The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 12-02-2014 Item #2 GPA/Housing Correspondance Cupertino Chamber of Corminerce, Your Partner In Silicon Valley November 07,2014 . 20455 Silverado Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 Tel(408)252-7054 Mayor Gilbert Wong and Cupertino City Council Fax(408)252-0638 www.cupertino-chamber.org 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 Anjali Kausar Executive Director Re: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce support for the General Plan 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Amendment. BOARD OFFICERS Darcy Paul,President Dear Mayor Gilbert Wong and Cupertino City Councilmembers, Paul Law Group,A Professional Corp. Kevin McClelland,Past President I am writing to urge you to reject the Planning Commission's Leeward Financial&Insurance Services Recommendations and to support the recommendations stated below for the Inc. General Plan Amendment and urge you to finish the hard work that has been Richard Abdalah,President Elect Abdalah Law Offices done since March 2013 when this process began. Art Cohen,VP Membership BlueLight cinemas 5 ' From the Cupertino Staff Report: Sandy James,VP HR&Staffing On August 21,2012,the City.Council directed staff to begin a General Plan Lehigh Hanson amendment in order to: Scott Jeng,VP Finance Replenish office and hotel allocations(after the office allocation was reduced HSBC Bank USA,N.A. to under 18,000 square feet since the Main Street project received most of the Mahesh Nihalani,VP Diwali remaining office allocation in the city-wide allocation pool); Jewels in Style Mike Rohde,VP Special Events Inform the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan; Vallco Shopping Mall • Consolidate individual requests from property owners; and Tim Widman,VP LAC Law Office of Timothy D.Widman Update to address State law,and address clean-up. Keiichiro Yoshida,VP AABC BOARD MEMBERS 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 Claudio Bono Cupertino Inn. for"major employers". We also ask you to support the heights analyzed in JaniceChua "Alternative C". Bitter+Sweet Jessica Epstein, We urge you to support these numbers and pass the General Plan Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Amendment so we can move forward. Mike Foulkes Apple Inc. Brandi Garcia PG&E Mike King Best regards, Recology South Bay Elizabeth Marhu Technology Credit Union Brent McNally The Cypress Hotel Keith Warner Kevin McClelland Pacific Business Centers Vice President of Advocacy&Past President Matt Wheeler, LMGW Public Accountants Cc: Council Members City Manager Colleen Lettire From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:17 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: No rezoning vallco From: Ziyue Yu [ziyuey@yahoo.comj Sent:Tuesday, December 02, 2014 2:47 PM To: City Council Subject: No rezoning vallco Cupertino City Council Member, I just have two simple questions for you: 1. Does any of you currently have a child enrolled in the cupertino elementary schools near Vallco? 2. Does any of your house is within one mile of Vallco radiation? I know my answers, I have two kids enrolling in Collins, and my house is .8 miles away from Vallco. If you were in my situation, I believe you will be among us to protest. Please do remember we vote for you to represent our best interests, not the developers. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: -Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. -Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1.The developer presents a plan for development 2.The community approves the plan for development, Thank you Ziyue Yu 1 Colleen Lettire From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:50 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Cupertino Voter opposes General Plan Amendments From: DANIEL CHEUNG [danielcheung@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:36 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Cc: DANIEL CHEUNG; City Council Subject: Cupertino Voter opposes General Plan Amendments RE: Cupertino Voter opposes General Plan Amendments Cupertino City Council Member, Community members are concerned that the Cupertino General Plan amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: -More and taller buildings - Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I'urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1. The developer presents a plan for development 2. The community approves the plan for development -No rezoning of Vallco Name: Daniel Cheung and Family Email: danielcheunggmsn.com Address: 18956 Tilson Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 i CC 12-2-14 #2 Kirsten Squarcia Subject: New General Plan-Housing Element- 20605 20705 Valley Green From:Myron Crawford<Mcrawford(a,berjzva.com> Date:December 1,2014 at 9:16:37 PM PST To: "PiuRAcupertino.org"<Piu cupertino.org> Subject:New General Plan-Housing Element-20605 20705 Valley Green BERG& BERG DEVELOPERS,INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax(408) 725-1626 mcrawford(r6,beravcxom 12/1/14 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: piugAeupertino.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 possible redevelopment of the property. Please include this in your council presentation. Thank you, Myron Crawford 1 s � 6dt, P R U (- E R 1 1 E S December 1, 2014 Mayor Gilbert Wong Honorable Members of the Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014-3255 This letter is sent in advance of the December 2, 2014 Council Meeting at which you will snake decisions on the General Plan Amendment,the 2014-2022 Housing Element, and other related issues. KT Properties, Inc. is in escrow for the purchase of The Oaks Shopping Center, located at 21.267 Stevens Creek Blvd., City of Cupertino.We expect to close on the property in early January. We appreciate the fact the Council is most concerned with focusing on the mandates of the Housing Element at this time. With this in mind, KT Properties, Inc. asks that you strongly consider fallowing the Staff recommendation that The Oaks Shopping Center should be the Priority#1 Housing Site with Capacity of 235-276 Dwelling Units(Balanced Plan and Alternatives B and C). Our firm is prepared to construct a minirnum of 235 units of housing on The Oaks site. The location of The Oaks on Cupertino's West side and next to Highway 85 reduces its impact on the city's older neighborhoods. Its proximity to the Mary Avenue Bicycle Bridge means that residents could use alternative transportation. Finally, we believe that the distribution of housing sites throughout the community will alleviate the concerns of those who see too much construction in the Wolfe Road area. We are looking forward to working with the City of Cupertino to repurpose The Oaks Shopping Center. With this in mind we are interfacing with future users for the balance of the property, and look forward to discussions with City Staff as our planning process continues. At this time, however, our focus is on the important role of housing, and we ask that the Council approve the Staff recommendation for our site. With my best regarccs; Mark Tersini, Principal KT P00PI:1111B, 11710 5tevolls I'mik 2011,Coperiino,California 96014 100/251110(1-fax:400;25!*O 1120 Karen B. Guerin From: James Cheng <jamesxcheng@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday,,November 29, 2014 3:44 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; dapaul@cupertino.org; savita4council@gmail.com Subject: Please don't grow Cupertino too much and too fast Dear Major/Council Member/Council Member Elect, First, thanks for devoting your time to serving the community! My wife and I are Cupertino residents for almost 15 years. We were attracted to Cupertino by the excellent schools. Currently we have two children in the CUSD schools, and we have already seen schools getting more crowded over the years. We are very concerned about the proposed changes on re-zoning large areas of the city to allow higher-density housing, large hotels and millions of square feet of office space. Once the Apple Campus 2 is done, many office buildings currently occupied by Apple will become empty, so it doesn't make sense to build more offices at Cupertino now. High-density housing shouldn't be over-built either, as it will make the schools so crowded that quality will become lower and Cupertino will lose its attractiveness. Let's grow the city at a moderate pace. Over-growth will hurt the city and its residents. Thanks for listening. Sincerely, Xuejian Cheng 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Li-Ping Lung <Li-Ping.Lung@synopsys.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:49 AM To: Barry Chang Subject: your Town Hall meeting Dear Council Chang, I didn't see your invitation in time to attend your Town Hall meeting last Saturday, but I would like you to know that I firmly disagree with this General Plan Amendment and Housing Elements. I hope you will vote against this proposal. Please don't let me regret voting for you this last election. Sincerely, Li-Ping Lung Cupertino Residence 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Ivy Wong <ivy_yinming@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 12:13 PM To: Ivy Wong Cc: 'Ivy Wong Subject: Cupertino School Cupertino City Council Member, Community members are concerned that the Cupertino General Plan amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - More and taller buildings -Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools -Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city -Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: -Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. -Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1.The developer presents a plan for development 2.The community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco Ivy Wong Resident of Cupertino School District 354 Kellogg Way Santa Clara, CA 95051 1 it f Karen B. Guerin From: Eash Iyer <eashwarsiyer@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:24 PM To: City Council Subject: Stop consideration of General Plan amendments Dear Cupertino City Council.Members, Community members are concerned that the Cupertino General Plan amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - More and taller buildings - Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1,. The developer presents a plan for development 2. The community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco Name: Eashwar Iyer Email: eashwarsiyer@yahoo.com Address: 4831 Capistrano Ave, San Jose, CA - 95129 1 Karen B. Guerin From: c chen <cgchen5@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:02 PM To: Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; dapaul@darcypaul.org; savita4council6gmail.com Subject: My concern for Cupertino General Plan amendments Hello all, I'm looking to buy a house in Cupertino close to vallco mall area. I'm very concerned on proposed plan for rezoning Vallco Mall. Particularly the negative effect for schools close by. May I get a timeline for this proposal and when will the city make a go/no go decision? Thank you. Changqing Chen i Karen B. Guerin From: Kathy Robinson <krobinson@charitieshousing.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 02;2014 11:48 AM To: City Council Subject: Adoption of General Plan and Housing Element Dear Councilmembers, I would like to urge you to adopt the draft General Plan and Housing Element for the City of Cupertino this evening. It contains a reasonable balance of commercial and housing development opportunities which is important for Cupertino to remain as a health and vibrant community. I understand that there are those in our community that would like to limit further residential development, but I believe that by allowing the expansion of commercial opportunities, Apple being a primary one,which brings in a large number of new employees,the city has a responsibility to provide places for a percentage of these new employees, and the support/service folks who will also be required, to live. By providing housing, to folks of all income ranges, close to employment, retail and commercial centers,traffic will be reduced and the environment that we all care about will be protected. Thank you for your consideration. If you have questions, I can be reached at the number below. Kathy Robinson 10679 Farallone Dr. Cupertino 408 410 7287 1 Karen B. Guerin From: The Yuens <sixyuens@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:38 AM To: City Council Subject: Development in Cupertino Dear Members of our City Council, I have been very frustrated with the parking configurations of the new developments in Cupertino. As we continue to add thousands of new residents to our community with the new developments,each household will need to drive to eat in our restaurants,shop to get groceries,school supplies, commute to work and drop off their children in the rain. I believe when the city was considering development years ago behind Vallco the parking formula was 1.3 parking spaces per unit to allow for maximum housing units.. This translates to 4-parking spaces for 3 apartments. This seems like a ridiculously low number for this area. The parking spaces at all of the new retail locations including the Cupertino Library is grossly inadequate and contributes to the frustration and anger toward others which does not contribute to a good attitude within our community. I believe good city planning would include better traffic flow and require adequate parking to create a more tranquil and civil community;rather than the stressful irritated mood that overcomes me when I shop in Cupertino. I must admit that often I will travel to sites outside of Cupertino to shop so I do not have to deal with the terrible parking abour local strip malls.I understand that this pattern is not good for tax revenue for Cupertino,however for my own mental health I will happily drive further to avoid the stress of the inadequate parking lots in Cupertino. As you have added more retail space,the parking has been woefully inadequate ie-Trader Joes,expansion at Marukai strip mall,expansion at the strip mall with 85 degree Bakery. As you consider more development in Cupertino,please consider the community development-not the number of housing units-but the development of a city that is pleasant to live in-where every day living and shopping and errands is not something to dread. Thank you for your consideration, Ione Yuen 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Jean Shu <jeancws@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:03 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; City Council; dapaul@darcypaul.org; savita4council@gmail.com Subject: concern over general plan amendments Dear city council members, My name is Ching Shyu and I live near the corner of Miller/Wolfe & Stevens Creek Blvd. I am writing today to urge you to not approve the proposed General Plan amendments because they include a controversial Vallco project that has not had broad community input (Note 1). The project will adversely affect nearby residents' quality of life (due to traffic- congestion and its related problems- Note 2) and disproportionately overcrowd our neighborhood schools. Approving the proposed plan would violate the first guideline of General Plan printed in the presentation of community workshop: "ensure any changes to the General Plan do not adversely affect Cupertino's quality of life or public service, including schools." (From the 10/23/13 community-wide workshop#2 - presentation-setting and opportunity report) Instead, please amend the General Plan one project at a time, and allow input for each plan from the community. No rezoning of Vallco without a development plan. Please spread the housing allocation evenly over all of Cupertino, for example (use Attachment T data): 873 units (the housing units chosen in the minimum growth alternative) +344 units (site#3 -the Hampton) +151 units (site#10 -20916, 20956, 20990 Homestead Rd.) + 27 units (site#14 - Foothill &McClellan Center (Foothill Market)) + 14 units (site#15 -22690 Stevens Creek Blvd) = 1409 units There is no urgency to pass the proposed General Plan which ignores the facts that current approved projects (Apple 2, Main-street, Rose Bowl, Biltmore, 5403/5405 Stevens Creek Blvd office) will put a strain on streets in our area (Note 3) due to their limited capacity. The Vallco project will add thousands of vehicles in the already congested streets in our area. It primes the city for a future plagued by traffic jams (especially so in the East (of De Anza Rd) part of Cupertino) during peak hours, poor air quality in the East part of Cupertino, and increased traffic around schools in that area. We are proud of Cupertino for being a model city with a responsive government, good schools, free flow of traffic, and no pollution thus far. The proposed General Plan goes against those values that made Cupertino the city it is today. Please listen to our concerns. Note 1: All community input meetings/workshops were held before the end of January 2014. The Vallco project (2million sq. ft. office & 600 residence)was put into the General Plan amendment process after that. The planning department has never sent a regular mail notice to the neighborhood of the big controversial change for community input. Note 2: Problems of and related to traffic congestion include time wasted due to traffic, pollution caused by cars stuck in traffic, school traffic safety, traffic on neighboring residential streets causing safety and health risk (bad air quality) problems. Note 3: According to EIR Transportation and Traffic, even under the 2040 No Project scenario, there are 8 intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels of service with long delays during peak hours, which include Wolfe/Miller& Stevens Creek Blvd, Tantau & Stevens Creek Blvd, Stevens Creek Blvd and 1-280 SB, Wolfe and 1-280 Northbound, De Anza & Stevens Creek Blvd etc. (EIR page 4.13-43) Sincerely yours, Ching Shyu, Cupertino resident 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:22 PM To: City Council; City Clerk; dapaul@darcypaul.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: GPA: EIR conclusions questionable Dear Council member, Accompanying the GPA is the EIR report (http://www.cupertinogpa.org/gpp folders/view/177)which supposes to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed GPA. This 1265 page report contains a lot data and provides crucial inputs to planning our city's future. It is unimaginable to have a proper GPA based on a questionable EIR. Given the limited time I have, I only be able to go through small part of the EIR. However, only the small part I went through demonstrates significant flaws. Here I am going to show you some problems in the School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis (http://www.Meltinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/210/AppendixF PublicServices.pdf). This is a 59 page document as part of Appendix F of the total 9 appendices of EIR. If you are tired of what I am going to point out below, think about how long I might write for the entire EIR report. Now it begins. 1 Colleen Lettire From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: . Tuesday, December 02, 2014 4:57 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Cupertino or Franstino From: pamela [pamelakhershey@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 4:.51 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Re: Cupertino or Franstino Just wanted you all to know I would be at rally tonight to Keep Cupertino Safe!! But I have to work ! Thank you Pamela Hershey Resident for 40 years ! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Pam Hershey<pamelakhersheygaol.com>.wrote: Dear City Council, I am truly amazed and very concerned about the many projects that are in the planning stage for the city of Cupertino. My family and I have lived in Cupertino since 1967 and understand change and growth but NEAR would dream that we would be living in a big city. Why not rename it San Franstino !! If I wanted to live in San Franciso I would have moved there. How much traffic can Wolfe road hold??? It was not build to be in the middle of a large city. Not only traffic but population??? Another longtime resident moving out as soon as we retire and I hope that all of the city council members that voted for this congestion stay on the city and fight the traffic or many years. Please consider the beautiful town of Cupertino while you are making these ridiculous changes so rapidly. Thank you for understanding the quality of life for the residents should be one of your main concerns! Pam Hershey 1 CC 12-2-14 Item # 2 Kirsten Squarcia From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 2:19 PM To: Planning Dept.; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; City Clerk; David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava;savita4council@gmail.com; Darcy Paul Subject: GPA and Housing Element - Subject unit number vs. square footage City Counsel, Planning Commission, and Planning Department - I would like to share a frustration that I have about the way housing is discussed, zoned and approved. Simply put, I find it troublesome that housing is the only type of development that is quantified by 'number of units'. Office, commercial, retail are defined by square footage. By using a unit number for housing, there is truly no limit to the size/bulk/mass of the structures, that encompass the housing units (and also include additional interior square footage for common spaces, and, in some instances, private spaces that extend past the actual unit measurements). I requested some data from the city related to this curiosity/concern of mine. While the numbers are not a complete picture of the entire inventory of Cupertino's non single family homes, believe that it illustrates some of the issues with how things are interpreted. I tried to, include older and newer projects, as time changes 'flavor'. I did not include Montebello condos which I believe are actually larger units, on average. If anyone is interested in the raw numbers, please let me know. I asked the following: 1 would like to get the listed info for housing units at Rosebowl (Nineteen800), Main Street, Biltmore newer construction, Hamptons, Metropolitan, # of units total square footage of all units combined in project total square footage of all interior space (common area's included) - I was attempting to get a figure that was combined total of units plus common area, but the numbers here were smaller than total unit sf, so I went on the assumption that the figures quoted were for the interior common areas without unit sf when doing my calculations. breakdown of number of unit tYes' within the project Some things I noted when crunching numbers - you may want to calculate on you own: Imagine if the average size of 600 Vallco units is similar to Rosebowl (Nineteen800). Numbers for Rosebowl were given as 204 units , 383,913 sf of CC 12-2-14 Item # 2 residential units, 32,276 interior sf for community center and courtyard - so 2,040 sf of combined interior space per unit -average. 600 like this would be 1 ,224,085 square feet. This is in the ballpark of what the TOTAL existing square footage is at Vallco (reported as 1 ,200,000 - 1 ,300,000) The considered 600 units could be more... could be less..... Do we want an additional 3 projects like Rosebowl concentrated on Vallco acreage, along with whatever else is zoned there ?!! When Sand Hill 'sold' the Main Street loft idea to the city, the units were described as being one bedroom and studio units that would discourage 'families' with school age children/teens. These units may attract that type of tenant, however, the 1 ,225 sf (1 ,465 sf including additional interior space) average PER UNIT size is larger than what I calculate as the average 'per bedroom' square foot figure when considering the data given for the projects highlighted above. (that number is close to 880 sf -based on 1 ,346,992 sf for 1532 'bedrooms') Please perform your own calculations if this sounds 'off' to you. Again, I have number crunched on my own, given data (that I can share) supplied by the planning department. Hotels are also tricky. Room count is approved....but total square footage is not guaranteed in the mix as to what governing bodies put a stamp of approval on. Common area aside, an approved room count for a hotel with average room SIZE of 350 sf is a very different animal than one with average room size of 700 sf. Lisa Warren 408-472-9879 ps.....with they type of design that is currently 'the trend' (high ceilings), the idea of cubic feet vs. square feet is something to think about also, with every type of building. Perhaps the height increases that are so often requested, and given, would be unnecessary if ceiling heights are minimized. z CC Q�-a-l4 Karen B. Guerin From: Aseem Vaid <vaidaseem@sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:24 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Dismayed by rampant development along Stevens Creek Barry, I'm writing to you as a long time resident who is dismayed by the unchecked and unbalanced development in the City that is destroying our quality of life. We have already been impacted by the deterioration of traffic and safety along Stevens Creek, Wolfe, Pruneridge and deAnza due to mushrooming condo, retail and office campus development in these corridors. This has also visibly impacted crowding in our schools and reduced open spaces. The buildout of the Apple campus will only make this worse! Against this background, the currently tabled..General Plan proposal to rezone the commercial areas, open up more condo devetopment,and rezone Vallco takes the cake ! Your office and the. Council have an obligation to look after the resident's safety, facilities and quality of life above all other interests. urge you to'consider this and vote against this measure! thx, Aseem 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Aseem Vaid <vaidaseem@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:22 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Dismayed by rampant development along Stevens Creek Dear Mr Sinks, I'm writing to you as a long time resident who is dismayed by the unchecked and unbalanced development in the City that is destroying our quality of life. We have.already been impacted by the deterioration of traffic and safety along Stevens Creek, Wolfe, Pruneridge and deAnza due to mushrooming condo, retail and office campus development in these corridors. This has also visibly impacted crowding;in our schools and reduced open spaces. The buildout of the Apple campus will only make this worse! Against this background, the currently tabled General Plan proposal to rezone the commercial areas, open up more condo development and rezone Vallco takes the cake Your office and the Council have an obligation to look after the resident's safety, facilities and quality of life above all other interests. I urge you to consider this and vote against this measure! thx, Aseem 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Aseem Vaid <vaidaseem@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:21 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Dismayed by rampant development along Stevens Creek Dear Mr.Mahoney, I'm writing to you as a long time resident who is dismayed by the unchecked and unbalanced development in the City that is destroying our quality of life. We have already been impacted by the deterioration of traffic and safety along Stevens Creek, Wolfe, Pruneridge and deAnza due to mushrooming condo, retail and office campus development in these corridors. This has also visibly impacted crowding in our schools and reduced open spaces. The buildout of the Apple campus will only make this worse! Against this background, the currently tabled General Plan proposal to rezone the commercial areas, open up more condo development and rezone Vallco takes the cake Your office and the Council have an obligation to look after the resident's safety, facilities and quality of life above all other interests. urge`you to consider this and vote against this measure! thx, Aseem i Karen B. Guerin From: Aseem Vaid <vaidaseem@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:11 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Dismayed by rampant development along Stevens Creek Dear Mayor Wong, I'm writing to you as a long time resident who is dismayed by the unchecked and unbalanced development in the City that is destroying our quality of life. We have already been impacted by the deterioration of traffic and safety along Stevens Creek, Wolfe, Pruneridge and deAnza due to mushrooming condo, retail and office campus development in these corridors. This has also visibly impacted crowding in our schools and reduced open spaces. The. buildout of the Apple campus will only make this worse! Against this background, the currently tabled General Plan proposal to rezone the commercial areas, open up more condo development and rezone Vallco takes the cake ! Your office and the Council have an obligation to look after the resident's safety, facilities and quality of life above all other interests. I urge you to consider this and vote against this measure! thx, Aseem 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Aseem Vaid <vaidaseem@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:07 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Rampant development along Stevens Creek Mark, I'm writing to you as a long time resident who is very concerned about rampant development in the City that is destroying our quality of life. We have already been impacted by the deterioration of traffic and safety along Stevens Creek, Wolfe, Pruneridge and deAnza due to mushrooming condo, retail and office campus development in these corridors. This has also visibly impacted crowding in our schools and reduced open spaces. The buildout of the Apple campus will only make this worse! Against this background, the currently tabled General Plan proposal to rezone the commercial areas, open up more condo development and rezone Vallco takes the cake I urge you to vote against this measure! thx, Aseem i CC 12-2-14 Item # 2 Kirsten Squarcia From: Mette Christensen <mettec@silikone.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 1:15 PM To: City Council;City Clerk; dapaul@darcypaul.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan Cc: better-Cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com Subject: Distribution of housing within Cupertino hi I suppose as current and new Cit Council members you have heard several times that residents are alarmed Y about the housing distribution proposed within the City in the GPA. Specially,how it was decided to have 1300 or so housing units in the Vallco/Hamptons areas. If the city council makes sure to spread out the "burden" of the housing units in a more balanced way than what was discussed in November, I think it will be easier for residents within all of Cupertino to accept, digest and handle the impact of adding housing and offices according to the requirements in the GPA. Same would would be true for the office sq feet allocation suggested. Add some of the office allocation to not only be in the Vallco/New Apple HQ part of town,but balanced within the city to include areas west of De Anza. Think of 280 as a divider of the City East/West and De Anza being the North/ South divider of the city. Below you can see a suggested distribution of housing that the city council should consider in order to distribute the impact of added housing and offices more evenly. units .,Of�... .......... .. -Nay 2 Next to nov App e HQ and Freeway es San lara S i�n¢}pct ' ■ ,' f.• ICHisyt Ar7tt UragniR:rn�in a- Ckn,Medial Ctnttrl^"' n`+ri'.. kne(b5�"" _ ,..4..,,..,»N<,ati:'JUfft •..x 2 y i Icnt T c inolol�ma L iter est 6Y ' 400 u nits r, -Cupar o. s,e.ety ae¢x.Dhl so >c,rttk$id ` De Anza south east of De z ,; _ ip, and, @°g south 18 f _9Q- '[1ta mCcit4e �. f ;% '/.7cC}anwr HU nV _ nasw�`t0y � Dm,Chit 0 oll_Cburoe 0 2< - vr. y N kk r' ` F •Ave, 82 L'd..Vsru:R"k , 1 4 sill)Lnr The impact of housing units allocated to the Hamptons north of 280 will be minimal for Cupertino as they are right next to Apple HQ and will not be increasing student population within CUSD nor FUHSD as this is Santa Clara School District. The feedback from Santa Clara school district was that impact there would be minimal for their schools. Traffic would be less of an issue as traffic to and from work would mainly be walking/biking to the Apple i i CC 12-2-14 Item # 2 Campus. Surface street traffic such as getting to supermarkets would be crossing Wolfe, or freeway to de Anza/Homestead or Lawrence/Stevens Creek exits. School access would be in a different direction and avoid the impact on Stevens Creek, Finch, Tantau and Bollinger for the areas schools. Hence, it seems as a good solution to increase or maximize the number of housing units at the Hamptons. There were several sites available for housing units for the south of 280 corridor available and which would satisfy the above allocation of housing distributed more evenly within the city. Balancing out the impact is key to residents. Make sure fo add housing units in the area West of De Anza. Marina, or Oaks sites would be perfect for housing and the area between Target and Whole Foods for offices. Locating all the housing and offices in the Vallco / Stevens Creek area is simply impossible given the impact to traffic and schools in that area. In combination with new Apple HQ, Main Street and Rose Bowl that are still in progress the area can simply not "handle" any more without major infrastructure improvements. Specially, as Santa Clara has approved the new 6 story office building to be constructed where the current IHOP restaurant is currently located. Stevens Creek is already a bottle neck without the 4000 or so expected cars from Apple HQ when they will start getting in and out of Stevens Creek as well. Please revisit the distribution of housing and offices to balance out the impact to all areas of the city Regards Mette Christensen Mette Christensen 10095 Judy Avenue Cell: 408 348 3637 mette@cloud50l.com www.cloud50l.com 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Dennis Vaughn <dennisdvaughn@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 10:01.PM To: Barry Chang Subject: December 2nd Meeting Dear Honorable Barry Chang, Good evening. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed amendment to the city plan and approving only the minimum for the housing component. I live in a townhome on Finch Avenue across from Cupertino High School. I'm very concerned about potential changes to Valco and the concentrated amount of housing units proposed for.east Cupertino. At this point I'd like to see the council: *Approve only the minimum for the housing element. Do not approve the entire GPA(General Plan Amendment)without additional discussion *Spread the housing units evenly over all parts of Cupertino *No rezoning of Vallco without a development plan the residents accept Thank you, Dennis Vaughn Cupertino Resident 1 i Karen B. Guerin From: Dennis Vaughn <dennisdvaughn@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:59 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: December 2nd Meeting Dear Honorable Rod Sinks, Good evening. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed amendment to the city plan and approving only the minimum for the housing component. I live in a townhome on Finch Avenue across from Cupertino High School. I'm very concerned about potential changes to Valco and the concentrated amount of housing units proposed for east Cupertino. At this point I'd like to see the council: *Approve only the minimum for the housing element. Do not approve the entire GPA(General Plan Amendment)without additional discussion *Spread the housing units evenly over all parts of Cupertino *No rezoning of Vallco without a development plan the residents accept Thank you, Dennis Vaughn Cupertino Resident 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Dennis Vaughn <dennisdvaughn@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:58 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: December 2nd Meeting Dear Honorable Gilbert Wong, Good evening. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed amendment to the city plan and approving only the minimum for the housing component. I live in a townhome on Finch Avenue across from Cupertino High School. I'm very concerned about potential changes to Valco and the concentrated amount of housing units proposed for east Cupertino. At this point I'd like to see the council: *Approve only the minimum for the housing element. Do not approve the entire GPA (General Plan Amendment) without additional discussion *Spread the housing units evenly over all parts of Cupertino *No rezoning of Vallco without a development plan the residents accept Thank you, Dennis Vaughn Cupertino Resident i Karen B. Guerin From: Ray Fang <rayfang@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:05 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Concerns on Cupertino General Plan Amendments Dear Cupertino Cit Council Member, P Y My name is Ray Fang. As one of Cupertino residents, I am concerned that the Cupertino General Plan Amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city, - Less opportunities to create parks and schools I urge the Cupertino City,Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan Amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. - Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1. The developer presents a plan for development 2. The community approves the plan for development We need to make sure we understand the full depth of impact on traffic, school, emergency response, parks and recreation, safety of kids, and pollution. Regards, Ray Fang 10821 Brookwell Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: rayfang@yahoo.com 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Ray Fang <rayfang@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:05 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Concerns on Cupertino General Plan Amendments Dear Cupertino City Council Member, My,name is Ray Fang. As one of Cupertino residents, I am concerned that the Cupertino General Plan Amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Less opportunities to create parks and schools I urge the Cupertino,City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan Amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. - Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1. The developer presents a plan for development 2. The community approves the plan for.development We need to make sure we understand the full depth of impact on traffic, school, emergency response, parks and recreation, safety of kids, and pollution. Regards, Ray Fang 10821 Brookwell Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: rayfang@yahoo.com 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Ray Fang <rayfang@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:04 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Concerns on Cupertino General Plan Amendments Dear Cupertino City Council Member, My name is Ray Fang. As one of Cupertino residents, I am concerned that the Cupertino General Plan Amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Less opportunities to create parks and schools I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan Amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. - Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1. The developer presents a plan for development 2. The community approves the plan for development We need to make sure we understand the full depth of impact on traffic, school, emergency response, parks and recreation, safety of kids, and pollution. Regards, Ray Fang 10821 Brookwell Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: rayfang@yahoo.com i Karen B. Guerin From: Ray Fang <rayfang@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:02 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Concerns on Cupertino General Plan Amendments Dear Cupertino City Council Member, My name is Ray Fang. As one of Cupertino residents, I am concerned that the Cupertino General Plan Amendments will reduce the quality of life in Cupertino. Possible effects of the amendments include the following concerns: - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Less opportunities to create parks and schools I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan Amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended. Show us one project at a time. Listen to community input for each development project. - Do not re-zone a parcel until the following actions are complete: 1. The developer presents a plan for development 2. The community approves the plan for development We need to make sure we understand the full depth of impact on traffic, school, emergency response, parks and recreation, safety of kids, and pollution. Regards, Ray Fang 10821 Brookwell Dr Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: rayfang@yahoo.com i Karen B. Guerin From: SS Tung <sstung@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01,2014 2:41 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Cupertino City Council to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco [No] Dear Cupertino City Council Member Mr. Wong, I heard that Cupertino City Council is considering to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco. I have strong concerns on: - More and taller buildings -Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Under capacity and insufficient infrastructure - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to.more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended transparently. Show us each individual project at a time. Listen to community input for every single development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the developer complete the presentation of a plan for development and the community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco for better Cupertino in the future. Regards, Shangsheng Tung 10127 Colby Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: SS Tung <sstung@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:43 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Cupertino City Council to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco [No] Dear Cupertino City Council Member Mr. Santoro, I heard that Cupertino City Council is considering to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco. I have strong concerns on: - More and taller buildings - Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Under capacity and insufficient infrastructure - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that'are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended transparently. Show us each individual project at a time. Listen to community input for every single development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the developer complete the presentation of a plan for development and the community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco for better Cupertino in the future. Regards, Shangsheng Tung 10127 Colby Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: SS Tung <sstung@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:45 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Cupertino City Council to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco [No] Dear Cupertino City Council Member Mr. Sinks, I heard that Cupertino City Council is considering to revise the.General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco. I have strong concerns on: - More and taller buildings - Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Under capacity and insufficient infrastructure - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be.amended transparently. Show us each individual project at a time. Listen to community input for every single development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the developer complete the presentation of a plan for development and the community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco for better Cupertino in the future. Regards, Shangsheng Tung ` 10127 Colby Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 7 1 Karen B. Guerin From: SS Tung <sstung@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:45 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Cupertino City Council to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco [No] Dear Cupertino City Council Member Mr. Chang, I heard that Cupertino City Council is considering to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco. I have strong concerns on: - More and taller buildings - Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Under capacity and insufficient infrastructure - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended transparently. Show us each individual project at a time. Listen to community input for every single development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the developer complete the presentation of a plan for development and the community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco for better Cupertino in the future. Regards, Shangsheng Tung 10127 Colby Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: SS Tung <sstung@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:44 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Cupertino City Council to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco [No] Dear Cupertino City Council Member Mr. Mahoney; I heard that Cupertino City Council is considering to revise the General Plan amendments and to rezone the Vallco. I have strong concerns on: - More and taller buildings -Vanishing opportunities to create parks and schools - Over-crowded schools and over-crowded neighborhoods - Under capacity and insufficient infrastructure - Increased traffic at schools and on major streets throughout the city - Growth that impacts some neighborhoods much more than others The Cupertino General Plan amendments that are proposed by the City were created without sufficient input from the community. Opportunities for community input were not communicated effectively, and participation in the input sessions was very low. I urge the Cupertino City Council to take the following steps: - Stop consideration of General Plan amendments until the City listens and responds to more community members. - Show residents why the General Plan must be amended transparently. Show us each individual project at a time. Listen to community input for every single development project. Do not re-zone a parcel until the developer complete the presentation of a plan for development and the community approves the plan for development - No rezoning of Vallco for better Cupertino in the future. Regards, Shangsheng Tung 10127 Colby Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: betzd <betzd@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:29 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Housing Allocation The proposed General Plan amendments (GPA) lack sufficient community input. ['am concerned that more and larger buildings and high-density housing threaten traffic, schools, open spaces, and the general quality of life in Cupertino. I urge the Council to get more community input before adopting GPA. The Housing Allocation must be approved soon. Approve the Housing Allocation with the following considerations: • Choose sites from all over the city (not all sites in one neighborhood). • Use as many parcels that are currently zoned for housing as possible. • Only if necessary: Re-zone parcels that are required for the Housing Allocation. • Do not include Vallco in the Housing Allocation; do not re-zone Vallco for housing. 1 Karen B. Guerin From: betzd <betzd@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:30 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Housing The proposed General Plan amendments (GPA) lack sufficient community input. I am concerned that more and larger buildings and high-density housing threaten traffic, schools, open spaces, and the general quality of life in Cupertino. I urge the Council to get more community input before adopting GPA. The Housing Allocation must be approved soon. Approve the Housing Allocation with the following considerations: • Choose sites from all over the city (not all sites in one neighborhood). • Use as many parcels that are currently zoned for housing as possible. • Only if necessary: Re-zone parcels that are required for the Housing Allocation. Do not include Vallco in the Housing Allocation; do not re-zone Valico for housing. 1 Karen B. Guerin From: betzd <betzd@pacbeII.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:30 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Housing The proposed General Plan amendments (GPA) lack sufficient community input. I am concerned that more and larger buildings and high-density housing threaten traffic, schools, open spaces, and the general quality of life in Cupertino. I urge the Council to get more community input before adopting GPA. The Housing Allocation must be approved soon. Approve the Housing Allocation with the following considerations: • Choose sites from all over the city (not all sites in one neighborhood). • Use as many parcels that are currently zoned for housing as possible. • Only if necessary: Re-zone parcels that are required for the Housing Allocation. • Do not include Vallco in the Housing Allocation; do not re-zone Vallco for housing.. I 1 Karen B. Guerin From: betzd <betzd@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:30 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Housing Allocation The proposed General Plan amendments (GPA) lack sufficient community input. I am concerned that more and larger buildings and high-density housing threaten traffic, schools, open spaces, and the general quality of life in Cupertino. I urge the Council to get more community input before adopting GPA. The Housing Allocation must be approved soon. Approve the Housing Allocation with the following considerations: • Choose sites from all over the city (not all sites in one neighborhood). • Use as many parcels that are currently zoned for housing as possible. • Only if necessary: Re-zone parcels that are required for the Housing Allocation. • Do not include Vallco in the Housing Allocation; do not re-zone Vallco for housing. i Karen B. Guerin From: betzd <betzd@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:29 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Housing Allocation The proposed General Plan amendments (GPA) lack sufficient community input. I am concerned that more and larger buildings and high-density housing threaten traffic, schools, open spaces, and the general quality of life in Cupertino. I urge the Council to get more community input before adopting GPA. The Housing Allocation must be approved soon. Approve the Housing Allocation with the following considerations: • Choose sites from all over the city (not all sites in one neighborhood). • Use as many parcels that are currently zoned for housing as possible. • Only if necessary: Re-zone parcels that are required for the Housing Allocation. • Do not include Vallco in the Housing Allocation; do not re-zone Vallco for housing. i Karen B. Guerin From: betzd <betzd@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:29 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Housing allocation The proposed General Plan amendments (GPA) lack sufficient community input. I am concerned that more and larger buildings and high-density housing threaten traffic, schools, open spaces, and the general quality of life in Cupertino. I urge the Council to get more community input before adopting GPA. The Housing Allocation must be approved soon. Approve the Housing Allocation with the following considerations: • Choose sites from all over the city (not all,sites in one neighborhood). • Use as many parcels that are currently zoned for housing as possible. • Only if necessary: Re-zone parcels that are required for the. Housing Allocation. • Do not include Vallco in the Housing Allocation; do not re-zone Vallco for housing. i Karen B. Guerin From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@grnail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 7:00 PM To: City Council; dapaul@darcypaul.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan; City Clerk Cc: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com Subject: Use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) in the Draft Housing Element Attachments: heart of city housing inventory.pdf Dear Sirs: I have a problem with the table on B-149 of the draft Housing Element. It has every proposed unit in the Heart of the City Special Area as being able to provide every unit with Affordability Levels of Very Low/Low. (See the attachment) This is justified by Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B). Here is 65583.2(c)(3): (3) For the number of' units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph. (2) , a city or county shall do either of the following: (A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households. (B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For incorporated cities within nonmetropolitan counties and for nonmetropolitan counties that have mitropolitan areas: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For unincorporated areas in all nonmetropolitan counties not included in clause (i) : sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For suburban jurisdictions: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For jurisdictions 'in metropolitan counties: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre. So while the City is allowed to use 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), it is not required to. The City has the option of using 65583.2(c)(3)(A). (A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or . zones that provide housing for lower income households. The City has an obligation to use the best methodology available, especially when a reasonable person would know that using 65583.2(c)(3)(B)will yield erroneous information. If the City is sued for not meeting its RHNA targets, it will be because it intentionally based its plan on erroneous information. Information that it got by following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Please make sure this in the public record for the GPA public hearing. Randy Shingai i Appendix B Housing Element Technical Report .w irof c glft' Site 6: Berry Swenson Property TABLE 5.1"' �UNIIMARY OF RESIDENTIALCITY IN HEART OFTHE CITY sPECIAL AREA _ I i Site 1 (The Oaks Shopping C/O/R 35 7.9 235 Very Low/Low Center) P(CG, Res, OP) Site 2(Vallco Shopping C/O/R ; 35 j 47.83 j 600 (max) !' Very Low/Low I District) P(Regional Shopping, I I 1 OP, Res) 3 l Site 4(United Furniture/East C/O/R 25 4.86 103 Very Low/Low of East Estates Drive) P(CG, Res) Site 5 (Glenbrook I Medium Density j 20 I 31.34 1 93 j Very Low/Low d Apartments) i R300-20) i Site 6(Barry Swenson) C/O/R 25 0.55 11 Very Low/Low P(CG, Res) i Total I i 92.48 1 1,042 Notes: (a)Realistic capacity for each site reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent. (b) Identified capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 20 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law.Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B),local governments may utilize"default"density standards to provide evidence that"appropriate zoning"is in place to support the development of housing for very-low and low-income households.The default density standard for Cupertino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara County is 20 dwelling units per acre(DUA)or more. (c)Residential capacity for Site 5 reflects a net increase in units. Source:City of Cupertino,2014 REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT B-1 4 9 CC 12-2-14 Item # 2 Kirsten Squarcia From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 10:55 AM To: City Council; dapaul@darcypaul.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan; City Clerk Cr. better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com Subject: Below Market Rate Program Hi everyone, I stumbled across this page on Cupertino's Below Market Rate Program. http://www.gMertino.orWindex.aspx?pa.ge=301 Issues for the Public Hearing on the GPA There is a link to a "Housing Mitigation Manual" on that page. hlt 2://www.pLapertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=446 If you look at that manual, dated November 18, 2002, there are few interesting things: • 1.02.20 says that developers shall pay a fee as determined by the City Council • 2.02.02 says that Residential developers shall designate at least 15%of the units in a development as "affordable" There are also links to a BMR For-Sale Units and a BMR Rental Inventory at the bottom of the page. http•//www gupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8052 http•//www Cupertino org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8063 .I counted 133 BMR units in the rental inventory, and 28 units in the Affordable Housing for sale list. Here's the current RHNA requirement for Cupertino Income Category Very Low Low Moderate Above-Moderate Total Housing Need 356 207 231 270 1,064 The total for Moderate and below is 356 + 207 + 231 = 794 units. According to the BRM inventory lists, Cupertino has 161 BMR units in inventory, and the RHNA target is 794 units. I have the following questions for the City: i CC 12-2-14 Item # 2 1. Is the Housing Mitigation Manual and its associated information current? If not where can I find current information? 2. What is the fee that developers pay according to 1.02.20? 3. Did the Biltmore, Rosebowl and Mainstreet apartments set aside 15% of their new units as per 2.02.20? 4. What plans does the City have to make progress on its RHNA BMR goals?. Thanks! Randy Shingai San Jose 95129 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Jeff Ben &Tracy Hurt <HurtBen@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02;'2014 10:20 AM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: Remarks regarding Agenda Items for Dec. 2nd City Council Meeting Attachments: Dec 2 Letter to Cupertino City Council.docx Dear Mayor and Council Members, Attached please find my remarks regarding the Draft Resolutions and Ordinances you will consider for adoption tonight. I hope to.address a subset of these issues before you orally tonight. Please include my remarks in the public record of tonight's city Council meeting. I thank you for your time.and consideration. Please be so kind as to have the City Clerk confirm receipt of this email. Thank-you. Respectfully submitted, Tracy L. Hurt i December 2, 2014 Re: Opposition to Adoption of Draft Resolutions No. 14-210, 14-211, 14-212, 14- 213 and Draft Ordinances 14-2124 and 14-2125 Sent via email to cilycouncil@cul)ertino.org and cityclerkncupertino.org Dear Mayor Wong and Cupertino City Council Members, Thank you for taking the time to listen tonight. I am a resident of CUSD and FUHSD attendance areas, the parent of a junior at Cupertino High School, and someone who has called Cupertino home for over 20 years. I respectfully request that tonight Council Members refrain from adopting Draft Resolution Nos. 14-210, 14-211, 14-212, and 14-213, as well as Draft Ordinances 14-2124 and 14-2125. In particular, new Council Members who are being sworn in tonight should abstain voting on these Draft Resolutions and Ordinances until they have the opportunity to fulfill their responsibility to read each of them in the entirety and to meet with the Cupertino Community and listen to their concerns regarding the proposals. To do otherwise . suggests these Council Members represent the developers, rather than the residents. I further request that the City Council refrain from adopting the above identified Draft Resolutions and Ordinances because the City has given the Community inadequate notice and opportunity to participate in the planning process. The City implies in its Draft Resolutions and Ordinances that it.has complied with CEQA mandated notice requirements; however, the sheer number and complexity of the number of Draft Resolutions and Ordinances presented simultaneously requires that the Cupertino Community be given more time to respond to the proposed development plans. The City's efforts to notice to the Community have been inadequate as measured by the number of people who have participated. For example, the City states that 160 people participated in 4 workshops, however, people who attended multiple workshops would be counted multiple times. Even if 160 people total had attended these workshops that number is much too small given the-total number of residents in Cupertino. According to the 2010 census Cupertino's population is 5 8,3 02 and City Lab states that as of May 4, 2009 the City had 27,489 registered voters. By these numbers the City has reached less than 1% of the registered voters. Assuming that there is no overlap between the 160 workshop attendees and the 300 people who subscribed to the Housing Element Website then the City has . heard from 460 people. While this is an improvement, the City has still reached less than 2% of the registered voters! Given the sweeping changes proposed in the Draft Resolutions and Ordinances the City should take the additional time available to it under CEQA to reach and engage significantly greater numbers of the Cupertino Community before forcing through sweeping amendments to the General Plan. Tracy L.Hurt remarks 12/2/2014 Page 1 I understand that Cupertino is required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)to update the Housing Element of its General Plan within 120 days of January 31, 2015. No other amendment to the Cupertino General Plan is required by HCD at that time. Accordingly, I urge the City Council to amend only the Housing Element on or before May 31, 2015. The entire Community and region will benefit from the additional discussions that can and surely will take place. I understand that as part of the Housing Element the City is required by the HCD to identify sufficient sites to satisfy its projected Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (RHNA) The City's RHNA for the 2015-2023 time period is 1,064 new,housing units. Additionally, State Law allows Cupertino to take credit for a total of 62 units bringing the required number of sites the City must identify to 1002 new units. See Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1,page I-6, second paragraph. I urge City Council Members to identify no more than the minimum number of new RHNA units it is obligated to, rather than the proposed 1843 new units when it submits the Housing Element to HCD so that the Cupertino Community will have additional time to participate and to allow more equitable distribution of development across the East-West axis of the City. The City Housing Commission has identified at least nine RHNA sites. See Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1,page 1-6; which refers to the Draft EIR, Table 3-12, and pp. 3-68 to 3-70. Unfortunately,the draft EIR was unavailable electronically today so I cannot verify which sites of the original nineteen remain. I assume for the sake of the following arguments that the 35 acre Vallco site remains identified as a potential RHNA site. The Vallco site is special and requires careful consideration because of its location, size, current use and unique character. Accordingly, I request that the City exclude the Vallco site from the upcoming list of RHNA sites. Vallco is located in the extreme east of Cupertino, bounded approximately by 1-280 S, Wolfe and Stevens Creek. It is undoubtedly the largest parcel of those identified and is home to unique recreation opportunities not available at Stanford Mall, Valley Fair or Santana Row by virtue of its bowling alley, ice skating rink and movie theaters. Furthermore, in contrast to its competitors that aim for the luxury consumer, squarely aimed at the middle class Vallco's Penney's and Sears are also unavailable in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Campbell. These factors all argue against major changes to Vallco. Finally,the crowning glory of the Vallco site is the colonnade of trees the marches down both sides of Wolfe, Stevens Creek and along Perimeter Road. They form a narrow park that the City should fiercely protect and extend. Their location in the far east.of the City makes these trees and their associated sidewalks especially precious. They should be included on the City's list of Heritage Trees under Cupertino City Ordinance 14.18.070. Despite repeated searches of the City's website I can find no such list. No change in the zoning, use or character of Vallco should take place until the adjacent trees have been placed on the Heritage Tree List. Finally, the Vallco site should not be zoned for housing because its size and location offer a unique opportunity to provide park land and open space to the most underserved area of the City. In contrast to the west side of Tracy L. Hurt remarks 12/2/2014 Page 2 Cupertino, which has nearly 3 acres of open space per thousand residents,the east side of Cupertino currently has less than 0.3 acres of open space per thousand residents. That amount will be even less once the housing units about to open along Stevens Creek from De Anza to Tantau are opened. The City must preserve, extend and add parks to the east side of Cupertino. East Cupertino is currently bearing the brunt of development without reaping any of the benefits. What happened to the millions of dollars the City made by selling Pruneridge Ave to Apple? Why isn't that money being applied to adding parks and open space to the east side? If the City can't or won't add Parks to the area at the very least it should preserve the recreation opportunities currently available at Vallco. For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Final EIR tonight. I remain opposed to developing housing on the Vallco site at this time; however, assuming arguendo that housing is to be developed there I am opposed to the proposed density of 35 units per acre. See Proposed General Plan Amendment, Attachment IV: Balanced Plan Map, under "vallco Shopping District Special Area. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to encourage development of affordable housing. Housing Commission Housing Staff Report of Feb. 12, 2014,page 4. " [T]he City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy." lbid,page 2 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the City Council can and must refrain from'amending current.ordinances to permit densities of more than 20 units per acre at Vallco and throughout the City. Finally, I object to the Final EIR and demand that City Council does not certify it in its current form. I object to the Final EIR because it fails to mitigate the indirect environmental impact upon Cupertino High School of the development of City Center, the Rose Bowl and the Apple Campus. In particular, the City has failed to mitigate the danger to pedestrians, bikers and skateboarders at the intersections of Finch and Stevens Creek and Tantau and Stevens Creek caused by the increased traffic. This indirect impact on the schools facilities must be considered and mitigated. See Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, Cal. App. 5 Dist, June 21, 2011. In Chawanakee Unified the court held that"impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result, the impact on traffic must be considered in the EIR." Id. Restriping of the road will not be adequate mitigation. The City should look into a variety of possible mechanisms to improve pedestrian safety including but not limited to flashing lights embedded in the cross walk itself, bulb outs on all four corners of the intersection, a pedestrian bridge over the street and hiring crossing guards and even bussing of students. One of the easiest and most effective mitigations at this point would be to defer further construction along the area bounded by Wolfe, Homestead, Tantau and Stevens Creek until after completion of Apple, the Rose Bowl and City Center. Without mitigations for pedestrian and biker safety at these intersections it is only a matter of time before an Apple employee or `Tino student is killed by a car. I therefore request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Tracy L. Hurt remarks 12/2/2014 Page 3 and Reporting Program for the Project, Exhibit-EA-2 until it has been amended to mitigate the indirect impacts to Cupertino High School. 'Tracy L. Hurt remarks 12/2/2014 Page 4 I thank the City Council for their time and consideration of my remarks. Respectfully submitted, Tracy L. Hurt Tracy L. Hurt remarks 12/2/2014 Page 5 CC 12-2-14 Item#2 Andrea Sanders From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 01,2014 3:55 PM To: City Council; City Clerk; dapaul@darcypaul.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: GPA: EIR conclusions questionable Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: City Clerk Dear Sirs, This is regrading the GPA EIR report(http://www.cu-oertinogpa.org/gpp folders/view/177). This 1265 page report contains a lot of data and provides crucial inputs to the GPA. It is not imaginable to plan our future if the conclusions of EIR are wrong. With my time constraints (full time job and two kids), I only went through a small part of EIR. Shockingly,just the small part of EIR demonstrates a lot of problems. Here I will list a few I spotted in the School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis (http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/210/AppendixF PublicServices.pdf). This 59 page document is part of Appendix F of total 9 appendices of the EIR. Forgive me if you feel the below list is too long,just think about how long the list could be for the entire EIR. 1. Enrollment data cited from wrong source. Table 5-4 Enrollment Projection by High School -FUHSD cites source as Enrollment Projection Consultants who is the demographer used by both CUSD and FUHSD. The original EPC report can be found at FUHSD website,htlp:Hfuhsd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1220712390804/1224957816940/6135832176609743503.pdf. The total enrollment cited in this table is 12, 036 in 2020.This is consistent with Projected Student Population in Table 2 of original EPC report. However, it is explicitly stated in the "Understanding Data in Table 2" session in the EPC report, "These are not projected enrollments". The right enrollment data is in Table 1 of EPC report, in which the projection of 2020 is 12135. 2. SGR cited is different from the source. In the same original EPC report, there is a dedicated session of"Projected Impacts of New Housing". The last paragraph especially addressed the SGR of the recent apartment complex_(regular ATT). Here is what the report states, "The recent"Regular ATT"units in the CUSD, on the other hand, have a much higher 0.12 high.school SGR. The 0.35 TK-8 SGR in those dwellings also indicates the 9-12 SGR will become even larger in the next few years." However,the SGR used in EIR is 0.32 for.TK-8 and 0.07 for 9-12. I have been assured by both planning commission and FUHSD enrollment office this report is the source for the EIR. But some how information is lost in copying. 1 CC 12-2-14 Item#2 3. Employment impact on enrollment is completely ignored. In section 4.2.3 of the report, factors that may affect the enrollment number is discussed. Employment is identified as one of major factor that contributes to school enrollment. In the GPA, alternative C proposes 4,040,231 sf office space. In the letter from SCUSD (http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/374/CC LateCommentsMemo.pdf), it uses the calculation that every 1664sf of office space would result in.one household in the school district. Per such calculation, the proposed office space would generate another 2428 households on top of the proposed residential units. This number is 1000 more than the residential units proposed in Alternative A. Moreover, it is noted in the report that the young single employee worked in Apple or other offices in Cupertino would grow old and potentially to raise family in Cupertino. "Yet the preferences of these young employees are likely to change as they age, have families, have less interest in San Francisco activities, and have an increased aversion to the time spent in commuting. The quality of local schools will influence their choice of housing location. It is also likely that the average income of these employees would be adequate to afford housing in Cupertino. This would create demand by young families for housing in the Cupertino District." So even the new apartment built for singles could generate enrollment increase eventually. Unfortunately, the EIR use a big zero when counting such a great impact. 4. Enrollment impact is inappropriately evaluated The major argument for LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT is that the enrollment increase caused by the new housing project is just a small percentage of the overall enrollment projection. For example, CUSD is going to have 12,511 students in elementary school by 2040-but only 899 come from the new housing project: But if you take a close look at the data in the report, e.g., Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 (summarized in https://docs google coal/spreadsheets/d/1T6urxEaoWv8l72iwwx5eTrpkoERYZgLrlvsOzDPIkF8/edit? usp=sharing), you would find basically, without the new housing, by 2040 elementary school enrollment will be down by 189, therefore all the enrollment increase is coming from proposed housing element. In some schools such as Collins, 274 out of 309 enrollment increase is coming from new housing project, which counts more than a quarter for projected enrollment of Collins. The only way to make the logic in the report valid is to distribute the housing units evenly in all school attendance area. Unfortunately,this is not the case in GPA. 5. Three out of four school impacts are not addressed. In section 2 School,Facility Standard, standards on classroom, other building, land area and accessibility are introduced. It is then acknowledged that a lot of our schools are overstressed on all the areas, not only we have more than state recommended potables (27% vs. 20% in elementary schools now) but also as noted in section 4.2.1 Housing Projection, - "Some educational support facilities - cafeteria/general purpose spaces, administrative offices, support classrooms for music/art or for students with targeted needs, playground space and facilities, etc. - are also below standard." 2 CC 12-2-14 Item#2 However, in section 4.4.3 Facility Improvement Plan, only one improvement option is discussed, i.e., building a two story classroom building. Basically,there is no mitigation plan to meet the state requirement on school common buildings, school land area and school accessibility. Overall,based on the data in this school impact report, the conclusion I would draw is the current GPA has SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE impact on school. The GPA would significantly increase the school enrollment in the impacted area and no feasible mitigation scheme could meet the state standards on school buildings and land area. The above mistakes are not singular in the EIR. For example, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT conclusion on park land is made with similar calculation of using city wide number instead of number of the impacted area. Finally I would urge the City Council discard this version of EIR and hold any GPA vote until we have a credible EIR. Please make this part of the public record for December 2, 2014 Regular Council Meeting. Thanks, Xiaowen Wang Cupertino resident 3 CC 12-2-14 Item #2 Andrea Sanders From: Srinivas Sirikonda <sirikonda_s@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02,2014 11:43 AM To: City Council;City Clerk Subject: Fw: Demand Safer Streets around Vallco and Cupertino High -Model Letter Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: City Clerk . Hi, Thanks, Srinivas Sirikonda 450 Harvard Ave, 1 E Santa Clara, CA 95051. Tracy Hurt, Cascade Park If you care about Vallco and the streets around it and Cupertino High but�can't make tonight's Rally or Cupertino City Council meeting, you could still do something. Below you'll a model letter that'you cavi`easily modify. Email addresses included. Tracy Re: Demand for Safer Streets around Cupertino High School and Vallco Sent via email to'citycouncil@cupe'rtino.org and cityclerk@cupertino.org Dear Mayor Wong and Cupertino City Council Members, am bTesident of CUSD and FUHSD attendance areas. As part of the Housing Element the City is required by the HCD to identify sufficient sites to satisfy its projected Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (RHNA)The City's RHNA for the 2015-2023 time`period is 1,064 new housing units. Additionally, State Law allows Cupertino to take credit for a total'of 62 units bringing the required number of sites the City must identify to 1002 new units. See Draft Resolution No: 14-210,;Exhibit EA-1, page I- 6, second paragraph. I urge City Council-Members to identify no more than the minimum number of new RHNA units it is"bbligated to, rather than the proposed 1843 new units when it submits the Housing Element to HCD. The CityHousing Commission has identified at least nine RHNA sites. See.Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1, page 1-6; which refers to the Draft EIR, Table 3-12, and pp. 3-68 to 3=70' 1 assume for the sake of the following arguments that the 35 acre Vallco site remains identified as a potential RHNA site.The Vallco site is special and requires careful consideration because of its location; size, current use and unique'character. Accordingly, I request that the City exclude the Vallco site from theupcoming list of RHNA sites. Vallco is located in the extreme east of Cupertino, bounded approximately by 1-280 S, Wolfe and Stevens Creek. It is " undoubtedly the largest parcel of those identified and is home to unique recreation opportunities not available at Stanford Mall, Valley Fair or Santana Row by virtue of its bowling alley, ice skating rink and movie theaters. Furthermore, in contrast to its competitors that aim for the luxury consumer, squarely aimed at the middle class Vallco's Penney's and Sears are also unavailable in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and 1 CC 12-2-14 Item#2 Campbell. These factors all argue against major changes to Vallco. Finally, the crowning glory of the Vallco site is the colonnade of trees the marches down both sides of Wolfe, Stevens Creek and along Perimeter Road. They form a'narrow park that the City should fiercely protect and extend. Their location in the far east of the City makes these trees and their associated sidewalks especially precious. They should be included on the City's list of Heritage Trees under Cupertino City Ordinance 14.18.070:'Despite repeated searches of the City's website I can find no such list. No change in the zoning, use or character of Vallco should take place until the adjacent trees have been placed on the Heritage Tree List. Finally, the Vallco site should not be zoned for housing because its size and location offer a unique opportunity to provide:park land and open space to the most underserved area of the City. In contrast to the west side of Cupertino, which has nearly 3 acres of open space per thousand residents, the east side of Cupertino currently has less than 0.3 acres of open spaceper thousand residents. That amount will be even less once the housing units about to open along Stevens Creek from De Anza to Tantau are opened. The City must preserve, extend and add parks to the east side of Cupertino. East Cupertino is currently bearing the brunt of development without reaping any of the benefits. What happened to the millions of dollars the City made by selling Pruneridge Ave to Apple?Why isn't that money being applied to adding parks and open space to the east side? If the City can't or won't add Parks to the area at the very least it should preserve the recreation opportunities currently available at Vallco. For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Final EIR tonight. I remain opposed to developing housing on the Vallco site at this time; however, assuming`arguendo that housing is to be developed there I am opposed to the proposed density of 35 units per acre. See Proposed General Plan Amendment, Attachment N: Balanced Plan Map, under"Vallco Shopping District Special Area. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to encourage development of affordable housing. Housing Commission Housing Staff Report of Feb. 12, 2014, page 4. " [T]he City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy.".Ibid, page 2 (emphasis-'added).Accordingly, the City Council can and must refrain from amending current ordinances to permit densities of more than 20:units per,acre,at Vallco and throughout the City. Finally, I object to the Finali,EIR and demand that;Cit-Council.does�not certify it in its:current.form.. I object to the Final EIR because it fails to mitigate the indirect environmental impact upon Cupertino High School of the development of City Center, the Rose Bowl and the Apple Campus. In particular, the City has failed to mitigate the danger to pedestrians, bikers and skateboarders at the intersections of Finch and Stevens Creek and Tantau and Stevens Creek caused by the increased traffic. This indirect impact on the schools facilities must be considered and mitigated. See Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, C.al. App. 5 Dist, June 21, 2011. In Chawanakee Unified the court held that"impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result, the impact on traffic-must be considered in the EIR." Id. Restriping of the road will not.be adequate mitigation. The City should.look into a variety of possible mechanisms to improve pedestrian safety including but not limited to flashing lights embedded in the cross walk itself, bulb outs on all four corners of the intersection, a pedestrian bridge over the street and hiring crossing guards and even bussing of students.,One of the easiest and most effective mitigations at this point would be to defer further construction along the,area. bounded by Wolfe, Homestead„Tantau and Stevens Creek until after completion of Apple, the Rose Bowl and City Center.-Without mitigations for pedestrian and,biker safety at these intersections it is only a matter of time before an Apple employee or'Tino student is killed by a car. I therefore request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Mitigation Monitoring-and Reporting Program for the Project, Exhibit EA-2 until it has been amended.to mitigate the indirect impacts to Cupertino High School Dec 2 in General to 5 neighborhoods Thank Private message 2 CC 12-2-14 Item #2 Andrea Sanders From: E McDaniel <mcdan333@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02,2014 12:47 PM To: City Council; City Clerk Subject:.: Cupertino High School and surrounding neighborhoods have suffered Follow Up Flag:. Follow.up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: City Clerk Dear Mayor Wong and Cupertino City Council Members, I am a resident of CUSD and FUHSD attendance areas.] have two current and one future Cupertino High School students, so the issues discussed below are of particular importance to me. Developers have enriched themselves, and hope to continue to do so, at the expense of the quality of life in and around eastern Cupertino. I understand the need for new housing, but your job is to balance the needs,of current residents against future potential residents'. As'part of the Housing Element the City is required;by the HCD to.identify sufficient sites to satisfy its projected RegionalHousing Needs Allocation. (RHNA)The City's RHNA for the 2015-2023 time period is 1,064 new housing units. Additionally, State Law allows Cupertino to take credit for a total of 62 units bringing the required number of sites the'City must identify.to 1002 new units: See:Draft,'Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1, page 1-6, second paragraph. I urge City Council Members to identify no more than the)minimum number of new RHNA units it is obligated to, rather than the proposed 1843 new units when it submits the Housing Element to HCD. The City Housing Commission has identified at least nine RHNA sites. See Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1, page 1-6; which refers to the Draft EIR, Table 3-12, and pp. 3-68 to 3-70. 1 assume for the sake of the following arguments that the 35 acre Vallco site remains identified as a potential RHNA site. The Vallco site is special and requires careful consideration because of its location, size, current use and unique character. Accordingly, I request that the City exclude the Vallco site from the upcoming list of RHNA sites. Vallco is located in the extreme east of Cupertino, bounded approximately by 1-280 S, Wolfe and Stevens Creek. It is undoubtedly the largest parcel of those identified and is home to unique recreation opportunities not available at Stanford Mall, Valley Fair or Santana Row by virtue of its bowling alley, ice skating rink and movie theaters. Furthermore, in contrast to its competitors that aim for the luxury consumer,squarely aimed at the middle class Vallco's Penney's and Sears are also unavailable in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Campbell. These factors all argue against major changes to Vallco. Finally, the crowning glory of the Vallco site is the colonnade of trees the marches down both sides of Wolfe, Stevens Creek and along Perimeter Road. They form a narrow park that the City should fiercely protect and extend. Their location in the far east of the City makes these trees and their associated sidewalks especially precious. They should be included on the City's list of Heritage Trees under Cupertino City Ordinance 14.18.070. Despite repeated searches of the City's website I can find no such list. No change in the zoning, use or character of Vallco should take place until the adjacent trees have been placed on the Heritage Tree List. Finally, the Vallco site should not be zoned for housing because its size and location offer a unique opportunity to provide park land and open space to the most underserved area of the City. In contrast to the west side of Cupertino, which has nearly 3 acres of open space per thousand residents, the east side of Cupertino currently has less than 0.3 acres of open space per thousand residents. That amount will be even less once the housing units about to open along Stevens Creek from De Anza to Tantau are opened. The City must preserve, extend and add parks to the east side of Cupertino. East Cupertino is currently bearing the brunt of development without reaping any of the benefits. What happened to the millions of dollars the City made by selling Pruneridge Ave to Apple? Why isn't that 1 CC 12-2-14 Item#2 money being applied to adding parks and open space to the east side? If the City can't or won't add Parks to the area at the very least it should preserve the recreation opportunities currently available at Vallco. For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Final EIR tonight. I remain opposed to developing housing on the Vallco site at this time; however, assuming arguendo that housing is to be developed there I am opposed to the proposed density of 35 units per acre. See Proposed General Plan Amendment, Attachment N: Balanced Plan Map, under"Vallco-Shopping District Special Area. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to "encourage development of affordable housing. Housing Commission Housing.Staff'Report of Feb. 12, 2014, pageA " [T]he City's responsibility,is to demonstrate adequate capacity by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy." Ibid, page 2 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the City Council 'can and must refrain from amending current ordinances to permit densities of more than 20 units per acre at Vallco and throughout the City. Finally, I object to the Final EIR and demand that City Council does not certify it in its current form. I object to the Final EIR because it fails to mitigate the indirect environmental impact upon Cupertino High School of the development of City Center, the Rose Bowl and the Apple Campus. In particular, the City has failed to mitigate the danger to pedestrians, bikers and skateboarders at the intersections of Finch and Stevens Creek.and Tantau and Stevens Creek caused b the increased traffic. This indirect impact on the schools facilities must Y p be considered and mitigated. See Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, Cal. App. 5 Dist, June 21, 2011. In Chawanakee Unified the court held that"impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result, the impact on traffic must be considered in the EIR." Id. Restriping of the road will not be adequate mitigation. The City should look into a variety of possible mechanisms to improve pedestrian safety including but not limited to flashing lights embedded in the-crosswalk itself, bulb outs on all four corners of the intersection, a pedestrian bridge over the street and hiring crossing guards and even bussing of students. One of the easiest and most effective mitigations at this point would be to defer further construction along the area bounded by Wolfe, Homestead, Tantau and Stevens Creek until after completion of Apple, the Rose Bowl and City Center. Without mitigations for pedestrian and biker safety at these intersections it is only a matter of time before an Apple employee or`Tino student is killed by a car. I therefore request that the.City Council refrain from adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and.Reporting Program for. the Project, Exhibit EA-2 until it has been amended to mitigate the indirect impacts to Cupertino High School. Sincerely, .. .. Eric McDaniel 2 Karen B..Guerin From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 201411:49 AM To: City Council; City Clerk; dapaul@darcypaul.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan Cc: better.-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com Subject: Government Code 65588(a) should trump use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) Dear Sirs: This is regarding the draft Housing Element for 201472022 that was made available for the December 2, 2014 Regular Council Meeting, and follows up an earlier email. Here is Government Code 65588(a): 65588. (a) .Each local government shall•review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following: (1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. (3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element. I believe the use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is inconsistent with Government Code 65588(a) because it can be demonstrated that the use of 65583.2(c)(3)(B)produces consistently erroneous results within the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino uses Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B)to project that high- density housing will produce only lower income housing within the City of Cupertino. Recent and past history has shown that high density housing rarely produces lower income housing.units within the City of Cupertino.. While the City is allowed to use Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) to calculate the number of units that can be used to fulfill its share of the regional housing need for lower income housing, the City is not required to use 65583.2(c)(3)(B). Cupertino can instead use a more conventional approach. That is the approach described in 65583.2(c)(3)(A). Here is Government Code 65583.2(c)(3): (3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2) , a city or county shall do either of the following: (A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this .need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households. (B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For incorporated cities within nonmetropolitan counties and for nonmetropolitan counties that have micropolitan areas: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For unincorporated areas in all nonmetropolitan counties not included in clause (i) : sites allowing at ,least 10 units per acre. (iii) For suburban jurisdictions: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. '(iv) For jurisdictions in metropolitan counties: sites allowing at • 1 i least 30 units per acre. The City of Cupertino used 65583.2(c)(3)(B) to estimate the number'of lower income housing units that would be produced by its inventory of suitable sites for housing in its 2007-20014 Housing Element. According to Table 7.2 in the draft Housing Element Technical Report for 2014-2022, the City achieved 7.3% of its Very Low and 10% of its Low income RHNA goals for the preceding 2007-2014 RHNA period, while at the same time achieving 164% of its Above Moderate income RHNA goals up through 2013. So it's fair to say that there has beena systematic overestimation of Very Low and Low income housing unit production and a systematic underestimation of Above Moderate income housing unit production. I believe the use of 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is responsible for this. In the draft Housing Element Technical Report for 2014-2022, Tables 5.1 and 5-2 inventory a total of 1,389 possible housing.units that can be constructed on 6 sites. Every one of these units are projected to have an Affordability Level of Very Low or Low. If these projections are even half correct and these sites are all developed in the 2014-2022 time frame,then the City of Cupertino should easily meet its Very Low and Low income RHNA goals for 201472022. However, any reasonable person would doubt that this is going to happen. You have an obligation to follow Government Code 65588(a), because if it can be demonstrated that you were aware of a problem, and that you did nothing to correct it, it might have legal implications. For instance, some housing advocacy group might decide to sue the City for not meeting its RHNA goals for lower income housing. They,might argue that the City selected an estimation method that allowed the City to shirk its responsibility to provide lower cost housing. Why is this important? Because if the City knows that there will be a shortfall in the number of lower cost housing, it can start to plan mitigation measures sooner rather than latter. The other reason is that the systematic underestimation of the number of Above Moderate income units produced result in more overall housing units being produced. Please make this part of the public record for the December 2, 2014 Regular Council Meeting. Thank You, 'Randy Shingai 2 Karen B.Guerin , From: Lisa Warren <.la-warren@att.net> Sent: Sunday, November 30,20.14 8:10 PM To: Planning Dept.; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; City Clerk; David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; savita4council@gmail.com; Darcy Paul Subject: Please address "Community Benefit' - 'Retail' vague language City Council, Planning 'team' and City Attorney, I strongly believe that you should separate the Housing Element issue and the General Plan Amendment early on in your next city council meeting, I do think that December 2nd's CC meeting may be an appropriate time to come to a consensus that something be done about some of the undefined language contained in the General Plan that often creates confusion and misguided decision making. However, I truly believe you would be doing a disservice to all of us, including yourselves, if you do not postpone the GPA agenda item and concentrate on the more immediate task of responsibly handling decisions related to the'Housing Element. It has been stated before, by many, that the phrase 'Community Benefits' is not defined and is negotiated behind the scenes (so to speak)... with community input/control of the outcome. There are similar issues with the 'retail' component language in the existing General Plan and related,.-documents. These 'catch phrases' both need to be defined appropriately and matched with the intent of a majority of residents. Simply repeating the phrases that exist in the current General Plan will NOT address the problems that continue to occur as projects get approved, and concessions are given to developers, sometimes repeatedly. I like to think that terms like this were introduced into the GP in an-effort to allow for positive negotiations with developers. If they were, then there needs to be some 'clean up' to ensure that residents have significant input on how to define them. If done correctly, you have an opportunity to minimize the wishy washy discussions and questionable decisions that occur, and-the 'change games' that often follow. Example of the 'change game' : If memory serves me.... Main Street was not to include any housing... then the Sr. Housing component was introduced as a sort of 'community benefit'.... then that housing piece was allowed to be substituted with 'lofts' - the baby got thrown out with the bath water. ........ Main Street has other examples of this... changes over the years before ground braking have altered what I recall the original intent was for this site. The originally approved plans changed drastically A lower height, smaller size, Boutique Hotel morphed to 5 story 'residence inn' with kitchenettes. 'Maximum' allowable office square footage (100,000) and height, increased to 260,000 sf= resulting in much larger footprint, increased height and need for more parking !! Retail square footage 'shrunk' and the entire flavor changed. This is a simplistic summary of one project. i Your 'public' is decidedly unhappy with the entire current situation. In additions, you have a 'changing of the guard' that must be considered. Rushing.into decisions, and attempting to successfully deliberate the enormous amount of detail contained in both of these LONG term documents at the same time would be a mistake. I would like to see some cooperation, now that you are getting passionate feedback from a significant number of residents. This cooperation can be demonstrated, partially, by putting off the GPA decision AND by agreeing to distribute proposed housing sites throughout the city, in a equitable way. There are multiple and genuinely good reasons to go forward in this manner. Thank you. Lisa Warren 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Willey <jonbobw@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:45 PM To: Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; City Council; City Clerk; savita4council@gmail.com; Darcy Paul; Mark Santoro Subject: RE: Cupertino Development Of Vallco Attachments: Vallco Developer Plan Comparison 3.pdf Councilmen Wong, Sinks, Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Santoro, and Mahoney, This is a follow-up e-mail with an updated comparison of development projects in Cupertino. Since my previous e-mail, I have discovered that at the November 10 meeting, Sand Hill actually is wanting 2,000,000 ft2 of office space for Vallco as opposed to what I have heard about which was 1,000,000t2 (I could not attend because I was on business travel). Also, I have discovered that there is already an approved Hyatt Hotel, 148 rooms, which will be behind Vallco on land that I thought was part of Vallco. I question why this is not in the current Cupertino Development Activity Report. And I also learned from the Cupertino Planning department that the permits for the Oaks Shopping Center were allowed to expire and it is now on the Housing List for up to 235 residential units, any'coincidence that the permits were allowed to,expire? You will find that these are in the updated comparisons. Attached is my updated Development Comparison and hope you take time to look at these, I have put quite a lot of time in preparing it. And I would like to discuss these comparisons in tomorrow evens meeting. Best Regards, Jon Willey Cupertino Resident since 1997, San Jose resident since birth California licensed engineer From:jonbobw@hotmail.com To: rsinks@cupertino.org; gwong@cupertino.org; bchang@cupertino.org; omahoney@cupertino.org; citycouncil@cupertino.org; cityclerk@cupertino.org; savita4council@gmail.com; dapaul98@gmail.com; msantoro@cupertino.org Subject: Cupertino Development Of Vallco Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:16:14-0800 Councilmen Wong, Sinks, Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Santoro, and Mahoney, On the attached document, I have compiled some commercial building and lot size information for comparison to the Proposed Vallco Development and zoning changes being considered. When making decisions on large projects that will have significant impact on Cupertino, I recommend that the buildings and lot sizes be clearly detailed and be within a defined range which are consistent with the city's landscape and residents desires. This is the way residential houses are approved in all cities and has proven to be a good way to facilitate new construction, additions, and significant changes While maintaining fairness and a consistent standard that's acceptable to surrounding people and properties. This should help to alleviate the citizen rage over massive projects that are to maximize Developer's profits with little regard to the impact on the Cupertino landscape and environment. i The developments in the comparison are all from the 2014 Cupertino Development Activity Report and represent very recent construction projects within Cupertino. I encourage you to travel to these sites and others and see first hand how the buildings and lot coverage fit or don't fit with the Cupertino landscape and Cupertino'Resident desires. And I am happy to receive your thoughts and ideas. Thank you for your consideration, Jon Willey Cupertino Resident since 1997, San Jose resident since birth California licensed engineer 2 Karen B Guerin From: Diana Lai <lai_diana@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:27 AM To: City Council; City Clerk Subject: I OPPOSE Housing Development at the Vallco Site Re: Demand for Safer,Streets around Cupertino High School and Vallco Dear Mayor Wong and Cupertino City Council Members, I am a resident of CUSD and FUHSD attendance.areas. As part of the Housing Element the City is required by the HCD to identify sufficient sites to satisfy its projected Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (RHNA)The City's RHNA for the 2015-2023 time period is 1,064 new housing units. Additionally, State Law allows Cupertino to take credit for a total of 62 units bringing the required number of sites the City must identify to 1002 new units. See Draft Resolution-No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1, page I-6, second paragraph. I urge City Council Members to identify no more than the minimum number of new RHNA units it is obligated to,rather than the proposed 1843 new units when it submits the Housing Element to HCD. The City Housing Commission has identified at least nine RHNA sites. See Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1, page I- 6;which refers to the Draft EIR,Table 3-12,and pp. 3-68 to 3-70. I assume for the sake of the following arguments that the 35 acre Vallco,site remains identified as a potential RHNA site. The Vallco site is special and requires careful consideration because of its location, size, current use and unique character.Accordingly,I request that the City exclude the Vallco site from the upcoming list of RHNA sites. Vallco is located in the extreme east of Cupertino, bounded approximately by 1-280 S,Wolfe and Stevens Creek. It is undoubtedly the largest parcel of those identified and is home to unique recreation opportunities not available at Stanford Mall, Valley Fair or Santana Row by virtue of its bowling alley, ice skating rink and movie theaters. Furthermore, in contrast to its competitors that aim for the luxury consumer,squarely aimed at the middle class Vallco's Penney's and Sears are also unavailable in Palo Alto,Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa'Clara and Campbell.These factors all argue against major changes to Vallco. Finally,the crowning glory of the Vallco site is the colonnade of trees the marches down both sides of Wolfe, Stevens Creek and along Perimeter Road.They form a narrow park that the City should fiercely protect and extend. Their location in the far east of the City makes these trees and their associated sidewalks especially precious. They should be included on the City's list of Heritage Trees under Cupertino City Ordinance 14.18.070. Despite repeated searches of the City's website I can find no such list.No change in the zoning, use or character of Vallco should take place until the adjacent trees have been placed on the Heritage Tree List. Finally,the Vallco site should not be zoned for housing because its size and location offer a unique opportunity to provide park land and open space to the most underserved area of the City. In contrast to the west side of Cupertino,which has nearly 3 acres of open space per thousand residents, the east side of Cupertino currently has less than 0.3 acres of open space per thousand residents. That amount will be even less once the housing units about to open along Stevens Creek from De Anza to Tantau are opened. The City must preserve, extend and add parks to the east side of Cupertino. East Cupertino is currently bearing the brunt of development without reaping any of the benefits. What happened to the millions of dollars the City made by selling Pruneridge Ave to Apple?Why isn't that money being applied to adding parks and open space to the east side? If the City can't or won't add Parks to the area at the very least it should preserve the recreation opportunities currently available at Vallco. For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Final EIR tonight. I remain opposed to developing housing on the Vallco site at this time; however, assuming arguendo that housing is to be developed there I am opposed to the proposed density of 35 units per acre.See Proposed General Plan Amendment,Attachment N: Balanced Plan Map,under"Vallco Shopping District Special Area.HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to encourage development of affordable housing. Housing Commission Housing Staff Report of Feb. 12, 2014, page 4. " [T]he City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity by identifying specific sites,to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy."Ibid,page 2(emphasis added).Accordingly,the City Council can and must refrain from amending current ordinances to permit densities of more than 20 units per acre at Vallco and throughout the City. Finally, I object to the Final EIR and demand that City Council does not certify it in its current form. I object to the Final EIR because it fails to mitigate the indirect environmental impact upon Cupertino High School of the development of City Center, the Rose Bowl and the Apple Campus. In particular,the City has failed to mitigate the danger to pedestrians, bikers and skateboarders at the intersections of Finch and Stevens Creek and Tantau and Stevens Creek caused by the increased traffic. This indirect impact on the schools facilities must be considered and mitigated. See Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, Cal.App. 5 Dist,June 21,2011. In Chawanakee Unified the court held that"impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result,the impact on traffic must be considered in the EIR."Id. Restriping of the road will 1 .not be adequate mitigation. The City should look into a variety of possible mechanisms to improve pedestrian safety including but not limited to flashing lights embedded in the cross walk itself,bulb outs on all four corners of the intersection, a pedestrian bridge over the street and hiring crossing guards and even bussing of students. One of the easiest and most effective mitigations at this point would be to defer further construction along the area bounded by Wolfe,Homestead,Tantau and Stevens Creek until after completion of Apple,the Rose Bowl and City Center. Without mitigations for pedestrian and biker safety at these intersections it is only a matter of time before an Apple employee or `Tino student is killed by a car. I therefore request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project,Exhibit EA-2 until it has been amended to mitigate the indirect impacts to Cupertino High School. Sincerely, Diana Lai and David Or 105 Blake Ave, Santa Clara,`CA 95051 2 Karen B._Guerin. . From: Tong Zheng <tongzhengtz@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:18 AM To: City Council Subject:. Demand Safer Streets around Vallco and Cupertino High Dear Mayor Wong and Cupertino City Council Members, I am a resident of CUSD and FUHSD attendance areas. As part,of the Housing Element the City is required by the HCD to identify sufficient sites to satisfy its projected Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (RHNA) The City's RHNA for the 2015-2023 time period is 1,064 new housing units. Additionally, State Law allows Cupertino to'take credit for a total of 62 units bringing the required number of sites.the City must identify to 1002 new units. See Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1, page I-6, second paragraph. I urge City.Council Members to identify no more than'the minimum number of new RHNA units it is obligated to, rather than the proposed 1843 new units when it submits the Housing Element to HCD. The City Housing Commission has identified at least nine RHNA sites. See Draft Resolution No. 14-210, Exhibit EA-1,page I=6; which refers to the Draft EIR, Table 3-12, and pp. 3-68'to 3-70. I assume for the sake of the following arguments that the 3.5.acre Vallco site remains identified as a potential RHNA site. The Vallco site is special and requires careful consideration because of its location, size, current use and unique character. Accordingly,I request that the City exclude the Vallco site from the upcoming list of RHNA sites. Vallco is located in the extreme east of Cupertino, bounded approximately by I-280 S,Wolfe and Stevens Creek. It is undoubtedly,the largest parcel of those identified and is home to unique recreation opportunities not available at Stanford Mall, Valley Fair or Santana Row by virtue of its bowling alley, ice skating rink and movie theaters. Furthermore, in contrast to.its competitors that aim for the luxury consumer, squarely aimed at the middle class Vallco's Penney's and Sears are also unavailable in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Campbell. These factors all argue against major changes to Vallco. Finally,the crowning glory of the Vallco site is the colonnade of trees the marches down both sides of Wolfe, Stevens Creek and along Perimeter Road. They form a narrow park that the City should fiercely protect and extend. Their location in the far east of the City makes these trees and their associated sidewalks especially precious. They should be included on the City's list of Heritage Trees under Cupertino City Ordinance 14.18.070. Despite repeated searches of the City's website I can find no such list. No change in the zoning, use or character of Vallco should take place until the adjacent trees have been placed on the Heritage Tree List. Finally, the Vallco site should not be zoned for housing because its size and location offer a unique opportunity to provide park land and open space to the most underserved area of the City. In contrast to the west side of Cupertino, which has nearly 3 acres of open space per thousand residents, the east side of Cupertino currently has less than 0.3 acres of open space per thousand residents. That amount will be even less once the housing units about to open along Stevens Creek from De Anza to Tantau are opened. The City must preserve, extend and add parks to the east side of Cupertino. East Cupertino is currently bearing the brunt of development without reaping any of the benefits. What happened to the millions of dollars the City made by selling Pruneridge Ave to Apple? Why isn't that money being applied to adding parks and open space'to the east side? If the City can't or won't add Parks to the area at the very least it should preserve the recreation opportunities currently available at Vallco. For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Final EIR tonight. I remain opposed to developing housing on the Vallco site at this time; however, assuming arguendo that housing is to be developed there I am opposed to the proposed density of 35 units per acre. See Proposed 1 General Plan Amendment, Attachment N: Balanced Plan Map, under"Vallco Shopping District Special Area. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to encourage development of affordable housing. Housing Commission Housing Staff Report of Feb. 12 2014,page 4. " [T]he City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity by identifying specific sites,to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy." Ibid, page 2 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the City Council can and must refrain from amending current ordinances to permit densities of more than 20 units per acre at Vallco and throughout the City. Finally, I object to the Final EIR and demand that City Council does not certify it in its current form. I object to the Final EIR because it fails to mitigate the indirect environmental impact upon Cupertino High School of the development of City Center, the Rose Bowl and the Apple Campus. In particular,the City has failed to mitigate the danger to pedestrians, bikers and skateboarders at the intersections of Finch and Stevens Creek and Tantau and Stevens Creek caused by the increased traffic. This indirect impact on the schools facilities must be considered and mitigated. See Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, Cal. App. 5 Dist, June 21, 2011. In Chawanakee Unified the court held that"impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result, the impact on traffic must be considered in the EIR."Id. Re-striping of the road will not be adequate mitigation. The City should look into a variety of possible mechanisms to improve pedestrian safety including but not limited to flashing lights embedded in the cross walk itself, bulb outs on all four corners of the intersection, a pedestrian bridge over the street and hiring crossing guards and even busing of students. One of the easiest and most effective mitigation at this point would be to defer further construction along the area bounded by Wolfe, Homestead, Tantau and Stevens Creek until after completion of Apple, the Rose Bowl and City Center. Without mitigation for pedestrian and biker safety at these intersections it is only a matter of time before an Apple employee or `Tino student is killed by a car. I therefore request that the City Council refrain from adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, Exhibit EA-2 until it has been amended to mitigate the indirect impacts to Cupertino High School. Regards, Tong z Karen B. Guerin From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:12 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Planning Dept.; City Clerk; City Council; savita4council@gmail.com; Darcy Paul Subject: Fw: Recommended Housing Element Sites Identified as requested Planning, City Council, City Manager - I was one of the attendees at the November 20, 2014 GPA/HEU Community Workshop. During the course of the evening, the planned 'agenda' was altered as member of the community were anxious for a chance to ask questions and share thoughts as an entire group as opposed to multiple guided round table discussions. As a result, the 'mapping exercise' that was planned by the city was not completed. I saw some value in having attendees give the input that this excersise would have supplied, so after the meeting, I suggested to at least four different city employees, including the City Manager and Asst. Manager, that an email be sent to everyone that was sent the notification email about the Nov 20 workshop AND any new email addresses that were collected on the sign-in.sheet that evening. The email would contain an attachment with the map image and a request that people identify sites/unit numbers at home and send them in to the city. I thought the feedback on that suggestion was positive, but I did not ever receive such an email, and am fairly certain one did not get sent out. I was disappointed That being said, I want to share with you a list that was the result of a 'mapping session' with myself and a few residents. This list is in no particular order and the total of all highest unit numbers suggested is far larger than the desired total of units to be included in the Housing Element. IF the high end of the ranges is used sites with ranges, then other sites should be removed. The goal is to end up with far LESS than the 1400 unit number that Staff keeps mentioning. We see no need for that large of a 'buffer'. For example, IF Hamptons and Oaks are 'maxed', then Glenbrook, Villages and Foothill McClellan could be removed completely.= resulting in 1171 total on 6 sites: That would be enough !! • Hamptons 500-660 • Barry Swenson 11 • Granite Rock 120 • Marina Plaza 180 • Villages ' 62 • Glenbrook 93-228 • The Oaks 180-200 • Foothill @ McClellan 27 or more Homestead Lanes was also considered as an option. 1 I hope that other such lists were created by residents. Thank you, Lisa Warren 2