CC 12-07-2021 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsCC 12-07-21
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Peggy Griffin
To:Kirsten Squarcia; Darcy Paul
Cc:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:2021-12-07 CC Mtg - Consent Items - Pull 19 and 21
Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:23:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Paul and City Clerk Squarcia,
I am requesting 2 items be pulled from tonight’s City Council Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR – Request to pull Agenda Items 19 and 21
1. Item 19 – discuss it! Mitigation Fee discussion
2. Item 21 – All-Inclusive Playground – MIG selected
a. 3 questions…
i. Does MIG have experience designing all-inclusive playgrounds? If so, where?
ii. Concerned with designing this based on “public input”. The majority of the
public is not aware of the needs of special needs individuals. Designing
something that works for both takes training and experience…Think about
1. a 40 year old “7-year old” who is overweight due to medication, as an
example.
2. Coordination issues, tripping, falling
3. etc
iii. Who are the “key stakeholders”? I’d like them listed so the public knows who
is providing key input.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
80% of Regnart students chose to attend Lincoln in 2022-23, to date
Traffic and accidents along McClellan will only get worse
19
accidents
0
accidents
14
accidents15
accidents
45●125 reported accidents
and 42 injury collisions
occurred along
McClellan from 2015 -
Nov. 2021
●21% of accidents
involved a high school
student driver or
student-aged bicyclist
●No accidents occurred
near Regnart
Note: Due to the pandemic, there
were zero traffic accidents from
Nov. 2020-Jul. 2021. The true
number would probably be around
150 total accidents if the pandemic
hadn’t occurred.
3
3 18
accidents8
CC 12-07-21
#30
Westport
Development
Project
Written Comments
Senior Housing Shortage in Cupertino
Public Comment to City Council
My comments today are solely in my role as a citizen member of the Age Friendly
Cupertino Task Force. They do not necessarily reflect the position of other organizations
of which I am a member.
Jean Bedord *
Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force
December 7, 2021
1
Who Needs Senior Housing ?
Total households in Cupertino: 20,181
Households with one or more persons 60+: 6,585
Households with 2 or more persons 60+ 4,689
1 person households 1,896
Households with owner/renter 75 + 2,221
Households with owner/renter 60 – 74 3,125
Housing needs change, particularly after 80
Loss of driver’s license (10 years before death per Don Weden)
Need for assistance with meals, personal grooming, medication management
Social isolation for well spouse or widowed spouse
Increase in dementia
Census data: suburbanstats.org
Households with owner/renter 65 – 74 1,762
Households with owner/renter 60 – 64 1,363
2
Senior Housing Availability
Current extremely limited supply
687 TOTAL units (Chateau Cupertino, Sunnyview, Forum, Veranda)
ZERO Memory units other than CCRCs
ZERO Multifamily developments approved in 2019; only Westport in 2020
NO new market rate senior independent living for decades
NO assisted living other than CCRCs which require buyin
Current Senior Housing in Cupertino
Chateau Cupertino – 162 units rental – independent living with meals
Sunnyview Manor – 188 total units, CCRC full range independent living to skilled
nursing
The Forum at Rancho San Antonio - 319 units, CCRC full range
Veranda – 18 units, BMR independent living for very low income seniors
3
Housing Needs vs. RHNA Allocations
RHNA housing units require a kitchen – 4,588 upcoming cycle
Housing needs without a kitchen
Memory care – illegal to have kitchen
Assisted living with shared rooms (2-4 beds) – lower cost facilities
Board and care homes for 5-10 adults – lower cost
Housing for health care providers with shared kitchens
Dormitories for DeAnza Students with shared kitchens
Cupertino needs ALL housing options, in addition to RHNA
Westport / Atria project meets COMMUNITY needs for assisted
living and memory care
4
Josh Shumsky
CA RE License #01883266
3055 Olin Ave, Suite 2200, San Jose, CA 95128 T 408.727.9600 F 408.988.6340
www.nmrk.com
December 07, 2021
Gian Paolo Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
Re: Westport Cupertino Mixed Use Development – Retail Component
Dear Gian,
My name is Josh Shumsky, and I am a commercial real estate broker with Newmark, specializing in retail leasing
and sales. I have had the chance to review the initial plans for the Related California Mixed Use Development’s retail
space, and am confident that the proposed revision to the current plan, meets the market demand of today’s
restaurants and retailers. This plan would ensure the activation of the space along Mary Ave, which would ultimately
be focused on amenitizing the project, and bringing residents down to the street level/ground floor of the project. In
addition, with the retail focused on Steven’s Creek Blvd, we would expect both a higher level of interest as well as a
more dynamic tenant mix in that location.
It therefore becomes critical to evaluate the proper size of the planned restaurants placed within a mixed-use
project, or retail development in general. Following the Covid-19 pandemic many large format restaurants have
worked to right size their concepts, both due to overall cost and labor shortages. This has caused many of the large
format spaces, even previously occupied restaurants, to sit vacant, or force Landlords to demise the space into
smaller units. In order to effectively lease the retail within this premises we would need to focus on restaurant spaces
of a maximum 3,000 – 3,500 S.F., with smaller units garnering more interest. The restaurant unit programmed for
Mary Ave was ±8,000 S.F. with limited ability to demise. Based on the square footage location of this unit, we would
see this being a challenging location to lease, with the potential for chronic turnover due to limited visibility and
accessibility. As we have completed a number of retail leasing transactions recently within the City of Cupertino, and
broader Bay Area, we feel confident in this recommendation as we continue to to keep a pulse on the retail leasing
market.
The final item to address is the space configuration and bay depths. Westport Cupertino has properly sized bay
depths for the restaurant/retail space along Steven’s Creek Blvd, in a rectangular configuration which is ideal for the
demands of todays tenants. When a tenant is require to design space with a curvature, it can cause both a significant
amount of wasted space as well as challenges with material costs. In addition based the space size, the curved unit
may be difficult to demise and can force a Landlord to split them in ways that limit both utility as well as future
leaseablity. The rectangular unit along Steven’s Creek Blvd will allow for the necessary demising required to meet the
small to mid-size tenant demand seen today. The frontage along Steven’s Creek Blvd also provide the necessary
signage opportunities for Tenants to be successful. Utilizing the space along Mary Avenue for a building amenity
provides a unique utility to that unit, and will ensure it is consistently activated.
Gian Paolo Martire
December 07, 2021
Page 2 of 2
3055 Olin Ave, Suite 2200, San Jose, CA 95128 T 408.727.9600 F 408.988.6340
www.nmrk.com
In conclusion, I believe the Related California Mixed-Use development has positioned itself well to capture the
retail demand in the market today. They have programmed an appropriate amount of retail, with the revised program,
to create a critical mass and have provided the necessary dimensions, frontage, and visibility to satisfy the needs of
contemporary tenants. I look forward to seeing this project constructed, as it will further enhance the vibrant Cupertino
market.
Sincerely,
Josh Shumsky
CA RE License #01883266
Josh.Shumsky@NMRK.com
T 408.982.8490
\
CC 12-07-21
31
Interim Ordinance
to implement
Senate Bill 9
Written Comments
From:Kylie Clark
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Interim Ordinance No. 21-2235
Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 6:03:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Council,
My name is Kylie Clark and I’m the Public Policy Coordinator at West Valley Community
Services. Since the passage of SB9, and as various municipalities work to incorporate this new
law into their communities, I’ve been following the process closely. I am very disappointed by
the direction in which Cupertino has chosen to go and believe that it will hurt all of us in the
long run.
The overly inhibitory and excessive restrictions, notably limiting units to 800 feet in size, will
make affordable housing undesirable and unfeasible. This simply continues to delay the
inevitable, which is the fact that Cupertino has to build housing and to make it affordable.
Cupertino is not being made an example of when it comes to housing. Rather, it is making an
example of itself by actively preventing housing at a time when we need it most.
I encourage you to make sure the public is educated on the specifics of the ordinance, as most
of us don’t have time to read through the entire document. Please don’t pass this through
without adequately informing those who will be impacted. Additionally, please reconsider this
highly restrictive ordinance. I believe that in its current state, the City will be sued, wasting
our valuable time, money, and resources. I understand that you want to begin restrictively and
then consider expanding the ordinance, but this goes too far. I encourage you to look to your
neighboring cities, such as San Jose and Saratoga, for other visions of what implementation of
SB9 can look like.
Thank you for all of your time and hard work. Please consider these words and take another
look at the ordinance.
In community,
Kylie Clark
(Pronouns: she, her, hers)
------
Kylie Clark
Public Policy Coordinator
West Valley Community Services, 10104 Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: kyliec@wvcommunityservices.org, Direct: 408.471.6122, Fax: 408.366.6090
Donate now to bring hope to our community during this holiday season!
Like and follow us: Facebook I Instagram I Twitter I YouTube I Website | Chefs of
Compassion
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:No Public Comments on SB 9 and SB 10 Lot Splits in Ministerial Sb 35 and SB 9 and SB 10
Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:12:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I am very concerned that a bill like SB 35 or SB 9 or SB 10 would
be allowing ministerial lot splits in California. They are trying to do
this in Oregon and the Welcome Home Campaign in Washington State
is trying to do this in that state.
To try to do a lot split ministerially without the public or the neighbors
involved shows the level of ignorance these bills are displaying. Who ever
wrote them did not have an iota of sense about land use or surveying
or property lines.
Yes, because of this level of incompetence of the way the laws are written,
the cities in California are having to waste their vital time to try to decipher
and figure out what these totally useless laws are trying to say or not say.
Who even creates bills that are this vapid in the beginning? Who even passes
laws like this? So vague and so poorly crafted that even the state Supreme
Court could probably not figure them out. So the cities of California
are supposed to figure out these clueless laws and try to forestall the
bedlam and disaster these nonsense laws will wreck upon the communities
of California?
Bills written by money for money. Sb 9 and SB 10 and Sb 35 are some of the
worst legislation to be pumped out of Sacramento and the fact they were paid for
by money to get more money shows in their banality and insipd premise of
ministerial lot split.
Who are we trying to fool here? The public? What kind of government does
that? Hence the farce of SB 9 and SB 10 and SB 35 who think that they
are smarter than the public they are trying to fool and suppress? Who is
the fool now that the truth is out about these bills? You call the public stupid
for not accepting "laws" so out of whack, even a two year old can see through
them. who is the fool now?
Ministerial law splits? In whose universe?
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin