Attachment B5: Online Survey On Forum Responses Summary

B5
Peak Democracy Recommendations for Interpreting Cupertino Town Hall Survey
Results – On Forum Responses
Prepared for the City of Cupertino
Introduction
Participation in Cupertino Town Hall is a voluntary public comment process. As with
any self-selecting, non-scientific survey process, (e.g., city council meetings, informal
communications with decision makers, etc.), the responses are not necessarily
representative of the entire Cupertino population. We recommend that these responses
be considered along with public input expressed in all available channels for
participation.
The report summarizes the results for the 382 On Forum responses from Part A of the
survey in figure 1 below, and the 300 On Forum responses from Part B of the survey in
figure 2.
"On Forum" versus "Off Forum": Registered versus Not Registered
There were 382 "On Forum" responses and 429 "Off Forum" responses in Part A:
Building Heights within Nodes and Gateways portion of the survey and 300 "On Forum"
responses and 182 "Off Forum" responses in Part B: Community Benefits Program and
Building Planes portion of the survey
In order to maximize the quality of participation, we encourage participants to register
with their full name and address. Registration enables us to identify the neighborhoods
from which the responses originate, verify that authors do not post multiple responses,
and contact the author in case of any problem. Responses from those who complete
their registration are called "On Forum" and are displayed to the general public
In order to broaden participation opportunities, we do accept responses from
participants without registering. Responses from users who do not complete their
registration are called "Off Forum" because we are not able to identify the geographical
location of these responses and/or verify multiple posts from one user. Occasionally
responses that do not comply with our published civility guidelines are also moved to
the Off Forum category.
The “Off Forum” responses should be considered as a separate channel of feedback,
much like feedback via anonymous emails and letters to government staff and elected
officials. Information for both On Forum and Off Forum responses are provided
separately for consideration, but it is important to keep in mind that the Off Forum
responses are similar to an informal online survey: They are more likely to contain
responses from users outside Cupertino and/or a user who posts multiple responses.
The Off Forum responses are summarized in the report titled “Peak Democracy
Recommendations for Interpreting Cupertino Town Hall Survey Results – Off Forum
Responses.”
Compliance with Guidelines for Civility
Peak Democracy monitors responses for compliance to our published Guidelines for
Civility [http://peakdemocracy.com/portals/213/db_message/statement_standards].
In both Parts A and B of the survey (Building Heights within Gateways and Nodes, and
Community Benefits Program and Building Planes), we discovered 13 responses from
one user who registered under 13 different email addresses. We discovered another 3
responses from another user who registered under one name and 3 different email
addresses.
Those responses are not consistent with our Guidelines for Civility. We move
responses that do not comply with our Guidelines for Civility to the Off Forum page, and
invite the authors to bring their responses into compliance.
In these two cases, the responses were moved Off Forum, and the authors were invited
to update their responses. Neither author has responded to our invitation; their
responses remain Off Forum.
Figure 1: Part A - Building Heights within Nodes and Gateways
382 On Forum Responses
‘Other’ responses:
1.
parent of CHS
2.
Concern Cupertino future
3.
concerned about the future of Cupertino
4.
Frequent visitor to businesses in Cupertino.
5.
i shop there
6.
for the future of Cupertino
7.
I shop in Cupertino a lot, and concern the future of Cupertino
8.
I've been a resident in Santa Clara for 35 years. My residence was in San Jose,
and Mountain View. I come to Cupertino shopping often.
9.
live near by cupertino and interest in architecture of buildings
10. My interest in Cupertino developments
11. I care about Cupertino and Silicon Valley
12. Resident of Santa Clara who shops in Cupertino frequently.
13. live at the boarder of cupertino
14. I patronize Cupertino businesses, particularly in Vallco area and Bluelight
Cinemas/Oaks plaza
15. I live on the border and frequent many businesses in Cupertion
16. Child attends cusd & fuhsd
17. Parent of CHS
‘Other’ responses:
1. we chat
2. a friend
3. we chat
4. Friends
5. radio
6. From Lawson middle school group email
7. NextDoor
8. family
9. FRIENDS
10. Cupertino Scene (A monthly publication of the city of Cupertino)
11. Cupertino scene
12. NextDoor posting
13. Nextdoor.com
14. Nextdoor Monta Vista
15. Cupertino Chamber email
16. Nextdoor
17. postings from children's school info websites i.e. school loop
18. Planning Staff
19. Nextdoor.com
20. Attended a previous community meeting held by city staff
21. Nextdoor.com
22. We heard about it from the Planning Director
23. NextDoor
24. nextdoor.com
25. NextDoor.com
26. Through NextDoor Neighborhood website
27. xyz
28. wechat from firend
29. Nextdoor
30. nextdoor.com
31. block leader program
32. Gary Jones, Next Door Cupertino web site
33. Next door
34. nextdoor app
35. Northpoint HO Assoc Group
36. Neighbor website
37. Nextdoor
38. Nextdoor Neighborhood
39. Nextdoor website
40. Nextdooor
41. NextDoor.com
42. Next Door Monta Vista app
43. Block Leader meetings
44. Nextdoor.com
‘Other’ responses:
1. Only when area is next to a freeway and there is no residential around
2. Cupertino residents don't want "urban canyons" of tall buildings & hi-density housing.
Housing advocates & developers push this agenda. An initiative (nearly adopted) &
a referendum (successful) show this. DON'T AMEND GP TO RAISE HEIGHTS &
DENSITY!
3. building heights may be relaxed in existing, largely commercial areas, as long as it
makes economic sense, and the residences in the area are not impacted. provision
must be made for parking and traffic management.
4. Near office parks away from single family neighborhoods
5. No Change.. leave building heights as per the current city rule
6. No high rise please
7. Only in North De Anza Special Area, City Center Node and North Cross roads Node
(described in map above)
8. Near vallco and city hall, also apple
9. One of our assets is a beautiful view of mountains on all sides. Taller buildings
occlude the sense that we are even in a valley. Standing next to a tall building in
Cupertino, one might as well be in downtown LA. Keep our natural beauty!
10. I would say all of the above, but I'm not sure what "appropriately setback" means.
Everybody's definition is different.
11. Near freeways, but not if it impacts neighborhoods, and only if adequate parking is
provided
12. City center
13. In general, no. We used to have such a beautiful view of the foothills from most of
Cupertino. Increased heights that take away that view are unacceptable, in my
opinion.
14. Only City Center node, North Crossroads node, N. De Anza Special area
15. Near freeways and office parks
16. I am unable to select more than one from above list. I would accept near freeways
and office parks.
17. near freeways and near office parks. not near residences. (survey did not allow for
picking multiple choices). i believe public transportation should be near residences
and businesses.
18. Survey only allows one response - I want near freeways and setback
19. Near freeways - only in the gateways indicated above, please no new gateways or
nodes for high raise buildings and commercial activities.buildings.
20. Yes, when not in single family neighborhoods (or even multifamily). More important
though is that tall buildings be set back from the street where they are. A tall building
flush with the sidewalk has a strong negative impact vs. one set way back.
21. near freeways, pub transportation- question would not let me check more than one
box
22. Near freeway,office parks and public transport. Couldn't choose more than one on
survey.
23. not possible to check more than one box
24. All of the above MAY BE acceptable -- not WOULD BE.
25. Cupertino needs to move into teh 21st Century with the rest of Silicon Valley and
provide support for the 20,0000 new employees coming over next 5 to 10 years. I
say go higher where ever you are able.
26. Depends on project;Hamptons as tall/dense as neighbors support; all other
height/density minimized. Office stay within surrounding envelope; 60' on N.
DeAnza, 45' other, disregard City Center height; bad mistake. No impact to single
family neighborhods
27. Near freeways and near office parks, but not near single family neighborhoods
‘Other’ responses:
1. Up to 2 stories
2. Low height, more open space and trees would make Cupertino a great place.
Drawings in Option A and B make Cupertino look like a slum.
3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
4. Lower heights
5. Use existing zoning.
6. No Change.. leave it just commercial
7. too close to the road
8. Taller buildings here would dwarf the residences around the Gateway, obliterate
views, even with a larger setback. 15 feet? Really?
9. Option B would be fine if there is a greater setback and greater emphasis on
landscaping and trees. The example shown is not attractive. To much asphalt and
cement, not enough greenery.
10. I guess A would be best but would require underground parking to be built. Many
shopping centers now don't have enough space and parking. I am also concerned
about the future of the bowling alley.
11. 2-3 stories
12. 30 feet or less
13. Two stories only
14. 2 stories
15. any height
16. What is the plan for Stelling road? It is a narrow 30mph street. Will it be able to
handle anymore traffic? Even now, it is congested during peak hours.
17. I feel that 45 or 60 feet tall with a 30 FOOT SETBACK would be more acceptable. 15
foot setback is not enough.
18. both A and B mixed use would be OK as long as ther is ADEQUATE parking and no
other 60 foot ht buildings nearby and the is no 1:1 plane
19. It's not just the height but the design. I might prefer even higher if the design for
residential was more like option A. Both office building designs are unattractive.
20. any plan must provide adequate parking (2 cars/residence)
21. 35 feet
22. 35 feet would be about right
23. 45' max, less preferred; no mixed use, too much already, open retail space on NW
corner of intersection, 2-3 story, moderate density housing; walkable to Homestead,
builder funds 2 shuttles; one to Middle school, one to elementary; fits all needs
24. I don't support residential mixed-use development (the space would be better suited
for sole commercial use), and two stories is most appropriate for this area. I strongly
oppose 4-5 stories for the building.
25. limit existing buildings to their current height, all additional buildings limited to 45 feet
‘Other’ responses:
1. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
2. Use existing zoning
3. I don't understand: as you point out, there are already two appropriately-sized and
set back buildings there. Are you proposing replacing them with buildings over 45
feet, totally obscuring views esp. with minimal setback. Not appropriate!
4. Again, all examples put little value on landscaping and setback, they are too dense
for the lot space. Going higher is better if it means the building footprint is smaller
and we can have wider sidewalks and more greenery and landscaping.
5. 2-3 stories
6. Any height
7. up to 80 feet
8. A or B seem reasonable for that location. For B I feel that a larger setback would be
appropriate.
9. Could go higher here depending on design. Need setbacks for interest, character.
10. adequate parking must be provided (not shared parking)
11. Up to 95 feet for a Hotel Expansion otherwise 45 feet.
12. 35 feet
13. 35 feet would be about right
14. Phase 1; build "replacement" Cupertino Inn on "Goodyear" site; 3-4 stories up to 45';
once open, serve existing customers and keep workers employed; phase 2,
demolish existing, build new up to ~ 95', with height pushed toward the 280 of lot
15. Option A but again, I would rather see only two stories at most.
16. If the setback from DeAnza is minimal as in these images, then 45'. With greater
setback, I would consider 95'
‘Other’ responses:
1. Up to 2 stories
2. Keep it as is today.
3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
4. Option B but ensuring proper setback from residential area (no views into
backyards)
5. Again, greater setbacks needed for trees and landscaping, Go high to preserve or
enhance green space and require underground parking as apposed to huge asphalt
lots that are a major heat sink in cities and an eye soar.
6. 2-3 stories
7. maintain same building heights.
8. Any height
9. Up to 60 feet seems reasonable as long as the street trees are not cut down! Street
trees change the whole character of a neighborhood. And again taller buildings
should have larger setbacks. Setback equal to building height ideally!
10. I think it should be a mix. the more set back and green space the taller it could be
11. Depends on the design. Need setbacks.
12. adequate new parking;i.e. underground garages
13. 35 feet
14. 45' east of DeAnza; 35' west of DeAnza
15. 60 feet; i.e., nothing higher than Apple 1 at Infinite Loop; West side of DeAnza
should be Office/retail only; housing does NOT work here. East Side of DeAnza can
have housing as this side can be safe for biking/walking
16. I would like to see this be zoned for commercial use, and Option A seems best.
‘Other’ responses:
1. Up to 2 stories
2. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re-zone.
3. up to 45 feet, no-rezone.
4. Keep the current height if you can not make it lower.
5. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
6. up to 45 feet
7. Lower heights
8. I don't understand why my options were 45 feet and this is the only question that had
60 feet as the first option. Why do you feel this is appropriate? It should be kept at
the same or lower height as existing buildings.
9. Use existing zoning.
10. No change.. leave it the way it is now.
11. Not more than 45 ft
12. up to 45 feet (3-4 stories)
13. Option B with setback from residences (no views into backyards)
14. Up to 8 stories but ONLY along 280. Otherwise 4-5 stories in rest of zone.
15. up to 45 feet
16. I have no problem with 130ft in this section, if the overall building footprint is smaller
than the examples shown and setbacks remain 55ft or great and is dedicated to
wider sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping and not parking spaces.
17. Up to 3-4 stories
18. 2-3 stories
19. below 45 feet.
20. 45 feet should be the maximum height
21. 45 feet
22. 45 feet
23. Up to 45 ft
24. already congested. preferred to maintain the same building heights.
25. up to 45 feet
26. Any height
27. max 45 ft ht, minimum 75 ft setbacks
28. a mixture of A and B
29. Can go higher here too but need setbacks and open space.
30. 45'
31. 45 feet would be about right
32. Strange question; there is a thriving Asian retail complex here now; City should
explain why they would mess with that first; Much of this borders neighborhood, so
30' max next to homes, 45' max next to existing retail; corner near 280, 60-95' might
work
33. I don't support the rezoning of the Vallco area. But out of all the options, option A is
the best.
34. limit existing building locations to current height. New construction limit to 60 feet
‘Other’ responses:
1. Up to 2 stories
2. No more increase to the building height.
3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
4. Use existing zoning.
5. No change to the current height for that area.
6. The artist rendering of the 110 ft option is the same as the 90ft option above. Is this
correct? 90ft be would be fine if the heights are staggered like the rendering and not
like the big-box building on the right, which dominates the skyline.
7. 2-3 stories
8. Keep height similar to heights around city hall/library area so buildings don't loom
over city hall area
9. Any height
10. A.This is aready a mess with park space that not usuable. I
11. Area already packed; don't remove parking
12. 35'
13. 35 feet would be about right
14. City Center is the most unpleasant section of town today; too high, too dense, too
cold, too dark; it needs more Green spaces and better connectivity for bicyclists and
pedestrians and buses.
‘Other’ responses:
1. No more increasing height(s).
2. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
3. Use existing zoning.
4. No change to heights. Leave it the way it is.
5. This is one of the most charming, archtecturally speaking, areas of Cupertino. Don't
mess with it!
6. A 35ft setback might be appropriate for a 45ft building, but is too small for a 75ft
building. As the height of the building increases so should the setback to create
balance.
7. 2-3 stories
8. 200 feet
9. Any height
10. 45-75 feet would be fine in that already urban area. But bigger setbacks and new
street trees could transform the character in a positive way, even while allowing
much taller buildings.
11. 3-4 but need setbacks.
12. 35'
13. 35 feet would be about right
14. 30' max; no housing; this node cannot support height/density beyond existing
regardless of usage; Marina is an example of a "shoehorn" project where someone
tries to force something in where it does not belong. You do NOT want any children
in this area.
‘Other’ responses:
1. up to 2 stories
2. No more increasing height(s).
3. DON'T RAISE BUILDING HEIGHTS!
4. Use existing zoning.
5. If we create greater setbacks and increase space for pedestrians and bikes,
residents will be more likely to get out of their cars. Go high to make room for
strolling, and biking,
6. 2-3 stories
7. Problematic area for retail, other than college students. I'd limit it to two stories,
residential only.
8. any height
9. Before development here need better access to 280 and 85. Still need setbacks.
10. 35'
11. 35 feet would be about right
12. 45' max but ONLY along the 85 side; underground parking is a must; 50% of units
for seniors; i.e., do what makes sense here; minimal retail for Deanza students and
seniors live next to senior center; need better access than today's in/out nightmare
Text responses:
1. If you don't want to create a concrete canyon (and radically change the feel of
Cupertino), you need additional setback - the 15' setbacks with tall buildings are
ridiculous.
2. All existing building should be limited to their existing heights. In the event of
removal of the structure and new building on that location, heights should be limited
to the height of the structure removed. Only new structures should be allowed to be
built to zone limits
3. Please don't tear down the shops in the Oaks Gateway, as well as Vallco. As a
student and resident of Cupertino, I've seen the impact of these establishments on
students' lives. They are more than just shops -- they are places that define
Cupertino. Taking away these places (like the Vallco Ice Skating Rink or JC
Penney's) means taking away Cupertino's identity (what makes Cupertino unique
compared to other cities like Mountain View or San Jose) and dulling the lives of
students here.
4. I hope that when deciding heights for buildings in cupertino in the future, the overall
feel of the community will be taken into account. These tall buildings will look
extremely odd to cupertino and are not desirable to the residents that have made
this such a wonderful place to live.
5. Cupertino should stay as closely as possible to its small town vibe and avoid too
much large building construction. Having lived here for over 30 years, I still
remember when it was rare to have buildings over 1 story. I do not feel mixed use
commercial/residential buildings best serve the school districts and existing
residents of Cupertino.
6. Emotions vs The Greater Good City of Cupertino community’s issues
understandably are powerful drivers of emotions running deep in the fiber of our
neighborhoods, this is completely reasonable and to be respected. One current
issue is the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and height limits for certain properties
being increased from 45 feet to anything from 75 to 110 feet. There are individuals
who oppose increasing these limits, which is their right. This opposition in part is
driven by fear that nearby neighborhood property values will decline from views
being blocked, residences being shadowed from higher buildings, increased traffic
and more school children from added apartments. These are compelling arguments
and in some regard the inevitable outcome of higher height limits. In dispute is the
decline in property values, it is undisputable that longer shadows will be cast, there
will be an increase in traffic as well as more school aged children. The dilemma is
the emotion that runs deep versus the “Greater Good,” herein lay the frustration. No,
we would not like our homes shadowed out or views blocked, no we would not like
more traffic, no we do not want over-crowded schools and no we do not want our
neighbors homes to decline in value; we are human beings just like the rest of you
and we share the same feelings if this was happening to us. Why then are we writing
this post not to the survey? Because people make choices and those choices are
made for reasons that later are not forthcoming in arguments presented as
emotional objection to change for the Greater Good. What is the Greater Good?
When people purchase property in a less than desirable location the price will most
likely reflect the risk associated with it, for example being on a busy street, a major
intersection, commercial/retail, a flood zone or on the San Andreas Fault for that
matter. This risk is normally represented buy a discount from market value of similar
properties near the risk area. In other words they may have purchased the less
desirable location because it was less expensive. What happens next? When the
risk or threat of change becomes a reality, the current owners in this hazard zone
naturally attempt to argue against the other property owner improving their value.
That is understandable and many will be sympathetic to the cause of the less
fortunate property owner. I am not trying to be negative, only factual. I understand
fully the emotional argument. I also understand the argument for a property owner
trying to improve the value of their commercial, retail or multi-unit property.
Cupertino desperately needs new housing units. Future residents of Cupertino have
a right to live her too. There has and never will be a right for the current residents to
exclude others from having the opportunity to live in Cupertino, that might be
unconstitutional or at least very selfish. The City also has an obligation/right to
improve the economic opportunity for the other residents of Cupertino who did not
take the risk of purchasing property in a less desirable location. I was upset when
the Cupertino Inn development took out the lumber yard. Well, too bad for me. The
example of a new 110 ft high hotel going where my favorite tire store is now; well,
too bad for me. People who purchased condo units across from proposed location of
the new hotel at 110 ft was a risk they took knowing the property across the street
was zoned commercial. They live with one of the busiest intersections in the county
and a cross section of Hwy 280 and So De Anza Boulevard. In fact, I believe the
addition of the hotel may increase the value of those condos. Let’s get a favorable
community benefit agreement from that tire store property owner to go up to 110 ft
and we’ll all enjoy a new 5 star hotel, we need the banquet space for local events.
7. 4-5 story buildings with adequate underground and side parking might still allow light
and air and the ability to not feel choked off by high rises. Adequate parking is a
priority.
8. It all depends on the setback. I am open to larger height increases if it improves the
design and overall aesthetics of the site. Very much site specific.
9. Transportation access is critical to determining proper density. Maybe DeAnza
college needs a separate flyover to get onto campus. Gridlock is already an issue
coming off 85 to Stevens creek.
10. Mixed use and mixed heights is the way to go with adequate partking and pockets of
green and areas for future puplic transit. Having all the building be one height is not
a good idea
11. One area in Cupertino should be the tallest. It would really detract from the beauty of
the city if there were many tall buildings. It would look too city-like. Please maintain
all but one area within Cupertino semi-rural looking.
12. In general, larger setbacks make tall buildings much more palatable. I'd like to see
larger setbacks being considered. Similarly, presence of street trees (and even
additional trees in aforementioned larger setbacks) can make any area more
comfortable for residents. An example of how tree removal changes the character of
an area: Highway 280 between Lawrence and Wolf, on the 280-South side of the
highway: A very very large office building and parking garage were erected within
the last year or so. Trees were removed, greatly detracting from the driving-throughthe-woods feeling that much of 280 provides. Keep the trees and we can still have a
beautiful city, even with taller buildings.
13. No new gateways or nodes. Please keep in mind - building more office/commercial
space than what is already available in Cupertino is not a good idea. Empty
commercial space is not only a huge waste of resources but will encourage owners
to rent/lease/loan them cheap for business that are better elsewhere but not
Cupertino.
14. We don't need such high rise buildings, there are other ways your can increase the
city revenue.
15. The traffics on steven's creek won't be able to handle the increase loading from both
areas. Pls don't add more to the problem.
16. Minimum 75 ft setbacks, maximum 1:1 building planes on all sides
17. I think taller commercial buildings are fine next to shorter commercial buildings. I
think it is not appropriate to have 6 story commercial buildings next to 1-2 story
private residences.
18. We should plan for more greed land that come along with the new buildings
19. Why does everything have to be high?
20. Basically we need to have a solution for traffic, school, safe/clean environment and
etc before we consider increasing building heights with combined commercial and
residential.
21. In general, commercial buildings should not overpower existing residential areas.
Ideally, higher commercial buildings would be clustered and surrounding areas
(commercial/residential apts) would "step down" to residential home heights. Goal:
avoid patchiness and commercial buildings that loom starkly over much lower height
residential/civic center areas.
22. I'm very concerned about Cupertino losing it's charm by building high rise structures.
23. I do not want the character of our town to change to a higher one than it is. Many
areas with 45 foot height limits are only built now to 1 and 2 stories, and I don't want
those built any higher than they are now, so they should have reducted ht limits as
developers tend to go to max height limits. Resident views should have more weight
than other stakeholders, as we live here nights and weekends and for our lifetimes.
Only resident votes should be counted, and other views should be advisory only. For
planning staff, this is a work product. For residents it seriously affects quality of life.
24. I have lived here for 30years and I've seen lots of growth with zero progress. Our
infrastructure is in decay and our safety is being jeopardized. 10lbs does not fit in a
5lb bag without hemorrhaging. If I wanted skyscrapers I'd move to a large city.
Cupertino offers little I can't get elsewhere.
25. The proposed Community Benefits is far too small to compensate for the negatives
associated with the increased high limits. You are selling out our schools, roads,
parks for a fraction of their value.
26. How will all this increased traffic be handled?
27. Gateways projects especially along major transportation corridors are perfect
locations to allow increased heights. This will allow projects to be creative and create
vibrant mixed use developments serving new residents/employees of Cupertino.
28. Allowing higher building limits would bring more congestion, traffic, and noise into
Cupertino. It would also downgrade the character and quality of life for residents of
Cupertino.
29. I appreciate the careful approach to this discussion. Lets face it, this is one of the
greatest places on the planet, these heights in these locations will not diminish the
greatness, but will only enhance our quality of life...Keep Cupertino at the leading
edge. Go Up Selectively!
30. Please ensure the use of plenty of landscaping, which will soften the hard surface of
buildings and make the area more attractive.
31. Allowing additional height will give the developers the best oppertunity to create
value for the project, the community and the city.
32. Over all maximum height should be 45 feet or less. To my knowledge, there has
been no plan to address the increase traffic and congestion that more office
buildings and housing units will create.
33. Please don't expand the city like crazy
34. Generally, it is not a possible to consider increasing the building heights without any
other context, such as what is the expecting plan for the land use, what is the
setback expected, what is slope of the building. The building heights increase
inevitably going to increase the density of the land use, it is not just a question of
how the building looks. Without proper assessment of the environmental impact on
traffic, school and public services, it is improper to just talking about building heights
alone. This is why I don't support any building height change at this point.
35. We don't want high density buildings in this area. Local schools can not afford that
many new students. The traffic has already been terrible nowadays. Crime rate will
increase too. We need a more quiet and peaceful neighborhood.
36. I have developed major concern over the high desity plan that Cupertino City
Council is considering over the past a few months. I understand that the city needs
development, but the pace and the direction of the development should be right. We
should consider the impact of the high density office and residential development to
the education and traffic, safety of the current residents, or the life quality of
Cupertino residents. In the end, we do not want the development hurt us after all.
Without proper assessment of the environmental impact on traffice, school and
public services, it is improper to just talking about building heights alone. Therefore, I
do not support any building height changes at this time.
37. As long as the traffic is managed properly, the height should be maximised as this is
already in a office development zone
38. Keep it low enough that the neighbors are Boyle impacted by looking at the new
buildings rather than the sky.
39. The tall buildings should all be at the cross roads. There should be no tall buildings
east of De Anza Blvd.
40. Apple is here to stay, and the resulting business environment means that Cupertino
needs more office and hotel space. If such development does proceed, I'd much
rather see vertical construction in freeway-adjacent locations across the city (e.g.,
the Oaks near 85; the Cupertino Inn area on De Anza north of 280; North Vallco
gateway on Wolfe north of 280) than along Stevens Creek Boulevard (or anywhere
else not immediately adjacent to a freeway). Other than at the Oaks, height limits
should remain as they are along Stevens Creek. Stevens Creek is the primary
transportation corridor for residents. That should be kept as open as possible.
Otherwise, build wisely for the future and don’t get misty eyed about a long-gone
rural past.
41. Caution at traditional residential areas such as Homestead , Stelling, the Oaks, the
DeAnza/Stevens Creek are should be very limied. There is the danger of creating
the Manhanttan corridor effect where high density buildings create not only
increased traffic , but also created poor visibility around corners, lack of privacy for
residents, church congregations and provide additional risks for pedestrians, and
cyclists. concerns for school children, the elderly , and resident.
42. I don't want to see Cupertino look like Downtown San Jose.
43. Try to align housing density (height) and jobs (offices) to encourage walking to work.
Second, also align density with mass transit routes.
44. I think all heights should be restricted to no more than 45 feet. The designated areas
will already be heavily congested with the new Apple building, and there is already
considerable development. I would prefer not to have any more construction in these
areas.
45. The building heights need be limited to 3-4 stories and less than 45 feet at most.
46. Traffic in all these areas is already horrible, with inadequate parking for many of
these new, large structures that are right on the street and look terrible [e.g., the
construction near Target took away what little parking Panera was using, and
building right on the roadway is very very ugly--are users of these new buildings all
going to park at Target????]. Ingress/egress for the Oaks is heinous, with people
vying to get into the lane to get onto 85 but waiting until the last minute due to the
poorly designed entrances to the Oaks which slow traffic in that lane. The buildings
at the SE corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek are way too big. Cupertino is a small
town and should retain its charming character, not build huge buildings that tower
over the streets and clog our roadways with traffic.
47. Density is going to happen as more people move to the city. I'm in favor of
increasing heights, but in a way that is balanced and attractive. Most of the example
presented, show huge buildings, with a small sidewalks and very little landscaping.
This is not aesthetically pleasing. Setback should be increased as heights increase
so there is additional room for landscaping, pedestrians and bikes. Not for more
surface parking and extra traffic lanes. We need to draw a line on vehicle traffic. Lets
do all we can to encourage alternative transportation. We have room on Stevens
Creek and De Anza to place bike lanes next to the sidewalk and place parking next
to traffic lanes so the parked cars protect bicycles and pedestrians from traffic. All
new development should be forced to build underground parking. I know this is
expensive and developers will push back, but land is at a premium and we must
protect it now while we can.
48. Cupertino needs to grow upwards. Urban infill can support our growing economy
and resist sprawl. I support smart growth and transit oriented development.
49. I am very much opposed to these nodes and gateways becoming the looming
structures depicted in the sketches, devouring what little green space there now is,
and eliminating the beautiful views that give Cupertino its quality of being nestled in
the foothills. It's fine to do this in areas where they do not share this proximity to
beauty, but why would anyone want to make Cupertino streets a maze of corridors
through walls of tall buildings with minimal setbacks. As the Merc pointed out
yesterday, Palo Alto is weighing the same options: do we limit office space, increase
height, increase density? It is my understanding that increased office space means
more jobs in Cupertino, which means a requirement of more housing. I already see
office and retail space for rent everywhere. Let's stop increasing the office
space/jobs NOW, and concentrate on preserving our city's beautiful views and
character before it turns into another Los Angeles.
50. I do not want to see any changes to the existing General Plan. Cupertino does not
need additional building with associated taxpayer cost and inconvenience. Traffic is
miserable now and would only get worse with additional construction. And where will
the water come from in this drought?
51. higher the better. more homes. more businesses. higher revenue.
52. 45 feet should be maximum height in all areas. Less than 45 feet is ok too.
53. Increasing building heights means more people coming in/out of Cupertino every
day, our 85 and 280 freeway entrances / exits are already like parking lots at peak
hours. Do we have plans to improve that and other infrastructure to support the
growth?
54. Would love a Cupertino downtown. Change is difficult for many, we need to come
into this century with the rest of the Valley.
55. I don't see the reason why Cupertino wants to rezone and increase height limits. It
destroys the small-town feel of Cupertino.
56. 30 to 35 feet should be tops. We are humans who need space and comfort.
57. I prefer lower the height the better. We don't need to have too many tall buildings in
the city, there are already too many MONSTER, UGLY building in the city, especially
the one at the cross section of De Anza and Steven Creek Blvd. It gives us a too
crowded feeling of City of Cupertino.
58. Cupertino should maintain its beauty and suburban atmosphere by not building high
rise buidling
59. You ask about height. What about density and traffic impact? I don't think you can
separate these issues. You can't treat these areas independently without
considering the cumulative impact. Today you can't drive down DeAnza at rush hour.
60. Traffic and traffic control will be major issues in the suggested areas.
61. Tall buildings grouped together with good public transport and separation from
residential should work fine and allow Cupertino to expand both office and
residential spaces upward.
62. Please allow enough parking spaces for the new buildings. Use a raised parking
structure if necessary. Also please allow for large enough spaces for large cars and
adequate access ways.
63. I am assuming that the plans for all new buildings will include additional and
adequate parking, so as to not interfere with current businesses.
64. If the max height regulation is raised, the setback regulation should also be raised.
Cupertino city planning department should announce city's countermeasure of
residential unit increase like sewer, electrical and school capacity before any max
height change. Cupertino city planning department should also warrantee no traffic
jam by so many residential unuts
65. I didn't answer most questions - too complicated and needs study. However, a main
concern is traffic and parking. Increased height means increased traffic and parking
problems. Last week, I could not drive through the center between De Anza &
Stevens Creek, from the Chevron past Sprouts, to access the stop light on Stevens
Creek - wanted to turn left to get to Stelling. Traffic at a standstill in front of Sprouts,
people looking for parking. I gave up and turned around and exited to Stevens Creek
in the opposite direction I wanted to be in, then took a different route. I avoid that
center because parking is so difficult. Seems like the plan emphasizes bike and
pedesterian (sp.?) use - where would you bike/walk to from the Monta Vista South
area, when you are in your 70's??? Even our VTA bus route was discontinued a
number of years ago. Also affected by increased height thus increased occupancy
would be the schools - can CUSD handle it?
66. Don't build over 45 to 60 ft. buildings. Keep Cupertino a town, not a metropolis!
67. Traffic, parking, and Population density a major concern to me
68. In general, I do not want more high rise buildings in cupertino. Having said that,
would prefer the lowest height.
69. No high rise..
70. Heights of commercial and mixed-use properties should be a mix of, with higher
structures next to freeways and lower structures inside "core" areas. Higher
structures presumably will have increased traffic (e.g. employees, residents) thus
making them close to freeway exits makes all the sense in doing what we can to
manage traffic.
71. The current heights are appropriate for a non-urban city. They nicely retain the
beauty of our trees and the views of the surrounding hillsides. Allowing larger, more
densely located buildings will only exacerbate issue with traffic congestion, noise, air
quality and generally place a higher demand on other resources, such as water.
Every single development in Cupertino in recent years has resulted in the removal of
large, mature trees, and replacement with scrawny saplings that will not reach
maturity for years and years. Rezoning to permit larger, more dense building only
makes this worse. Finally, increasing the zoned building heights in large areas
makes it more likely that developers will demand that they be allowed to build to the
zoned heights, regardless of specific project review. And if they don't feel like they
are getting what they want if it is within the zoning guidelines, they only need to
threaten the City and City Council with a lawsuit (as the Biltmore II project did). It is
far simpler to keep the current zoning heights and do a voter-approved exception
when needed.
72. Keep them no more than 45 ft would be the best considering the environment impact
and beauty of the city,
73. keeping the existing height, no increased height!!!
74. None for the time being
75. No
76. No
77. No
78. no
79. It would be nice to have a residency building near the marina market for the students
that do come from out of state.
80. Do the best to help people make people livable in Cupertino
81. no
82. I don't want Cupertino to become a canyon of tall buildings, like parts of San Jose.
Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Gatos are unique in Santa Clara Valley--let's
keep it that way.
83. I do not want to see any changes to the General Plan. Commercial and residential
building is out of control and making Cupertino a less desirable place to live. Our
schools are going to become overcrowded and taxpayers will be on the hook to
expand them. And we certainly do not need any more traffic.
84. Before we start changing the city's height limit at the blanket level, we need to first
address the traffic impact and then dedide what kind of building will be built at the
location. Height limit given for a hotel may not be applicable for the residential
building. Without knowing what kind of building will be there, height limit discussion
is meaningless.
85. Please consider the appeal of Cupertino. I have enjoyed living here for 24 years and
I don't want Cupertino to become like Los Angeles. Please don't trade community
benefits for increased height limits. The existing limits allow a lot of growth.
86. Use existing zoning.
87. Please consider existing buildings and businesses before planning and building new
buildings. I don't understand why areas with existing and successful businesses are
including in areas being considered to knock down and build new buildings. I also do
not understand why all these areas are condensed in one area of our city.
88. SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than 45 feet heights ANYWHERE near single family
homes. Heights not to exceed existing heights of surrounding buildings.
89. Because the limitation of the heavy traffic in cupertino, the height limits should not
increase in those areas.
90. I would keep the Wolfe Rd. area no higher than 4 stories because it's already so
crowded and the streets are so congested there. And brand new streets, a parking
garage and sidewalks were put in just a few of years ago.
91. a) I don't see any reason to restrict under-ground depth of buildings. If people need
another story, they can always go down. b) I think its ok to allow open air roof-top
terrace or beer gardens, where you get floor space for activity, which out needing
extra building height.
92. Overcrowding schools. Increased traffic.
93. Buildings at corner of Stevens Creek & Deanza (Hotel corner) are too tall. They
obscure the previously beautiful view Cupertino had of the foothills. Because of that
building fiasco, I am against increasing heights anywhere in Cupertino.
94. If there is proposed project that is more dense, taller, and/or closer to street than
GP. The council should put the approval on the election ballot to see if it should be
approved.
95. Up to 45 feet should be the max, since the city can not control the building design of
the developers. In most cases they try to make full use of even single inch instead of
making the building looks inviting. The lower the better, then we can have more
trees and open space to make Cupertino look great. I like Cupertino and I want it to
remain a place where I can be proud of.
96. no re-zone. protect the environment and quality of life of Cupertino residents
97. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re-zone.
98. No rezoning and no changes to building heights
99. I would like to keep the height limit as minimum.
100.
no
101.
n/a
102. Develop the public transit before consider squeezing more people into such a
small town. It is not Manhattan or Tokyo!
103. Unclear from this survey whether existing setbacks would be maintained with
taller building limits. I object to Cupertino having the big city feel of streets as narrow
canyons between tall buildings. Strong setbacks make taller buildings ok.
104.
no high density housing before we have solution fot traffic, environment, school.
Figure 2: Part B - Community Benefits Program and Building Planes
300 On Forum Responses
‘Other’ responses:
1.
parent of CHS
2.
my home is in CUSD
3.
Neighbor
4.
Resident of Santa Clara who visits Cupertino frequently
5.
live at the boader of cupertino
6.
I patronize Cupertino businesses (particularly in Vallco area and Bluelight
Cinemas/Oaks plaza)
7.
Child attends cusd & fuhsd
Text responses:
1.
no high density building....more trees
2.
No high density buildings at all
3.
No
4.
I prefer a larger setback so the street won't look too crowded.
5.
For all Cupertino's major streets, there needs to be AT LEAST1.5:1 building plane
and plant more trees.
6.
NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re-zone.
7.
NO increase on building height and NO community benefits.
8.
The setback of the building from street is very essential to maintain a suburban
style. Rosebowl is one example of how the building should not be approved. There
is no patch of green or setback in the Rosebowl complex.. how was it even
approved? Any mixed used development needs to have enough parking and green
space. People live in California to enjoy the natural sun all year around and not to
get cooped inside a building.
9.
I think the wide boulevard, with large set-backs and large mature trees is important
to the Cupertino feel and experience. That makes sidewalks also well set-back
from the street for a more pleasurable walking experience.
10. With all the constructions (apartments and office buildings like apple) areas in and
around the Wolfe and Stevens Creek, near Cupertino High School is becoming
very crowded during school start and end hours and traffic is becoming very bad.
We should not be concentrating all development around the same place.
11. I think that current building planes are suitable for Cupertino to reduce the intensity
of the development
12. Please be considerate of the surrounding neighbors when thinking about heights
and planes. We all have the right to conserve the privacy that we bought our
houses with. Please don't make our city look like a concrete jungle.
13. Street-side buildings should be well set back so they do not appear so monstrous.
14. 50 feet setback definitely desired.
15. No
16. No
17. No
18. Keep all existing building plane ratio. No increased and changed!
19. More setback is preferred. Otherwise, the street will look too crowded and really
ugly.
20. I like the 1.5:1 because it opens up the sidewalk, and seems to allow for both
walking and room to landscape, or place benches or patios.
21. I view these as more "core" areas, meaning they are further away from freeways
and nearer residential areas.
22. I don't understand how there could be an advantage of a 1:1 plane over the 1:5:1.
The 1:5:1 plane has a larger setback, permitting more vegetation, and does not
rise as steeply, avoiding the feeling of being inside an "urban canyon".
23. My response assumes adequate (preferably underground) parking is included in all
plans so as to have a zero impact on existing businesses and residences.
24. No more commercial buildings!
25. please keep Cupertino's charm and beauty by not over built
26. no
27. I don't find that the 1.5:1 Building Plane Example matches the Building Plane
Diagram. The Example shows the building straight up, there is no slope as shown
in the diagram.
28. Buildings should be as unobtrusive as possible.
29. The taller a building the great the setback needs to be. A wider setback would
accommodate dedicated sidewalks and bike lanes as well as landscaping. All our
setbacks on commercial roads should be 1.5.1 in my opinion.
30. I did NOT buy my residence in Cupertino hoping that the city would change from a
quiet suburban residential area into a high populaiton-density city of high-rises.
31. I don't think we need more congestion in Cupertino.
32. How about a 1;1 building plan with a 50 foot setback so people can walk or cycle?
Be sure to provide plenty of parking both onstreet and on lots. Be especially
sensitive to the Sunnyvale homes on the North side of Homestead. My concern is
there little concern concer,ning residential homes, churches, or other room for the
fulfilling our human needs other than shops, restaurants, work . No recreation,
privacy, worship places,or non commercial areas.
33. Safety first for pedestrians, bikes, enough space for parking. Easy access for
emergency personnel
34. I think that building planes along Stevens Creek Boulevard should be allowed to be
more steep (e.g., 0.75:1) to allow for a more urban, pedestrian-friendly feel.
35. Add additional space for more parking and turn in space
36. I think more set back is needed, and space for side road, trees and greens are
much appreciated.
37. I wish to preserve & extend the tree avenues as well as the large offset between
the sidewalks and the street. Where building densities will greatly increase I
would to see sidewalk widths increased.
38. Generally, more set back is preferred.
39. In order to allow for design flexibility, Vallco should not be subject to either of the
1.5:1 or 1:1 building plane standards.
40. The taller the building, the larger the set back should be. I chose 1.5:1 because I
think that generates the larger set back. If I mis understood and the 1:1 creates
the larger set back, then I would change my answer to 1:1
41. The best of Cupertino major streets was used to be Wolfe street between
Homestead and Vallco Mall. The nice part was the big beautiful trees a long
sidewalk and green&decorated divider.
42. From the photos, the 1.5:1 building plane just looks so much more pleasant and
aesthetically pleasing.
43. Do not build on North side because it will block the sun on the homes to the north.
44. The city appears to be allowing substantial increases in residential units.
Commercial space would provide more tax revenue with a lesser impact to our
schools and city services. Adding too many apartment units as opposed to town
homes or even condominiums also degrades the city.
45. I prefer a suburban look to a more city look.
46. Allowing taller looking buildings (1:1 building planes) along specific main streets
will give Cupertino a more impressive look. As it stands right now, the low profile
look of the city makes it incredibly unmemorable for visitors.
47. The south side of Homestead Road is across from private residences, and I think
1.5:1 is a better balance visually to the homes across the street when traveling
along Homestead Rd. The north side of Stevens Creek Blvd is across from other
businesses of similar height.
48. And miminum 75 ft setbacks
49. What are your plans for extra schools and parks? I see only more business
buildings, remember Cupertino is not an industrial estate, it's home to many. Apple
and few companies around which is now there is enough.
50. The building planes should be varried otherwise everything looks like building
blocks
51. I think it really depends on the project. Overall, given Stevens Creek is a major
thoroughfare, I would be ok with 1:1 given the objective in improving street
presence and incorporating sidewalks and projects.
52. In some cases the 1:1 would be appropriate
53. First, the pictures were poorly chosen, which causes confusion. It would have
been better similar type buildings for both cases, rather than a stairstep building in
the 1:1 example and a shear building in the 1:1.5 example. Second, wouldn't it
have helped if you had provided some background as to why you are even asking
these questions in locations that already have approved building plans and will be
completed as designed within a year. i.e, most all of us assume that the south side
of Homestead Rd. in the section indicated is part of Apple Campus 2; has existing,
approved design, so why would you be asking about this stretch at all? Very
confusing. Similar comment for the North side of Stevens Creek between Wolfe
and Tantau, which once Main St. is completely will be fully developed. I assume
that I am not the only one confused here; so I would hope you will clarify the
confusion, improve the questions/explanation/examples and give us another
chance to provide feedback.
54. On Stevens Creek the plane should be kept at 1:5:1 to be in line with the area you
showed as an example. That area is very nice and especially walkable and family
friendly.
‘Other’ responses:
1.
I really don't like the idea of community benefit, which is quite a misleading name. I
don't see any way to measure or foresee whether the benefit will cover the
negative effect of increasing maximum height limitation.
2.
I like the 'land for a park' idea, but extend it to a central farmers market, and
welcoming places for people to meet and interact.
3.
Set aside land for places to be developed for schools medical centers, and small
services such as dry cleaning, shoe repair.and places of worship.
4.
Perhaps besides all the development is to save land for further
development/expansion, public use such as library or park, or recreation as
needed
5.
We need more baseball fields. Cupertino National Little League Major teams only
practice 3x/week due to lack of fields. Most other communities allow their little
league teams to practice 4x/week. Please build more baseball fields.
6.
All these should be specified in GPA as ordinance, not as bargain point for the
developer
7.
All these should be specified in GPA as ordinance, not as bargain point for the
developer.
8.
Money for schools
9.
All of the above plus open space, low income senior housing, and low income
family housing.
10. No exceptions to building heights, no public benefits
11. In the project unless community decides something needs to expand nearby
12. You are using assumptions and leading questions in above items. None of above
because I disagree with your assumption that we need to have community benefit
program in lieu of bldg. heights.
13. Donation to the school system
14. wording of 1st 2 responses is poor. In general, I do not support the program as
proposed, but if implemented land set aside for schools and parks is reasonable
but NOT for other public facilities; i.e., you blurred the responses to ones I cannot
support
Text responses:
1.
Fix the problems first. Don't keep building and building. We, the tax payers, have to
pick up the pieces later.
2.
I don't want a crowded city. I would live in San Jose if I want to live near taller
buildings.
3.
q7 is misleadung. I wont select any of them since I wint vote for high density
building.
4.
This questionnaire is very misleading.
5.
Q7 is misleading question. I against the benefit program since it eventually will
build more high density community which will ruin our environment, traffic, safety,
increasing school population.
6.
Don't sell our city to the developers for fake Community Benefits.
7.
No Community Benefits. It only benefits developers. Increased height will bring
MORE traffic! MORE traffic accidents! MORE crowded schools! MORE portable
classroom modules! MORE toilets, sinks and water restrictions! MORE air pollution
(spare the air days)! MORE asthma and health problems! MORE demand on parks
and recreation services and city services. MORE problems in public safety. Who
will pay for fixing these problems? The tax payers. We will deal with these
problems for years to come while the developers are long gone with their profit.
8.
No Community Benefits Program at all
9.
No community benefit program! No exceptions to our current zoning laws!
10. Q9 did not allow the selection of multiple items. I would select all of the following:
parking near stores, traffic management, trails. Even better than parking near
stores is to NOT build so many stores on a lot such that the parking becomes
inadequate. e,g, Crossroads at Stevens Creek & DeAnza Blvd. redevelopment,
which now has insufficient parking.
11. Community benefit may out outweigh the negative effect of increase building
height limit. I prefer to keep the building height limit as current and do NOT bargain
with developer on any community benefit. It's way too tricky!
12. The so call "Community Benefits Program" is not well defined, it may potentially
bring more issues to the city due to additional request from developers.
13. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits. NO re-zone.
14. NO increase on building height and NO community benefits.
15. Community Benefits would be good.
16. Your choices of community benefits are not enough to compensate for the
proposed change in height requirements
17. Community Benefits program is a way of giving developers a blank check to
building taller buildings. Why have we seen so much traffic congestion recently if
the impact from traffic of the new buildings and office occupants not shown much
impact in the past. Is the traffic impact report accurate? We still dont have the new
Apple campus or MainStreet opened for business yet. What measures have be
taken to resolve the traffic congestion that is bound to happen in 2016 when both
these projects open up? City should not let developers do anything in the name of
Community Benefits.... period!!
18. In general, I am against community benefits because it represents the laws as
slipery slopes, in which one can "buy themselves" right to break the law. The
richer a developer, the more he can "bend the law" by offering community benefits.
This is not the American way, which is equal applicaiton of the law to all people.
19. It is not clear as to what all community the benefits are for. Is it for the community
surrounding the area of development or whole of Cupertino? Also I think it will be
wise to reduce traffic congestion around the school areas, which given the current
set of development at least around Cupertino High School, will increase a lot. Not
sure if any of the above community benefits can address any of that.
20. No community benefit program please! No exceptions to our current zoning laws
21. NO EXCEPTIONS TO CURRENT ZONING LAWS. NO COMMUNITY BENEFITS
PROGRAM. DEVELOPERS MUST ABIDE BY THE ZONING LAWS. NO
EXCEPTIONS BOUGHT WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM.
22. I answered that I feel that we would not benefit from a community benefits
program. Why was I asked to answer question about a program I do not feel
should be in place? I answered with things I do feel would benefit our community,
but I do not believe they should be part of the program described above. Please do
not make exceptions to current zoning.
23. No Community Benefit program. No exceptions to current zoning laws.
24. When people live in dense housing, they need open space like parks to
decompress. Please require open green space for each dense housing building
that you approve.
25. I don't like any of the choices in Q7 and would prioritize all of them 4/4 if I were
given the option. I should have been able to check "None of the above" for this
question. Developers should not be able to buy their way into changes in the
General Plan, no matter how much money they throw around. We still have to live
in this city.
26. No
27. No
28. Follow existing zoning laws, no community benefit program in exchange to
increased height! No exceptions to our current zoning laws!
29. Community benefit is quite a misleading name. It will finally turn into developer's
benefit. I hope city council to think it over and be very cautious about using socalled community benefit. There is no way to accurately measure the negative
effect of relaxed maximum height limitation, and ask for a "community benefit" as
return.
30. I feel strongly that a formal Community Benefits program simply allows developers
to buy their way into more height and density, even if the community doesn't want
it. It encourages abuse. The City can still have development agreements that
include benefits to the community without succumbing to the demands of
developers to allow higher, denser construction because the City has already
agreed to let them buy it in exchange for "Community Benefits". I AM NOT
ACCEPTING THE DEFAULT PRIORITIES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS
BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT A COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM IN
CUPERTINO. I AM DIAPPOINTED THAT THE BIAS OF THESE QUESTIONS IS
IMPLYING THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM,
PERIOD.
31. I'm a bit concerned that an in-lieu fee would get lost, and not directly benefit the
residents of Cupertino in a way that would really offset the problems associated
with growth and increasing density.
32. Although in-lieu would give the Council much flexibility in using this income, I fear
fund $$ dilution. Better to have the developer BUILD whatever we agree is
important to us as beneficial to the community.
33. Think seriously about water use, traffic, school overcrowding, over population.
Traffic from Apple is already an undesirable reality. Yes to water wise walking
trails, public safety, and our precious nature protection. Don't let money be your
guiding light. Don't be like the city of Sunnyvale. Follow the example of Saratoga.
34. I would rather not have the city overcrowded.
35. The community benefits I checked above - parks, transportation amenities, etc. are things I believe the city needs, and I think the city should insist on these as a
condition for being permitted to build here: period. They should not be received as
a reward for compromising on additional height of buildings or reduced setbacks.
That is saying, "We're fine with you building oversized urban canyons in our city,
as long as you pay us for it." What is that worth, if we are left with a city that has
lost space for parks, gardens and views of the surrounding mountains? New
construction near the Apple campus should be required to emulate and reflect
what Apple is trying to do with its restoration of natural habitat, walking trails, and
trees.
36. we don't need community benefits. We don't want developers to develop any more
than currently allowed by the city code. We need to stick to existing zoning as
much as possible.
37. Trading height for retail in Cupertino has provided dubious benefits to the
residents, but has been profitable for developers. Palo Alto's version of "community
benefits" ("planned community") have been halted because of concerns of abuse.
So-called "community benefits" are a way for buildings to grow higher than the
zoned height, and the benefit to the community is subject to the weak negotiations
of the City.
38. Should not allow deep pocket developers to work-around the city plans approved
by citizens and their representitives.
39. These surveys are poorly done. Some are single select as above, can't chose 2
areas of parks that need the most improvement, only "all" "none" or a single. Crazy
survey - did any one test it first? Did you have a statistician look at it? I don't trust
our city to make good decisions about changing the height limits in return for
community benefit.
40. Please do not extort money from builders or developers who are willing to invest in
Cupertino by using their own resources to create housing and businesses in
Cupertino.
41. One of the requirements should be that the community benefit program needs to
be done first before any development starts, e.g if the community benefit program
is "more bike lanes, better citywide traffic management etc." then this should be
implemented and demonstrated that traffic is better before any development starts.
42. Can Cupertino be bought?
43. These usually benefit the developers, not the residents (and certainly not the
residents of the surrounding cities)
44. Parking spots need to be wider. Also, please do not allow the planting of any more
Society Garlic (Tulbaghia violacea). It's low-maintenance and pretty, but
absolutely unacceptable because it makes it surroundings smell like skunk!
45. please secure public library, park, additional school site if Cupertino wants to
expand more residential housing plan. Developers focus on their profits and they
will go once their profits in the pocket. City and residents have to live here forever.
Please consider residents' benefits prior to developers.
46. As a Cupertino residence, I care more about whether we would still enjoy living in
this city after 10, or 20 years, instead of how much the developer would pay in
exchange of making more profit.
47. I voted NO on question #5 because no flexibility is mentioned in allowing the height
limit to be raised in certain of the listed areas BUT not allowed in some of the
areas. The danger of raising the limit in an area is making living conditions worse
in that area; but if benefits (i.e. mitigation) is allowed in another area, there is a
disconnect there.
48. Cupertino gets a lots of funding from Apple, we should not exchange the building
height for the developer's money. There are way too many tall & ugly buildings in a
small city like Cupertino. We DON'T LIKE MONSTER BUILDING, We DON'T
WANT MONSTER BUILDING.
49. In-lieu fees are a cop-out for the developer and often are not used appropriately.
50. I do not approve of a Community Benefits Program and do not think developers
should be able to buy their way into General Plan changes.
51. I answered "I prefer not to answer the question" for several questions because I
don't think community benefits are a good idea. If there are no community benefits
then the questions are irrelevant.
52. Cupertino, on the far east side, between Miller / Lawrence, Steven's Creek /
Bollinger, has far less amenities than rest of the city. Would like to see some
improvement here.
53. It should be a straight trade... the higher your development the more land you
have to dedicate to open space, wider sidewalks, bike lanes, underground parking
as apposed to surface parking, and alternative transportation options. When funds
go into the general fund unrestricted, there's no telling what they will be use for.
54. Do not allow exceptions to the height requirements. Restrictions are there for a
reason--to enhance the livability of a community. Providing developers the option
to "buy out" just diminishes the atmosphere of the region and degrades our quality
of life. By all means, charge developers fees for any negative impact their
construction will have, but don't let them get around the rules just because they
have money to buy the city off. Any funding to schools should be to help citizens
of CUPERTINO, not to the general student population, since many students are
residents of other cities that build housing in our school districts without regard to
its impact on our ability to accommodate those additional students.
55. For affordable housing would be good.
56. I would recommend talking to the Cupertino Librarian about stand-alone automated
check-out machines in lieu of an additional branch due to limited funding to staff a
branch.
57. Cupertino development can develop by hindering fast development. Instead solve
the transportation problems such as a community wide shuttle that can take
residents, employees and visitors to all places such as light rail, Kaiser, Cal Trans,
medical facitities, grade and high schools, library, employers,as well as shopping
such as Valley Fair. Solve school site expansion problems while the land exisits.
Think qualify of life. I feel developers find it easier to develop fast and get out
rather than see how the people develop the uses. Planning details can hinder
unintended consequences.
58. I suppose the city may already charge propriety tax, any additional fees may be a
burden, should be viewed as optional or part of special call for donations or funding
(hopefully short term as needed)
59. We need adequate, affordable housing for non-tech middle class people who make
the city run: teachers, retail/foodservice employees, bankers, librarians, sheriff/fire,
city employees. We need more parking in retail areas!
60. Cupertino needs more office and hotel space. If such development does proceed,
I'd much rather see vertical construction in freeway-adjacent locations across the
city than along Stevens Creek. Community Benefits should obviously result from
any such vertical construction. At the February 4 workshop, our table stated the
following priorities: (1) funding to schools, (2) traffic mitigation, (3) park space.
61. improve access to freeways
62. It is not right for them to be able to get a special deviation because they can pay
their way out. The residents have spoken already about the height restrictions and
set backs.
63. I am not very familiar about the communicty benefits program in terms of what cost
we need to pay to get some benefits from the developers. But I do want to share
my thoughts about it that we all want living in Cupertino to be pleasant and
worthwhile, develop a high density office and residential around Valco area is not
what I consider a good development plan for this area. Valco area should remain
as retail space, and that is much needed function for Cupertino residents.
64. Increased building heights affect residents' quality of life in several ways: Increased enrollment in a fixed number of school campuses - Increased traffic and
decreased air quality - Increased consumption of natural resources like water Increased strain on city services like sheriff and Parks and Recreation services Decreased views of sky, trees and hills as the main roads becomes "concrete
canyons" with walls of tall buildings. We don't want increased building heights for
all above concerns. In addition, there should always be a transparent process for
any General Plan exception, and public hearing/input required..
65. Community Benefits program has been proven to be Developer Benefits program.
GPA should be rules and guidelines to be respect and followed, not something for
sale. It is city's job to enhance city's infrastructure and fund these projects through
proper venue. Expecting developer to do the right thing is naive and irresponsible.
66. The questions are not framed clear enough. Our concern is the overbuild of the
city. To be clear. We against plans for multi units in the area
67. None of the community benefits programs offer enough details for Cupertino
residents to understand the long-term cost of allowing developers to bypass the
current zoning/building requirements. I attended the workshop regarding
community benefits in February and was very disappointed that there was very
little information in that workshop about the long term impact on traffic, school, and
overall infrastructure. Until those details are made very clear to all the Cupertino
residents, it's much better to not to have such Community Benefits Program.
68. I am not in support of a Community Benefits Program so I did not wish to answer
many of the questions.
69. Community benefit programs and in-lieu fees sound like ways for deep-pocket
developers to circumvent existing height limits. This would cause more
congestion, noise, and traffic for Cupertino, aspects which the "benefits" and "fees"
cannot undo.
70. Cupertino is a prosperous city - does not need any additional services or facilities
or funds couched as 'Community Benefits'. There should be no zoning changes or
building code exceptions traded off for such benefits. Period.
71. The proposed community benefits is a pittance. The value of our community
schools, roads, parks, library, and community services are far higher than any
combination of the benefits listed above. I entered "I prefer not to answer the
question" in places that I assumed my answer would be miss represented.
72. Set the height restrictions and stick to them. Don't allow developers to "buy" favors
73. I do not believe that developers should be able to trade community benefits in
exchange for additional heights. It was clear at the community meeting that most
folks feel that way too, so this is a very leading survey. I only weighed in to the
choices to have a say if the end result is to allow such manipulation of the general
plan.
74. More building equates to more traffic and congestion. Get people off the road with
better transportation exclusive for Cupertino. Mountain View is offering shuttle
services to various places such as supermarkets and restaurants and shopping
centers, not just shuttle stops. WIth the influx of money Cupertino is getting from
new development and Apple, why can't we get the same? Add better bike lanes so
people feel safe with the increased traffic and cars on the road.
75. Think Cupertino needs to look more closely at what other neighbor communities
are doing in this area. We should not be in competition with our close neighbors. A
more integrated approach would be helpful.
76. I think it would be good to add low income senior housing and low income family
housing. Student housing near De Anza College would be good too.
77. No building height exceptions, make developers stay within the current
requirements. No public benefits for increased heights.
78. In lieu of fees but at a higher rate so the developer will not always choose in lieu
fee. The city would be able to handle the additional cost to plan and build
79. Q8-11 should be something we can multi select on rather than one or all. For
example, with Q9 I don't want more parking near stores -- but I want everything
related to better pedestrian and bike options.
80. Yes they should and these fees should be used to increase/improve impacted
schools or to purchase land to open a new school.
81. The business buildings that we have in Cupertino is enough and lets make it better
by making it more livable rather than into a concrete jungle
82. No
83. We will vote out current council people if they assume we agree with adding height
to buildings. Keeping growth down when we have water issues is also important.
We have limited natural resources and did not move here to live in a city!
84. The questions above did not allow for multiple choices other than All of the above.
On Q12 there should be an option for an in-lieu fee but it should be at the
discretion of the city not the developer.
85. Need to ensure community benefit actually does improve or provide a benefit to
the Community. I do not view 'for profit' retail stores as a benefit to the community.
It should be something the community needs and wants.
86. I answer yes to #12 only if city council/staff identifies what the fee is directed
towards prior to approval.
87. I'm uncomfortable with this whole idea. It feels like an "official method" for
developers to "bribe" the City for entitlements/approvals that they would not
otherwise be able to gain. Without a sound, forward looking traffic improvement
program, the City should resist developer desires for greater employment and/or
residential densities. Community Benefits Programs make such resistance
potentially more difficult.
88. Not sure about in-lieu fees, but I believe they tend to be an easy fix for developers
who want more height nor no parking and money can be put into a slush fund
which is hard to track
89. For Q12 and in general, at this time it seems that most developers are drooling at
the chance to build in Cupertino. Before discussing community benefits, the bar
for entry into discussion needs to be raised. i.e., the developer should pay
additional in-lieu fees just for being able to develop here not for building higher
than the majority of residents want in this area. These in-lieu fees should begin at
seven figures and scale with the size of the project. They should be prioritized
toward improving public safety in/around our schools.
90. Community benefits are kickbacks for violating zoning codes. Developers must be
required to meet codes - no negotiation after the fact. The city should negotiate
parks and community services as part of the development agreement for
development within existing codes.