Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
Written Communications (updated 11-06-19)
CC 11-5-19
Oral Communications
Written Comments
Stevens Creek
Co unty Pa k
t c_ u I r-/17 6 ~trL co mrvt .
Hom es tead Hig h Sc hool 9 Q NM
@
Steven:; Creek Blvd
@
De An7.i
Coll ege
Com'l1u n1 ty
Educ ation v,
9 ~ 5
'° ;o
Q.
App le Infin it e Loop Q
z
0
~
► :, ,..
c;
c:,
< Q.
f Whole Foods Mar ket
Ju
Val
C LI p e r t i fl O Sloven:; Creek
(/)
u;
0 ,.
,iC
Ro dr i g ues!>:
!:,;!
c.,
~ r:, ...,
> < r:,
9 Monta Vista Hi gh School McClella11 Rd ~ Pacifica Dr
Co
The Home Depot Q
J o lly ma n Pa rk
@
::,
< Q.
u;
0 ,.
):>
::,
"' ...
CD < a.
LS (,,8,1kc--v tr1
Ci.lfe -St1n Jose T
AL
Calabazas f
t)t
Rambo~
(/) (/)
'!) a, ;;-l!!. :,
3 ~ 10
):> ~ BROOKVA LE <
'-I
-CHANTE L
@
cc 11-5-19
Item #5 October 15
Council Minutes
Written Communications
cc 11/5/19
Item #5
City Council Minutes October 15, 2019
California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Fire,
Historical Building Code, Existing Building Code, Referenced Standards Code, and
Green Building Standards Code with certain exceptions, deletions, modifications,
additions and amendments."
Paul moved and Scharf seconded to read Ordinance No. 19-2189 by title only and that
the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second first reading thereof. Ayes: Scharf,
Chao, Paul, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Recuse : None.
Paul moved and Scharf seconded to adopt Resolution No. 19-131 making factual
findings with respect to the local geological, topographical, and climatic conditions
necessary to make local amendments to the California Building Standards Code. The
motion carried unanimously.
Council recessed from 8:31 p.m. to 8:36 p.m.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
15. Subject: Update on revised Community Garden Improvements Project at McClellan
Ranch Preserve and provide any input. Status update on the investigation of creating
community gardens at other parks in the City and provide any input.
Recommended Action: Review the revised design and proposed construction approach
for the Community Garden Improvements Project and provide input. Receive status
update on the investigation of creating community gardens at other parks in the City
and provide any input.
Written communications for this item included a presentation and a revised Attachment
A.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager Michael Zimmerman and Director of
Parks and Recreation Jeff Milkes reviewed the presentation.
Staff answered questions from Council.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Jean Bedord -fiscal responsibility, emergency response, recent earthquake, City Hall
seismic soundness, function of city during an event (provided written comments).
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
cc 11-5-19
Item #7 Carmen Road
Bridge Feasibility Study
Written Communications
Carmen Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
September 30, 2019
CC 11/5/19 #7
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, Suite
550
San Jose CA 95110
United States of America
+1 925 398 7274
mottmac.com
Carmen Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
September 30, 2019
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
507401684 | 01 | A | September 30, 2019
Contents
Executive summary 1
1 Project Context 4
1.1 Project Overview and Purpose 4
1.2 Public Outreach Process 4
2 Existing Conditions 6
2.1 Overview of Study Area 6
2.2 Project Constraints 8
2.3 Utilities 8
2.4 Geotechnical Conditions 8
2.5 Bridge Basis of Design 9
2.6 Summary of Existing Plans and Policies 10
3 Alternatives Analysis 12
3.1 Bridge Alignment Selection Criteria 12
3.2 Evaluation Criteria 12
3.3 Bridge Foundation 12
3.4 Bridge Structure Types 13
3.4.1 Option 1: Steel Girder Bridge 13
3.4.2 Option 2: Steel Pratt Truss Bridge 15
3.4.3 Option 3: Steel Howe Truss Bridge 17
3.4.4 Option 4: Steel Tied Arch Bridge 19
3.4.5 Option 5: Steel Inclined Arch Bridge 21
3.4.6 Option 6: Clear Span Girder Bridge 23
3.4.7 Summary of Bridge Options 23
3.5 ROW Impacts and Acquisitions 23
3.6 Safety Treatments for Pedestrians/Bicyclists 26
4 Public Outreach 27
4.1 Stakeholder Visioning 27
4.2 Public Meeting #1 27
4.3 Public Meeting #2 30
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
Figures
Figure 1. Study area and approximate proposed overcrossing location.1
Figure 2. Study area and approximate proposed overcrossing location. 7
Figure 3. H10 Vehicle Loading 9
Figure 4. Rendering of a Steel Girder Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard. 14
Figure 5. Looking South on Carmen Road 14
Figure 6. Looking North on Carmen Road 14
Figure 7. Rendering of a Steel Pratt Truss Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard. 16
Figure 8. Looking South on Carmen Road 16
Figure 9. Looking North on Carmen Road 16
Figure 10. Rendering of a Steel Howe Truss Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard. 18
Figure 11. Looking South on Carmen Road 18
Figure 12. Looking North on Carmen Road 18
Figure 13. Rendering of a Steel Tied Arch Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard. 20
Figure 14. Looking South on Carmen Road 20
Figure 15. Looking North on Carmen Road 20
Figure 16. Rendering of a Steel Inclined Arch Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard. 22
Figure 17. Looking South on Carmen Road 22
Figure 18. Looking North on Carmen Road 22
Figure 19. Centerline and skewed alignment of the proposed bridge, nearby properties, and
existing utilities. 24
Figure 20. Existing utility pole, overhead cables, trash bins and mailboxes on Carmen Road
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, existing street light on SCB and existing water meter on
Carmen Road. 25
Figure 21. Participants listen to the City of Cupertino's Transportation Manager, David
Stillman, providing an overview of the project.27
Figure 22. Participants at Public Meeting #2 fill out comment cards indicating their preferred
29
30
31
31
31
32
bridge types and providing feedback on the project.
Figure 23. Option 1 – 33 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 24. Option 2 – 2 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 25. Option 3 – 2 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 26. Option 4 – 33 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 27. Option 5 – 29 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 28. Resident’s first choice for the five bridge options.
Figure 29. Detailed breakdown of resident's ranking.
507401684 | 01 | A | September 30, 2019
33
31
Attachment A
1
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
Executive summary
The Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge, a high priority (Tier 1) project in the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan, is a grade-separated structure envisioned to
provide a connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between the neighborhoods north and
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive. The bridge
would continue the existing alignment of Carmen Road across Stevens Creek Boulevard,
allowing for easy and safe access to and from residences, schools, parks and recreation
centers. It also would create a safer bicycle and walking route to Stevens Creek Elementary
School and provide an alternate crossing to get to Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista
High School. Furthermore, the bridge would provide improved access and safety for residents
at Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community, a nearby 12-acre retirement facility.
Figure 1. Study area and approximate proposed overcrossing location.
This report provides a summary of the Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge feasibility,
including:
●Project context
●A summary of the existing conditions in the study area
●An alternatives analysis of potential bridge structure types
●Details of the public outreach process
Existing Conditions
According to the City of Cupertino General Plan – Community Vision 2040 Mobility Element,
Boulevards (or Arterials), such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, should provide access and safe
crossing for all modes of travel. Existing Stevens Creek Blvd crossings near the project site
include the Foothill Blvd, a signalized intersection approximately ¼ mile west of the proposed
Attachment A
2
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
bridge, and Phar-Lap Drive, an uncontrolled crossing approximately ¼ mile east of proposed
bridge. The uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at Phar Lap Drive has been improved with
pedestrian-actuated flashing beacons and is located on a sag vertical curve with a horizontal
curve to the west. The distance between the existing crossings is approximately 0.5 miles which
requires a significant detour for those wishing to walk to school who do not live near an existing
crossing. Due to these safety considerations, a new separated pedestrian and cycling crossing
has been identified as a priority.
Alternatives Analysis
Six potential bridge structure types were developed for further evaluation in the study. Detailed
renderings illustrating the bridge structures are provided in Section 3.4. The structure types
included:
1.Steel Girder Bridge with intermediate supports on either side of Stevens Creek Boulevard
allows for shorter spans and a relatively shallow deck.
2.Steel Pratt Truss Bridge that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Pratt truss has a
general square look to the panels and the diagonals are lighter members.
3.Steel Howe Truss Bridge that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Howe truss has a
general triangular look to the panels.
4.Steel Tied Arch Bridge that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. Arches provide a classic
look for the bridge.
5.Steel Inclined Arch Bridge configured to provide intermediate supports and includes elegant
arches with a lower profile above the bridge deck.
6.Clear Span Girder Bridge which has been removed from further consideration since it does
not meet essential functional requirements.
The alternatives were evaluated by the project team, and additional input from the community
on the options was gathered at Public Meeting #2. Four evaluation criteria were used to analyze
the alternative bridge types:
●Constructability: is construction of the bridge feasible?
●Construction duration/impact: what is the extent and duration of the impacts from
construction on traffic and pedestrian movements?
●Aesthetics: Is the design visually appealing?
●Cost: estimated cost excluding right-of-way acquisitions, utility relocations and other
necessary improvements which are expected to be similar for all options
Table 1 provides an overview of the analysis of each bridge structure type by evaluation criteria.
The performance measures (Low/Medium/High) are relative performance of the bridges as
compared to one another. Options 1 – 5 were found to be feasible in terms of constructability.
Option 6 was found to be infeasible and therefore has been excluded from further evaluation.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
3
Bridge Type Constructability Construction
duration/impact
Aesthetics Cost
1.Steel Girder Feasible Low High
2.Steel Pratt
Truss
Feasible High Low
3.Steel Howe
Truss
Feasible High Low
4.Steel Tied
Arch
Feasible High Medium
5.Steel
Inclined
Arch
Feasible High Medium
6.Clear Span
Girder
Unfeasible N/A N/A N/A
The team anticipates potential right-of-way impacts/property acquisition and the need for safety
treatments for bicyclists and pedestrians. A high-level overview of the potential impacts is
outlined in Section 3.5, and these elements will be addressed in more detail in the next phase of
the study.
Public Outreach
Community engagement and public outreach has played an important role in shaping the
Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Project. To date, there have been three opportunities
for the community to provide feedback on the potential crossing:
●Stakeholder Visioning/Online Survey from November 26, 2018 to January 31, 2019: to
gather initial thoughts from the community about this potential crossing.
●Public Meeting #1 on January 24, 2019: to introduce the project to the community through
one-on-one discussions and by submitting written comment forms that were distributed at
the event.
●Public Meeting #2 May 29, 2019: to inform the community on the status of the feasibility
study and to seek feedback on the possible structure alternatives which are currently under
consideration.
These items are covered in more detail in Section 4 of this report.
Table 1. Bridge structure types by performance metric.
$1.25 M - $1.5 M
$1.5 M - $1.85 M
$1.5 M - $1.85 M
$1.6 M - $1.95 M
$1.4 M - $1.75 M
Attachment A
4
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
1 Project Context
1.1 Project Overview and Purpose
The Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge, a high priority (Tier 1) project in the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan, is a grade-separated structure envisioned to provide
a connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between the neighborhoods north and south of
Stevens Creek Boulevard, between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive. The bridge would
continue the existing alignment of Carmen Road across Stevens Creek Boulevard, allowing for
easy and safe access to and from residences, schools, parks, retirement communities and
recreation centers.
In addition to enhancing neighborhood connectivity, the project would also create a safer bicycle
and walking route to Stevens Creek Elementary School and provide an alternate crossing to get
to Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School.
Furthermore, the bridge would provide improved access and safety Stevens Creek Blvd for residents at Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community, a Quick Facts nearby 12-acre retirement facility. Approximately 312 Stevens
Creek Elementary school students live on the south side of Stevens ● ADT: 10,850
Creek Blvd and could potentially use the bridge to access the ● Collision Rate:
school. Additionally, approximately 686 Kennedy Middle School 1.40
and Monta Vista High School students live north of Stevens Creek ● 85th Percentile Blvd in the vicinity of Carmen Road and would potentially use the Speed: 40 MPH bridge.
According to the City of Cupertino General Plan – Community Vision 2040 Mobility Element,
Boulevards (or Arterials), such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, should provide access and safe
crossing for all modes of travel. Existing Stevens Creek Blvd crossings near the project site
include the Foothill Blvd, a signalized intersection approximately ¼ mile west of the proposed
bridge, and Phar-Lap Drive, an uncontrolled crossing approximately ¼ mile east of proposed
bridge. The uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at Phar Lap Drive has been improved with
pedestrian-actuated flashing beacons and is located on a sag vertical curve with a horizontal
curve to the west. The distance between the existing crossings is approximately 0.5 miles which
requires a significant detour for those wishing to walk to school who do not live near an existing
crossing. Due to these safety considerations, a new grade-separated pedestrian and cycling
crossing has been identified as a high priority.
The feasibility study process began in November 2018 and continued through Summer 2019. It
has included community engagement/stakeholder outreach and has culminated in this report
identifying potentially suitable bridge structure types, while addressing issues identified during
the community outreach process. No funding or budget has currently been identified beyond the
feasibility study phase.
1.2 Public Outreach Process
Public Outreach has played an important role in shaping the Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
Bridge Project. To date, there have been three opportunities for the community to provide
feedback on the potential crossing which are described below. Detailed results are provided in
Appendix A.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
5
Online Survey
The City hosted an online survey from November 26, 2018 to January 31, 2019 to gather initial
thoughts from the community about this potential crossing. A total of 350 responses were
received and the majority were supportive of the new crossing. Summarized comments are in
Appendix A1.
Public Meeting #1
The project's first public meeting was held on January 24, 2019 to introduce the project to the
community. Approximately 30 people signed into the event, all of whom were invited to provide
feedback to City staff and project consultants through one-on-one discussions and by
submitting written comment forms that were distributed at the event. Detailed meeting minutes
and redacted comments are in Appendix A2.
Public Meeting #2
City staff held the project's second public meeting on May 29, 2019. The purpose of the meeting
was to inform the community on the status of the feasibility study and to seek feedback on the
possible structure alternatives which are currently under consideration. Approximately 40
people signed into the meeting, all of whom were asked to share their thoughts and rank the
structure alternatives by submitting written comment and ranking forms that were distributed at
the event. Detailed meeting minutes and redacted comments are in Appendix A3.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
6
2 Existing Conditions
2.1 Overview of Study Area
The Study Area is located within the
City of Cupertino at Carmen Rd and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. Stevens
Creek Boulevard is a major east-west
arterial through the City with an existing
buffered bike lane. Prior to the
construction of Stevens Creek Blvd
many decades ago, Carmen Road was
continuous at this location. However,
with the construction of Stevens Creek
Blvd, Carmen Road was severed and
now terminates in a cul-de-sac to the
north and the south of Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Importantly, there are three schools
near the proposed crossing: Stevens
Creek Elementary School, Kennedy
Middle School, and Monta Vista High
School. Nearly 1,500 students and
parents commute across Stevens
Creek Boulevard to the three schools1.
The current suggested routes to school
across Stevens Creek Boulevard
include Lockwood Drive and Janice
Avenue. The crossing at Carmen Road
would provide a safer and more direct
route for parents and students to access the schools, while also improving access to parks and
other community amenities for residents in the area.
1 Walk-Bike Cupertino: Advocating Safe-Easy Biking & Walking Routes for Cupertino (2016). Student traffic patterns for Carmen Road
and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Report 7 Figure 2. Study area and approximate proposed overcrossing location.Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
8
2.2 Project Constraints
The objective of the new pedestrian crossing is to conform to existing conditions to the extent
possible to limit costs associated with modifications to existing roadways, utilities and existing
driveways. Additional constraints include vertical and horizontal bridge clearances, accessibility
to maintenance vehicles, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) grade requirements, limits on
falsework, staging and right-of-way.
2.3 Utilities
Desktop research and field visits have indicated that relocation of some utilities in the proposed
project area is required. The City of Cupertino’s Open GIS Portal was utilized to download the
following datasets and imported into the project area using AutoCAD:
●Parcels
●Edge of Pavement
●Building Footprints
●Storm Water
●2016 1ft Contours
It is important to ensure utility location and coordination begins at the earliest possible stage.
Therefore, in preparation for the following design stage, each utility company with facilities in the
project area has been notified of this project.
As part of this notification, the utility was asked to provide record information and identify the
locations of all existing facilities. The utility companies with facilities in the project area include
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Comcast, AT&T, San Jose Water and Cupertino Sanitation
District. CAD reference files were created for each known utility based on the information
received from each utility via a Request for Information.
Of these utilities, it is anticipated that the project will have conflicts with existing sanitary sewer
pipes and manholes, as well as existing overhead electric and cable lines.
A utility plan including existing utilities within the project site and potential utility conflicts is
included in Appendix B
2.4 Geotechnical Conditions
Geotechnical evaluation of the site has consisted of a search for nearby geotechnical reports
and desktop reviews of geological maps. The site is identified by Graymer2 as being on the cusp
of Pleistocene surficial alluvial deposits Qpa and near-surface Pleistocene or Pliocene
sedimentary rock QTs. These conditions are considered generally favorable for foundation
bearing and have lower seismic demands than soft soil sites. Given the local site topography,
the site will generally drain to the east, down the slope of Stevens Creek Boulevard towards
Stevens Creek and is not anticipated to be subject to significant flooding events. Foundation
concepts for the bridge could include a deep foundation comprising cast-in-drilled-hole elements
or possibly shallow foundations, depending on the site-specific conditions. Driven piles are less
attractive as a solution for their propensity to cause disruption to the nearby residential
neighbors.
2 Graymer, R.W., Moring, B.C., Saucedo, G.J., Wentworth, C.M., Brabb, E.E., Knudsen, K.L., (2006), Geologic Map of the San Francisco
Bay Region. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2006/2918 .
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
9
As with any site in the San Francisco Bay Area, strong shaking from earthquakes should be
expected in the design life of the structure. Further stages of design must consider seismic
loading as part of compliance with applicable codes and standards.
2.5 Bridge Basis of Design
Based on preliminary discussions with The City of Cupertino, the new Bicycle / Pedestrian
Overcrossing Bridge (BPOC) is classified as a non-essential structural facility. The bridge will be
designed and constructed in accordance with the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design
Specifications, 6th Edition with Caltrans Amendments and Caltrans Technical Publications and
Guidelines.
Design Life
The Design Life of the structure shall be 75 years.
Bridge Geometry
The length of the bridge to link the northern and southern portions of Carmen Road will be 120
– 125 feet.
The bridge will cross over Stevens Creek Boulevard and will require a 15’-6” clearance to the
underside of the structure. A pedestrian bridge will require an additional 2’ of clearance to
reduce the risk of damage and thereby provide additional safety. The total permanent
clearance over Stevens Creek Boulevard will be 17’-6”. The clear bridge width may be up to 12
feet if required to accommodate maintenance vehicles and multi-use bicycle and pedestrian
functionality. Otherwise, an 8- or 10-foot width may be considered.
Live Loads
The Live loads considered in the design are the following:
●Bike/pedestrian load of 100psf.
●A maintenance vehicle H10 as outlined in AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the
Design of Pedestrian Bridges, 2009.
●The bridge will satisfy deflection and vibration performance criteria per Sections 5 and 6 of
the AASHTO LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges.
Figure 3. H10 Vehicle Loading
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
10
Seismic Design
The Seismic design of the BPOC bridge shall be in accordance with the following codes:
●Caltrans Acceleration Response Spectrum Curve based on a 5% in 50 years probability of
exceedance (or 975-year return period)
2.6 Summary of Existing Plans and Policies
In June 2016, the Cupertino City Council adopted the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan that will
guide the development and implementation of improving the City’s bicycling environment for
years to come. A summary of the primary objectives of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is
provided below.
●Increase awareness and value of bicycling through encouragement, education, enforcement,
and evaluation programs.
●Improve bicyclist safety through the design and maintenance of roadway improvements.
●Increase and improve bicycle access to community destinations across the City of Cupertino
for all ages and abilities.
“The City of Cupertino envisions an exceptional bicycling environment that supports active living
and healthy transportation choices, provides for safer bicycling, and enables people of all ages
and abilities to access jobs, school, recreation, shopping, and transit on a bicycle as a part of
daily life.” - Vision Statement from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends implementation of Carmen Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge as a Tier 2 project. The bridge will allow easy and safe access to and
from residences, schools, parks, and recreation centers. It also would create a safer bicycle and
walking route to Stevens Creek Elementary School and provide an alternate crossing to get to
Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School.
In February 2018, the Cupertino City Council adopted the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan
that will guide the City toward achieving its vision of an inviting, safe and connected pedestrian
network. General statements of what the City and residents hope to achieve over time is
summarized below.
●Improve pedestrian safety and reduce the number and severity of pedestrian-related
collisions, injuries, and fatalities.
●Increase and improve pedestrian access to community destinations across the City of
Cupertino for people of all ages and abilities.
●Continue to develop a connected pedestrian network that fosters an enjoyable walking
experience.
The 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan outlines goals to improve pedestrian safety, access,
and connectivity within the City. The Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge is identified as a
Tier 1 project within the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The bridge will supplement the
extensive pedestrian network the City is aiming for and supports all of the plan’s goals.
The City of Cupertino General Plan – Community Vision 2040 contains twelve guiding principles
that encompass a broad range of community aspirations. The Guiding Principles provide
additional detail about Cupertino’s desired future necessary to fully articulate the ideas
contained in the vision statement. Similarly, the Guiding Principles were developed based on
extensive community input. The following guiding principles are consistent with the proposed
Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge project:
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
11
●# 1 Develop Cohesive Neighborhoods: Ensure that all neighborhoods are safe, attractive
and include convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to a “full-service” of local amenities
such as parks, schools, community activity centers, trails, bicycle paths, and shopping.
●# 3 Improve Connectivity: Create a well-connected and safe system of trails, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, sidewalks and streets with traffic calming measures that weave the community
together, enhance neighborhood pride and identity, and create access to interesting routes
to different destinations.
●# 4 Enhance Mobility: Ensure the efficient and safe movement of cars, trucks, transit,
pedestrians, bicyclists and disabled persons throughout Cupertino to fully accommodate
Cupertino’s residents, workers, visitors and students of all ages and abilities. Streets,
pedestrian paths, and bike paths should comprise an integrated system of fully connected
and interesting routes to all destinations.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
12
3 Alternatives Analysis
3.1 Bridge Alignment Selection Criteria
The horizontal alignment is centered along the extended centerlines of Carmen Road. There
are potential adjustments that could be made in later stages of the design to reduce the right-of-
way impact to properties; however, this adjustment would potentially impact the overhead utility
pole in the northern cul-de-sac.
The vertical profile is sensitive to the depth required for the structure due to the relative
elevations of the south and north abutments and the clearance required over Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
There were four evaluation criteria used to analyze the alternative bridge types:
●Constructability: Considering the size and space needs for the required construction
equipment in Stevens Creek Boulevard and the cul-de-sacs, falsework or temporary support
requirements and the need to keep one lane of traffic open on Stevens Creek Boulevard at
all times, is construction of the bridge feasible?
●Construction duration/impact: what is the extent and duration of the impacts from
construction on traffic and pedestrian movements?
●Aesthetics: Is the design visually appealing?
●Cost: What is the relative cost of the bridge type? Cost estimates provided exclude right-of-
way acquisition costs and utility relocation costs which are assumed to be similar for all
bridge types.3
The Mott MacDonald team assessed each structure type based on these criteria, and
community members were asked to rank their preferred options based on the same criteria at
Public Meeting #2.
3.3 Bridge Foundation
A single span bridge is feasible for the length of the crossing required. However, a single span
bridge would by definition have foundations in the cul-de-sacs. In order to reduce the
construction duration and the footprint of such foundations, single span bridge types would likely
have deep foundations at this project site.
In order to reduce or eliminate the impact of bridge foundations in the cul-de-sacs, two schemes
were conceived that would have foundations on the slopes or at the bottom of the slopes on
either side of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The foundations on the slope (Option 5) would likely
be deep foundations also. However, the scheme requiring foundations at the base of the slopes
(Option 1) could potentially have spread footings.
3 Cost estimates include construction costs plus:
25% for increased project area (i.e. community integration projects)
20% Design
25% Project Management/Construction Management (PM/CM)
30% Contingency
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
13
3.4 Bridge Structure Types
Six bridge structure types were evaluated by the project team as described below. Additional
input was gathered from the community at Public Meeting #2. Options 1 – 5 were found to be
feasible in terms of constructability. Option 6 was found to be infeasible and therefore was
excluded from further evaluation. All of the five feasible options are proposed to include 10-foot
tall screens/meshes on either side of the bridge railings to prevent projectiles leaving the bridge
and entering the roadway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Additional security measures could
include the installation of video cameras on the bridge for monitoring purposes.
3.4.1 Option 1: Steel Girder Bridge
A steel girder bridge with intermediate supports on either side of Stevens Creek Boulevard
allows for shorter spans and a relatively shallow deck (Figure 4 to Figure 6).
Construction duration/impact
●Bridge structure is made of three steel girders that can be delivered and erected individually
without the need for falsework over Stevens Creek Blvd
●Main foundation construction from Stevens Creek Blvd approximately 7-10 days per side;
one traffic lane in each direction maintained at all times. Similar periods and impacts for
column construction
●Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access through the cul-de-sacs on
each end of Carmen Road
●There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures on Stevens Creek Blvd for deck
construction
Aesthetics
●Shallowest profile and overall height compared to all other design options provides an
unassuming, yet elegant bridge that provides opportunities for aesthetic enhancements of
the railings and screens
Cost
●$1.25M – $1.5M in 2019 dollars (See Section 3.2 – Evaluation Criteria for details)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
14
Figure 4. Rendering of a Steel Girder Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard. (Option 1)
Figure 5. Looking South on Carmen Road Figure 6. Looking North on Carmen Road
(Option 1)
(Option 1)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
15
3.4.2 Option 2: Steel Pratt Truss Bridge
A steel truss that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Pratt truss has a general square
look to the panels and the diagonals are lighter members (Figure 7 to Figure 9).
Construction duration/impact
●Trusses can be assembled on falsework over Stevens Creek Blvd from individual members
or three pre-assembled pieces
●Foundation construction in each cul-de-sac will take 10-15 days
●Truss erection will impact traffic for 10-15 nights in Stevens Creek Blvd, during which one
lane of traffic will be open in each direction
●Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access through the cul-de-sacs
●There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures on Stevens Creek Blvd for deck
construction, during which one lane of traffic will be open in each direction
Aesthetics
●A commonly used structure type for medium span pedestrian bridges which has significant
presence while providing a feeling of enclosure and safety
Cost
●$1.5M - $1.85M in 2019 dollars (See Section 3.2 – Evaluation Criteria for details)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
16
Figure 7. Rendering of a Steel Pratt Truss Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Figure 8. Looking South on Carmen Road Figure 9. Looking North on Carmen Road
(Option 2)
(Option 2)
(Option 2)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
17
3.4.3 Option 3: Steel Howe Truss Bridge
A steel truss that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Howe truss has a general triangular
look to the panels (Figure 10 to Figure 12).
Construction duration/impact
●Trusses can be assembled on falsework over Stevens Creek Blvd from individual members
or three pre-assembled pieces
●Foundation construction in each cul-de-sac will take 10-15 days
●Truss erection will impact traffic for 10-15 nights in Stevens Creek Blvd, during which one
lane of traffic will be open in each direction
●Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access through the cul-de-sacs
●There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures on Stevens Creek Blvd for deck
construction, during which one lane of traffic will be open in each direction
Aesthetics
●A robust looking structure which is often seen on railway bridges, also provides a feeling of
enclosure and safety
Cost
●$1.5M - $1.85M in 2019 dollars (See Section 3.2 – Evaluation Criteria for details)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
18
Figure 10. Rendering of a Steel Howe Truss Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Figure 11. Looking South on Carmen Road Figure 12. Looking North on Carmen Road
(Option 3)
(Option 3)
(Option 3)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
19
3.4.4 Option 4: Steel Tied Arch Bridge
A tied arch bridge that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. Arches provide a classic look for
the bridge (Figure 13 to Figure 15).
Construction duration/impact
●Tied arches with hangers to support main deck elements can be fully pre-assembled and
erected in one overnight operation.
●Pre-assembly will require 7-10 days of lane closures in Stevens Creek Blvd, leaving one lane
open in each direction
●Foundation construction in each cul-de-sac will take 10-15 days
●Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access through the cul-de-sacs on
each end of Carmen Road
●There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures on Stevens Creek Blvd for deck
construction. during which one lane of traffic will be open in each direction
Aesthetics
●Classic arches with some presence but an elegant shape provide an inherent support for the
fence and screen
Cost
●$1.6M - $1.95M in 2019 dollars (See Section 3.2 – Evaluation Criteria for details)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
20
Figure 13. Rendering of a Steel Tied Arch Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Figure 14. Looking South on Carmen Road Figure 15. Looking North on Carmen Road
(Option 4)
(Option 4)
(Option 4)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
21
3.4.5 Option 5: Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Inclined arches configured to provide intermediate supports. Elegant arches with a lower profile
above the bridge deck (Figure 16 to Figure 18).
Construction duration/impact
●Inclined arches and elements of the deck will be assembled in-place
●In-place assembly will require 5-7-night closures. These will be complete closures of
Stevens Creek Blvd
●Main foundation construction from Stevens Creek Blvd will require 10-14 days of lane
closures per side; maintaining one traffic lane in each direction at all times
●Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access through the cul-de-sacs on
each end of Carmen Road
●There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures on Stevens Creek Blvd for deck
construction, during which one lane of traffic will be open in each direction
Aesthetics
●Arched shape of principal bridge elements is aesthetically pleasing with a height above deck
that is well proportioned for this type of structure. Inclined arches add a signature statement
that also creates a more ‘open’ feel to the structure
Cost
●$1.4M - $1.75M in 2019 dollars (See Section 3.2 – Evaluation Criteria for details)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
22
Figure 16. Rendering of a Steel Inclined Arch Bridge over Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Figure 17. Looking South on Carmen Road Figure 18. Looking North on Carmen Road
(Option 5)
(Option 5)
(Option 5)
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
23
3.4.6 Option 6: Clear Span Girder Bridge
Option 6 is a girder bridge with a clear span of 120 feet over Stevens Creek Boulevard. This
type of bridge can be built using a conventional cast-in-place box girder, steel or pre-cast
concrete girders with a cast-in-place deck. The required 17.5 ft clearance over Stevens Creek
Boulevard combined with the maximum 5% slope on the bridge deck results in the bridge
landing 2.2 ft above ground, which results in the following challenges:
●Maintenance vehicles would be unable to access the bridge
●Requires a ramp which is not feasible due to permanent interference with the cul-de-sac
●Since a ramp cannot be accommodated, the design is not compliant with the American
Disability Act (ADA)
This bridge type was removed from further consideration since it does not meet these three
essential functional requirements
3.4.7 Summary of Bridge Options
Table 2 provides a relative comparison of the bridge structure types by the key performance
metrics.
Table 2. Bridge structure types by performance metric.
Bridge Type Constructability Construction
duration/impact Aesthetics Cost
1.Steel Girder Feasible Low High
2.Steel Pratt
Truss
Feasible High Low
3.Steel Howe
Truss
Feasible High Low
4.Steel Tied
Arch
Feasible High Medium
5.Steel
Inclined
Arch
Feasible High Medium
6.Clear Span
Girder
Unfeasible N/A N/A N/A
3.5 ROW Impacts and Acquisitions
The proposed layout in red shows the alignment of the bridge if it were to be constructed along
the extended centerline of Carmen Road. This alignment would result in property impacts to a
portion of the parcel 10045 Carmen Road. To address this property impact, the Mott MacDonald
team developed a skewed layout for the bridge as indicated by the orange alignment. This
skewed alignment avoids the property impact to 10045 Carmen Road but creates a new impact
to 10036 Carmen Road. Additionally, constructing the bridge along the skewed alignment would
require the relocation of a PG&E utility pole and associated work. The graphic below illustrates
the centerline and skewed alignment of the proposed bridge, nearby properties and existing
utilities.
$1.25 M - $1.5 M
$1.5 M - $1.85 M
$1.5 M - $1.85 M
$1.6 M - $1.95 M
$1.4 M - $1.75 M
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
24
If the proposed Carmen Road Bridge is constructed along the extended centerline (red
alignment) of Carmen Road, the expected impacts to the right of way and utilities are:
●Encroachment to parcel 10045.
●Relocation of the San Jose water meter and mailboxes on Carmen Road north of Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
●Relocation of a streetlight located on the Stevens Creek Boulevard.
If the proposed Carmen Road Bridge project is constructed with skewed layout (orange
alignment), the expected impacts to the right of way and utilities are:
●Encroachment to parcel 10036.
●Relocation of the PG&E utility pole with overhead wires, San Jose water meter, and
mailboxes on Carmen Road north of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
●Relocation of a streetlight located on the Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The impacts noted above are based on a proposed bridge width of 12 feet. Additionally, neither
of the alignments will completely place the bridge deck within public right of way, as there would
need to be aerial easement from Parcel 10045 regardless of alignment.
However, the impacts to the neighboring properties and utilities can be minimized or avoided if
the bridge width is reduced to 8 or 10 feet. Based upon the intended usage and location of the
bridge, a width 10 or even 8 feet is feasible and would meet the intended goals of the project.
Consequently, the City should seriously consider a bridge narrower than 12 feet at this location
in order to reduce right-of-way and utility impacts. Impacts to the neighboring properties,
utilities, and sight distance issues would be addressed in greater detail during the subsequent
phases of the project. Photos of the existing utilities are provided below.
Figure 19. Centerline and skewed alignment of the proposed bridge, nearby properties,
and existing utilities.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
25
Figure 20. Existing utility pole, overhead cables, trash bins and mailboxes on Carmen Road
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, existing street light on SCB and existing water meter on
Carmen Road.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
26
3.6 Safety Treatments for Pedestrians/Bicyclists
Due to existing fencing and dense vegetation, corner sight visibility between bicycles and
pedestrians exiting the bridge, and the adjacent private driveways may be limited. Measures
that can be considered to improve the sight distance are:
●Installation of stop signs with appropriate pavement markings on both ends of the bridge.
●Installation of caution signs on the bridge and at the driveways to alert bridge and road users
to share the road.
●Keeping the line of sight clear between bridge and driveways by trimming the vegetation.
●Installation of sight distance convex mirrors at the driveways.
●Installation of foldable lightweight bollards at the entrances of the bridge to reduce the speed
of bicyclists and pedestrians.
●Installation of yellow truncated dome pads at the entrances of the bridge.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
27
4 Public Outreach
4.1 Stakeholder Visioning
The City hosted an online survey from November 26, 2018 to January 31, 2019 to gather initial
thoughts from the community about this potential crossing. A total of 350 responses were
received. The survey aimed to gain an understanding of the community’s needs, and vision for
a potential crossing of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap
Drive. A majority of respondents indicated they were supportive of crossing improvements at
this location and that they would support a bridge connecting Carmen Road across Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
Refer to Appendix A for detailed survey questions and responses.
Figure 21. Participants listen to the City of Cupertino's Transportation Manager, David
Stillman, providing an overview of the project.
4.2 Public Meeting #1
The first public meeting for the project was held on January 24, 2019 at the Multipurpose Room,
Monta Vista Recreation Center in the City of Cupertino to introduce members of the public to
the project and the project team. The meeting was held in an open-house format where
attendees were invited to arrive at any time during the event window (6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.)
and provide individual feedback on the project.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
28
Twenty-eight (28) people signed into the event. The meeting included a sign-in table, a
comments table, a table with the aerial maps for the project, and a board with the project
timeline on display. City staff and the project consultant team were available at the various
tables/displays to listen and answer any questions. Attendees were provided a comment form
upon entering which they were asked to complete and return before leaving so that their
comments could be recorded.
Halfway through the meeting, Cupertino Transportation Manager David Stillman addressed the
audience and provided a brief background of the project. Attendees asked to speak openly so
that their comments and concerns could be heard by all that were present. The comments
received from residents and members of the public during the open discussion are summarized
below. Additionally, the completed comment forms received at the event are attached herein
along with photos taken at the event.
●Would like a safer crosswalk to cross Stevens Creek
●Concerned about bike speeds
●Is a crossing under Stevens Creek possible?
●Usually cross Stevens Creek Boulevard on bike to school day only (Wednesday); if the
bridge were built, they would use it more often and walk/bike to school every day.
●Concerned with the aesthetics of the bridge (feels the rendering is ugly)
●Concerned with allocation of resources/funds to the bridge
●Would like to help kids/elderly
●Supports a safer route for school children
●Concerned with the bike/ped accidents that have occurred in the neighborhood; would like
studies done on those locations as well
●Feels that people want the bridge but will not use it
●Supports bridge as it will help traffic congestion, be healthier option to travel, avoid cars
traveling 40+ mph, and it will be a good alternative from Foothill (loud due to trucks on road)
●Would like an elegant structure like the 280 bridge (Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge,
now called the Mary Avenue Bridge which is a cable-stayed bridge over Interstate 280)
●Hates rendering bridge image
●Will the City build a bridge at Foothill and other crossings for school children?
●Felt that the survey framed Carmen Rd as the only option. Would like to explore other
alternative locations
●Feel that the bridge would cause congestion as people will drop off at the bridge
●Wants the City to make a good decision
●Finds Carmen Road very narrow, especially when there are cars parked on both sides of the
street—causing neighbors to drive in the middle of the road
●Privacy concern—does not want people on bridge looking to resident backyard
●A bridge would enable and/or increase home break-ins in the neighborhood. With more foot
traffic, resident feels more vulnerable.
●Feels a better option would be fixing the light/crosswalk at Phar Lap
●Feels that a bridge would be an eyesore and would invite graffiti; cleanliness and
maintenance of the bridge stated as a concern
●South side of Carmen Road has a steep grade. Worried about backing up car and hitting a
bicyclist or pedestrian due to limited visibility
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
29
●Concerned about bridge cost
●Would it cost more to build a bridge or to fix grade and then do a ramp?
●Neighbor cannot turn left and finds it difficult to back up car from driveway
●The cul-de-sac on Carmen Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard is crowded as three
homes share a driveway—making it difficult to exit driveways. This is further compounded
when there are cars constantly parked on trash/recycling day
●The bridge would create more crowding in the neighborhood.
●Stated an alternative to the bridge structure - providing a staircase for people to access
Stevens Creek Boulevard from either side of Carmen Road and providing a traffic light for
the crossing.
●Does not want to see more people walking/biking in the area. Will disturb the peace of the
neighborhood.
●Building the bridge would help open the neighborhoods. Parents would have the option to
walk instead of drive and won’t need to compete with commuters. In the morning SR 85 is
very bad which is why commuters prefer Stevens Creek Boulevard.
●The bridge will help remove cars from the roads and reduce the need to drive in the morning.
●There was a lot of opposition in the initial stages of the project to the ped/bike bridge over
Interstate 280. Would be good to investigate what kind of impact it had on the
neighborhoods.
●Concern about graffiti and collection of debris on bridge over time.
Figure 22. Participants at Public Meeting #2 fill out comment cards indicating their
preferred bridge types and providing feedback on the project.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
30
4.3 Public Meeting #2
The second public meeting for the project was held on May 29, 2019 at the Multipurpose Room,
Monta Vista Recreation Center in the City of Cupertino to inform the community on the status of
the feasibility study and to seek feedback on the possible structure alternatives currently under
consideration. The meeting was held in an open-house format where attendees were invited to
arrive at any time during the event window (6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.) and included a brief
presentation along with display boards followed by an opportunity for the attendees to provide
individual feedback on the alternatives.
At the meeting, attendees were provided with a comment card, which listed the bridge structure
options and with which they were asked to rank the options according to their preference. They
were also provided a brochure with details about the bridge options, including cost, aesthetics,
and construction impacts to assist with the ranking process. Also, the staff offered additional
comment cards to the attendees in order to distribute to their neighbors who could not attend
the meeting.
Overall City staff received comments from 47 residents:
●25 during the public meeting # 2,
●17 from the Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community after the public meeting # 2
●Five comments through email before and after the public meeting # 2.
Out of 47 comment cards received, only 43 residents ranked the alternatives with the following
results:
1.Option #1 – 33 percent responded as their first choice.
2.Option #2 – 2 percent responded as their first choice.
3.Option #3 – 2 percent responded as their first choice.
4.Option #4 – 33 percent responded as their first choice.
5.Option #5 – 29 percent responded as their first choice.
Figure 23. Option 1 – 33 Percent responded as their first choice
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
31
Figure 24. Option 2 – 2 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 27. Option 5 – 29 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 26. Option 4 – 33 Percent responded as their first choice
Figure 25. Option 3 – 2 Percent responded as their first choice
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
32
Table 3. Detailed breakdown of resident's ranking.
# Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5
Option 1 14 11 7 3 5
Option 2 1 0 8 10 18
Option 3 1 3 9 17 8
Option 4 14 10 9 2 3
Option 5 12 13 2 1 9
Figure 28. Resident’s first choice for the five bridge options.
Option 1, 33%
Option 2, 2%
Option 3, 2%
Option 4, 33%
Option 5, 29%
Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Survey - First Choice
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
33
Figure 29. Detailed breakdown of resident's ranking.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | j
dSD
August 15, 2019
3
Appendices
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
27
A.Public Engagement
Appendix A Contents:
A.1 Stakeholder Visioning Survey Summary and Results
A.2 Public Meeting #1 Meeting Minutes & Materials
A.3 Public Meeting #2 Meeting Minutes & Materials
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
28
A.1 Stakeholder Visioning Survey Summary and Results
Attachment A
1 | www.opentownhall.com/6958 Created with OpenGov | February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Contents
i. Summary of responses 2
ii. Survey questions 6
iii. Individual responses 7
Attachment A
Summary Of Responses
As of February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM, this forum had: Topic Start
Attendees:691 November 26, 2018, 4:52 PM
Responses:350
Hours of Public Comment:17.5
QUESTION 1
1. Do you currently have the need to cross Stevens Creek Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap
Drive?
% Count
Yes 54.3% 189
No 45.7% 159
QUESTION 2
2. If yes, what is your typical primary mode for crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard
and Phar Lap Drive? Choose one.
% Count
Drive 29.5% 69
Bike/Walk from Foothill Boulevard 24.4% 57
Bike/Walk from Phar Lap Drive 19.7% 46
Jaywalk across Stevens Creek Boulevard 26.5% 62
QUESTION 3
3. Do you feel the need for an additional pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Stevens Creek Boulevard between
Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive?
2 | www.opentownhall.com/6958 Created with OpenGov | February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Attachment A
% Count
Yes 62.4% 216
No 30.3% 105
No Opinion 7.2% 25
QUESTION 4
4. If you could design your ideal alternative to cross Stevens Creek Boulevard, what would it look like and what
would it feature? Enter your answer in the text box below. Feel free to include examples of similar infrastructure
you have seen or heard of.
Answered 167
Skipped 183
QUESTION 5
5. Would you support a pedestrian/bicycle bridge connecting Carmen Road across Stevens Creek Boulevard?
% Count
Yes 65.4% 225
No 29.9% 103
No Opinion 4.7% 16
QUESTION 6
6. If yes, how often would you use it?
% Count
Several times a week. I would bike/walk to and
from schools, parks, rec centers, and more.
35.7% 105
Occasionally, if I have time to bike/walk nearby.30.6% 90
3 | www.opentownhall.com/6958 Created with OpenGov | February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Attachment A
% Count
Rarely. For the most part, I would continue to
bike/walk my current path.
15.6% 46
Rarely. For the most part, I would continue to drive.18.0% 53
QUESTION 7
7. How far do you live from Carmen Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard?
% Count
I live on Carmen Road 8.2% 28
I live within a ¼ mile radius from Carmen Road 21.3% 73
I live within a ½ mile radius from Carmen Road 26.3% 90
I live more than a ½ mile radius from Carmen Road 44.2% 151
QUESTION 8
8. If the feasibility study concluded that a pedestrian/bicycle bridge connecting Carmen Road is possible to
implement, how would that impact you? We welcome your comments. If you have questions or comments about
the Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study, please enter them below.
Answered 203
Skipped 147
QUESTION 9
Name (optional)
Answered 112
Skipped 238
4 | www.opentownhall.com/6958 Created with OpenGov | February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Attachment A
QUESTION 10
Please provide your email address if you would like to be added to our stakeholder list (for future outreach
activities and updates).
Answered 120
Skipped 230
QUESTION 11
Please provide us with the nearest cross streets of your home address.
Answered 199
Skipped 151
5 | www.opentownhall.com/6958 Created with OpenGov | February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Attachment A
Survey Questions
QUESTION 1
1. Do you currently have the need to cross Stevens Creek Boulevard
between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 2
2. If yes, what is your typical primary mode for crossing Stevens
Creek Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap Drive?
Choose one.
• Drive
• Bike/Walk from Foothill Boulevard
• Bike/Walk from Phar Lap Drive
• Jaywalk across Stevens Creek Boulevard
QUESTION 3
3. Do you feel the need for an additional pedestrian/bicycle crossing
of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Phar Lap
Drive?
• Yes
• No
• No Opinion
QUESTION 4
4. If you could design your ideal alternative to cross Stevens Creek
Boulevard, what would it look like and what would it feature? Enter
your answer in the text box below. Feel free to include examples of
similar infrastructure you have seen or heard of.
QUESTION 5
5. Would you support a pedestrian/bicycle bridge connecting
Carmen Road across Stevens Creek Boulevard?
• Yes
• No
• No Opinion
QUESTION 6
6. If yes, how often would you use it?
• Several times a week. I would bike/walk to and from schools, parks,
rec centers, and more.
• Occasionally, if I have time to bike/walk nearby.
• Rarely. For the most part, I would continue to bike/walk my current
path.
• Rarely. For the most part, I would continue to drive.
QUESTION 7
7. How far do you live from Carmen Road at Stevens Creek
Boulevard?
• I live on Carmen Road
• I live within a ¼ mile radius from Carmen Road
• I live within a ½ mile radius from Carmen Road
• I live more than a ½ mile radius from Carmen Road
QUESTION 8
8. If the feasibility study concluded that a pedestrian/bicycle bridge
connecting Carmen Road is possible to implement, how would that
impact you? We welcome your comments. If you have questions or
comments about the Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study, please enter them below.
QUESTION 9
Name (optional)
QUESTION 10
Please provide your email address if you would like to be added to
our stakeholder list (for future outreach activities and updates).
QUESTION 11
Please provide us with the nearest cross streets of your home
address.
6 | www.opentownhall.com/6958 Created with OpenGov | February 4, 2019, 8:40 AM
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Carmen Road Bridge Survey
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
29
A.2 Public Meeting #1 Meeting Minutes & Materials
Attachment A
Public Meeting #1
January 24, 2019
1 of 6
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study
Public Meeting #1
The first public meeting for the project was held on January 24, 2019 at the Multipurpose
Room, Monta Vista Recreation Center in the City of Cupertino to introduce members of the
public to the project and the project team. The meeting format was held in an open-house
format where attendees were invited to arrive at any time during the event window (6:30
p.m. to 7:30 p.m.) and provide individual feedback on the project.
Twenty-eight (28) people signed into the event. The meeting included a sign-in table, a
comments table, a table with the aerial maps for the project, and a board with the project
timeline on display. City staff and the project consultant team were available at the various
tables/displays to listen and answer any questions. Attendees were provided a comment
form upon entering and were asked to complete and return before leaving so that their
comments could be recorded.
Halfway through the meeting, Cupertino Transportation Manager David Stillman addressed
the audience and provided a brief background of the project. Attendees asked to speak
openly so that their comments and concerns could be heard by all that were present. The
comments received from residents and members of the public during the open discussion
are summarized below. Additionally, the completed comment forms received at the event
are attached herein along with photos taken at the event.
Would like a safer crosswalk to cross Stevens Creek
Concerned about bike speeds
Is a crossing under Stevens Creek possible?
Usually cross Stevens Creek Boulevard on bike to school day only (Wednesday); if
the bridge were built, they would use it more often and walk/bike to school every
day.
Concerned with the aesthetics of the bridge (feels the rendering is ugly)
Concerned with allocation of resources/funds to the bridge
Would like to help kids/elderly
Supports a safer route for school children
Concerned with the bike/ped accidents that have occurred in the neighborhood;
would like studies done on those locations as well
Feels that people want the bridge but will not use it
Attachment A
Public Meeting #1
January 24, 2019
2 of 6
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Supports bridge as it will help traffic congestion, be healthier option to travel, avoid
cars traveling 40+ mph, and it will be a good alternative from Foothill (loud due to
trucks on road)
Would like an elegant structure like the 280 bridge (Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian
Bridge, now called the Mary Avenue Bridge which is a cable-stayed bridge over
Interstate 280)
Hates rendering bridge image
Will the City build a bridge at Foothill and other crossings for school children?
Felt that the survey framed Carmen Rd as the only option. Would like to explore
other alternative locations
Feel that the bridge would cause congestion as people will drop off at the bridge
Wants the City to make a good decision
Finds Carmen Road very narrow, especially when there are cars parked on both
sides of the street—causing neighbors to drive in the middle of the road
Privacy concern—does not want people on bridge looking to resident backyard
A bridge would enable and/or increase home break-ins in the neighborhood. With
more foot traffic, resident feels more vulnerable.
Feels a better option would be fixing the light/crosswalk at Phar Lap
Feels that a bridge would be an eyesore and would invite graffiti; cleanliness and
maintenance of the bridge stated as a concern
South side of Carmen Road has a steep grade. Worried about backing up car and
hitting a bicyclist or pedestrian due to limited visibility
Concerned about bridge cost
Would it cost more to build a bridge or to fix grade and then do a ramp?
Neighbor cannot turn left and finds it difficult to back up car from driveway
The cul-de-sac on Carmen Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard is crowded as
three homes share a driveway—making it difficult to exit driveways. This is further
compounded when there are cars constantly parked on trash/recycling day
The bridge would create more crowding in the neighborhood.
Stated an alternative to the bridge structure - providing a staircase for people to
access Stevens Creek Boulevard from either side of Carmen Road and providing a
traffic light for the crossing.
Does not want to see more people walking/biking in the area. Will disturb the
peace of the neighborhood.
Building the bridge would help open the neighborhoods. Parents would have the
option to walk instead of drive and won’t need to compete with commuters. In the
morning SR 85 is very bad which is why commuters prefer Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Attachment A
Public Meeting #1
January 24, 2019
3 of 6
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
The bridge will help remove cars from the roads and reduce the need to drive in the
morning.
There was a lot of opposition in the initial stages of the project to the ped/bike
bridge over Interstate 280. Would be good to investigate what kind of impact it had
on the neighborhoods.
Concern about graffiti and collection of debris on bridge over time.
Attachment A
Public Meeting #1
January 24, 2019
4 of 6
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Attachment A
Public Meeting #1
January 24, 2019
5 of 6
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Attachment A
Public Meeting #1
January 24, 2019
6 of 6
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
30
A.3 Public Meeting #2 Meeting Minutes & Materials
Attachment A
Public Meeting #2
May 29, 2019
1 of 5
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study
Public Meeting #2
The second public meeting for the project was held on May 29, 2019 at the Multipurpose Room, Monta
Vista Recreation Center in the City of Cupertino to inform the community on the status of the feasibility
study and to seek feedback on the possible structure alternatives currently under consideration. The
meeting was held in an open-house format where attendees were invited to arrive at any time during the
event window (6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.) and included a brief presentation along with display boards
followed by an opportunity for the attendees to provide individual feedback on the alternatives.
Thirty-seven (37) people signed into the event. The meeting included a sign-in table, a comments table,
a table with the aerial maps for the project, and four boards with the possible bridge structure concepts
on display. City staff and the project consultant team were available at the various tables/displays to
listen and answer any questions. Attendees were provided a comment form upon entering which listed
the bridge structure options and were asked to rank these alternatives and return the comment cards
before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. They were also provided a brochure with details
about the alternatives including cost, aesthetics, and construction impacts to assist with the ranking
process.
To initiate the discussion, the City of Cupertino’s Transportation Manager David Stillman addressed the
audience and provided a brief background of the project and walked the attendees through the five
bridge structure options. A brief Question/Answer session followed where attendees voiced their
comments and concerns and received a response from David. Comments received from residents and
members of the public during the open discussion are summarized below. Additionally, the completed
comment forms received at the event are attached herein along with photos taken at the event.
There were many supporters of a bridge at Carmen Rd, but also a handful who were against or
on the fence
Discussions around upgrading/changing the crosswalk at Foothill
Questions about why this location (at Carmen), and why a bridge
Concerns about the impacts to the community v. impacts to those in neighborhood
Would like the City to consider a bridge or improved crossing that would provide improved
access to Blackberry Farms
Was a below grade bridge considered?
Feels that Stevens Creek is dangerous (ex: speeding vehicles, blind spots due to sun)
Resident is unable to get out of his driveway during school hours twice a day
Resident off of Crescent Road is unable to get out of driveway during school hours
Desire to get cars off the road
Attachment A
Public Meeting #2
May 29, 2019
2 of 5
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Questions and discussions about school enrollment rates (and how this would affect use of
bridge by school aged children/families)
Why do pavement light crosswalks fail and not get maintained?
Would like to see increased sheriff/police enforcement in the neighborhood
Concerns about increase in foot traffic/strangers in the neighborhood
Will cameras be proposed?
Would like to connect neighborhoods
Would like to prioritize a safe route to school over a path to Blackberry Farm
Question about the number of accidents in the past 20 years at this location
Why can’t we build a bridge at Phar Lap? It makes more sense to build a bridge there
Concerns about how many people would actually use a bridge at this location
Would like to see stop signs/crossing guards to cross Stevens Creek Boulevard
What color will the bridge be? A resident wants it to blend in
What is the traffic volume on Stevens Creek?
Would like a safer route for those at Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community
Would like to see school district boundaries on map
Supports the bridge and use of Carmen Road (with gate; downhill access that meets Stevens
Creek Boulevard) to be a safe route to Blackberry Farm
Question about how many students currently use this location for crossing
Safety concerns for bicyclists speeding downhill at Scenic Circle/Scenic Boulevard
Will safety features be added to the bridge to avoid vandalism and prevent people from climbing
over the fence?
Potential bridge option provides a safe path to school
One of the residents acknowledged jaywalking at this location to go to school
During the morning commute, cars are at a standstill due to heavy traffic on Stevens Creek
Boulevard. However, the afternoon/3:00 PM departure from school presents a more dangerous
scenario since vehicles are speeding along Stevens Creek Boulevard while students are trying to
cross as they head back home.
Would bicycle and pedestrian traffic be separated on the bridge to ensure safety for
pedestrians?
Will there be any improvements to Cupertino Road and Carmen Road, as a part of bridge
project?
Is lighting provided on the bridge?
For Option 1 bridge alternative, can we improve the aesthetics to make it visually more
appealing?
Attachment A
Public Meeting #2
May 29, 2019
3 of 5
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Attachment A
Public Meeting #2
May 29, 2019
4 of 5
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Attachment A
Public Meeting #2
May 29, 2019
5 of 5
Mott MacDonald
2077 Gateway Place, #550, San Jose, CA 95110, T •925-469-8010 • F 925-469-8040 www.mottmac.com
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Mon ta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 2260 l Voss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
s
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
I 5
Please shore any additional comments on your preferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be d i rected to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant C ivi l Engineer at
!408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m . to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave, Cup e rtino
COMMENT FORM
Co mm ents :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
C UPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
After revi ewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option , 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Stee l Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
I
Please share any additional comments on your preferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m . to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cup e rtino
COMMENT FORM
Comments :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Prashanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8 :30 p .m
C UPE RTINO Monta V ista Recreation Center, Multi-Pu rpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
J
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
2
Please share any additional comments on your preferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3 190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEE'TING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recrea ti on Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cup e rt i no
COMME:N!l FORM
Commen ts :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con ol'so be directed to Proshanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Eng i neer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino .org
Attachment A
I
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERTINO Man ta V i sta Recreati o n Center, M ult i-P ur pose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After revi e wing each concept based on the information provided at the pub lic meeting , please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored opt ion).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge St ee l Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please share any additiona l comments on your preferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3 190 or PrashanthD@cupertina .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEE'TING #2
CARMEN ROAD. PEDESTRIAN -BI CYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi -Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave, Cu pe rtino
COMME:N!l FORM
Co mments :£-
re'f'y
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con ol'so be directed to Proshanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer ot
(408)-777-3190 or ProshanthD@cupertino .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p.m
C UPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupert in o
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts .. in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
I
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
4,d-.?f ~4Jk?l L~-&«H= &> 1r~/4( ~
~~ rnuicvq.-~ ~~
~~,~,£~
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3 190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEE'TING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN .. BICY CLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreat ion Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
COMMENT FORM
Comme nts :
--~ ~-~ 4~1 ,&,_e ~) 7Lz~/
For add itional information, please visit www_cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con a lso be d i rected to Proshonth Dullu , Assistant Civil Eng ineer a t
(408)-777-3190 or ProshanthD@cupertino .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p.m
CUP E RT INO Manta Vista Recreation Center, Mult i-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option}.
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
2 I
Please share OU)' additional comments on your preferred option : / ~~ 6 ~ ~ ~,d ~,.1e4 y 7 ,
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3 190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETI N G #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIA N -BI CYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY ST UDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUP ERTi NO Mon ta Vista Recre ation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 2260 l Voss Ave , Cupertino
C:OMME:N:T FORM
Name: ______________________ · Date :
Affiliation (if applicable):
Address :
Email :
Comme nt s:
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbr1dge
Questions or comments can ol'so be directed to Proshanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or ProshonthD@cupertino .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting , please rank the
following design concepts in order of p r eference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please share any additional comments on your preferred opti on :
Opt1'on i The. least d,a--t,-act,on -Gr drivers OV\ gTeVelJc:; Clr ·eek 5/v4)
Gooe1 0,1/lar Sll..f'.JJ?<>t:t r I IJ
DD-tl~rJ .3 -
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
{408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 20 19 I 6 :30 p .m. to 8:30 p .m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreat i on Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
COMMENT FORM
Comments :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-31 90 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
··•·
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p .m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Mult i-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupert ino
RANKING SHEET
After revi ewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge St ee l Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined A r ch Bridge
Please share any additional comments on your preferred option :
; _· ~1!11ff;/;;/L jJ ~,Kt .J t>-
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m . to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Yoss Ave , Cupert i no
COMMENT FORM
Name : ______________________ Date :
Affi liation (if applicable):
Address :
Email :
Com m ents :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Prashanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 20_19 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p .m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
Afte r review i ng each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
if
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
I
Please share any additional comments on your preferred op ti on :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Proshonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
1408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cuperfino .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Mon ta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
COMMENT FORM
Comments:
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/cormenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Proshanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or ProshonthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERTINO Mon ta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 2260 l Voss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting , please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option , 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
3 2
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please share any additional comments on your p referred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
!408)-777-3190 or ProshanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m . to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recrea ti on Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave, Cup e rtino
COMMENT FORM
Com ments :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/cormenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Prashanth Dullu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Mon ta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
follow ing design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option , 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
3
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please shore any additional comments on your prefe rr ed option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Quest ions or comments con also be d ir ected to Proshonth Dullu , Assistant Civil Eng ineer at
{408)-777-3190 or PrashonthD@cupertino .org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEE'TING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m . to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreat ion Center, Mult i-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cup e rtino
COMMENT FORM
C om m ents:
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Prashonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERTINO Monta V ista Re creation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Vo ss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After r~viewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, ·please rank the
fo ll owing design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option , 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: .
Steel Girder Brid'ge
Option 2: ..
Steel Pratt Truss Bridge
Optio,n 3 :
Ste'el Howe truss &ridge
3 1
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please share any additiona l comments on your preferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC M EET IN G #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIA N -BICYC LE
BRIDGE FEASIB ILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6 :30 p .m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERT IN O Monta V i sta Recreat i on Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave, Cupertino
COMMENT FORM
Comments :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civi l Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting , please rank the
fo ll owing design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favo red option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
~
t-3
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please share any add itional comments on your preferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/cormenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEE 'TING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Mon ta Vista Recreation Center, Mu lti-Purpose Room I 2260 l Voss Ave , Cu pe rtino
COMMENT FORM
C omments :
For additional information, plea se visit www.cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be d irected to Prashanth Dullu , Ass i stant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERTINO Mon ta V i sta Recreation Center, Mu lti-Purpose Room I 2260 1 Vo ss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing eac h concept based on the information provided at the public meeting , p lease rank th e
fo ll owing desig n concepts in o r de r of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favo r ed option ).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
,
i
Please share a ny add it iona l co mments o n you r p r eferred option :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta V i sta Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave, Cupertino
COMMENT FORM
Comments:
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Du l lu , Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p.m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERTINO Mon ta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cuperti no
RANKING SHEET
After revi e wing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
follow i ng design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel G irder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Stee l Howe Truss Bridge
3
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
_J_
Please share any additional comments on your preferred opti on :
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Quest ions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Du llu , Assistant Civ il Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p .m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Re cr eation Center, Mult i-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupert ino
RANK1NG SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting , please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option l: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
3
For additional information, plec;ise visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Proshonth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or ProshanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m . to 8:30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
COMMENT FORM
Com m ents: --
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments con also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Civil Engineer at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
PUBLIC MEETING #2
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE
BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wednesday, May 29, 2019 I 6:30 p .m. to 8 :30 p.m
CUPERTINO Monta Vista Recreation Center, Multi-Purpose Room I 22601 Voss Ave , Cupertino
RANKING SHEET
After reviewing each concept based on the information provided at the public meeting, please rank the
following design concepts in order of preference (1 = most favored option, 5 = least favored option).
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Steel Girder Bridge Steel Pratt Truss Bridge Steel Howe Truss Bridge
5
Option 4: Option 5:
Steel Tied Arch Bridge Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
Please share any additional comments on your preferred option :
I -Loa ks
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Du ll u, Assistant Civil Enginee r at
(408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
Attachment A
1
From:
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:26 PM
To:
Subject:Carmen Bridge
,
I am an avid Cupertino cyclists quite familiar with most thoroughfares in the West Cupertino area. I like many Cupertino
residents can't imagine the City funding an expensive single pedestrian / cycle bridge across the crosswalked, two lane,
wide bike lanes section of Stevens Creek Blvd at Carmen when there are so many much more critical bike / pedestrian
safety issues in the area...like the intersection of Bubb and McClellan where safety is as much about the congestion of
parents driving their students to school as lack of planned barriers, lack of bike lanes on McClellan, southern end of Bubb
and Rainbow. The long awaited paved bike path along the railroad tracks to connect many more isolated neighborhoods
with the schools at that intersection would positively impact far more residents than the Carmen bridge. The optics of
giving preference to the west side also concerns me at a time when the east side has been so traffic impacted by the build
out of Main Street, Apple Campus 2.....
Cupertino
Total Control Panel Login
Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (55): Pass
Block yahoo.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
Attachment A
1
From:
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 11:04 PM
To:
Subject:Carmen Rd Pedestrian Bridge
We cannot make the May 29 city meeting on this bridge – we live 2 blocks away. But we totally support the building of
this bridge. The sooner the better. Since the city voted to bring in the foodmart, star bucks & other business in this
area, the traffic has increased dramatically – safer means to cross stevens creek would be appreciated. Camera for
security & ability to watch pedestrian traffic into/out of the neighborhood would also be a good idea.
Total Control Panel Login
Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (55): Pass
Block earthlink.net
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
Attachment A
1
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2019 10:40 PM
Subject: Fwd: Support for Carmen bridge
I'm a resident of Cupertino. I could not make it to the planning meeting for the Carmen
Bridge. However, I totally support this bridge since it'll give lot of walking options to go to the Stevens Creek
Elementary school as well as Varian Park.
If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.
Total Control Panel Login
Message Score: 1
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Custom (55): Pass Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
Attachment A
1
From:
Sent:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 8:42 PM
To:
Subject:Proposed Designs for the Carmen Bridge
My name is and I and my family live close to the northern access point of the Carmen Bridge at
The "look" and obtrusiveness of the bridge as seen from either side of Carmen is
very important to us close-by residents to the bridge. I therefore vote for Option 5, the steel inclined arch
bridge, as the best option, and Option 1 as the next best. The major obtrusiveness of Options 2, 3, and 4 will
definitely impact the resale values of our homes near to the bridge, and the cumulative decline in value of the
nearby homes can be many times the cost of the bridge, and especially many times the difference in the cost of
the various bridge designs. So it is very important for us to choose a minimalist impact and cross-section for
the bridge as viewed from either side of Carmen, making Option 5 as the best option, in my opinion.
Thank you for allowing me to input my opinion.
Best regards,
Total Control Panel Login
Message Score: 30 High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (55): Pass
Block yasharfamily.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
Attachment A
1
Prashanth Dullu
June 12, 2019
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Although there was a good discussion at the meeting held on May 29, 2019, there were some points that were not
mentioned while I was there.
For one, the residents who moved to Carmen Road I believe without exception moved there because it was quite. They
wanted to move to a location where there was little to no vehicle traffic and the only people who were walking or biking on
the streets where they lived where other residents. Now they are being asked to allow over 100 strangers a day to enter
their exterior living space.
Along with this increase in foot traffic or people parking their cars to cross the proposed bridge comes more noise, litter
and potential incidents of vandalism or theft.
The residents who live close to the proposed bridge lose the serenity, privacy and peacefulness of living there forever.
It was mentioned during the meeting that students just do not want to get up in the morning a few minutes early to allow
enough time to use the existing crosswalks already in place at Foothill and Stevens Creek or at Phar Lap Drive.
Two students were present and they both confirmed that they just did not want to get up earlier to ensure they would get
to school on time using the existing crosswalks.
What a missed opportunity to educate young people on how they may need to better manage their time and allow for a
few extra minutes to get to school. Using the existing crosswalks would allow them to do so safely.
Posting crossing guards that both of the existing street crossings would enhance the safety and attractiveness of crossing
at them. I am sure this would be much cheaper.
As a resident who lives just two blocks over from Carmen Road, I am not wanting to have this increase in foot/bike traffic
either for the above mentioned reasons.
Also I will now lose a wonderful view of the East Foothills. To turn right out of Janice onto to Stevens Creek going east
and see the beautiful view always reminds me of what this valley once was. A valley that was beautiful and very
productive in agriculture. To see snow on Mt.Hamilton is a wonderful sight and needs to be appreciated when it happens.
As someone who spent over 40 years as a clinical scientist I appreciate innovation and design maybe more than others.
Yet I also know that just because something is possible does not mean it should be implemented.
The proposed bridged will forever scare the view on Stevens Creek for the benefit of just a few people. It will impose a
loss of privacy to residents near the bridge that was one of the very reason many moved to the area.
So as you now see I am not for the building of this bridge.
I am also wondering if another community meeting is possible. To hold a meeting on near a holiday weekend did not allow
for people who were out of town to participate.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.
Attachment A
OPTION 4
STEEL TIED ARCH BRIDGE
OPTION 5
STEEL INCLINED ARCH BRIDGE
For additional information, please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridge.
Questions or comments can also be directed to Prashanth Dullu, Assistant
Civil Engineer at (408)-777-3190 or PrashanthD@cupertino.org
The City of Cupertino is undertaking a feasibility study for a Carmen
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge to improve safety for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard. Using input gathered at Public
Meeting #1 in January 2019, concepts for six potential design options
were developed. Option 6 was found infeasible (not compliant with ADA or
maintenance vehicle access requirements), and therefore the design is not
being progressed.
The purpose of this meeting is to gather input on the five feasible options
and provide residents an opportunity to vote for their preferred option.
Please review key information on each of the 5 options under consideration
to aid you in casting your vote. The input gathered at this meeting will help
inform the selection of a preferred option. The options include:
• Option 1 – Steel Girder Bridge
• Option 2 – Steel Pratt Truss Bridge
• Option 3 – Steel Howe Truss Bridge
• Option 4 – Steel Tied Arch Bridge
• Option 5 – Steel Inclined Arch Bridge
* Estimated costs are shown in 2019 dollars and exclude right-of-way
acquisition, utility relocations and other improvements which are expected to
be similar for all options.
CARMEN ROAD PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PUBLIC MEETING #2
May 29th, 2019
About this design
Construction duration/impact
• Tied arches with hangers to support main deck elements can be fully
pre-assembled and erected in one overnight operation.
• Pre-assembly will require 7-10 days of lane closures in Stevens
Creek Blvd, leaving one lane open in each direction
• Foundation construction in each cul-de-sac will take 10-15 days
• Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access
through the cul-de-sacs on each end of Carmen Road
• There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures in Stevens Creek
Blvd for deck construction
Aesthetics
• Classic arches with some presence but an elegant shape provide an
inherent support for the fence and screen
Cost
• $1.6M - $1.95M*
About this design
Construction duration/impact
• Inclined arches and elements of the deck will be assembled in-place
• In-place assembly will require 5-7 night closures
• Main foundation construction from Stevens Creek Blvd will require
10-14 days of lane closures per side; maintaining one traffic lane in
each direction at all times
• Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access
through the cul-de-sacs on each end of Carmen Road
• There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures in Stevens Creek
Blvd for deck construction
Aesthetics
• Inclined arch shape is aesthetically pleasing, adding a signature
statement that also creates a more ‘open’ feel to the structure
Cost
• $1.4M - $1.75M*
A tied arch bridge that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. Arches
provide a classic look for the bridge.
Inclined arches configured to provide intermediate supports. Elegant
arches with a lower profile above the bridge deck.
Attachment A
About this design
OPTION 1
STEEL GIRDER BRIDGE
OPTION 2
STEEL PRATT TRUSS BRIDGE
OPTION 3
STEEL HOWE TRUSS BRIDGE
Construction duration/impact
• Bridge structure is made of three steel girders that can be delivered
and erected individually without the need for falsework in Stevens
Creek Blvd
• Main foundation construction from Stevens Creek Blvd over 7-10
days per side; maintaining one traffic lane in each direction at all
times. Similar periods and impacts for column construction
• Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access
through the cul-de-sacs on each end of Carmen Road
• There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures in Stevens Creek
Blvd for deck construction
Aesthetics
• Shallowest profile and overall height compared to all other design
options provides an unassuming, yet elegant bridge that provides
opportunities for aesthetic enhancements of the railings and screens
Cost
• $1.25M – $1.5M*
About this design
Construction duration/impact
• Trusses can be assembled on falsework over Stevens Creek Blvd
from individual members or three pre-assembled pieces
• Foundation construction in each cul-de-sac will take 10-15 days
• Truss erection will impact traffic for 10-15 nights in Stevens Creek
Blvd
• Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access
through the cul-de-sacs
• There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures in Stevens Creek
Blvd for deck construction
Aesthetics
• A commonly used structure type for medium span pedestrian
bridges which has significant presence while providing a feeling of
enclosure and safety
Cost
• $1.5M - $1.85M*
About this design
Construction duration/impact
• Trusses can be assembled on falsework over Stevens Creek Blvd
from individual members or three pre-assembled pieces
• Foundation construction in each cul-de-sac will take 10-15 days
• Truss erection will impact traffic for 10-15 nights in Stevens Creek
Blvd
• Deck construction will require 20 days of light equipment access
through the cul-de-sacs
• There will be 3 nights of individual lane closures in Stevens Creek
Blvd for deck construction
Aesthetics
• A robust looking structure which is often seen on railway bridges,
also provides a feeling of enclosure and safety
Cost
• $1.5M - $1.85M*
A steel girder bridge with intermediate supports on either side of
Stevens Creek Boulevard allows for shorter spans and a relatively
shallow deck.
A steel truss that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Pratt truss
has a general square look to the panels and the diagonals are lighter
members.
A steel truss that clear spans Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Howe truss
has a general triangular look to the panels.
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
1
B. Profile Plans and Drawings
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
2 Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
3 Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
4 Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Alternatives Analysis Report
507401684 | 01 | A | July 31, 2019
5
Attachment A
Mott MacDonald | Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Feasibility Study Report
34
mottmac.com
Attachment A
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Kristi McGee <kristi.mcgee1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:38 PM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Cc:Kristi A. McGee
Subject:Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Dear Council Members,
I am unable to attend the November 8 City Council meeting where this issue will be discussed, so I want to share my
thoughts and opinions with you in advance.
I have been a long time resident of Cupertino, and I strongly object to the Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
proposal. I live in the Carmen Road/Scenic Blvd. neighborhood, so the existence of such a bridge impacts me directly.
The need for this proposed bridge, including in the Walk-Bike Cupertino article published some 18 months ago, is
misleadingly characterized as a safety issue. The two nearest crosswalks in question may indeed be 1/2 mile apart, but
each of them (Stevens Creek/Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek/Phar Lap Drive) is only a quarter mile from the proposed
bridge at Carmen Road.
The crosswalk at the Foothill intersection is controlled by traffic lights to support safe crossing, and the crosswalk at Phar
Lap Drive was enhanced not all that long ago with in-street flashers (which are very visible and effective). So we're talking
about a quarter-mile walk or bike from Carmen Road to one of two safety-enhanced crossings.Yes, Stevens Creek is busy,
but I argue that - practically speaking - it IS safe to cross and kids CAN get to school safely by using the existing
crosswalks.
A important consideration in this decision that I have not seen discussed at all is the unintended consequences that such a
bridge may introduce. It is a fact that property crime has risen in our fair city, including car break-ins, vandalism and
burglaries. This bridge will creates an access point to our neighborhoods that is not needed and provides a convenient,
unpatrolled point of ingress an egress (particularly at night) for those who seek to perpetrate such acts.
I would remind the Council of the contentious issue regarding controlling the Blackberry Farm gate access at Scenic Circle.
I’m confident that none of the adjacent residents wanted an unsafe route to school for students by barring access through
Blackberry Farm, but they also had a real concern over loitering and other undesirable behavior that such an access point
would introduce. Would a similar controlled, gated approach be applied to this bridge?
I agree that Stevens Creek at Carmen is not an inherently safe crossing, but spending millions of dollars building a bridge is
NOT warranted when there are safe crossings a mere 1320 feet away in either direction. It sounds like an over-engineered
solution, at a high taxpayer cost and will compromise the visual beauty (and potentially the surrounding property values) of
this area.
Were other solutions even considered before proposing to build an expensive bridge? This is a solution looking for a
problem.
Sincerely,
Kristi McGee
Scenic Blvd. Resident
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Luis Buhler (Rockledge Associates) <luis@rockledgeassociates.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:26 PM
To:City Council
Cc:Luis Buhler (Rockledge Associates)
Subject:Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study
To: Members of the City Council
From: Luis Buhler, Cupertino Resident
Has anyone looked at the possibility of extending Stevens Creek Trail to connect directly to Varian Park? This would seem to
make better use of existing trails and minimize the impact on surrounding residents.
Luis Buhler
Cell: 916‐801‐1715
Email: Luis@RockledgeAssociates.com
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:mary vanatta <vanattam@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2019 9:28 AM
To:City Council
Subject:Please approve the Carmen Bridge feasibility study
Hello,
I am writing to express my support for the Carmen Bridge project and to ask for your support, specifically regarding the
feasibility study vote coming up this Tuesday, November 5th. I live in the Monta Vista neighborhood of Cupertino, and I
frequently take evening walks in the neighborhoods along Stevens Creek Blvd. I like to cross Stevens Creek and walk in the
neighborhoods on the other side, but I am always nervous to use the cross‐walk at the bottom of the "dip" near the Blue
Pheasant restaurant. I consider that crossing to be dangerous, because vehicles drive much too fast down the hill (in both
directions) toward the cross‐walk. I have observed speeding vehicles on this stretch of Stevens Creek not only as a pedestrian,
but also as a driver who frequently uses this road, and as a cyclist.
Additionally, on weekend mornings I like to walk to the Starbucks near the Post Office, or further down the road to Jamba Juice ‐
these two destinations require crossing Stevens Creek Blvd., and I always avoid using the aforementioned cross‐walk. Instead, I
opt to cross Stevens Creek at one of the traffic lights along the way, but this is not ideal.
Building a pedestrian bridge across Stevens Creek Blvd. would be a big improvement for the residents of the neighborhoods in
the area ‐ not just those, like me, who will use it for casual strolls and exercise, but more importantly for the children who will
use it to get to school or other activities. I know that providing safe options for children is a focus of the city council's work ‐ I am
sure that you will make the right decision by approving the feasibility study.
Thank you for the hard work that you do!
Sincerely,
Mary Vanatta
10445 Merriman Road
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:RICHARD <rablaine@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:24 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Carmen Bridge
Please approve the feasibility study. This bridge will be an asset to the city and provide for safe crossing of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Dick Blaine
22284 n De Anza Circle
Cupertino Ca
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Andrea Scheuerlein <roy.scheuerlein@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2019 9:36 AM
To:City Council
Subject:Carmen Bridge
We need a bridge over Stevens Creek Blvd at Carmen. I live off Crescent Rd.
My children go to Stevens Creek elementary and Kenedy Jr HIgh and Monte Vista.
It is too dangerous to cross Stevens Creek Blvd. I support building the bridge.
Regards,
Roy and Andrea Scheuerlein
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Shearin
Saturday, November 2, 2019 9:41 AM
Steven Scharf; Rod Sinks ; Jon Robert Willey; Darcy Paul ; Liang Chao ; Deborah L. Feng
Urge approving Carmen Bridge item on Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor Scharf, City Councilmembers , and City Manager Feng,
cc 11/5/19
Item #7
Tuesday's Council meeting will include an item on the Consent Calendar to approve the Feasibility Study for the
Carmen Road Bridge. I urge you to approve this item without pulling it for further discussion .
The most important reason is that the Consent Calendar item is not a decision on whether to design or build the
project or spend any new funding; it is only to approve that the work has been done by City Staff. In early spring, when
Staff plans to include this project's design funding as part of the CIP , is the time to discuss the merits, cost, and design
issues of the project.
The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission , in its motion made after its discussion of the Feasibility Study in September,
advises this course of action, stating, "Additionally, commission requests staff to invest time necessary to prepare for
the design and budget approval phase next year ... [and] do outreach to properties impacted and adjacent community
members before design phase."
There are some advocates in the community and on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for this project, and there are
some residents opposed . Everyone will be able voice their concerns and approval when this project is considered for
funding and further work during this spring's CIP process. I urge you on Tuesday to approve this item on the Consent
Calendar.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Peter Yessne <pyessne@gmail.com >
Sunday, November 3, 2019 1:49 PM
City Council
Carmen Bridge Project
I am a resident living a few doors south of the proposed bridge on Bellevue Ave .
I support the Carmen Bridge Project because it will enhance our pedestrian and biking options .
Further, the crosswalk at Phar Lap and Stevens Creek is a very dangerous one.
Please approve the feasibility study om November 5.
Sincerely,
Peter Yessne
Cyrah Caburian
From: City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject: FW : Carmen road History and support for proposed bridge
From: Jackson Family <hbjacksn@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 3 , 2019 6:34 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino .org >
Subject: Carmen road History and support for proposed bridge
Dear Cupertino City council members
Steven Scharf, Liang Chao , Rod Sinks , Darcy Paul and Jon Willey ,
I'm writing today to express my strong support for the Carmen Rd . pedestrian bridge . My family has lived on Cupertino Rd . for 35 years , and I
have lived in Cupertino for 59 years .
To paraphrase the words in my survey entry , the Carmen bridge will become such a welcome , useful and unifying addition to our neighborhood
and city . Thank you in advance for seeing it through to approval and construction .
Today I'd like to share some historical perspective . Before the rerouting of Stevens Creek Rd and the corresponding grading work that separated
Carmen Rd , what is currently Cupertino Rd was then part of Stevens Creek Rd .
Carmen road was initially created for the purpose of transporting the pieces of the dismantled "Lumbermen's Hoo Hoo House" to its final
destination at Inspiration Point , which our neighborhood was once called .
This massive Hoo Hoo House structure was built for the 1915 Panama Pacific International Expo in San Francisco and designed by famous
architect Bernard Maybeck. It was built by the International order of Hoo Hoo , a lumber industry organization . Here is a link to a pie from the UC
Berkeley Archives : http://exhibits .ced.berkeley.edu/items/show/2112
Purchased after the Expo by George Hensley (Pres ident of Monta Vista Estates) Hensley wanted the bui lding to be a civic center/dance hall. His
company subdivided and sold lots in Monta Vista , so this building served as an amenity to help build the community . There was even a monthly
newsletter called 'The House of Hoo-Hoo" (I have a photocopy of the newsletter dated Aug. 1916 showing a pictu re of this massive build ing
having been reconstructed at the top of our hill , on Carmen road)
There were accounts of concerts and weekly dances at the Hoo Hoo House , but it a ll came to an abrupt end on Aug .16, 1928 when a mysterious
fire bur~ed it to the ground .
Over the years different tales have been told of th is iconic building . Given its unfortunate name , it didn't take long before it was considered to
have been used as a house of ill repute . The rumors are false , this was a large single room open air bu ilding . Perfect for a dance or meeting hall ,
but not much else .
... so who was Carmen? Who was the road named after? I haven 't come across anyone who knows the answe r, but I have a guess.
It would have taken dozens of truck or buggy loads to bring all the dismantled pieces of the Lumbermen's Hoo Hoo House to our neighborhood .
Someone who transported things by buggy was known as a carman . The plural is carmen. George Hensley may have had someone put a sign
on Cupertino Rd (then known as Stevens Creek Rd) with the word "carmen" and an arrow to direct them where to go with thei r cargo . Over the
years I suspect the name stuck . Carmen Road .
Soon you will be deciding whether to reconnect Carmen with a Pedestrian Bridge-reuniting Inspiration Point, making a Safe Route To School for
three Cupertino schools for our kids , and improving walking opportun ities for ou r Seniors at Sunnyview Manor as well as for the rest of us .
As a lifelong resident , I see this as an easy decision . And in these current times , there's no better example and symbo l of unity than a bridge .
Thank you for taking the time to read this . Please feel free to reply with any questions , and if someone could reply to confirm that you rece ived
this email I would be most grateful.
Best regards , Harlan Jackson
22273 Cupertino rd .
408-504-6406
1
SkiR to main content
C n
ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN
ARCHIVES
Menu
RKELEY
• Exhibit Currently on DisRlay
• Browse Exhibits
• Browse Images
• Browse Collections
• About
,__ _______ .....,! Advanced Search
.,
[
Search using this query type :---------------------------,
®Keyword
0 Boolean
O Exact match ·
Advanced Search (Items only}
Search I
Lumbermen's House of Hoo Hoo
Title
Lumbermen's House of Hoo Hoo
Subject
Panama-Pacific International Exposition (1915 : San Francisco, Calif.)
Description
Tear sheet
Creator
unknown
Source
William G . Merchant/ Hans U. Gerson Collection
Date
circa 1915
Contributor
Environmental Design Archives
Format
Tear sheet
Language
English
Identifier
Box 9 , Folder 9
Coverage
San Francisco , CA
Citation
. ,
unknown , "Lumbermen's House of Hoo Hoo," Environmental Design Archives Exhibitions , accessed November
4, 2019 , http ://exhibits .ced .berkeley.edu/items/show/2112 .
• -Previous Item
• Next Item -
BERKELEY
Powered by Omeka .
Environmental Design Archives
designarchives@berkeley.edu
• Site MaR,
• College of Environmental Design
• Environmental Design Libra[Y._
• Visual Resources Center
• Privacy Policy_
• UC Berkeley_
©2015 UC Regents . All Rights Reserved .
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
I have lived at
Rooshabh Varaiya ~>
Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:21 PM
City Council
Pat Bhatt; Frank Yashar; Wing Law; Rooshabh Varaiya
Carmen Road pedestrian and bicycle bridge
since 1976 and I like my neighborhood as it is and has been,
I am opposed to the proposed bridge project; it will destroy my neighborhood.
I am unable to attend the meeting on Nov. 5th because of health reasons.
Please stop this project and put the money to better use .
Rooshabh
1
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello City Council,
Will Yashar ~>
Monday, October 21 , 2019 11 :23 PM
City Council
Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge
My name is Will Yashar . I'm a proud resident of Cupertino and have been living here for about 15 years now.
However, I am also fifteen years old . I live on Carmen Road and if you keep reading, I would love to let you know how I
hope you can consider stopping these.
The first and most serious problem I thought of is the elderly community, also known as sunny acres, down
the street. The city has already had multiple silver alerts from that community and I see multiple people take a morning
and afternoon walk by my house. Now, this path would only open up more opportunities to move farther away from the
facility to patients with Alzheimers or dementia . The elderly are a very important part of our community and I hope you
will thoroughly address this at your meeting.
The second problem I can see is the housing depreciation from the building. As you may know, houses on a cul de
sac appreciate much better as they have less traffic, foot and vehicle wise, which allows children to play in the street
without risking unwanted attention from other people crossing over the bridge, making it safer for the many children
and teenagers, myself included, that live on Carmen Road. The depreciation ofthe house may be five to ten percent,
which would easily outweigh the benefit.
Finally, I don't only want to mention the negative side effects as I strive to be a positive person. One way you can fix
the problem while still having more utility is to build a crosswalk across Steven's Creek, similar to the one across from
Blackberry Farm Gold Course. This could be a hazard, as drivers from up the hill would be blind to crossers . Instead, build
it at the top of the hill with lights similar to the other crosswalk to make it as safe as possible . A bridge would have the
same effectiveness, minus the one to two minute wait, and wouldn't negatively affect the people living on Carmen
Road .
I understand that some people might scarcely be affected by the bridge but it will seriously impact people living on
Cupertino and Carmen Road in a very negative way . I strongly hope this bridge isn't built and I hope you take my email
into account. If you choose to broadcast my email in any way as I strongly urge you to do, please omit my name from
this email and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank You,
Will Yashar
~
1
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council:
joe zheng
Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:30 PM
City Council
Carmen Road Pedestrian-Vicycle Bridge
I am a Cupertino resident of 20+ years and also a cyclist biking every week. I am against the proposal of
building up the bridge .
Reason 1: Stevens Creek Blvd . is more or less the anchor street in Cupertino and almost the symbol of the
City of Cupertino. As local residents, we shall minimize any destruction or disturbance to the street and its
wonderful looks . Bridges across such a street would obstruct the original views .
Reason 2 : There are many alternatives to cross Stevens Creek by biking or walking. It does not make any
sense to build a bridge just for that particular street crossing Stevens Creek Blvd . Otherwise, we might
consider to build a bridge for every single street crossing Stevens Creek Blvd.
Reason 3: It is believed the City of Cupertino has one or more bonds outstanding and needs to pay off soon
or late. We shall preserve the capitals for the debts and use them for other needs, for example, Bollinger Road
is so poorly maintained and the street surface shall be replaced years ago .
Respectfu I ly
Joe Zheng
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lauren Sapudar
Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:44 AM
Roger Lee; Chad Mosley
Deborah L. Feng
FW: Carmen Bridge/Manta Vista Bike Boulevard Update
FYI -these were emailed to the council.
CUPERTINO
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino .org
(408) 777-1312
@~000®0
From: Walk-Bike Cupertino <info@walkbikecupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:12 PM
To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>
Subject: Carmen Bridge/Manta Vista Bike Boulevard Update
10-----
Dear Steven,
The Carmen Bridge project emerged as a grass-roots community-based
project nearly 2½ years ago . In August 2018, the council approved funding
to conduct the Feasibility study (for more on what this is, see the box
below, "What's a Feasibility Study?''). As the next step, City Council will vote
on accepting the Carmen Road Bridge Feasibility study on November 5. If
approved, details will be worked out and it will then be in line for design
funding at the next Capital Improvement Project cycle in April/May
2020. Click here to see all the possibilities for the concept design of the
bridge.
The Carmen Bridge is a:
• Tier I project in the Cupertino Pedestrian Plan ;
• Tier 2 project i n the Cupertino Bicycle Plan ;
• A key element of the Cupertino Parks & Recreation Master Plan ; and
• A key connector of the Bike Boulevard network that connects several
neighborhoods to Stevens Creek Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista
High Schools .
Traffic is backed up daily on
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Over l 00 Stevens Creek Elementary and over 400 Kennedy and Monta Vista
students are driven to school each day because of the difficulty crossing Stevens
Creek while walking or biking . These additional cars are also likely a contr i butor
to congestion and reduced safety around our schools and in local neighborhoods.
What's a Feasibility Study?
A Feasibility study is created by the City Staff for large Transportation Projects. It simply answers the question,
'is this project possible? with a ballpark cost for several options', without details such as final costs,
environmental studies, site plans, etc. There are olten several alternatives mentioned in the study, one or more
which may become the recommended design before or during the design process . A chart showing some of the
major milestones for projects is below.
10--
Ways to get Involved
• Sign the petition of support here and join the over l 70 nearby neighbors
who have signed. Ask friends and family to sign, too.
• Contact us to let us know you can come to the city council vote next spring
or would like to be involved in other ways. Contact Byron Rovegno
at Broveqno@sbcq lobal.net to let us know.
2
• Write the city council at citycouncil@cupertino.org to tell them you support
building the Carmen Road Bridge.
• Forward this email on to your neighbors and friends who are supportive of
this great project!
Happy Walking and Biking,
Your friends at Walk-Bik~ Cupertino
10-
Walk, Bike Cupertino I P.O. Box 662, Cupertino, CA 95015
Unsubscribe Sscharf@cupertino.org
Update Profile I About Constant Contact
Sent by info@walkbikecupertino.org
3
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jay Kamda r >
Tuesda y, Octobe r 22, 2019 1:37 PM
City Council
Fw : City of Cupertino, CA: Carmen Road Pede strian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Updates
Dear City Council Members,
Due to bus iness travel I cannot be present at the Nov. 5 , 2019 council meeting to approve the Carmen Road Pedestrian
Bridge Feasibility Study. As a res ident of Cupertino , I would like to voice my concerns for the Bicycle Bridge as below. I
sincerely hope that you would give your kind consideration as you make the decis ions that are good for the whole city of
Cupertino and not simply vote yes for such expensive proposals :
1. Who benefits from th is bridge:
a . Parents : I have attended the commun ity meetings about this proposed study and learned that parents of
children attending elementary school are in favor of such bridge . In general , elementary school students
get dropped to school and at their age they rarely walk to school by themselves . Second, school might be
arranging "Walk to School Day" which probably causes inconvenience to some parents but not sufficient
to justify a costly bridge .
b. Bicycl ists : really? There are plenty of options for Bicyclists and connecting them through a Carmen Road
should not be one . Why not connect Bicyclists on Stevens Creek Road at the Phar Lap Drive junction .
This is a very critical junction and bridge will ensure total safety for both the pedestrians and bicyclists. If
anyone needs to bike on Carme Road then Carmen Drive easily connects to Stevens Creek Road and
bicyclists have option of going on Stevens Creek Road and find enough safe options to cross Stevens
Creek Road
2 . Concerns against the bridge:
Thanks ,
Jay Kamdar
a . Cost -why spend thousands of dollars on feasib ility study when the City has plenty of other things to fix.
When people do not have to write a personal check they a lways want things that are nice to have . Such
luxuries are afforded at the expense of other less powerful and less fortune people of the city . I insist that
City Council ask itself a question about what better causes to spend money instead of feasibility studies
for a bridge
b. Ruining Natural beauty -comp ing up on Stevens Creek Road still reminds driver of good old days, going
up the h ill , see ing the hills and beautiful sky as you drive up the hi ll. All these will be ruined with a bridge .
Not to mention graffiti and other concerns that comes with such elements
c . Other cheaper and more practical alternatives are overlooked : Why go through such massive expense
when a traffic light on Janice Ave. could easily fix the issue . I am certain that heavy lobbying by few
powerful people and groups will get their way but this is not the way to spend my tax money . The previous
City Council was working for the rich and powerful and paid lots of interest to special interest group . I trust
that my new council will dig deeper before rubber stamping yes on feasibility study for bridge . If there is a
need fo r bridge then it should be on Stevens Creek Road at Phar Lap drive which is the most dangerous
junction today.
d . Unsafe to pull cars in/out of Carmen Road residences : Currently , many of Carmen Road residences have
very tight spaces to get their cars in and ou t of their garages . Now, the residents would be required to
watch out for kids and bicyclist in their blind spots .
1
Cupertino
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: City of Cupertino <webmaster@cupertino.org>
To:
Sent: urs ay, cto er 7, ,
Subject: City of Cupertino, CA: Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Updates
lffl CITYOF Iii CUPERTINO
Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Updates
Date: 10/17/20191:54 pm
Since November 2018, City staff has been studying the feasibility of a grade-separated bridge structure to provide a
connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between neighborhoods north and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard at Carmen
Road.
The adoption of a resolution to approve the Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study will be discussed
and voted on at the City Council meeting held on Tuesday, November 05 , 2019 . No budget or other action related to the
design or construction of the project is being proposed at this meeting . Comments regarding this agenda item may be
sent to City Council by email at citycouncil@cupertino .org_ or in person at the November 5 City Council meeting .
Meeting Details
Date: Tuesday, November 05, 2019
Time: 6:45 p.m.
Location: Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
For more information about the project and to sign up fore-notifications , please visit www.cupertino .org/carmenbridge
Change your eNotification preference .
Unsubscribe from all City of Cupertino , CA eNotifications .
2
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Yi Huang >
Thursday, October 17, 2019 9:28 PM
City Council
Subject: Fw : City of Cupertino, CA: Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Updates
Dear city council members,
I live on Carmen Road (south of Stevens Creek Blvd), and I would like to invite you to have a bike tour on the
route before making the decision of spending money on the feasibility study.
Carmen Road on our side is not a wide street. and it was not a flat land, either. It hardly has enough space for
two cars to pass if there are cars parked on the curbside. Also, It doesn't have good visibility of opposite traffic
when driving uphills (going north).
There's not much foot/bike traffic on Carmen Road right now, so safety is not an issue. Once the bridge is built,
and foot/bike traffic increases, safety may be a concern. If we can foresee the problem now, why do we spend
money on the feasibility study?
My son bikes to school every day, so I'm not against bikers. I just don't think that Carmen Road is the safest
route for them. You may agree with me if you come & check it yourself.
Thankyou. ·
Yi Sun Huang
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: Cit of Cu ertino <webmaster
To:' >
Sent: urs ay, cto er , ,
Subject: City of Cupertino , CA: Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Updates
ffl CITYOF llliJ CUPERTINO
Carmen Road Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Feasibility Study Updates
Date: 10/17/2019 1:54 pm
Since November 2018, City staff has been studying the feasibility of a grade-separated bridge structure to provide a
connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between neighborhoods north and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard at Carmen
Road .
The adoption of a resolution to approve the Carmen Road Pedestrian B icycl e Bridge Feasibility Study will be discussed
and voted on at the City Council meeting held on Tuesday, November 05, 2019. No budget or other action related to the
1
design or construction of the project is being proposed at this meeting . Comments regarding this agenda item may be
sent to City Council by email at citycouncil@cupertino.org_ or in person at the November 5 City Council meeting.
Meeting Details
Date: Tuesday, November 05, 2019
Time: 6:45 p.m.
Location: Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
For more information about the project and to sign up fore-notifications , please visit www.cupertino.org/carmenbridqe
Change your eNotification prefe rence .
Unsubscribe from all City of Cupertino, CA eNotifications .
2
Grace Schmidt, MMC
From: Linda Wegner >
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 8:23 AM
To: City Council
Subject: I support the building of the Carment Bridge, let me know when it comes up for a vote
Linda Wegner
Cupertino
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From:Marylin McCarthy <m4@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2019 4:22 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Carmen Road Bridge Concerns
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
November 5, 2019
Dear City Council Members,
Due to a change in my schedule, I am unable to attend the city council meeting tonight.
Although there was a good discussion at the meeting held on May 29, 2019, there were some points that were not
mentioned while I was there.
For one, the residents who moved to Carmen Road I believe without exception moved there because it was quite. They
wanted to move to a location where there was little to no vehicle traffic and the only people who were walking or biking
on the streets where they lived where other residents. Now they are being asked to allow over 100 strangers a day to
enter their exterior living space.
Along with this increase in foot traffic or people parking their cars to cross the proposed bridge comes more noise, litter
and potential incidents of vandalism or theft.
The residents who live close to the proposed bridge lose the serenity, privacy and peacefulness of living there forever.
It was mentioned during the May meeting that students just do not want to get up in the morning a few minutes early to
allow enough time to use the existing crosswalks already in place at Foothill and Stevens Creek or at Phar Lap Drive.
Two students were present and they both confirmed that they just did not want to get up earlier to ensure they would
get to school on time using the existing crosswalks.
What a missed opportunity to educate young people on how they may need to better manage their time and allow for a
few extra minutes to get to school. Using the existing crosswalks would allow them to do so safely.
Since June I have driven or walked on this section of Stevens Creek daily at all hours in the early morning, late afternoon
and early evening when students would be crossing the road to get to the other side coming to and from school and
have observed less than a dozen students crossing Stevens Creek. So how is this bridge justified?
Posting crossing guards that both of the existing street crossings at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek and Phar Lap and
Stevens creek would enhance the safety and attractiveness of crossing at them. I am sure this would be much cheaper
and less invasive for the surrounding neighborhoods on both sides of Carmen Road.
As a resident who lives just two blocks over from Carmen Road, I do not want to have this increase in foot/bike traffic
either for the above mentioned reasons.
2
Also I will now lose a wonderful view of the East Foothills. To turn right out of Janice onto to Stevens Creek going east
and see the beautiful view always reminds me of what this valley once was. A valley that was beautiful and very
productive in agriculture. To see snow on Mt.Hamilton is a wonderful sight and needs to be appreciated when it
happens.
As someone who worked over 41 years as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist I appreciate innovation and design maybe more
than others. Yet I also know that just because something is possible does not mean it should be implemented.
The proposed bridged will forever scare the view on Stevens Creek for the benefit of just a few people. It will impose a
loss of privacy to residents near the bridge that was one of the very reasons many moved to the area.
So as you now see I am not for the building of this bridge.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.
Marylin McCarthy
10159 Cass Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lauren Sapudar
Sent:Wednesday, November 6, 2019 7:49 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: I'm against the Carmen Road bridge
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Alex Simonovich <alex_simonovich@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 6:22 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: RE: I'm against the Carmen Road bridge
I have lived in Cupertino for 43 years, and my residence is on Amelia Ct.
I am against the Carmen Road bridge for four reasons:
1. It is extremely costly, and the benefits it would bring to such a small number of users would be minuscule compared to
its costs.
2. A bridge at Carmen Road would send foot and bicycle traffic onto roads that do not have sidewalks and have significant
curves, which means pedestrians and bicyclists would be in increased danger of being hit by cars.
3. Many elderly residents from the nearby senior citizen’s century perambulate down Carmen Road, Cupertino Road, and
Hillcrest. With increased foot and bicycle traffic, there is a very good chance that accidents will occur.
4. Amelia Ct. is a private road, and is very narrow, and as a result, the City is unable to make it a public thoroughfare.
If the bridge were built, then the residents on Amelia Ct. would put in locked gate, which would prevent access to
Stevens Creek Elementary school.
We had a block party earlier in the year, and none of us knew about the bridge, but we were seriously discussing putting
in the gate. This bridge would then accelerate installing the locked gate.
Sincerely,
Alex Simonovich
1
Cyrah Caburian
Subject:FW: Bike Boulevard Project
From: Jeff Oliver <joliver72@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 6:25 PM
To: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>
Subject: Bike Boulevard Project
Notice to City of Cupertino Council
Bike Boulevard Project
11.5.2019
Property Address: 10270 N Portal Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Property Owners: Jeffrey and Denise Oliver
David Stillman recently set a meeting with me (Jeff Oliver) to get my input on a big change that will impact my property. He told me about
the big modification in the design of the crosswalk on N Portal Avenue and said the proposed change happened in a recent council meeting
that the raised crosswalk/speed table would be eliminated due to funding. He stated, currently there are no funds allocated for the agreed
upon project. The new proposal is temporary plastic fixtures directly on the corner and side of my property. I am not approving the new
plastic obstacles due to the fact that the last “temporary” traffic calming measure was a test. It was placed in the middle of N Portal Avenue
was communicated by the city it would be for 30‐45 days and then replaced with a permanent design that would be more aesthetic. We
ended up with an ugly bright yellow un‐maintained city pole assembly for a view. This was installed in 2001 and not changed within 45 days
as promised by the city. The excuse from the city was there was no longer funding for the project. We had to look at it from 2001 until last
month and they were never properly maintained.
My request is that you do not change the intersection at this time with the exception of re‐striping the crosswalks and no left turn/ do not
enter on the exit of the school property. The new speed bumps have been installed. Let’s see if that fixes the speed problem on our street
without placing plastic cones in the road that will need to be maintained. The city already has too many markings and signage that need
maintenance. We don’t need more temporary solutions that are eye sores when they are run over and not maintained!
I would also request that email and paper confirmation of the notice of no left turn to the daycare and school district parents be sent out as
per the original use permit. This is important to me due to the fact that when left turns are made out of that driveway drivers are passing our
house twice and in our blind spot as we are exiting our driveway. It has been an increasingly dangerous situation for our family.
The used permit/ neighborhood agreement for the outside commercial daycare facility placed in our neighborhood had this as part of the
original agreement. This notice was agreed upon between the neighborhood and the business/school district and we now have two
entrances from daycare facilities increasing traffic in our neighborhood as the enrollments have continued to increase over the years. One at
Stevens creek Boulevard and the other commercial business at the school district location. The addition of the increased TRC traffic has also
led to significantly more street parking and traffic than was relayed in the school district meeting for their temporary buildings. This has
even impacted their tenant.
Please consider measuring the speed and then gather funding to make the appropriate changes. Do not do it unless you are doing it right!
Jeff Oliver
‐‐
"This message ( including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is confidential, proprietary and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 408‐569‐2669 and
delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
1
Cyrah Caburian
Subject:FW: Thank you for completing the Carmen Bridge Feasibility Study
From: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 5:20 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: FW: Thank you for completing the Carmen Bridge Feasibility Study
From: Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 5:20 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Thank you for completing the Carmen Bridge Feasibility Study
Dear City Council members,
This is Jian, an advisory board member for Walk‐Bike Cupertino. I live in the Carmen Bridge neighborhood for 15 years. On behalf
of my family, I would like to thank you and your team for investing in the Carmen Bridge Feasibility Study. Many thanks to the
City staff for working so hard on the Feasibility Study, and for holding community outreach meetings, listening to residents, and
documenting all the questions and suggestions. These are the important steps to ensure the success of this project.
In 2017, when my children still attended the Stevens Creek Elementary school, several friends and I got involved in the petition
drive to support the Carmen Bridge project. Many our neighbors and parents in the Stevens Creek Elementary school signed the
petition. Two weeks ago, we attended the Monster Mash in the school. Many parents talked to us and shared their concerns of
heavy traffic and walk‐bike safety crossing the busy streets. Also, they signed the petitions to support this project.
This map shows the location of supporters around the Carmen Bridge neighborhoods. The image in the red box shows the daily
rush hour traffic on the Stevens Creek Blvd, and the image in the green box shows the option 5 design proposed as a result of
the Feasibility Study. You can see many supporters live near the Carmen Road.
Please vote Yes to accept the Carmen Bridge Feasibility Study result. Look forward to seeing this project move on to the next
phase and become a reality and asset for our community. Thank you!
See you soon tonight at the City Council meeting!
Blessings,
Jian
cc 11-5-19
Item #9 Tobacco Policies
Written Communications
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Blythe Young <Blythe.Young@heart.org>
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2019 3:32 PM
To:City Council
Subject:AHA Supports Flavored Tobacco Policy
Attachments:Cupertino AHA Support Letter Nov 1 2019.pdf
Dear Cupertino Council,
Please see attached letter of support for your flavored tobacco policy.
Best,
Blythe
Blythe Young
Community Advocacy Director
American Heart Association
426 17th Street | Oakland | CA | 94612
O 510.903.4038 | M 707.834.4399
2018-2019
Board of Directors
Co-Chairs of the Board
Tammy Kiely
Dan Smoot
Co-Presidents
Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, FAHA
Calvin Kuo, MD, PhD
Chair Elect
Matthew Scanlan
Immediate Past Chair
Chris Tsakalakis
Immediate Past Presidents
Alden McDonald III, MD
Joseph Woo, MD
Leadership Development Chair
David Vliet, MBA
Members At Large
Susan Bailey, MD
Durga Bobba
Leslie Campbell, MD, FACC
Jay Clemens
Chuck Collins
Michael Corey
Mary Cranston
Glenn Egrie, MD
Mary A. Francis
Jason Hall
Mark Korth
Nicholas Leeper, MD
John Maa, MD
Kenneth Mahaffey, MD
Brian May
Nisha Parikh, MD
Bill Pearce
Graham Poles
Michael J. Roffler
Carol Ann Satler, MD, PhD
Lynne Sterrett
Bob Swan
Frank Tataseo
Page West
James Woloszyn
Dana Weisshaar, MD
Joseph C. Wu, MD, PhD
Senior Vice President
Maria Olson
Bay Area Division
426 17th St, Ste. 300, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 903-4050 Fax (510) 903-4049
www.heart.org
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The American Heart Association supports the proposal to prohibit the sale of
Menthol tobacco products in the City of Cupertino. This proposed policy will
reduce access to the products that are the tobacco industry’s key strategy for
targeting and addicting new smokers, Cupertino’s youth. More than 80
percent of youth who ever used a tobacco product reported that their first
product was flavored.
Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in
the United States, claiming on average 480,000 lives each year. Evidence
shows that smoking increases the risk for heart disease and stroke. It increases
the risk for blood clots, decreases the ability to exercise, and decreases the
good cholesterol in our bodies. The best way to prevent tobacco-related
illness and death is to prevent people from starting to smoke in the first place.
The tobacco industry is actively and aggressively working to addict new
young people, particularly those from communities of color, with flavored
tobacco products. They know that flavors like grape, mint (menthol), cotton
candy, bubble gum and gummy bears mask the harsh taste of tobacco and
are highly appealing to youth. In California, approximately 1 in 10 young
adults (18-24 years old) currently use e-cigarettes and mounting evidence
shows that young people who start with e-cigarettes are likely to become the
addicted cigarette smokers of tomorrow.
Ending the sale of menthol tobacco products will help protect our community
from tobacco addiction and is crucial to preventing tobacco-related death
and disease. In your consideration of a flavored tobacco ordinance, please do
not exempt menthol. The American Heart Association respectfully asks for
your support of this vital health policy. We ask that you put the health of
your constituents above tobacco industry profits and help ensure that all
Cupertino residents have the healthy and prosperous lives they deserve.
Sincerely,
Michelle A. Albert, MD MPH
Co-President, Board of Directors
Bay Area Division, American Heart Association
November 1st, 2019
Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer Shearin <shearin.jen@gmail.com>
Saturday, November 2, 2019 9:46 AM
City Council; Deborah L. Feng
Grace Yao
Support Approval of Tobacco Policy Agenda item #9 (11/5/19)
Dear Mayor Scharf, City Councilmembers, and City Manager Feng,
cc 11/5/19
Item #9
At this Tuesday's Council meeting, you will be considering changes to our City's Tobacco policy. As 10+ year resident (I am speaking only as a
resident), 1 urge you to approve these changes, for the health and safety of the teens in our community.
I have seen personally the changes that have occurred since my oldest daughter entered Cupertino High School to now, when my youngest is a
sophomore there. There was little to no tobacco use and (of course) no vaping at Tino in 2012; now I hear from boys that they avoid using the school
bathrooms, because they never know when it will be a cloud ofvape smoke. Principal Kami Tomberlain tells us in our PTSA meetings that this has
become an enormous problem; anti-vaping assemblies and information have become a priority. The NIH says that teen e-cigarette use has doubled
since 2017, and that 30% of teens that use them (even if just flavored, without tobacco) start smoking within 6 months. These are truly frightening
statistics.
We have the ability to mitigate this problem our local community, and one of the ways is to change our city's tobacco policy. Your vote yes on these
policy changes are an important step in this direction and to show that the health and safety of our students is a priority for our city. 1 urge you to do
so on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
19511 Howard Ct, Cupertino
Note: in this email I am acting as a resident. It is not intended to represent the views of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission or the
City of Cupertino.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer Shearin <shearinjen@gmail.com >
Saturday, November 2, 2019 9:46 AM
City Council ; Deborah L. Feng
Grace Yao
Support Approval of Tobacco Policy Agenda item #9 (11/5/19)
Dear Mayor Sch a rf, City Councilmemb ers, and City Manager Feng,
At this Tuesday's Council meeting, you will be considering changes to our City's Tobacco policy. As 1 0+ year r e sident (I am speaking only as a
resident), I urge you to approve these changes, for the health and safety of the teens in our community.
·.
I have seen personally the changes that have occurred since my oldest daughter entered Cupertino High School to now, when my youngest is a
sophomore there. Th ere was little to no tobacco use and ( of cours e) no vaping at Tino in 2012; now I hear from boys that they avoid using the school
bathrooms, because they never know when it will be a cloud of vape smoke. Principal Kami Tomberlain tells us in our PTSA meetings that this has
become an enormous problem ; anti-vaping assemblies and information have become a priority. The NIH says that teen e-cigarette use has doubled
since 2017, a nd that 30% of teens that use them ( even if just flavored , without tobacco) start smoking within 6 months. These are truly frightening
statistics.
We have the ability to mitigate this problem our local commun ity, and one of the ways is to change our city's tobacco policy. Your vote yes on these
policy changes are an important step in this direction and to show that the health and safety of our students is a priority for our city. I urge you to do
so on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
19511 Howard Ct, Cupertino
Note: in this email I am acting as a resident. It is not intended to represent the views of the Bicycle Pedestrian Comm ission or the
City of Cupertino.
' •
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ming-Hui Huang <murdockhuang@gmail.com >
Sunday, November 3, 2019 12:34 PM
City Council
Agenda item #9: Support for new tobacco policies regulating the sale of tobacco
• Dear Mayor Scharf, Councilmembers, and City Manager Feng,
I am a resident of Cupertino and a parent at Cupertino High School.
I would like to request you support and vote yes to approve the proposed new tobacco policy for Cupertino .
We have seen the news reports about how vaping causing serious health problems and we would like to make the tobacco less
accessible to our teens .
Thank you for listening to residents about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Ming-Hui Huang
765 Stendhal Lane Cupertino
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tera Nakano -Louie < parentprograms@tinoptsa .org >
Sunday, November 3, 2019 4:59 PM
debf@cupertno.org; City Council
Agenda item #9: Support for new tobacco policies regulating the sale of tobacco
Dear Mayor Scharf, Council members, and City Manager Feng,
I am a parent of two students at Cupertino High School ages14 and 17 and a PTSA member.
Please support and vote YES to approve the proposed new tobacco policy for Cupertino.
My son says that he avoids using the bathroom at school due to the problem of students using the bathroom to vape . I do not
want my kids exposed to second-hand smoke or vapors . We need to do all we can to discourage the use and sale of flavored
tobacco products and educate our youth about the serious health risks to themselves and others .
Thank you for listening to our concerns about this important public health issue .
Best regards,
Tera Nakano-Louie
..
Cyrah Caburian
From: City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject: FW: Support for new tobacco regulation policies in Cupertino
From: Grace Yao <graceyao00@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 7 :43 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>
Subject: Support for new tobacco regulation policies in Cupertino
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice-Mayor Chao, and City Council Members, and City Manager Feng :
I am a constituent in Cupertino . I am a parent of 2 children at Cupertino High School, have an office in the city, and involved in school PTAs .
I'm writing to support a model policy that would prohibit the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol, and protect our youth
and other vulnerable populations from deadly addiction . The creation of a strong tobacco retail license that includes license suspensions for
retailers who are caught illegally selling to youth, restriction in the sale of tobacco near youth sensitive areas , as well as minimum
price products . and packaging for tobacco.
A study found that 81 percent of kids whol have ever used tobacco products started with a flavored products[3]. According to the 2016
Surgeon General's report, more than 85% of e-cigarette users age 12 -17 use flavored e-cigarettes, and flavors are the leading reason for
youth use. More than 9 of 10 young adult e-cigarette users said they use e-cigarettes flavored to taste like menthol, alcohol, fruit, chocolate,
or other sweets[4]. It has become increasingly clear that these products -which are now being sold in over 15,500 unique fruit, candy, and
mint flavors -are specifically targeted to appeal to youth .
We, as a society, have already seen the detrimental impact to one's health and the nation's wealth from addiction to nicotine . As intelligent
as you are , you could comprehend what your vote can do to the city's young population . How would you feel about yourself if you don't pass
the regulation policies. How would you answer the young people who ask why you didn't care more about their wellbeing when they didn't
know better? These policies may not be perfect, but they are the first step and will send the tone to your constituents that Cupertino is
taking tobacco sale to minors seriously.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States[!]. Each year, an average of 480,000 Americans die as a result of
tobacco-related diseases[2]. The best way to prevent tobacco from claim in g more lives is to prevent people from starting to smoke in the first
place .
If that wasn't troubling enough, the tobacco industry has a proven track record of marketing their products to other at-risk populations,
including communities of color, the LGBT community, and low-income communities . This ultimately leads to disproportionately higher rates
of use, and subsequently disease and death, by these groups . With the help of the [name of group] initiative, [jurisdiction] is in a position to
take a stand to bring greater health equity and social justice to our residents .
The evidence makes it all the more apparent that flavored tobacco products, including menthol, have a profound adverse impact on public
health . A city-wide effort that would prohibit the sale of these products is a crucial step in protecting the community from the unrelenting
efforts of the tobacco industry to hook them to a deadly addiction -a step that will ultimately save lives.
Sincerely,
Grace Yao
19520 Howard Ct
111carter B, et al. Smoking and Mortality-Beyond Established Causes . New England Journal of Medicine, 2015 :372 :631-40.
121u .s . Department of Health and Human Services . "The Health Consequences of Smoking-SO Years of Progress : A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta : U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office
on Smoking and Health, 2014 .
131Ambrose, BK , et al., "Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014," Journal of the American Medical Association , published online
October 26, 2015
l4IHHS, E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta , GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Di sease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2016.
1
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From:Tricia Barr <tricia.tjernlund@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:46 PM
To:Steven Scharf; Jon Robert Willey
Subject:Fwd: Support of ban on flavored tobacco and adopting a tobacco retailer license
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Forwarding due to my earlier typos in your email addresses!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tricia Barr <tricia.tjernlund@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM
Subject: Support of ban on flavored tobacco and adopting a tobacco retailer license
To: <liangchao@cupertino.org>, <sscharf@cuperino.org>, <rsinks@cupertino.org>, <dpaul@cupertino.org>,
<jwiley@cupertino.org>
Dear City Council,
I'm a parent of three kids, ages 10, 13, 16. I'm worried for my kids and all our youth about the vaping epidemic and the
marketing tactics the tobacco companies are using to lure a new generation into nicotine addiction.
Please absolutely adopt a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco and e‐cigarettes and ban on the sale of tobacco products
in pharmacies. Please also adopt the County's tobacco retailer license.
Today, just now, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to approve an ordinance that bans the sale and
distribution of e‐cigarettes. Please, as soon as the other ordinances are adopted, (or in tandem, if possible without
slowing down), please adopt the ban on the sale of e‐cigarettes immediately after.
We need to take action now.
Thank you,
Tricia Barr
To Whom It May Concern-
San Francisco 's flavored tobacco ordinance was implemented in the Fall of 2018.
The ordinance was crafted deliberately to contain no exemptions in order to create a
level playing field across all businesses that carry the local tobacco retailer license
(TRL). During educational visits, businesses noted that they appreciated that all
businesses are treated equally under the ordinance. This is in contrast to feedback from
businesses in several other communities-Berkeley and Oakland among them-that
are now working to revise their ordinances--eliminating all exemptions--because of the
unfair competition among tobacco retailers that the exemptions created.
Many communities have asked how implementation of the flavor ordinance is going in
San Francisco.
The ordinance in San Francisco covered all 799 businesses carrying a tobacco retail
license. Between October and December 2018, I visited nearly 250 businesses, and
together with colleagues, we visited all 799 businesses in order to listen and to answer
questions pertaining to the ordinance. Each retailer had been mailed a poster detailing
many aspects of the ordinance , for example, outlining the categories of flavored
products to be removed and also the general schedule of educational visits and
compliance check visits.
To date, no holder of a San Francisco tobacco retailer license , is known to have gone
out of business because of the flavored tobacco ordinance.
For more information, you may contact me at:
Bob Gordon , Project Director, California LGBT Tobacco Education Partnership
bob@lqbtpartnership .org
S inc erely,
Bob Gordon
Attachments from San Francisco Department of Environmental Health that may be useful:
http s://www .sfdph .o rg/dph/filcs /EHSdocs/Tobacco/SFDPHFlavorcdTobaccoFactSheet.pdf
http s:Uwww .sfdph.org/dph/files /EHSdocs/Tobacco/Flavorecl Tobacco FAO.pdf
Email: bob@lgbtpartnership.org / www.lgbtpartn e rship.org
ALAMEDA COUNTY HEAL TH CARE SERVICES AGENCY
PUBLIC HEAL TH DEPARTMENT
Tobacco Co ntrol Program
I 000 Broadway , 5th Floor
Oakland , CA 94607
Colleen C hawla , Director
Kimi Watkins-Tartt, Int erim Director
Paul C ummings, Director
(5 10 ) 268 -4 150
FAX (5 10 )268-701 2
Oakland Flavored Tobacco Ordinance -Implementation Challenges
On July 1, 2018, Oakland's revised Tobacco Retail License Ordinance went into effect, restricting the sale of
flavored tobacco to adult-only tobacco stores. To-date, spot checks show that merchants are largely complying
with the new law by removing flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, from their shelves,
which is helping to reduce access to flavored tobacco products among youth and other vulnerable populations.
For e xample :
• Given the requirement that a tobacco store must generate over 60% annual gross revenue from the
sale of tobacco products :
o Some merchants are shifting their product make-up by increasing their volume of tobacco
products for sale and decreasing stocks of non-tobacco products.
o Some merchants, such as food markets, are investing large sums of money to build in-store
adult-only structures, or rooms with separate entrances, which they aim to operate
independently of the primary store.
o Some merchants, such as gas stations, are attempting to divide their existing properties, and
products, into two stores to allow for the sale of flavored tobacco products in one .
• While merchants are required to sign an affidavit stating that their store qualifies to meets all adult-
only tobacco store requirements, it is difficult for enforcement staff to determine and validate the
percent of a store's annual revenue based on financial records provided.
• The burden of proof is on the city to determine whether a given store qualifies for the exemption.
• To determine whether a tobacco store license was issued by the city in error, a challenge would need
to be initiated by complaint and considered in a hearing .
• Many merchants in the city have vocalized objection to the tobacco store exemption -they feel that it
is an unfair business practice that certain stores can sell flavored tobacco while others cannot, and
would prefer an even playing field (citywide restrictions).
• The exemption requirement to "primarily sell tobacco products" is subjective .
• What began as a handful of a u! -or:ily tobacm.stores · Oakl.and.,(2~p,rio r..t o-theJ a.w' ffec1Lv~d..i e,
has no
primarily locate in certain low-income areas of the city .
• As a result, flavored tobacco and menthol sales are still available and somewhat prevalent, particularly
in certain low-income areas of the city, among some of the most vulnerable communities and those
most heavily-targeted by tobacco industry marketing.
NOTE: Oakland's definition of "tobacco store" includes retail businesses that meet all of the following
requirements:
• Primarily sells tobacco products
• Generates more than 60% of gross revenues annually from the sale of tobacco products
• Does not permit any person under 18 years of age to enter the premises unless accompanied by the
person's parent or legal guardian
• Does not sell alcoholic beverages or food for consumption on the premises
w u 0 c::
0 5 N Ul
an S u
0
Ul
1-w z c:: w
1-z
~~ .=:: 3 .... w ca ~ •-LL .... 6 ·-(.) c~ ·-~ .c ~ .... ~ :::s !=
I.. e; .... ~ .. : .. :· •••
~ a,
~
Ill
C:
ro
a,
_,J
C. ·-....,
_,J
:::::,
E ....,
u a,
_,J
a,
Ill
""C
_,J
:::::,
0 u
.c ....,
:::::,
0 >-
*
<l} 1·
>·'.:• .. , ... ,.•--;
"·'T""~
re ,,, ......... _,
.+.,; .. ~ ... , .... .
,,,.. ... ,
.-.. " ... _...., .. ,,
t"O>":•
..,.;~.,,. . ._,
,.,!_,..{
• en ,:, ·-JIii::
0 ....
JIii:: -,a ....
0 ....
en cu ...
0
+' en -.. ,a er u c o ·--> cu ,a en en
::, cu ... en ,a cu ·-> C .
,a cu
a.~ e ....
0 ,a u ..c
0 ;:
u en u -.
,a cu .a ;
~r.
c., • C
0
0
LL.
0:: w
LL.
LL. •·•·· .· ~-:\ i
E
()
u, v>
C
0
LI.I :::, u 0
V, -.Cl
"' a: c_,
CT
D. C
'" .c
==
u g
0 "
...I
~
9 [,~PH
Public Health
Overview: In the United States (U .S.), consumption of flavored tobacco products such as cigars, cigarillos, smokeless
tobacco, shisha or hookah tobacco, and liquid nicotine so lut ions (used in electronic smoking devices) have increased
in recent years [l]. These products come in a variety of flavors including chocolate, berry, cherry, apple, wintergreen,
and peach [2] and are sold in colorfu l packaging , which make them especially appealing to young people. There
is growing concern that flavored tobacco products help users develop habits that can lead to long term nicotine
addiction [3].
Cigars
There are three
types of cigars
sold in the U.S.:
little cigars , which
are the same
Types of Flavored Products
Little Cigar
Cigaril lo (Tipped and untipped)
,... . ..,,
---~-=------
Regular cigar smoking is associated with increased risk
for lung, larynx, oral cavity, and esophagus cancer [9].
Heavy cigar use and deep inha lation has also been linked
to elevated risk of heart disease and chronic obstructive
pu lmon ary disease [10].
Cigars contain higher levels of nitrosamines-which are
compounds that cause cancer-more tar, and higher
concentrations of to x ins than cigarettes [11].
II.·_,._..,.
I I I I
size and shape
as cigarettes;
cigarillos, which
are a slimmer
version of large
cigars and
usually do not
Cigar ~ I E I I E 11' 1~1 " \r' E E E ~ ~ \ ~I Ei Er If
have a filter; and large cigars, which are larger and weigh
more than little cigars and cigarillos [4].
Cigars are the second most common form of tobacco used
by youth [ 5]. Many of the brands that are popular among
youth come in flavors such as apple, chocolate, grape,
and peach [6], while other less traditional flavors are
branded with appealing names like "Fruit Squirts," "Waikiki
Watermelon," Tutti Frutti," "Blue Water Punch ," "Oatmeal
Cookie," and "Alien Blood" [7].
A recent study found that more than 87 percent of
adolescents who used cigarillos in the past 30 days used
flavored cigarillos [8].
~ .r I n' \ I
11 I
I I'
1' d E U I I u n I 0 u u u n
J ll JI . JI -"' .ll L
I
'u
I I 11 , .r l II I 1' d 11 E U I E u· n E U E I ! If
.!I. ..!!. ~-I!.-.!-t JI· . .ll
\ I I I I I
1'' ~I
' 11
I ~I
I I
E E I I I 0 D E 11 n D E n· E I
I n ; 'I I i \ I i n 1·0 n ·, I n n I n ·• n I
87% of adolescents who used
cigarillos in the past 30 days
used flavored cigarillos.
Califo rni a Tobacco Co ntro l Progra m
Smokeless Tobacco
Snuff
Smokeless tobacco products
include chewing tobacco,
dip, snuff, and snus and
come in flavors such as mi nt,
wintergreen, berry, cherry, and
apple (12].
These products contain at
least 28 carcinogens (13] and
have been shown to cause
gum disease and cancers of
the mouth, lip, tongue, cheek,
throat, stomach, pancreas ,
kidney, and bladder (14].
Smokeless tobacco products increase the risk of
developing oral cancer by 80 percent, and esophageal
and pancreatic cancer by 60 percent (15].
Shisha or Hookah Tobacco
Shisha is also known as hookah, water pipe, narghile, or
goza tobacco and is available in an array of fruit, alcoholic
beverage, and herbal flavors (12].
Hookah smoking has been associated with lung cancer,
respiratory illness, and periodontal disease [9].
Many young adults falsely believe that hookah smoking
is safer than cigarette smoking (16]. However, smoking
hookah for 45 to 60 minutes can be equivalent to smoking
100 or more cigarettes (17].
Smoking hookah for 45 to 60 minutes can be
equivalent to smoking 100 or more cigarettes
One hookah session delivers approx imately 125 times the
smoke, 25 times the tar, 2 .5 time s the nicotine and 10 times
the carbon monox ide as a single cigarette (18].
A 2014 study found that teens who use hookah are two-
to-three times more likely to start smoking cigarettes or to
become current smokers than tee ns who have not tried
hookah (19].
Smokeless tobacco products
increase the risk of developing
oral
cancer by so 0
1o
esophageal
cancer by
60%
Liquid Nicotine Solution
pancreatic
cancer by
60%
Liquid nicotine so lution, also called "e-iuice" or
"e-liquid," is used in electronic smoking devices such as
e-cigarettes.
There are more than 7,000 e-liquid flavors (20] including
cotton candy, gummy ,
bear, and chocolate mint,
as we ll as flavors named
after brand name ca ndy
and cereal products such
as Wrigley's Big Red Gum
and Quaker Oats' Cap'n
Crunch (21]. Blueberry Mint
E-liquids , when heated,
form an aerosol that emits toxic chemicals known to
cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive
harm (22].
E-liquid so lutions contain varying concentrations of
nicotine, ranging from no nicotine to 100 mg per
milliliter (a milliliter is approximately a fifth of a
teaspoon). The lethal dose of nicotine is estimated to be
60 mg or less for an adult and 10 mg for a child. The
tox ic ity of a 60 mg dose of liquid nicotine is similar to
or even higher than that of cyanide (23].
2
Ca liforn ia To ba cco Con tro l Program
Using Flavored Tobacco Products
Recent declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking
among youth have coincided with an increased use of
e-cigarettes and hookah tobacco [24]. In the U.S., cigarettes
are prohibited from containing flavors other than menthol;
however, other tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and
hookah tobacco are exempt from this regulation.
A 2015 study of adolescents ages 12 to 17 found that
among those who self-reported ever experimenting with
tobacco, the majority started with a flavored product. It
also found that most current youth tobacco users reported
use of flavored products [25].
Teens report that their tobacco use typically started with a
flavored tobacco product. One study reported that almost
90 percent of ever hookah users, 81 percent of ever e-cig-
arette users, 65 percent of ever users of any cigar type ,
and 50 percent of ever cigarette smokers said the first
tobacco product they used was flavored [25].
Percent
said the first tobacco product
they used was flavored
100
A study co nducted by the Centers for Disea se Control and
Prevention (CDC) found that more than two out of every
five middle and high school students who smoke reported
either using flavored little cigars or flavored cigarettes [26].
A 2014 CDC survey of U .S .
youth found that 70 percent
of U.S. middle and hig h
sc hool toba cco users have
used at least one flavored
tobacco product in the past
30 days [1].
This survey also found
that 18 percent of all high
school students in the U.S .
reported using at least one
flavored tobacco product
ii iii
Two out of every five
middle and high school
students who smoke
reported either using
flavored little cigars or
flavored cigarettes
in the last 30 days [1]. Among current middle and high
school tobacco users , more than 63 percent had used
a flavored e-cigarette, more than 60 percent had used
flavored hookah tobacco, and more than 63 percent had
used a flavored cigar in the past 30 days [1].
Findings from the 2015 nationwide Monitoring the Future
st udy found that about 40 percent of all students in 8th,
10th, and 12th grades who used vaporizers, such as
e-cigarettes, said that they used them because the flavors
tasted good, compared to the 10 percent that used them in
an attempt to quit smoking combustible c igarettes [27].
Flavored Tobacco Products are Heavily Marketed to Young
People [28] with Sweet Flavors and Colorful Packaging
Flavored tobacco products are very enticing to children
and even share the same names, packaging , and logos
as popular candy brands like Jolly Rancher, Kool-Aid,
and Life Savers [29] and gaming systems like Wii and
Gameboy.
Many of the flavoring chemicals used to flavor "che rry,"
"gra pe," "apple," "pe ach ," and "berry" tobacco products
are the same ones used to flavor Jolly Rancher candies,
Life Savers , Zotz ca ndy, and Kool-Aid drink mi x [29) .
Tobacco companies market their products to young
people through the use of youthful models, celebrities, sex
appeal, and peer oriented slogans [30].
Young people are much more likely to use candy-and
fruit-flavored tobacco products than adults [31].
Bright packaging and product placement at the register,
near candy, and often at children's eye-level, make
tobacco flavored products very visible to kids [32].
•• 3
Ca lifo rnia Tobacco Cont ro l Progra m
Flavors Make it More Enticing to
Smoke Tobacco and More Difficult to Quit
Flavorings help mask the naturally harsh taste of tobacco,
making flavored tobacco products more appealing to youth
and easier for youth to initiate and sustain tobacco use
[31].
Both the U.S . Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
the Surgeon General have warned that flavored tobacco
products help new users establish habits that can lead to
long -term addiction [3, 6].
Studies show that individuals who begin smoking at a
younger age are more li kely to develop a more severe
addiction to nicotine than those who start later [6].
Not only do flavors make it easier for new user~ to begin
smoking, but the presence of flavors li ke menthol in
tobacco products also make it more difficult for tobacco
users to quit [33].
make it more
appealing for new
users to buy and
smoke
Flavors in tobacco products:
mask the harsh taste of tobacco
-... iii ...
,,.,• •. '·'·,, "'• , ··-•--·. ,. ·.-<:.-:.
---_L __o_ ....... ±L.2¥~ • ---=• -'-""' -
help users establish
habits that can
lead to long-term
addiction
Flavored Tobacco Products are Cheaper and
Sold in Smaller Packages than Cigarettes
'' The tobacco industry has promoted little cigars,
which are comparable to cigarettes with regard to
shape, size, and packaging, as a lower cost alternative
to cigarettes [34]. ,,
While cigarettes must be s~ld in packs of 20, other
tobacco products, like little cigars, can be purchased in
quantities of one or two at a time, often for le ss than a
dollar [32].
Price discounts disproportionately affect vulnerable
populations including young peop le, racial/ethnic
minorities, and persons with low incomes, as these groups
are more likely to purchase tobacco products through a
discount [36, 6].
Price discounting has become the tobacco industry's
leading method of attracting users and accounts for the
largest percentage of marketing ex penditures [35].
Little Cigar
Cigarette
4
Californ ia Tobacco Contro l Program
Many Young Adults Falsely Believe that Flavored Tobacco
Products are Safer than Non-Flavored Tobacco Products
'' Flavored tobacco products are not only just as
harmful as combustible or smokeless tobacco
products, but they are also just as addictive [3].
A recent study found that people younger than 25 years of
age were more likely to say that hookahs and e-cigarettes
were safer than cigarettes [37].
Many studies indicate that cigar smokers misperceive
cigars as being less addictive, more "natural ," and less
harmful than cigarettes [38]. The misperception among
young people that other tobacco products are less harmful
than cigarettes, as well as the fact that these products are
less harsh to smoke and taste good, may contribute to the
increase in the use of other tobacco products by youth .
,,
A 2015 study found that only 19 percent of 8th graders
believe that there is a great risk of people harming
themselves with regular e-cigarette use, compared to 63
percent of 8th graders who think that there is a great risk
of people harming themselves by smoking one or more
packs of cigarettes a day [27].
Other tobacco products than cigarettes (OTP's) such as little
cigars, cigarillos, and hookah, like all tobacco products,
contain the addictive chemical nicotine which makes them
very hard to quit [39] and increases the risk of developing
serious health problems including lung cancer, heart
disease, and emphysema [40].
Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes Have
Been Linked to Severe Respiratory Disease
Certain chemicals used to flavor liquid nicotine, such as
diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and acetoin, are present in
many e-liquids at levels which are unsafe for inhalation [41].
Diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and acetoin are used in the
manufacture of food and e-liquid flavors such as butter,
caramel, butterscotch, piiia co/ado, and strawberry [7].
Diacetyl, when inhaled , is associated with the development
of the severe lung condition bronchiolitis obliterans, also
known as "popcorn lung," which causes an irreversible
loss of pulmonary function and damage to cell lining and
airways [42].
Healthy
lung
Popcorn
lung
2,3-pentanedione, a chemically similar substitute to diacetyl,
caused proliferation of fibrosis connective lung tissue and
airway fibrosis in an inhalation study performed on rats [43].
diacetyl
in
e-cigarette
liquids and
refill liquids
tested
A 2015 study by the Harvard
School of Public Health detected
at least one of the
three flavoring
chemicals
(diacetyl,
2,3-pentanedione,
or acetoin) in
92010
of the tested
e-cigarettes
and liquids [7]
5
California To ba cco Contro l Program
Works Cited
l . Carey, C.G., et al., Flavored tobacco product use among middle
and high school students-United States, 2014 . MMWR Marbitity
and Mortality Week ly Report, 2015. 64(38): p. 1066-1070.
2. Chen, C., et al., Levels of mint and wintergreen flavorant s: Smokeless
tobacco products vs. confectionery products. Food and chemical
to x icology, 2010. 48(2): p. 755-763.
3. Food and Drug Administration, Fact Sheet: Flavored Tobacco
Products. 2011.
4. National Cancer Institute , Cigar Smoking and Cancer, National
Institutes of Health , Editor. 2010.
5. Eaton, D.K., et al., Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States,
2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance
Summaries (Washington , DC: 2002), 2012. 61(4): p . 1-162 .
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Preventing tobacco
use among youth and young adults: a report af the Surgeon
General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion , Office
on Smoking and Health, 2012. 3 .
7. Joseph G. Allen, et al., Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes :
Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of
51 Products , Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored
E-Cigarettes. Environmental Health Perspectives , 2015.
8. Miech, R.A., Johnston , L. D., O'Malley, P. M ., Bachman, J. G.,
& Schu lenberg, J. E., Cigarillo use increases estimates of teen
smoking rates by half, University of M ichigan News Se rv ice, Editor.
December 16, 2015 : Ann Arbor, Ml.
9. Aki, E.A ., et al., The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on
health outcomes: a systematic review. International Journal of
Epid emiology, 2010 . 39(3): p . 834-857.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Cigars Fact Sheet,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Editor. 2015 .
11. National Cancer Institute. Cigar Smoking and Cancer. 2010.
12. ChangeLab Solutions, In Bad Toste : What Communities Can
Do About Fruit and Candy-Flavored Tobacco Products . 2014,
ChangeLob Sol untian s.
13. U.S. Deportment of Health and Human Services, Reducing tobacco
use : A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers Far Disease Control and
Prevention. National Center far Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Office an Smoking and Health , 2000.
14. Mayo Clinic. Health risks of chewing tobacco and other forms of
smokeless tobacco. Healthy Living : Quit Smoking 2014 November
15 , 2014 .
15. Boffetta , P., et al., Smokeless tobacco and cancer. The Lancet
Oncology, 2008. 9(7): p . 667-675.
16 . Marris, D.S., S.C. Fiala , and R. Pawlak , Peer Reviewed:
Opportunities for Policy Interventions to Reduce Youth Hookah
Smoking in the United States. Preventing Chronic Disease , 2012. 9 .
17. World Health Organizati on Study Group on Toba cco Prod uct
Regu lation, Advisory note : waterpipe tobacco smoking: health
effects, research needs and recommended actions by regulators-
2nd ed. 2015: World Health Organization.
18 . Primack , B.A., et al., Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of
Inhaled Toxicants from Waterpipe and Cigarette Smoking. Public
Health Reports , January-February 2016 . 131(1): p. 76-85.
19. Sonep, S., et al., Associations between initial waler pipe tobacco
smoking and snus use and subsequent cigarette smoking: results
Fram a longitudinal study o f US adolescents and young adults.
JAMA Pediatrics, 2014.
20. Zhu, S.-H., et a l., Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes
and counting: implications for product regulation. Tobac co co ntrol ,
2014. 23(suppl 3): p . iii3-iii9.
21. Daniels , M., The New Joe Camel in Your Pantry: Marketing liquid
nicotine to children with candy and cereal brands. 2015 , Fir st Focus:
Washington DC.
22 . Goniewicz, M.L., et al., Levels of selected carcinogens and lo xican ts
in vapour from electronic cigarettes . Tobacco Control, 2014. 23(2):
p. 133-139.
23. Mayer, B., How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the
generally accepted lethal do se to dubious self-experiments in the
nineteenth century. Archives of to xico logy, 2014. 88(1 ): p. 5-7.
24. Arrazo la, R.A., et al., Tobacco use among middle and high school
students-United States, 2011-2014. MMWR Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 2015. 64(14): p. 381-5.
25. Ambrose, B.K ., et al., Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US
Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-20 14. JAMA, 2015 : p. 1-3.
26. King, B.A ., et a l., Flavored-little-cigar and flavored-cigarette use
among US middle and high school students. Journal of Adolescent
Health , 2014 . 54(1): p . 40-46.
27. Miech, R.A., Johnston , L. D., O'Malley, P. M ., Bachman, J. G ., &
Schulenberg, J. E., Most youth use e-cigarettes far novelty, flavors
-not to quit smoking, University of Michigan News Service, Editor.
December 16, 2015: Ann Arbor, Ml.
28. Carpenter, C.M., et al., New cigarette brands with flavors that
appeal to youth: tobacco marketing strategies. Health Affairs,
2005. 24(6): p . 1601-1610.
29. Brown , J.E ., et a l., Candy flavorings in tobacco. New England
Journal of Medicine , 2014. 370(23): p. 2250-2252.
30. Kastygina, G., S.A. Glantz, and P.M. Ling, Tobacco industry use of
flavours to re cruit new users of little cigars and cigarillos. Tobacco
Co ntrol , 2014.
31. King , B.A., S.R . Dube, and M.A. Tynan, Flavored cigar smoking
among US adults: finding s from the 2009-2010 National Adult
Tobacco S urvey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2013. 15(2): p.
608-614.
32 . Oregan Public Health Division, Flavored Tobacco: Sweet, Cheap,
and Within Kids' Reach, in CD Summary. 2014, Oregon Health
Authority : Oregon.
33 . De ln evo, C.D., et al., Smoking-cessati o n prevalence among US
smokers of menthol versus non-menthol cigarettes. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 2011. 41 (4): p. 357-365.
34. Delnevo, C.D. and M . Hrywna , "A whole 'nother smoke" or a
cigarette in disguise: How RJ Reynolds reframed the image of little
cigars. American Journal of Public Health , 2007. 97(8): p . 1368.
35. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Tobacco Marketing that Reaches
Kids: Point-of-Sale Advertising and Promotions, Campaign for
Tobacco Free Kids, Editor. 2012.
36. White, V.M., et al., Cigarette promotional offers: who takes
advantage? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2006.
30(3): p . 225-231.
37. Wackowski, O.A . and C.D. Delnevo, Young Adults' Risk Perception s
of Various Tobacco Products Relative to Cigarettes Results From the
National Young Adult Health Survey. Health Education & Behavior,
2015.
38 . Cul len, J., et al., Seven-year patterns in US cigar use epidemiology
among young adults aged 18-25 years: a focus on race/ethnicity
and brand. American Journal of Public Health , 2011. 101 (10): p.
1955-1962.
39. U.S . Food and Drug Administration, FDA Parental Advisory on
Flavored Tobacco Products -What You Need To Know. 2015, U.S .
Food and Drug Administration .
40. U.S . Food and Drug Administrat ion, Flavored Tobacco Product Fact
Sheet. 2011, U.S. Food and Drug Administration .
41. Tierney, P.A., et al., Flavour chemicals in electronic cigarette Fluids.
Tobacco Control, 2015: p. tabaccaca ntral-20 14 -052 175.
42. Farsalinas , K.E., et al., Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and
aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxin s. Nicotine &
Toba cco Research, 2015 . 17(2): p . 168-174 .
43. Morgan, D.L., et al., Bronchial and bronchiolar fibrosis in rats exposed
lo 2, 3-pentanedione vapors: implications for bronchiolitis abliterans
in humans. Toxicolagic Pathology, 20 12. 40(3): p. 448-465.
3/20 17 6
.. . .
Flavoring chemicals used in some tobacco products the
same as those in popular candy
A Cherry Flavoring
7
"" C
]
xl.O x l.O ~a x0.5
i e
~
~ ~ ~l i ll
ol &":J
Jolly
Ra ncher
I
B Grape Flavoring
5
"" C
]
i
i
~ ~
0
xl.O
Jolly
Rancher
C Apple Fl•avoring
...
C -~
"' i e
j,
~
0
Joll y
Randier
Life Zotz
Saver
o l
Kool-
Aid
Cheyenne Swishe r
.. Cigar" Sweet
I
xl.O
Skoal
Snuff
xl.0
Zotz Kool • Cheyenne Phillies Kayak
Aid "'Cigar" Blunt Snuff
I
xl.O
Zotz Kayak Sko al Royal Blunt
Snuff Snuff Wrap
II -~
xl.0
Zig-Zag
Wra p
Zig-Zag
Wrap
xl.0
Zig-Zag
Wrap
0 Amyl acetate
■ p -anisaldehyde
E Benzaldehyde
ts, Benzyl alc b ho l
O y-decalactone
■ Ethyl butanoate
~ Ethyl c 1nnamate
0 Ethyl v.1nillin
ES Furfural
B Fu rfuryl alc ohol
P2 ,B-tO none
D Methyl salicyl.ne
0 Piperonal
Ei Raspberry ketone
O p-tolualdehyde
0 y-undecalactone
0 Vanillin
Benzaldehyde
~ Benzyl alc ohol
D Cinnamyl alcohol
Serving Sizes
I Jolly Ra ne.he r
1 Life S.,ve r
l Zotz
0.5 g Kool-Aid
1 Cheyen ne ··agar"
l Swisher Sw~t
1 g Skoal snuff
l Zig-Za g wrap
■ Dimethyl benzyl carbinyl butanoate
■ Ethyl buta noate
fSJ Ethyl iso butanoate
II Ethy l maltol
~ Furfural
Furfuryl alcohol
Ethyl hept.inoate
D {Z)-3 -hexen-l ..ol
0 Limonene
D /3 -linalool
• Methyl anthr.inil.ite
01] Metl,yl cinnamate
0 Menthol
l!I Raspberry ke tone
~ R;1Spbcrry ketone methyl ether
0 Vanillin
■ Benzaldehyde
Serving Sizes
I Jolly R.ancher
1 Zotz
O.S g Kool-A id
l Cheyenne Mciga,~
1 Phillies Blunt
l g Kayak s nuff
l Zig-Zag wrap
O Benzaldehyde propylene glycol acetal
~ Benzyl alcohol
~ Ethy l decanoate
0 Ethyl v.anilli n
0 Eugcnol
Iii Furfuryl alcohol
■ l-Hexanol
0 {Z)-3-hexen -l-ol
O (Z}-3-hcxen-l-yl acetate
D Hexyl acetate
EJ tso;amyl v.i ler;ate
D ,9-linalool
EJ 2-Methylbutyl acetat e
0 Piperonal
I! Ra s pberry ketone
D Vanillin
Serving Sizes
1 Jolly Rancher
l Zott
1 g K.aya k snuff
1 g Skoal snuff
1 Royal Blunt wrap
1 Zig-Zag_ wrap
Brown,JE.etaJ.Candyjl{l\,fJringsint.obacm.NwFn~JoumaofMedidne,2014370(23):p.2250-2252.
63% of current e-cigarette users
have used a flavored e-cigarette
'
~
\I·.,.-,'f =. "" j
"1 \. ·.... ;\ . '•.,:f ,.,
•,,
1 ·••,,, ... ,,, ,'.\,.,..,,.,.,.,,., .
/
__,,,
64% of current cigar users have
used a flavored cigar
61% of current hookah users have
used a flavored hookah
Corey, C.G ., et al., 2014
I
I
I
I .... ,,,;"
~he Evidence:
Tobacco companies spend millions of dollars each year on community stores to
heavily promote and strategically price their products.1 Exposure to this marketing
in the retail environment highly encourages initiation and consumption of tobacco
use, especially among youth.
•► Research shows that smoking rates increase among young adults and minors
when inexpensive tobacco products become available. 2
' + The redemption of tobacco product discounts, coupons, and promotions allows the
tobacco industry to capture price-sensitive consumers, such as young adults and
low-income individuals .
Studies indicate that tobacco pricing strategies serve as pro-tobacco advertising,
suggesting that exposure to tobacco product discounts, coupons and promotions
increases the likelihood of youth progression from experimentation to regular
smoking, and proves most influential among established smokers. 3, 8
Cheap prices for tobacco products are most available in low-income communities
of co lor, specifically those that are predominantly African American or Hispanic, in
addition to those that have the highest proportions of school-age youth and young
adults.4
WJ'J• Preliminary evidence suggests that establishing a minimum price for tobacco
products is a promising strategy in reducing tobacco use and tobacco-related
disparities among income groups, and may reduce disparities by race and
ethnicity. 5
V·COUPl3N
VUSE SOLO & CARTRIDGES
FO $1 EAC
I
I
•
•
• -• • -• -
+ Based on the results of the CDC's Community Prevention Services Task Force,
interventions that increase the unit price for tobacco products by 20% reduce
overall consumption of tobacco products by 10.4%, prevalence of adult tobacco use
by 3.6%, and initiation of tobacco use by young people by 8.6%. Thus, increasing
tobacco product prices helps prevent initiation of tobacco use, and reduces overall
tobacco usage among youth and adults. 6
r+ Establishing a minimum price for tobacco products and prohibiting the redemption
of tobacco product discounts, coupons, and promotions are effective ways to
reduce smoking and tobacco usage. Specifically, these interventions can protect
youth by limiting their exposure and reduce susceptibility and initiation.
Why Pack Size Matters:
mzt> While federal law prohibits the sale of individual cigarettes, many retailers currently
sell flavored cigars, little cigars, and cigarillos individually, making them appealing
and more affo rdab le to youth.2
~ The packaging of tobacco products that often comes in small sizes for cigars,
cigarillos and smokeless tobacco, is an important marketing and promotional
tool that is used by tobacco companies to target children and youth.
_,. Given that tobacco products tend to be placed conveniently near retailer
check-outs, the sale of single cigars, cigarillos and smokeless tobacco
contribute to impulsive or unplanned purchases.6
• Seeing that there are no minimum package size requirements for tobacco
products other than cigarettes, establishing a pack size for tobacco products
such as cigars, cigarillos and smokeless tobacco, can improve the public's health
and protect price-sensitive youth?
I
---------------~l• • .•. • • • • • -• .. •
• •
• • t
• -• -•
Tobacco-Free Pharmacy Legislative Policie s
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is this neces sary?
According to the CDC, tobacco-related disease claims 480,000 lives every single year in the US . Did you
know that the United States is virtually the only country in the world where tobacco products are sold in
a business that is licensed as a pharmacy? A local legislative policy, as has been passed in San Francisco,
Boston and number of other cities will reduce the number of tobacco outlets and enable pharmacists to
dispense medications in the back of the store without addictive and deadly tobacco being sold at the
front of the store.
What kind of support is there?
Pharmacists, pharmacy schools such as UCSF and Touro University, the State of California Board of
Pharmacy, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung
Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, Breathe California, California Association of Retired
Americans , California Dental Hygienists Association and Youth Leadership Institute are among the early
leaders that have pledged support for local tobacco-free pharmacy policies . Twenty-one (21) California
communities have passed a legislative policy that eliminates tobacco retailer licenses for pharmacies :
San Francisco, Richmond, Unincorporated Santa Clara, Unincorporated Marin, Berkeley, Healdsburg,
Hollister, Daly City, Unincorporated Sonoma, Novato, Lo s Gatos, Unincorporated Contra Costa , Palo Alto,
Fairfax, Cloverdale, Unincorporated San Mateo, Tiburon, Portola Valley, Saratoga, Half Moon Bay and
Alameda. New York City joined the list in 2017.
Will a local tobacco-free pharmacy policy actually do anything to help reduce smoking?
More study is needed, but CVS Health published a paper looking at the amount of tobacco being
purchased in San Francisco and Boston, communities that no longer provide a tobacco retail license to
any pharmacy, be they independent pharmacies , chain drugstores, or big bo x or grocery stores with
pharmacies. The study showed the enactment of policies to eliminate the sale of tobacco products at
retailers with pharmacies in San Francisco and Boston was associated with up to a 13 .3 percent
reduction in purchases of tobacco products . The study can be read here :
http://www .cvs h ea Ith .com/s ites/ d efa u lt/fi I es/Tobacco Poli cyResea rch Letter Final . pdf
Will this hurt small business?
Very few independent pharmacies exist anymore, and of those that exist, virtually all are tobacco-free .
Even the big chain pharmacies don't seem to have been hurt by not being able to sell tobacco . Even
after San Francisco st opped issuing tobacco retailer licenses to pharmacies in 2008, within the year,
Walgreens opened a half-dozen more locations in the city, all required to be tobacco -free.
-over-
Why not stop the sale of other unhealthy products like soda, alcohol and candy?
Although there may be support for restricting the sale of soda, alcohol and candy in licensed
pharmacies, decades of science point to tobacco as the one product when used as directed, kills.
Cigarettes are not a food or a medication and as such have no nutritional or medicinal value . They are
addictive and deadly and according to the CDC, are associated with over two dozen illnesses .
Some companies have already acted voluntarily . Why is a law necessary?
While it's wonderful that independent pharmacies and chains like CVS and Target have corporate
policies to not sell tobacco, it's also very important to work towards enacting community-wide laws. A
law creates parity by applying equally to all stores with pharmacies, and laws are also sustainable and
legally enforceable, while a corporate policy could be revoked at will.
Would a law like this be difficult to enforce?
Fines for non-compliance and enforcement agencies vary by city and county . But in the communities
where tobacco-free policies have been enacted, stores that have been notified by their local health
departments have generally complied immediately. For example, when San Francisco pharmacies were
no longer eligible for a local tobacco retailer license past Oct 1, 2008, the many pharmacies that had
been selling tobacco (ie Walgreens, Safeway, Costco) immediately removed all tobacco products from
their shelves.
What other resources are available on tobacco-free pharmacies?
http ://countertobacco.org/tobacco-free-pharmac ies
http://www. no-smoke. org/lea rn more . p hp ?id=615
http://changelabso lutions.org/pub li cations/tobacco-free-pharmacies
https ://www .tecc.org/sea rch/sp/a-guid e-to-toba cco-free -pha rmacies-ma nua I/
http://en .w ik ipedia.org/w iki/Tobacco-Free Pharmacie s
http://www.tobaccofreerx.org/ #!bib liogra phy-2/ c bbo
http://www.lgbtpartnersh ip.org/pharmacy.htm l
Revised November 15, 2018
Bob Gordon
bob@ lgbtpartnership .org 415-436-9182
California L GBT Tobacc o E d ucation Pa rtnership
Bob Go rdo n, Projec t Direc to r
Ca li fo rn ia LGBT Tobacco Educatio n Part ners hip
1270 Sanc hez Stree t
Sa n Fra ncisco, CA 94 11 4
4 15-436-9 182
bob @lg bt part ners hi p.o rg
LOCAL SUMMARY OF TOBACCO-FREE PHARMACY LAWS IN CALIFORN IA as o f Nov emb e r 1s, 20 1s
MUN ICIPALITY (RETAILERS
AFFECTED)
I. Sa n Fra ncisco ( 126) Walgree ns 67 locat ions
Effec ti ve Oct 2008 Va rio us In de pende nt Phar mac ies 26 locatio ns
CVS 13 locat ions
Safeway IO locat ions
Lucky 2 loca tio ns
Target 2 locati ons
AHF 2 locat ions
We llm an's 2 locat ions
Pharm aca I locat ion
Costco I locat ion
2. Richmo nd (6) Cen tra l Pharm acy (In d) 2300 Macdo nald Ave nu e
Passed Nov 2009 Costco 480 I Ce nt ra l Ave nu e
CVS 2 15 I Meeker Ave nu e
Targe t 4500 Mac donald Ave nu e
Wa lgree ns 1150 Macdo nald Ave nu e
Wa lm art 1400 Hillto p Ma ll Road
3. Unin co rp ora ted Sa nt a Clara (0) Passed Oc t 20 I 0
4. Unin corpora ted Ma rin (4) CVS 150 Do nahu e Str ee t, Sa usali to (Ma rin C ity)
Passe d Aug 20 14 Sa feway I IO Straw berry Vill age (M ill Vall ey)
Wa l gree ns 227 Shore li ne Highway (M ill Va ll ey)
Wes t Ma rin Phar macy (I nd) 4'h/A S tree t (P t.Reyes Stati o n)
5. Be rke ley ( 17) Abbo tt s Co mp o un d in g (I nd) 2320 Woo lsey St
Passed Se p 20 14 C VS 2655 Te legra ph Ave
CVS 145 1 S hattuck Ave
CVS 2300 Shatt uck Ave
Orate Pharmacy (I nd) 2390 Shattu ck Ave
Mil via Pharm acy (In d) 2500 Mil via Str ee t
Pharmaca 1744 So lano Ave
Safeway (no TRL) 32 10 Co ll ege Ave
Sa feway 1444 Shattuck Plac e
Sa l's Phar macy (I nd) 183 1 So lano Ave
Uni ted Ph arm acy (In d) 2929 Te legra ph Ave
Wa l greens 2995 San Pab lo Ave
Wa l gree ns I 050 Gillm an St
Wa l gree ns 23 10 Te legra ph Ave
Wa l gree ns 1607 Shattuck Ave
Wa l gree ns 2 190 Shat tu ck Ave
Wa l gree ns 280 I Ade lin e St
6. Hea ld sb ur g (3) CVS 455 Ce nt er St
Pa sse d Nov 20 14 Rit e Aid 525 Hea ld sb ur g Ave
Safeway 11 5 Vin e St
7. Ho lli ster (7) ANSR (In d) 58 1 McCray St
Pas se d Jun e 20 15 Nob Hill Pharmacy 1700 A irlin e Highway
Rite Aid 170 I Airli ne Hig hway
Safeway 59 1 Tres Pi nos Rd
SaveMart 29 1 McCray St
Target 1790 Airli ne Hig hway
Wa l g reens 600 Tres Pinos Rd
8. Da ly Ci ty (7) Apo th ecary Pharm acy (Ind) 1500 So uthgate Ave
Passed Sep 20 I 5 CVS 375 Ge ll ert B lvd
Lucky Supermarket 6843 Miss io n Street
Target 133 Serrarn o nte Ce nt er
Wa l greens 22 San Pedro Road
Wa l greens 2 16 West lake Cente r
Wa l gree ns 6 100 Mission Stree t
9. Uni ncorpora ted Sonoma (2) Lark Dru gs Phar macy (In cl) 1625 I Mai n St reet, Guern ev ill e
Passed Apri l 19, 20 16 Safeway Pharmacy 16405 Rive r Road , Guernevi ll e
10. Nova to Costco 300 Vi ntage Way
Passed Ja n 24 , 20 17 (7) CVS 2035 Novato Blvd
CVS 1707 Gra nt Ave nu e
Pharmaca 75 14 Redwood Blvd
Ri te Aid 9 IO Diablo Ave nu e
Safeway 5720 Nave Drive
Ta rge t (CVS) 200 Vintage Way
II . Los Gatos ( 12) CVS Pharmacy 750 Blosso m Hi ll Road
Passed May 17, 20 17 CVS Phar macy 1496 Po ll ard Road
Ho rizo ns Pharm acy I 595 I Los Gatos Blvd
Pharn1aca 54 N Santa Cruz Ave nu e
Rit e Aid I 5920 Los Ga tos Blvd
Safeway 15549 Unio n Avenue
Safeway 470 N Santa Cruz Ave nue
Si li co n Va ll ey Pharmacy 14 107 Wi nchester Blvd
Sorci Pharmacy 157 14 Los Gatos Blvd
Wa l gree ns 14100 Blosso m Hill Road
Wa l gree ns 423 N Sa nta Cruz Aven ue
We lln ess Pharn1acy 14777 Los Gatos Blvd
12. Co ntra Costa Unin corp. (9) CVS Phamiacy 14830 Hig hway 4 , Discove ry Bay
Passed July 11, 2017 CVS Phamiacy 3 158 Da nv ill e Blvd , Alamo
Pa rk Rexa ll 37 16 San Pab lo Darn Rel , El So bra nt e
Rit e Aid 130 AJa mo Plaza , Ala mo
Safeway Phar macy 14840 Highway 4 , Discovery Bay
Sa m 's Club 1225 Co ncord Ave , Concord
Wa l gree ns 3630 San Pab lo Da rn Rel , El Sobrante
Wa l gree ns I 5650 San Pab lo Ave , Sa n Pab lo
Wa l gree ns 2700 Will ow Pass Rel , Bay Po in t
13. Pa lo Alt o (11 ) CVS Pharm acy 352 Uni vers ity Aven ue
Passed Se pte mb er 18, 20 17 CVS Pharmacy 270 I Midd lefie ld Road
CVS Pharmacy 855 El Ca mi no Rea l
DiscoRex Walgree ns 328 Unive rs ity Ave nu e
Max im arl Pharm acy 240 Cambridge A ve nu e
Med ica l Plaza Pharm acy 2 1 I Quarry Road
Safeway Phannacy 28 1 I Midd lefie ld Road
Wa l gree ns 4170 El Camin o Rea l
Wa l gree ns 2605 Midd lefie ld Road
Wa l greens 300 Unive rsity Ave nu e
Wa l greens 795 El Ca min o Rea l
14 . Fairfax (0) Passe d Nov I, 20 17
15. Cloverda le (2) Clove rd ale Pharmac y 790 So uth Cloverd ale Bo ul eva rd
Pa sse d Dece mb er 12, 20 17 C VS Pharmacy I I I I So uth Cloverda le Bo ul eva rd
16. Sa n Mat eo Unin co rp . (0) Pa sse d .lun e 5, 201 8
17. T iburon (0) Passe d .lun e 20 , 20 18
18. Porto la Va ll ey (0) Pa sse d August 22 , 20 18
19. Sarato ga (I) CVS 12940 Sa rato ga Sunn yva le Road
Oc to be r 3, 2018
20 . Half Moo n Bay (3) CVS 60 Ca brillo Highway No rth
Passe d Oc tobe r 16, 20 18 Half Moo n Ba y Pharmacy 40 Sto ne Pin e Ro ad
Rite Aid 170 Sa n Mateo Road
21. Alameda ( 12) CVS 23 14 Sa nta Clara Ave nu e
Pa sse d Nove mb er 7 20 18 CVS 885 Is land Drive
CVS 93 1 Mari na Village Park way
CVS Ta rge t 2700 Fift h Str ee t
Midt own Pharm acy 2 173 Harbor Bay Parkw ay
Safo wa y 2227 So uth Shore Ce nt er
Safeway 867 Is land Dri ve
Safeway 26 00 Fill h Str ee t
Versa ill es Pharmac y 280 I Encin al Ave nu e
Wa l gree ns 2300 Otis Dri ve
Wal gree ns 19 16 We bs ter Driv e
Wal gree ns 1600 Park Str ee t
R[)1RlC11H[ )Al[ Of flAYORrn 10BAC(O rRODUC1)
Regulates the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes
Prohibits a tobacco retailer li cense from being issued to or renewed for a business
operating clo se to a sc h ool or other areas frequented by youth
TO~ACCO Rf1AILf R
[)1A8ll)H MINIMUM PRI([ FLOOR) FOR 108ACCO PRODUC1)
Requires that cigarettes, little cigars and cigars be sold at a certain price to reduce access
to tobacco products among price-sensitive groups
ll([N~ING (Hl)
A local law that requires
businesses that sell tobacco
products to obtain a license
from the city and holds these
businesses accountable to
follow the city's tobacco sales
provisions. This provides an
effective enforcement
mechanism and functions to
regulate tobacco products
locally by enforcing TRL
provisions such as:
[~1AHirn A MINIMUM rA(K ~Il[ fOR UHL[ CIGAR~ AND CIGAR~
Requires that little cigars and cigars be so ld in packages of a certain size, to reduce
access to tobacco products among price-sensitive groups
Does not allow the redemption of discounts, coupons and promotions for tobacco
products
rRoHrnn TO~A((O )Alt) IN rHARMAClt)
Does not a llow businesses that contain pharmacies to obtain a tobacco retail li cense
Rrnun 10BA((0 Rf1All[R D[ N)I1Y
Cap the tot a l number of tobac co retail er licen ses that can be iss ued in (a) a geographic
area or (b) relative to population size
S1RONG 10~A((0 ~Al[ rROVI~ION~ IMrROV[
PUBLIC HfAL1H & ADVANU HfAL1H [QU11Y BY:
Reducing racial & geographic targeting & disparities
Reducing income-based disparities in smoking rates
Encouraging & facilitating quit attempts
Discouraging youth initiation
1Rl-rROGRAM HHCHV[N[SS
DH[NDS ON:
A TRL program's effectiveness depends on a licensing fee
that is set at no more than the actual costs incurred by
the government to run the program. The licensing fee
covers the administration and enforcement costs and it
is meant to fulfill the needs required to implement and
enforce the tobacco retail licensing law.
Tobacco etailer licensing
s Effective TA MERICAN
LUNG
ASSOCI ATION.
IN CAUFORNI,\
THE CENTER
for Tobacco Po li cy& Organ izing
SEPTEMBER 2018
In Ca pforni a, 144 co mmunities have adopted strong loca l
tobacco retai ler li ce nsing ordinance s in an effort to red uce
il lega l sa les of tobacco products t o min ors . That includ es the
fo ll owing fo ur components:
., Li ce nse that all retailers mu st obtain in order to se ll
tob acco products and that mu st b e ren ewe d an nu all y.
• A fee set hi gh enou g h to su ffici e ntly fund an effec tive
pro g ram includin g ad mini st ration of th e program and
enforce ment efforts. An e nforce me nt p lan, t hat in clud es
co mpli ance chec ks, sho uld be c lea rl y state d .
• Coo rdin ati o n of tobacco regulation s so that a v iol ation
of any ex istin g loca l, sta t e or federa l tobacco regu lati o n
viol at es th e li cense.
• A financia l deterrent throu gh fmes and penalties in cluding
the suspe nsion and revocation of th e li ce nse . Fin es and
penalties sho uld be o utlined in the o rdin ance.
The tab le be low li st s ill ega l sa les rates t o minors before
and afte r a stron g li ce nsin g law was enacte d. T hese sa les
rate s were determin ed by youth tobacco purcha se surveys
ad mini ste red by lo ca l age ncies. It is im portant to note
that res ults from the youth tobacco purchase su rveys
have a numb e r of different factors t hat influence c hange.
Res ults from th ese surveys are so m ew hat de pe nd e nt
on certa in facto rs t hat differ in eac h com munity, such as
the age of the youth an d t he number of stores surveyed .
Furthermore, other factors that cou ld im pact these rates
include statew id e laws , oth er city policies, or sta t ewi d e
or natio nal m edia cam p aigns. T he cl ata be low shows that
the se decrease s occ ur afte r a to bacco retail er li ce n se has
bee n esta bli she d. Th e results o verwh elmin gly demonstrat e
that lo ca l tobacco reta il er li censing ord in ances w ith stro ng
enforce me nt provi sion s are effective. Rates of ill ega l
tobacco sa les to minors hav e d ec reased, often sig nifi ca nt ly,
in all municipaliti es w ith a stron g tobacco retailer li cens in g
ordinance where there is before and afte r youth sa les rate
data ava il ab le. However, a lice nsin g o rdin ance by itse lf wi ll
not auto matica lly dec re ase sa les rates; proper ed ucatio n
and enforce ment about th e local ordinance and state yo uth
access laws are alway s nee d ed .
Before and after youth sales rate data is available for the
following 4 1 California communities with strong licensin g
ordinances·· Bann in g, Baldwin Park , Beaumo nt, Be rk e ley,
Burb an k, Ca labasas, Ca rp entari a, Coac hell a, Co ntra Costa
Co unty, Coro na, Davi s, D e lano, De se rt Hot Sp rin gs, El
Ca j on, Elk Grove, Goleta, Grass Vall ey. Grove r Beach,
l<ern Cou nty, La Ca nada Flintrid ge. Los Angeles Co unty,
Morgan Hill , Murriet a, Norco , Orov ill e, Pasade na, Riversid e,
Rosem ea d, Sac ramento , Sacramento Cou nty, Sa n Fernando.
Sa n Franc isco, San Luis Obispo , San Lui s Ob ispo County,
Santa Ba rb ara Co un ty, Sonoma County, Te hac hapi , Vista,
Winters, W oodla nd , and Yolo County.
Fo r more reso urces o n t hese ord in ances, in cludin g
th e Matrix o f Stro ng Loca l Tobac co Reta il er Li ce n sin g
O rdin ances with po li cy and enforcement d eta il s for eve ry
strong ordina nce in t he state, vi sit:
l!:li:1..W Ce nt er4JobaccoPoii cy org
For mod e l tobacco reta il er li ce n sin g ordinance langua ge,
v isit Change Lab So lu tions at change!abso!utjons org
The Ce nte r for Tobacco Pol icy & Orga ni zing I Arnerkan Lung Assoc iatio n in Ca li forn ia
1521. I Street. Suite 201, Sacrnrne nto, CA 95814 I Phone: (9'.l6) 554.5864 I Fax: (916) 442.8585
\1;)2018. C;il iforniil Deparlment of Public H ealth. Funded um.l er contract l/'14-'l0013.
T H E CE NTER FOR TOBACCO PO LI CY & ORG ANI Z ING Page 2 of 2
Table of youth sales rates befo re and after the adoption of a strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinance
Banning August 2006 $350 77% 21%
Baldwin Park October 2008 $342 34% 9%
Beaumont December 2006 $350 63% 20%
Berkeley December 2002 $427* 38% 4.2%
Burbank February 2007 $235 26.7% 5%
Calabasas June 2009 $0 * 30.8% 5%
Carpe ntaria Apri l 2012 $379 26% 7%
Coache ll a July 2009 $350 69% 11%
Co ntra Costa County January 2003 $160' 37% 13%
Corona October 2005 $350 50% 17%
Davis August 2007 $377 30.5% 12%
De lano June 2 008 $165 23% 5.6%
Desert H ot Springs August 2007 $350 48% 4%
El Cajon Jun e 2004 $698 40% 1%
Elk Grove September 2004 $270 17% 16.7%
Go leta May 2014 $534 21% 7%
Grass Va lley November 2009 $100 27% 0%
Grover Beach September 2005 $244 46% 17%
l<ern County November 2006 $165 34% 13.3%
La Canada Fli ntridge June 2009 $50* 47.1% 0%
Los Angeles County December 2007 $235 30.6% 8%
Morgan Hil l April 2014 $125 15% 0%
Murrieta May 2006 $350 31% 7%
Norco March 2006 $350 40% 6%
Oroville March 2013 $30 22 .6% 0%
Pasadena January 2004 $225 29% 0%
Rivers ide May 2006 $350 65% 31%
Rosemead July 2017 $235 32% 22%
Sacrame nto March 2004 $324 27% 15.1%
Sacra mento County May 2004 $287 21% 7.1%
San Fernando October 2008 $250 38.5% 3%
San Franc isco November 2003 $175' 22.3% 1;3,4%
San Lui s Obispo August 2003 $255 17% 13%
San Luis Obispo County October 2008 $342 33.3% 5%
Santa Barbara County November 2010 $235 21% 3%
Sonoma County April 20 16 $350 1B.4% 1.3%
Tehachapi February 2007 $165 8% 16 .7%
Vista May 2005 $250 39% 1.9%
Winters January 2016 $377 47% 19%
Wood land June 2015 $377 32% 8%
Yo lo Coun ty May 2006 $377 28% 7.8%
'City or County fee does not fully cover admi ni stration and e nforceme nt of the tobacco-retai ler li cense. Rat her, the fee is supp lemental with anoth er
stable source of funds, such as the Master Settleme nt Agreement (MSA) funds o r genera l funds. See the Center's Matrix of Strong Local Tobacco Retailer
Licensing Ordinances for full details abo ut t h e administration and enforcement of these ordi nances.
Th e Ce nter for To bacco Po licy & Organ izin g I Am erican Lun g Ass ociation in Cal i fornia
153 11 Stree t. Suite 20 1, Sacramento, CA 958 14 I Ph one: (91 6) 55 4.58 64 I Fa x : (916) 442.85 8 5
tti2018. Cci li fo rni a Oep;irtme nl of Puhl ic Health. Fu nde d un<..l e!' contract 11 1 4-10 01 3.
cc 11-5-19
Item # 10 Canyon View
GP A Authorization
Written Communications
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:J. Maggie Yang <maggie.jyang@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:27 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Please vote yes on Canyon View Project
City Council Members,
My name is Maggie Yang and I work at Apple in Cupertino. I love the good schools and the beautiful
environment of Cupertino but couldn't afford a home here, so I was forced to buy a home in Fremont, and
spend about two hours on commuting every single day.
Please vote yes on Canyon View Project for providing more much needed single family homes!
Thanks,
Maggie Yang
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Yiren Wang <yrwang0715@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:44 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Cupertino residents support Canyon View Project
Dear Council Members,
My name is Yiren Wang and I live on 10325 calvert Dr near rancho, I support the Canyon View Development.
The development is still relatively low density that fits the hillside natural environment. The proposed trail connects Linda Vista
Park, Stevens County Park, and Fremont Older Open Space, which provides a safe route for locals to access the natural beauty in
this area.
Best,
Yiren Wang
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:08 PM
To:Grace Schmidt, MMC
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office
Subject:Fwd: Please post the Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application files accepted by Planning (Jeffrey
Tsumura) on May 10, 2019
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in the Written Communications for Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting. Thanks.
******** Please include this e‐mail in Public Records *******
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Date: October 26, 2019 at 4:34:55 PM PDT
To: Erick Serrano <ericks@cupertino.org>
Cc: benjaminf@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org
Subject: Please post the Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application files accepted by Planning
(Jeffrey Tsumura) on May 10, 2019
Hi Erick,
Please post the files submitted with the Canyon View GPA Authorization Application on May 10,
2019. Please post these to the 2019 Second Cycle webpage. Cupertino residents want to view them.
To differentiate these May 10, 2019 originals from those created and posted in October 2019, please add
Rev0 or Original or "your choice" to their filenames. Thanks.
James (Jim) Moore
Cupertino resident
****************. Please include this request in the Public Record ****************
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: Linda Vista Park Notification Sign for Canyon View project
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:12 PM
To: Grace Schmidt, MMC <graces@cupertino.org>
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; City
Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Linda Vista Park Notification Sign for Canyon View project
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item#10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting.
****** Please include this e‐mail in Public Records ******
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Date: October 27, 2019 at 12:20:16 AM PDT
To: Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org>
Cc: planning@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org
Subject: Linda Vista Park Notification Sign for Canyon View project
Hi Erick,
The Notification Sign for the Canyon View project is now more approachable than its initial
location. However, when the sun shines on it, the sign text becomes unreadable as the links of the fence
create shadows. The two attached photos show what happens.
This sign is made without an opaque backing, and is not readable for the better part of the day while
attached to this fence.
Please mount this Notification sign to a traditional stand with plywood backing, and install this stand at the
SW corner of the Linda Vista Park access roadway where it curves toward the parking area. At this
location, the left most paved path heads uphill to a play structure, and the right most paved path goes past
the wood posts towards the parking lot. This location provides shade for visitor viewing, and the stand-
mounted Notification sign will get maximum visibility from Park visitors.
If you have questions on this recommendation, reply to this e-mail. If Planning is not responsible for sign
placement, please let me know which department is responsible and I will contact them with this
recommendation. Thanks.
Jim Moore
Cupertino resident
******** Please include this in the Public Record *****************
Photo of sign taken from roadway (11:32 AM Saturday)
2
Up close Photo of sign (11:32AM Saturday)
PS: On Thursday morning, 10/24, about 9AM, I did not see this Notification sign when I walked my dog in
LV Park. I saw it Saturday morning (10/26) about 9AM when I walked my dog in the Park. I walk my dog
for two hours most mornings. I returned at 11:30AM Saturday to take photos and discovered the sign had
been remounted to the fence at a location nearer to the entrance gate. The new location is more
approachable (safer as there are no leaves covering its approach) but the sign is unreadable when the sun
is shining on it.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:15 PM
To:Grace Schmidt, MMC
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office; City Council
Subject:Fwd: Please remove the hearing for the Canyon View GPA Authorization from the 11/5/19 City Council
Meeting Agenda
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting.
******* Please include this e‐mail in Public Records *******
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Date: October 27, 2019 at 11:54:10 AM PDT
To: sscharf@cupertino.org, lchao@cupertino.org, Jon Robert Willey <jwilley@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul
<dpaul@cupertino.org>, rsinks@cupertino.org, manager@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupertino.org,
benjaminf@cupertino.org
Cc: "Grace Schmidt, Mmc" <graces@cupertino.org>
Subject: Please remove the hearing for the Canyon View GPA Authorization from the 11/5/19 City Council
Meeting Agenda
Please remove the hearing for the GPA Authorization for this Canyon View project from
the 11/5/2019 Cupertino City Council Agenda. This Application, as submitted on May 10, 2019, did not
meet City Submittal and Preliminary Plan Content Requirements as stated on Pages 3 & 4 of the Application
submittal package.
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=10804
Residents learned on Friday, 10/25/19, that the Canyon View Project documents submitted with its
Application on May 10, 2019, were so lacking in content and clarity that the Planning Department did not
understand the project proposal. This Planning Department assessment best explains why all the Project
documents posted to the 2019 GPA Authorization webpage have creation dates of October 2019. It took
until October 2019 for this Project's resubmitted documents to finally meet the City's Application
requirements.
Since there are City requirements for submitted Applications and these were not met by the Canyon View
Project, it did not qualify for acceptance by the Planning Department for a 2019 Second Cycle
review. Puzzling to residents, this project Application was listed online as a 2019 First Cycle Proposal until
corrected on Wednesday, 10/23/19.
It has now been improperly noticed to residents as a Cupertino City Council 2019 First Cycle GPA
Authorization hearing on November 5, 2019. Please remove this hearing from the 11/5/19 Agenda as its
Application did not meet City Submittal and Preliminary Plan Content Requirements when submitted five
months ago.
2
You can confirm that the Canyon View Project Application submittal did not meet City Application
requirements by comparing and contrasting the documents initially submitted with its Application in May
2019 to the October 2019 documents now posted to the 2019 GPA Authorization webpage. All posted
Application documents were created in October 2019, five months after the Application was originally
submitted.
Link to posted documents created in October 2019
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-
projects/general-plan-amendment-authorization
See Planning Department for Project documents submitted with its May 10, 2019 Application. Residents
have requested these initially submitted documents be posted for Public review.
James (Jim) Moore
Lindy Lane Resident
**************. Please include this request in Public Records *******************
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:33 PM
To:Grace Schmidt, MMC
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office; City Council
Subject:Fwd: Canyon View Project lack of noticing
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting.
Jim Moore
***** Please include this in the Public Record ****
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Date: October 29, 2019 at 1:16:36 PM PDT
To: xxxxx
Subject: Re: Canyon View Project lack of noticing
Hi,
Two neighbors on Lindy Lane, after our Saturday (10/26) mail delivery, told me they had not received the
Postcard. Two told me they did, plus Sue and I received ours in the Saturday delivery.
Another on my Friday e‐mailed list did not receive the Postcard on Friday but appears to have left on an out‐of‐
town trip before the Saturday delivery. I have not heard back from three others that had not received the
Postcard on Friday. Without these neighbors' responses, I do not know if they received a Postcard on Saturday
(or maybe even Monday or today since Sue and I left for Tahoe Monday at 9:45AM).
So far it is a mixed bag on Postcard receipt thru Saturday mail delivery, 10/26. Some did and some didn't.
Jim
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:50 PM
To:Grace Schmidt, MMC
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office; City Council
Subject:Fwd: Canyon View project - GPA Gateway application?
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting.
Jim Moore
***** Please include in Public Record *****
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Date: October 23, 2019 at 10:16:15 PM PDT
To: xxxx
Cc: yyyy
Subject: Re: Canyon View project ‐ GPA Gateway application?
Hi,
I want to share some more insightful numbers on this proposed Canyon View project.
The length of the straight section of the road downhill that ends when it does a right angle turn onto the
roadway exiting Linda Vista Park is 1180'.
Elevation at the top of the straight road at its closest curve is ~ 610' and elevation at LV Park roadway is ~
450'. Slope is ~ 14%. Slope = rise/run or ((610‐450)/1180). Drivers in a hurry on a 14% slope over a straight‐
away of 1180' can go fast. I hope they're awake for their morning commute with good reflexes when they reach
the LV Park roadway. If there is only a stop sign there, my experience living on a hilly corner of Lindy Lane for 39
years is that 20% will slow and stop, with the remaining 80% doing a CA stop and taking the turn as fast as they
think they can get away with.
Another interesting number is the average slope of the 25 home sites. Sum their slope numbers on pages 4 & 5
and divide by 25 gives an average slope of 27% (672.32/25).
As zzzz stated, riding a bike UP this steep a slope is challenging when the front wheel starts to lose contact with
the road. In Sunday's 10/20 meeting, I learned that the owner has picked out his lot, Lot #6. Lot#6 is the largest
and has the most flat space for building a rich man's house of 5,920 sqft. If you look at all the SFH home sites
and their FAR sqft maxs, only the upper 10%ers (the lesser Rich) can afford to buy these homes.
We have a large retaining wall across from our home that has totaled a few cars. The Lindy Lane slope past our
home is < 6% with a shorter straight‐away downhill. Luckily, we haven't been hit though we did lose our corner
Stop Sign a month ago. The firetruck came and then three police cars, and the woman's car was towed after an
hour wait by AAA. Sue and I watched the red lights from our balcony and our dog barked.
Jim
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: We and our neighbors here on Lindy Lane have not received the Citywide Notification Postcard for the
Canyon View GPA hearing on 11/5/2019
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:02 PM
To: Grace Schmidt, MMC <graces@cupertino.org>
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; City
Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: We and our neighbors here on Lindy Lane have not received the Citywide Notification Postcard for the Canyon
View GPA hearing on 11/5/2019
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting.
Jim Moore
**** Please include this in the Public Record *****
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Deborah L. Feng" <DebF@cupertino.org>
Date: October 26, 2019 at 6:10:44 PM PDT
To: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Cc: "Grace Schmidt, MMC" <graces@cupertino.org>, Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: We and our neighbors here on Lindy Lane have not received the Citywide Notification Postcard
for the Canyon View GPA hearing on 11/5/2019
Hi Jim,
Thanks for letting us know. We will look into it and address it.
Deb
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2019, at 1:35 PM, James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com> wrote:
Hi Grace,
I realize you are not working at the office today but still wanted to alert you that my neighbors
and I who live on Lindy Lane have not received the citywide Notification Postcard for the Canyon
View development proposal hearing on 11/5/2019. I sent an e‐mail last night (Friday, 10/25) to
my neighbors and all responded that they had not received a Postcard on this
development. Maybe? Today?
A Cupertino friend who lives two miles away received hers on Wednesday. Another friend who
lives 1 1/2 mile away, on McClellan, received his on Thursday. Yet my neighbors and I who live
2
in the next canyon over from Linda Vista Park (1/2 mile at the most) have not received this
promised Notification Postcard.
It appears to me, based on the limited evidence I've acquired, that those living farthest away
from Linda Vista Park are receiving Notification first. Is this how a Citywide Postcard
notification works? Farthest first, closest last?
The notified hearing date is 11/5/19, 9 ‐ 10 days from now depending on whether you count
11/5/19 as a notification day. Is there a minimum notification requirement in # of days for a
development notification to residents? What is that number or date (mm/dd) for this 11/5/19
hearing?
If we don't receive a Notification Postcard today (Hope Hope), I may make
copies of some of the online info and distribute to my neighbors so they are
aware of this development whose proposed street exits into Linda Vista Park, a
Park we all use, some neighbors daily. I walked my small dog through the Park
2X this week.
Sincerely,
James (Jim) Moore
43 year resident
***********. Please include this in the Public Record. ****************
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Munisekar <msekar@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:40 PM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Cc:City Clerk; Munisekaran Madhdhipatla
Subject:Canyon View Project - GPA process and lack there of...
Dear Mayor, Council and Manager,
I received a mailer from city on Oct 24, 2019 about an upcoming GPA authorization agenda item "Canyon View" on Nov 5, 2019.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting on Nov 5th due to travels; but, I want to make sure to register my voice.
On the surface, Canyon View project seems to be a reasonable‐density housing only project with 29 homes on 86 acres land. So,
my starting disposition was that I want to support this project. In general, I would like to support housing projects that seem
reasonable and fit with the character of our town.
As this is a GPA request and given the past history of bungled GPA requests, I started digging into this project little bit. I found
quite a few issues that raised my concerns that led my disposition from support to neutral. Here are my concerns...
1. The post card says "2019 First Cycle Proposal" but the city website says "2019 Second Cycle Proposal". Besides the
physical post card I received, even the soft copy of post card posted on our city website is inconsistent with the website.
How can there be such inconsistency?
2. I checked with some friends living closest to this property and none of them received the post card I received. Why no
post card to the people closest to this property?
3. The city staff seems to claim that this GPA proposal was submitted 6 or 9 months ago but the documents are being
posted online only about a week ago. Why secrecy?
4. The average grade of this property is 48% and every lot will have 20% to 30% average grade. In my opinion, it is too
steep.
5. The approach road to this property seems to have average of 14 or 15% grade of about 1000 feet long. I bike a lot and
go up Montebello road often. That road has an average slope of 7.9% and 16% at its steepest. The approach road to this
property is going to be twice steep compared to Montebello Road's average. When I biked on Welch Creek road with
25% grade, the my bikes front wheels were lifting up; I had to abandon the ride. This means, average people cannot walk
or bike up this street with 14 ‐ 15% grade.
I get the impression that many residents are questioning how this project is being handled by the city staff. The last thing I want
to see is our residents losing confidence in our elected council like it was the case 4 years ago.
I request that you postpone the GPA request given the inconsistencies (First cycle vs. Second cycle) and rush nature. This will
give residents time to understand this GPA and support it appropriately.
Also, please make it clear to the city staff to handle sensitive city matters as transparently as possible and follow the process
very diligently. No short cuts or discretion what so ever.
Thanks for listening.
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Danessa Techmanski <danessa@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:44 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Deborah L. Feng; Heather Minner; Darcy Paul; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey
Subject:November 5th Canyon View Project Application, Item #10
Dear Grace,
In discussing the Canyon View Application with friends who live in that area It appears that folks are having difficulty
understanding the GPA criteria and cutoff requirements as it looks like the project missed the GPA cutoff date. Is there some
way that the City could clarify this process (for all projects) and make it available to residents on the City website to ensure that
our Planning Dept. is following the required process?
Perhaps this could be achieved for each development project with a simple standard flow chart posted on the City website so
that residents could easily follow the progress along. Each box in the chart could have a pending or completion date posted as
requirements are met. This will ensure that all steps are followed in the required order and that nothing gets skipped or exceeds
GPA deadlines.
Please include this email in the Written Communications for the 11/5/2019 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #10, and enter
it into the Public Record.
Thank you sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Qing Wang <qingwubc@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2019 11:51 AM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Vote YES on Canyon View Project
Dear City Council,
This is Qing Wang. I am writing to you in strong support of Canyon View Project.
I live in Cupertino and also work in the city. Through the past few years I have seen housing price of Cupertino rocket
through the roofs, and we don’t have enough house supply. For the sake of affordable housing for working families, I
strongly request that members of our city council vote YES for Canyon View Project.
Sincerely,
Qing Wang, resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:niusha taghvaei <niusha.taghvaei@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2019 6:23 PM
To:City Council
Subject:support Canyon View Project
Dear Council Members,
My name is Niusha and I work in the Cupertino area, I love the good schools and the beautiful environment of Cupertino but
couldn't afford a home here, so I was forced to live Far and spend about two hours on commuting every single day.
I support the Canyon View Project for providing more affordable units for needed single-family homes.
Best Regards,
Niusha
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application Form: who signed and when?
From: Maxcinco <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 7:46 PM
To: Grace Schmidt, MMC <graces@cupertino.org>
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application Form: who signed and when?
Hi Grace,
Please include this e‐mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 City Council meeting.
Jim Moore
Resident
***** Please include in Public Records *****
Begin forwarded message:
From: Maxcinco <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Date: October 24, 2019 at 1:46:37 PM PDT
To: Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org>
Cc: planning@cupertino.org, manager@cupertino.org, CityCouncil@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupertino.org
Subject: Re: Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application Form: who signed and when?
Hi Erick,
Thanks for responding.
Why is this, my request reminiscent of the idiom "like pulling teeth"?
In my latest e‐mail, I asked you to confirm that my interpretation of your most recent reply was correct re the
signer and the date on this Application form, and you didn't affirm or deny.
Then I asked to view the bottom 1 1/4" of this form when I stopped by this afternoon, and you responded that
you were unavailable this afternoon and could meet tomorrow. I did not ask for a meeting. I just want to view a
piece of paper. Why is my simple request for two pieces of information and a viewing of that same paper
eliciting this amount of hesitance and obtuseness by City Planning staff? Why is satisfying my simple request so
difficult? Are your responses to my request as a Cupertino resident the norm for City Planning staff? Please
advise.
I am, with this request and related research, trying to discover why Cupertino residents, like myself, did not
learn of this project until one week ago. Why, if a GPA Authorization Form was supposedly submitted in May
2019, qualifying it for a First Cycle hearing, did residents not learn of this Application until one week ago, five
months after it was supposedly submitted and qualified? I learned about this project from a P & R
commissioner on Friday, 10/18, attended a meeting hosted by the owner and Gilbert Wong on Sunday, 10/20,
visited Cupertino.org to learn more on this project, and found nothing. Info on this Canyon View project
appeared only after Peggy Griffin, a fellow meeting attendee, inquired as to when this applicant's paperwork
2
would be posted. The following day, Tuesday, 10/22, we were able to view some paperwork (digital), and
yesterday your name and e‐mail address was added as a Planning Department contact.
I've encountered numerous surprises regarding this project's non‐transparency to residents, and can only
explain its 5‐month delay in being kept from the Public, by accepting that this project and its associated City
Planning staff are in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
As a 40 year enjoyer of Linda Vista Park, I am not opposed to this housing‐only project. I am opposed to its only
street access being the roadway/pathway to LV Park, as this project's construction traffic and subsequent
housing traffic would create an unsafe and dangerous access route for all those residents, 3/4s on foot and 1/4
by car, to this quiet, hilly, tree‐shaded neighborhood city park. I live on Lindy Lane, one canyon over, and would
prefer that this project's street access be via the top of Lindy Lane. The top of Lindy Lane, my street, abuts this
property via a roadway shown on the SCC GIS map. More traffic for me and my neighbors but continuing safe
use of our neighborhood Linda Vista Park.
Jim Moore
43 year resident
408‐253‐4574
On Oct 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Jim,
I’m not available this afternoon to meet. I’m on counter tomorrow morning from 7:30am to
12:00pm. If you would like to come by then, I should be available.
<image001.png>
Erick Serrano
Senior Planner
Planning Division
ErickS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3205
<image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png><image007.png><
From: Maxcinco <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 11:55 AM
To: Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org>
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application Form: who signed and when?
Hi Erick,
Thanks for the timely reply. Your reply appears to indicate that Jeffrey Tsumura, a co‐worker
and planner, accepted and signed his name at the bottom of this Canyon View Application Form,
and entered May 10, 2019 as the date he received and accepted this Application. Is my
interpretation of your reply correct? Please advise.
I will stop by the Planning Department this afternoon to view the bottom 1 1/4" of this Canyon
View Application Form.
Should I ask for you when I stop by?
Jim Moore
408‐253‐4574
3
On Oct 24, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Another planner, Jeffrey Tsumura, took in the application on my behalf on May
10th. I was out of the office that day.
<image001.png>
Erick Serrano
Senior Planner
Planning Division
ErickS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3205
<image003.png><image005.png><image007.png><image009.png><image011.png><image01
From: Maxcinco <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 11:21 AM
To: Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org>
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application Form: who
signed and when?
Hi Erick,
Thanks for your reply. The only info I am requesting is at the bottom of the
Application Form. Who (City staff name) signed at the bottom of the form when
the City accepted the Application, and what is the date they (City staff) entered
on the bottom of the form when they (City staffer) signed as accepting the
Application.
I am not interested in viewing any of the information entered by the Property
owner. I know that information. I am only interested in the City staff signature
and the staff accepted date shown at the bottom of the first page (cover page)
of the Application.
Call me at my Home landline number (408‐253‐4574) if you don't understand
and can't fulfill my request for these two entries at the bottom of this
Application form.
Jim Moore
408‐253‐4574
PS: Block off all but the lower 1 1/4" of the Application form as I only want to
view this portion, the portion which shows the City Staff name and date
accepted. I will drop by your Planning Department today to view this bottom
portion of the Application. Thanks.
On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:04 AM, Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org> wrote
Hello James,
The application was submitted May 10th, and signed by the
property owner and applicant Lixin Chen. Application forms are
4
not made available to the public because they contain personal
contact information.
<image001.png>
Erick Serrano
Senior Planner
Planning Division
ErickS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3205
<image003.png><image005.png><image007.png><image009.png><image010.png><
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
<planning@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 8:25 AM
To: Planning Dept. <PlanningList@cupertino.org>
Subject: FW: Canyon View project GPA Authorization
Application Form: who signed and when?
Hi Planners,
Here’s a question from a resident from the general mailbox:
<image025.png>
Barbara Pollek
Office Assistant
City Manager's Office/City Clerk's Office
BarbaraP@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3253
<image026.png><image027.png><image028.png><image029.png><image030.png><
From: Maxcinco <maxcinco@ comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 5:32 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh
<PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application
Form: who signed and when?
Cupertino Planning Department,
I live near Linda Vista Park, and for 43 years, I have run or
walked the Park's 1/2 mile loop trail an average of 2X a week
with and without our family dogs. Last Sunday, I attended a
meeting at the Cupertino Hotel on the proposed Canyon View
Housing project. I was surprised to learn that an application
hearing (see below) was scheduled for 11/5/2019. I asked
the meeting hosts (owner and consultant) when the
application was submitted to the City and did not receive an
answer.
Since the Planning Department receives and processes these
GPA Authorization Application forms and signs and dates
them when accepted, please let me know via e-mail when
(mm/dd/yyyy) this Canyon View application was accepted
and who (name) signed. I understand that this information
5
that I am requesting is located near the bottom of the
application's first page.
If this Canyon View Application form is available for viewing
by residents, I would like to view it. Please let me know
when, days and hours, that I can stop by the Planning
Department to view this application.
Sincerely,
James Moore
Lindy Lane,
Cupertino
2019 FIRST CYCLE
The City received one application in the 2019 first cycle
(deadline May 2019). The proposed project is to allow 29
units, where four units are allowed, on an 86-acre hillside
property with an average slope ~48%. The project would
require General Plan Amendments to change the existing
General Plan Land Use Designation.
The item is tentatively scheduled to b heard by the City
Council on November 5, 2019.
GPA Authorization GPAAuth-2019-01 postcard
Canyon View Project Description
Plan Set_1 of 2
Plan Set_2 of 2
cc 11/5/19
Item #10
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
James Moore <cinco777@icloud .com >
Sunday, November 3, 2019 6:41 AM
Cupertino City Manager's Office
City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Grace Schmidt, MMC; City Council
Subject: Fwd : Please post the Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application files accepted by Planning (Jeffrey
Tsumura) on May 10; 2019
Hi Deb,
I made this request seven (7) calendar days ago (5 business days) on Saturday, October 26, 2019 . A number of my friends and
neighbors are interested in viewing the Canyon View project documents that were accepted, with its Application, by Planning on
May 10, 2019, nearly six months ago .
I have checked the 2019 Second Cycle webpage since my request and these documents remain unposted . Disappointedly, my
week ago 10/26/19 request was never acknowledged .
Sue and I returned from Lake Tahoe Saturday {11/2) afternoon and I drove into Linda Vista Park to view the CV project
"notification" sign erected by the owner. The sign is on the chain l i nk fence in the same location as a week ago (Saturday, 10/26
@11 :32AM), but now has a full -size plywood backing so the sign is now readable in sunlight. I exited the car to read it.
Obviously, since neither this single sign or the citywide Postcard mentions or shows its downhill access street term i nating in a
right angle turn into Linda Vista Park, those residents and Park visitors that are curious about this CV project will fail to notice its
use of the Linda Vista Park entrance . In the rendering of the development, its street use of the LV Park roadway is hidden by
trees, and the text labeling of the Park location is positioned at the rightmost point of the rendering . This careless label
positioning suggests the project and its only access street is a lengthy distance removed from the Park . Some might say the
render i ng deceives those residents living west-of-Bubb who visit and use the many facilities at LV Park as it is their closest
neighborhood City park .
Jim Moore
Resident
******** Please include this e-mail in Written Communications for Agenda Item #10 for the 11/5/2019 CCC meeting******
Begin forwarded message :
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com >
Date: October 26, 2019 at 4 :34 :55 PM PDT
To: Erick Serrano <ericks@cupertino.org >
Cc: benjaminf@cupertino .org , cityclerk@cupertino.org , planning@cupertino.org
Subject: Please post the Canyon View project GPA Authorization Application files accepted by Planning
(Jeffrey Tsumura) on May 10, 2019
Hi Er ick,
Ple a se post the files submitted with the Canyon View GPA Author ization Appl ication on May 10,
2019. Plea se p ost these to the 2019 Second Cycl e webpage. Cup ertino residents want to view th e m.
1
To differentiate these May 10, 2019 originals from those created and posted in October 2019, please add
Rev0 or Original or "your choice" to their filenames. Thanks.
James (Jim) Moore
Cupertino resident
****************. Please include this request in the Public Record ****************
2
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Li Lin <norahlin@gmail.com >
Sunday, November 3, 2019 1 :41 PM
City Council; City Clerk
Cupertino residents support Canyon View Project
Dear Council Members ,
My name is Li Lin . I live on Flintshire st in Cupertino. And I support the Canyon View project.
The development takes the hillside natural environment into consideration with a low density construction plan. The
proposed trail will improve the accessibility of Open Space . I believe it will benefit the neighborhood residents .
Best,
Li
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rob Karr <robwkarr@gmail.com >
Sunday, November 3, 2019 2:41 PM
City Council
Canyon View GPAAuth-2019 -01
Dear Council members;
As a long-time Cupertino resident living on Linda Vista Dr., I would urge you to deny this application for a General Plan
amendment . (Canyon View)
It will save this developer the time and expense of developing a plan which should not come to fru it ion . Years of noise, dust,
and traffic effects of construction in our quiet neighborhood, then the traffic increase new res idents would bring forever after
are extremely negative living changes to our neighborhood .
I implore you to not allow this to proceed.
Respectfully,
Robert Karr
Cupertino
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LeeAnn Constant <lconstant97@yahoo.com>
Sunday, November 3, 2019 2:49 PM
City Council
November 5 Meeting Agenda Item #10
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in regards to the following , ""Subject: Consider whether to authorize the formal submission and
processing of a General Plan Amendment application to allow 29 units where four ( 4) units are currently allowed on an
86-acre hillside property, on the west side of the City adjacent to Linda Vista Park, with an average slope of -48%
which would require General Plan Amendments to change the existing General Plan Land Use Designation.
(Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2019-01; Applicant: Lixin Chen; Location : APN(s): 356-27-026, 356-05-007, 356-05-
008 ."
We, as well as many neighbors in our community, ask that the council refrain from changing the land use designation
to accommodate the applicant. Land use designations set in the past were created for a reason , including , but not
limited to preservation of the natural open space of land and creeks , prevention of erosion and landslides , and
prevention of deforestation. We hope that the council pays close attention to the staff report items related to : Goal
LU-19, General Plan Policy LU-12 .2,General Plan Policy ES-7 .8.
While the builder might bring forth arguments such as need for single family housing or BMR housing, declining
school enrollment, or additional tax revenue for the city , it does not change the fact that this application is requesting
changes to the General Plan Land Use Designation that were created for public safety and preservation of the overall
remaining natural geography . Thank you so much for your consideration .
Andrew and LeeAnn Constant
11097 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-515-7532
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi All,
Danessa Techmanski <danessa@pacbell.net>
Sunday, November 3, 2019 10 :20 PM
Darcy Paul ; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Deborah L. Feng ; Heather Minner; Benjamin Fu
Please Add to Council Packet for Item #10 for 11/5/19 Council Meeting
I read this article all of the way through and it astounded me. It's not that any of it is necessarily new, but when you put it all
together and stand back the gross reality of "open bribery" by developers in Silicon Valley is glaring. Is it so commonplace that
we have become numb to it? You can slap a euphemism like "community benefit" on it, but when you weigh it all out most
developer "gifts" come attached with even greater detriments to the public's welfare and quality of life .
Things like the shells of performing arts centers that would never be self-sustaining come to mind, and so do inordinately steep
nature trails that most folks would be reluctant to escalade. Certainly the Canyon View applicants can do better than that.
Excuse the pun, but it's a slippery slope . Once we set the precedent of cutting into our pubic parks for project right-of-ways what
do we tell the next developer who has a similar request?
https://padailypost.com/2019/10/22/opinion-how-bribery-works-in-todays-world/
Best,
Danessa Techmanski
1
, ,,
The gift that keeps on giving
Donate your car & save animals!
Fast & Easy· Tax Deductible · Free Towing
1•1~11~
Post
No. 1 in Palo Alto
and the mid-Peninsula
ARCHIVES ABOUT SPOTLIGHT OPINION COMMENT CONTACT
H O M E > FAC EBOO K > Opinion : How bribery works in today's world
Opinion: How bribery wo r ks in today's
world
0 October 22, 20 19 8:00 am
f
OPI NION
BY DAVE PRICE
Da ily Post Editor
Dave
Price
® G+
AWARDS
Ame ri ca has come a long way from the d ays of Tammany Hall, when a developer wou ld have to lug a
bri efcase f ull of cas h to City Hall to pay o ff a poli tician i n ord er to get a proj ect app roved .
To day, bri bery is done out in the open . Nobody gets arrested . Instea d of cash, the b r ibes are in t he
for m of dog parks, branch libraries an d t eac her ho using .
Facebook wants Men lo Park to approve its p lans for a 59 -acre 'Village" on Willow Road that ca ll s for
1.75 mi ll ion square feet of office space at an estima t ed cost of $255 million to $340 m illi on . It's th e
biggest development proposa l in the m id -Pe n insu la's history after Stanford's req uest for 3.5 mi lli on
square feet of development that is currently pend ing before t h e Santa Clara County Supervisors.
Pick up the Post's print
edition for local stories
you won't find online
OBITUARIES . JOBS
Over 4,000 tradi tio nal and co ntempora ry rugs from
lra ,i, Afghanistan, Pa ki stan, lll dia and Nepal.
THE ORIENTAL CARPET
BRUCE GOOD, PROPRIETOR
707 Santa Cruz Ave , Me nlo Park • (650) 327-6608
"Making Right Decisions"
an inspirational talk with Leida Lessa
...
Does prayer make a difference?
e FRIDAY Nov 8th
7:00pm English
Christian Science Reading Room
459 Californ ia Ave
Palo Alto 94306
Childcare provided
e SATURDAY Nov 9t h
1 :OOpm Engl ish
Cubberley Community Centef"
4000 Middlefield Rd. Room Hl
P<1l0Allo9'4303
e SATURDAY No v 9th
2:30pm Spanish
Tomar decision« corrcctas
Cubberley Community Centef
4000 Middlefield Rd. Room Hl
Palo Alto 94303
AY welcome ! Sponsored by Flfst Olurch Chm.1. ~ntiS,t.P~to Alto
FOfmore inform.ltim 650.327.1642 I www.cspaloa1to.org
Coincidentally, Facebook said last week it would :
• redevelop the Onetta Harris Community Center at 100 Terminal Ave . in east Menlo Park and include
a branch library in the re-done building;
• give $25 million to Santa Clara County to fund Supervisor Joe Simitian's effort to build 90 to 120
apartments for teachers on a 1 .5-acre plot of land near the Palo Alto courthouse on Grant Avenue.
The timing of Facebook's philanthropy is striking. Facebook has been in Menlo Park since 2011 . This
company, with a market cap of half a trillion dollars, has had ample opportunities to make such
donations in the past eight years . Why now? I think it's because Facebook's Willow Road project is
now moving through the city approval process, and the company needs some people to sing its
praises.
By promising a renovated community center and branch library, Fa cebook will coopt some vocal
residents of Menlo Park's east side into becoming their advocates . Now they'll speak at every public
hearing, urging the council to approve whatever Facebook has proposed, no matter how much it
increases traffic or worsens the housing-jobs imbalance .
This has happened before. In 2012, billionaire developer John Arrillaga, acting on Stanford's behalf,
proposed a complex of office buildings, some as tall as 10 stories, at 27 University Ave . in Palo Alto,
near the bus/train station.
Arrillaga probably knew that Palo Altans wouldn't want 10-story buildings there. So he threw in a
theater for the performing arts.
The supporters of live theater, fans of Theatre Works, became the development's most vocal bloc of
supporters . At every hearing, they would go to the microphone to talk about how badly Palo Alto
needed a theater for live performances.
It didn't work.
' Palo Altans soon figured out that the theater was just a piece of bait Arrillaga was stringing along to
get council to approve the office towers that nobody wanted . (Residents also got wind of some
behind-the-scenes wheeling-and-dealing Arrillaga was doing with the city council over some land he
wanted near Foothill Park. Suddenly the theater-office complex was scuttled along with the land
deal.)
Are Menlo Park residents as smart as their neighbors in Palo Alto?
In 2016, Menlo Park City Council approved a 420,000-square-foot development at 1300 El Camino
after the developer added a dog park to the project.
Never mind the environmental impact report that said the project would increase traffic by 25% in
the surrounding area .
Who cares as long as the city got that desperately needed dog park?
When Facebook's high-powered negotiators saw that the council was wil ling to accept a dog park as a
trade off, they must have realized they were dealing with rank amateurs who wouldn't demand much
from them .
And , true to form, council voted 4-0 last week to start negotiations with Facebook over the re-do of
the Oneida Harris Community Center.
Know your priorities
Whi le it wou ld be nice to have a remode led community center and a branch library, those aren't the
top priorities for most people in Menlo Park. The top two problems are a la ck of housing and the
horrendous traffic.
Facebook's Village will make both problems worse . It will bring 9,500 jobs to Menlo Park but only
1,750 homes, which will significantly worsen the housing-jobs imbalance. At the very least, Facebook
should create housing for all of its new employees, so that those new workers aren't pushing others
out of their homes.
Learn More
1495 West EI Camino Real,
Mountain View
(660) 938-7846
Second ly, 9,500 more employees wi ll increase the traffic on Willow Road to gridlock conditions . More
bike paths aren't going to so lve that problem.
Council members need to have some courage. I got the impress io n from Tuesday's meeting that this
was the first time some of the council members had been offered a bribe . They were so excited . I
guess there's a thrill in knowing somebody wants to buy your vote.
Full mitigation
I would have liked to have seen some courage instead . They should have told Facebook that while the
remodel of the Oneida Ha rris Center is a nice gesture, it w ill have zero impact on whether they
approve the Village development. And the only way they'll approve the Village is if Facebook
completely mitigates the housing and traffic problems created by this project. Half measures aren 't
enough .
The number of homes Facebook will build should equal the number of jobs they're creating .
The homes can be nearby, like in North Fair Oaks or Redwood City . But they have to actually build the
homes and tenants have to move in before they get a certificate of occupancy from the city for the
Village .
Anything short of that, council must have the courage to say "no -application denied ."
You can't effect ively negotiate in a situation l ike this unless you have the willingness to walk away
from the bargaining table .
In general, I like development. But developers can't make the lives of their neighbors worse . That's
when you have to say "no." It's either full mitigation or no permit.
Editor Dave Price's column appears on Mondays . His email address is price@padailypost.com.
« PREVIOUS
New coalition f rom San Mateo
County presses Stanford over growth
NEXT »
Sewer agency to fight former
manager's bid for secrecy regarding
$875,000 payout
RELATED ARTICLES
Stanford to pay $155.8
million to lessen
expansion's impact on
housing crisis
2 COMMENTS
Rick Moen says :
OCTOBER 23, 20191:03 AM AT 1:03 AM
Massive Stanford project
for El Camino up for
approval; will increase
traffic
Dates set for final round
of hearings on Stanford's
growth permit
Mr. Price , as always, you're a class act and one of the last true journalists. Well said .
If I li ved in the Menlo Park city limits instead of unincorporated San Mateo County, I'd attend the next
City Council meeting, hold up a copy of your editorial, point to it, and silently mouth 'Hey, read this!' In
fact, I might do t hat anyway.
Somewhere, Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur are nodding in appreciation .
HAVING TROUBLE CLEARING
YOUR ACNE?
==== Look, Fee l, Be Beautiful at ====
fl■I
We im plement a proven system t hat has hel ped so many of
ou r cl ients achieve clear skin!
INITIAL
ACNE-
1 MANAGEMENT
FACIAL
: lnfo@parasolbeauty.com ) fi3'I i www.parasolbeaut'j.com j ~@parasolbeauty
I
ENERGY HOUSE
The F'lrepl.ace Ex.perts
VISIT ENERGY-HOUSE.COM
GAS FIRE Pl.ACES • FIRERLACE INSERTS • OUTDOO~ FIJIEPI.ACES
1300 I NDUSTRIAL WAY #17, SAN CARLOS
(6SO ) 593-1496
WE PUBLISH LEGALS
The Daily Post has been adjudicated by the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County as a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara , and is
qualified to publish legal notices, including:
• Fictitious Business Name Statements {FBNs)
• Legal name changes
• Petitions to Administer Estate {Probate)
• Notices of Public Sale
• Alcohol Beverage Licen ses
• Service by Publication
• Notices of Trustee's Sale
• Family Law Summonses
Just email or call (650) 328-7700 to place your
legal advertisement.
READ THE PRINT EDITION
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
~ REPLY
Tony Verreos says :
OCTOBER 23, 2019 7:35 PM AT 7:35 PM
How can we buy you off? Let us count the ways!
I coined the term "soft corruption" to describe this phenomena -as Mr. Price said so well; it's all out
in the open, and it's all legal. None of that makes it ethical.
Our system has become so badly corrupted that even the best of people likely give in
to this bribery by government system . I'm sure they all justify it as a necessary evil if you want to get
anything accomplished .
Too bad politicians and the public allowed corporations and uber rich individuals to buy the system
that works best for them at the public's expense . Most of the public is
either more concerned about their next beer, or uneducated to the point of not realizing they are
paying to make others richer.
Capitalism isn't the enemy, socialism/communism is . But in any system , its the career
bureaucrats that either make it work better, or corrupt it even worse .
~ REPLY
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
D I'm not a robot
reCAPTCHA
Privacy-Terms
POST COMMENT
Only a fraction of the local news stories covered
by the Daily Post appear on this website . To get
all the local news, including many stories you
can't find online, pick up the Post every morning
at 1,000 Mid-Peninsula locations .
RECENT COMMENTS
MAREN ON Merchants become detectives and
track down theft suspect
CHARBAX ON 'Silicon Valley,' Season 6, Episode
2 -a billion dollars to violate your principles
· KAIT ON Merchants become detectives and
track down theft suspect
NOT A WIN ON San Mateo County officials see
Stanford's withdrawal as a win
SOPHIE ON Merchants become detectives and
track down theft suspect
WW ON Opinion: Smell the air! Maybe I didn't
stop smoking after all?
DUE PROCESS BELIEVER ON Christine Blasey
Ford breaks silence, says she was inspired by
Anita Hill
CATEGORIES
Amazon
Apple
Atherton
Belmont
Burlingame
Caltrain
Celebrity File
East Pa lo Alto
Election 2018
Facebook
Google
Guest Opinion
HBO's Silicon Valley
Hillsborough
In the news
Los Altos
Cyrah Caburian
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sunday, November 3, 2019 11 :26 PM Sent:
To:
Cc:
City Council ; Deborah L. Feng; City Attorney's Office
City Clerk
Subject: CC Agenda Item 10-Canyon View Project GPA Authorization Application
Attachments: CC Resolution 15 -078 .pdf; GPA Authorization Application Form blank with highlights.pdf; 2015-09-01
ltem1 0G-GPA Authorization Flowchart.pdf; GPA Authorization Application History.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharf, Council Members, City Manager and City Attorney,
The GPA Authorization Application for the Canyon View Project should be pulled from the City Council November 5, 2019
Agenda and moved to the First Cycle of 2020 because it's obvious that the material was not "complete" and ready to be
reviewed until late October at the earliest.
Both the CC Resolution 15-078 which includes the procedures to be followed, combined with the GPA Authorization Application
Form are posted on the City's website and make it clear what should be done yet the City Staff is not following these steps!
You were elected to bring transparency and consistency-no special favors -no exceptions -just follow the rules yet again we
find ourselves having to point this out to our City! PLEASE do not set this precedent for future projects!
I've attached 4 files . Below are quotes from these files , all indicating that the project materials must be complete .
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Cupertino resident
Attached 4 files are :
1. CC Resolution 15-078.pdf with sections highlighted in YELLOW
2. GPA Authorization Application Form blank with highlights in YELLOW
3. 2015-09-01 CC ltemlOG -GPA Authorization Flowchart.pdf
4. GPA Authorization Application History
FILE 1 -CC Resolution 15-078
1. Page 2 states that the City Council adopts the attached procedures so what's approved is not only the words
contained in the resolution but what's actually contained in the attached procedures .
2. Page 3, #2b states the "applications will be required to apply ... by a designated date."
a. In the Canyon View Project case, May 10, 2019 .
3. Page 3, #2c states "In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a publicly noticed
meeting ... ".
a. In this case, the CC presentation/review should have been sometime between June-Sept 2019, typically
August 2019 -NOT almost 6 months later !
FILE 2 -GPA Authorization Application Form blank with highlights
There are at least 4 separate places in the GPA Authorization Application Form that indicate that the application must be
complete by the specified deadline . "Complete" should mean ready for review.
1. Page 2 of 5, 1'1 paragraph, states " ... The purpose of the pre-application conference is to determine if the application is
ready for submittal."
1
2. Page 2 of 5, 2nd paragraph, states " ... We suggest you allow enough time prior to the application deadl i ne to prepare
additional information or make changes in cases any are needed ."
3. Page 5 of 5, #2 " ... The purpose of the pre -application conference is to determine if the application is ready for
submittal. ... "
4 . Page 5 of 5, #3 " ... Incomplete applicat ions will not be considered . Applications filed after the printed deadline will be
considered in the next cycle (typically after six months).
5. Page 5 of 5, #5d Noticing ... "City-wide postcard ... " Many of the residents living closest to this proposed project were not
notified! A stack of postcards were given to the Post Office to distri bute without addresses . Some got delivered, some
didn't.
FILE 3 -2015-09-01 CC ltemlOG-GPA Authorization Flowchart.pdf
This is how the process was proposed to the public. Every 6 months there would be a review of the completed applications that
were submitted for the 6-month cycle. Allowing this Canyon View Project application to be reviewed means you've got another
one in January, 2 months away! This is like allowing them each to just trickle in one at a time which was NOT what was
intended!
FILE 4 -GPA Authorization Application History
These are the dates the GPA Authorization Procedure and subsequent applications were reviewed as far as I can tell. I had to
search all the records from 2015-present to come up with this list so I may have missed one . They have never dragged on this
long after the deadl i ne!
2
RESOLUTION NO. 15-078
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, the City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled
Community Vision 2040, which reflects community input, regulatory changes, best practices, and
the desire to achieve community-building, sustainability, economic, and fiscal objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City has been evaluating various progr ams to manage development to
address development issues in light of concerns about rapid growth and the impacts of such
growth overwhelming the City's ability to accommodate it, as well as the substantial impacts of
development on quality of life in the community; and
WHEREAS, as part of its evaluation process, the City has considered Community Business
Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Management programs; and
WHEREAS, while CBIZ and Growth Management programs can be effective in metering
growth and providing for community benefits, they can be difficult to administer, are limited by
legal requirements and do not provide the flexibility for managing growth and its substantial
impacts on the community; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) provides that: "If it deems it to be
in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. An
amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legislative body ...
. "; and
WHEREAS, each mandatory element of the City's General Plan may be amended no more
than four times during any calendar year and, subject to that limitation, "an amendment may be
made at any time, as determined by the legislative body" (Cal. Gov. Code 65358(b)); and
WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code does not address the timing or initiation of general
plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, rather than pursue a CBIZ or Growth Management program, the City desires to
set forth an orderly process, in accordance with its legislative discretion, to consider General Plan
amendments and ensure that proposals are fairly considered in light of the City's goals and
concerns about growth; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment Procedures to provide a
process for preliminary review of proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed procedures on
May 19, 2015, and the Council directed staff to provide more information and options at a future
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City held an Open House on the General Plan Amendment Process on June
30, 2015, and the City Council held a Study Session after the Open House; and
Resolution No. 15-078
Page2
WHEREAS, at the Study Session, the Council directed staff to look at options that allowed
for applications twice a year and that provided a reevaluation process; and
WHEREAS, the procedures include, among other things: (1) notice provisions to ensure the
public has an opportunity to comment; (2) evaluation criteria to ensure general plan amendments
that move through the application process are in the public interest and meet the City's goals for
development, including provision of community amenities; and (3) requirements for requesting
preliminary review of a proposed General Plan amendment; and
_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby adopts the General Plan Amendment Procedures attached hereto, subject to minor revisions
as may be made by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. The City Council
hereby authorizes City staff to rocess proposed General Plan amendments in accordance with the
General Plan Amendment Procedures and to take any and all other actions necessary to implement
the procedures. ·
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino,
the 1st day of September, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
ATTEST:
Members of the City Council
Sinks, Chang, V aidhyanathan
Paul, Wong
None
None
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
APPROVED:
Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino
. ,
Resolution No. 15-078
Page3
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
1. Background/Goals
Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the
benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such growth
can overwhelm the City's ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in the
community.
The goal is to create a procedure for the consideration of future General Plan amendments that
will encourage orderly development of the City and ensure that facility/service and quality of
life standards can be met for the community. These procedures only address amendments
requested by private parties. The City may initiate General Plan amendments when it deems
necessary, such as, to conform to State law or to ensure consistency within the General Plan.
2. Procedure
a . The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments twice a
year, approximately every six months.
b . In order to be considered for processing, aEplicants will be reguired to apply for
authorization to process a General Plan amendment by a designated date.
c. In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a ublidy noticed
meeting to preliminarily review the list of proposed General Plan amendments .
d. Noticing -City-wide postcard and public meeting requirements.
e . Each application will be preliminarily evaluated for the following:
(i) General Plan goals achieved by the project, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility
(2) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other
revenue provided by the project) including a diverse economic base
(3) The provision of affordable housing
( 4) Environmental Sustainability
(ii) General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested.
(iii)Proposed voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3, if any.
(iv)Staff time and resources required to process the project.
£. Based on the above evaluation the Council will consider which projects, if any, will be
authorized to proceed with a General Plan amendment application. The decision does not
in any way presume approval of the amendment or project. It only authorizes staff to
process the application, but the City retains its discretion to consider the application in
accor dance with all applicable laws, including the Califo rnia Environmental Quality Act
Resolution No . 15-078
Page 4
("CEQA") and the City's zoning laws and ord:inances. Consideration of the application will
be :in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and regulations.
g. Staff will beg:in process:ing the General Plan amendment applications per Council direction.
A project that applies for processing should be in substantial compliance with the project
authorized by Council.
h . Proposals not authorized by the Council at the first meet:ing (per 2 .c. above) may be
resubmitted with m:inor amendments within 30 days . Such projects will be considered by
the Council at a future public meeting, noticed per the Cuper tino Municipal Code, after staff
review.
3. Voluntary Community Amenities
a . For purposes of this policy, voluntary community amenities are defined as facilities, land
and/or fund:ing contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan
amendment application enhances the quality of life :in the City, includ:ing enhancements of
the following:
(i) School resources
(ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails
(iii)Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems
(iv)Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit
centers/stations
4. Prelim:inary Review Requirements
a. Preliminary documents that would be typically required for the type of application that is
requested, such as site plans, prelim:inary landscape plans, elevations, cross sections,
preliminary grad:ing plans and proposed materials.
b . A description, :includ:ing graphics, of the General Plan amendment(s) and land use
approvals required, if any. The description should :include diagrammatic information as
necessary to clearly expla:in the request.
c. An explanation of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General Plan and
the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life .
d . A brief summary of net fiscal impacts .
e. In or der to provide the public with early notice and opportunity to provide input, to the
extent the proposed project includes voluntary community amenities, as def:ined in Section 3
above, of a type typically memorialized :in a development agreement, the applicant should
include a Term Sheet explaining the proposed terms. The Term Sheet will be memorialized
in a Development Agreement as part of the project, if approved.
fl GPA AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION FORM
Community Development Department
10300 Torre A venue (408) 777-3308 / Fax (408) 777-3333
Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org
CUPERTINO http :/ /www.cupertino.org/planning
Property Owner Phone (w) Phone (h)
X
Street Address Fax Cell
City, State, Zip Code E-Mail
Project Contact Person Phone(w) Phone (h)
X
Street Address Fax Cell
City, State, Zip Code E-Mail
Project Address APN (s)
Brief Project Description
1 certify that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knawledge . I understand that the application may not be
considered if I or my authorized representative is not present at the scheduled meeting or if I have misrepresented any submitted
data . I understand that this application is not a planning or land use application authorizing me to move fonvard with
development. This application is being submitted as a preliminan; matter to determine whether I am able to move fonvard with
processing of a proposed general plan amendment . If I am able to submit a project application , including an application for a general
plan amendment, in the future , I acknawledge and agree that the Citi; retains full and complete discretion to consider any future
planning or land use application in accordance with all applicable laws , including CEQA and the City's zoning ordinances. As
such, I acknowledge that such future application may be denied in City's discretion , notwithstanding any determination that it may
be processed . I understand application fees are nonrefundable.
X
Applicant's Signature Date
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am th e owner of said property or have Power of Attorney (atta ch cop y) from said property
owner and that I consen t to the abo ve -described application and 1 authorize City staff to visit th e site in order to take photographs,
slides and/or videotape that may be shown at a city meeting . I understand application fees are nonrefundable.
X
Property Owner's Signature Print Property Owner's Name Date
Staff..use onhr
Application accepted m; __ on
Cycle Year: __ Number (circle one): First / Second
Sheet 1 of 5
GPA A11t/1 Sept 2015.docx revis ed 10/9/15
II PRE-APPLICATION FORM
Community Development Department
10300 Torre A venue (408) 777-3308 / Fax (408) 777-3333
Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org
CUPERTINO http:/ /www.cupertino.org/ planning
PLEASE NOTE:
A pre-application conference is required 2rior to submittal on all
a12.12 lications. !T he purpose of the pre-application conference is to •
,tletermine if the arplication is ready for submittal. I Application fees
are nonrefundable.
Please call 408-777-3308 to schedule a time for the review of your
application materials. I We suggest you allow enough time prior to th~
application deadline to prepare additional information or make
changes in case any are needed. I
Please bring this form to the pre-application meeting for a signature.
Please include this .form in your a'Jll!.lication
submittal
Application Request:
Comments:
Signed (planner) Date
As a part of the application review process, Cih; of Cupertino employees may visit your site in order to take
photographs, slides and/or videotape . These materials may be shown at a cihJ meeting .
Sheet 2af 5
GPA A11tlt Sept 2015.docx rev ised 10/9/15
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Community Development Department
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308 / Fax (408) 777-3333
planning@cupertino.org
CUPERTINO http:/ /www.cupertino.org/planning
1. □ Application Form:
The application must be signed by the legal owner of the property or by an individual with
Power of Attorney to represent the legal owner, and the applicant, if different. Proof of Power
of Attorney must be provided. Include the project contact person on the form .
2. □ Application Fee and Deposits:
a. Fees will be collected based on the Hourly Staff Time rate. For the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year,
the fee is $143/hour. An estimated deposit amount, determined by staff, shall be collected .
b. Consultant contracts amounts are payable by the applicant. Please note that a contract
management fee e ual to 10% of any contract amount will be charged.
c. De osits will also include noticing and postcard deposits.
d . Additional deposits may be requested, as required.
e . All application fees are non-refundable.
3. □ Comprehensive Project Description:
Must include a description of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General
Plan and the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life .
4. □ Project Plans:
a . Please include information on the next page .
b . Please submit: Six (6) sets of 24" by 36" plans, Two (2) sets of 11" by 17" plans, one (1)
digital PDF plan set (CD ROM or eq.), Material Boards.
c. All materials must be folded to 8 ½" x 11", printed side up.
d . 24" by 36" size plan set must be at a min . scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1:20
e . Plan sets of different sizes than those indicated above will not be accepted .
f. All exhibits must be dated. Revision dates must be included if applicable.
g . All digital files must be in PDF format
h. In the event of updates to plans, additional plans will be required. Additional plan sets
include one (1) 24 " x 36"set, two (2) ll"xl7"sets and one (1) digital PDF set.
5. □ Summary of Net Fiscal Impacts of the proposed project
6. □ Voluntary Community Amenities, if any:
Voluntary Community Amenities should be listed in a Term Sheet format. These are defined
as facilities, land and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development project
requiring a General Plan Amendment enhances the quality of life in the City, including
enhancements of the following:
a . School Resources
b. Public Open Space, such as parks and trails
c. Public Facilities and utilities, such as libraries, community center or utility systems
d. Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit
centers/stations . 3 Shee t of 5
GPA A11 th Form Sept 2015.docx revised 10/14/IS
PRELIMINARY PLAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
Community Development Department
CUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308 / Fax (408) 777-3333
planning@cupertino.org
http:/ /www.cupertino.org/planning
(*) Denotes items that must be verified by a civil engineer (stamped on plan) unless
waived in writing.
• General Plan Land Use Designation
o Current and
o Proposed, if any changes
• Zoning Designation
o Current and
o Proposed, if any changes
• Scale & north arrow
• Vicinity map
• Site Area (sq. f.t and acres)
o Net Area (*)
o Gross Area (*)
• Lot line dimensions
• Proposed program (in sq. ft ./units)
o All building areas
o Breakdown by type of use
• For residential portions of projects:
o Density
o Units by Type and Bedroom count
o Typical unit plans and sizes
• Setbacks
o Required per code/Specific Plans and
o Proposed
• Site Plan including building wall line and
eave line
o Existing and
o Proposed
• Location of Existing Buildings on adjoining
properties and identification of their uses
• Plans should indicate and graphically depict
o General Plan Amendments requested
o Zoning Variances or Exceptions requested
• Preliminary Floor Plans
• Preliminary Grading Plans including
topography and elevation of adjoining
properties
o Existing (*) and
o Proposed
• Preliminary Elevations showing heights:
o Elevation at top of curb
o Elevation at Existing(*)/Proposed
Finished Floors
• Preliminary Architectural Renderings
• Proposed Materials and Colors
• Preliminary building cross-sections
o Relation to street grade
o Relation to structures on adjoining
properties
• Public Improvements
o Dedication Area
o Sidewalk, Curbs
• Driveways/Parking
• Loading/Unloading areas
• Parking
o Required and
o Proposed
• Preliminary Landscape Plans and
Recreation Areas (sq . ft. and% of net lot
area), existing (*), required and proposed:
o Private Open Space
fJ
o Residential Common area, not including
setback areas
o Non-residential Common area
o Public Recreation Areas, if rovided
• Phasing Plans, if any pro osed
Sheet 4 of 5
G PA A 11th Form Se pt 201 5 .docx revi sed 10/14/1 5
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROCESS
Community Development Department
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308 / Fa x (408) 777-3333
planning@cupertino.org
CUPERTINO http:/ /www.cupertino.org/planning
1. Prepare Plans and Application materials (Refer to Submittal Requirements)
Follow the instructions carefully; be sure to include all required content, in the proper sizes and number
of copies . In the event of any questions, do not hesitate to contact the Planning Department.
2. Pre-application Conference
Please discuss proposal with planning staff members prior to submittal. Contact
De artment to set u p a required p re-application conference . e purpose of the
conference is to determine if the a lication is read}.'. for submittal and a lication fees .
3. Submit Application Materials
the Planning
_ _......,..,1-ication
Refer to the website (www.cu ertino.or aauthorization) for the filing deadline of your a lication.
Check for comeleteness. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Applications filed after the
rinted deadline will be considered in the next c de tYP.icall}.'. after six months .
!4. Staff Review
Upon receipt of the application, staff will review and evaluate each complete and timely application
based on the criteria identified in the City Council policy. If additional information is required of the
applicant such information will be conveyed to the applicant. The applicant will have 14 days to submit
any additional information. Additional information provided after staff analysis and staff report is
provided to the City Council will not be analyzed.
5. Noticing for Public Meeting
The date of the Public Meeting will be decided by the City Manager or his or her designee after close of
the application deadline. The determination of the date may be dependent on the number of
applications receiv ed. This meeting will be noticed as follows:
a. City's website;
b . In accordance with the Brown Act, with no public hearing noticing required;
c. Site signage -4' by 6' size -prepared by city staff; printed, weather-proofed and posted on two 2
by 4's firmly staked in ground by ae licant. Number of signs to be coordinated with staff; and
d . City-wide postcard which will include the meeting date, time, location. It will also include a map
of the project locations and information on where to find additional information.
6. City Council Meeting
The applicant will have an opportunity to present their application limited to 10 minutes, or less if
directed by the Council. The Council will deliberate and decide, upon hearing from staff, the applicant
and the public, whether to authorize certain projects, if any, to proceed with a General Plan Amendment
and associated applications. Authorization does not guarantee approval of any proposed amendment or
project. All applications for subsequent processing must be in substantial compliance with the
preliminary project.
7. Resubmittal
Proposals not authorized by the Council may be resubmitted with minor amendments within 30 days of
the initial meeting. Resubmitted projects will be considered by the Council at a future public meeting
approximately within 60 days of close of resubmittal period. The process and noticing will be same as
for the initial meeting except that postcard noticing is not required. 5
Sh eet of 5
GPA A11tl1 Form Sept 2015.docx revised 10/14/1 5
II
CUPERTINO
~ I Year-long timeframe I
~eadline fo~iannual Cy~
Prellmlnary Submittal
Application 1A
Preliminary Submittal
Application 1 B
~ ~
City-wide Postcard,
Notificatio n. Agenda
, Posting, Web Notice, •blast
t
' ' '
.. ~ S.S._•
-----~-~ @,'
..... .It ..... -➔ .!.!£--~
... ,-.. '/A ~
"' 1 Application City Council Preliminary Submittal Revi ew MHting
Application 1 C
, ,
,'
Preliminary Submittal
Appllcatlon 1 D
,'
Application 1A
Authorind for
Procnsing
Application 1 B
Authorized to
Submit Additional
Documentation '
, .,. within 30 days
,. Application 1 C
to Su~:~0,t~d:iona'I ,i
Docume ntation
within JO days
·ex
Application 1 D
Not Authorized for Processing.
Has to wait one biannual cycle
before a pplying
~ ~
Age~~~:.~s:~~r~s~•b Application 18
/A Authorind for
, , Processing ' , . ,
City Coundl'''' ••
Meeti ng X
Application 1 C
Not Authorized
for Processing . Has to
wait one biannual cycle
be fore applying.
Prellmlnary Submittal
Application 2A
,Preliminary Submittal
Application 28
Preliminary Submitta l
Appll catlon 2C
Preliminary Submittal
Application 20
l
'
l
I Deadline for Second Biannua~
' ' '
~ ~
City-wide Postcard,
Notification, Agenda
Posting, Web Notice, e-blast
' •
t
~-➔ @
Application Review City Council Meeting
ex
Application 2A
Not Authorized for Processing.
Has to wait one biannual cycle
before a pplying
Applicat ion 2B
AuthoriHd to
Submit Additional
Documentation ,
,, ,, ,, " within 30 days ,
' ._ Application 2C
' '
Authorized ,
to Submit Additionat'
Docume ntation
within 30 day,
•
Application 2D
Authorized for
Processing
~ ~
Agenda Posting, Web
Notice , e-blast
' ,ex
; Applicatio n 28
i ' Not Authorized -, @ ' for Processing . Has to ._ • wait one b iannual cycle
.~-~ before apply ing
---,!-!.--!
, -
' . City Council
Meeting
Applicatio n 2C
Authorized fo r
Proce ssing
GPA Authorization History and Process
• 2015 -05 -19 : CC held public hearing on proposed procedures .
o RESULT : CC directed Staff to provide more info and options at a future meeting
• 2015 -06 -30 : City Open House on Amendment Process followed by CC Study Session
o RESULT : CC directed Staff to look at options that allowed for applications twice a year and
provided a reevaluation process
• 2015 -09 -01 : Staff returns with updated procedure and options
o RESULT : CC passes Resolution 15 -078 with attached "General Plan Amendment Procedures"
• 2016 -02-02 : GPA Authorization-2016 First Cycle Applications
o RESULTS : BOTH projects DENIED
o Goodyear Tire Site -new hotel
• 270-rooms
• 9-story (~105 ft
• ~5, 727 sf conference and restaurant space
• 1.23 acres
• 208 parking spaces
• GPAs requested
• Hotel room allocation -270 rooms
• Height > 45 feet
• Slope line< 1:1
• Community Amen it ies
• Complementary use of conference facilities on weekends when available
• Shuttles fo r guests and employees
o Oaks Site -new mixed use development (office, hotel and residential uses)
• 280,000 sf 88 -foot office building
• 70-foot hotel ~9700 sf of conference space and restaurant
• 60 -foot mixed use buildings with
• 270 residential units with 70 sen ior units {30 affordable units)
• 47,660 sf commercial space
• 1972 parking spaces
• 7.79 acre site
• GPAs requested
• Office allocation -280,000 sf
• Hotel room allocation -200 rooms
• No office is planned or exists
• Common Landscape space-reduced from 70-80% to 25%
• Reduced building setbacks -44 ft to 24 ft 6 in .
• Parking -reduced
• Community Amenities -qualified total $4 .lM or $5.49/sf
• Permanent school rooms
• Public open space improvements
• Civic Center contribution
• Public Art
• Public Transportation
• Senior Shuttle
• Community Amenities -unqualified total $4 .18M
• Parcel tax
• Signage
• Stevens Creek Blvd improvements -required
• 72 parking passes for De Anza Students
• Affordable housing
• Office incubator
• 2017-03-07 : 2017 First Cycle Applications
o RESULTS : DENIED
o Scandinavian Furniture Site -new office use, not retail
• 1 addition totaling 1.92 acres
• 197 parki ng spaces, need 1 space/250 sf
• 1790 sf addition total i ng 28,029 sf wanted
• GPA-16,000 sf office for incubator or medical office
• 2017-08 -15 : 2017 Second Cycle Applications
o RESULTS:
• 16A and 16B APPROVED (Resolution 17-072)
• 16C -DENIED
o 16A -Hotel at Cupertino Village
o 16B -Hotel at Good Year Tire store site
o 16C -Oaks Shopping Center
• 2018 -01 -16 :
o RESULTS : Application withdrawn by applicant
o Oaks GPAAuth-2017-02
• 2019 -01 -15 :
o RESULTS: APPROVED (Resolution19-010)
o Goodyear Tire Hotel -GPAAUTH -2018-01
• 2019-11-05 :
o RESULTS : ??
o Canyon View Project : GPAUTH -2019-02????
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com >
Monday, November 4, 2019 1 :13 AM
City Council
Cc:
Subject:
City Clerk; City of Cupertino Plann i ng Dept.; Deborah L. Feng
Nov. 5, 2019 CC Agenda Item 10-Canyon View Project Concerns
Dear Mayor Scharf and Council Members
I have the following concerns below regarding the Canyon View Project . There are several aspects of
this project that could increase the City's liability significantly and increase maintenance costs not to
mention potentially making access to Linda Vista Park dangerous .
Up-zoning a parcel that cost $2M just two years ago would instantly benefit the owner but degrade
the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors and park users .
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Canyon View Project Concerns
1) Dangerous park entrance ... Sharing access to Linda Vista Park entrance. The entrance to the park
is not that wide to safely handle
a) Pedestrian traffic, people with strollers or small children, elderly
b) Increased two-way traffic
c) Bikes
d) Construction trucks
e) People speeding down the proposed road
2) Proposed road ... it's a long straight 14% grade ending with a sharp right turn at the bottom, at the
park entrance.
a) 14% slope is a really steep road
b) Maintenance problems-the curve at the top is along a very steep slope and would be prone to
sliding. City should not own the road!
3) Fire ... There is only one way out. If a fire breaks out on the lower portion of the road, all these
people have no way out in very steep terrain.
4) ADUs ... 29 homes means potentially 58 additional ADU units . That's potentially 87 families,
increasing traffic, load on resources (water pressure) and impacting existing residents.
a) No additional parking per unit required
b) 4 ft setbacks
1
c} Homes are required to clear a large border around their house for wildfires . This means each
ADU would need to do it, too. This could leave a barren hillside with buildings.
5} Slope ... The postcard says the average slope is 48%!
a} The site areas for homes still have an average slope in the 20's%
6} Water pressure ... existing homes in the area already say they do not have adequate water
pressure in the mornings. How will they be impacted when there are more users?
7} Community Benefit ... the proposed trail would be
a} essentially just a sidewalk at a 14% grade along the side of the road
b} At the top, it dumps into a path that is around 30% grade.
c} Q: Who is benefiting in this exchange -neither of these sections are usable for most people?
d} Q: Is it just a land donation or does it also include the trail design and development?
e} Q: In the 30% grade section, would switchbacks be used or left as a path straight path uphill?
f} Cost of this trail is very expensive! In 2014, $2,625,000 + possibly an additional $1.3M (see
2014 Parkside Trail Feasibility Study PDF page 7 of 60 Trails C and D, Footnote 6).
8} BMR ... Getting 6 BMR units is great but if the City owns them on unstable ground, that's a BIG
liability for the City.
a} Q: Will the City buy the 2 BMR tri-plex sites and develop the homes or buy them already built?
b} Q: Which works best for the City?
c} Q: What level of BMR? The disabled level does not make sense given the slopes involved.
d} Q: What services are nearby?
e} Q: Is it cost-effective to build BMR here where the slopes will increase the construction
costs? Can you even get funding to help build when it would be much cheaper to build on flat
ground?
9} Why is this project proposed on 3 parcels instead of just the one parcel where the development
is proposed?
a} Will rezoning give entitlements to the other parcels that they don't have now or to the other
portion of the property at the old quarry site?
b) What about the other half of the parcel where the old quarry is located?
c} Phase 2 -what are the plans for it? We've heard plans for additional future development.
10) If this is allowed to go through the gate and then is found to not be feasible or requires fewer
homes,
a} Q: Does the Council have the courage/strength to say "No"?
2
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anne Ng <anneng@aol.com >
Monday, November 4, 2019 2:42 PM
City Council
canyon view project (agenda item 10)
Honorable Councilmembers :
Please authorize the Canyon View Project General Plan Amendment application to proceed. If the plan
survives the process and the EIR, it will add 29 much needed housing units, 23 of them market rate, I
assume, but likely more affordable than the 4 mega-mansions that might result with the current zoning . And
6 of them will be affordable condos. The housing will be concentrated on the least challenging terrain,
leaving the surrounding steep slopes as protected open space .
As a fan of the Stevens Creek Trail and trails in general, I highly endorse their offer to build a public trail
through the property that might connect Stevens Creek Trail with Fremont Older Open Space and/or
Stevens Creek County Park in the future.
Anne Ng
6031 Bollinger Road
Cupertino
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
Raj iv Mathur < rajiv_mathur@stevenscreektra i l.org >
Monday, November 4, 2019 3:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Canyon View Project -Cupertino City Council meeting Nov 4, 2019 , Agenda Item 10
Hon'ble Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Friends of Stevens Creek Trail was invited to a presentation on the Canyon View Project in
Cupertino. The owners propose building a trail from Linda Vista Park through their property that would
reach towards the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and Stevens Creek County Park. This could
potentially comprise another segment of the Stevens Creek Trail.
If feasible, the Friends believe this could be a positive step for Stevens Creek Trail and add another
valuable open space asset to the city and the region . The Friends support including a multi-use trail in
further studies of the Project .
Sincerely,
Rajiv Mathur
Executive Director
Friends of Stevens Creek Trail
FRIENDS
OF STEVENS
CREEK TRAIL
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Shani Kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com >
Monday, November 4, 2019 3:36 PM
City Council
Katja Irvin ; ldrruff psychology; Alice Kaufman
Item 10 on 11/5/19 agenda : please deny consideration of a General Plan Amendment
Environmental Group Letter -Cupertino GP Amendment -Canyon View .pdf; SJ Memo attachment.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharf and Cupertino City Council,
Please consider the attached letter from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter,
the California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter, and the Committee for Green Foothills. In our letter, we
ask the Cupertino City Council to deny consideration of a General Plan Amendment that would set in motion a formal
submission and processing of the Canyon View development. We also attach a current memo from San Jose, to
highlight the importance of keeping open space undeveloped.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph .D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd .
Cupertino, CA 95014
650-868-2114
advocate@scvas.org
1
Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society
Est ablished 1926
November 4 , 2019
COMMITTEE FOR
GREEN FOOTHI LL S
To: Mayor Scharf and Cupertino City Council
VJ
SIERRA
CLUB
LOMA PRIETA
Re : Item 10 on 11/5/1019 agenda: Consideration of Municipal Code Amendments
On behalf of our members in Cupertino and surrounding communities, Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the California Native Plant Society Santa
Clara Valley Chapter, and the Committee for Green Foothills ask the Cupertino City Council to
deny consideration of a General Plan Amendment that would set in motion a formal submission
and processing of the Canyon View development .
Over the years, development proposals for these and nearby properties have been proposed, but
they have always failed because residents and the City Council understood how fragile the
landscape is, how critical it is to the welfare of wildlife species in the area, and how development
there would burden the City of Cupertino with geological hazards and fire risks. Indeed, most of
the wildfires that have devastated communities in recent years were caused by a spark from
vehicles, electric infrastructure, or maintenance equipment or tools .
Other jurisdictions are currently looking to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits that the
natural landscapes around them offer. San Jose voters have dedicated 50 million dollars to
purchase land in Coyote Valley and this week, the City will announce the permanent protection of
937 acres in Coyote Valley (please see memo attached) to provide habitat for wildlife, and green
infrastructure protection to the City .
Environmental review is not needed to understand the scope of risks that development at the
proposed location would impose upon the City and its residents, and the degradation in quality of
life it would bring . In this time of climate change and global threats to biodiversity, sprawls
development into natural open space areas would repeat the mistakes of the past -the same
mistakes that have resulted in tremendous losses to local and migratory bird species [recently
published studies show that birds are vanishing from North America1 and that most bird species
may become extinct due to the cumulative pressures of development and climate change\
1 https://www.nytimes .com/2019/09/19/science/bird-populations-america-canada.html
2 https://www.theguardian .com /environmen t/2019/oct/10/bird-species-extinction -north -america-climate-
crisis
devastating wildfires , and the permanent loss of carbon-absorbing forests and habitat. To plan for
resilience in the face of climate change , development in the urban-rural interface should simply
stop . Let's focus housing growth in the City 's core , not its natural surroundings.
The staff report shows that the proposed General Plan amendment is inconsistent with the
ex isting General Plan protections of hillsides and nature, including General Plan Goal LU-19 that
seeks to preserve and protect the City 's hillside natural habitat and aesthetic values , including
Strategy (LU-12.1.1) to limit development on ridgelines , hazardous geological areas and steep
slopes . Hundreds , if not thousands of California native trees will have to be removed to allow
construction as well as wildfire "defensible space" buffer from homes , roads and infrastructure,
and the Stevens Creek Corridor -a critical wildlife movement corridor -will be negatively
impacted. General Plan Policy ES7 .8 (Natural Water Courses) requires retention and restoration
of creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and associated vegetation in their natural state .
The degrading of the General Plan land use designations that apply to the hillside area will create
a precedent for more similar projects to be proposed , and will thereby exacerbate the harm and
hazards the Canyon View subdivision would cause .
Lastly , we believe the time has come to create safe trails on existing infrastructure rather than
impact our remaining riparian corridors. We can provide point access to our natural treasures ,
rather than continuous trails that damage them . The proposed trails would unnecessarily harm the
precious natural habitat in this area .
Please deny consideration of this General Plan Amendment.
Respectfully ,
Katja Irvin,
Consecration Committee co-chair,
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate,
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Alice Kaufman
Legislative Advocacy Director,
Committee for Green Foothills
Linda Ruthruff,
Conservation Chair
California Native Plant Society, Santa Clara Valley Chapter
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COYOTE VALLEY
RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL AGENDA:
ITEM:
Memorandum
FROM: Mayor Sam Liccardo
Vice Mayor Chappie Jones
Councilmember Sergio Jimenez
Councilmember Raul Peralez
Councilmember Pam Foley
DATE: November 1, 2019
Accept the staff recommendation with the following additional direction:
1. Appoint the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (the Authority) to lead an
inclusive and visionary master planning process for North Coyote Valley that focuses on
the properties protected through the partnership between the City of San Jose, the
Authority, and the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). The planning effort should:
a. Establish an executive committee comprised of representatives from the
Authority, the City, and POST to engage partners, community stakeholders, and
importantly the broader public in the planning process.
b. Adopt a comprehensive vision and establish goals that include, but are not limited
to:
1. Wildlife connectivity, habitat conservation and restoration;
2. Floodplain restoration;
3. Climate resilience;
4. Low impact, nature-based public access.
c. Consider the larger context of North Coyote Valley and the surrounding mountain
ranges and open spaces to plan for wildlife connectivity and wildlife crossing
infrastructure, opportunities to restore and reconnect creeks and floodplains,
connections to nearby parks and regional trails, nearby agricultural operations,
and opportunities for unique visitor amenities.
d. Aim to create a unique natural area that will be a major destination in San Jose,
the entire San Francisco Bay Area, and the Nation.
. '
..
COUNCIL AGENDA
November I, 2019
Subject: Coyote Valley
Page 2
2. Direct staff to pursue public funding -including all regional, state, and federal
opportunities -to support both the master planning process and conservation
improvements. Additionally, staff should support the pursuit of private partnership
opportunities that the Authority and POST will collectively pursue.
3. Direct staff to collaborate with the Authority and POST to implement a short term
activation plan that provides controlled public access to the acquired properties -while
the planning process is underway -such as docent-led tours and nature walks.
BACKGROUND
We are close to realizing our common vision for Coyote Valley, and we applaud the Herculean
effort it has taken to get here. A long list of individuals and organizations deserve recognition for
their hard work , collaboration, and persistence over the past four years. We also stand on the
shoulders of others who have pushed for preservation in decades past.
We now have the opportunity to consider the largest municipal investment in natural
infrastructure in California's history : 937 acres of irreplaceable open space. With Coyote
Valley's preservation, we achieve important gains in resilience for our entire region-a
substantial buffer against threats of wildfire, drought, and flood. We secure critical habitat for
more than 200 species of birds and local wildlife, and we provide them a safe place of passage
through our sprawling urban landscape. We ensure a supply of clean water by protecting Santa
Clara Valley's largest freshwater wetland, creeks, and groundwater basin, and we prevent the
degradation of water quality that inevitably comes with development atop a shallow aquifer.
We provide green space for generations of children to enjoy and experience nature. Finally, we
double down on our commitment to smart growth-focusing jobs, housing, and transit together
-to halt the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with our Climate Smart San Jose
goals. But we didn't always see it this way. ·
Coyote Valley has captured the imagination of San Joseans for generations, but also has sat
within the crosshairs of development proposals-for everything from Apple's world
headquarters, to campuses for Tandem, Cisco, and Xilinx, to tens of thousands of units of
housing. Only recently did we start to embrace a more future-focused vision for Coyote Valley -
one that views nature and green infrastructure as our allies in the face of climate change. Our
residents got it quickly, though-when we presented this vision to voters through Measure T, it
passed with 71 percent of the vote.
To bring this new vision for Coyote Valley to fruition, we must embark on a thoughtful master
planning process that includes the City, our partners, community stakeholders , and the public.
Given their expertise in managing and restoring natural lands, the Open Space Authority should
lead the planning effort to guide the executive team, stakeholders, and core technical and
strategic teams towards long-te1m future use and management of the preserve consistent with
Measure T, the Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage vision , and the Conservation Easement. In
addition to engaging those who have invested themselves deeply in this effort, we should also
cast a wide net to include others whose voices should be heard.
COUNCIL AGENDA
November 1, 2019
Subject: Coyote Valley
Page 3
In keeping with the will of the voters, the plan for Coyote Valley should focus on a
comprehensive vision and set of goals that embrace nature and green infrastructure. We can
maximize the benefits of Coyote Valley for both people and wildlife by restoring ecosystems,
creeks, and floodplains, building wildlife crossing infrastructure, and providing carefully-
planned trails that are sensitive to nature for residents and visitors to enjoy. We must also
prioritize equity and inclusivity as we plan for a Coyote Valley treasured and enjoyed by our
entire community. Considering the planning process may take two to three years, we should
work with our partners to provide residents with guided access to the properties in the interim.
The success of the planning and restoration processes hinges on our ability to access public and
private funding. The Open Space Authority should consult with POST and the City to develop
creative financing solutions to secure near-term funding for the planning process, ·as well as
funding sources to pay for priority site improvements and recommendations that emerge from
the final plan. City staff should pursue public dollars to support planning and restoration efforts,
such as those that are made available through the Habitat Conservation Plan, budget delegation
requests, and Assemblymember Ash Kalra's AB 948. ·
Gratitude and Generational Gifts
First and foremost, we thank the San Jose voters, who, when presented with the choice-in the
words of Mayor Tom McEnery-always "choose the future." They validated the need for a new
vision for Coyote Valley with the passage of Measure T last year, providing up to $50 million for
the City's investment in that vision.
We express immense gratitude to Andrea Mackenzie and Walter Moore, the respective leaders of
the Open Space Authority, and POST, who came to Mayor Liccardo's office four years ago
armed with an ambition to secure Coyote Valley for future generations. Getting a deal done
required much hard work-and land owners with an enlightened view of their self-interest-
namely, Diane Brandenburg and John Sobrato. It also demanded collaborative and creative
perseverance of their lead negotiators, Bill Baron, the late Eric Brandenourg, and Tim Steele.
We thank City staff, especially Nanci Klein and Danielle Kenealy for steering the City through a
unique and extremely complex land purchase negotiation and transaction.
Of course, we thank the many advocates-the Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,
Committee for Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, California Native Plant Society, Keep
Coyote Creek Beautiful, Mothers Out Front, and many more--who fought for and helped us to
see the environmental and generational benefits of preserving the valley. We thank them for
their support of Measure T, and for never losing sight of their longstanding ambition to preserve
this small slice of creation for future generations.
With this agreement, we offer an invaluable gift to our children and future generations. As the
Great Law of the Iroquois urges, "Make every decision mindful of how it will impact the next
seven generations. " Our preservation of Coyote Valley makes good on our collective obligation
of stewardship for our-and more importantly, their-planet.
..
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net >
Monday, November 4, 2019 11 :22 PM
City Council; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh ; Deborah L. Feng
City Attorney's Office; City Clerk
Canyon View GPA -City Council Nov 5, 2019 meeting Agenda Item 10
To All Recipients of this email,
Please consider this message as a brief communication of my thoughts on the current proposal
in the foothills of Cupertino referred to as 'Canyon View' project.
Most, if not all, of you have been sent several emails related to this proposed project that
would require a very 'heavy' general plan amendment(s). The involved parcel, and others that
surround it have been discussed many times over the years.
I have discussed this proposal with several residents/people . The time frame for discussion
and research has been very short due to the noticing schedule, and website postings. I did
not receive any e-notifications related to GPA proposals -only a postcard.
I have read some of the information and concerns that Peggy Griffin has presented to you via
emails, including attachments.
I share many of her concerns and have some of my own.
'Process' and 'proposal' issues both exist in this case.
It is premature to be seeing this project on a CC agenda.
If time permits tomorrow (Tues. Nov 5) , I will send an additional email with more detail.
I simply wanted to send something now so that there is a better chance it will be reviewed
prior to your meeting tomorrow evening.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com >
Tuesday , November 5, 2019 10:48 AM
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul ; Rod Sinks ; Jon Robert Willey; Cuperti no City Manager's Office
City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Oppose: 11/5/2019, Agenda Item 10, Canyon View Development Proposal
Honorable Mayo r Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao , Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Willey , and City Manager
Feng:
Please include this letter as part of the public record for Agenda Item 10. "Canyon View Development
Proposal General Plan Amendment (GPA)," for the 11/5/2019 meeting of the City Council.
I oppose the approval of the Canyon View Development Proposal GPA because the site is not suitable for
housing.
Please consider the State of California's 2019 construction mandate laws AB 68 and SB 330 and their
apparent impact on the Canyon View parcels.
AB 68 Ting, Approved by Governor, 10/9/2019, Land Use: Accessory Dwelling Units
" ... (4) Existing law requires ministerial approval of a building permit to create within a zone for single-family
use one accessory dwelling unit per single -family lot, subject to specified conditions and requirements .
This bill would instead require ministerial approval of an application for a building permit within a residential
or mixed-use zone to create the following : (1) one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory
dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (emphasis added) if certain
requirements are met; (2) a detached, new construction accessory dwelling unit that meets certain
requirements and would authorize a local agency to impose specified conditions relating to floor area and
height on that unit; (3) multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of an existing multifamily dwelling
structure provided those units meet certain requirements; or (4) not more than two accessory dwelling units
that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily
dwelling and are subject to certain height and rear yard and side setback requirements ... "
LINK: https ://leginfo.legislature .ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=201920200AB68
It appears that if Council chooses not to grant the GPA proposed for the Canyon View project in Agenda
Item 10, the State of California entitles the property owner to build 12 housing units on its 4 residential parcel
lot (4 dwellings + 4 accessory dwelling units [ADUs] + 4 junior accessory dwelling units [JADUs]).
It appears that if Council chooses to grant the GPA proposed for the Canyon View project in Agenda Item
10, the State of California entitles the property owner to build 75 housing units on its 4 residential parcel lot
(6 triplex homes + 23 dwellings + 23 ADUs + 23 JADUs).
SB 330 Skinner, Approved by Governor, 10/9/2019, Housing Crisis Act of 2019
"(BJ (i) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment
compelling compliance with this section within 60 days issued pursuant to subparagraph (A), the court shall
impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine
levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead
deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017-18 Regular Session is
enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the
application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943 . In determining the amount of fine to impose,
the court shall consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing
need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section . Fines shall not be paid out of funds
already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to , Low and Moderate Income Housing
Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal
HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds . The
local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole
purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income
households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and
be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, if Senate Bill 2 of the 2017-18 Regular Session is
enacted, or otherwise in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, for the sole purpose of financing newly
constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or /ow-income households ... "
LINK: https://leg info. legislature . ca .gov/faces/billT extCl ient.xhtml?bill id=201920200SB330
It appears that if the property owner exercises its right build the ADU + JADU combination per parcel as
entitled by the State of California and those un its are determined to serve the housing needs of "very low,
low-, o r moderate-income households," then any interference from the City to disapprove the entitled
construction could result in fines of at least "at least $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development
project on the date the application was deemed complete."
Due to concerns raised by many other area residents about access (road slope + ingress/egress), stability
during an earthquake , fire defense , and the reduction of nearby parkland , the Canyon View site presents
itself as unsuitable for any housing--though 2019 construction mandate laws appear to prevent Council from
removing the 12 entitled housing units.
However, Council is not required to make an unsuitable housing proposal worse by approving the
Staff recommended GPA to add an additional 25 to 71 housing units to land that is better suited for
land trust preservation than housing. Best option of all is if the City and Council could reject the GPA,
redirect the property owner to an entity/foundation interested in growing the land trust, and then encourage
the sale of the Canyon View property into the land trust.
Please reject the Canyon View Development Proposal GPA because the site is not suitable for
housing.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino res ide nt
Representing myself only
"It is difficult to get a (person) to understand something when (their) salary depends on not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair
2
I
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rose Grymes <ragrymes@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11 :35 AM
City Clerk; City Council ; City Attorney's Office ; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Peter Friedland
Comments to Canyon View Project GPA Authorization
We write to present our concerns with, and opposition to, the currently proposed Canyon View Project.
The project proposes development adjacent to Linda Vista Park, Fremont Open Space, and county parkland that is not in keeping
with the complexion of the Monta Vista community and does not serve the interests of the Cupertino community at large . The
development would irretrievably alter the environment, leading to loss of green space watershed, and natural habitat while
foreseeably increasing fire danger and hillside instability. The proposed density of the development far exceeds current zoning;
the aspect of the current GPA is in place for good and substantial reasons . Development in line with the GPA may be warranted,
while the exception or amendment as proposed is not.
Certainly housing-most specifically housing accessible to moderate, low, and fixed-income residents-is desirable for the city
and current/future residents . We should not confuse this larger issue with the Canyon View Project, which seeks instead to
vastly increase the windfall value of the property to the developers by enabling primarily the construction of large prestige
homes on dramatically sloped canyon hillsides in a new cul-de-sac development with limited access for emergency/safety/fire
services .
Certainly increased access to open spaces through trails are desirable. The proposed donation/provision of such access does not
currently present the best outcome for the city or residents . The locations proposed are not optimal-they are excessively steep
and will be difficult to maintain . The Council, Planning Department, and Planning Commission should not accept such minimal
proffers.
Finally, communications to and engagement of neighborhood residents have been shockingly absent. These issues were the
subject of prior letters and emails from ourselves and others. This has been a great disappointment and will lead, we
understand, to reexamination of some current internal procedures.
Rose and Peter Friedland
22111 Lindy Lane
Sent from my iPad
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo .com >
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 1 :01 PM
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul ; Rod Sinks; Jon Robert Willey; Cupert i no City Manager's Office
City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Related to 11/5/2019, Agenda Item 10, Canyon View Development Proposal
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Willey, and City Manager
Feng:
Please include this letter as part of the public record for Agenda Item 10 "Canyon View Development
Proposal General Plan Amendment (GPA)," for the 11/5/2019 meeting of the City Council.
The Bay Area News Group in cooperation with several other news agencies promotes the 3-part series
"Who Owns Silicon Valley?". Probably you are already familiar with the headline finding that Stanford
University owns the most land in Santa Clara County and that Apple, Google, FACEBOOK, and other tech
companies and commercial real estate holding companies fall in line after Stanford as the largest property
owners in the region. In parallel with the launch of the media series , both Apple and FACEBOOK have
introduced housing construction incentives(?) of $2.5 BILLION and $1 BILLION respectively, signaling that
"housing is now a priority" (HINAP) for the local mega corporations.
With old news that Stanford University owns 700+ single family homes in Santa Clara County (and an
unknown number of homes in San Mateo County)+ today's HINAP background knowledge, I read with
interest how an entire development of new apartment homes in Los Altos was pre-leased to Stanford
University in 2017:
"In Los Altos a few years ago, residents eagerly awaited the completion of the 167-unit Colonnade
Apartments, hoping it would help fix the city's housing shortage . But they got a rude awakening when
Stanford showed up on the scene . The university pre-leased the entire building before construction was
finished and then bought the property in 2017. Now the units are for Stanford employees only.
"I remember at the time, people were saying, 'Wow this is going to be great-we finally have the kind of
development where maybe our entry-level teachers, public safety people and so on will be able to live in
town,' 11 Los Altos Councilwoman Anita Enander said. "And then before the project was even completed, the
announcement was made that Stanford had leased the entire complex. 11
That purchase had a significant impact on the Los Altos housing supply. At the time , the Colonnade made
up more than 10 percent of the city's multi-family units, Enander said. But Stanford officials argue that if
university workers weren't living in the Colonnade, they'd just live somewhere else in the area -taking the
same amount of housing stock off the shelf"
LINK: "Stanford Is Snapping Up Homes in College Terrace" by Sue Dremann, Palo Alto Weekly, updated
9/25/2019:
https ://www. paloa ltoon line.com/news/2019/08/23/sta nfo rd-is-snapping-up-homes-in-college-terrace
LINK: "The Stanford Empire" by Marisa Kendall , Bay Area News Group, 11/4/2019:
https ://extras. mercurynews.com/whoowns/stanford. htm l
I remember. also, that while residents were blindsided when, post-Council approval , Planning Dept staff
1
added offices to Main Street and removed sen ior housing and removed a public-access fitness center, our
anger was supposed to be assuaged because the "slipped in" office was going to help lessen Cupertino's
dependence on Apple revenue, as the office space would surely be leased to "not-Apple". But then,
immediately , what entity leased The Offices at Main Street?
In an earlier letter today where I expressed opposition to the Canyon View Development Proposal, I
calculated that with construction mandate entitlements afforded by the State of California through AB 68 and
SB 330 , Cupertino could expect to see 12 housing units (no GPA) and up to 75 housing units (GPA proposal
granted) built on the Canyon View parcels under consideration (Agenda Item 10, 11/5/2019 meeting of the
City Council).
While we should expect folks in favor of the development proposal to assert that 75 housing units
on a steep and difficult-to-access site is "outrageous" or "preposterous" or "absurd,"--and I would
agree--it is, apparently, the entitlement number of housing units enshrined by law today under AB
68, in the event Council were to approve the GPA proposal under consideration for the Canyon View
site.
Approve a GPA today for "23 single family homes and 2 triplexes" with recognition that a pre -determined ,
committed buyer may have already placed a standing order for 75 homes to be built on those same parcels
for the exclusive benefit of a certain pre-selected workforce .
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
"It is difficult to get a (person) to understand something when (their) salary depends on not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair
2
Cyrah Caburian .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
All,
Lisa Warren < la-warren@att.net >
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 2:57 PM
City Council; Benjamin Fu ; Piu Ghosh ; Deborah L. Feng
City Attorney's Office; City Clerk
Addition to : Canyon View GPA -City Council Nov 5, 2019 meeting Agenda Item 10
Time is short and livelihood is busy. That being the case, I am unable to detail any of my
independent thoughts before tonight's meeting.
I mentioned in the email sent last night (below) that it is premature to consider the Canyon
View project -item 10 on tonight's CC agenda -at this time.
I regret having worded things that way. While I feel the GPA process has not been correctly
followed with Canyon View, and that situation results in premature consideration at CC
level, there are many more issues at hand.
Among the issues are, the history of these parcels, the timing of multiple 'projects' in the
vicinity, some reported project vagueness from project consultant (former Mayor) when asked
about a second phase that was mentioned, multiple housing bills during this 'season', the
signing pen of Governor Newsom.
If the Council choses to consider this item as listed on tonight's agenda, then I hope that the
project will be 'denied' and sent back to the drawing board for the next possible round of GPA
applications .
If is agreed that the item should be postponed, as I believe it should be, then I hope that Staff
and Council will consider the new ( and growing) obstacles to responsible growth will be
considered during project review.
PLEASE DO READ ALL of the emails sent to you , including attachments/links within the last
week, including today.
Many of them contain valuable information and facts. I know this is a large task and truly
hope you have all had the time to keep up with the correspondence as they have sent.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
On Monday, November 4 , 2019 , 11 :21 :41 PM PST, Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> wrote:
To All Recipients of this email,
Please consider this message as a brief communication of my thoughts on the current proposal
in the foothills of Cupertino referred to as 'Canyon View' project.
Most, if not all , of you have been sent several emails related to this proposed project that
would require a very 'heavy' general plan amendment(s). The involved parcel, and others that
surround it have been discussed many times ove r the years.
I have discussed this proposal with several residents/people . The time frame for d i scussion
and research has been very short due to the noticing schedule, and website postings. I did
not receive any e-notifications related to GPA proposals -only a postcard .
I have read some of the information and concerns that Peggy Griffin has presented to you via
emails, including attachments .
I share many of her concerns and have some of my own.
'Process' and 'proposal' issues both exist in this case.
It is premature to be seeing this project on a CC agenda.
If time permits tomorrow (Tues. Nov 5) , I will send an additional email with more detail.
I simply wanted to send something now so that there is a better chance it will be reviewed
prior to your meeting tomorrow evening.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
2
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lauren Sapudar
Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2019 5:19 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: (corrected) Agenda Item 10 of council meeting on 11/5/2019
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Govind Tatachari <gtc2k7@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 5:15 PM
To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod
Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Subject: (corrected) Agenda Item 10 of council meeting on 11/5/2019
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice-Mayor Chao, Council members Paul, Sinks
and Willey, City Manager Feng, City Clerk Schmidt, City Attorney Minner,
I have concerns about the agenda item #10. Please include this email as part of the public record
for the agenda item #10 of the council meeting on 11/5/2019 (regd GPAAuth-2019-01).
I am worried why the agenda item #10 is included as part of 11/5/2019 council meeting and the
implications of what it means to NOT strictly follow criteria and cutoff requirements for GPA
application submittal and initial review for GPAAuth-2019-01 (as part of the City-wide GPA process
resolution #15-078 passed and adopted on 9/1/2015) and GPA application review cycles.
Many GPA requests are of non-trivial nature. On June 30, 2015 the City council and the public
went through a Study session and over three hour long Council meeting to delibrate and revise
GPA process. It will be very instructive for public, staff, management and council to review the
video archive related to the council meetings on June 30, 2019 and the council meeting when
the GPA process resolution #15-078 was passed and adopted.
Here is an extract from the Staff report about the goals of the new GPA process from that
meeting:
2
The GPAAuth-2019-01 submittal was NOT ready for public review during the May 2019 cycle. It
took staff almost five months (upto third week of Oct 2019) to ensure the application submittal
is ready to upload it to the website for public review. Based on this the application only
qualifies for inclusion in the November 2019 GPA cycle.
We need to ensure that we do not follow different norms for GPA application submittals and
cycles. The City staff should be instructed to strictly follow the submittal guidelines which they
themselves had proposed and got approved as part of the GPA process resolution #15-078
passed and adopted on 9/1/2015.
I would request that this agenda item #10 be deferred forthwith and be included as part of the
November cycle applications that come up for review.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Govind Tatachari
Cupertino Resident
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Neil McClintick <neil.mcclintick@berkeley.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2019 9:56 PM
To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; City Council; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul;
Jon Robert Willey
Subject:Agenda Item 10 (Linda Vista Adjacent GPA) Thoughts
Hello,
I might speak tonight with the following public comments. But in case I have to go sooner or decide not to speak, I wanted to
have my thoughts in written form. I appreciate the time that it takes you to read this, and hope you realize it comes from a
genuine desire for dialogue and from a place of passion. Also shoutouts to the city staff and members of council for working so
hard despite rather low pay and long hours! Thank you
Comment:
Hi my name is Neil McClintick and I’m speaking in support of item 10 to allow for more housing units adjacent to Linda Vista, but moreso for
housing more neighbors in general.
This proposed General Plan amendment would allow this land to be used for slightly higher density units but still notably classified as low
density, including up to 6 affordable units, higher than the amount recommended by the city. That’s 6 folks whose lives could be seriously
bettered by having somewhere to sleep at night.
Earlier the mayor mentioned the need to have more affordable housing. I completely agree, but that's not what we've been doing. Instead, we as
a city use affordable housing as a shield to prevent important housing from being built, despite empirical studies showing the need for every level
of housing throughout the bay area and state. We focus more on problems, than actual solutions. Yes, there are always alternative sites, but
then the argument for those will be that there are other sites than those. But of course, I absolutely want to be proven wrong.
This Council won’t be able to really control the process if an app later comes through SB50 which is on track to be a 2 year bill, but we can help
shape the project if it goes through the regular discretionary approval process in the coming months.
I encourage all of us to look around — CUSD is in danger of closing schools because new families cant afford to move in ... our teachers cant
live here ... our de anza students cant live here — a new study shows 18% of them are homeless. That’s damn shameful, and having had many
homeless de anza friends, it makes me want to cry to be honest.
We don’t have time to wait for the perfect set of projects to swing on in. We need to stop always frame housing in terms of why we can’t build it
— why don’t we instead frame it in terms of why we have a moral obligation to build housing — in terms of why we should build it? Any
developer could already build on this lot, but would otherwise likely build 4 large single family homes for those more financially fortunate. It’s
critical that we access the discretionary approval process to incentivize more housing, especially if it’s offering additional affordable housing.
Our new neighbors are already here — they serve us at restaurants commuting from san jose — making minimum wage. They work at
companies here, contributing to the local economy. They clean houses here. They teach our students. The real question is whether or not we will
actually choose to let them be our neighbors, whether we will choose to help when families across the bay are struggling to survive. And I know
that im going to be accused of being a developer shill, because anyone who advocates for housing is assumed a sellout.
I wish someone was paying me to be here. But no — im a lower income renter and lifelong resident with negative wealth, with student loans and
credit card debt. I might have my rent increased tomorrow and get evicted. But I’ll still want to come back here 2 weeks from now and speak,
because I grew up here, I went to eaton, lawson, Cupertino high, and de Anza. I love what we could be … and the empathy we have the
potential to demonstrate. I hope that we will start to take a more pro-housing stance moving forward. Let’s prove that local control can facilitate
housing our neighbors, otherwise, or we honestly shouldn’t be so surprised when more state legislation passes which limits our local control.
Thank you for your time and I hope you all get to go home before it's the next day.
‐‐
Neil McClintick
UC Berkeley '19
Seeking opportunities — Government or Advocacy
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lauren Sapudar
Sent:Wednesday, November 6, 2019 7:48 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Agenda Item #10, November 5, 2019, 29 homes near Linda Vista Park
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:00 PM
To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Darcy
Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>
Subject: Agenda Item #10, November 5, 2019, 29 homes near Linda Vista Park
Dear Mayor, Vice ‐Mayor and Councilmembers:
Agenda Item #10, November 5, 2019, 29 homes near Linda Vista Park
When I first saw this project, my reaction was, Why? Why build homes close to the Lehigh Quarry, a known bad neighbor?
Lehigh is a mere 10 miles from this property. Lehigh is a known major polluter in our region. Toxic wastewater and poor air
quality. Cupertino has pushed back against Lehigh transgressions. Now Lehigh wants to open a second Quarry.
I support affordable housing, and see that there are some proposed. I can often tolerate projects that have conflicts with the
General Plan.
The proximity to Lehigh is one issue. The other issue that is a big concern is the plan to build on the ridge lines of the hills. This
not only takes away open space, wildlife habitats and views, building on the ridge lines and in valleys increases chances of
disastrous wildfires. Like those in the past two years in Sonoma County.
Affordable housing must be part of developments, but we should approve only smart development.
Sincerely, Connie Cunningham
From Connie's iPhone
Canyon View project Street@ 14% Downhill Slope terminates at the Entranceway to Linda Vista Park
cc. 11 Ir /11
Street is 1180' from top curve to Linda Vista Park Entranceway -Elevation difference is 160' $/ {)
Page 325 of 347 of 11/05/19 Searchable Packet.pdf shows Canyon View street ending at Linda Vista Park entranceway
t 11/~17 #-to
