CC 04-06-2021 Item No. 17 General Plan Amendment Authorization_Written CommunicationsCC 04-06-21
#17
Homestead Homes
General Plan
Amendment
Hearing
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 10:31 AM
To:City Council
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:On-Site Parking for ADUs on Item 17, Cupertino City Council Agenda, 4/6/21
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
Item 17 on the City Council Agenda for April 6/2021 is involving building ADUs on
two lots resulting from a lot split.
Do these lots with the proposed ADUS require on-site parking for the ADUs?
If there is no on-site parking required for these ADUS, then the cars resulting from
these two ADUS, which may be up to two cars per ADU, will be parked on adjacent
streets.
This is a problem in Portland, Oregon where ADUs have been built on neighborhood lots
and the cars from the ADUSs are being parked on the neighborhood streets,
overflowing the neighborhood streets with extra cars.
This is also a problem in Santa Cruz County where cars from newly constructed ADUS in
suburban neighborhoods are being parked on the neighborhood streets, adding extra
traffic and constricting parking availability.
I am very concerned about where the cars from the ADUs will be parked at this
new lot split/ ADUs construction site in Cupertino as mentioned in Item 17 on the
City Council Agenda if there is no on-site parking required. The cars from these ADUs
will be parked out on neighborhood streets.
Thank you very much for your concern in this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 1:42 PM
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; R Wang; Steven Scharf; Sanjiv Kapil;
vsaxema@cupertino.org; Muni Madhdhipatla
Subject:19820 Homestead Road Doesn't Add Up or Another Bait and Switch?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, Council member Wiley and Council member Moore, and Commissioners,
I am baffled by the GPA notice received for the change in Land Use Designation at 19820 Homestead Road. The request
is for a change in Land Use Designation from Low Density (1‐5/DU/Ac) to Low/Medium Density (5‐10 DU/Ac). Why
request a change if the owners plan on building only four units as depicted in the drawings? Did the Planning
Department point out the inconsistency or are they authorized to do so? It seems as the owner/developer wants to
leave the door open in case they want to use the time honored excuse of "it doesn't pencil out." Which oddly enough, it
never "pencils out" because this type of ineptitude appears to be a profitable business model.
Secondly and more alarming, is that the property is currently a daycare and located next to a PG & E yard. Who
approved the use of that property as a daycare? Don't transformers contain PCBs? And there are other potentially
dangerous materials on site? At a facility next to a daycare?
Please turn this project down. It appears that the plan is quite elastic‐‐what is proposed is not what will materialize. And
secondly, if it is approved, ‐please have soil testing done by a reputable firm, not someone the owner has chosen out of
the phone book delivering results that will endanger residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat