Randy - Study the Impact of SB 35 on Traffic Mitigation Before any GPA

From: Randy Shingai
Date: Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:39 PM
Subject: Item 16C on tonight's Council Meeting Agenda
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, piug@cupertino.org

Dear Cupertino Mayor and Council,

I have a concern with the proposal to increase the number of housing units to 605.  I believe the status quo and the other proposal will not materially increase the housing over 266 housing units, which is what the KT Urban is already entitled to build.

My concern has to do with Scott Weiner's SB 35.  This State Senate bill would allow projects that include BMR to have a streamlined approval process. Here are some links for SB 35:

http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd11.senate.ca.gov/files/SB%2035%20Fact%20Sheet_1.pdf

http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd11.senate.ca.gov/files/SB35%20Diagram.pdf

​My concern has to do with the traffic mitigation that will be required for the Oaks site.  Both alternatives require General Plan Amendments.  Alternative 1 requires a GPA to increase the housing units by 448, and another to increase the density to 56.7 du/acre.  Alternative 2 requires a GPA to increase the du/acre to 25.31 du/acre (probably inconsequential).

My concern is that once an entitlement is given to build Alternative 1 *and* SB 35 passes in some form, the developer may invoke SB 35 to circumvent the regular approval process and build the residential without doing any traffic mitigation.

Please take the time to study SB 35 and its likely terms and conditions *before* you approve additional entitlements for housing.  Because once entitled, a developer may be able to use SB 35 to circumvent the City's normal approval process.

Thank you,

Randy Shingai

San Jose resident.