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.

Liang - What Benefits Westport (for Oaks) Offer Cupertino Residents?

From: Liang Chao
Date: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:03 PM
Subject: What Benefits Westport (for Oaks) Offer Cupertino Residents?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Through the new project-based General Plan Amendment (GPA) Authorization process, the intention is to grant GPA only if it benefits Cupertino.

The land use allocation for Oaks in the current General Plan is 200-235 housing units, 45 feet maximum height, 69,500 square feet of retail space and other setback requirements as other sites along Stevens Creek. No office and no hotel.

The above allocation would already increase the density of the existing Oaks FIVE TIMES. The GPA request would increase the density to 13.8 TIMES. What benefits does Westport provide to justify such large density increase?

Why is FIVE TIMES the density not enough? Why should we waste staff time and residents time to consider a GPA that's way out of the bound of the General Plan?

Marina Plaza was able to propose a mixed use plan within the bound of the General Plan in terms of building heights and setbacks. Why can't KT Urban be satisfied with FIVE TIMES the existing density?

Please consider these questions as you make decisions on whether to allow the GPA process for Oaks to proceed.

Below is a comparison between the exception requested and the "benefits" Westport offers for your reference. Many of the so-called "benefits" are not true benefits, which many Cupertino residents will see clearly.
------------------

Westport (for Oaks) requests the following exceptions to the current General Plan and Municipal Code.

1. Increase building heights to 75 feet (Alternative I) or 88 feet (Alternative II).

2. Increase residential allocation, office allocation and hotel allocation:

    Alternative I: 605 units (15% affordable senior housing) and 69,500 square feet of retail.

    Alternative II: 270 units (20% affordable senior housing), 69,500 square feet of retail, 280,000 square feet of office.

3. Reduce Common Open Space required for residential by 50%. And most of the provided Common Open Space is on the rooftop.

4. Reduce setback from property line from 44 feet to 0 feet along I-85.

5. Reduce slope along Stevens Creek for hotel and office buildings from 1:1 to 2:1 and 3:1.

The total square footage of all uses would be increased from 269,500 square feet (allocated in the General Plan) to 724,525 square feet for Alternative I and 742,045 square feet for Alternative II.

The Oaks Shopping Center has 53,425 square feet of retail space today. So, the existing allocation in the General Plan would allow the total square footage to increase to 269,500 square feet, FIVE TIMES of existing Oaks Shopping Center. This is the option some people call "no growth".

The GPA request for Westport would increase the total square footage to 13.8 TIMES of the existing Oaks Shopping Center or 2.75 TIMES of the amount allowed in the General Plan.

We must ask. What benefits does Westport provide so that the city should double the height and triple the building mass of what's allowed in the General Plan?

What "benefits" do Westport project offer Cupertino residents?

1. Transit Center at the north end of the site is nothing but a bus stop with a small waiting area. [Useless benefit] - But it only provides space for two bus parking for south bound bus route on Mary Ave. No space for north bound bus route. And no existing or any future bus routes go through this location to require a bus top there. It provides 50 underground parking spaces for the Transit Center, while taking away 72 parking spaces along Mary Avenue.

2. 4,000 square feet for Community Center. [Incomplete benefit] - But it only provides 16 parking spaces. And for Alternative II, the Community Center will double as conference facility for the hotel.

3. 15-20% affordable "senior" housing - But the affordable housing is earmarked for seniors with low and very low income. It doesn't benefit the young service professionals in Cupertino as some promised and it doesn't fit the needs of Cupertino seniors either.

4. More office space to add property tax. [Not a benefit, but a burden] - But Alternative II would in fact worsen housing crisis by deepening office-housing imbalance. 280,000 square feet of office space would accommodate at least 1260 office workers plus service workers, while providing only 270 housing units. Additional office space should be located near mass transit or in more affordable areas with sufficient space for housing.

5. More housing units - But based on RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Analysis) and transit availability, ABAG (Association of Bay Area Government) allocated only requires Cupertino to build 1002 units by 2023. This is because there is no mass transit here. More housing units should be allocated near mass transit, such as Caltrain, light rail or BART. Among the 1004 units, only 275 units are market-rate housing. Cupertino has already approved 600+188 housing units (only 15 BMR units) for Hamptons and Marina. Thus, based on the regional housing analysis, Cupertino needs ZERO units of market-rate housing, but much more BMR (below-market-rate) housing.

6. Pedestrian bridge over I-85 to the interim. [Not funded and not realistic] - The developer, KT Urban, didn't plan to provide funding or build that bridge and nor the developer nor the city have any authority to decide whether such pedestrian bridge fits in Caltran's plan for I-85. Even in some remote future some tarnsit goes through 85, it would make more sense to place the transit stop near De Anza College, not near Westport anyway.

7. Vibrant mixed use center. [Existing GP would be more vibrant] - The amount of retail space is the same between the existing General Plan, Alternative I and Alternative II. Westport proposals do not add any vibrancy to the location, except more people. But the existing Oaks Shopping Center is already right next to De Anza College with 30,000 students. The lack of potential customers is not the problem of the stagnant mall. Poor management is. There are many more mixed use centers with poor retail offerings in Bay Area and especially in Cupertino because it doesn't fit into the car-centric style of this area. All parking spaces in Westport project are underground.

The existing General Plan already allows FIVE TIMES the density of existing building. With so little "true" benefits, why should we amend the General Plan to allow 13.8 TIMES the density of existing building?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How about other arguable "benefits" mentioned by proponents of Westport project or any high-density development?

1. Millennials prefer urban centers so that they don't need cars. [But not at Westport] - Those millennials who prefer urban centers would rather live in developments close to reliable and efficient mass transit, such as CalTrain, light rail or BART. Anyone living in Westport would still need cars to get around due to the infrequent bus services in Cupertino and inadequate VTA network to reach most destinations.

2. Due to aging population, Cupertino seniors need senior housing. [But not at Westport] - Cupertino seniors are used to the suburban lifestyle in Cupertino. It is unlikely that they would move into a high-density development with ONLY underground parking. Lower density for-sale town homes would be more attractive to Cupertino seniors. For those who prefer the privacy and autonomy of single-family homes, they would only move into senior centers with assisted living and on-site medical facilities. But Westport proposals do not provide the type of senior housing attractive to Cupertino seniors. Westport only provides senior housing for low and very low income so they are likely very tiny studios, not suitable for majority of Cupertino seniors.

3, More housing will reduce traffic since more people could live close to work. [But not really] - People tend to work where they are hired and live where they can afford and prefer. Some would rather commute a distance to get a bigger apartment or purchase a house. Most couples or families with kids won't be able to pick up and move when one of the parents find a new job. Thus, most people won't live close to their work most of the time, except for young singles. But young singles would rather live in urban centers near mass transit and vibrant night life. As a result, apartments at Westport will generate more traffic since they won't be all occupied by young singles. Westport Alternative II would definitely generate more traffic since there are 5 times more workers than the number of apartments.

4. Let the GPA process begin so that the traffic study can be done. [Worst reason to consider a GPA request, especially when the result of the traffic study would be ignored under SB 375] - There is no need to waste the staff time and the residents' time on any study if the benefits of the Westport proposals do not overwhelmingly benefit Cupertino. It's worth noting that the Westport site is located in designated Priority Development Area (PDA). As a result, SB 743 eliminated traffic congestion as an environmental impact for infill projects under CEQA. Meaning: The Westport project cannot be denied even if the traffic study concludes that the traffic impact will be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sincerely,

Liang Chao
Cupertino resident of 17 years

Liang - Are We Squeezing Existing Long-term Workers Out of Cupertino?

From: Liang Chao
Date: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:52 AM
Subject: Are We Squeezing Existing Long-term Workers Out of Cupertino?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

ABAG allocated only 1002 units to Cupertino based on their regional needs analysis because Cupertino is only served by a few bus lines. Cupertino should not build more than allocated since we don't have the transit infrastructure to support them. Building office space in Cupertino, where there is no mass transit, is against the principle of ABAG.

VTA has now cut the bus services to Cupertino in its new plan. With the critical mass of 30,000 students at De Anza College with free VTA pass, VTA still decides to cut bus services for Cupertino. No amount of high density projects in Cupertino would magically increase ridership.

Out of the 1002 units allocated to Cupertino, 600 units are allocated and already approved for Hamptons. 188 units are approved for Marina Plaza. Oaks is allocated 200-235 units and it should only build at most 235 units. No more office.

Marina Plaza can be economically feasible, while staying within 45 feet height limit. Why can't Oaks?

For every high-density project added to Cupertino, we are adding more cars to the already very congested roads. Our existing long-time workers depend on them to commute to Cupertino. Please don't worsen their commute so that they might have to stop working in Cupertinio.

The following letter has been submitted to Cupertino Courier. Please don't squeeze out long-time workers out of Cupertino with more high-density projects. Follow the General Plan.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

-------------------------------

Are We Squeezing Existing Long-term Workers Out of Cupertino?

There are already many workers who provide services to Cupertino today and for the last 20 years. These workers have all found a place they call home to raise their families, somewhere in Bay Area. Some might choose to live in a suburban home further away; some might choose to live in condos closer. They have all been able to commute to Cupertino for the past 20 years.

Unfortunately, their commute time has doubled in these recent years. If we continue to build high density developments, either office or residential, far away from mass transit, we are going to add more cars to the existing highways that the existing Cupertino workers depend on to get to work.

The capacity of the highways are limited and they are already over-saturated, which is why we have traffic congestion and longer commute time. High-density developments in areas without viable transit would squeeze existing workers out of these no-transit areas.

When the existing workers found that the commute time is quadrupled and they cannot tolerate anymore, they won't give up their existing comfortable home to move to Cupertino. Instead, they will quit their job in Cupertino and find other jobs closer to home. They might have to take a pay-cut as a result. Cupertino businesses and schools will have to hire new employees who live within closer distance to Cupertino and end up paying MORE to provide the same services. Thus, our living expenses would go up.

According to 2010 Census data, about 80% of Cupertino workers commute into Cupertino; about 80% of Cupertino residents commute out of Cupertino to work. By adding high density development where there is no mass transit, we are impacting the lives of all these people, long-time workers and residents of Cupertino.

Muni - OAKs aka Westport Project GPA

From: Muni
Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:51 PM
Subject: OAKs aka Westport Project GPA.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor and City Council,

As a vested resident of this city and community with desire to spend rest of my life here, I respectfully request that you vote against OAKs/Westport project GPA request on August 1st. 

I am in favor of approving the other 2 GPA requests as they both are requesting Hotel allocations within the city and they are not trying to trample over our GP on heights and density. It makes sense to accommodate business visitors to Cupertino offices within the city and gain tax revenues.

On the other hand, OAKs/Westport developer is playing hardball with our city and we should not be caving in for their hardball tactics. Here are the reasons why their GPA request should be denied.

1. Their Plan 2 is almost identical to the plan you voted down in 2016 with 4-1 verdict against it.

2. Their Plan 1 adds too many residences to an area that is already congested; moreover, these kids will go into Garden Gate elementary that has 50% classrooms as portables.

3. Adding any office allocation there further aggravates housing balance in Cupertino. We need to stop this vicious cycle of imbalance as we are maxed out on what Cupertino can take.

4. Traffic at that exit is at dangerous levels. There is no alternate public transport option.

5. The developer could not get enough signatures to put their request on ballot measure.

If they are honest about developing that property, they need to bring forward a plan that is within GP; not exceed 45 feet heigh limit, meet setback requirements and not exceed 200 housing units allowable within current GP. If they refuse to honor the GP and Muni code, then you should show your power by voting down their request. This is not a game of chicken to see who blinks first; this is about future of our city; we could be causing irreparable damage to our city by approving their request. 

Alternately, you could consider buying out OAKs property and put it to city use like we did 30 years ago with Cupertino Sports Center property. That would be a perfect solution given that it is located right next to Cupertino Sports Center, Memorial Park and Cupertino Senior Center.

The fact that the developer could not get signatures to support their project shows where residents stand on this project. You are representing the residents who elected you; I hope you listen to the voices of residents. I would hate to see this become another Vallco like contentious issue. I believe Cupertino history is filled with residents standing up for what they believe in and defeating any incursions through referendums. I would hate to see city resources wasted on such efforts.

Please listen to your audience and serve them in good faith.

Thanks

Muni 

Cupertino Resident.

Suzanne - Cupertino Should Purchase Oaks Shopping Center Site

From Suzanne:

Date: Wednesday July 26, 2017

Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;

I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals ignore our General Plan, and would increase the already terrible traffic congestion in this area.

I would like to submit an idea that would be a true enhancement to Cupertino. I respectfully ask our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park. Something similar was done when the City purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located. A friend, who lived behind that property at that time, told me a hotel was proposed to be built there. The citizens of Cupertino objected, and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center.

I have spoken to many friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park, and there is much enthusiasm for this idea. Cupertino could use more park and open space, and this is great opportunity to add the 8 acres of The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area. The Oaks location would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events, with adequate parking, which is not available near the current amphitheater. There would be space for an Arts and Crafts building, perhaps a small theater, more opportunities for children's activities, and much more. Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center. The existing Memorial Park could be planted with more trees, walking paths, and shaded areas for people to sit and enjoy the outdoors.

I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as possible in our City. We don't have many parks, and if this land becomes high density, it will never become green again. This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy, and a star in Cupertino's crown.

Thank you for considering what many of us in Cupertino would like to see in our City – a place of serenity and for community activities instead of more density and traffic problems.