a number of times over the past several years. To me it-seems there have been changes in tenancy because tenants have been unable to maintain their businesses. It also appears that there are currently some businesses struggling. It's a shame to have such a great location continue to be under-used and not serving our neighborhood to the fullest extent. We would love to have a vibrant neighborhood center to walk or bike to that has a variety of uses including more shops, entertainment and restaurants. o In my opinion, a new owner, who cares about this neighborhood, and understands the city and it's needs with a well thought out plan for housing, new retail and office space will lend new life to this very important "corner" on 1 Cupertino's map.Such a development, inter alia,would have the following impact: o Shopping—allow my family and others to shop within walking distance of their homes o Housing-employees could commute to work (including to the new Apple 2 Campus) by walking or bicycle rather than by automobile o Offices- Office Space at The Oaks would mean that workers would have immediate freeway access and could reduce traffic on local streets Cupertino is in the heart of Silicon Valley. Our community must not fall behind. We should continue to evolve and adapt to change. Part of that is to assume responsibility for providing beautifully designed,well-constructed housing, retail opportunities, and office space to enable our local economy to thrive and our citizens to prosper. Thank you very much, eeMcCulloch 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Adanm <adanpro@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 9:34 PM To: City Council Subject: Concerned about re-zoning of commercial sites for residential use Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I am alarmed by the city's plan for development of residential units along Stevens Creek between Wolfe and DeAnza. I understand that this planning has been in the works and final voting is to take place tomorrow, however there has not been enough effort to inform reach out to the community and assess impact. The city claims that there has been an effort to outreach, however to most of my neighbors I have been talking to this is news. I am concerned that the development underestimates the impact it will have on traffic and schools in the area, and that there is not sufficient plan in place to compensate for that. This development happens in the East side of Cupertino which is already stressed for resources and services. The community would be better served if these areas were instead devoted to resources that this area needs like parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities, which once again the East side is lacking. There is already an imbalance for these between the East side of Cupertino and the West side. I understand that the city may be motivated by increased revenue of the property tax additional residences will bring. However if the growth is not balanced quality of life and schools decrease as a result property values will decrease and so will the revenue. I am not against growth under any circumstances, however it must be balanced. If the city truly has a vision for smart growth, if should be one that should be better shared with the citizens so that it is well understood and supported. Thank you for your time and consideration. - Respectfully, Adan Martinez 616 Stendhal Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Abu Wawda <abu.wawda@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 2:55 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: Re-zoning and Irresponsible Housing Development Dear Mayor Wong and City Council Members, My family and I are homeowners and residents of Cupertino living in the Racho Rinconada neighborhood. I understand that the city is looking at re-zoning commercial sites in Cupertino and is also looking at significantly increasing the number of high-density residences. This is the last thing we need! I and others in my neighbors are very concerned about this. In fact what's shocking is how few residents know the specifics of the plan and what impact it will have on the city for years to come. I ask that you and city council to think very carefully about the impact of this. Has any consideration been made to (a) traffic; (b) schools; (c) quality of life here? My kids go to Sedgwick Elementary and their classes are already full,not to mention the number of bungalow classrooms we already have. Also I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are a lot of negative comments from residents (on the proposal) on NextDoor.com and also a petition on Change.org (http://www.change.org/p/cupertino-city-council-members- say-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in-cupertino). Thanks, Abu Wawda 1 Karen B. Guerin From: philip tracey <pwtracey27@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:48 PM To: giwong@cupertino.org; Rod Sinks; omahoney@cuprtino.org; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino planning commission meeting Gentlemen, Enough development already! Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. In my view the Town Center development is already one project too many. The area used for that project should have been made into a park. Surely we have enough revenue already. This idea of paving over everything is very short sighted-it is rapidly making Cupertino into a less livable community-completely paved over and nothing but shops, condos and offices. . Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. Philip Tracey 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Chris Tracey <boobei44@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 4:37 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Proposed Expansion Hello, I realize this is a lengthy letter. If time is critical, the following paragraph serves as a decent summary. If you have a little more time, I urge you to read the whole message, as I poured my heart out into.it. I was recently informed about a so-called 'state-mandated' expansion, allowing for more than 1800 new residences, concentrated within a relatively small area in East Cupertino. This raises a few concerns from me. First of all, I was not notified of this expansion project in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, Cupertino is crowded enough already as it is. Third, our schools are already full (almost literally) to the brim. And lastly, the nature of the building project means an extremely concentrated grouping of the populace. The addition of a ridiculous amount of residences will create an inconceivable increase in the amount of people and vehicular traffic, making this part of East Cupertino much more dangerous and far less pleasant to live in. In the area bordered by North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, and Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek boulevard, used to lie a large, open field, with a few trees scattered about, and long green grass that waved in the wind like water. When I was young, my father and I used to ride our bicycles over there and explore perhaps one of the last remaining undeveloped fields from Cupertino'.s proud history of fruit orchards. One Halloween afternoon many a year ago, my mother and I went to a Pumpkin Patch on that same field, and I had a blast going down the air slide nineteen times. Many fond memories come from that field. I attended Cupertino High School, and during lunch breaks, my friends and I would walk across Stevens Creek Boulevard to Cafe LaTTea. Across the street from my school lay that field, surrounded by a green fabric covering the chain-link fence, bulldozers and earthmovers hard at work. I couldn't help but think about all the poor kids growing up today who wouldn't be able to have the same pleasant memories from the same field. I received a pamphlet in the mail informing me about this expansion. Considering the grand size of the project (1800 new residences and a million-square-foot office is certainly not a small feat), I was surprised, to say the least,that I was not previously notified of this job. However, I'm not one to dwell over the fact that somebody tried to slip the job past me. Nobody can hide such a massive construction job. The other issues with this proposal outweigh the justification to dwell on the fact that I wasn't notified. I was driving down Stevens Creek Boulevard the other day at 5pm, rush hour. Of course, I was stuck in stop- and-go traffic. It took me thirty-seven minutes to go four miles. Not only is that ridiculous, it's also wasteful and raises concerns in terms of pollution. I was sitting in the traffic in the silence of my own car's cabin, and I came to terms with the realization that there are a LOT of cars on the road. It's almost like the cars are ants, looking for something sweet. The addition of this proposal would be like adding two, or maybe three more anthills. Cupertino is crowded and traffic is bad enough already, as it is. During my first year at Cupertino High, I received my tentative schedule of classes a week before school started. A glaring message appeared at the bottom: "NO SCHEDULE CHANGES WILL BE MADE." Well, they had me in the wrong math class. So I decided to go to the counselor's office and ask. On the door, another notice, with large print, "NO SCHEDULE CHANGES." When I inquired, they said they could not move anyone around whatsoever, because literally every single math class was full. I found it ridiculous that I had to i sit through an entire year of math in the incorrect class because there were simply TOO MANY PEOPLE in the school. Some of my friends were also in the same predicament. We were already watching the overcrowding of schools lead to the breakdown of our education system - and that was five years ago. Perhaps my letter won't have any effect whatsoever on whether or not the city goes ahead with this expansion. (Then we would be seeing the breakdown of the essence of democracy, but that's a different issue). Perhaps the addition of a million-square-foot office and 1800 new homes will go ahead. In which case, I beg the city planners to spread out the development. If I'm going to live with that many more people in my city, I certainly don't want them all to come from and go home to the same place. This would lead to phenomenal traffic issues,bottlenecking on sidewalks, the streets, traffic lights, intersections, everywhere. Cupertino is 11.2 square miles, and the projected addition only covers about 0.3 square miles. You are adding 7% more population in only 2% of the area. If the city does end up adding 1800 new homes, the least you could do is spread them out. I am saddened when I see that the field that my father and I used to play in is now being bulldozed and developed on. The memories I have are the only things left of those marvelous days and of that field. There is nothing I can do at this point, because it's already been ruined. But if it must be so, then I urge you not to build too high or too densely. Cupertino was founded as a bunch of orchards, covered in dirt roads, grassy fields and trees. It was a very pleasant place to live. Times have changed-today, it is far more developed, with roads and supermarkets and many many more homes. But the one thing that always set it apart was the relative humility of the development - homes are one or two stories tall, and apartment complexes were few and far between. There is no such thing as a skyscraper in Cupertino. I would hate to see the day when Cupertino becomes.like any other Asian city, skyscrapers everywhere, full of people, massive overpopulation, crowded streets, dangerous amounts of traffic, pollution, you name it. Cupertino is a pleasant place to live, with trees and parks aplenty. But the addition of 1800 new residences and a massive office will begin to spell the end of it. 2 Karen B. Guerin From: jenny tracey <beibei95014@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:50 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: OPPOSITION to 1800 More New Residence in Cupertino I received a flyer in my front door advising the City Council wants to allow 1800 New Residence in the East Cupertino area during the Monday, 11/10/14 meeting. Please accept this email as my OPPOSITION to this development! There was no prior notice to me notifying.the meeting of the Planning Commission on the issue of its intent to develop more residence. I can already foresee the traffic problem with all the construction that is taking place across from Vallco and on Blaney, with additional condos/apartments and retail stores being built. Has the City really looked into the future? Will the City be able to handle the sewage problems, wear and tear of the road, crime, emergency evacuations, air quality, etc.? I've always felt all the government agencies are blinded by the thoughts of now and only now. They don't look into the future at all! Take a look at the traffic on De Anza Blvd., Stevens Creek, etc. between 5 and 7 p.m. It's solid with cars already, and this is without the additional people moving in at the "under construction" apartments/condos! If the City Council really approves the additional 1800 new residence be built, that defeats the purpose of why people who have lived here for 20+ years in the first place. They like the neighborhood with parks, trees, birds, gophers...the nature, not concrete blocks, cars, and human beings! I respectfully request that the City Council please kindly DENY the development of additional 1,800 new residence in this area. Thank you. Jenny 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 10:29 AM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Congratulations and input on new residences Dear Mark, Congratulations for winning another term in Cupertino city council.Your record and the election agenda clearly stood out among all candidates. I am very glad to have voted the right person for the last two elections (it would be three if we count that short term). I would also like to provide my inputs on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First,the decision was made without seeking residents inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, I agree with you to slow down condo development:Codos change the characteristics of the city. Please help to reconstruct the new residence plan to address residents concerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident since 1997 1 . Karen B. Guerin From: philip tracey <pwtracey27@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:50 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Fwd: Cupertino planning commission meeting Forwarding to Orrin Begin forwarded message: From: philip tracey <pwtracey27 _yahoo.com> Date: November 9, 2014 7:48:07 PM PST To: giwong(cD-cupertino.org, rsinks(o-)-cupertino.org, omahoney(a-cuprtino.org, msantoro(cD-cupertino.orq, bchanq ,cupertino.org Subject: Cupertino planning commission meeting Gentlemen, Enough development already! Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. In my view the Town Center development is already one project too many. The area used for that project should have been made into a park. Surely we have enough revenue already. This idea of paving over everything is very short sighted- it is rapidly making Cupertino into a less livable community - completely paved over and nothing but shops, condos and offices. Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. Philip Tracey 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Adanm <adanpro@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 9:34 PM To: City Council Subject: Concerned about re-zoning of commercial sites for residential use Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I am alarmed by the city's plan for development of residential units along Stevens Creek between Wolfe and DeAnza. I understand that this planning has been in the works and final voting is to take place tomorrow, however there has not been enough effort to inform reach out to the community and assess impact. The city claims that there has been an effort to outreach, however to most of my neighbors I have been talking to this is news. I am concerned that the development underestimates the impact it will have on traffic and schools in the area, and that there is not sufficient plan in place to compensate for that. This development happens in the East side of Cupertino which is already stressed for resources and services. The community would be better served if these areas were instead devoted to resources that this area needs like parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities, which once again the East side is lacking. There is already an imbalance for these between the East side of Cupertino and the West side. I understand that the city may be motivated by increased revenue of the property tax additional residences will bring. However if the growth is not balanced quality of life and schools decrease as a result property values will decrease and so will the revenue. I am not against growth under any circumstances, however it must be balanced. If the city truly has a vision for smart growth, if should be one that should be better shared with the citizens so that it is well understood and supported. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Adan Martinez 616 Stendhal Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: jenny tracey <beibei95014@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:50 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: OPPOSITION to 1800 More New Residence in Cupertino I received a flyer in my front door advising the City Council wants to allow 1800 New Residence in the East Cupertino area during the Monday, 11/10/14 meeting. Please accept this email as my OPPOSITION to this development! There was no prior notice to me notifying the meeting of the Planning Commission on the issue of its intent to develop more residence. I can already foresee the traffic problem with all the construction that is taking place across from Vallco and on Blaney, with additional condos/apartments and retail stores being built. Has the City really looked into the future? Will the City be able to handle the sewage problems, wear and tear of the road, crime, emergency evacuations, air quality, etc.? I've always felt all the government agencies are blinded by the thoughts of now and only now. They don't look into the future at all! Take a look at the traffic on De Anza Blvd., Stevens Creek, etc. between 5 and 7 p.m. It's solid with cars already, and this is without the additional people moving in at the "under construction" apartments/condos! If the City Council really approves the additional 1800 new residence be built, that defeats the purpose of why people who have lived here for 20+ years in the first place. They like the neighborhood with parks, trees, birds, gophers...the nature, not concrete blocks, cars, and human beings! I respectfully request that the City Council please kindly DENY the development of additional 1,800 new residence in this area. Thank you. Jenny 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:53 AM To: Barry Chang Subject: Congratulations and input for new residence plan Dear Barry, Congratulations for wining another term in Cupertino city council. I am very glad that I have voted for the right person for the last two elections. As a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First, the decision was made without seeking residents' inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, too many codos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build codos, it would be better to do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence plan to address residents' concerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident and home owner since 1997 1 i Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:01 AM. To: Rod Sinks Subject: Input to city new residence plan Dear Rod, As your supporter of the last election and a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First,the decision was made without seeking residents' inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly,too many codos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build codos, it would be better to do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence plan to address residents' concerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident since 1997 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 10:54 AM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Inputs on new residence plan Dear Gilbert, As your supporter of the last election and a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First, the decision was made without seeking residents' inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, too many codos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build codos, let's do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence plan to address residents' concerns. Best regards; Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident since 1997 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 12:07 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Inputs on new city residence plan Dear Orrin, As your supporter-of the last election and a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First,the decision was made without seeking reside ntsinputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -'Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly,too many condos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build high density housing, it would be better to do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence building plan to address reside ntsconcerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident and home owner since 1997 1 Karen B. Guerin Subject: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino From: Nagapriya KTiruthani [mailto:nagapriyakCabyahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 2:41 PM To: Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gilbert Wong Subject: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino Dear Cupertino city officials, There has been a lot of discussion among the city residents regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of site in the city. First of all,the Cupertino residents are not adequately informed.A few years back an amendment was made in the notification process of City Council meetings.Therefore,most of the city is now left in the dark.Though all the information is available in the city's website,it is not humanly possible for us to check out the website every week to scan what is being discussed and which measure we should focus on.The city could use the broadcast email or telephone messages to inform the resident,if it wants to save paper,on what is being discussed esp projects of big magnitudes like the General Amendment plan!But leaving it to the citizens to figure out what is going on in the council is not right.Only those parties that are interested in what is being discussed are present for these meeting and therefore,you hardly hear from the public.I have signed up for the email notifications,but that does not give me any information.It points to the link where I need to dig information.So,the notification process needs to be brought up for discussion and should have the residents involved in the discussion. Regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of sites,please take a look at this petition and also don't forget to read all the comments froth Cupertino residents.There is one thing that is loud and clear..DO NOT OVER DEVELOP THE CITY.Yes,developers do want to build every square inch of the city but as the people residing here,we are the long term sufferers of this over development/over crowding of the city. Cupertino Citv Council members:Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino d Projects: ax TAW or cuanrxr: Cupertino City Council me ' .vr r se7-1:enres+ 1204 e„-w rvsldo,,utubers: Say NO to re-zoning 7n st;f:officz .t.f;olrt'atr t: th... . >tons•1,090 new 120 now t&;idea,: noes[icer ao-mI 1801'0.m hoW+ Dear Cupertino City Council member fisting re,iaencesl 260.020 sq ff otfic s,We DO NOT agree N,ith the proposa `V,'fil{1VrC5 t•Apelrcrn_eus€i 1 of rezoning of sites for conformance p,.v rw,!dcnces } 2..E rrttiion:r..}ft al writh General Plan and Housing Elem y0wr-ce be hecra!Cit;C01-2 de•c ent.All... Monday.November loth at 6:45pn Cupertino City HOIl neXf to the libmr View on www.change.org Preview by Yahoo Here are some of quick pointers why we SHOULD NOT allow over development of the city: • High Density:According to the proposed plan,all high density housing are concentrated on part of the city which connects with neighboring cities like Sunnyvale,Santa Clara and San Jose. • Over crowding:According to the EIR document,the schools'are saying that it cannot accommodate more children is a clear indication that the city is overcrowded. Our schools are big and have been adding classrooms regularly.If we cannot accommodate more kids in spite of adding extra classrooms,then there is unprecedented growth in the area which needs to be curtailed. • Taxes:The mitigation fees that the developers give the school district might pay towards the building costs for increasing the number of classrooms,but the operational costs will end up as Parcel tax for the residential owners and not property developers • Schools:It also does not correct for the EIR report to say that the"impact is less significant"for the school district with mitigation fees as a solution.The mitigation fees helps to add classrooms but does it help to increase the field,outdoor sports,band,classroom size, number of electives,teachers,recruitment and sustainability of teachers.How many teams will they have for a sport?How many kids will be in each classroom when all this project is completed?Will kids get enough attention and projects from teachers?Did the EIR think 1 i about the impact of Core Curriculum which emphasizes on group learning?What will be the size of these groups?Yes,these are outside ' the prospect of this report but as city officials,you need to think about the future citizens that this city will be producing. • Housing:If the state mandates the city to build more housing,why not make lands for individual houses instead of high density apartment,townhouses,or condominium buildings? • Shopping:Why not make an open shopping mall like Santana Row in Vallco.There's Rose Bowl and Main Street for residential proximity if Vallco becomes Cupertino's Santana Row • Traffic:This is one of the biggest concerns of this city....Traffic.Have you really tried driving on De Anza blvd or Stevens Creek blvd at 6.30 to 7pm on weekday evenings?You would know how many cars are lined up for each green light.All this before the completion of Main Street,Rose Bowl and Apple Spaceship campus. • Parking:Parking has become a nightmare at the library.Do you know why?Because the number of residents has been constantly growing in Cupertino.Just look at how many residential houses are on the rectangular plot that is lined with Rodrigues Ave,Stevens Creek Blvd,De Anza Blvd and Portal Ave.Way too many for that small area.How did we let that happen? • Community:Cupertino is known for its quiet community neighborhood style.It is not a city like San Francisco or San Jose:People moved here because of the community feel,parks,quiet streets and less crowded roads.If all the proposed housing comes up,every park,road,and shop is going to be so crowded that it is going to be unpleasant for people to continue living here. • Environment:All these will directly or indirectly affect the environment.Approximately,every household has 2 cars.So,when the number of households increases,the number of cars on the road multiplies as well.Imagine the number of cars that will be on the road. This will facilitate rash driving and more accidents on our city roads.Kids will not be able to safely walk or bike to school.The air will be filled with pollution. • Demand:The developers would want to build every square inch that is available in Cupertino because the real estate market is very hot. But when there is economy crisis,with all this over growth,Cupertino will be the first city to hit crisis.So,by building too many houses for today's demand might end up the city in bigger problem in the unforeseen future. • Health Crisis: One of the major reasons for a city to NOT BECOME over populated/crowded is: when a health crisis like Ebola arises,the spreading of disease is much faster for a high density city than a low density city.If a problem like that hits Cupertino,we may not be able to control it as the hospitals will not be able to accommodate all the patients.How come Cupertino has not been approached by a hospital to build a facility here? Please take the Cupertino citizens concerns into your decision making process. You are all the leaders that the city looks up to for making Cupertino a favorable place to live.Please don't make decisions just based on rules and buildingcodes,but do consider the emotions of passionate residents of Cupertino. Thanks, Nagapriya Tiruthani (408)768 4919 2 . Karen B. Guerin From: Sammy wang <mail@changemail.org> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 8:54 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: 100 new people signed: Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino 100 People Recently Add Their Names To %{Petition Creator}'S Petition "%{Petition Title}'.' That Means More Than 500 People Have Signed On There are now 600 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Cupertino Residents by clicking here: http://www.change.org_/p/cupertino-city-council-members-say-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in- cupertino/responses/new?response=77aa66bafaa4 Dear Orrin Mahoney, Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino. Sincerely, 600. sammy wang cupertino, California 599. dorothy cheng cuptertino, California 596. gayathri jayanthi Cupertino, California 595. bill black-hogins cupertino, California 594. keiko black-hogins Cupertino, California 593. Xiao Zha Cupertino, California 592. Deepa Rao cupertino, California 591. Qi Wang San Jose, California 590. Dong Han Sunnyvale, California 589. Sapna Gupta Cupertino, California 588. Ram Laxmanan Cupertino, California 587. Yonghui Zhang Cupertino, California 586. Vaishnavi Sridhar Cupertino, California 585. Rohini Kashibatla Cupertino, California 584. Li Chen Cupertino, California 582. Hong Luo San Jose, California 580. Minoo Mehta Cupertino, California 579. Soniac Chen Cupertino, California 577. Shan Cai Sunnyvale, California 576. Jiong cao Cupertino, California .575. Jenny W Cupertino, California 574.. Ben Wang Santa Clara, California 572. Brittany trent Clarksville, Indiana 571. Michael Garvale Cupertino, California 570. ZUDIAN QIN CUPERTINO, California 569. Jocelyn Yeh Cupertino, California 568. deepika yammanur Cupertino, California 566. Linda Chia cupertino, California 1 . 565. Ann Huo Cupertino, California 564. Eva Kashkooli Cupertino, California 563. Christine Garvale Cupertino, California 562. Sundari Pilaka San Jose, California 561. Yuh-Juan Hung Cupertino, California 560. Jianjun Chen Cupertino, California 559. Phyllis Dickstein Cupertino, California 558. Barbara Clapper Cupertino, California 557. Anuradha Krishnan San Jose, California 555. subramanian chebiyam sunnyvale, California 554. Anand Kothari Cupertino, California 553. Shirley Wang Cupertino, California 552. Vikas Mishra Cupertino, California 551. Chinping Chen Cupertino, California 550. Peggy Carter Vicksburg, Mississippi 549. Chandrasekhar Mukherjee Cupertino, California 548. Cheng Yi Wang Cupertino, California 547. Usha Subramanian San Jose, California 546. Peter Willson Cupertino, California 544. Lily lee Cupertino, California 543. John Markham Princeton, Kentucky 542. Mary Kavanaugh Long Beach, California 541. Chien Hsiu Chang Cupertino, California 540."YanPing Wang Cupertino, California 538. Dawn Kwok Cupertino, California 537. Han Qiao San Jose, California 536. Jyoti Narang San Jose, California 535. supriya sabne Cupertino, California 533. qingwei meng San Jose, California 532.Natalie Fossen Cupertino, California 531. Tsehsien Vaughn Cupertino, California 530. Jinyuan Qiao Cupertino, California 529. Lynn Yang Cupertino, California 527. Haibin Chen San Jose, California 525. David Lu Cupertino, California 524. Shuqing ma San Jose, California 522. Y u n q i a n Qi Cupertino,California 521. Wayne Chin Cupertino, California 520. Niti Motwani Cupertino, California 519. Julissa Quintero Miami, Florida 518. Xiaoxinng zhu Cupertino, California 517. Tongwen Huang Cupertino, California 516. Mary Reed Bellingham, Washington 514. Lana Shew Cupertino, California 513. Tieu Fung Cupertino, California 511. Jenny Chiu San Jose, California 510. Koyeli Mukherjee Cupertino, California 509. Anwar Awad Cupertino, California 508. Shagorika Dixit Cupertino, California 506. Vijay Kulkarni Cupertino, California 505. Wei Chen Chang Chang Cupertino, California z 503. Felicia Wu Cupertino, California 502. Ravi Ram San Jose, California 501. savita chari Santa Clara, California 500. Mital Pat Cupertino, California 499. Brenda Qiang Cupertino, California 498. Dawn Mortensen Santa Clara, California 497. chenggin ju cupertino, California 496. danci huang sunnyvale, California 495. Yu Hsueh Cupertino, California 493. ICHUN LIN San Jose, California 490. Ching Lien San Jose, California 486. Stephanie Miller Cupertino, California 485. Deepa Shah Cupertino, California 484. Genneva Wang cupertino, California 483. Betty Tang Cupertino, California 482:Mia Liu Cupertino, California 481. Guogang Hu cupertino, California 480. Gordon Gong FV:LL 9 iV3, California 479. Kristen Lyn Cupertino, California 478. Wei Chen Hollister, California 477. Der-song Lin Cupertino, California �X 3 C Mike King Recology South Bay Cupertino Chamber of Ct mtherte Your Partner in Silicon Valley Elisabeth Marchu 20455 Silverado Avenue Technology Credit Union Cupertino,CA 95014 Tel(408)252-7054 Fax(408)252-0638 Brent McNally www.cupertino-chamber.org The Cypress Hotel Keith Warner Pacific Business Centers Anjali Kausar Executive Director MattWheeler, LMGW Public Accountants 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OFFICERS Darcy Paul,President Paul Law Group,A Professional Corp. November 07, 2014 Kevin McClelland,Past President Leeward Financial&Insurance Services Mayor Gilbert Wong and Cupertino City Council Inc. 10300 Torre Avenue Richard Abdalah,President Elect Cupertino, CA 95014 Abdalah Law Offices Art Cohen,VP Membership Re: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce support for the General Plan BlueLight Cinemas 5 Amendment. Sandy James,VP HR&Staffing Lehigh Hanson Dear Mayor Gilbert Wong and Cupertino City Councilmembers, ScottJeng,VP Finance I am writing to urge you to reject the Planning Commission's HSBC Bank USA,N.A. Recommendations and to support the recommendations stated below for the Mahesh Nihalani,VP Diwali General Plan Amendment and urge you to finish the hard work that has been Jewess in Style done since March 2013 when this process began. Mike Rohde,VP Special Events Vallco Shopping Mall From the Cupertino Staff Report: On August 21, 2012,the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan Tim Widman,VP LAC amendment in order to: Law Office of Timothy D.Widman Replenish office and hotel allocations (after the office allocation was reduced Keiichiro Yoshida,VP AABC to under 18,000 square feet since the Main Street project received most of the remaining office allocation in the city-wide allocation pool); BOARD MEMBERS Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan; Claudio Bono Consolidate individual requests from property owners; and Cupertino Inn Update to address State law, and address clean-up. Janice Chua Bitter+Sweet We ask that you consider 1400 units for residential units, 3 million square feet for the Office Allocation and maintain the additional 500,000+square feet set aside Jessica Epstein, for"major employers". We also ask you to support the heights analyzed in Silicon Valley Association of Realtors "Alternative C". Mike Foulkes Apple Inc. We urge you to support these numbers and pass the General Plan Amendment so we can move forward. Brandi Garcia PG&E Best regards, Kevin McClelland Vice President of Advocacy &Past President Cc: Council Members City Manager Karen B. Guerin From: Hoi poon <hoipoon@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:22 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; kausar_anjali@cusdk8.org; liao_ben@cusdk8.org; luceyjo@cusdk8.org; lucey,jo@cusdk8.org; mccue_gary@cusdk8.org;vogel_phyllis@cusdk8.org; gudalewicz_wendy@cusdk8.org; Nishihara Jeremy; bill_wilson@fuhsd.org; barbara_nunes@fuhsd.org; hung_wei@fuhsd.org; nancy_newton@fuhsd.org; jeff_moe@fuhsd.org; polly bove Cc: CUSD-discuss@yahoogroups.com; McBB@yahoogroups.com Subject: City of of Cupertino Proposed Housing Development and Its Impact on CUSD/FUHSD Dear All, I wanted to get confirmation from the City of Cupertino and CUSD/FUHSD officials regarding some of the information that has been circulating regarding the proposed housing development in the City of Cupertino and its impact on CUSD/FUHSD. a) City of Cupertino plans to approve 4400 housing units. b).The EIR estimates that this will only add—1105 students to the CUSD/FUHSD schools. This is based on some state formula with connection to reality such as City Census numbers. c) The plan allocates all of$9 million dollars for the additional 1105 students (assuming that number is accurate) d) The City of Cupertino's position according to Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, (In email to Claire Arnold on 11/7/14) regarding the impact of of the proposed housing on school districts, is as follows "The school districts are responsible for their own capital improvement plans, including planning for long term growth. You'll have to discuss that with them." Is this correct? e) Piu Ghosh also contends (In email to Claire Arnold on 11/6/14) that "The school districts have been consulted in the preparation of the EIR." Is this correct? If it is, 1) Who are the CUSD/FUHSD officials that were.consulted in the EIR? 2) What was their input? 3) Do they agree with the EIR which states that 4400 new housing units will only add 1105 additional students? 4) Do they agree that $9 million will be enough to alleviate the effect of what is probably more like 5000 additional students? 1 Please clarify these matters ASAP. It will be helpful to have the information before Monday Nov. 10 public hearing. Thank you. Hoi Yung Poon CUSD parent PS: Copying parents on CUSD and McBB egroups. 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Claire Arnold <clairea_2006@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:28 PM To: Rod Sinks; Piu Ghosh; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney Cc: Barry Chang; Mark Santoro Subject: General Plan Environmental Impact REport Greetings to All the Council, Perhaps all of you can answer a question for me as Piu Ghosh and I seem to be at a stand still on communicating with each other and we seem to be frustrating each other instead :) I respectful ask how has the Council has worked with the CUSD to make the increase of children coming into Cupertino through General Plan construction go smoothly on already impacted schools? I understand the school district will get money etc. I do not understand how the Council and CUSD have coordinated on how and when the two story additions will be put on the schools. Surely the Council is not going to go ahead with construction and expect CUSD to play catch up, stressing resources and space on schools that will remain single story until such time as two story additions can be constructed? I am asking if the Planning Commission has looked onto this and is confident that the schools will be ready for the impact of new students that the General plan predicts. If the schools will not be ready, impacted as they are, according to the report, why is the Planning Commission saying the impact will be insignificant? The Planning Commission has not indicated to me that it sees there is any role for the Council in this matter. It refers me to the schools. However it is the Council's plan that will impact the schools and I want to know how much consideration the Council has done in this matter and in what ways you are making sure schools have time to adapt and construct second stories? I would be very, very grateful for a straightforward, sensible answer to this. I have tried to contact the Board of Education of Cupertino on this topic but they have not replied to my email, which confuses me. Also, how is the traffic going to be dealt with around schools that are already impacted for space even if second stories are added? Parental driving is already dangerous, with an increase of families driving their children to school on all sites I think it would be imperative there will be more traffic control to support and protect children attending these sites with two stories. How will this be addressed? Many thanks for some clarity with this, I will be there on the 10th. Claire i BERG& BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 A (408) 725-0700 Fax(408) 725-1626 mcrawford@bergvc.com 11/7/14 Piu Ghosh Senior City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-777-3308 Dir 408-777-3277; Fax: 408-777-3333 Email: piu�a(kupertino.or� Reference: New General Plan-Housing Element Subject: 20605 20705 Valley Green . APN 326-10-046 Piu, Please note that Berg and Berg aka Berg Family Partners, LP is desirous of having the above property remain on the site inventory for future potential housing. It is possible that Apple could vacate a number of facilities south of I280 creating a redevelopment of the property. Please include this in your council presentation. Thank you, Myron Crawford Better Cupertino Presentation to City Council Nov. 10 , 2014 Summary • We urge the Council to postpone discussion of the General Plan amendments until the City can collect and distill more community input. . We urgee the Council to postpone discussion of the General plan amendments until the City can assess the impacts of larger populations in a given school neighborhood. • We urge the Council to limit their Work on Nov. 10 to completing only the ABAG requirements for the housing element. Allocate only the number of parcels as is required by ABAG. . Spread the allocation across the city, so that no single neighborhood disproportionately bears the pains of population growth. The Plan is not representative of the dreams and concerns of residents. Insufficient notification of Plan process and content Insufficient community input to the Plan The community wants to be heard With the City's help, The dreams and concerns of residents can be distilled into the Plan 0�9 , r \ J i .A . t f -'-,The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not accurately show how an over-crowded school neighborhood impacts the community. The community uses school recreation spaces. An over-crowded school does not provide the same access and quality of recreation space as a school tha. has a well-managed population. ir An over-crowded school can create worse traffic and safety issues at school drop-off and pick-up times. ry Until we address issues of open space and school traffic safety, we must be prudent about increasing our school-age population. At this time, it is prudent to allocate only the minimum number of housing sites as is required byABAG. Conclusion We urge the Council to postpone discussion of the General Plan amendments until the following tasks are complete: Collect and distill more community input; Make the Plan more representative of the community's dreams and concerns. Assess the impacts of larger populations driving to and recreating at neighborhood schools. We urge the Council to limit their work on Nov. 10 to completing only the ABAG requirements for the housing element. • Allocate only the number of parcels as is required by ABAG. • Spread the allocation across the city, so that no single neighborhood disproportionately bears the pains of population growth. We urge the City to collect and distill more community input to the Plan. Thank you for your consideration and deliberation. i 1 Quality G o tr w h "That Lifts Everyone" Representing: Chris Bencher Everest Bencher Leo Bencher Betty Tang Monica Quan Emory Quan Lynn Yang Jasper Yang Speaker: Chris Bencher Jailin Song Helen Song Contact: 408-573-7122 Ann Huo Summary LI North Blaney & Valco neighborhoods are at a n 16/x' 16% of target allocation for parklands. LI The proposed Housing Element and General Plan Amendment will result in 33% reduction j of park-land,ratio. LI Result will be North Blaney & Valco end at 10% only '10% of target -allocation for park land-s.. 0 Page 1 Cupertino City Targets for "Quality Growth Conditions" Cupertino Municipal Code: "Park land Dedication Requirement" 16.24.040 General Standard. The public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that three acres of property for each one thousand persons be devoted for neighborhood park and recreational purposes. California Assembly Bill 1359: "Revision to Quimby Act" (A) The park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population of the city, county, or Focal public agency as shown in the most recent available federal census Source: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway,dll/California/cupertino/cityofcupertinocaliforniamunicipaIcode?f=templates$fn=de fault.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:cupertino ca http://Iegihfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/biliNavClient.xhtmRbill id=201320140AB1359 Page 2 United States Census Tracks for Cupertino 4 Major Census Tracks (5077, 5078, 5080, 5081) DeAnza Ll� 13 Z141, 'Tip, . ' t JS' 50I u � no, aStevens .40 ..01 I Creek J r� EO 3 >' O E' " '771 Y - _ I. E It i F 0 0 1 Source: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/GIS/Misc/Documents/Census_2010_Tracts.pdf Page 3 Mall gHar��steaa,rsc R" w '99 R inch z pr. _ A-E- ZVI IL �, ..' + �ti�b� t� .t:'��-.-�",r+�' 1"✓y tea' '� ' r Ty ��, ��i ��� �'�'�� aC� c `ar"`. ^°'+�#��, ��� r�• � '�,:. SSU asw:w ' .- �k 'L•ta¢ #t ' �...`S w,A ^ �r ' R Fee i • • AIAL •. •• 1 : 1 1 • 1 . 1 1 • 1 �1 '1 � • tevensSGreek'�HWd ' trvens Gree B v- �,4, s5. MoJ V14e��,�. � a as .x ,} ..p� :�•, �,} (;xbybr �+ :e - orensone «Ba g 3 ,Y;.� � +a d�, t„„�< �w + ta '< �' ,r,�:,,nr#=s �► �; tutee av .s �,. s .: .t �, � •a .^¢ ,� Id.l� .� ' B. 6 �a.yV+�' enWood Pts ... N�,.,_ �. «` 'b�'°�` � .,� } - "'qL= a r 3�aie ouB�c'.e*� � lso vFrAsv.,� . § e 09, �aroz ,d wy. tawmo'��..�„'.iafxS,.W�.°torr�a+pd�O'i�a'I�vR,es. fW..,-s,•'�a�n`Y,ea,�e'-i'(S�ctia ed�ao r �....`i"_-'...�z,-,'�m.'s�'ut,n�`D.:et,:.,<.. t�ft�eg'rtari'=..vsGb..sarrey,e.,.��r'`S-.'J`>�'"/�w�r at.=.*t�.��,�,a��*�yvs��:p�43Ay�e•" St e�"_k 1, 7ma� A €y� .,b �� i 'w +.r ,•,. .`r�f'�= ei,..4.��$x�e8oa.n1�ntyvh=e`a;ra, t nv a+z�> fg�'r�j"tr-k•.i .r.r�` ©. : V- 71 ,�., _, °;'s, '.,`� '. :§: &�:•.« + cr�.fi �..- . w has Ygrove Dr_ : • �K4` '�.,o .,w'r ; " '. a�' v-. _ •- ..^ a�.�^ x v- ti � � •� � o •ate: �ti � � � �.,r' Dat ,�*� -'�>�. � � :<. •� a sic �r,m +sz, ,g .�;.-�' w #�. ;` .e,. � fJdenbWsY., s..r w -,* �s >a: ,-,� +.T�+�„�, � '; .-�; $-.�.u. R! � .a9 a,c ��'�. a! mr#:' �.'� .•,. � ..•? -s R� a � �,.,� :�+ E ”�`�' .«w,'-+�-�'s. 4'.. _ohn. ', � �x a4�.<g,+,' ._t;.. *.3�;�t �����,'�'�e 'ii[ryn s� [r i'ei �Q�°m.�.��. +, 't� ai •a` � •#yi �: � �e�.m � rgLck H,a�r d„'..rYa �A"., i r s �.,�!ta i'+.�r 6 ri s- _� .,:r''�, � � ..6�'� � .�::: �fm'�'+'°•oY�",�r s m yv •.rs }.a z y���EOw'`$ o.+fix. # f *�y & ','w ::.e ,•'' 9+�., p,.. a F�� _ ;�c` t Lader n �:� � �s*�'. a.o¢p "= � „... � .,�..��•� �,►cess. s����,nn * - � sk.,���,y. '-. -� ._'[.u� � 75 zg �t -moo ..` nb� tE , a�'°�c '" - 'b'rk �.LaF•e. l` 4Itlr a.�°,3 `:*`��+' � r�. �r�a�fi g4 .� -^�c-,r°<"`sem� �...��- `..a ,` {mss+,,� ,�,y�.. .0.�` •t <�" �}'4 � � "'''' as�� W a' ,6 �G., �, ��:>F ' na " oOr – � �r,1;,� ar, �2 ,.w,a ,. ;. r- �' �+, �' �BoUmgd ���:: 'a .ra•� z FV t ` 411V A Kill l • - 1:1 - •- • • 111 . • 11 Park Land Dedication Rates by Census Tracks '- Census Track T5081 5080 5077 & 5078 All Cupertino Existing Population 7,678 13,948 36,676 58,302 Required Acres per 18.24.040 23.0 41.8 110.0 174.9 Actual Acres 3.8 36.1 117.0 156.9 of Requirement86% MINIM 90% 003R 160/ 0 0 u;- k 50 _� 22 106rt n °'/0 86/00 41 0 . 50Or_ _ 7' 1. 5 57 7.02 5 7` m1am- t0 A0 • Track 5081 has'a severe park-land dedication gap • General Plan and Housing Plan should address before any re-zoning. Source: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/small/small.htm Page 6 Impacts since 2010 Census & Effects of New Proposals Census Track 5081 5080 5077 & 5078 All Cupertino Existing Population 7,678 13,948 36,676 58,302 Required Acres per chapter 18.24.040 23.0 41.8 110.0 174.9 Actual Acres 3.8 36.1 117.0 156.9 of Requirement 16%1 86% 1Q6% 90% Projects corning on-line Population growth from current projects (Rose Bowl, Main Street, 20030 Stevens Creek) 907 283 Required Acres after current construction 25.8 42.7 of Requirement 15•°l0', 85% Newly Proposed Projects Population growth from proposed projects 3p774 288 The SLlggeSt2d (Hamptons, Valco, United Furniture) Required Acres after proposal 37.1 43.6 re-zoning,We I I - of Requirement make it w®rse Proposed housings in Track 5081 will decrease park land ratio by 33°0 Source: http://www.baVareacensus.ca.gov/small/small.htm Source : http://guickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0617610.html Page 7 • • • • • t P.4—,. ` 5r ;n; ,`+� lr 4 ; estaurant ' Ct t 4 Coommpan Store CCdarlTree - rewhause�' 1Q•PP P Y. id #6 '� 7$"ko '• O 'ea- ,1 r zr �iA ��}C..! r a,}, ,y.,,�,�.. hlorntl Dr YY`�+ '�`�` �,.+rs�'��""•�' burn p �Y d a � -'A:es � '.a t w > ��� Vrs''l ,.� -�' t�$.. t ✓ -� � t .� P �dt mt; s "' Mern�"s" pA�• ti "' �`x r ��.^..•`. # pa .r 'm�+;3:3'�`'. ..fit �. r + :4 z Z•'.. .' Penmeter Rdr+; T'< • r Dr 7 RL_;' "tLazarieo Dry �"`�':'� ''-' s�foie >Ave.';A _ �� f•� �' � - oma' , n �r�,S~�yr. •. �b�� r t t 4��itr � � Ts�y�+. �* y"A. �,rf"Vaam'Fashion Park: �: �' �� • • t r a 12 .1z yr y k w�' u � c t+u Pon©a k J.` r t {� r • • • • 1 1 g L8 � 5`�*wfi�`�`R �Y{ - A'� lf�l 'v'1 Y 1�..-�Y� � &�.` r" `� r" .I &,.,. .s.a•- ,. ly E � . ! 3 m .—yr— �` t rWhea'tomD -wheatoniD - { �°� x t ,. r , • • � �' x Wheaton On '�d �� _ bSe fY+�s r =I -..... .y...{Z.,9't•Y^2 M1 r4 � .Xr T� ens[Greek+Blvd' Cre Steve siGreek Bivdt�' .._ , StevensektBlvd .a' qq - , • ! n. � fit' .�`, w ids' ��,� µ • v x. i- .mn. ..p. + i 3 � + a c B zbP'D< .s�iF j•, �r7 r '4 r or n,ye - • r' Rnce*Ave A Conclusion D Cupertino: Park Land Dedication was witten-for the Health, Welfare & Safety LJ, ,Cie track 5081 is at o-nly 16% of target 4 ,10% With the. proposed plan. Delay the,General -Plan Amendment until the park-land equalization strategy is in place-, 0 Delay all re-zoning in Track 5080/5081 until you have-,a PLAN: We Need City Council to Fight for the People and Close our Park Land Gap This is last chance — then all the land is gone Page 9 Cupertino Municipal Code: Park Land Dedication Requirement Chapter 18:24 18.24.060 Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. A. General Formula. If there is no park or recreation facility designated in the open space and conservation element of the General Plan to be located'in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the market value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 18.24.080, Valuation of the land described above shall be determined, for in lieu fee purposes, under the procedures described in Section 18.24.080. C. Use of Money. The money collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the City or his or her authorized agent. Such money shall be placed in a special revenue fund which is hereby created and which shall be known as the "park dedication in-lieu fee fund." Money within this fund shall be used and expended solely for the acquisition, improvement, expansion or implementation of parks and recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the public by way of the purchase of necessary land, or, if the City Council deems that there is sufficient land available for this use, then secondly this money shall be used for improving such land for park and recreational purposes. Source: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/cupertino/cityofcupertinocaliforniamunicipalcode?f =templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:cupertino_ca Page 10 Cupertino Municipal Code: Park Land Dedication Requirement Chapter 18:24 TABLE 18.24.050 Park Land Dedication Formula Table Average Acreage Types of Dwellings Density DU/acre Average Household Requirement/DU, Size(DU Based on 3-acre Standard Single-Family 0--5 3.5 .0105 Duplex,medium low 5--10 2.0 .0060 Cluster,medium 10--20 2.0 .0060 Cluster,medium high 20+ 1.8 .0054 Apartments 10+ 1.8 .0054 Pro e ` Formula: � , . - � Form ula ct Dwellings acres Project, Dwellings acres Rate Rat ``Rose Bovvl 204 0.0054 1.10 ' Vallco � 600 0,0054 , F. 3.`24 -`Main Street 120 0.0054 0.65 United Furniture 103 ,0.0054 0.56 20030 Stevens Creek 101 0.0054 . : 0.55 Hamptons 748` 0`:0054 ' 4.04_ Metiopolitan , 107 `. .0.0054 0.58 .7.84 r , � _ ---------- 2.87 We should already have money in the "Park Three proposed projects will provide "in-lieu-of Dedication Fund" for 2.87 acres @ market rate fund" for additional 7.84 acres @ market rate 10.6 acres (2:8+7.8) of reserved park lands @ market rates should be achievable Source: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/cupertino/ Page 11 Vallco General Plan Amendment Housing Element 1. 600,000 sf of retail (already studied in EIR) 2. 2,000,000 sf Office Allocation (already studied in EIR) 3. Vallco designated as Housing Element Site a. 35 DUA, averaged across all Vallco properties b. 600 Unit allocation for Vallco (down from 800 studied in EIR) 4. Heights for Vallco in Alternative C in EIR/Staff Report 5. Vallco redevelopment to be subject to community based Specific Plan Process SAND HELL PROPERTY COMPANY October 13,2014 Via Overnight Delivery and E-Mail Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: General Plan Amendment: Office Allocation for Vallco Shopping District Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company("Sand Hill")regarding the treatment of the Vallco Shopping District("Vallco")in the General Plan Amendment. Sand Hill is in the midst of acquiring the Vallco parcels for potential redevelopment, so we are keenly interested in working with the City of Cupertino("City")to develop a feasible plan that can benefit all stakeholders. I am writing to request that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan include an office allocation for Vallco of 2,000,000 square feet and the height limits set out in"Alternative C,"as analyzed in the draft General Plan's environmental review. Without this specific office allocation,as well as the necessary retail and housing components,there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible for Sand Hill, or any other prospective developer,to successfully redevelop Vallco. Vallco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City,yet for many reasons, it has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandoned or have failed. Sand Hill has the financial capacity and proven track record with such projects and is poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic downtown where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans to completely transform the current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainable mixed-use neighborhood. Our plan envisions a balanced mix of 600-700 residential units, approximately 600,000 square feet of retail,a full service hotel,and 2,000,000 square feet of office space. The overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented"town center"consistent with the General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects,such as Main Street. sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241• MENLO PARK,CA 94025-(650)3441500-FAX(650)344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13,2014 Page Two The benefits to the City of such a project go well beyond creating a sense of place. With 600,000 square feet,the retail component of the project would be the same size as Santana Row and would generate millions in sales tax revenues way in excess of what is being collected today. Property taxes would also increase significantly,perhaps by 800%,given the billion-dollar plus investment Sand Hill is prepared to make in the City of Cupertino. In addition,we recognize that in order to obtain increased height limits for Vallco under Alternative C,projects must comply with the new General Plan's community benefits program. Although our specific project plans are still developing,the community benefits we anticipate providing include ground floor retail components and [transit improvements and amenities, space for public entities, senior housing,construction of a new,or expansion to, a community facility/community gathering place,creation or dedication of new or expanded park,cash in-lieu contribution for such community benefits]. We would also be amenable to exploring,with other property developers,the potential of providing a community shuttle program in order to provide transportation between employment and community centers. As required by the General Plan,these community benefits will be equivalent to at least 15 percent in value of the parcel attributed to the increase in height. The opportunity to transform the Vallco site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan,the capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with the City and the community. Prior attempts at Vallco redevelopment have all run into the same problem: full ownership of the site is needed for a successful project,and the current split and passive ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After nearly three years of intensive negotiations with the various Vallco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the process of completing purchases for the entire mall. Single ownership will remove the key barrier to redevelopment that has hampered the site for decades. However,in order to close on the Vallco parcels, Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can build a project that is financially viable. At present,the development allocation recommended in the Staff Report precludes such a project, and thus,a feasible redevelopment of the property. In particular, the Staff Report's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75 feet(west of Wolfe Road)and 90 feet(east of Wolfe Road)does not work for our plan,or any plan for that matter. Redevelopment of Vallco is a substantial undertaking. It entails demolition of approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown over 50 acres. The General Plan's vision for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a"town center"layout, a newly configured street grid,an expanded Wolfe Road bridge of I-280 to accommodate a bikeable and walkable"boulevard,"a new town square and plazas interspersed throughout. The General Plan calls for high-quality architecture and materials befitting a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision,but such elements are all very costly. While retail uses are critical for completing the overall vision, such uses do not support the type of amenities we and the City want to provide. In order for complete redevelopment to sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241•MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX(650)3440652 Y Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page Three be financially feasible,the project must include 2,000,000 square feet of office already studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office square footage,while also respecting the neighborhoods to the west, increased height must be allowed, including up to 160 feet on the east side of Wolfe Road. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the General Plan allocate to the Vallco Shopping District: • 2,000,000 square feet of office space; • Include the site in the Housing Element, including at least 600 units of housing; 600,000 square feet of retail; and • Heights analyzed in"Alternative C"be permitted(i.e.,up to 85 feet west of Wolfe Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with community benefits). Sand Hill is proud of what it has done in the City of Cupertino. We have partnered with the City and the community on a number of successful commercial,retail and residential projects since the 1990's. As with those prior projects,we view Vallco as a long-term investment. We are a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the City. Main Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016. We look forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the redevelopment of Vallco. Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize a long-term community vision for a revitalized Vallco. The development team and funding is in place to move forward now. However,we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City Council that without the necessary office,residential and retail allocations outlined above, we will not be in a position to redevelop Vallco and it will likely continue to languish for decades to come. Thank you f your consideration. ec 1 ubmitted, Pet r Pau Principal and Founder sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241 9 MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX(650)344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13,2014 Page Four Sand Hill Property Company cc: Mayor Gilbert Wong Vice Mayor Rod Sinks Councilmember Barry Chang Councilmember Orrin Mahoney Councilmember Mark Santoro David Brandt, City Manager Aard Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director Reed Moulds, Sand Hill Property Company sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241•MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX(650)344-0652 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408)777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 10, 2014 Subject General Phan Amendment, 2014-2022 Housing Element, associated Rezoning, Zoning map and text amendments and Specific Plan Amendment. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions in accordance with the Draft Resolutions (Attachments A - F) with the exceptions noted in Attachment G: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 14-210 for Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03), in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution(Attachment A); 2. Adopt Resolution No. 14-211, GPA-2013-01 in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution(Attachment B and as amended by Attachment G),for:. a. Draft General Plan(Community Vision 2040); and b. General Plan Map Amendments. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 14-212 to authorize staff to, in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution(Attachment C and as amended by Attachment G): a. Forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD); and b. Use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (in case one or more of the adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites). 4. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2124, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning Certain Sites in the City for Conformance with the General Plan and Housing Element Zoning Map Amendment," Z-2013-03 (Attachment D and as amended by Attachment G); 5. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2125, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending various Chapters in Title 18 and Title 19, including the amendment of the Density Bonus Ordinance, the addition of a Chapter in Title 19 to implement policies in the General Plan, the addition of a Chapter in Title 13 to improve readability," Municipal Code Amendment,MCA-2014-01 (Attachment E); and r 6. Adopt Resolution No. 14-213 approving Specific Plan Amendment, SPA-2014-01, in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution(Attachment F). The Balanced Plan is reflected in Attachments A — F. The Planning Commission's changes to the exhibits to Attachments A—D are reflected in Attachment G. These changes are discussed in detail later in this report. CEQA Findings for adoption of the Balanced Plan and Housing Element sites recommended by staff are in Attachment H. Description Application No.: GPA-2013-01, GPA-2013-02,SPA-2014-01,Z-2013-01 and MCA-2014-01 (EA- 2013-03) Applicant:City of Cupertino Property Location: City-wide Background On August 21,2012, the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan amendment in order to: • Replenish office and hotel allocations (after the office allocation was reduced to under 18,000 square feet since the Main Street project received most of the remaining office allocation in the city-wide allocation pool); • Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan; • Consolidate individual requests from property owners;and • Update to address State law, and address clean-up. In addition,in November 2013, the City initiated an update of the State-mandated Housing Element of the General Plan. The 2012-2022 Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan, identifies policies and appropriate locations for future housing in Cupertino. The Housing Element Update was combined with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community could,fully evaluate and discuss issues in one comprehensive outreach and planning process. This report provides a summary of key issues, recommendations by the Planning Commission and staff comments where appropriate. A detailed discussion of issues is provided in the Planning Commission staff report dated October 14, 2014(Attachment I). The General Plan Amendment process has involved over 18 months of extensive community discussions.and input provided during 24 public meetings, workshops, online comment surveys, and study sessions and hearings with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. A detailed listing of the public input meetings is provided later in this report. The staff reports for the following study sessions and public hearings: January 23, 2014 Housing Commission, February 12, 2014 Housing Commission, February 19, 2014 Planning Commission, 2 March 4, 2014 City Council, and April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City Council are attached for both the General Plan and Housing Element projects (Attachment J). Alternatives After extensive input from the community, property owners, the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission, the City Council authorized studying the following alternatives in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the project. A brief discussion of alternatives is provided below (see Attachment K for Concept Alternative maps). The EIR has a detailed description of each alternative. A table showing specific allocations is provided later in the Development Allocations discussion later in this report. Alternative A Alternative A consists of the following themes and reflects minimal changes as follows: ■ Maintains the policies of the 2005 General Plan ■ Increases office and hotel development allocations ■ Combines the South De Anza and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Special Areas ■ Streamlines General Plan area boundaries Alternative B Alternative B is derived from the following themes and reflects moderate increase in heights and densities in key areas: ■ Focuses new growth along major mixed-use corridors ■ Revises height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major mixed-use corridors ■ Increases office,hotel and residential development allocations ■ Supports the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating allocation to other areas ■ Streamlines General Plan area boundaries This alternative also envisions the transformation of the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail, employment,housing and entertainment destination. Alternative C Alternative C is derived from the following themes and reflects the property owners requests and reflects the most increase in heights and densities in key areas: ■ Supports the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating allocation to other areas ■ Revise density and height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major ■ mixed-use corridors ■ Increases office,hotel and residential development allocations ■ Streamlines General Plan area boundaries 3 n Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and account for a large portion of the City's RHNA. Planning Commission Public Hearings The Planning Commission held public hearings on the General Plan, Housing Element, associated rezoning, zoning text amendments and specific plan amendments and the EIR on October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014. While some members of the Planning Commission felt that some amount of development (especially office) would help to achieve the City's economic and fiscal goals, the majority felt that additional office growth would exacerbate the regional imbalance of jobs and housing and contribute to traffic. They did however agree that hotel rooms could be added since they provided a source of revenue to the City, were beneficial to nearby restaurants and businesses, and would be needed to serve existing and planned office in the City. The Commission recommended removal of the residential allocation since densities in the General Plan and zoning already regulate development on the sites. A summary of the Planning Commission's recommendation is provided in the discussion on each key issue in the staff report. About eleven members of the public spoke at the meeting. They included property owners of Housing Element sites and study areas in the General Plan as well as a few residents. Attachment L is the minutes of the Planning Commission public hearings and includes detailed comments from the speakers. The following is a brief summary of comments: ■ Prefer the No Project alternative or Alternative A ■ Plan Bay Area doesn't fit Cupertino residents'needs ■ Vallco should not be a Housing Element site but should stay as retail only ■ Additional heights and community benefits should not be approved ■ We should not be afraid of additional heights if buildings are attractively designed ■ A residential allocation of close to 4,500 is too high. The Housing Element should only include 1,002 units to meet the RHNA ■ Do not add more office. Applicants who want more office should apply for amendments to the General Plan ■ Growth should not be focused only on Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard ■ Excited about the Balanced Plan ■ Cupertino should plan for its share of additional growth in the Bay Area ■ Applicants reiterated their requests for additional office, residential and heights based on Alternative C. Additional discussion about specific requests is provided later in the report. Minor, non-substantive edits have been made to the .General Plan (Attachment B) and Housing Element(Attachment C) documents that were presented to the Planning Commission to correct text errors, grammatical and syntactical errors and to add updates to language. An errata sheet identifying the changes made since the Planning Commission saw the documents is attached as Attachment M. 4 Discussion Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040) The General Plan is a State-mandated document and provides the vision for Cupertino's future It sets the City's policy direction in a number of areas including land use, mobility, housing, open space, infrastructure,health and sustainability through goals,policies, and strategies. The following is a discussion of state and regional laws,best practices and community input that have shaped the draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040). Community Vision 2040 has been informed by changes in Federal, State and regional regulations, best practices and community input, and achieving the community-building, sustainability and economic and fiscal goals in the Guiding Principles. The following section is a discussion of items that have been informed the Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040). State and Regional regulations and best practices 1. Climate Change - The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) set a target to reduce California greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020. In addition, the Governor signed Executive Order 5-3-05 to further require California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050 (EO, 2005). The policies in Community Vision 2040 are consistent with these regulations. 2. Land Use and Transportation - The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) calls on each of the state's 18 metropolitan areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area,jointly adopted in 2013 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is the region's first Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet the requirements of SB 375 through the year 2040. Community Vision 2040 is consistent with the principles of SB 375 by focusing growth along major transportation corridors and the City's Priority Development Area (PDA) along Stevens Creek and North De Anza Boulevards defined in Plan Bay Area. 3. Complete Streets and Connectivity — The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the planning, designing, and building of complete streets into the larger planning framework of the General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to amend their Mobility Elements to plan for multimodal transportation networks. 4. Performance Measures for Mobility-Senate Bill 743 (2013) creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to promote the state's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Specifically, SB 743 requires an alternative to automobile level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process of preparing new CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743. 5 5. Sustainability - Various elements in Community Vision 2040 incorporate goals and policies related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions targets set by AB 32, SB 375 and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The Land Use and Community Design element focuses future growth along major transportation corridors consistent with past practice and SB 375. The focus on multi-modal transportation and complete streets in the Mobility element is consistent with past practice and recent State and regional regulations and guidance. The Sustainability Element has been updated to comply with regional requirements and to reflect the City's current policies. In particular, three strategies have been identified to implement Principles of Sustainability. Strategies include the adoption and maintenance of a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to attain reduction targets consistent with state law and regional requirements, periodic reporting on and review of the effectiveness measures in the CAP, including assessment of lifecycle costs and preparation of a climate vulnerability assessment to safeguard human health and safety and community assets. Preparation of the CAP implementing these strategies is underway and will be presented to the City Council, tentatively, on December 16th, 2014. 6. Housing Element-recent changes in Housing Element law have been incorporated in addition to the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. This section is discussed in greater detail later in this report. Community Ideas and Best Practices 1. Community Benefit - The idea was first discussed by a community member and the Council was interested in exploring the possibility. The concept includes allowing additional specified heights in certain location if community benefits are provided as part of a project. The concept is discussed later in this report. 2. Walking and biking to schools, parks and shopping - This idea was discussed by several community members in public workshops and is consistent with SB 375, AB 32 and Complete Streets and best practices. 3. Design of mixed-use projects - A "mixed-use village" concept is recommended for mixed-use projects that include residential development. The concept was developed from Council, Planning Commission and public input and best practices regarding mixed-use projects. These include provision of viable retail, gathering places, pedestrian-oriented architecture and streetscape improvements, improving conriectivity and neighborhood buffers. A similar but limited discussion is provided for "neighborhood center" redevelopment. 4. Vallco Shopping District -Public input from workshops regarding the transformation of the Vallco Shopping District into an active community gathering place and regional destination have been included. A detailed discussion is provided later in this report. 5. Calculation of residential density - The City Council and a member of the public requested changing calculation from density of the gross lot area (which includes portions of adjacent streets) to density of the net lot area (which does not include adjacent streets, driveway and 6 drainage easements, etc.). This change has been made to the Zoning Ordinance. The density and residential yield of Housing Element sites reflects this change. Balanced Plan and Planning Commission Recommendations Development Allocation Community Vision 2040 is a 25-year plan for the City's future that considers community goals for activeatherin laces, health, sustainability, economic development and fiscal reliance, as well as g g P tY p regional requirements and mandates, while balancing residents' need for minimizing traffic, air quality, and other environmental impacts. As noted earlier, the Planning Commission had recommendations that were different from the Balanced Plan. Maps to reflect the development allocations, heights and densities in the Balanced Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation have been attached as Attachments N & O. The Commissions recommendations in each category are provided in the discussion below. ■ t ensure that companies and Economic and Fiscal — the City's goal for the next 25 years is o ens p businesses thrive and new businesses are attracted to the City and that property owners have incentives to maintain and enhance property. The City Council recognized this when they authorized the increase in development allocation as part of the General Plan process. Maintaining an adequate allocation for development will help revenues grow so that the City can continue to provide excellent community services. A Market Study was conducted to see the realistic economic demand for various uses through 2035 (Attachment P). It notes that existing commercial space in the City's General Plan Allocation pool is adequate to meet the high end of demand through 2035 and indicates market support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet for office space, 985 net hotel rooms and 4,420 residential units for the same period (close to Alternative C). o Office — Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down about 525,000 square feet through Apple and Main Street and other office development in the City, and currently only has a balance of 17,113 square feet remaining in city-wide office allocation. To account for redevelopment at the Vallco Shopping District and new office development for the next 25 years, an increase of 2,000,000 square feet is proposed (consistent with Alternative B). In the Balanced Plan, office allocation is balanced with other land uses to reduce environmental impacts while recognizing the City's economic and fiscal goals. Request from a potential applicant and consultant response—On October 13, 2014, the City received a letter from a potential developer of the Vallco Shopping District generally stating that the costs of assembling the site, providing a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail in a high quality mixed-use "Town Center" envisioned for the area, community benefits and off-site infrastructure costs, would require at least 2,000,000 square feet, or 1,000,000 square feet more than was recommended in the Balanced Plan (see Attachment CC). The City's retail consultant reviewed the request and noted that given the high cost of site assembly and construction, an office allocation of up to 2,000,000 could potentially be necessary to make the project economically viable. However, it could not be verified without a proforma review. 7 Planning Commission Recommendation — The Planning Commission felt that the regional growth in jobs and lack of housing had exacerbated traffic conditions. In addition, by approving the Apple Campus 2, the City had added to this growth. Therefore, the City should only add 500,000 square feet of additional office growth above the 2005 General Plan for the next 25 year horizon. They also recommended moving the office allocation in the "Major Company" category (about 523,000 square feet)into the city-wide allocation pool. o Hotel — Since the 2005 General Plan was adopted, the City has drawn down 303 hotel rooms from the allocation leaving 339 rooms at time of project initiation.Hotels bring in considerable revenue, which will help realize community goals of economic and fiscal stability. Consistent with the Market Study, the recommendation is to add 1,000 more hotel rooms to the allocation. This is also consistent with Alternative C. Planning Commission Recommendation — The Planning Commission felt that hotel rooms generated revenue, and were beneficial to nearby businesses and necessary to serve existing and planned office in the City. The Commission, therefore, recommended adding 1,000 hotel rooms consistent with the Balanced Plan and Alternative C. o Residential — The State-mandated RHNA requirement is 1,064 units with about 1,400 recommended by the Housing consultant after consulting with the HCD. Subtracting 1,400 units from the remaining allocation of 1,895 units leaves 495 units through 2040, which will not be enough to meet RHNA targets for the two additional housing element cycles through 2040 per Plan Bay Area. Alternative A, which is consistent with the 2005 General Plan, and Alternative B, which only meets 75% of the Plan Bay Area targets, do not achieve the regional target. However Alternative C meets 100% of the targets set by Plan Bay Area. To ensure that the City is consistent with these regional targets, the recommendation is to increase the residential development allocation by 2,526 units (to 4,461 units which includes the 1,400 required for 2014-2022 cycle). The residential development allocation is a City legislative policy aimed at promoting the public welfare which tracks growth by monitoring permits. It cannot restrict growth in such a way as to conflict with State housing element requirements or regional needs. However, the Balanced Plan recommends strategies for managing the amount and form of housing growth as follows: ■ Selecting Housing Element sites for up to 1,400 units to meet the demand for the 2014-2022 RHNA period. ■ Revising the General Plan so that on sites with a mixed-use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on Non-Housing Element mixed-use sites. Related changes will have to be made to the Municipal Code, Specific Plans and Conceptual Plans. ■ Form - The General Plan includes a "mixed-use village" strategy so that mixed-use residential sites provide substantial and viable retail, and also create a livable enviroiunent for residents, shoppers and workers on and around the site. 8 Planning Commission Recommendation — The Commission discussed the relevance of residential allocations, when densities were already noted in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. There was additional discussion about whether the number could be perceived as a growth control measure and whether a number, if any, should be generally consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan). Ultimately, the Commission decided that the residential allocation number should be removed and that the Housing Element, lot densities and policies were sufficient to guide residential development in the City. Comments - While the City is not required by State Law to have a residential allocation in the General Plan, the City's environmental consultants recommend retaining the allocation system for environmental review purposes. Removing the allocation would require additional CEQA analysis on the maximum capacity of residential development in the City, which would require additional time and budget. An allocation of 4,421 units is recommended to be consistent with Plan Bay Area estimates for the 25-year horizon through 2040 and to prevent an impression of growth restriction. Table 1 below is a,comparison of the Planning Commission recommendation, the Balanced Plan and alternatives studied in the EIR. The numbers in the General Plan differ from the numbers reflected in Table 1 because there have been minor changes to the allocation balances since project initiation. These changes include allocation granted to projects approved and allocation returned to the pool due to projects expiring. Table 1-Development Allocation Per Alternative (through 2040) Built/ No Project/ Balanced Use Approved 2005 General Alt.A PC Recc. Alt. B Plan Alt. C PP Plan Office (sf) 8,929,775 540,231 1,040,231 1,040,231 2,540,231 2,540,231 4,040,231 Net Increase 0 500,0001 500,0002 2,000,0001 2,000,0001 3,500,0001 Commercial(sf) 3,729,569 701,413 . 701,413 701,4133 701,413 3 701,4133 701,4133 Net increase 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hotel(rooms) 1,090 339 600 1,339 839 1,339 1,339 Net Increase 0 261 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 Residential(units) 21,339 1,895 1,895 Eliminate 3,3164 4,4214 4,4214 Net Increase 0 0 N/A 1,421 2,526 2,526 Notes: 1. Office—includes Major Company allocation of 523,118 sf. 2. Office sf. in Planning Commission recommendation does not retain a Major Company allocation pool. 3. Commercial-assumes that the existing Vallco Mall square footage(1,267,601 sfl will be demolished and 600,000 sf min. will be built at site, with the remaining (625,335 sf)moved to the City-wide pool. The EIR conservatively analyzed 1,343,679 sf of commercial square footage due to the demolition and reconstruction of the Vallco Mall square footage. 4. Residential-includes the 1,400 units recommended for the 2014-2022 Housing Element. 9 Key Question 1:Development Allocation 1. What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office,commercial,hotel and residential units through 2040? Community Benefits Program As the City's resident and worker population increases, additional amenities will be necessary to maintain and the livability of the community. The Community Benefit Program is one of the key tools to help finance and achieve those amenities that maintain and increase the community's quality of life. The Program enables the community to get amenities in return for allowing additional specified heights within specified areas in the City. It also provides certainty as to what those additional heights might be and where they can be placed. It requires a Development Agreement, which means that the applicant may propose benefits and amenities to which the City may agree with. Key elements of the program include: 1. The proposed level of benefit.is equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed to the increase in height(decided through preparation of a project proforma). 2. Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following benefits: a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements (bike, pedestrian facilities, participation in a community shuttle program, etc.) b. Public Facilities (land or space). c. Senior Housing- 15%of housing that is not already targeted towards seniors. d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities (new or expansion to museum, teen center, etc.) e. Parks and Open Space (land/improvements within project or off-site) In lieu of the benefits outlined in Item 2, a"Cash-in-Lieu Contribution' may be made to the City for purchase of land, capital improvements or operations related to items a, b, d, e, and towards the construction of affordable housing. Planning Commission Recommendation — The Commission was split on the issue of community benefits. Some felt that the typical negotiation process used in most communities could potentially result in difficult situations at the project level, while others felt that the process could be improved if there was public involvement in the process. Some felt that community benefits could provide public amenities that would not otherwise have been obtained through a regular permit process. One commissioner felt that the developer should not have the option of paying the "in-lieu" cash payment and should be obligated to provide community benefits. Ultimately, the Commission decided not to recommend the Community Benefits Program and recommended eliminating all policies and strategies associated with Community Benefits from Community Vision 2040. Key Question 2: Community Benefits 1. Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program? 10 2. If yes, does the should there be any revisions to: a. Value of the community benefits? b. Specific program items—retail requirement or other items? Heights Community Vision 2040 envisions keeping heights and development standards in most of the City consistent with those in the 2005 General Plan. However, recognizing that the City needs to achieve regional housing goals, economic reliance and fiscal goals, while ensuring that adequate sites are reserved for future housing element cycles, the Balanced Plan recommends targeted growth in certain gateways and nodes. Additionally, in order to achieve sustainability and connectivity principles,the plan recommends focusing growth in major transportation corridors. A visual preference survey was conducted at Community-wide Workshop #2, which was attended by 59 participants. The purpose of the visual preference survey was to collect information from the community on urban design concepts related to streetscapes, mobility enhancements, parks and plazas, buildings (including heights), and land uses (including residential densities). The visual preference survey was also provided in an online format and received,78 individual responses (137 participants total). The results of the visual preference survey indicated a wide range of opinions ranging from no/controlled growth to some tolerance for growth along the major corridors targeted in the study. The majority of workshop and online participants (65 percent or more) preferred either mid-rise office or mixed use buildings (2-6 stories) or low rise commercial buildings (1-2 stories), and a mid-rise commercial district on the Vallco site (2-6 stories). Through the outreach process, community feedback indicated that a certain level of comfort existed with taller heights in certain areas in the City. Heights in the Balanced Plan are generally lower than those studied in Alternative B. Additionally, consistent with the practice in the 2005 General Plan for the Vallco area, heights above the base height in key gateways and nodes require retail on the ground floor. Additional heights above that are specified in three nodes — N. De Anza Gateway (Cupertino Inn), N. Vallco Gateway West (Kimco and hotel area near Hwy 280), and the Vallco area (Vallco Shopping District to the east of Wolfe Road and South Vallco -north of Vallco Parkway) with the provision of community benefits. In addition, the recommendation is to keep the Building Planes along all arterials at 1:1. Currently, the only area not consistent with this is in the South and North Vallco areas along Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The recommendation will keep a consistent building streetscape along the street. No changes are recommended to the 35-foot setback in the Heart of the City Special Area. Table 2 below provides a comparison of heights in Special Areas only where they are recommended to be changed. 11 Table 2-Heights&Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative Planning Area I Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C Heart of the City Special Area Oaks Gateway -45 ft. No change No change Same as -45 ft.;or 60 ft. -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -25 du/ac Alternative B with retail with retail -30 ft.for -25 du/ac -25 du/ac Glenbrook -35 du/ac if HE -35 du/ac if HE site site Glenbrooks site -30 ft. No change -45 ft. No change No change No change -20 du/ac -See HE topic for density North Crossroads -45 ft. No change Same as -45 ft.;or 60 ft. -45 ft.;or 60 ft. -60 ft.;or 75 ft. Node -25 du/ac Balanced Plan with retail with retail with retail -25 du/ac -35 du/ac -40 du/ac -35 du/ac if HE site City Center -45 ft. No change No change Same as -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -75 ft.;or 90 ft. -25 du/ac Alternative B with retail;or 90 with retail;or ft.with 110 ft.with community community benefits on benefits on specific sites specific sites -25 du/ac -25 du/ac South Vallco Park -45 ft.;or 60 No change No change No change -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -75 ft.or 90 ft. ft.with retail with retail;or with retail;or -35 du/ac 110 ft.with 160 ft.with community community benefits benefits -35 du/ac -35 du/ac Vallco Shopping District Special Area East of Wolfe Road -45 ft.;or 60 No change -60 ft.;or 75 -60 ft.;or 75 ft.with -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -75 ft.;or 90 ft. ft.with retail ft.with retail retail;or 90 ft. with retail;or with retail;or -35 du/ac -35 du/ac with community 110 ft.with 160 ft.with benefits community community -35 du/ac benefits benefits -35 du/ac -35 du/ac West of Wolfe Road -45 ft.;or 60 No change No change - 45 ft.;or 60 ft. -45 ft.;or 60 ft. -60 ft.;or 75 ft. ft.with retail with retail;or 75 ft. with retail;or 75 with retail;or -35 du/ac with community ft.with 85 ft.with benefits for a 200 ft. community community depth along the benefits along benefits along Wolfe Rd prop. Stevens Creek Stevens Creek line and set back and Wolfe and Wolfe 200 ft.from -35 du/ac -35 du/ac Stevens Creek Blvd prop. line -35 du/ac 12 Table 2-Heights&Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C N.De Anza Blvd -45 ft. 'No change Same as Same as -60 ft. -75 ft. Special Area -25 du/ac Alternative B Alternative B -25 du/ac -25 du/ac Homestead Special Area North De Anza -45 ft. No change -45 ft.;or 60 -45 ft.;or 60 ft.with -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -60 ft.;or 75 ft. Gateway -35 du/ac ft.with retail;or 90 ft.for with retail;or 95 with retail;or (Cupertino Inn) retail;or 90 hotel and major ft.with 145 ft.with ft.for a convention center community community hotel and with community benefits benefits 500-person benefits -35 du/ac -35 du/ac convention -35 du/ac center. -35 du/ac Stelling Gateway -45 ft. No change No change Same as -45 ft.;or 60 ft. -45 ft.;or 60 ft. (east of Stelling) -35 du/ac Alternative$ with retail with retail -35 du/ac -35 du/ac North Vallco Park Special Area N. Vallco Gateway -60 ft. No change No change -60 ft.;or 90 ft.for a -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -60 ft.;or 75 ft. (west of Wolfe Rd.) -25 du/ac 200 ft.depth along with retail;or 95 with retail;or Wolfe Rd prop ft.with 145 ft.with line for hotel& community community major convention benefits benefits center with -25 du/ac -25 du/ac community benefits -25 du/ac N. Vallco Gateway -60 ft. No change Same as -75 ft.;60 ft.for -60 ft.;or 75 ft. -60 ft.;or 75 ft. (east of Wolfe Rd.- -25 du/ac Balanced buildings within with retail;or 95 with retail;or Hamptons site) Plan 50 ft.of prop. ft.with 145 ft.with -99 du/ac if lines abutting community community HE site Wolfe Rd, benefits benefits Pruneridge Ave -65 du/ac -110 du/ac &Apple Campus 2 site. -25 du/ac -65 du/ac if HE site South De Anza Two parts:S. Merge into Same as Same as Same as Same as Boulevard De Anza Blvd one area for Balanced Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A Special Area -30 ft. South De Plan -25 du/ac Anza (see HE for S.Sunnyvale- Boulevard density for Saratoga -30 ft. HE site) -30 ft. -25 du/ac -15 du/ac. 13 Table 2-Heights&Densities In Special Areas Per Alternative Planning Area Existing GP Alt A PC Rec. Balanced Plan Alt B Alt C Summerwinds HE -30 ft, -30 ft. -45 ft. No change Same as Same as Site -5-15 du/ac -25 du/ac (see HE for Alternative A Alternative A density) Building planes 1:1 along all No change Same as Same as 1:1 along all Same as along arterials arterials Balanced Alternative B arterials Alternative B 1:1.5(S.Vallco Plan (No change to along Stevens Heart of the City Creek Blvd& landscape N.Vallco easement setback along of 35 ft.) Homestead Rd.) Planning Commission Recommendation — The Planning Commission recommended changes in the North Crossroads Node, North De Anza Special Area, Vallco Shopping District (E. of Wolfe Road), North De Anza Gateway (Cupertino Inn), and at the Hamptons, Glenbrooks Apartments and Summerwinds/Granite Rock sites. Details are provided in the table above. Densities are discussed in the Housing Element sites discussion. Key Question 5:Building Heights 1. What should building heights be in the Special Areas? Vallco Shopping District The Vallco Shopping Center has always been envisioned as a regional shopping destination and a key revenue generator for Cupertino. The mall, which was originally constructed between 1974 and 1979 functioned as a regional shopping destination and a source of revenue for the City. As discussed in the Retail Strategy Report (Attachment Q), the emptying of the mall continued from the 1990's into the mid 2000's. Due to reasons including the fractured property ownership, operating restrictions easement agreements, and the competitive nature of regional mall operation, leasing, and management, Vallco Mall was unable to compete with the, larger and more sophisticated operators of Stanford and Valley Fair. Incomplete development, defaults from prior ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes, and other setbacks have exacerbated the situation. To solicit community input and ideas about the future of the Vallco Shopping Mall site, the City developed an interactive mapping exercise that allowed participants to create future designs for the area. A total of 24 groups developed a plan for the future of the Vallco Shopping District during four workshops and meetings (Community-wide Workshop #2, a Neighborhood meeting, a Chamber of Commerce meeting, and a Neighborhood Block Leaders meeting). In addition, an online survey included the Vallco mapping exercise, which was completed by 78 14 people.Throughout the outreach process, there was a consistent message from the community - to make Vallco a shopping, entertainment and dining destination and gathering place. Ideas for the area ranged from a re-tenanting and fagade improvement program to re-imagining the site as a mixed-use pedestrian-oriented "town center-style"project. The "re-tenanting with minimal change" option was preferred by neighborhood groups near the shopping center due to concerns related to height and traffic impacts. However, a majority of groups (15 of the 24) at the workshops felt that it would be acceptable to add a mix of uses, including' residential,hotel and office in the shopping district. In addition, a majority of the individual responses (50% or higher) from the online survey indicated a desire to add a mixed of residential, hotel and office uses in the shopping district so long as they were away from existing residential neighborhoods (e.g., on areas of.the Vallco site closer to Interstate 280). Overall,the majority of participants (workshops and online) wanted parks, plazas, art exhibits in attractive outdoor areas, and pedestrian,bicycle, transit, traffic and safety improvements to the area given the potential increase in traffic to the area. The Retail Strategy outlined options for the Vallco Shopping Center including re-imagining the site as a "downtown" or 'town center" with a mix of retail,hotel, office and residential uses. The other option included reducing and relocating the retail portion to the west side and opening the east side up to redevelopment with office,hotel and residential uses. The City has two basic options for the Vallco Shopping Disttict with a variety of options in between. 1. Keep Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning — The 2005 General Plan encourages redevelopment as a mixed-use site with residential and retail uses. However, the zoning,which is a combination of General Commercial (CG) and Planned Regional Shopping does not currently allow residential or office uses. As discussed in the Retail Strategy Report, retail rents alone will not attract the kind of investment needed to adapt the center to the changing needs of today's retail environment. Therefore, without the introduction of other more profitable uses, such as office or residential, the center will most likely continue to deteriorate. The City's goals of economic and fiscal stability and providing a cohesive and vibrant, shopping, dining and entertainment destination are not likely to be met. 2. Revising the General Plan Land Use to add office use and Zoning to add office and residential use-the inclusion of office and residential uses along with a substantial retail/entertainment component would help to create a vibrant, high-quality, community gathering place, and entertainment and lifestyle shopping destination. However, partial redevelopment has not been successful in the past. Therefore, a ,successful development strategy for the site will have to include: complete redevelopment of the site, a Master Developer, and adoption of a Specific Plan with phasing and infrastructure improvements, and a "Town Center" format. Based on the Retail Strategy Report, a successful mix of uses-would include 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail with a mix of residential,hotel and up to 2,000,000 square feet of office use. The Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040)recommends a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail (30% of which can be entertainment use), 600 units, 375 hotel rooms and about 1,000,000 square feet of office space for the Vallco Shopping District (as noted earlier, the Retail consultant 15 acknowledges that up to 2,000,000 square feet of office could be necessary to acquire and develop the site). Consistent with community feedback in the workshops, it recommends retaining current height limits on the portion of the site west of Wolfe Road, mid-range building heights closer to the freeway and away from neighborhoods, retention of trees along the perimeter, and neighborhood buffers in the form of setbacks and landscaping. Additionally, in order to address neighborhood concerns, the proposed Community Vision 2040 requires a Specific Plan for the area which will allow a robust community participation process prior to approval of a development project. This would allow the City to achieve community goals for a shopping and dining destination, economic and fiscal goals, and a portion of the City's Housing Element requirement, while addressing neighborhood concerns related to development. Planning Commission recommendation — The Planning Commission agreed that Vallco Shopping District could be developed as a regional shopping destination with a mix of retail, entertainment, residential, office and hotel uses. However, they felt that a Specific Plan process with public input should be required before the final development allocations and uses on the site were approved. They liked the "Town Center" concept. They recommended the following changes to the policies in the proposed General Plan related to the Vallco Shopping District: ■ Remove minimum and maximum allocations;and ■ Include a mix of major retail with entertainment, residential, office, and a five-star hotel with a major convention center. Key Question 4: Vallco Shopping District Should the Vallco Shopping District continue to be envisioned as "town-center" with a mix of retail/entertainment,residential and office use in the General Plan? Other Revisions to the Land Use Designations The following changes are being recommended related to Land Use designations ■ PG&E site (Homestead Road east of Blaney Avenue) — The General Plan Land Use designation is recommended to be amended from Quasi-public/Institutional to Commercial/Quasi- Public/Institutional. While PG&E does not currently anticipate any changes to their current operations, they are not opposed to the change as long as it allows them to continue the use at the current site. The revised designation would allow PG&E to continue the use at the site, while allowing a future commercial opportunity,if PG&E chooses to sell it in the future. ■ Mirapath (Blaney Avenue) — As requested by the applicant and property owners, the General Plan Land Use designation on this site has been revised from Industrial to Commercial/Industrial. The amendment is being requested since the site is small and can't incorporate industrial uses successfully. The amendment will allow the site to be used for commercial office and continue to allow light manufacturing uses. ■ Other Minor changes: Revisions to sites to ensure that the General Plan Land Use designations and zoning are consistent. Planning Commission Recommendation—Planning Commission recommended approval of these changes. 16 Housing Element Context In accordance with State law, General Plans in California cities must contain a Housing Element. For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). Housing Element Content Requirements The Housing Element is the City's primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per State Housing Element law, the Housing Element must be periodically updated to: ■ Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations (Needs Assessment) ■ Analyze potential constraints to new housing production(Constraints Analysis) ■ Describe goals, policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing objectives (Housing Plan) ■ Outline the community's housing production objectives consistent with State and regional growth projections per the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels (Housing Resources) ■ Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements (Consistency with General Plan) ■ Evaluate accomplishments in implementing programs in the previously adopted 2007-2014 Housing Element, and evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of continuing these programs in the 2014-2022 Housing Element(Review of Previous Housing Element) A detailed discussion of these topics is provided in Attachment R — Housing Commission staff report dated August 28,2014 Housing Resources &Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) One of the primary requirements of State Housing Element law pertains to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Cupertino's RHNA allocation is 1,064 new housing units between 2014 and 2022. The City can take credit for a total of 62.units (30 units approved and 32 second units anticipated). As a result, the City has to identify sites for the construction of the balance or 1,002 units. HCD typically requires jurisdictions to provide a moderate surplus of units in case sites are not developed, or are developed at densities lower than those expected in the Housing Element. This is more so the case, when a good portion of a jurisdiction's sites are in mixed-use zones that could be developed without residential uses or on developed sites. In the past, three of the 2007-2014 Housing Element sites were developed with non-residential uses (portion of Apple Campus 2, Kiddie Academy, and Saich Way Station). Based on past discussions with HCD and experience with Housing Elements for other jurisdictions, and since the majority of 17 the City's sites are in mixed-use zones (approximately 68%), the City's consultant recommends an additional 25-40 percent above the City's remaining housing need or a total of 1,250-1,400 units. Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element The Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element (see Attachment C) draws strongly from the 2007-2014 Housing Element (see Attachment S). The input received after several community meetings (including stakeholder interviews in 2013, three community workshops/open houses, and four study sessions—outlined in more detail below under Public Noticing and Outreach), very closely reflects the input received during preparation of the previous Housing Element. As a result, the draft 2014-2022 Housing Plan reflects minimal changes from the 2007-2014 Housing Plan. A number of changes are recommended (most are for compliance with State and regional requirements).A detailed discussion of these is provided in the Housing Commission and Planning Commission staff reports(Attachments I and R). Items that may be of particular interest include: ■ Programs have been revised.to ensure that the 2014-2022 Housing Element complies with State law. Specifically, programs were added to reflect amendments to the zoning ordinance related to density bonuses, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing to comply with State law and to amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to revise the method in which residential density is calculated in mixed-use developments; ■ Housing Mitigation Program: The City's affordable housing program—the Housing Mitigation Program—has been amended to comply with recent litigation. A 2009 court-case (Palmer vs. the City of Los Angeles)has resulted in cities suspending or amending the portion of their Housing Mitigation program requiring affordable units to be included in market-rate rental developments. ■ Housing Preservation Program: The existing Rental Preservation Program has been amended to provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants in developments with four or more units. Housing Sites The Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have conducted multiple study sessions and community workshops to review potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. On April 1, 2014, the City Council authorized staff to prepare environmental review for three alternatives (A, B and C) for a maximum of nineteen (19) sites based on the criteria outlined below. On August 28, 2014, the Housing Commission recommended adoption of the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element and the Low-High priority listing for the sites. HCD Criteria for Site Selection HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis' is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must demonstrate that identified sites can accommodate the housing needs—by income level—within the current planning period of the element (2014-2022). The criteria are listed below and discussed in detail in Attachment R — Housing Commission staff report dated August 28,2014. Criteria include: 18 ■ Existing Use on the Site ■ Realistic Potential for Recycling ■ Site Size and Ownership Patterns ■ Development Density (to meet the minimum affordability criteria of 20 units/ac at 85% of maximum density) Other Criteria for Site Selection In addition to the State-wide criteria, Plan Bay Area — the regions Sustainable Communities Strategy (discussed earlier) contributes additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the Plan. In addition, criteria, consistent with the City's 2005 General Plan, have also been identified in order to ensure functional and attractive development occurs on the sites selected. Key themes include: ■ Locate development along major transportation routes with access to transit or within 1/z mile of a VTA Priority Development Area(PDA). ■ Locate higher density housing in closer proximity to employment and activity centers ■ Corner lot(s) with large frontage preferred — such parcels provide the most flexibility to accommodate mixed-use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity between mid-block parcels ■ Incentive for redevelopment —Sites with older, under-performing retail shopping centers have also been evaluated as to whether housing or office would be necessary to provide an incentive to improve higher-quality retail. Housing Element Sites While all 19 sites have been studied for potential impacts in the EIR, 18 sites were available for selection for the Planning Commission. This is because the largest property owner, Valley Church, associated with Site 17 (IntraHealth/ Office/Tennis Courts) sent the City a letter expressing their desire to not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory shortly after the City authorized study of the 19 sites. The remaining sites were prioritized by how well they meet the criteria outlined above. After the Planning Commission meetings in October 2014, the City received letters, from the property owner for two parcels, which comprise the bulk, of Site 19 (Cypress Building/Hall property), the property trustee for China Dance, which constitutes a small portion of EIR Site 1 (Shan Restaurant, Q-Mart and China Dance) and the property owner of Arya Restaurant, representing approximately 40% of EIR Site 2, requesting removal of their parcels from consideration for the Housing Element. Staff recommends removal of Site 19 from the Housing Element Priority List due to the reduced size of the resulting parcels;recommends reducing the size of Site 1 by eliminating the China Dance parcel since the size of the resulting site is not greatly reduced. EIR Site 2 was already recommended for Removal in the Balanced Plan (see Priority No. 15 below) and is also not part of the Planning Commission's recommendation(see Table 4.) 19 Table 3 below shows the Recommended (High priority) and alternate Housing Element (Moderate and Low-Moderate priority) sites listed in the Balance Plan. Sites that score low in meeting the criteria are recommended to be removed from the Alternate Housing Sites list. A detailed table of all sites is provided in Attachment T. It should be noted that the density of the sites in Alternative A, even if all of them were included, does not meet the upper end of the 25-40% surplus (1,250- 1,400 units) recommended to meet the remaining RHNA. The densities recommended in the Balanced Plan are based on the following goals: ■ Provide densities for existing sites that allow enough of an incentive to assume that the sites would be developed in the 2014-2022 period (HCD criterion). ■ Meet affordability HCD criterion(minimum 20 du/ac at 85% of maximum density;-25 du/ac). ■ Ensure that there are enough sites for future housing elements. TABLE 3 Priority Site Name Priority Density&Capacity at 85%&100%&Proposed Zoning No. Existing Zoning (meets Alternative A T Balanced Plan Alternative BAlternative C criteria) Recommended Housing Element Sites 25 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac The Oaks 235 du @ 85% 235 du @ 85% 235 du @ 85% 1' P(CG) High 0 du 276 du @ 100% 276 du @ 100% 276 du @ 100% No change Same as Alt B P(CG,Res) Same as Alt B Vallco Shopping 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac District(west) 600 du High 0 du 600 du 800 du 2. P(CG), Hi h P(Regional 1,179 du @ 100% 1,179 du @ 100% 1,179 du @ 100% P(Regional ° P(Regional Shopping) Shopping) Same as Alt B Shopping,MP,Res) Same as Alt B Hamptons 25 du/ac 65 du/ac 65 du/ac 110 du/ac 3. 342 du existing High h 0 du 344 du add @ 85% 344 du add @ 85% 820 du add @ 85% P(Res—70) Same as Alt B 404 du add @ 100% 404 du add @ 100% 1,026 add @ 100% Same as Alt B P(Res) Same as Alt B United Furniture 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 103 du @ 85% 103 du @ 85% 103 du @ 85% 103 du @ 85% 4. +other High 121 du @ 100% 121 du @ 100% 121 du @ 100% 121 du @ 100% P(CG,Res) No chane No change No change No change 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac Barry Swenson 11 du @ 85% 11 du @ 85% 11 du @ 85% 11 du @ 85% 5' P(CG,Res) High 13 du @ 100% 13 du @ 100% 13 du @ 100% 13 du @ 100% No chane No chane No chane No change Glenbrooks Apts 20 du/ac** 20 du/ac** 20 du/ac** 20 du/ac** 6. 517 du existing High 93 du add @ 85% 93 du add @ 85% 93 du add @ 85% 93 du add @ 85% 109 du add @ 100% 109 du add @ 100% 109 du add @ 100% 109 du add @ 100% R3(10-20) No change No change No change No change Recommended Sites Total at 85% 207 du 1,386 du 1,386 du 2,062 du' 20 o o Priority Site Name Priority Density&Capacity at 85%&100%&Proposed Zoning No. Existing Zoning (meets Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C criteria) Alternate Housing Element Sites 25 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 40 du/ac Marina Plaza 145 du @ 85% 204 du @ 85% 204 du @ 85% 232 du @ 85% �' P(CG,Res) Mod. 171 du @ 85% 240 du @ 100% 240 du @ 100% 274 du @ 100% No chane No change No change No change Stevens Creek 25 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 40 du/ac 8. Office Mod. 134 du @ 85% 187 du @ 85% 187 du @ 85% 214 du @ 85% P(CG,Res) 157 du @ 100% 220 du @ 100% 220 du @ 100% 252 du @ 100% No chane Same as Alt B P(CG,OP,Res) Same as Alt B 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac Cy ress @ Finch 105 du @ 85% 105 du @ 85% _105 du @ 85% _105 du @ 85% _ Ave. 124 du @ 100% 124 du @ 100% 124 du @ 100% 124 du @ 100% P(CG,Res) No chane No change No chane No change 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac Loree Center Low- 27 du @ 85% 27 du @ 85% 27 du @ 85% 27 du @ 85% 10. P(CG,Res) Mod. 32 du @ 100% 32 du @ 100% 32 du @ 100% 32 du @ 100% No chane No change No chane No change Homestead 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 35 du/ac Lanes+Adj. Low- 35 du/ac 151 du @ 85% 151 du @ 85% 151 du @ 85% 11. P(CG)/P(Rec, Mod. 0 178 du @ 100% 178 du @ 100% 178 du @ 100% Ent) No change Same as Alt B P(CG,Res) Same as Alt B Summerwinds/ 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 40 du/ac Granite Rock/ Low- 96 du @ 85% 96 du @ 85% 96 du @ 85% 154 du @ 85% 12. Jack in the Box Mod. 114 du @ 100% 114 du @ 100% 114 du @ 100% 182 du @ 100% P(CG,Res 5-15) P(CG,Res) Same as Alt A Same as Alt A Same as Alt A Shan and Q 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 13. Mart** Low- 33 du @ 85% 33 du @ 85% 33 du @ 85% 33 du @ 85% Mod. 39 du @ 100% 39 du @ 100% 39 du @ 100% 39 du @ 100% P(CG,Res) No change No change No change No change Alternate Sites Total at 85% 435 du 698 du 698 du 811 du Sites Recommended for Removal Villages 20 du/ac*** 20 du/ac*** 20 du/ac*** 20 du/ac*** 14. 468 du existing Low 62 du @ 85% 62 du @ 85% 62 du @ 85% 62 du @ 85% R3 74 du@100% 74 du@100% 74 du@100% 74 du@100% No change No change No chane No change Arya/ 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac -Scana, — Low _ ® — 58 du_@ 85% — — — 58 du @ 85%— _58_du_@ 85% — — _58_du_@ 85% — 68 du @ 100% 68 du @ 100% 68 du @ 100% 68 du @ 100% P(CG,Res) No change No change No chane No change Foothill Market 15 du/ac*** 25 du/ac 15 du/ac* 25 du/ac 16. @ McClellan Low 0 27 du @ 85% 0 du 27 du @ 85% P(CG) No change 32 du @ 100% No change 32 du @ 100% Same as Alt C P(CG,Res) 21 Priority Site Name Priority Density&Capacity at 85%&100%&Proposed Zoning No. Existing Zoning (meets Alternative A Balanced Plan Alternative B Alternative C criteria) 15 du/ac* 25 du/ac 15 du/ac* 35 du/ac 17 Bateh Bros. Low 0 u/ 14 du @ 85% 0 u/ 19 du @ 85% P(CG) 16 du @ 100% 23 du @ 100% No change Same as Alt C No change P(CG,Res) 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 25 du/ac Carl Berg 169 du @ 85% 169 du @ 85% 169 du @ 85% 169 du @ 85% 18' P(CG,ML,Res) Low 199 du @ 100% 199 du @ 100% 199 du @ 100% 199 du @ 100% No change No change No change No change Removed Sites Total at 85% 231 du 272 du(Remove) 231 du 277 du 2,356 du Total Units on All Sites 873 du (2,084 du not incl. 2,315 du 3,150 du Low priority) Note: *Separate parcels on a Housing Element site shall be combined,master planned and developed under a Master Developer. **Data has been updated to eliminate China Dance Studio. This site was formerly ranked#10 ***Indicates that site will not meet affordability criteria at Realistic capacity(85%of max.) Totals for all sites exclude sites that have requested removal Planning Commission recommendation-see Table 4 below TABLE 4 Planning Commission Recommended Housing Element Sites&Alternates Priority Site Name Density&Capacity at 85%& Comments No. Existing Zoning Priority 100%&Proposed Zoning a Recommended Housing Element Sites 19 units/ac does not meet HCD's affordability criteria.The density may 150 du maximum not be adequate to revitalize the site The Oaks with a large retail component. 1. High recommended—results in P(CG) approximately 19 units/ac However, a density of 25 du/ac may allow provision of a retail component. 167 du @ 85% 197 du @ 100% Hamptons 748 du add.@ 85% 2. (342 units existing) High 889 du add.@ 100% P(Res)-70 99 du/ac-P(Res) Same as Balanced Plan United Furniture+other 25 du/ac 3' High P(CG,Res) 103 du @ 85% 121 du @ 100% Same as Balanced Plan Barry Swenson 25 du/ac 4' P(CG,Res) High 11 du @ 85% 13 du@100% 22 TABLE 4 Planning Commission Recommended Housing Element Sites&Alternates Priority Site Name Priority Density&Capacity at 85%& Comments o No. Existing Zoning 100%&Proposed Zoning a Building an additional 300 units will require tearing down existing units. The increase in density from 20 du/ac 28 du/ac(300 additional to 28 du/ac will likely not be sufficient Glenbrooks recommended) incentive to do so. 306 du @ 85% The current R3 zoning district allows 5. (517 units existing) High R3(10-20) 360 du @ 100% a maximum density of 20 units/acre Increase building heights for the site. A density of 28 units/acre from 30 feet to 45 feet will require a new zoning district, with increased density and height, and potentially reduced setbacks. See additional staff comment on EIR. 25 du/ac Summerwinds/Granite 96 du @ 85% 6. Rock/Jack in the Box Low- 114 du @ 100% P(CG,Res 5-15) Mod Increase building heights from 30 feet to 45 feet P(CG,Res) Recommended Sites Total @ 85% 1,408 du Alternate Housing Element Sites Villages Same as Balanced Plan 7. (468 units existing) Mod 20 du/ac R3 62 du add.@ 85% 72 du add.@ 100% Same as Balanced Plan Marina Plaza 35 du/ac 8' P(CG,Res) Mod 204 du @ 85% 240 du @ 100% Same as Balanced Plan Carl Berg Low- 25 du/ac 9. P(CG,Res) Mod. 169 du @ 85% 199 du @ 100% Alternate Sites Total @ 85% 435 du Notes: a. Projects up to 100% of the maximum density may be proposed. Any units above 85% of the maximum density would have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Staff Comments — The Planning Commission recommended 300 units be assigned to the Glenbrook Apartments site and 150 units to the Oaks site. However, upon consultation with the EIR consultant, it has been determined that a maximum of 50 units over and above the maximum units studied in the EIR can be added to the Oaks and Glenbrooks area without triggering additional traffic analysis and environmental review. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation of providing 150 units to the Oaks site, the most that could be added to the Glenbrooks area could be an additional 228 units (max studied in. the EIR +50 = 23 378-150 for Oaks). In addition, the site would need a General Plan designation and zoning change to ensure that the units proposed for the site can be accommodated. The current General Plan designation of Medium Residential (10-20 du/ac) would have to be changed to Medium/High (20-35 du/ac) and a new R3-type zoning district would have to be created to accommodate a higher density and taller heights. This would require additional time and analysis. Therefore, the findings for the Planning Commission recommendation can only support a maximum of 228 units without additional environmental review. This number falls short of the desired Housing Elements sites count by 72 units. The final list of recommended Housing Element sites will be incorporated in the Draft Housing Element prior to forwarding to the HCD. In addition, the alternative Housing Element sites list will be maintained, in case, one or more of the sites are not approved by HCD after discussions with them. If sites have to be replaced in the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element with sites from the Alternate Housing Element Sites list, any necessary amendments to the General Plan Land Use designations and zoning will be presented with the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element in Spring 2015. General Plan and Zoning Approach for Housing Element sites General Plan Land Use Designation—The General Plan Land Use Map will identify the base land use standards recommended in the Balanced Plan. Housing Element sites will have an overlay with the higher densities and height standards on the General Plan Land Use map. The development standards will be effective per the zoning schedule described below. Recommended Housing Element sites that require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation include: the Hamptons, and the Oaks (increased densities). Housing Element sites recommended by the Planning Commission that would require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation include: Glenbrooks, Summerwinds etc. and Hamptons (increased densities and heights, as previously discussed). Zoning Map Amendment—The Zoning Map amendments are scheduled to go into effect on the date the Final Housing Element gets adopted. If changes are needed to the Housing Element sites list based on HCD review, the revisions to the Zoning Map will be presented concurrent with the adoption of the Final 2014-2022 Housing Element in Spring 2015. Recommended Housing Element sites in the Balanced Plan that would require a zoning change to add residential use include: the Oaks, and Vallco Shopping District. The Hamptons will require a rezoning from P(Res)-70 (unclear how this differs from Planned Residential) to P(Res) or Planned Residential. Housing Element sites recommended by the Planning Commission that would require zoning changes include: the Oaks to add residential use, and Glenbrooks, Summerwinds and Hamptons (increased densities). Key Question 5:Housing Element Sites 1. Approve a list of Housing Element sites and densities to meet the RHNA and HCD requirements. 2. Approve a prioritized Alternative Sites List. 24 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS A summary of General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations and Municipal Code text amendments is provided in Attachment U. The attached resolutions (Attachments B — E) provide additional details on the changes to General Plan Land Use, Zoning designation, the Municipal text and Specific Plan Amendments. Attachment V is a redlined version of the zoning text amendments and contains minor edits in Chapter 19.12, Administration, to conform to the California Government Code, which were not reflected in the Planning Commission resolution. Attachment W is a redlined version of the Specific Plan Amendments to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments consider the physical changes that result as a consequence of projects over which they have discretionary authority. The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision-making process. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the significant environmental effects, along with other factors. The attached Planning Commission Study Session staff report (Attachment X) and City Council Study Session staff report (Attachment Y) provides a detailed discussion of the EIR.A brief discussion of the issues is provided below. Proposed Project Alternative C was identified as the CEQA "project" because it was the alternative with the greatest development potential and therefore, the possibility of the greatest environmental effects. CEQA requires that alternatives to the Proposed Project should avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant impacts of the project. A discussion of Alternative C has already been provided earlier in this report. EIR Alternatives CEQA requires the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.As noted earlier,the following alternatives were studied. ■ No Project Alternative - The CEQA-required No Project alternative assumes that the Draft General Plan would not be adopted or implemented and assumes the full implementation (by 2040) of development envisioned under the 2005 General Plan. ■ Alternative A—Discussion provided earlier in this report. ■ Alternative B—Discussion provided earlier in this report. Impacts The following environmental topics are addressed in the EIR. The EIR and the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports on the EIR study sessions discuss the impacts related to the CEQA Project (Alternative C) and the other alternatives in detail. Table 4 below outlines the impact in each environmental topic for the Proposed Project and alternatives. 25 TABLE 4 Topic Proposed Project No Alternative Alternative (Alternative C) Project A B Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS LTS Air Quality SU SU SU SUl Biological Resources LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Cultural Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS Geology,Soils&Mineral Resources LTS LTS LTS LTS GHG Emissions LTS LTS LTS LTS Hazards&Hazardous Materials LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Hydrology&Water Quality LTS LTS LTS LTS Land Use&Planning LTS LTS LTS LTS Noise SU SU SU SU Population&Housing LTS LTS LTS LTS Public Services &Recreation LTS LTS LTS LTS Transportation&Traffic SU SU SU SU Utilities&Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Notes:LTS-Less-than-significant impact;LTSIM-Less-than-significant with mitigation; SU- Significant and unavoidable. 1. In Alternative B, one impact(AQ-1) is LTS. As noted above, the level of impacts in the Proposed Project as well as all three alternatives analyzed show the same level of impacts within each resource category as a whole, but in varying degrees. This is partly due to the fact that the EIR studied impacts of the buildout of the Proposed Project and alternatives over a 25-year period as well as the cumulative regional build-out plans. The results indicate that the difference between the impacts of the various alternatives is not very significant,in the context of the cumulative impacts of regional plans over a 25-year period. In general, the EIR finds significant and unavoidable impacts to Noise, Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic related to the Proposed Project and alternatives.'In some cases, the significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation measures require approval from a governmental agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g. Caltrans), are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City, and need approval from the other agencies for implementation. In other cases, a significant impact is unavoidable because the significant impact would not be fully mitigated even though mitigation measures have been identified and would be implemented. Draft EIR and Final EIR The Draft EIR was released on June 18, 2014 and was circulated for 45 days until August 1, 2014. A meeting was held on June 24, 2014 to solicit written comments from the public related to the EIR. Responses to comments received during the 45-day public review period were included in the 26 Responses to comments (RTC) document published as part of the Final EIR on August 28,2014. The Final EIR comprises of the Draft EIR (Attachment Z), the Response to Comments (RTC) Document (Attachment AA), .and the Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated November 3, 2014 (Attachment BB). The Response to Comments must be made available to all agencies that commented during the public review period of the Draft EIR for at least 10 days before final action is taken per CEQA requirements. The City will meet this obligation since final action on the project will not take place until November 2014. Comments were also received after the close of the EIR public review period on August 1, 2014. While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the public review period, staff has been and will continue to provide responses to these comments. As of October 31, 2014, 34 late comment letters (and attachments) were received. Responses to these have been compiled in a late comment memo (Attachment BB.) The comment letters received during and after the close of the comment period did not concern new or substantially more severe significant impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission and City Council held EIR study sessions on September 9,2014 and October 7, 2014, respectively. The study sessions were a forum for questions related to the EIR and no decisions were made.The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the EIR at its meeting on October 2, 2014, determined that it was adequate, and recommended that the City Council certify_ the Final EIR(Attachment CC). Balanced Plan The Development Allocation recommendations in the Balanced Plan are generally between Alternatives B and C. However the recommended heights are similar to or lower than those studied in Alternative B. The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the Proposed Project or any of the other alternatives due to the fact that the (office/commercial to residential) balance is better than that in Alternative B, which had the lowest VMT of allof the alternatives studied in the EIR. However, it will continue to have significant avoidable impacts for traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. Planning Commission Recommendation — The Planning Commission recommended Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, per Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment A). Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA requires the lead agency to:make certain specified findings when it approves a project for which an EIR has been certified that identified one or more significant effects on the environment. Public Resources Code§21081. CEQA Findings that address approval of the Planning Commission Recommendation, as modified to address feasibility, are Attachment A. Alternate CEQA findings that address approval of the Balanced Plan Project are reflected in Attachment H. 27 As part of the CEQA findings, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable and the agency may determine that the significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the proposed project's benefits. CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. The Balanced Plan (Community Vision 2040) would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation, air quality and noise, even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. However, it would achieve community goals related to a balance of land uses, providing active and vibrant shopping and entertainment destinations, and economic and fiscal stability. In addition, the Plan would help ensure that regional targets for greenhouse gas emissions and housing are met, encourages sustainable planning and practices, and would concentrate growth in major transportation corridors and in employment centers and key Nodes and Gateways, while maintaining community goals of neighborhood preservation and connectivity. These significant unavoidable impacts and project benefits are discussed in the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment H). The Planning Commission recommendation would result in reduced VMT beyond that in Alternative A but slightly lower than the Balanced Plan. However, it would continue to have significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality, traffic and noise, generally between that in Alternative A and the Balanced Plan. It would also not help to achieve the City's economic and fiscal goals since allocations (housing and office) would not be sufficient allow redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District. These significant and unavoidable impacts and project benefits related to the Planning Commission recommendation are discussed in the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations(Attachment A). PUBLIC NOTICING AND WORKSHOPS Noticing for the General Plan and Housing Element project has been extensive, including the following: ■ Three postcards sent to every postal address in the City o One for General Plan Amendment o One combined for General Plan Amendment and Housing Element o One announcing availability of the Draft EIR ■ Newspaper notices ■ Notices sent to prospective housing element site property owners ■ Creation of a project website - notice of website updates and Workshop/meeting reminders e- mailed to about 300 website subscribers ■ E-mail list with close to 400 email addresses for interested parties maintained by City staff The following is a list of public meetings. ■ General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #1—July 18,2013 28 ■ General Plan Amendment Community Workshop #2-October 23, 2013 ■ General Plan Amendment Neighborhood Meeting-December 5,2013 ■ Chamber of Commerce and Block Leader meetings-January 29,2014 ■ Meetings with Study Area property owners/representatives ■, Meetings with interested Housing Element site property owners/representatives ■ Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee-December 6,2013&February 7,2014 ■ Commission Meetings,Open Houses,Meetings and Study Sessions o City Council Meeting for the initiation of the General Plan amendment project & contract- February 19,2012 and March 5,2012 o City Council Meeting for initiation of the Housing Element project, consultant selection and contract-November 4,2013 o Presentation at Teen Commission Meeting-October 2,2013 o Presentation at Bike and Ped. Commission Meeting-January 15,2014 o Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission Study Session and Community Workshop for Housing Element sites#1 -January 23, 2014 o Housing Commission Study Session and Community Workshop for Housing Element sites #2-February 12, 2014 o Open Houses#1 and#2-February 19,2014 and September 16,2014 o Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Sites for environmental review-February 19, 2014 o City Council Study Session on Housing Sites and land use alternatives for environmental review-March 3,2014 o Housing Commission meeting on housing policy-March 19,2014 o Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on housing and draft General Plan policy direction-April 1,2014 o Public meeting for EIR-June 24,2014 o Housing Commission Meeting-August 28,2014 o Planning Commission Study Session on the EIR-September 9,2014 o City Council Study Session on the EIR-October 7, 2014 o Planning Commission public hearings -October 14,2014 and October 20,2014 Public Comments Comments related to the Draft EIR have been discussed earlier in this report. In addition to comments received regarding the adequacy of the EIR, several comments were received on the project. The comments are briefly discussed in Attachment EE. NEXT STEPS Based on the City Council's decision on November 10, 2014, necessary changes will be made to the findings for certification of the EIR, adoption.of the General Plan (Community Vision 2040), and the zoning ordinances. In addition, conforming changes will also be made to the Draft Housing Element and alternative sites list prior consultation and review with HCD. A second reading for the zoning ordinances related to the General Plan and Housing Element is scheduled for November 18, 2014. The Community Vision 2040 General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment 29 will go into effect upon adoption,however,the zoning ordinance text and map amendments will go into effect 30 days after the November 18, 2014 second reading. The final General Plan document text, maps and graphics.will then be formatted and prepared for posting by staff and the consultants. The Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review, which is expected to take about 60 days. Staff will discuss outstanding items with HCD and discuss any necessary changes related to the Housing Element sites based on the prioritized and alternate sites list. Upon conclusion of HCD review, staff will present the Final 2014-20122 Housing Element for adoption to the Planning Commission and City Council. The density bonus law has recently been amended to provide, for applications received after January 1 2015 that before a site can be considered for a density bonus the project must include T Y tY p l the replacement of all affordable rental housing and housing occupied by lower income households at any time in the five-year period preceding the density bonus application. In addition, the amendments require 55-year, rather than 30-year, affordability for rental housing receiving a densitybonus and allow use of equity-sharing for lower income for-sale housing. These revisions g will be included in the Housing Element and zoning ordinance prior to adoption of the Final 2014- 2022 Housing Element. Any related General Plan amendments or zoning map or code amendments related to the revised Housing Element sites list will be brought at the same time. State law requires agencies to adopt their 2014-2022 Housing Elements by May 31, 2015. Prepared by Piu Ghosh,Senior Planner Reviewed bv: Gary Chao,Assistant Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by:Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Resolution 14-210,Recommending Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03) B. Draft Resolution 14-211 adopting General Plan and Land Use Map Amendments (GPA-2013- 01) C. Draft Resolution 14-212 to authorize staff to forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) and use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites (GPA-2013-02) D. Draft Ordinance 14-2124 to approve Zoning Map Amendments (Z-2013-03) E. Draft Ordinance 14-2125 to approve Municipal Code Amendments (MCA-2014-01) F. Draft Resolution 14-213 to approve Specific Plan Amendment(SPA-2014-01) 30 G. Planning Commission resolutions 6760-6765 (The exhibits attached to the Planning Commission resolutions have not beeri attached to Attachment G.These are available online at www.cUertino.org/records under Planning Commission Agenda Packet for October 14,2014.) H. Alternate CEQA Findings for Balanced Plan Recommendation I. Planning Commission staff report dated October 14,2014 J. General Plan Amendment and Housing Element staff reports for:January 23, 2014 Housing Commission,February 12,2014 Housing Commission,February 19,2014 Planning Commission,March 4,2014 City Council,April 1, 2014 Joint Planning Commission/City Council K. Concept Alternative Maps L. Planning Commission public hearing minutes October 14,2014 and October 20,2014 M. General Plan and Housing Element errata since Planning Commission recommendation on October 20, 2014 N. Balanced Plan Allocation,Heights and Density Map O. Planning Commission Recommended Allocation,Heights and Density Map P. Market Study dated February 13,2014 prepared by BAE Urban Economics Q. Retail Strategy Report dated March 6,2014 prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate LLC R. Housing Commission staff report dated August 28,2014 S. 2007-2014 Housing Element and Technical Appendix T. Site Priority List with criteria U. Summary Of Land Use Map, Zoning Map And Zoning Text Amendments V. Zoning text amendments-Redlined version W. Specific Plan amendments-Redlined version X. Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated September 9, 2014 Y. City Council Study Session Staff Report dated October 7, 2014 Z. Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 18,2014 AA.Response to Comments Document dated August 28, 2014 BB. Supplemental Text Revisions Memo dated November 3, 2014 CC. Updated Late Comments memo dated November 3,2014 DD. Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee EE. Public Comments Related to the General Plan and Housing Element 31 11/10/2014 ME 1 1111/10/20U E. t ------------ f x� .b x x - r In Aug'ust 2012 the Cit ` ,. . , Y.. � �� Council directed staff to begin the General Plan € Amendment in order to: — Replenish office and hotel � � allocation _ — Inform the Vallco Shopping . District Specific Plan Consolidate individual requests.` A` _. from property owners � — Address State law X requiremen 7 RIF- `Add-- :ss*,bthbr General Plan "clean up"items ; �� 4 2 11/10/2014 � , Cv�rvi rJVl/h �cs t ung mencd? r ,. � ■ In November 2013, the City r initiated a State-mandated _ f update to the Housing Element in order to: s — Assess and update the � � T. Housing. Plan — Identify sites that address the .... r City's Regional Housing Needs °fi pl Allocation — Make necessary changes to Municipal Code ; y Schedule ' 3 11/10/2014 , Pazcheclu �� a :...................a...:..........:.........Y,.......Nf: ... :....................- x , :: <: r :.. .. ._ -" _.Es :� ssE .r .? NW � n i ... �z11 or .,..,. ., ::.-,::.::.::. mss::,.:.::.::.::.:..::,.::.::::.::....,...::..::.::a...::.::.::.:.,..,....,... �x ?IktI WHIM! ...... :_,_�:—.,::,::,.:._.—:t=s=x=,::._.::,::,—..,:x::_.:.,:__.::._.:..::..�... ...:.--:r•:rz::,::,3a,::,::.::.=.a ::.= x-.::�a, . FR _00551 ..:............ :..:...:.:.:...............x:..n..:,.......: ME , Mx , :..: K. 2' RIS R.. ?., _..._..................................._...._........_...:...:........_........_..,..................................._......:..:......_ ; _ _ - pA arrcl Hou I flernent _ . ; r.ti, uS C1€aft: f?,+._E3€at.Haus�:r r! Id _ ....:..:....._::-.:......:...._.-...:_.-F...........:..._.:—....—..__................__..._.._.__-._..:-.....-_-_....__-....__..:......e.-_._.......:n::::::::..._.:c...:..`..._::..Ei:u::::. .: :-_.:=...nn:::::ua :::::.: —::a::::::::::.—:::::.-:x::,::_:r..::::::: .:. ..•.::: ::,::::-v::: e..::::a-::::n::::e:::a:a::.::_:::::::a: ..._.. ....- ::.�.....:__..._--:::a::::::::, nu[e25—I n n:: a an:.�:.. 1..:::�1:R:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::-:::.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::.:::::::a:.:::::,:::.::::::.:::a ::a::::::::: :: _::::::: ............... ................................ ..:.. a............,.-a.... .......................:..................................:...........:...................._....................:.................._....._._.:......: ...... :. ..................................................................:...-..................... ............ .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: U c I-[earin an-i. Ac�opt�on - 5urr,rr�er h�resu F� � n .f€nal::=- ` ...................u ..........._.......rrm ..............b....................._�......n.s... .....d........................._......................_..........-:.:::::::.. . ....::.::_::.:_.:.::::::::.. c..................................................................................................................... ...............................:......................................................... . .... ..... ..._........................._. P............................:.._.............. .............._...................._...._........_..................._............._. ..._...... ........_....................... ........................................_......_..............:....................................._...._..........................._...............................: .... . ..._ ....._.......................... ..................................................................... a1.1... t? .........__........................ :EA::: E ::ars:d:::HG7:::f�ra�t:.Haus:n..::alr ert -:::._.::.::::.::::::::::::::::_:::a:::::::::::a:a:::::::,::::::::::::::.:,::_,:::._:::::::: ._..........._........................._..........._..._..............:....._..._...._._...................... ...._..........._............................_......................................._.._...._................ ._.. ............................._...........................__....._..........._...._............................................. .....----._.._..........................._....._...._......_.........._..._._._._............_............._: _:::-:::::::, 1� urlrnc� theEI' Technical Analysis ■ Settings and Opportunities Report (Sept 2013) ■ Market Study (Oct 2013) ■ Retail Strategy (Feb 2014) Other Projects ■ Plan Bay Area (2013) ■ Climate Action Plan (pending) Community Input ■ Community-wide Workshops - ■ Meetings, study sessions, open houses and hearings ■ Online comment forms, emails and letters 4 11/10/2014 muw �6 4 a PS'ms'sN Community Input . f - 2 M , Overall there were 24 public workshops; meetings, study sessions, open houses and public hearings on the project, and additional property owner outreach • City Council Meetings(February 19,2012) Housing Element site property owner meetings • City Council Meeting(MarcH5,2012) (various) ■ Community Workshop#1"(July 18,2013) Housing Commission Study Session and • Teen Commission Meeting(October 2,2013) Workshop(February 12,2014) • Community Workshop#2(October 23,2013) Open House#1 (February 19,2014) • City Council Meeting(November 4,2013) Planning Commission Study Session on Housing • Neighborhood Meeting(December 5,2013) Sites(February 19,2014) • Chamber of Commerce LAC meeting City Council Study Session on Housing Sites. (December 6,2013) (March 3,.2014) • Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting Housing Commission Meeting(March 19,2014) (January 15,2014) Joint"Planning Commission/City Council study • Joint Housing Commission and Planning. session(April 1,2014) Commission Meeting/Workshop(January 23, Public Meeting for EIR(June 24,2014) 2014) Housing Commission Meeting(August 28,2014) • Chamber of Commerce Meeting(January 29, Planning Commission Study Session on the EIR 2014) (September 9,2014) • Block Leader Meeting(January 29,2014) •. Open House#2(September 16,2014) • Chamber of Commerce LAC meeting City Council Study Session on the EIR(October (February 7,2014) 7,2014) • Study Area Property Owner Meetings Planning Commission Hearings(October 12, (various) 2014 and October 20,2014) 5 11/10/2014 , a� Vneway- Zk., ?"On OFmow Notifications: Er ■ Three newsletters and flyers �v � r ■ Three post cards (mailed to every address in Cupertino) . ■ Email updates •.tvs,ro�r g�,,,, M r. y175 F ;r Website: — Regular news updates Interactive surveys Online comment form l I Over 260 registered users a F�{ onm>a� y lnpt Co>tnrnun� y w c�sho .�s � � � '�•✓' ter��''Y�F1'����.. �� � 1 .. � The workshop began with 3 we come from Mayor 0,11P Who neyand Co-nmunity DeyeloPment Director Aarti .y.,.;,�,,,� -; 7±4^ * •+*t Shriv stava.This was followeii by S projectI. ,«.,,',`°•"'""r ^� o;> ,,,,,., overview presentation given " - - t %�..9e - t'°" 'r^`+'"•^ �'' ^`? _ by Daniel lacofano of MIG, - a .AUrn•'.n..ri.„ o,w,a, �r J ''�'i1, ,,,,n,,,,. the consultant working with �.-;-j . a=-+•^.-< wa �. .�.�+ .w.,.ra,,...., the City'on this.. peoject. v w,. ,wawn�.o...wre.wn•m�-m�=...,. . The i-orkshop video an rj - ' ^••w...,.,Y... `" `- resen anon are available ,� '^•.:: rrr-q����„ _�y ^*� at ' r�✓ wMnn t.'� - ,. 6 ' 11/10/2014 lt'nrtylylob�ay and Qe �n Cancerps, I NX rs Approximately 170 people attended one of the following four workshops/meetings: YI ■ Community-wide Workshop 92 October 23, 2013 • Neighborhood Meeting December 5,2013 1 rLr✓� F � '�` ■ Chamber of Commerce Workshop January 29,2014 k , I ; r ti ■ Neighborhood Block Leader's Meeting z �} l/R January 29, 2014 7 11/10/2014 hF'. - 'a �#t '�� pea=rs a �'ra,� r - �=,y C®r� niOf ty Int ] iUloby andArt Ca � s � +. a `i' s,zr£P ,4 a, .. The purpose of the Community Design Survey was to.test potential land use, design and . :. � :: � ' ' mobility concepts for each majorf; mixed-use corridors in.Cupertino: r The survey.was'comprised of three major categories:' s ■ Streetscapes'and Mobility Enhancements ■ Parks and Plazas ' ■ Buildings and Land Uses Caim �nys 1np � M,obiandIn{ �o ��psa Under each category, participants were shown a series of images and asked to respond to the following questions: 1. Do you,like this idea for Cupertino? 2. Where would it be most appropriate? ASS p i � �€ a ; my. HAII 8 11/10/2014 9i- M MS Sift Ej'aGsESh7kva.JTY EIWAG EMENT.6 � 1 I 1 � x�I �"`, ks i'� mow.- ler. rocd+rse d m,ud wo I i+idt s .µ�asi..dYre 7r'ialand i nsd Iiw 3 m.a1- .dined: � � R W­04 -7yt �.. >� r i! ]A ResksntlYl Optl ', � k a l 'Ye niwova WnlrnnM.,1 IAl etgh !we •'.t}" �b��,X�n4-G€ .��•; �� 5'L`sx nrdmWae k.rYv xawy Resuls�eg ommerral ses Trail connection-, - I really like i4(49%) Ho%mestead load. Worth considering(31/o) De Anza Boulevard(10%) Y Wolfe Road(6/0) iL I don t like it(12°/) i � Not sure(8%) 'Sen tevs Creek(5%) " All of the above;(48%) None of the above(20%) Low'riseri I really Ilke 1t.(27/) Homestead Road�(6/) commercial with' ` Worth'cor siderin 33% . DeAhi a Boulevard 7% -_ 9( ) ( ) parking m front � p I dont like(t(29/o) Wolfe Road(2/0) NotStevens.Creek(11%) All of th'e above(45°/) None of!tHe 6Bbve(30%) Low rise "' l,really like it'(33%) Homestead Road(4/o) commeraal with' Worth considering(35/o) >De Anza Boulevard(3%) small street `- I'don t like It(22%) `Wolfe Road(2/o) setback Not sure(10,%) Stevens Creek(22%) All of the above(45°/) None'ofthe above(23/) Low rise I really like it(27/0) Homestead Road(12/0)' COL wrtfi' Worth considering(37°/) De Anza Boulevard(6%)' St reet parking -- �' ? I dont like it_(30°/) Wolfe Road(4/0) z £ t Not sure(7%) Steveris Creek(10%) .,a � ,�All of the above;(35%) None of the above'(32%) 9 11/10/2014 11111 P �, 11 Res Its =ornme" c a°1 lJse Mid rise outdoor I really like it(50%) Homestead Road(3%) commercial Worth considering(31%) De Anza Boulevard(5%) district I don't like it(17%) Wolfe Road(23%) Not sure(2%) Stevens Creek(16%) All of the above(32%) None of the above(23%) Mid rise outdoor I really like it(47%) Homestead Road(4%) commercial �' Worth considering(24%) De Anza Boulevard(4%) district I don't like it(20%) Wolfe Road(26%) Not sure(8%) Stevens Creek(15%) All of the above(31%) None of the above(20%) Mid rise indoor �. I really like it(26%) Homestead Road(1%) shopping mall Worth considering(30%) De Anza Boulevard(0%) I don't like it(37%) Wolfe Road(40%) Not sure(6%) Stevens Creek(6%) :. All of the above(13%) za None of the above(41%) Resu Itsj0ffi.ce Uses mss"' ✓;.t `�r ''k �� � J k` 4 Low rise office =- I really like it(18%) Homestead Road(13%) Worth considering(38%) De Anza Boulevard(7%) 1 don't like it(37%) Wolfe Road(5%) Not sure(8%) Stevens Creek(6%) All of the above(32%) None of the above(37%) Mid rise office I really like it(36%) Homestead Road(4%) ✓' Worth considering(30%) De Anza Boulevard(14%) I don't like it(28%) Wolfe Road(13%) Not sure(6% Stevens Creek(12%) RM All of the above(34%) None of the above(24%) Mid rise mixed - l I really like it(43%) Homestead Road(1%) use Worth considering(30%) De Anza Boulevard(9%) dl � <i I don't like it(22%) Wolfe Road(6%) ' Not sure(4%) Stevens Creek(13%) All of the above(42%) None of the above(27%) High rise office I really like it(27%) Homestead Road(3%) Worth considering(26%) De Anza Boulevard(12%) I don't like it(44%) Wolfe Road(6%) t Not sure(4%) Stevens Creek(15%) All of the above(25%) None of the above(39%) 10 11/10/2014 Low/mid rise I reaIlk, ke lirt;(28%) Homesteatl Road(10%) hotelEg Worth considering(41%) De Anzay_Boulevard(8/0) parr I dont like it(25N) Wolfe Road(15%)'� Not sure(6%) Stevens Creek(9%) All of the above Noneof3heabove'(23/0), uz - Mid nse hotel f I really like it(30%) Homestead Road(4%) �r� �-�� Worth considenng(35%) �De Anza;Boulevard(16%) I don t like it�(28%) 'Wolfe Road(8/0) � Not sure(7/o) Stevens'Creek(5/o) - ��� All of the above{43%) y None'ofthe above(25/0) Mid/high risereally like rt(36%) Homestead Road(4/0) hotel x" " Worth considenng(24%) De Anza'Bob e-vard(9%) } a) I don t like it'(35%) Wolfe n�f Not sure(b%) Stever! eek(11%) of-the above.(25/o) None of the above(33%) t Y Detached I really like it(27/o) "Homestead Road(27/0) townhomes � � Worth considenng(31%) De Anza,Boulevard(4/0) I don tlike it(33%).. Wolfe Road(2/0) Not sure(8/o) Stevens'Creek(4%) ;All of the above'(23%) one of the abiove Low nse I really hke rt(19°/) (20 Homestead Road °%) residential + Worth considenng(35%) De Anza'Boulevard(0%) >' r I tlon t hke:it(401/6) Wolfe Road(4/) ` Not sure(6%) Stevens,Creek(5%) "Ail ofthe 6b6ve,(30%) None of the above(41/°) Mixed uses � I really like it(38°/) t Homestead Road`(2/o) residential and • Worth considenng(2710) m. De Anza Boulevard(2/) t- I on't hke it 01/) Wolfe Road(11%)' Not sure(4%) Stevens Creek a;*, All of the above„(48/o) None of the above(26/0) Mid nse mixed = 3 I really hke it(38%) Homestead Road_{1/o) use residential , Worth considering(31%) De Anza,Boulevard(2/0) 11, and refad f � ) I don t like it(27%) Wolfe Road(16%)' ` - Not sure(4%) �' Stevens,Creek 05°%). All of the above ( None of the above 241°) 11 11/10/2014 �za Mid rise mixed � ,�, I really like rt:(34%) { � Homestead Roatl(6%) use residential ,�. `����t� Worth considering(24%) ' De Anza•Boulevard(3%) - t I don t hke iL(40%) Wolfe Road(10%);= ens,Creek(9 o All of the above(35%)r None'of,the above(37*); Mid/high rise I really like Jt 33%) 23 Homestead Road(2/0) resideritial lofts Worth considering( %0) De 4nza;Boulevard(5°/) dont i b it(33%) %Wolfe ,t Not sure(11%) Stevens Creek(9/0) t All of the above(43%) r - '. � -None of the above(29/0) Mid/high nse I really like if(29/) Homestead Road(2/0) mixed=use r> � t Worth consdenng(19%) De Anza.Boulevard(1%) residential and I don t hke.it(42%) Wolfe Road retail � u, ,�-Q , No_t sure(10%) �' `Stevens Creek(8/0) _None of_the above(46% x } 6 ,a7 ✓nU +,:,.ry R^43r-vs,:35. .... v-tt mrn..+'GF.,rs.a.. ns,vrz.5a?xa'utuY 5r..c.,., aes a'v:(r4y.asc n HwY+rd�.fi.r ...n.C.<.r.i:E✓�+.su# b 5+n[Sn•M ri p.yls Wd IF.�ta.ir'mha w .x� ..x f. - C i-x-rt.P"�auM„ -..3_i vun.antc.0 s"w aSrJa we_rrrr,...nd rm U H<.:.ax t•'m r.sf ux.} F 'v- xg m'd �wo ff t-FM� F7_77 ja s f Y 12 11/10/2014 Vo a y�. F., u .x hcrnmun utt� Fu� of '1aJ) y 3 125 jy4 11 � s ,r �p�ii �t�■■ �, �tee- 5st� k 13 11/10/201'4 m#�'M Future \ in�a� fiXFFAn e aicoLR FY �I'r�>•<ifE� ' R2 = $plYT ®\MR�� ill �rsa� rru SII # # F l I If WY 0 Lo F S+tr!N+N C1 9ufieD r<4^�litq�S+�cirlD �+M 3 M P !( 3f ;moi, �'^r-u�gr'`'�o�/�✓x � ,,,a�,t�, D - Mro a a 14 11/10/2014 y. - tj t 3� i 3 24 Groups Yam 9.;desired I ittle or no changes 15 11/10/2014 r _ I x u 16 included g go Of lotz �'�*.".• �a� -��::-:-,�r��' :=.;.... ':..ter.- ,��`":"� �`�" zY - sfi tA-�+§ r �. g l hotel 16 11/10/2014 ti e # � d w'S3s' s n y 15 included residential 01W-�W Some common themes that were repeated by many participants included: ■ Future development in Cupertino should provide community benefits and not impact public services, in particular schools ■,Careful consideration needs to be taken for any new residential development in terms of its density, location and,type (e.g., single family homes, senior housing; apartments or condos) ■ Increased building heights could be considered if they are not adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods ■ Transit, pedestrian and bicycle mobility needs to be expanded and made safer ■ The Vallco Shopping District should be'redeveloped or re- tenanted to-make it more economically successful and desirable to the Cupertino community 17 11/10/2014 Mu v mg X i I k 1# 3 f 3: i yy..- f � a 18 11/10/2014 corr, �ty �5 o ® � dates au �Y ■ State and Regional regulations and best practices: —Climate Change — Land Use and Transportation —Complete Streets and Connectivity —Performance Measures for Mobility =Sustainability —Housing Element g , q C® N, ,� tfiY �► � 40Capte Ejl ■ New Chapter — Planning Areas ■ Reorganization and Updates — Land Use and Community Design — Mobility(previously "Circulation") — Recreation and Community Services (previously in Land Use and Community Design) — Infrastructure (previously in "Environmental Resources/ Sustainability") — Sustainability (previously "Environmental Resources/Sustainability") — Health and Safety 19 11/10/2014 1. What should city-wide Development Allocation be? 2. Should the City have a Community Benefits policy? 3. What should community form/heights be? 4. What should vision for Vallco be? 5. Which sites should be Priority Housing Sites? ` M17Y E: ■ City Council recognized lack of development allocation ■ Market Study was conducted to assess realistic economic demand ■ Indicates demand for: —3.6 million sq. ft. of new office space —985 hotel rooms -4;421 residential units - - No additional commercial space 20 11/10/2014 sa � � �sl�a o�W%' � *sv"�" 3• �la's=�-� � w�✓'rF � ����-a .��� /����NN ���pce� � ��?%�����"`a-a/".aye masa.� �£.��!.• -'���%r`-v & :a. � ' , .mak � �, '-• �'"�„xF' w'w .� �s. X� ria x",�'r� � ..f `'Sr a.�, .g�s� 1& "'� ,� € t �F��`,k x '� s;'` ,r...,�,, «.adv •`. s � �r �s-t'r�,..`"' v `�;�� '' a.,r ..''� :�✓�. �..,....,�..�� n.Fr'x'.� w::.,a.. ... ' ..4..sE....: �.s�...,.:�3-�:. :.,,=..sa z�:.»;k.a,y a8 929 775 540 231 1 040 231 ° �= 2 540 231R e 4 040 231r> a 1 a c a c c 2,000 000 e a a xe e e 9,5 0 .500 000. 00,0001 - 1'090 339 600 : 839 NN, 1 339 0 261 ' sa 500 ". aea N. e 1000 .M 1 .: d ,. ;. � .� t " � �" ...21;339, 1,89.5 r•.. 1,8Q5 „ z. LL.";' 3,3]b. {_;,4,.421'.': 2,526 t .... '�t'g �`4,.: ' Key Question no. 1: Development Allocation ■ What should development allocation be for office, commercial, hotel and residential units through 2040? A. Oil' ■ The proposed level of benefit is equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed to the increase in height ■ Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following benefits: » Transportation and Mobility Improvements(bike,pedestrian facilities,participation in a community shuttle program,etc.) » Public Facilities(land or space). » Senior Housing-15%of housing that is not already targeted towards seniors. » Public Art and Cultural Facilities(new or expansion to museum,teen center) » Parks and Open Space(land/improvements within project or off-site) ■ In lieu of the benefits, a "Cash-in-Lieu Contribution" may be allowed Key Question 2: Community Benefits ■ Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program? ■ If yes, does the Planning Commission have any revisions to: - Value of the community benefits? - Specific program items-retail requirement or other items? 21 111/10/2014 ■ ecomme R , `nded in some,parts of the City based on the following:`, Community Design Survey in di cated,`support fer increased heights • Near freeways and awayfrom residential development (Cupertino Inn, N. De Anza Special Area, Vallco Shopping District East, Oaks Gateway); • Hotels (Cupertino Inn, Kimco property) • Where existing taller buildings exist(N. De Anza Special Area, City'Center) — Allow increased office development • N. De Anza Special Area, North Crossroads Node (Stevens Creek Office Center), Vallco Shopping District East (East side of Wolfe Rd.) — Allow increased density • Oaks Gateway, Hamptons 22 11/10/2014 a45ftT Noachangex a a e A a45ft orbOft?with60ft or75t wrth 2Sdu/ac F s { r retail retail Y 0,11 Axa ? v Glenbrook,h 5`du/acirfIHE-site. 35du/ac iffdEste _ � 30ft r� Nochangel �aftg� «�,� '� No change F` No change` � � a � �45'�ft or 60tft�with p bO ft�e or 75�ft'�witfzr IS iS"d'§ c 35 dulya 40 dL/ac ' tr 45 ft Notchange41o"s a e �a �1� xaa 60 ft or 75 fL with ZS ft or 90 ft�avrth 25 du/acf a rata l 4r 90 ff'with retail or 110it wrth: } f '3 �'�x x communitybenefits commumtybenefits �tr r` t on speabc sites on speaficWINS Rx �}5 ft�o rbD No change� o z No'h„r� g �60 ft`or7 5 ft}with ,�,�75`ft.�or 90 ft wrtth � � � � �;� � � commumtybenefits commumtybenefits a 45 ft No changes Safin s"�, S -,e as,A ire ` 25�c�uJac� � t a've B Om r to i r � 45 ft orf No change ��X60 5"�""�"'40kf ori vm - 60 ft or75 ft X75 f�`or 90 ftx with ° �MIN35�du/ac. ' ^� g =`-'=�4' x+ henefits coJnmunsty { benefits rr 3T1 45 ft or No change, 10 c�apg r "� r�'� ith 45 ft or 60 ft 60 ft or 75 ft with �' tetail< PR, " � u i ? ft wdh 4 commumty� HEa 35 du/ac 7 s rseefits fora 2 F community benefits along ;¢,,,il�. "�" �e��a,�t _ sbenefitsalong� �StevensCreekand 0 ;, �' �� tom`` �: o e�„R�rUn Stevens'Creek` Wolfe } > c dset ack20 and Wolfe 35 du/ac MINE! . a* t '- .r. •r,: {�" 9SCfllL2w , . .,xi c... '� ��R `r 45 ft �No change s� gft�or�6D t 453^o"30.ft.wrth� 60 ft or 75 ft 60 ft or 75 ft 4x 35 du/ac is vyttr tai re d oa'90 �fb wrth retail or 95 wrth retail or 1 45 �s� s °"F 'v"'=90'f`t'�orxa � � o et "a o ft�-wrth � ft'uwith comrnumty Vbenefits WIS s 35§dukac x x corve4uo ane r 35 du/ac sx.-.3S:cduLa a c change. N d RN'c-]aq e „ arne'a Tte7 atrve B 45 ft o�.60 ft 45 ft or 60 ft wrth 35 du/ac :^ - a i: wrth retail retail to Kit g s ist 'An'"S' z`Mansell 35 du/ec° -'35 du/ac 4 t 1 11/10/2014 ROOM VI 2Sdu/ac � �.�����20Q,ffdep��,alo�n �olfe w�thretail or wrthretaJ or 3 f Ft` `vntfieo, tit u ib � rbenefitsr ' benefits �.,', `.� ,,.. �>a.rz.N. _..�,��.:'"' t.� wwa���dn�,.�..f •.3t ..«�_ .,.Ar25.cJu/ac � ,w25.du%ac..�.'� 60ft No change Same as ,e` TS 60frr 60k or75ft 60ft or75ft. 25 du/ac r Bal as cF yap>b71ds th5Q E of� wrth retail or wrth retail or r �ulat�fii�op�hnesuttgWo1i�r 95,ft wrth E', 145 ft"wrth +FSI si#e� (RdP nedv & community _ community � �r��� 65 cJu/ac 110 du/ac ® wo pa S De Merge�nto SaGnesT Smeas'AIYe nab1� Same asuge,Same as rt P. Anza Blvd one area for Bala d Plant % f Alternative A Alternative A x 'IM Um{ 25 du/acF Anza - d'.nsrfjr) Saratoga ale ,> 1 Bo 30�trd % 7 �'� £z 7 v 30 ft . 25du/ac Y �'sa ' " " d ry r *.".44 m.'MZ,;,�1$dU/aC. a. R z* .� r 4z's%t 6 ,u-w.>`�S;x��, .. ._. 1•. , � 515du/ac j 25_du/ac e r' P �, n-v r Alternativ ".AlternatrveAi 11 a!-. all No change at�ta�" Same aslCltemafve 8p 1 1 along all *Same as arterials ; Balan ed �ar" A artenels Iternatwe8 Jr Key Question 3. Building Heights ■ Any changes to the heightsrecommended in the Special Areas? Requests: ■ Cupertino Inn - 108 ft. for a 9-story building ■ Stevens Creek Office Center.— 75 ft. for portions of site:„ 2 11/10/2014 'm .- � - �tf f 2"S -Egp;,g ��" ✓ rs d��;y� - ,-r' y tea` ■ Community workshops indicated: — Office development — Residential development — Retail development — Mixed use town-center format (like "Santana Row," "Stanford Shopping Center") — Open spaces — Mid— High rise development — Buffer for single family neighborhood ■ Godbe Survey indicated: — Strong support for revitalization of Vallco (67.7%) — Strong support for a mix of housing & office uses in addition to retail and entertainment uses (52%) ��' r=te �� "'z ��`l �€ �� � � -°�'� ✓ 'saw ■ General Plan and Zoning Amendment —Include office and residential uses with substantial retail/entertainment component —Must include: a. Complete redevelopment of site b. Adoption of Specific Plan with phasing and infrastructure imp. c. Town Center format 04 ,N, �S �+�., INO ,600 000 1 000 000 375 600 Key Question 4: Vallco Shopping Distrist: ■ Agree with Specific Plan and "Town-Center" concept with mix of retail/entertainment, residential and office uses? 3 11/10/2014 y g� l r� 1F .� � ' ■ Sandhill has communicated that they have acquired all properties in Vallco Shopping District except the indoor mall portion and need the following to redevelop site: - 2,000,000 s.f.of office space - Heights(Alternative Q — 600 units • West—60 feet,75 feet with retail&up to 85 — 600,000 s.f.of retail feet with retail&community benefits • East—75 feet,90 feet with retail&up to 160 feet with retail&community benefits ■ Retail Strategist states that: — Residential and office are highest and best uses for site — BAE Market Study found a net new city-wide demand of 2.4—3.0 million s.f. of office - Up to 2,000,000 s.f.for Vallco could be reasonable & necessary to make project viable - Ultimate allocation is dependent on an analysis of a development pro-forma KeY Question 4a: Vallco Shopping District Allocation ■ What should Vallco Shopping District Office Allocation and Heights be? NO ■ PG&E site: change from Quasi-public/Institutional to Commercial/Quasi-public/Institutional ■ Mirapath: change from Industrial to Commercial/Industrial — Include office and residential uses with substantial retail/entertainment component ■ Other: Other revisions to ensure that General Plan land use designations and zoning are consistent. 4 11/10/2014 EWE ■ Only Element of the General Plan that needs review and certification by CA HCD ■ 2014-2022 Housing Element must be adopted by Jan. 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period {May 31, 20151) ■ If adopted, next Housing Element update in 2023 ■ If not adopted, must be updated in four years (2019) ■ Content dictated by State Law and includes: — Needs Assessment — Constraints to new housing production — Description of goals, policies and strategies to achieve objectives — Housing production objectives consistent with RHNA&site inventory — Evaluation of accomplishments — Consistency with other elements 50 W Remainder of Santa Clara County: � 57,772 units �� 31.3%of Region � � � « iy ABAG Region: 187,990 units City of z f - Cupertino,�� 1,064 units 0.67%of ABAG 1.8%of County IracomµeGroup °oo�Gounty9lVIICpertfnoRHNA 0WflJ -ftp Very Low 0-50% _.' 356 33.5% LowesINSu � 07 0 5°f Moderate 81-120% 231 21.7% _Above-Moderate120ao X270 =25 4° Total 1,064- 100% Source:Regime)Housing Need Plan far the San Francisco Bay Area:20162023.Association of Bay Area G—rmmenls *City gets credit for total of 62 units(30 approved and 32 second units anticipated for the 2014-2022 RHNA period).Therefore,current RHNA is 1002 units Consultant in consultation with HCD recommends a 25—40%surplus(1,250—1,400 units) 5 11/10/2014 ■ Policies and programs-reformatted.to reduce redundancy and reorganized for ease in reading and implementing; ■ Programs revised to ensure compliance.with State law — ELI households (AB 2634) & persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812) — Amendments to the zoning ordinance related to density bonuses, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing and — Amend the Heart of the City Specific Plan to revise method in which residential density is calculated in mixed-use developments. ■ A new goal to highlight energy conservation; ■ An existing general plan policy related to mixed-use development to encourage development near transportation facilities and employment centers has been added; `� f'��r��s-arm���,�:��i '`�' ,��s�ate`� r*,r��i"✓�sr "�� ,� `. �"^` ■ Redevelopment Funding: Language-updated to' acknowledge Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set- aside funds no longer available'' ■ Housing Mitigation Program: The City's affordable housing program —the Housing Mitigation Program — has been amended to comply with recent litigation ■ Housing Preservation'Program• Updates to be internally consistent and consistent with State Law 6 11/10/2014 ■ Potential sites list developed through public workshops and study sessions with Commissions and Council ■ Potential sites studied at varying densities in each alternative Minimal f �` 4 Moderae S De Anza F 1lf�PD �$ 25DUA 35DA i �I Imeaq 21M ■ HCD Criteria Existing Use on Site - Realistic Potential for Recycling - Site Size and Ownership Patterns — Development Density (to meet affordability criteria of 20 du/ac at 85% of maximum density) ■ Other Criteria — Within 1/2 mile of a VTA PDA — Locate close to employment and activity centers — Corner Lot(s)with large frontage preferred — Housing as an incentive for redevelopment ■ Godbe survey indicates support for development of housing along major routes (36.2%) 7 11/10/2014 .,F i �� £" NMI MIN �'.' oflo Alternatve =- �' ,Alternatve B Alternative C film � � � ' � � �' 25�du/ac � � 35•du/ac X35 dulac 1� e�OaksEHigh .y ^v-; Th 0 duan 235 cru F 235 du 2 Vallco Shopping Distract H # 0 du °° 600 du, e, igh 800;du, O r ; g ' � �,addrtional`"�! additional x 4 United Furniture+other High � � �°� � s texistmg)`;� ,,, �•. 93`du additional���•�^ .`�:�a�93 du:additional 93 du additional ��(ti'� �^` '-TM�' _-"• �,,,,.;� 207 du.s .., �' ,};'�"�?.� _ , 1,386 dui X2,062 du ` , - � ?sssi >x�.�` '�^'y� y - Alternative.A Altemative B Alternative C o- .7 �;. SWISS aP 40 du/ac <.�_ __�.. � 149dus_,• l_..k204,du c:. 232cJu 8 ' Stevens Creek OfFice Mod 25 du/ac a 35 du/ac 40 du/ac 134, g � 187,du, 214.e1u Low 25 du/ae �-1U.- du/ac 25 duLac 10 �� � Loree Center � � � is- ,..- <. �.... _ Mod . x.:,.27, du. .a � � -�__2T=dq _ Homestead Lanes+ Low �35 du/ac �' �, �+ 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 11 s Adi, Mod 0 , NMI ( �` 151 du 151;du Summerwmds&' Low 25 du/aci 25 du/ac 40 du/ac 12 Granite Rock,,, Mod MEMO, z ,r Low 25 du/ad ) ��" 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 13 Shan Q Mart Mod MEOW NPAANTM- ,.,698 du 81 t clu. 8 11/10/2014 1 INN, B�all>a1e¢d »land t ®mraeed Loan gas �fP:ItemativeA°' AlternativerB�:��AlternativeC ar } ** $20 du Villages} 20 du/ac z14 P v ea rr Lowy, K t y r un,�ts ; . .Scanduiavian ;.r rk L7SW _ ,58 du _ R 58`du M, w r 58* X16 3 f �SFoothlll/�� �a�° Low y�L r15 du/ac* � 15rdu/ac*J�� �} g 25 du/ac,,�r 15 du/ac* 15 du 18k t Carl Berger � �Vh M4 :. r` 3 : IJ- ,r�'.a ...,r..,_-„a.169,.du��.._. •' t� f169-rdu�_��� `169,,cJud i , 231 du ' 231 du 277 du Ke-r Question 5: Housing Element Sites ■ Does City Council agree with Housing Element sites list and densities? ■ Does City Council agree on the Alternative Sites List and priority? RM I?� Or W'M,,b7--AA M. r, r The Oaks ' fi F f 150 du maximum recommended results in g Ix> t; P(CG) ' Fllgh - e �oxlma r a' tl 19 unitslac � OW Y, t pMINE } M� "1 , „ � t k Same as Balanced Pla F t Glenbrooks ?8 du/ac(300 additional recommended). TWO R3(10 20) ,Iricrease bulldinhei lits a E, frbm'30 feet:.to 45tfeet r' 25 du/acraaf kx R RocWJackln the;Box Low Mod s x v 114;du 5 100% f r -P(CG Res 5 15) Increase building heights from 30 feet to 45 feet v • $ e a -1,408 9 11/10/2014 'j Villa es r Same as Balanced Plan a 9 20 du/acr � �s (468 units,existmg) z Mods $ s r ,�b2 du°add'®�85% Same as Balanced Plan j Marina Plaza Mod 35 du /ac P(CG Res) 204 du i. _240 du'@.100%.. 'y r Same as Balanced Plan a� h.� . ..:x.. =.435.du Othe Am' en� �- ,W Om .Gene� l Plant®n=(tcf M'ap Ml C �k Amendments to.Generaf Plan: — Updated residential density from "gross acres" to "acres" ■ Zoning Map — Changes to reflect General Plan conformance ■ Municipal Code — Reorganized parkland dedication into own-chapter — Amendments to reflect changes required'per Housing Element — Clean up ■ Heart,of the City Specific Plan — Updated Land Use &Zoning Map — Housing^.Elerhent and General Plan conformance • Changes'fo method in which residential density is calculated for mixed-use developments ' • Changes to the building plane line in the South.Vallco area along Stevens Creek Boulevard 10 11/10/2014 ems , ■ Four meetings with School Districts ■ School District's demographer and projections analyst prepared the school impact report for EIR ■ School Districts reviewed the report and provided input ■ Projections indicate: M MEl 9510-10 MINOR 3.�F,�fi6�a�V`r, iC,2- � .•..-A'bS rrmA f.S2,.� .kei �,. °a 14. 5,fxx 1 � .. ''' ,� ,. �`�' -t��.-`.�_�.�.,.....�:_ .,...,� aaniacc•Lir 1: � .' rte' �"..� 11 11/10/2014 ',��1✓��' ��✓. -:✓y,✓✓s�z' '3" � '��: � � ,�f� .,,�,��'��-� ✓ms`s��-€%� � .: ��/✓„✓��'���r ����������` � .,� �� ✓fit- ���f� -f A� ����`S�� .��` The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is State's primary environmental protection law. CEQA requires that public agencies disclose environmental impacts that have physical effect on environment as follows: — Effects found not to be significant — Significant impacts — Ways to mitigate or avoid impacts — Effects that cannot be mitigated — Alternatives CEQA does not dictate project approval or denial. Draft and Final Program EIR are available online at: www.cupertinogpa.org -r ✓�,.Zf �✓ .mitta--sem.,✓, ✓EM MIR r�✓ r �� � ��✓�- �� � ■ General,Plan is.a large-scale and long-range planning document'' ■ Buildout.of potential future development is based on horizon year of 2040` vvth''occurring_ between 2014 and 2040 - EIR analyzes gro26 year buildout horizon ■ 2040 is consistent with Plan Bay..Area,.-Regional p Trans ortatioii Plan (RTP)% S'usta'inable Community Strategy, (SCS) a.. 4 12 11/10/2014 R 1111 is a 1'r=oma a; EI ; t � % ■ Addresses large-scale, long-term projects encompassing a broad scope of physical development issues, such as General Plans, Specific or Master Plans and Zoning Ordinances ■ Analyzes full buildout scenario that accounts for all development allowed under General Plan (27 years) ■ Allows subsequent project-level environmental review for future development to tier off Program EIR — Individual projects permitted under General Plan that warrant further analysis under CEQA are reviewed, including identification of impacts and mitigation measures, at time of project proposal Y ss�ng rt - t ■ To the extent feasible, where environmental impacts are identified, CEQA requires impact be: — avoided, — minimized, — rectified, — reduced or eliminated, or — compensated ■ CEQA permits incorporation of mitigation measures, designed to protect, preserve and enhance environmental resources as: — Goals, — Policies and — Strategies 13 11/10/2014 Impact Conclusion Environmental Topics. No Impacts Agricultural and-Forestry Mineral Resources Less Than Significant Aesthetics Cultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils and Seismicity ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Population and Housing ■ Public Services and Recreation hr"7" MIT or Impact Conclusion Envi'ronrriental TopicsN Less Than Significant With Biological Resources ' Mitigation Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Utilities and Service System Significant and Unavoidable ■ Air Quality ■ Noise ■ Transportation and = Circulation 14 11/10/2014 IN- L. - �f aii, _gin...-z'^_- .' s.. .��� D.� �Y'"�`- _g'%�.�$_ •3r,. " a `'i =°�c�r. Office 4,040,231 sf 540,231 sf 1,040,231 sf 2,540,231 sf Commercial. 1,343,679 sf 701:;413 sf= 7Q:1, 13 sf 1,343,679:x.. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................::................................:........... Hotel 1,339 rooms 339 rooms 600 rooms 839 rooms Residential 1,895 unats 1,8;95 units; 3 316 unfits 4 421 units ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........................:::::: Population 12,998 5,571 5,571 9,749 Jobs 16 855. . 3;467......::.. ..... 5,206...: 11, 05 :. Per CEQA, Land Use Alternative A is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Cor ��og� axs "51 s�� 09 r ,`4, '✓�� ��.�.i r."� % s res' � "" -„-,.- Significant Impact: ■ Possible loss or abandonment of nests of birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code Mitigation Measure: ■ Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when ow 1 F in active use � z [ ' 15 11/10/2014 ��✓*�:�.✓'� ��' s��� � s�-��zas'"� ��r � r mss' � SEW Significant Impact: Known hazardous materials sifes within Cupertino Mitigation Measures: ■ Prepare project-specific Environmental Site Management Plans ,< v ■ Require vaport� r intrusion assessments `T 3 �� P 44, j 7 { } t rr � .tamee. Vc ar n � � rite ua�-ems � � 9� —,So v- Significant Impact: ■ Exceeds current contractually available treatment capacity at SJ/SC Water Pollution Control Plant Mitigation Measures: ■ Work with Cupertino Sanitary District to increase available citywide,treatment and transmission capacity ■ Work to establish development monitoring and tracking s y'stem to enysure capacity is not exceeded ■ Work with Cupertino Sanitary District to prepare study to determine more current-estimate of wastewater generation rates that,reflect actual development _j 16 11/10/2014 t � - y s - �-�� s `•„""� MR ` Significant Impact: ■ 2023 termination of City's agreement with Newby Island Landfill facility, and facility's estimated 2025 closure date would result in insufficient disposal-capacity at buildout Mitigation Measures: ■ Continue recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies to further increase diversion rate and lower per capita disposal rate ■ Monitor generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure adequate capacity ■ Seek new landfill sites to replace Altamont and Newby Island landfills when these landfills are closed Significant Impact: ■ Substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels throughout; primarily from increases to transportation- related noise, especially that of automobile traffic Mitigation Measures: ■ Most effective noise-attenuation measures (e.g. sound walls and berms) inappropriate along most streets with commercial or residential street frontage due to impacts to pedestrian/bicycle connectivity and aesthetic considerations ■ These types of mitigation are considered infeasible or inappropriate in majority of locations where sensitive land uses already exist 17 11/10/2014 Significant Impacts: ■ Rate of growth in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) would exceed rate of population and employment growth, resulting in substantial increase in regional criteria air pollutant emissions ■ Air pollutant emissions associated with Project would result in cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts Mitigation Measures: ■ Require compliance with BAAQMD control measures and construction mitigation ■ Require health risk assessments -m" � ,.�`4 � r-y go UN Significant Impacts and'Mitigation. Measures F%wnt Aw� i - _ I EI C.,a.Red mmT �� — by '--I L r Lott . b { s F� Q £ 1 IEGENO Study Intersection ! 1 Can Be M ligated . , 4 �77`r Can Pleninationlly Be Mitigated Through a Coordinal on 4Yth Other Jurisdictions =Cannot Be hliiigated� J _ ,-. ❑ =Opportun ty Sita ... ---_bFreeway Impacts ELM!! 1 18 11/10/2014 EiR1Corn:p irsoof Pr®�eet�Alternafinres , ti m o yjV +.a�i _ .7 A• m �A , Aesthetics tTS LTS LTS ET$ AiryQuality t SU, SU ,,` SU SU 1' Brolog[cal Resources L75lfvt LTS/Nl LTS/M LT5/M Cultural Resources LTS LTS Us LTS Gsalogy$OlIS&Mineral Resources LTS: L7S LTS LTS: _.._...__..... _._... - - --..._... _ _ Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS„ LTS LTS LTS B MWEI azardo-us Materials LTSINI L7S/M LTS/M k75/M Hydrology And Water Quality LTS. LTS LTS LTS Lapel UseArd Plartnin LTS- LTS LTS LTS 9 n Noise SU SUSU SU Population Artd Housing{ _ ---LTS= -- L7S LTS LT5 __... ..._ .. _....._. Public Services And Recreation. -. LTS LTS LTS LTS Transportation And Traffic SU: SU r SUS SU ;,..:.:. Utilities And Infrastructure LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M Note;SUSigaitigantandUnavo�dabie LTS=1ess7han5ignificant,.LTS/M Less7fan5ignifAcantwatfimitigation zo..aa rpy . .- _ .._. x� ■ 45-day public review period of Draft EIR (June 18 — August 1, 2014) — Six comment letters from public agencies — 19 comment letters from members of the general public — Most comments did not pertain to adequacy of Draft EIR ■ Error correction, language edits, and clarifications were made, but no substantial revisions. ■ Late comments addressed in late comments memo — raised no new unaddressed issues ■ Late comments since date of late comments memo have been sent to the Council and do not raise any new unaddressed issues 19 11/10/201'4 im � CJK.1i\ rs .:y � e was a�, „�� ''� .� ,.� fit. ✓�.� s :. '•in., . jar . , � qct .r, �s., .;�> -.s,;f.'��::�� a::�`,•�fi -� .4�`� r �,�-��`�-��zrn �r Via' ��?�A c�.:z 1. Development Allocation: What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office, commercial, hotel and residential units through 2040? 2. Community Benefits Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program? If yes, does the.City.Council have any revisions to: — Value of the community benefits?, : , _. — Specific program items—retail requirement or other items? 3. Building Heights Does the City Council have any recommended changes to the Balanced Plan heights'recomnientled in.the-Spetial Areas? 20 11/10/2014 o 4. Vallco Shopping District Does the City Council agree on the Specific Plan and "town-center" concept with a mix of retail/entertainment, residential and office in the Vallco Shopping District? 5. Housing Element Sites Does the City Council agree on the Housing Element sites list and densities? Does the City Council agree on the Alternative Sites List and priority? WIN 001,21 WN ■ Adopt Resolution 14-210 recommending.Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (EA-2013-03) ■ Adopt Resolution 14-211 (GPA-2013-01) in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution, as amended: — Draft General Plan (Community Vision 2040);and — General Plan Map Amendments ■ Adopt Resolution 14-212 to authorize staff to, in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution, as amended : — Forward the Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD); and — Use the prioritized list of Alternative Housing Element sites(in case one or more of the adopted sites are not accepted by HCD as Housing Element sites) 21 11/10/2014 , ■ Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2124, "An Ordinance.of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning Certain Sites in the City for Conformance with the General Plan and Housing-Element Zoning Map Amendment," Z-2013-03; ■ Conduct first reading of Ordinance 14-2125, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending various Chapters in Title 18 and Title 19, including the amendment of the Density Bonus Ordinance, the addition of a Chapter in Title 19 to implement policies in the General Plan, the addition of a Chapter in Title 13 to improve readability," Municipal CodeAmendment, MCA-2014-01; ■ Adopt Resolution 14-213, Specific Plan Amendment, SPA-2014-01, in substantially similar form to the attached Resolution, as amended. 22 Maximum Residential Density Off ice....................10,000 s.f. ESTEAD RD 10(benveen Bl- and Blue Jay),20(betwn Blue Hotel.....................125 rooms ' Jay and De Anza,and north side of Homestead be�een bete Franco),nza 35Ste(south side on 5(b e Homestead Stelling and Residential di ............200 units De 1 Anza a T .` - t ( - s,,nnr,.ale)units per acre r IV Stelling Gateway Maximum Height Primary Uses , L 30 feet,or 45 feet(south side between DeAnza andstemng) Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density 35 units r acre(east side of Ste North •eSpecial e _ units per acre(west side of Stell nl9)g),15 Maximum Height p Primary Uses Development Allocation 30(west side of Stelling)or 45(east side of > Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........50,000 s.f Stelling)feet a Maximum Residential Density Office....................30,000 s.f. a 25 units per acre Hotel.....................100 rooms w Maximum Height Residential............100 units 60 feet — - Oaks Gateway . _ Primary Uses A 16A,� �y Commercial and Residential [3 Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height De Anza r—r-IA118L 21CA4ii=,ii'�iia' Sal=i•1�7=.iWY�ti�-f- 45 feet College Primary Uses Development Allocation t� Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........500,000 s.f. Maximum Residential Density Office....................315,000 s.f. 25 or 35(sn th va)lco)units per acre Hotel.....................375 rooms Maximum Height Residential............1,000 units North Crossroads Node 45 feet Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Residential Density �" Primary Uses 25 units per acre ' Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density 45 feet 25 units per acre NorthDe Anza Special Area Maximum Height 45 feet Primary Uses Development Allocation Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial.... ...10,000 s.f o Maximum Residential Density Office .25,000 s.f 135 �m 25 units per acre Hotel.....................noneQ N z Maximum Height Residential............170 units Q 45 feet ; o Major Cor Office Commer Hotel R Resident Other Spe Legend Office ` y Primary Boundary Hotel Uses Development Allocation ' Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........50,000 s.f. ' �^"' a Key Intersections Resident Maximum Residential Density Office..._ Total...............10,000s.f. � � 25 units per acre Hotel.....................none --� I ' j .yam ,�� �. �. �. Office Maximum Height Residential.._.... ..150 units L Hotel 30 feet IResident J N 'Includes 8 r and other c 0 800 1600 2400 Feet • E RT IN • .- - • • Maximum Residential Density Office....................25,000 s.f. >UMESTEADRD Up to 35 units per acre Hotel.....................150 rooms Maximum Height Residential............400 units r 4 !� 30 feet,or 45 feet(south side bet—en De Anza and Stelling) ` t Stelling Gateway L...1 Primary Uses , L Commercial and Residential Maximum Residential Density -X 35 units per acre • • • • Maximum Height 45 feet,or 60 with a retail component Primary Uses Development Allocation > Commercial,Office, Residential Commercial..........100,000 s.f Q Maximum Residential Density Office....................75,000 s.f. z z 25 or 65(Harnpt—s,te)units per acre Hotel....... .............150 rooms Q Maximum Height Residential............350 units 60 feet -- �� Oaks Gateway k Primary Uses r Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density ' 35 units per acre Maximum Height De Anza ji, e a 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component College Primary Uses Development Allocation t Commercial, Office and Residential Commercial..........750,000 s.f. H 'I Maximum Residential Density Office....................1,500,000 s.f 25 or 35(vauco,Steens Creek Office Center, Hotel.....................439 rooms Marina Foods,and the Oaks)units per acre _ — P Residentlal............1,700 units Maximum Height North Crossroads Node 45 feet Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Residential Density ` Primary Uses 35 units per acre ' Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component 25 units per acre North . Special Maximum Height 60 feet,75 feet with a retail component Primary Uses •Development Allcoocation = f�et with retail and project-wid Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........25,000 s.f. o Maximum Residential Density Office.............. .....200,000 s.f 25 units per acre Hotel.....................100 roomsN Maximum Height Residential............170 units z Major Corr 60 feet ` o Office Corn Hotel Residenti Other Spei -- Office legend Commerc * - • ' _ I Hotel Primary Uses Development Allocation City Boundary Residenti 1rJ Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial........-125,000 s.f. t 0 Key Intersections Total Maximum Residential DensityOffice.................... , s. . Office Offi25000f I BRT Stop(for environmental analysis) Commerc f � 25 units per acre Hotel.....................none J ' _ v, ~^ �� �� �� �� BRT Line(for environmental analysis) Hotel Maximum Height Residential............201 units � � �r 30 feet Additional height allowances w/retail Residenti and project-wide/community benefits Includes Bu — N —— and other cc r 'Net new (1,267,601 s.. ' 0 800 1600 2400 Feet Note:Housh Maximum Residential Density Office....................50,000 s.f —M — MtbItAL)KU Up to 35 units per acre Hotel.....................300 rooms Maximum Height Residential............530 units 30 feet,or 45 feet south side between De Anza and Stelling) ad• ' Stelling Gateway , Primary Uses ® u 1 7 Commercial and Residential L• Maximum Residential Density 00, 35 units per acre Maximum Height North • • Special 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component 0 Primary Uses Development Allocation m Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........100,000 s.f. Q Maximum Residential Density Office....................90,000 s.f. a 25 units per acre Hotel.....................300 rooms o Maximum Height Residential............825 units 60 feet Oaks Gateway Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density < 35 units per acre ^� Maximum Height De 60 feet,or 75 feet with a retail component Anza C p College Primary Uses Development Allocation ri til Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........750,000 s.f. II Maximum Residential Density Office....................2,700,000 s.f. 25 or 35(south v fico)units per acre Hotel.....................639 rooms Maximum Height Residential............2,100 units 45 feet North Crossroads Node Primary Uses — —---- - --—— Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Residential Density Primary Uses 40 units per acre ' Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density 60 feet,or 75 with a retail component 25 units per acre NorthSpecial Maximum Height 75 feet,or 90 feet with a retail compos Primary Uses Development Allocation community0 befeet nth tail and project-wi benefits Office Commercial. .......25,000 s.f o Maximum Residential Density Office........ ...........400,000 s.f. 25 units per acre Hotel.....................100 rooms " (•J N Maximum Height Residential............170 units "' Q Major Cor 75 feet o Office Commer Hotel Resident Other a Pe Office • D � • � <� ._�� ,,.,,,,� �:__.._:__._ � Legend Commer Hotel Primary Uses Development Allocation City Boundary` � ` ,� , Resident Office Commercial..........125,000 s.f. ' 0 Key Intersections Total Maximum Residential Density Office .... .. .........50,000 s.f ' BRT stop(for environmental analysis) Office per acre 25 units Hotel.....................none --J _ Commer p -dential............275 units ~� �• BRT Line(for environmental analysis) Hotel Maximum Height Resl 30 feet * Additional height allowances w/retail Resident I and project-wide benefits _..-. 'Includes B her c r- — — —� N j� 'nNettnew< I 0 800 1600 2400 Feet Note:,bot s Note:Hous • R. „• general plan amendment "••• —............•••"•' uptoSDunitsperacre 10(between Blaneyand Blue Jay); Hotel.....................300 rooms .. 4 Y Maximum Height a " 20(between Blue Jay and De Anza;and Residential............530 units 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component ! � north side of Homestead between De Anza and Franco); 35(south side of Homestead between De Anza and Stelling);and , 15(between Stelling and Sunnyvale)units per acre • V Oak Maximum Height s Gateway 30 feet(see Stelling Gateway notes for Maximum Heights East of Stelling) Primary Uses L Commercial,Office and Residential � I �. Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre North Vallco • • Special • Maximum Height 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component Primary Uses Development Alloc��7 ation Commercial,Office,Residential Commercial..........100,000 s.f. Q N Maximum Residential Density Office....................75,000 s.f. Q 25 or 65(see Nodes/Gateways)units per acre Hotel.....................300 rooms Maximum Height Residential............825 units 60 feet rr, • •Y rtl�_i=�:fliliirr��: Primary Uses Development Allocation De Anza e Commercial..........750,000 s.f. College Commercial,Office and Residential 9 Maximum Residential Density Office....................500,000 s.f. Hotel.....................264 rooms t ty 25 Or 35(See Nodes/Gateways)units per acre H II Maximum Height Residential —.1,500 units Up to 45 feet North Crossroads Node North De • Special • • Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Residential Density Primary Uses Primary Uses Development Allocation ' Commercial,Office and Residential 25 units per acre;35 units per acre if Housing Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........25,000 s.f. Element Site Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density Office....................200,000 s.f. Maximum Height 25 units per acre 25 units per acre Hotel.....................100 rooms 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component Maximum Height Maximum Height Residential............170 units 60 feet,75 feet with a retail component. feet with retail and community 60 feet benefits 85 +o f a t - rj5 Q 707m Primary Uses Development Allocation Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........125,000 s.f. ` LL oe Maximum Residential Density Office....................25,000 s.f. Resident 25 units per acre Hotel.....................none Maximum Height Residential............275 units OtherSpe 30 feet Primary Uses Development Allocation Commer Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial....... 607774 s.f. Hotel Maximum Residential Density Office....................1,000,000 s.f. Resident rem • u • - • 35 units per acre Hotel.....................375 Legend Total Maximum Height Residential............600 units -- Office Primary Uses C' Boundary Commer West of Wolfe �. Commercial,Office and Residential Development Allocation ry Hotel 45 feet;or 60 feet with a retail component;or 75 feet fora 200 foot depth ' Maximum Residential Density Commercial..........20,945 s.f. ' along the Wolfe Road property line and setback from the Stevens Creek 0 Key Intersections Resident Up to 15 units per acre Office....................23,826 s.f. Boulevard property line with retail and community benefits Additional height allowances w/ *Includes Bt Maximum Height Hotel.....................none retail and community benefits commercial I, I East of Wolfe N j 30 feet Residential............101 units 60 feet;or 75 feet with retail;or 90 feet with community benefits **Net new c��^, L_ (1,207,774 s 0 800 1600 2400 Feet Note:Housii Maximum Residential Density Office....................TBD West of Stelling-15 units per acre 10(between Blaney and Blue lay),20(between Blue Hotel.....................125 rooms Maximum Height Jay and De Anza,and north side of Homestead between Residential..........REMOVE East of Stelling-45 feet De Anza and Franco),35(south side of Homestead r West of Stelling-30 feet ' between De Anza and Stelling)and 15(between Stelling and Sunnyvale) r& units per acre / V Maximum Height 30 feet,or 45 feet(south side between De Anza and Stelling) ' II z Primary Uses Development Allocation a Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........100,000 s.f. < m Maximum Residential Density Office....................TED z a 25 units per acre Hotel.....................100 rooms p Maximum Height Residential..........REMOVE 60 feet ��rIT � Primary Uses Development Allocation De Anza Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........750,000 s.f. College Maximum Residential Density Office....................TBD City 25 or 35(smmhvauro)units per acre Hotel.....................100 rooms , �+a�l City Center N Maximum Height Residential..........REMOVE Primary Uses Up to 45 feet MCCLELLAN RD Commercial,Office Maximum Residenl _ • _ Oaks GatewayNorth Crossroads Node 25 units per acre North De • Maximum Height • Primary Uses Primary Uses 45 feet Commercial and Residential Commercial,Office and Residential — Primary Uses Development Allocation Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density r Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........25,000 s.f. 25 units per acre 25 units per acre;35 units per acre if Housing Maximum Residential Density Office....................TBD Maximum Height Element Site Height Maximum Heig 25 units per acre Hotel.....................none 45 feet .` � Maximum Height Residential..........REMOVE - 45 feet or 60 feet with retail 60 feet Li - Y P �� Jz 1 N Primary Uses Development Allocation z Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........125,000 s.f. ` o Major Cor Maximum Residential Density Office....................TBDOffice 25 units per acre Hotel.....................none iWN .., RAINBOW DR CommerHotel Maximum Height Residential..........REMOVE Resident 30 feet;45 feet for Summer Winds, Granite Rock,and Jack in the Box sites �" Other Spe if adopted as Housing Element Sites Legend Office Commer r City Boundary Hotel t L911111l1r.11ILTALIG TA11r.c#t:�► �1a t:.1 G11 Primary Uses Development Allocation Key Intersections Residenl Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........TBD Total Primary Uses Development Allocation Maximum Residential Density Office....................TBD Office Y PROSPECTRD Commer Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial..........2,094 s.f. 35 units per acre Hotel.....................TBD Maximum Residential Density Office....................TBD Maximum Height Residential..........REMOVE Hotel Up to 15 units per acre Hotel.....................none Residenl Maximum Height Residential..........REMOVE 30 feet West of Wolfe-45 feet;or 60 feet with a retail component N Includes B East of Wolfe-60 feet;or 75 feet with retail component commercia 0 800 1600 2400 Feet general plan ar-nendment �r�ning 1 North De Anza Gateway 8s Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre ESTEAD RD Maximum Height 45 feet Apple ------ W .. pp ce ,telling Gateway campus z _ rimary Uses , L North Vallco Gateway ommercial and Residential Primary Uses laximum Residential Density Commercial and Office 5 units per acre(east side of Stelling),15 Maximum Residential Density nits per acre(west side of Stelling) 25 units per acre laximum Height Maximum Height J(west side of Stelling)or 45(east side of 60 feet telling)feet Q N z Q ui Gateway South Vallco Park Uses Gateway East cial and Residential Primary Uses -n Residential Density Commercial,Office and Residential per acre Maximum Residential Density -n Height De Anza �.o 35 units per acre College Maximum Height y 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component H tlI South Vallco Park Gateway West Primary Uses North Crossroads Node _ Commercial,Office and Residential Primary Uses Maximum Residential Density Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node 35 units per acre Maximum Residential Density Primary Uses Maximum Height 25 units per acre ' Commercial,Office and Residential 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density �...+ 45 feet 25 units per acre �^ �� �• ..,,� Maximum Height 45 feet Citywide Development - z ' ` o Major Corridors Built/Approved Remaining in Existing GP Alternative A Difference I-EOffice 17,113 s.f. 390,000 s.f. +372,887 s.f. Commercial 695,629 s.f. 680,000 s.f. -15,629 s.f. Hotel 339 rooms 600 rooms +261 rooms Residential 1,416 units 1,620 units +204 units ---- — ------- -- Other Special Areas* Legend Office 523,118 s.f. 650,231 s.f. +127,113 s.f. – Commercial 5,784 s.f. 21,413 s.f. +15,629 s.f. r City Boundary Hotel 0 0 0 4 North De Anza Gateway 85 Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre .� ESTEAD RD Maximum Height 60 feet,or 75 feet with a retail component.95 feet with retail and project-wide/community benefits Apple Campus telling GatewayU -"� pos 2 J North Vallco Gateway imary Uses ommercial and Residential L Primary Uses aximum Residential Density Commercial,Office and Residential i units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 units per e(65 units per acre for aximum Height Hamptons Site) i feet,or 60 with a retail component p Maximum Height m 60 feet,or 75 feet with a retail component N along Wolfe Rd(retail not required on east side 4 k of Wolfe Rd). Q I =95 feet with retail and project-wide/ Lu community benefits O Gateway South Vallco Park Gateway East Uses Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential n n Office and Density Residential a� Jif t3 dJJJ Maximum Residential Density Residential Dennsity ger acre 35 units per acre n HeightD0-0 Maximum Height e Anza x 60 feet with a retail component College V 60 feet,or 7 feet with a retail component. g �110 feett with retail and project-wide/ t community benefits H I South Vallco Park Gateway West Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential North Crossroads Node Maximum Residential Density Primary Uses 35 units per acre Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density Primary Uses 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component.75 feet r 35 units per acre Maximum Height Commercial,Office and Residential along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd ' ` Maximum Residential Density with retail and project-wide/community benefits 25 units per acre 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component Maximum Height L 60 feet,75 feet with a retail component. *=90 feet with retail and project-wide/ community II J I�m LG�ywide Development Allocation INQ z Major Corridors BuiWApproved Remaining in Existing GP Alternative B Difference ` w Office 17,113 s.f. 1,825,000 s.f. + 1,807,887 s.f. Commercial 695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f. +554,371 s.f.** Hotel 339 rooms 839 rooms +500 rooms Residential 1,416 units 2,821 units + 1,405 units R+ Other Special Areas* Office 523,118 s.f. 715,231 s.f. + 192,113 s.f Legend Commercial 5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f. +87,895 s.f. Ci Hotel 0 0 0 C ! r Boundary Residential 479 units 495 units + 16 units North De Anza Gateway $g Primary Uses Commercial Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre �. ESTEAD RD Maximum Height 60 feet,or 75 feet with a retail component, 145 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits itelling Gateway ,•••• came 5s 'rimary Uses L..1 a North Vallco Gateway ommercial and Residential L Primary Uses Maximum Residential Density 00, Commercial,Office and Residential 6 units per acre Maximum Residential Density Maximum Height 25 units per acre(110 units per acre for 5 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component Hamptons Site) Maximum Height 60 feet,or 75 feet with a retail component m (retail not required east of Wolfe Rd),or 85 Q feet with no retail for the Hamptons Z *—130 feet along Wolfe Rd with retail and Q project-wide/community benefits 0 Gateway South Vallco Park Gateway Uses I #. East Primary Uses rcial,Office and Residential �✓� ��� � Commercial,Office and Residential im Residential Density _ per acre I AV Maximum Residential Density im Height De Anza 35 units per acre or 75 feet with a retail component Lo'� Maximum Height College 75 feet or 90 feet with retail, =160 feet with retail and project-wide/ tY community benefits II r South Vallco Park Gateway West Primary Uses -- `— — Commercial,Office and Residential North Crossroads Node Maximum Residential Density Primary Uses 35 units per acre Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density r Primary Uses 60 feet,or 75 with a retail component,or 85 feet 40 units per acre Commercial,Office and Residential along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd with Maximum Height Maximum Residential Density _- retail and project-wide/community benefits 60 feet,or 75 with a retail component 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet,or 90 feet with a retail component, *=110 feet with retail and project-wide/ community benefits $5 rn m Z Q Major Corridors Built/Approved Remaining in Existing GP Alternative C Difference o Office 17,113 s.f. 3,290,000 s.f. +3,272,887 s.f. Commercial 695,629 s.f. 1,250,000 s.f. +554,371 s.f. Hotel 339 rooms 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms Residential 1,416 units 3,900 units +2,484 units Other Special Areas* Legend Office 523,118 s.f. 750,231 s.f. +227,113 s.f. Commercial 5,784 s.f. 93,679 s.f. +87,895 s.f. Hotel 0 0 0 �./ City Boundary � Residential 479 units 521 units +42 units Ming Gateway North De Anza Gateway ary Uses Primary Uses mercial and Residential Commercial of Stelling, „ Maximum Residential Density imum Residential Density \ 35 units per acre 0 35 units per acre a, zR Nb ESTEAD RD Maximum Height imum Height 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component.90 feet u, yet,or 60 feet with a retail component ` for a hotel with major convention center and 4 community benefits , #aa.....,?..,.: Apple Campus 2 North Vallco Gateway 3ateway J � Primary Uses Jses I JseOffice and Residential Commercial,Office and Residential n Residential Density Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre(65 units per acre if Housing oer acre Element site) n Height Maximum Height ,r 60 feet with a retail component West of Wolfe 60 feet a =90 feet for a 200 foot depth along Wolfe Road N property line for a hotel with major convention center with community benefits East of Wolfe 75 feet Buildings with 50 feet of property lines abutting Wolfe Road,Pruneridge Ave.and Apple Campus 2 y ffir13 site shall not exceed 60 feet. -aa .., .� ;r �+ De Anza _L 00*iL College South Vallco Park Gateway t Primary Uses H it Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density ° •-- 35 units per acre Maximum Height North Crossroads Node 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component Primary Uses Commercial,Office and Residential City Center Node Maximum Residential Density r Primary Uses L 25 units per acre;35 units per acre if HousingCommercial,Office and Residential Element Site ' Maximum Residential Density f Maximum Height 25 units per acre 45 feet,or 60 feet with a retail component �' Maximum Height _. 60 feet,75 feet with a retail component. *=90 feet with retail and community benefits 85 0 rJ (Citywi'de Development • • N Major Corridors Built/Approved Remaining in Existing GP Balanced Plan Difference Office 30,708 s.f. 1,668,826 s.f. +1,685,939 s.f. Commercial 732,697 s.f. 1,270,945 s.f +538,248 s.f.** Hotel 339 rooms 1,339 rooms +1,275 rooms Residential 1,490 units 4,001 units +2,511 units Other Special Areas* Office 523,118 s.f. 885,000 s.f. +361,882 s.f. Uses Development Allocation Commercial 0s.1 69526 s.f. +69,526 s.f.** ,rcial,Office and Residential Commercial.......-607774 s.f Hotel 0 0 0 im Residential Density Office....................1,000,000 s.f. Residential 479 units 495 unit +16 units Ming Gateway North De Anza Gateway nary Uses Primary Uses nmercial and Residential Commercial (imum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density t of Stelling-35 units per acre 35 units per acre A of Stelling-15 units per acre STEAD RD Maximum Height (imum Height 45 feet or 60 feet with retail or 90 feet with a 500 t of Stelling-45 feet person convention center ,t of Stelling-30 feet U North Vallco Gateway Primary Uses �" - Commercial and Office ^- West of Wolfe Maximum Density ik a 25 units per acre z Maximum Height rw- 60 feet M East of Wolfe Maximum Density f 25 units per acre or 99 units per acre if Housing I Element Site (( Maximum Height \ 75 feet;Buildings within 50 feet of property lines \ abutting Wolfe Road,Pruneridge Avenue and __ Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet. - De Anzac College Hall City Center Node ' Primary Uses MCCLELLAN RD Commercial,Office and Residential Maximum Residential Density South Vallco Park 25 units per acre Gateway Oaks Gateway North Crossroads Node Maximum Height Primary Uses Primary Uses Primary Uses 45 feet Commercial,Office and Residential Commercial and Residential Commercial,Office and Residential -- - Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density r °� _ 35 units per acre 25 units per acre 25 units per acre;35 units per acre if Housing Maximum Height Maximum Height Element Site ` ` — ...� �� 5 feet,or with a retail component 45 feet Maximum Height 45 feet or 60 feet with retail 85 o Z< Remaining in Planning Commission Difference Major Corridors Built/Approved Existing GP Recommendation Office 30,708 s.f. TBD TBD iiAINBOW DR RA(NLtOW^_ Commercial 732,697 s.f. 732,697 s.f 0 S.f. Hotel 339 rooms 1339 rooms 1,000 rooms Residential 1,490 units REMOVED Other Special Areas" Legend Office 523,118 s.f. TBD TBD Commercial 0 s.f. 0 S.f. 0 S.f. r�1 City Boundary 1 Hotel 0 0 0 Lc Karen B. Guerin From: John Bozek <jsbozek @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:41 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino Development Projects Cupertino City Council Members, I have lived in the same residence in Cupertino going on 55 years. I have seen many changes, most have benefited the residences. I also believe some of the development efforts in the Vallco (City Center) are contrary to the Vision Statement in the 2005 General Plans. Frankly I don't understand how the Vallco development will improve the lives of the citizens of Cupertino. Most Council Members live 3+ miles away,from the huge apartment complexes that are being built and are not subjected to the problems accompanied with the high density housing. Unfortunately those who live close by are.The Vallco development is a done deal, but before addressing current and future projects, please review the Vision Statement of the 2005 General Plan. Please give priority to the citizens of Cupertino over that of business interests or potential tax revenues. Respectfully, John Bozek 6387 Atherwood Ave. 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:18 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Barry, Congratulation on your re-election! I would love to see you serving Cupertino more. I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. i Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:36 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J.Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) . Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com);Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves @migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW:Vote NO to high density construction FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:35 PM To: Aard Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Vote NO to high density construction From the general planning mailbox: From: Isabel Tserng [mailto:isabelts(ayahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:13 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Vote NO to high density construction Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way,the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact.Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However,the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps,the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. 1 Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things,he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." Regards, Isabel Tserng 10095 Bret Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 2 I� Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:10 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Gilbert, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. i Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:12 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Orrin, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. i Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:11 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Rod, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development,.I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. 1 . Karen,B.. Guerin From: Inhn Ishii <iohnishii @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:00 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Chang We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating.new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon.This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route.' 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive •`&rising deveiopments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii I z Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:59 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Santoro We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 . include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii z Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:58 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Mahoney We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns. for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The.vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The.traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some-Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not i include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John & Janice Ishii 2 Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii @hotmail.com> Sent' November 10, 2014 12:57 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Sinks We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area . may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The'.vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for.commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. .5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D& E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John & Janice Ishii 2 Karen B. Guerin From: John Ishii <johnishii @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:56 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Impacts to North Cupertino Hello Council Member Wong We understand there are several proposed projects for the North Cupertino area that raise some serious concerns for the residents of this area. We would caution the Council on reviewing any projects that would add to the already impacted area until the existing projects (Apple campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street) are completed to see the real impacts to this area prior to initiating new projects. There are existing indicators that this area may have reached its capacity. 1. The local elementary school is at capacity and students are being bused to other schools in the district. This increase will eventually impact the middle and high schools. 2. The,vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the elementary and middle schools in the area make it difficult for commercial and public traffic to enter or exit the neighborhood during the start and dismissal times. 3. The traffic associated with the existing Apple campus show how much the traffic can be impacted. There are long lines on the 280 exits onto De Anza Blvd until almost noon. This should raise concerns for the existing crowed Lawrence Expwy exits-and potentially Wolfe Rd exits when campus 2 opens. This does not address any increase to existing surface road traffic when the.second campus opens. Some Apple employees are parking their vehicles in front of Lawson Middle School and walking to the main and/or satellite buildings. I have personally watched employees park their vehicles and walk toward the Apple buildings. 4. Wolfe Road is already a busy commute route for many area workers and the existing projects will make this a more congested route. 5. 1 also want to remind you of the codicil that was lost during a City Hall fire regarding the wall separating Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. It was concerns with the proposed housing development on the Vallco property that would overload the local schools and eventually result in a breaching of the wall that lead to D & E that were passed by the majority of the residents of this city. This should be a reminder of how many residents of this city do not want to be subjected to the impacts of excessive housing developments. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Council put a moratorium on future development in the North Cupertino area until the true impacts of the Apple Campus 2, Rose Bowl and Main Street can be properly analyzed with current data. We would further suggest any evaluations of the area impacts and development access points not 1 include the possible breaching (for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic) of the existing wall between Vallco and the adjacent neighborhood. Sincerely, John& Janice Ishii z Karen B. Guerin From: Grace Schmidt Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:02 AM To: City Council Subject: FW: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI for tonight's meeting. From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:53 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI... From: Dan Amsden [mailto:damsden(U)migcom.com] - Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 8:17 PM To: Piu Ghosh; Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber; Genevieve Sharrow; Veronica Tam; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Fwd: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI, this comment came via the project website today. sent from mobile device ------ Forwarded message ---------- From: <inf6@cu1)ertinog1)a.org> Date: Nov 9, 2014 7:22 PM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website. To: <info ,cupertinogpa.org> Cc: Comment Submitted by: Name: Eric Schmidt Organization: None Given Email: ericrschmidt59ggmail.com Subject: Housing Element: School Enrollment Increase Underestimated Comment: regarding: The Housing Element With the plans to increase the number of available housing'elements in 1 the General Plan, I am concerned the actual increase in school children is being significantly underestimated. My understanding is the housing elements assume 0.25 children per unit, while in Cupertino with the high quality schools, this could be closer to 2 per unit, 8 times more than stated in the EIR. This explosive, unplanned growth in enrollment would have a negative effect on the quality of schools and life in Cupertino. I support the growth of the city, but it must be properly accounting for all the impact. Eric Schmidt Fairgrove Neighborhood z I Karen B. Guerin From: Gilbert Cupertino <gilbertcupertino @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:56 PM To: Eric Schaefer; Grace Schmidt; David Brandt; Carol Korade; Karen B. Guerin Cc: Gilbert Wong Subject: Re: Nov. 10 Council meeting: Request to group speakers Upon arrival to the Council meeting, please identify yourself to the City Clerk, Grace Schmidt on the process. We welcome you tonight at our public hearing! Gilbert Wong Mayor Sent from my iPad On Nov 10, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Eric Schaefer<eschaefe o,us.ibm.com> wrote: Honorable Mayor Wong, At tonight's Council meeting, several residents have presentations that are somewhat related. If we can be sequenced in adjacent time slots, I believe that our messages will be clearer to the council members. 1. Eric Schaefer(3 minutes) 2. Tom ' kes P group 5 minutes Y 9 p ( ) 3. Sushma Shirish (3 minutes) 4. Chris Bencher's group (10 minutes) 5. Ying Yu (3 minutes) Thank you for your consideration. Eric Schaefer 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Eric Schaefer <eschaefe @us.ibm.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:00 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Nov. 10 Council meeting: Request to group speakers Honorable Mayor Wong, At tonight's Council meeting, several residents have presentations that are somewhat related. If we can be sequenced in adjacent time slots, I believe that our messages will be clearer to the council members. 1. Eric Schaefer(3 minutes) 2. Tom Pyke's group (5 minutes) 3. Sushma Shirish (3 minutes) 4. Chris Bencher's group (10 minutes) 5. Ying Yu (3 minutes) Thank you for your consideration. Eric Schaefer 1 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:35 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Rebecca Tolentino Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com);Veronica Tam; Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves @migcom.com); David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are satisfactorily informed FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:34 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are satisfactorily informed From: The Roberts Family [mailto:larsonroberts @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:24 AM To: Nancy Roberts Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are satisfactorily informed Dear Ci ty officials I am writing to object to the approval of the General Plan Amendment. The city has been working on this for 18 months.At every step of the way,the city did not satisfactorily communicate their plans to the residences of Cupertino. This communication breakdown has been so substantial that the majority of residences are not even aware of the city's plan to rezone and all the consequences and impacts that will follow. We vigorously urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Ilan Amendment until all of the city residences are satisfactorily informed. This communication should be put in clear and easy to understand language. And special attempts should be made to fully inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Due to this communication breakdown, our voices have essentially been silenced during this entire 18 month process rending your residents of Cupertino disenfranchised on this pivotal issue. The city might have sent out postcards with the intent to inform,but for whatever reason,the residences did not get the message.Perhaps,the description or the wording may have been misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done.And the majority of residences are still not aware of the General flan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council would postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment and discuss ways to satisfactorily inform residents, especially in the neighborhoods directly impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed sufficient time to review EIR and its data and provide feedback. 1 A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment will transform our neighborhoods for the next four decades. Substantial efforts must be exercised to ensure that all residents are fully informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct the smallest of things,he/she needs signatures from the neighborhood. But when the city builds over 1000+apartments ...we are not even notified?" By not postponing the approval,you are sending the message that you consider yourselves above the law and have no regard at all for the voice of the residents of Cupertino. Think about what that sounds like. Regards, Ronnie and Nancy Roberts The Roberts Family 408.252.2916 Home 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:35 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com);.Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves @migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:34 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox:. From: Liang C f mailto:lfchao@amail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:32 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Subject: Better Cupertino -Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its-impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact.Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected'by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. 1 A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively'inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things,he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR(Environment Impact Report) sufficiently., Regards, Liang-Fang Chao 10175 McLaren Place, Cupertino, CA 95014 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:34 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen,J.Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com); Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves @migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt;Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed From the general planning mailbox: From: xinhua wang [mailt6:xinhua2000 @hotmaii.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:09 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. To: Gilbert Wong gwong2cupertino.org, rsinks @cupertino.orB, omahonev @cupertino.org, msantoro @cupertino.or , bchang @cupertino.or , manager @cupertino.or�, planning @cupertino.org, Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However,the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs.. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan.Amendment and its impact. 1 A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. Ali residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city toPostpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review.El (Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Xinhua wang 866 betlin ave, cupertino 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com);Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves @migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox: From: Rui Xu fmailto:rachel xuercd)hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:53 AM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However,the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps,the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. 1 A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR (Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Rui (Rachel) Xu 10773 Brookwell Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:33 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves @migcom.com); Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com); Veronica Tam; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: Ci ty of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox: From: Meng Ma [mailto:mengma@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:30 PM Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials I am working on my house remodeling and spend a lot of time to prepare the public hearing of our expansion project. I need approval from all my neighbors but when city builds over 1000+ apartments, I am not event notified-this is frustrating. The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason,the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. 1 A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. I realize that Cupertino does need more housing-units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR(Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, Jessie and Jun z Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com); Genevieve Sharrow(genevieves @migcom.com); Veronica Tam; Grace Schmidt, David Brandt Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:31 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. From the general planning mailbox: From: Nichole I [mailto:ysixsix0)gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:47 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Better Cupertino - Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. Dear City officials, The city has been working on the General Plan Amendment for 18 months. In every step of the way, the city "supposedly" made various attempts to contact the residences of Cupertino. However, the fact of the matter is that the majority of residences is not even aware of the city's plan in rezoning and its impact. We urge the city to postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment until all of the city residences are 'effectively' informed of rezoning and its impact. Rezoning and its impact should be clearly described in a language that's easy to understand by all residences. And special attempts should be made to inform neighborhoods directly affected by rezoning. Rezoning and building more housing units might be just what the city needs. However, the residences were not well informed and our views were not considered during the 18 month period. The city might have sent many postcards to inform the residences. For whatever reason, the residences did not get the intended message. Perhaps, the description or the wording used might be misleading or confusing to residences. The end result is that many residences are shocked to learn about rezoning after the final EIR is done. And the majority of residences are still not aware of General Plan Amendment and its impact. A responsible city council should postpone the approval date of the General Plan Amendment. Discuss ways to 'effectively' inform residents, especially the neighborhoods impacted by the Amendment. The residents should be allowed extra time to review EIR and its data and provide comments. A responsible city council would not take this decision lightly. This Amendment would transform our neighborhoods for the next four decade. All residents should be EFFECTIVELY informed. Like one resident said on NextDoor.com, "If my neighbor wants to construct smallest of things, he/she needs signatures of neighborhood but when city builds over 1000+ apartments ... (we are not even notified)? .... this is frustrating." I realize that Cupertino does need more housing units, as mandated by the State. That's the future trend. However, there are many different ways to achieve a goal without compromising what we already have. The residents should be well informed so that we come to a General Plan that's going to make a Better Cupertino. Therefore, I urge the city to Postpone the approval date of General Plan Amendment until all residences are EFFECTIVELY informed. 1 And the residences should be allowed ample time to review EIR (Environment Impact Report) sufficiently. Regards, N. J. Parents from CUSD 2 Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com);Veronica Tam; Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves @migcom.com); David Brandt; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino FYI... From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:31 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh; Rebecca Tolentino Subject: FW: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino From the general planning mailbox: From: Nagapriya K Tiruthani [mailto:naclapriyak @ yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 2:41 PM To: Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gilbert Wong Subject: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino Dear Cupertino city officials, There has been a lot of discussion among the city residents regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of site in the city. First of all,the Cupertino residents are not adequately informed.A few years back an amendment was made in the notification process of City Council meetings.Therefore,most of the city is now left in the dark Though all the information is available in the city's website,it is not humanly possible for us to checkout the website every week to scan what is being discussed and which measure we should focus on.The city could use the broadcast email or telephone messages to inform the resident,if it wants to save paper,on what is being discussed esp projects of big magnitudes like the General Amendment plan!But leaving it to the citizens to figure out what is going on in the council is not right.Only those parties that are interested in what is being discussed are present for these meeting and therefore,you hardly hear from the public.I have signed up for the email notifications,but that does not give me any information.It points to the link where I need to dig information.So,the notification process needs to be brought up for discussion and should have the residents involved in the discussion. Regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of sites,please take a look at this petition and also don't forget to read all the comments from Cupertino residents.There is one thing that is-loud and clear..DO NOT OVER DEVELOP THE CITY.Yes,developers do want to build every square inch of the city but as the people residing here,we are the long term sufferers of this over development/over crowding of the city. Cupertino City Council members:Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino dProjects: oxrororcosuaexr; Cupertino City Council me y, •Rose bowl: sw resiiaences+ 284 new resident mbers: Say NO to re-zoning :m sq it office .tryoln Strc-et: th,,, Lions:1.040 new 120 now resident noes(tear down tab room hotel+ Dear Cupertino City Council member fisting residences) 260,000 sq it otffc s We DO NOT agree with the proposa i Furnliure:. 6•Appre Campus rl I r initu e: ! 2.8 mtulon sq it of 1 of rezoning of'sites for conformance with General Plan and Housing Elem. 'your voice be heard!City Council dec ent.All... Monday,November 90th at 6:45pn View on www.change.orq Preview by Yahoo Cupertino City Hall next to the libror 1 Here are some of quick pointers why we SHOULD NOT allow over development of the city: • High Density:According to the proposed plan,all high density housing are concentrated on part of the city which connects with neighboring cities like Sunnyvale,Santa Clara and San Jose. • Over crowding:According to the EIR document,the schools'are saying that it cannot accommodate more children is a clear indication that the city is overcrowded.Our schools are big and have been adding classrooms regularly.If we cannot accommodate more kids in spite of adding extra classrooms,then there is unprecedented growth in the area which needs to be curtailed. • Taxes:The mitigation fees that the developers give the school district might pay towards the building costs for increasing the number of classrooms,but the operational costs will end up as Parcel tax for the residential owners and not property developers • Schools:It also does not correct for the EIR report to saythat the"impact is less significant"for the school district with mitigation fees as a solution.The mitigation fees helps to add classrooms but does it help to increase the field,outdoor sports,band,classroom size, number of electives,teachers,recruitment and sustainability of teachers.How many teams will they have for a sport?How many kids will be in each classroom when all this project is completed?Will kids get enough attention and projects from teachers?Did the EIR think about the impact of Core Curriculum which emphasizes on group learning?What will be the size of these groups?Yes,these are outside the prospect of this report.but as city officials,you need to think about the future citizens that this citywill be producing. • Housing:If the state mandates the cityto build more housing,why not make lands for individual houses instead of high density apartment,townhouses,or condominium buildings? • Shopping:Why not make an open shopping mall like Santana Row in Vallco.There's Rose Bowl and Main Street for residential proximity if Vallco becomes Cupertino's Santana Row • Traffic:This is one of the biggest concerns of this city....Traffic.Have you really tried driving on De Anza blvd or Stevens Creek blvd at 6.30 to 7pm on weekday evenings?You would know how many can are lined up for each green light.All this before the completion of Main Street,Rose Bowl and Apple Spaceship campus. • Parking:Parking has become a nightmare at the library.Do you know why?Because the number of residents has been constantly growing in Cupertino.Just look at how many residential houses are on the rectangular plot that is lined with Rodrigues Ave,Stevens Creek Blvd,De Anza Blvd and Portal Ave.Way too many for that small area.How did we let that happen? • Community:Cupertino is known for its quiet community neighborhood style.It is not a city like San Francisco or San Jose.People moved here because of the communityfeel,parks,quiet streets and less crowded roads.If all the proposed housing comes up,every park,road,and shop is going to be so crowded that it is going to be unpleasant for people to continue living here. • Environment:All these will directly or indirectly affect the environment.Approximately,every household has 2 cars.So,when the number of households increases,the number of cars on the road multiplies as well.Imagine the number of cars that will be on the road. This will facilitate rash driving and more accidents on our city roads.Kids will not be able to safelywalk or bike to school.The air will be filled with pollution. • Demand:The developers would want to build every square inch that is available in Cupertino because the real estate market is very hot. But when there is economy crisis,with all this over growth,Cupertino will be the first cityto hit crisis.So,by building too manyhouses for today's demand might end up the city in bigger problem in the unforeseen future. • Health Crisis:One of the major reasons for a cityto NOT BECOME over populated/crowded is: when a health crisis like Ebola arises,the spreading of disease is much faster for a high density citythan a low density-city,If a problem like that hits Cupertino,we may not be able to control it as the hospitals will not be able to accommodate all the patients.How come Cupertino has not been approached by a hospital to build a facility here? Please take the Cupertino citizens concerns into your decision making process. You are all the leaders that the city looks up to for making Cupertino a favorable place to live.Please don't make decisions just based on rules and building codes,but do consider the emotions of passionate residents of Cupertino. Thanks, Nagapriya Tiruthani (408)768 4919 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Rick Kitson Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:43 AM To: City Council cc: Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt Subject: Concerns re general plan This came in to Access Cupertino Thursday night. Due to the topic, it has also been referred to Community Development staff that are working on the issue. I request one of the councilmen to give me a call in regards to the rezoning plan. I think it is plain dumb to increase the more and more high density residence in the area. Where do you live? Do you know how crowded our schools are? and how many cars on our streets? I voted for you, don't let me down. Shemin Gau 408-203-3320 I 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Roger Qing <mail @changemail.org> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: 100 new people signed: Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino 100 People Recently Add Their Names To %{Petition Creator}'S Petition "%{Petition Title}" That Means More Than 500 People Have Signed On There are now 704 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Cupertino Residents by clicking here: http://www.change.org/p/cupertino-city-council-members-say-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in- cupertino/responses/new?response=77aa66bafaa4 Dear Orrin Mahoney, Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino Sincerely, 704. Jiten Vaghela Cupertino, California 702. Sandeep Sharma Sunnyvale, California 701. Saihong Song San Jose, California 700. Roger Qing Cupertino, California 699. Muzhou Shao Cupertino, California 697. Shu Chen Cupertino, California 696. Qinyu ma Saratoga, California 695. Khushi Valia Cupertino, California 694. Lai Chen Saratoga, California 693. Christina wang Saratoga, California 692. Grace hu Saratoga, California 690. Ying Zhou77 , California 689. Feiqi su San Jose, California 686. Bethany Stephan Cupertino, California 685. Maria Mokrzycki Cupertino, California 684. ming ma Santa Clara, California 683. Saravanan Coimbatore Cupertino, California 682. Hatem Fahmi Sunnyvale, California 680. Matthew Stephan Cupertino,-California 679. sundar narayanan cupertino, California 678. Rahul Ravulur Cupertino, California 677. Anna Black-Hogins Cupertino, California 676. Tristan Lorach Cupertino, California 675. NELSON D'SOUZA Cupertino, California 674. Jing Liu Cupertino, California 670. Joe Chang Cupertino, California 668. Xiaoru Hu Cupertino, California 667. FAN PENG KONG Cupertino, California i 666. James Shih Callahan, California 665. wenting tang Cupertino, California 664. Ralph Riddle Cupertino, California 663. Wendy Chang Cupertino, California 662. Adan Martinez Cupertino, California 661. Vickie Chin Cupertino, California. 660. Lanlan Hu Sunnyvale, California 659. Yinghua Huang Cupertino, California 658. Sushma Bannur Cupertino, California 657. Ying Shoh Cupertino, California 656. Huihui yong Cupertino, California 655. Lei Wang )V L W"E, California 654. Sherry Wu San Jose, California 653. Julie Gleaves Cupertino, California 651. Yeping Zhao San Jose, California 650. Tingting Wang San Jose, California 649. Ray Huang San Jose, California 648. Dekun zou Cupertino, California 647. Yan Li Cupertino, California 646. Yongmei Xue Cupertino, California 645. David Ma San Jose, California 644. Yanrong Zhu Cupertino, California 642. Lillian Li Mountain View, California 640. Jonathan Green Cupertino, California 639. Ron g g Ron Santa Clara California 638. Wei Zhong Santa Clara, California 637. Yan Wang � ��JQ, California 635. Xiaowei Yee San Jose, California 633. Jennifer zeng Cupertino,California 632. Peter tian Cupertino, California 630. Huiqin Tang Cupertino, California 628. Bin Liao Santa Clara, California 627. Tao Lin Cupertino, California 626. Sioe Tjhan Cupertino, California 625. Don Yuh Cupertino, California 624. rueyeh chen Cupertino, California 623. Nancy Boyle Cupertino, California 622. Aanchal Gupta Cupertino, California 621. Yi Ke Wang cupertino, California 620. Irene wang cupertino, California 619. Julia Zhou Redwood City, California 618. John Tolan Cupertino, California 617. Deepika Kapil Cupertino, California 616. Matangi Rajamani Cupertino, California 614. Edward Puccinelli Cupertino, California 613. Chuan Hsueh CUPERTINO, California 612. Tom MacDonald Cupertino, California 611. Qian Zhao Cupertino, California 610. steve herhusky cupertino, California 608. Vidya Venkataraghavan Cupertino, California 2 607:Jimmy McAfee Cupertino, California 606. Deepali Narula Cupertino, California 604.Parul Gupta Cupertino, California 603. Sridhar Seshadri Cupertino, California 602.bertha molina Sunnyvale, California 601`. Angus Chen Cupertino, California 600. sammy wang cupertino, California 599. dorothy cheng cuptertino, California 596. gayathri jayanthi Cupertino, California 595. bill black-hogins cupertino, California 594. keiko black-hogins Cupertino, California 593.Xiao Zha Cupertino, California 592. Deepa Rao cupertino, California 591. Qi Wang San Jose, California 590. Dong Han Sunnyvale, California 589. Sapna Gupta Cupertino, California 588. Ram Laxmanan Cupertino, California 587. Yonghui Zhang Cupertino, California 586. Vaishnavi Sridhar Cupertino, California 585. Rohini Kashibatla Cupertino, California 584. Li Chen Cupertino, California 582. Hong Luo San Jose, California 3 11100N VALLEY-,, LEADERSHIP GROUP 1001 Gateway Place,Suite 107E San Jose,California 95110 (408)507-7864svlg.org November 10,2014 CARL GUARDING President&CEO Board ofricrs: The Honorable Gilbert Wong,Mayor STEVE BERGLUND,Chair City of Cupertino Trimble Navigation - GREGBECKER,Vice Chair 10300 Torre Avenue SVB Financial Group Cupertino,CA 95014 JOHNADAMS Secretarr/Tmasurer Wells Fargo Bank TOM WERNER,Former Chair SunPOwer RE: General Plan Amendments and Housin g Element AART DE GEUS,Former Chair Synopsys MIKE SPLINTER,Former Chair Mayor Wong and Council Members: Applied Materials B0 d Members: MART/NANSTICE On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to urge you to move forward with Lam Research SHELL YEARCHAMBEAU the General Plan Amendments and Housing Element update that is current being considered by Metricstream,Inc. the City Council. We request that the Council approve sufficient office space allocations and ANDYBALL Suffolk Construction housing allocations to help Cupertino remain competitive from an economic development GEORGE BLUMENTHAL tid t the City's housing needs obligations the I term. University of California,Santa Cruz perspective an meet Y s ous g nees an g ons over long JOHN BOLAND KQED The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, CHRIS BOYD Kaiser Permanente represents more than 375 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, programs and BRADLEY)BULL/NGTON campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valle including energy, Biidgelux q Y Y- g gY- DAV/DCUSH transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, economic vitality and the Virgin America CLAUDf DARTIGUf(ONGUE environment. Leadership Group members collectively p rovide nearly one of every three private BD Biosciences sector jobs in Silicon Valley. MICHAEL ENGH,S.l. Santa Clara University TOMFALLON Specifically,we request that the City of Cupertino adopt up to 3.5M sf of office space in its long /nnerBRANT FISH term plan to help companies both large and small start, grow and stay in Cupertino. We also Chevron corporation recommend that the City continue to set aside its current allotment of square feet specifically for HENRYFORE Comcast "major employers"again to attract and retain companies in Cupertino and the region. KENGOLDMAN Yahoo! RAQUEL GONZALEZ It is also worth noting that on an annual basis, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group surveys its BankofAmedca members in order to highlight the good and bad elements of doing business in Silicon Valley. DOUG GRAHAM Lockheed Martin Space Systems Each year, housing is cited as a top impediment. Housing affordability along with cost of living LAURA GUIO IBM issues serve as a choke point for recruiting and retaining top talent to Silicon Valley. Housing /BM KENKANNAPPAN persists as a key issue for people who struggle to work and live in the Valley. Demand continues R/ E GARYLAUYLAUER to lag behind supply creating a tight housing market. eHealth ENRIQUELORES We encourage the City to adopt the Housing Element with 1,400 homes or more to meet the HP g Y p g MATTMAHAN City's long term needs in smart ways. The City has the opportunity with properties like the Brigade TARKANMANER struggling Vallco Shopping Mall to combine retail,J obs and housing a near major transportation Nexenta corridors. Mixed use neighborhoods reduce auto dependency, provide walkability and create a KEN MCNAT&T sense of lace and community. The also provide for Ion term economic development, Ar&r p Y• Y p 9 P KEV/NMURA/ diversification and stability for many communities. Synnex JES PEDERSON Webcor We appreciate and commend the City's extensive community process over the past year and KIM POLESE C/earStreet encourage adoption of the both the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element as MO QAYOUMI described above. San lose State University VIVEK RANADIVE nBCO Sincerely, STEVEN ROSSI Bay Area News Group ALANSALZMAN VantagePoint Capital Partners RON SEGE J Echelon Corporation ROSEMARY TURNER � Q" UPS RICK WALLACE - KLA-Tencor DAN WARMENHOVEN NetApp,Inc. Carl Guardlno JED YORK President&CEO San Francisco 49ers Established in 1978 by DAVID PACKARD Karen B. Guerin From: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:20 PM To: City Council Cc: grenna5000 @yahoo.com Subject: General Plan Amendment, Housing Element and Rezoning Dear City Council: The No Project Alternative is the best plan for Cupertino at this time.The other plans are too radical and will make.too much change. I also do not think changing the building setback along-the whole length of Stevens Creek Blvd. from east to west to 1:1 ratio is a good idea.The frontage of Main Street on Stevens Creek Blvd. is 1:1.5 and Main Street was designed with that concept. The buildings there look nice with the 1:1.5 ratio-and do not give the "canyon" feel a 1:1 ratio would. I don't think all of Stevens Creek Blvd. would look very nice with a 1:1 ratio and a "closed in" boxy feel, especially as the buildings got taller. Please don't let the 1:1.5 ratio be taken away from the Main Street frontage on Stevens Creek Blvd. and please don't let the rest of Stevens Creek Blvd. be 1:1 from now on.This is too much of a blanket change. Main Street is not yet finished and already the zoning is trying to be changed.Also,we don't know what the future holds for the rest of Stevens Creek Blvd. I don't think the Stevens Creek Blvd. building setback frontage should be all changed to 1:1 at this time. It creates vertical canyons. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Rick Kitson Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:43 AM To: City Council Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt Subject: Concerns re general plan This came in to Access Cupertino Thursday night. Due to the topic, it has also been referred to Community Development staff that are working on the issue. I request one of the councilmen to give me.a call in regards to the rezoning plan: I think it is plain dumb to increase the more and, more high density residence in the area. Where do you live? Do you know how crowded our schools are?'and how many cars on our streets? I voted for you, don't let me down. Shemin Gau' 408-203-3320 1 y; $$ f'�'" fj e fig+ u,. M rY Association of REALTORS' November 10,2014 Honorable Mayor Gilbert Wong and Council Members Cupertino City Hall 10300"Torre Avenue Cupertino; CA 95014 Dear Mayor Wong and Council Members, The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORSO(SILVAR) is a trade association representing over 4,000 real estate professionals in the counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo. Our Association has historically been an advocate for homeowners and fair public policy. We would like to comment on Agenda Item 1,public hearing,on tonight's Agenda. The City of Cupertino will be facing critical issues in the corning years related to growth.The citizens of Cupertino elect council members to make decisions about what is best for the city. We ask that this Council adopt a plan that allows fixture councils the flexibility to accommodate changes in the business community and population. Limitations on housing growth lead to increased cost of housing because there is not enough supply. These limitations also increase traffic because people need to drive long distances to get to their jobs. This Council should adapt policies that allow fixture councils to approve, or not approve, individual projects as the council sees fit based on the needs of Cupertino at that time. Cupertino is at the very center of Silicon Valley, an area known globally for innovation and forward thinking. Land use policies should reflect that ethos and allow councils the flexibility to lead the city into the future. 'T'hank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment regarding this item. Sincerely, &sica tffairs Director Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS& Cc: Vice Mayor Rod Sinks Councihnecnber Barry Chang Councilmember Orrin Mahoney Councilmember Mark Santoro 1940£7 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100 * Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408.200.0100 . Fax: 408.2€0.0101 • a mrw.silvar.org Karen B. Guerin From: Andrew Chum <achum @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:13 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Residential development on Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd (United Furniture location) Dear Mark, I am a resident on East Estates Dr. over 18 years. I recently just realize there is a residential development on the location of current United Furniture location (Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd). I strongly oppose this development. Cupertino has been developed too fast and too much. With Main Street development, Vallco residential development and soon to finish Apple Campus, we are just expanding too much, too fast, especially at the Wolfe and Stevens Creek junction. Do you know how bad the traffic is in the morning rush hour over Wolfe Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd junction? I would expect even worse traffic jam after the Main St, Vallco and Apple Campus are done. We are over developing Cupertino, or at least we should slow it down and spread out the development over time. With all these new development, I doubt our Cupertino school system can handle that. I firmly suggest you oppose this new development. Yours sincerely, Andrew Chum 10238 E. Estates Dr. i Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:44 PM To: Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber(Garber @smwlaw.com); Barbara E. Kautz (Bkautz @goldfarblipman.com) Cc: Dan Amsden (damsden @migcom.com);Veronica Tam; Genevieve Sharrow (genevieves @migcomxom); David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW:City Council Meeting Attachments: Ltr._from_Robert_McCullock_11.10.14.pdf FYI... From: Jennifer Jodoin fmai Ito:jjodoinCa)ktpropertiesinc.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:43 PM To: Piu Ghosh Subject: City Council Meeting Good Afternoon Piu, Attached please find a letter we received from a neighboring property owner. Please include as a desk item for tonight's City Council Meeting. Furthermore,please confirm you received my email and were able to open the file. Best Regards, Jennifer Jodoin Project Manager KT Properties, Inc. 21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200 Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone- (408) 257-2100 x104 Fax (408)255-8620 I 1 November 10, 2014 Mayor Gilbert Wong Honorable Members of the Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014-3255 Dear Mayor Wong and Members of the Council: My name is Robert McCulloch. My wife and I have lived at 21324 Dexter Drive, Cupertino with our two boys for the past 15 years. We love living here. Cupertino is a unique city, with so much going for it, and clearly any development this close to our home is important to us. Our community is undergoing a period of change, and from our perspective, that change is positive. I am confident that you, as leaders of our city, care deeply about Cupertino and will work to ensure.that Cupertino keeps pace with these changes and is a leader in providing both housing and jobs to ensure Cupertino at least maintains or improves it's stature.To that end, i would ask you to consider the following: G Please review and consider the SK Properties General Plan for the development of housing, new retail properties, and offices on The Oaks Shopping Center Site. e I understand the ownership of The Oaks site has changed a number of times over the past several years. To me it seems there have been changes in tenancy because tenants have been unable to maintain their businesses. It also.appears that there are currently some businesses struggling. It's a shame to have such a great location continue to be under-used and not serving our neighborhood to the fullest extent. We would love to have a vibrant neighborhood center to walk or bike to that has a variety of uses including more shops, entertainment and restaurants. 0 In my opinion, a new owner, who cares about this neighborhood, and understands the city and it's needs with a well thought out plan for housing, new retail and office space will lend new life to this very important "corner" on 1 Cupertino's map.Such a development; inter alia,would have the following impact: o Shopping—allow my family and others to shop within walking distance of their homes o Housing-employees could commute to work (including to the new Apple 2 Campus)by walking or bicycle rather than by automobile o Offices-Office Space at The Oaks would mean that workers would have immediate freeway access and could reduce traffic on local streets Cupertino is in the heart of Silicon Valley. Our community must not fall behind..We should continue to evolve and adapt to change. Part of that is to assume responsibility for providing beautifully designed,well-constructed housing, retail opportunities, and office space to enable our local economy to thrive and our citizens to prosper. Thank you very-much, Robert McCulloch 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Adanm <adanpro @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 9:34 PM To: City Council Subject: Concerned about re-zoning of commercial sites for residential use Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I am alarmed by the city's plan for development of residential units along Stevens Creek between Wolfe and DeAnza. I understand that this planning has been in the works and final voting is to take place tomorrow, however there has not been enough effort to inform reach out to the community and assess impact. The city claims that there has been an effort to outreach, however to most of my neighbors I have been talking to this is news. I am concerned that the development underestimates the impact it will have on traffic and schools in the area, and that there is not sufficient plan in place to compensate for that. This development happens in the East side of Cupertino which is already stressed for resources and services. The community would be better served if these areas were instead devoted to resources that this area needs like parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities,which once again the East side is lacking. There is already an imbalance for these between the East side of Cupertino and the West side. I understand that the city may be motivated by increased revenue of the property tax additional residences will bring. However if the growth is not balanced quality of life and schools decrease as a result property values will decrease and so will the revenue. I am not against growth under any circumstances, however it must be balanced. If the city truly has a vision for smart growth, if should be one that should be better shared with the citizens so that it is well understood and supported. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Adan Martinez 616 Stendhal Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Abu Wawda <abu.wawda @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 2:55 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: Re-zoning and Irresponsible Housing Development Dear Mayor Wong and City Council Members, My family and I are homeowners and residents of Cupertino living in the Racho Rinconada neighborhood. I understand that the city is looking at re-zoning commercial sites in Cupertino and is also looking at significantly increasing the number of high-density residences. This is the last thing we need! I and others in my neighbors are very concerned about this. In fact what's shocking is how few residents know the specifics of the plan and what impact it will have on the city for years to come. I ask that you and city council to think very carefully about the impact of this. Has any consideration been made to (a)traffic; (b) schools; (c) quality of life here? My kids go to Sedgwick Elementary and their classes are already full, not to mention the number of bungalow classrooms we already have. Also I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are a lot of negative comments from residents (on the proposal) on NextDoor.com and also a petition on Change.org (http-//www.change.org/p/cupertino-city-council-members- say-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in-cupertino). Thanks, Abu Wawda i Karen B. Guerin From: philip tracey <pwtracey27@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:48 PM To: giwong @cupertino.org; Rod Sinks; omahoney @cuprtino.org; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino planning commission meeting Gentlemen, Enough development already! Please vote'no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. In my view the Town Center development is already one project too many. The area used for that project should have been made into a park. Surely we have enough revenue already. This idea of paving over,everything is very short sighted - it is rapidly making Cupertino into a less livable community-completely paved over and nothing but shops, condos and offices. Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. Philip'Tracey I 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Chris Tracey <boobei44 @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 4:37 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Proposed Expansion. Hello, I realize this is a lengthy letter. If time is critical, the following paragraph serves as a decent summary. If you have a little more time, I urge you to read the whole message, as I poured my heart out into.it. I was recently informed about a so-called 'state-mandated' expansion, allowing for more than 1800 new residences, concentrated within a relatively small area in East Cupertino. This raises a few concerns from me. First of all, I was not notified of this expansion project in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, Cupertino is crowded enough already as it is: Third, our schools are already full (almost literally)to the brim. And lastly, the nature of the building project means an extremely concentrated grouping of the populace. The addition of a ridiculous amount of residences will create an inconceivable increase in the amount of people and vehicular traffic, making this part of East Cupertino much more dangerous and far less pleasant to live in. . In the area bordered by North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, and Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek boulevard,used-tq Iie a large, open field,with a few trees scattered about,and long green grass that waved in the wind like water. When I was young, my father and I used to ride our bicycles over there and explore perhaps one of the last remaining undeveloped fields from Cupertino'.s proud history of fruit orchards. One Halloween afternoon many a year ago, my mother and I went to a Pumpkin Patch on that same field, and I had a blast going down the air slide nineteen times. Many fond memories come from that field. I attended Cupertino High School, and during lunch breaks, my friends and I would walk across Stevens Creek Boulevard to Cafe LaTTea. Across the street from my school lay that field, surrounded by a green fabric covering the chain-link fence, bulldozers and earthmovers hard at work. I couldn't help but think about all the poor kids growing up today who wouldn't be able to have the same pleasant memories from the same field. I received a pamphlet in the mail informing me about this expansion. Considering the grand size of the project (1800 new residences and a million-square-foot office is certainly not a small feat), I was surprised, to say the least, that I was not previously notified of this job.I However, I'm not one to dwell over the fact that somebody tried to slip the job past me. Nobody can hide such a massive construction job. The other issues with this proposal outweigh the justification to dwell on the fact that I wasn't notified. I was driving down Stevens Creek Boulevard the other day at 5pm, rush hour. Of course, I was stuck in stop- and-go traffic. It took me thirty-seven minutes to go four miles. Not only is that ridiculous, it's also wasteful and raises concerns in terms of pollution. I was sitting in the traffic in the silence of my own car's cabin, and I came to terms with the realization that there are a LOT of cars on the road. It's almost like the cars are ants, looking for something sweet. The addition of this proposal would be like adding two, or maybe three more anthills. Cupertino is crowded and traffic is bad enough already, as it is. During my first year at Cupertino High, I received my tentative schedule of classes a week before school started. A glaring message appeared at the bottom: "NO SCHEDULE CHANGES WILL BE MADE." Well, they had me in the wrong math class. So I decided to go to the counselor's office and ask. On the door, another notice, with large print, "NO SCHEDULE CHANGES." When I inquired, they said they could not move anyone around whatsoever, because literally every single math class was full. I found it ridiculous that I had to 1 sit through an entire year of math in the incorrect class because there were simply TOO MANY PEOPLE in the school. Some of my friends were also in the same predicament. We were already watching the overcrowding of schools lead to the breakdown of our education system - and that was five years ago. Perhaps my letter won't have any effect whatsoever on whether or not the city goes ahead with this expansion. (Then we would be seeing the breakdown of the essence of democracy, but that's a different issue). Perhaps the addition of a million-square-foot office and 1800 new homes will go ahead. In which case, I beg the city planners to spread out the development. If I'm going to live with that many more people in my city, I certainly don't want them all to come from and go home to the same place. This would lead to phenomenal traffic issues, bottlenecking on sidewalks, the streets,traffic lights, intersections, everywhere. Cupertino is 11.2 square miles, and the projected addition only covers about 0.3 square miles. You are adding 7% more population in only 2% of the area. If the city does end up adding 1800 new homes, the least you could do is spread them out. I am saddened when I see that the field that my father and I used to play in is now being bulldozed and developed on. The memories I have are the only things left of those marvelous days and of that field. There is nothing I can do at this point, because it's already been ruined. But if it must be so,then I urge you not to build too high or too densely. Cupertino was founded a's a bunch of orchards, covered in dirt roads, grassy fields and trees. It was a very pleasant place to live. Times have changed-today, it is far more developed,with roads and supermarkets and many many more homes. But the one thing that always set it apart was the relative humility of the development - homes are one or two stories tall, and apartment complexes were few and far between. There is no such thing as'a skyscraper in Cupertino. I would hate to see the day when Cupertino becomes like any other Asian city, skyscrapers everywhere, full of people, massive overpopulation, crowded streets,dangerous amounts of traffic, pollution, you name it. Cupertino is a pleasant place to live, with trees and parks aplenty. But the addition of 1800 new residences and a massive office will begin to spell the end of it. z Karen B. Guerin From: jenny tracey <beibei95014 @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:50 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: OPPOSITION to 1800 More New Residence in Cupertino I received a flyer in my front door advising the City Council wants to allow 1800 New Residence in the East Cupertino area during the Monday, 11/10/14 meeting. Please accept this email as my OPPOSITION to this development! There was no prior notice to me notifying.the meeting of the Planning Commission on the issue of its intent to develop more residence. I can already foresee the traffic problem with all the construction that is taking place across from Vallco and on Blaney, with additional condos/apartments and retail stores being built. Has the City really looked into the future? Will the City be able to handle the sewage problems, wear and tear of the road, crime, emergency evacuations, air quality, etc.? I've always felt all the government agencies are blinded by the thoughts of now and only now. They don't look into the future at all! Take a look at the traffic on De Anza Blvd., Stevens Creek, etc. between 5 and 7 p.m. It's solid with cars already, and this is without the additional people moving in at the "under construction" apartments/condos! If the City Council really approves the additional 1800 new residence be built, that defeats the purpose of why people who have lived here for 20+ years in the first place. They like the neighborhood with parks, trees, birds, gophers...the nature, not concrete blocks, cars, and human beings! I respectfully request that the City Council please kindly DENY the development of additional 1,800 new residence in this area. Thank you. Jenny i Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 10:29 AM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Congratulations and input on new residences Dear Mark, Congratulations for winning another term in Cupertino city council.Your record and the election agenda clearly stood out among all candidates. I am very glad to have voted the right person for the last two elections (it would be three if we count that short term). I would also like to provide my inputs on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First,the decision was made without seeking residents inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, I agree with you to slow down condo development. Codos change the characteristics of the city. Please help to reconstruct the new residence plan to address residents concerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident since 1997 i i i Karen B. Guerin From: philip tracey <pwtracey27 @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:50 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Fwd: Cupertino planning commission meeting Forwarding to Orrin Begin forwarded message: From: philip tracey <pwtracey27(a-yahoo.com> Date: November 9, 2014 7:48:07 PM PST To: iq wongC-cupertino.org, rsinks ,cupertino.org, omahoney( -cup in msantoro(d-)cupertino.org, bchang(d)-cupertino.org Subject: Cupertino planning commission meeting Gentlemen, Enough development already! Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. In my view the Town Center development is already one project too many. The area used for that project should have been made into a park. Surely we have enough revenue already. This idea of paving over everything is very short sighted - it is rapidly making Cupertino into a less livable community- completely paved over and nothing but shops, condos and offices. Please vote no to any more development at the planning commission meeting on Monday 11/10. Philip Tracey i Karen B. Guerin From: Adanm <adanpro @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 9:34 PM To: City Council Subject: Concerned about re-zoning of commercial sites for residential use Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I am alarmed by the city's plan for development of residential units along Stevens Creek between Wolfe and DeAnza. I understand that this planning has been in the works and final voting is to take place tomorrow,however there has not been enough effort to inform reach out to the community and assess impact. The city claims that there has been an effort to outreach, however to most of my neighbors I have been talking to this is news. I am concerned that the development underestimates the impact it will have on traffic and schools in the area, and-that there is not sufficient plan in place to compensate for that. This development happens in the East side of Cupertino which is already stressed for resources and services. The community would be better served if these areas were instead devoted to resources that this area needs like parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities, which once again the East side is lacking. There is already an imbalance for these between the East side of Cupertino and the West side. I understand that the city may be motivated by increased revenue of the property tax additional residences will bring. However if the growth is not balanced quality of life and schools decrease as a result property values will decrease and so will the revenue. I am not against growth under any circumstances, however it must be balanced. If the city truly has a vision for smart growth, if should be one that should be better shared with the citizens so that it is well understood and supported. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Adan Martinez 616 Stendhal Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: jenny tracey <beibei95014 @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:50 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: OPPOSITION to 1800 More New Residence in Cupertino I received a flyer in my front door advising the City Council wants to allow 1800 New Residence in the East Cupertino area during the Monday, 11/10/14 meeting. Please accept this email as my OPPOSITION to this development! There was no prior notice to me notifying the meeting of the Planning Commission on the issue of its intent to develop more residence. I can already foresee the traffic problem with all the construction that is taking place across from Vallco and on Blaney, with additional condos/apartments and retail stores being built. Has the City really looked into the future? Will the City be able to handle the sewage problems, wear and tear of the road, crime, emergency evacuations, air quality, etc.? I've always felt all the government agencies are blinded by the thoughts of now and only now. They don't look into the future at all! Take a look at the traffic on De Anza Blvd., Stevens Creek, etc. between 5 and 7 p.m. It's solid with cars already, and this is without the additional people moving in at the "under construction" apartments/condos! If the City Council really approves the additional 1800 new residence be built, that defeats the purpose of why people who have lived here for 20+ years in the first place. They like the neighborhood with parks, trees, birds, gophers...the nature, not concrete blocks, cars, and human beings! I respectfully request that the City Council please kindly DENY the development of additional 1,800 new residence in this area. Thank you. Jenny i J 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:53 AM To: Barry Chang Subject: Congratulations and input for new residence plan Dear Barry, Congratulations for wining another term in Cupertino city council. I am very glad that I have voted for the right person for the last two elections. As a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First, the decision was made without seeking residents' inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, too many codos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build codos, it would be better to do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence plan to address residents' concerns. Best regards,. Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident and home owner since 1997 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:01 AM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Input to city new residence plan Dear Rod, As your supporter of the last election and a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. i - First, the decision was made without seeking residents' inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, too many codos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build codos, it would be better to do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence plan to address residents' concerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident since 1997 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 10:54 AM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Inputs.on new residence plan Dear Gilbert, As your supporter of the last election and a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First, the decision was made without seeking residents' inputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly, too many codos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build codos, let's do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence plan to address residents' concerns. Best regards; Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident since 1997 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaopeng Xu <xiaopengxu @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 12:07 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Inputs on new city residence plan Dear Orrin, As your supporter of the last election and a city resident of 17 years, I am writing to express my concerns on the planned 1800 new residences in Cupertino. - First, the decision was made without seeking residentsinputs. I was surprised to learn of the planned residences from a flier posted on my door. For such a major city expansion plan, I expect to be informed by the city and city planning commission. I checked my neighbors and they were surprised too. -Secondly, adding 1800 new residences to a localized region in a small city is not well planned.The impact to the local schools and traffic can be unbearable. New additions should be limited and distributed around the city. -Thirdly,too many condos change the characteristics of the city. If we have to build high density housing, it would be better to do it at a slower pace. Please help to change the new residence building plan to address reside ntsconcerns. Best regards, Xiaopeng Xu Cupertino resident and home owner since 1997 i 1 Karen B. Guerin Subject: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino From: Nagapriya K Tiruthani [mailto:nagapriyakCabvahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 2:41 PM To: Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gilbert Wong Subject: Please put a STOP to over developing Cupertino Dear Cupertino city officials, There has been a lot of discussion among the city residents regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of site in the city. First of all,the Cupertino residents are not adequately informed.A few years back an amendment was made in the notification process of City Council meetings.Therefore,most of the city is now left in the dark.Though all the information is available in the city's website,it is not humanly possible for us to check out the website every week to scan what is being discussed and which measure we should focus on.The city could use the broadcast email or telephone messages to inform the resident,if it wants to save paper,on what is being discussed esp projects of big magnitudes like the General Amendment plan!But leaving it to the citizens to figure out what is going on in the council is not right.Only those parties that are interested in what is being discussed are present for these meeting and therefore,you hardly hear from the public.I have signed up for the email notifications,but that does not give me any information.It points to the link where I need to dig information.So,the notification process needs to be brought up for discussion and should have the residents involved in the discussion. Regarding the General Amendment plan and rezoning of sites,please take a look at this petition and also don't forget to read all the comments from Cupertino residents.There is one thing that is loud and clear..DO NOT OVER DEVELOP THE CITY.Yes,developers do want to build every square inch of the city but as the people residing here,we are the long term sufferers of this over development/over crowding of the city. Cupertino City Council members:Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino d Projects: ox TOP or CQ$mxy, Cupertino City Council me evs!detnr-cs+ ; X04 new rend,o tubers: Say NO to re-zoning >n sq t:atrc e I.Main street'. th... 9=-.1.040 new 120 riew rerslde ni awroom hot49+ Dear Cupertino Ciy Council member noes( -occ«si;ng rh ien sq fl otf!c s,We DO NOT agree with the proposa 9 pwniture: 1• Fir.(A7f31CSUS€! sw rrs!dencol. I s..s rnbilon s .ft at 1 of rezoning of sites for conformance kith General Plan and Housing Elem youf%,vice*bL,heard!city Co—n de c ent.All... Monday.November Math at 6:450n C upertlno CBty Halt nett to ti-te(""w,Qr view on www.change.oro preview by Yahoo Here are some of quick pointers why we SHOULD NOT allow over development of the city: • High Density:According to the proposed plan,all high density housing are concentrated on part of the city which connects with neighboring cities like Sunnyvale,Santa Clara and San Jose. • Over crowding:According to the EIR document,the schools'are saying that it cannot accommodate more children is a clear indication that the city is overcrowded. Our schools are big and have been adding classrooms regularly.If we cannot accommodate more kids in spite of adding extra classrooms,then there is unprecedented growth in the area which needs to be curtailed. • Taxes:The mitigation fees that the developers give the school district might pay towards the building costs for increasing the number of classrooms,but the operational costs will end up as Parcel tax for the residential owners and not property developers • Schools:It also does not correct for the EIR report to say that the"impact is less significant"for the school district with mitigation fees as a solution.The mitigation fees helps to add classrooms but does it help to increase the field,outdoor sports,band,classroom size, number of electives,teachers,recruitment and sustainability of teachers.How many teams will they have for a sport?How many kids will be in each classroom when all this project is completed?Will kids get enough attention and projects from teachers?Did the EIR think 1 about the impact of Core Curriculum which emphasizes on group learning?What will be the size of these groups?Yes,these are outside the prospect of this report but as city officials,you need to think about the future citizens that this city will be producing. • Housing:If the state mandates the city to build more housing,why not make lands for individual houses instead of high density apartment,townhouses,or condominium buildings? • Shopping:Why not make an open shopping mall like Santana Row in Vallco.There's Rose Bowl and Main Street for residential proximity if Vallco becomes Cupertino's Santana Row • Traffic:This is one of the biggest concerns of this city....Traffic.Have you really tried driving on De Anza blvd or Stevens Creek blvd at 6.30 to 7pm on weekday evenings?You would know how many cars are lined up for each green light.All this before the completion of Main Street,Rose Bowl and Apple Spaceship campus. • Parking:Parking has become a nightmare at the library.Do you know why?Because the number of residents has been constantly growing in Cupertino.Just look at how many residential houses are on the rectangular plot that is lined with Rodrigues Ave,Stevens Creek Blvd,De Anza Blvd and Portal Ave.Way too many for that small area.How did we let that happen? • Community:Cupertino is known for its quiet community neighborhood style.It is not a city like San Francisco or San Jose.People moved here because of the community feel,parks,quiet streets and less crowded roads.If all the proposed housing comes up,every park,road,and shop is going to be so crowded that it is going to be unpleasant for people to continue living here. • Environment:All these will directly or indirectly affect the environment.Approximately,every household has 2 cars.So,when the number of households increases,the number of cars on the road multiplies as well.Imagine the number of cars that will be on the road. This will facilitate rash driving and more accidents on our city roads.Kids will not be able to safely walk or bike to school.The air will be filled with pollution. • Demand:The developers would want to build every square inch that is available in Cupertino because the real estate market is very hot. But when there is economy crisis,with all this over growth,Cupertino will be the first city to hit crisis.So,by building too many houses for today's demand might end up the city in bigger problem in the unforeseen future. • Health Crisis:One of the major reasons for a city to NOT BECOME over populated/crowded is: when a health crisis like Ebola arises,the spreading of disease is much faster for a high density city than a low density city.If a problem like that hits Cupertino,we may not be able to control it as the hospitals will not be able to accommodate all the patients.How come Cupertino has not been approached by a hospital to build a facility here? Please take the Cupertino citizens concerns into your decision making process. You are all the leaders that the city looks up to for making Cupertino a favorable place to live.Please don't make decisions just based on rules and building codes,but do consider the emotions of passionate residents of Cupertino. Thanks, Nagapriya Tiruthani (408)768 4919 2 . Karen B. Guerin From: sammy wang <mail @changemail.org> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 8:54 PM To: Orrin Mahoney .Subjeet: 100 new people signed: Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino 100 People Recently Add Their Names To %{Petition Creator}'S Petition "%o{Petition Title}" That Means More Than 500 People Have Signed On There are now 600 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Cupertino Residents by clicking here: http://www.change.org/p/cupertino-city-council-members-sU-no-to-re-zoning-the-commercial-sites-in- cupertino/responses/new?response=77aa66bafaa4 Dear Orrin Mahoney, Say NO to re-zoning the commercial sites in Cupertino_ Sincerely, 600. sammy wang cupertino, California 599. dorothy cheng cuptertino, California 596. gayathri jayanthi Cupertino, California 595. bill black-hogins cupertino, California 594. keiko black-hogins Cupertino, California 593. Xiao Zha Cupertino, California 592. Deepa Rao cupertino, California 591. Qi Wang San Jose, California 590. Dong Han Sunnyvale, California 589. Sapna Gupta Cupertino, California 588. Ram Laxmanan Cupertino, California 587. Yonghui Zhang Cupertino, California 586. Vaishnavi Sridhar Cupertino, California -585. Rohini Kashibatla Cupertino, California 584. Li Chen Cupertino, California 582. Hong Luo San Jose, California 580. Minoo Mehta Cupertino, California 579. Soniac Chen Cupertino, California . 577. Shan Cai Sunnyvale, California 576. Jiong cao Cupertino, California 575. Jenny W Cupertino, California 574. Ben Wang Santa Clara, California 572. Brittany trent Clarksville, Indiana 571. Michael Garvale Cupertino, California 570. ZUDIAN QIN CUPERTINO, California 569. Jocelyn Yeh Cupertino, California 568. deepika yammanur Cupertino, California 566. Linda Chia cupertino, California 1 565. Ann Huo Cupertino, California 564. Eva Kashkooli Cupertino, California 563. Christine Garvale Cupertino, California 562. Sundari Pilaka San Jose, California 561. Yuh-Juan Hung Cupertino, California 560. Jianjun Chen Cupertino, California 559. Phyllis Dickstein Cupertino, California 558. Barbara Clapper Cupertino, California 557. Anuradha Krishnan San Jose, California 555. subrainanian chebiyam sunnyvale, California 554. Anand Kothari Cupertino, California 553. Shirley Wang Cupertino, California 552. Vikas Mishra Cupertino, California 551. Chinping Chen Cupertino, California 550. Peggy Carter Vicksburg, Mississippi 549. Chandrasekhar Mukherjee Cupertino, California 548. Cheng Yi Wang Cupertino, California 547. Usha Subramanian San Jose, California 546. Peter Willson Cupertino, California - 544. Lily lee Cupertino, California 543. John Markham Princeton, Kentucky 542. Mary Kavanaugh Long Beach, California 541. Chien Hsiu Chang Cupertino, California 540. YanPing Wang Cupertino, California 538. Dawn Kwok Cupertino, California 537. Han Qiao San Jose, California 536. Jyoti Narang San Jose, California 535. supriya sabne Cupertino, California 533. qingwei meng San Jose,.California 532. Natalie Fossen Cupertino, California 531. Tsehsien Vaughn Cupertino, California 530, Jinyuan Qiao Cupertino, California 529. Lynn Yang Cupertino, California 527. Haibin Chen San Jose, California 525. David Lu Cupertino, California 524. Shuqing ma San Jose, California 522. Y u n q i a n Qi Cupertino,-California 521. Wayne Chin Cupertino, California 520. Niti Motwani Cupertino, California 519. Julissa Quintero Miami, Florida 518. Xiaoxinng zhu Cupertino, California 517. Tongwen Huang Cupertino, California 516. Mary Reed Bellingham, Washington 514. Lana Shew Cupertino, California 513. Tieu Fung Cupertino, California 511. Jenny Chiu San Jose, California 510. Koyeli Mukherjee Cupertino, California 509. Anwar Awad Cupertino, California 508. Shagorika Dixit Cupertino, California 506. Vijay Kulkarni Cupertino, California 505. Wei Chen Chang Chang Cupertino, California z 503. Felicia Wu Cupertino, California 502. Ravi Ram San Jose, California 501. savita chari Santa Clara, California 500. Mital Pat Cupertino, California 499: Brenda Qiang Cupertino, California 498. Dawn Mortensen Santa Clara, California 497. chengqin ju cupertino, California ,. 496. danci huang sunnyvale, California 495. Yu Hsueh Cupertino, California 493. ICHUN LIN San Jose, California 490. Ching Lien San Jose, California 486. Stephanie Miller Cupertino, California 485. Deepa Shah Cupertino, California 484. Genneva Wang cupertino, California 483. Betty Tang Cupertino, California 482. Mia Liu Cupertino, California 481. Guogang Hu cupertino, California 480. Gordon Gong ! �� i , California 479. Kristen Lyn Cupertino, California 478. Wei Chen Hollister, California 477. Der-song Lin Cupertino, California 0 3 J C Mike King Recology South Bay Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Your Partner in Silicon Valley Elizabeth Marchu 20455 Silverado Avenue Technology Credit Union Cupertino,CA 95014 Tel(408)252-7054 Fax(408)252-0638 Brent McNally www.cupertino-chamber.org The Cypress Hotel Keith Warner Pacific Business Centers Anjali Kausar Executive Director Matt Wheeler, LMGW Public Accountants 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OFFICERS Darcy Paul,President Paul Law Group,A Professional Corp. November 07,2014 Kevin McClelland,Past President Leeward Financial&Insurance Services Mayor Gilbert Wong and Cupertino City Council Inc. 10300 Torre Avenue Richard Abdalah,President Elect Cupertino, CA 95014 Abdalah Law Offices Art Cohen,VP Membership Re: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce support for the General Plan BlueLight Cinemas 5 Amendment. Sandy James,VP HR&Staffing Lehigh Hanson Dear Mayor Gilbert Wong and Cupertino City Councilmembers, Scott Jeng,VP Finance I am writing to urge you to reject the Planning Commission's HSBC Bank USA,N.A. Recommendations and to support the recommendations stated below for the Mahesh Nihalani,VP Diwali General Plan Amendment and urge you to finish the hard work that has been Jewels in Style done since March 2013 when this process began. Mike Rohde,VP Special Events Vasco Shopping Mau From the Cupertino Staff Report: On August 21, 2012,the City Council directed staff to begin a General Plan Tim Widman,VP LAC amendment in order to: Law Office of Timothy D.Widman • Replenish office and hotel allocations(after the office allocation was reduced Keiichiro Yoshida,VP AABC to under 18,000 square feet since the Main Street project received most of the remaining office allocation in the city-wide allocation pool); BOARD MEMBERS • Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan; Claudio Bono Consolidate individual requests from property owners; and Cupertino Inn Update to address State law, and address clean-up. Janice Chua Bitter+Sweet We ask that you consider 1400 units for residential units, 3 million square feet for the Office Allocation and maintain the additional 500,000+square feet set aside Jessica Epstein, for"major employers". We also ask you to support the heights analyzed in Silicon Valley Association of Realtors "Alternative C". Mike Foulkes Apple Inc. We urge'you to support these numbers and pass the General Plan Amendment so we can move forward. Brandi Garcia PG&E Best regards, Kevin McClelland Vice President of Advocacy - &Past President Cc: Council Members City Manager Karen B. Guerin From: Hoi poon <hoipoon @gmail.com> Sent:. Friday, November 07, 2014 10:22 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; kausar anjali @cusdk8.org; liao_ben @cusdk8.org; lucey,jo @cusdk8.org; luceyjo @cusdk8.org; mccue_gary@cusdk8.org;vogel_phyllis @cusdk8.org; gudalewicz_wendy @cusdk8.org; Nishihara Jeremy; bill_wilson @fuhsd.org; barbara_nunes @fuhsd.org; hung_wei @fuhsd.org; nancy_newton @fuhsd.org; jeff_moe @fuhsd.org; polly bove Cc: CUSD-discuss @yahoogroups.com; McBB @yahoogroups.com Subject: City of of Cupertino Proposed Housing Development and Its Impact on CUSD/FUHSD Dear All, I wanted to get confirmation from the City of Cupertino and CUSD/FUHSD officials regarding some of the information that has been circulating regarding the proposed housing development in the City of Cupertino and its impact on CUSD/FUHSD. a) City of Cupertino plans to approve 4400 housing units. b) The EIR estimates that this will only add 1105 students to the CUSD/FUHSD schools. This is based on some state formula with connection to reality such as City Census numbers. c) The plan allocates all of$9 million dollars for the additional 1105 students (assuming that number is accurate) d) The City of Cupertino's position according to Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, (In email to Claire Arnold on 11/7/14) regarding the impact of of the proposed housing on school districts, is as follows 'The school districts are responsible for their own capital improvement plans, including planning for long term growth. You'll have to discuss that with them." Is this correct? e) Piu Ghosh also contends (Iri email to Claire Arnold on 11/6/14) that "The school districts have been consulted in the preparation of the EIR." Is this correct? If it is, 1) Who are the CUSD/FUHSD officials that were consulted in the EIR? 2) What was their input? 3) Do they agree with the EIR which states that 4400 new housing units will only add 1105 additional students? 4) Do they agree that$9 million will be enough to alleviate the effect of what is probably more like 5000 additional students? 1 Please clarify these matters ASAP. It will be helpful to have the information before Monday Nov. 10 public hearing. Thank you. Hoi Yung Poon CUSD parent PS: Copying parents on CUSD and McBB egroups. . z Karen B. Guerin From: Claire Arnold <clairea_2006 @hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:28 PM To: Rod Sinks; Piu Ghosh; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney Cc: Barry Chang; Mark Santoro Subject: General Plan Environmental Impact REport Greetings to All the Council, Perhaps all of you can answer a question for me as Piu Ghosh and I seem to be at a stand still on communicating with each other and we seem to be frustrating each other instead :) I respectful ask how has the Council has worked with the CUSD to make the increase of children coming into Cupertino through General Plan construction go smoothly on already impacted schools? I understand the school district will get money etc. I do not understand how the Council and CUSD have coordinated on how and when the two story additions will be put on the schools. Surely the Council is not going to go ahead with construction and expect CUSD to play catch up, stressing resources and space on schools that will remain single story until such time as two story additions can be constructed? I am asking if the Planning Commission has looked onto this and is confident that the schools will be ready for the impact of new students that the General plan predicts. If the schools will not be ready, impacted as they are, according to the report, why is the Planning Commission saying the impact will be insignificant?The Planning Commission has not indicated to me that it sees there is any role for the Council in this matter. It refers me to the schools. However it is the Council's plan that will impact the schools and I want to know how much consideration the Council has done in this matter and in what ways you are making sure schools have time to adapt and construct second stories? I would be very, very grateful for a straightforward, sensible answer to this. I have tried to contact the Board of Education of Cupertino on this topic but they have not replied to my email, which confuses me. Also, how is the traffic going to be dealt with around schools that are already impacted for space even if second stories are added? Parental driving is already dangerous, with an increase of families driving their children to school on all sites I think it would be imperative there will be more traffic control to support and protect children attending these sites with two stories. How will this be addressed? Many thanks for some clarity with this, I will be there on the 10th. Claire i BERG& BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax(408) 725-1626 mcrawford @bergvc.com 11/7/14 Piu Ghosh Senior City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-777-3308 Dir 408-777-3277; Fax: 408-777-3333 Email: piug(acupertino.org Reference: New General Plan-Housing Element Subject: 20605 20705 Valley Green APlii 326-10-046 Piu, Please note that Berg and Berg aka Berg Family Partners, LP is desirous of having the above property remain on the site inventory for future potential housing. It is possible that Apple could vacate a number of facilities south of I280 creating a redevelopment of the property. Please include this in your council presentation. Thank you, Myron Crawford I ho N, Grace Schmidt From: Piu Ghosh Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:53 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI... From: Dan Amsden fmailto:damsden @migcom.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 8:17 PM To: Piu Ghosh; Terri McCracken; Ellen J. Garber; Genevieve Sharrow; Veronica Tam; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Fwd: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website FYI, this comment came via the project website today. sent from mobile device ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: <inf6@cupertinogpa.org> Date:Nov 9, 2014 7:22 PM Subject: Comment from City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Website To: <info(Zcupertinogpa.org> Cc: Comment Submitted by: Name: Eric Schmidt Organization:None Given Email: ericrschmidt59 a,gmail.com Subject: Housing Element: School Enrollment Increase Underestimated Comment: regarding: The Housing Element With the plans to increase the number of available housing elements in the General Plan, I am concerned the actual increase in school children is being significantly underestimated. My understanding is the housing elements assume 0.25 children per unit, while in Cupertino with the high quality schools, this could be closer to 2 per unit, 8 times more than stated in the EIR. This explosive,unplanned growth in enrollment would have a negative effect on the quality of schools and life in Cupertino. i BERG &BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 1 I 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax(408) 725-1626 mcrawford@,bergvc.com 11/7/14 Piu Ghosh Senior City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-777-3308 Dir 408-777-3277; Fax: 408-777-3333 Email: piug(acupertino.org Reference: New General Plan-Housing Element - Subject: 20605 20705 Valley Green APN 326-10-046 Piu, Please_ note that Berg and Berg aka Berg Family Partners, LP is desirous of having the above property remain on the site inventory for future potential housing. It is possible that Apple could vacate a number of facilities south of I280 creating a redevelopment of the property. Please include this in your council presentation. Thank you, Myron Crawford I J.l 300-H a-M Q"4 r r H-QVi dQ . S F-11 S 6V -W-Ply. rV 01 r I d Xt o N rj a - B l-v I J-q x p4 PI(1 p ; 11 i n p c-)/V' m cA ® (? )'t 7 VA JO a.LVJ C)IV �7 • %167 FP-E-e Cc =R,iIN� P VOYO) ill U)0 L) L 6 A�O 14!Q �C!t-Ter N t ill 0 -R -Y\l 6, % 1. V6 C) N') j LG- I hJ '.S M 1-+u S 6 A4N6 'S O iO1 lV> )n1 ^l, tvA R 0 I S H l)S i 6 r 1 I S' S UbLl SAVrAOA 140 qTN4f LLF W NDd /+ve N PPQ L� l . -r tf, UiLDihJ CSI— MC)P-s 1\1 c)gS N K W L) o lo i✓ IT IE �i f�o ley • i v Cc COv►,.T- o , ti l O 0 i S l 00 Al- LL(O. IF A MEW Pry G r fNOOM N W9 HAVL No )\)TCRIEST — Ou) - 'T\IPE, l I 'S Wl OL),(6A/ujS o p /v 4a tV %t Ar 1 IVjr<I DW - 1 S H 00- 0F rieo-H VA LLB I if: tf '-�Y f ttIl� N' - S N I TJ ELF ti V� .114 D V 1 AC 0-6 S 0 PEPS IUO PAMAEM -a-:G l La l AJ L 1:� MU r?is lam' D # � T rv'c A ` - rO r✓l -Ti✓G cr CU p C og r /v U v i-JUSBAly6 ^I-J6 1 �S tv ta AT V L L. C© , — AJ LL u�aPi 1 �i A Q0 W C i 0/16 IT U-S"i 'T tIA RUL4.)-T"tPe-, i.Tls- H`/ H U, BOA vo ' Nt &1 THAT SA-N AMA R DLJ G t S NO i i v%J ' rj GOUT SAKIT14-tvA Lv l T'J CLEF L6 ty 1 T AVE' A A C l E6 W 4 14 t8 to EWOS o Li G ?� 100, o 1?LU]H W a'rt.f T f+G 13 u 1 U6 i NL 0 - 1-100,0 0 U . 2 _1 -------------------------------- �?3ot ot0415' CY1 o 20 N-t/-L..lu <P ._ �0 9 � ofv n °11 )-1 ;57 H 4 d► 1-�