Written Communications (Updated 10-13-2022)PC 10-112022
Oral Communications
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Meeting
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2022 7:03 AM
To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>;
Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello All especially City Clerk,
Please forward this e‐mail message to the Planning Commission, City Council and to any one else that is involved with
these matters it seems that this is the
only way to contact everyone.
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ 408‐253‐0490
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting
To: <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com>
Hello,
It is time to put all commissions and meetings Cupertino has at the City Hall for all people to come to the meeting. I ask
that you change your meeting over
to accommodate those who wish to attend in‐house meetings.
I am against signs being put up at the storage units near the 280 freeway. It is bad enough that the storage units are
there and that the public can see them
from the freeway and now you want to put up signs to please stop this allowance from taking place.
I think it is fine to have more than one unit on a very large piece of the single family home plots but under certain
circumstances as long as it does not interfere
with the neighboring properties this should be really observed case by case. I would also like to see tiny houses put on
the property but there are restrictions
with the footage from the fence line and the house in place this may need to be adjusted on another piece of ordinance
in the future please see that it happens.
2
I also have issues and have had issues about the Apple Computer R & D facility next to my home for years they have
been polluting the homes nearby and I
would like to see them moved this building is zoned for commercial and residential it is not zoned for industrial and that
is what this R & D Facility is so please
see what you can do about this my family and I have suffered long enough from their pollution to the Air, Water and
Soil. Apple installed a massive HVAC system
on top of this building so it is very evident what is going on in secret the Fire Department will not act in any way to stop
this. In the past the BAAQMD and the EPA have done
nothing to correct this problem so I will be bringing this before the City of Cupertino's City Council.
Please provide my concerns to the commissions for their review meetings that need to be conducted at City Hall but if
you wish to have them also on the web that
is ok with me. I would also like to stress that having meeting of any kind especially the City Council meetings that last
late into the evening does not accomodate
all of the public's needs and views please set up a 10:00 PM limit.
I also ask that the City council old and new members coming in will receive my comments from this e‐mail message.
These matters are serious and I also have a great
deal more issues that I have constantly been sending e‐mails to the City and Council about that have not been rectified.
I ask that someone get back to me ASAP!
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcement Advocate
CAP‐Citizens Against Pollotion
408‐253‐0490
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 5:00 PM City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> wrote:
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:45 p.m.
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:45 p.m.
To register for this teleconference meeting, please refer to the agenda linked below.
3
View agenda:
Agenda
Live Webcast
To view the past minutes and webcast archives visit:
Agenda, Minutes & Webcast Archives
Contact Phone: (408) 777‐3308
cupertino.org
City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help
This email was sent to cathyhelger@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, CA ꞏ 10300
Torre Avenue ꞏ Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
PC 10-11-2022
Item #2
Public Hearing,
20565 Valley Green Dr.
(EXC-2022-003)
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, October 10, 2022 2:51 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:RE: Planning Commission 10/11/22 Agenda Item #2 Not in Favor of Sign Exemption
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I have additional comments pertaining to this item. I am concerned that these signs will be distracting to
motorists, particularly on Highway 280 after dark. This issue is addressed twice within the municipal code that
applies to signage as follows:
19.104.050 Sign Permit Application–Review Criteria.
B. The proposed sign's color and illumination is not in conflict with the safe flow of traffic on the City
streets.
19.104.220 Design Criteria–Permanent Signs.
G. The sign's color and illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rani Fischer <ranif@scvas.org>
Sent:Monday, October 10, 2022 4:58 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Shani Kleinhaus
Subject:Item 2 on the October 11 Agenda- illuminated Signs at 20565 Valley Green Drive
Attachments:Cupertino Illuminated Signs.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cahar Scharf and Planning Commissioners,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society is an environmental organization based in Cupertino. We have
engaged in many Cupertino planning efforts over the past twenty years, and write today to express our
opposition to freeway- facing illuminated signs. Please see our letter attached.
Thank you,
Rani Fischer
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Environmental Advocacy Assistant
October 10, 2022
Cupertino Planning Commission
planningcommission@cupertino.org
Re:Item 2 on the October 11 Agenda:
Please do not allow illuminated Signs at 20565 Valley Green Drive
Dear Chair Scharf and Planning Commissioners,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society is an environmental organization based in Cupertino. We have
engaged in many Cupertino planning efforts over the past 20 years, and write today to express our
concern regarding freeway facing illuminated signs. We ask:
-Please do not approve a Sign Exception to allow any illuminated/electronic wall signs on the
storage facility buildings.
-If illuminated/electronic signs are considered, please:
-Conduct a public survey to gage community support
-Require CEQA analysis to study the impact on aesthetic, driver safety, and biological
resources.
Previous Approval On June 18, 2019, City Council approved a Development Permit (DP-2018-03),
Architectural Site Approval (ASA-2018-04), Fence Exception (EXC-2018-01), and Tree Removal Permit
(TR-2019-11) to allow the construction of a new storage facility consisting of two (2) four (4) story
buildings. Signage details were excluded from those permit applications. Staff has now evaluated signage
proposals. Our concerns are focused on the lighting of the proposed signs, and we ask the commission
not to approve lighting on any sign.
1.City Code
City code section 19.104.220 Design Criteria–Permanent Signs,G. provides, “The sign's color and
illumination shall not produce distraction to motorists or nearby residents.”
(Ord. 21-2234, Att. A (§ 9, part), 2021; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011)
The intent of freeway facing signs is clearly to distract motorists and draw their attention. Thus, freeway
facing signs, especially illuminated signs, are not consistent with Cupertino’s design criteria.
2.CEQA
We believe that the proposed freeway facing illuminated signs must require CEQA review and public
outreach to analyze and mitigate impacts to the scenic quality of the I-280 corridor.
Interstate 280 in Santa Clara County, including the section along Cupertino, is eligible for Scenic Highway
designation (see Figure 1). Electronic, digital and illuminated signs clutter and degrade visual quality and
aesthetic resources. I-280 in this section has wide shoulders, berms and trees all intended to create a
visual buffer along the freeway, and limit visual interference from businesses and urban activities (see
Figure 2). The impacts of I-280 facing illuminated signs should be analyzed in a public CEQA process.
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Thank you for your attention,
Rani Fischer
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Environmental Advocacy Assistant
1
Cyrah Caburian
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Meeting
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2022 7:03 AM
To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>;
Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello All especially City Clerk,
Please forward this e‐mail message to the Planning Commission, City Council and to any one else that is involved with
these matters it seems that this is the
only way to contact everyone.
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ 408‐253‐0490
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting
To: <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com>
Hello,
It is time to put all commissions and meetings Cupertino has at the City Hall for all people to come to the meeting. I ask
that you change your meeting over
to accommodate those who wish to attend in‐house meetings.
I am against signs being put up at the storage units near the 280 freeway. It is bad enough that the storage units are
there and that the public can see them
from the freeway and now you want to put up signs to please stop this allowance from taking place.
I think it is fine to have more than one unit on a very large piece of the single family home plots but under certain
circumstances as long as it does not interfere
with the neighboring properties this should be really observed case by case. I would also like to see tiny houses put on
the property but there are restrictions
with the footage from the fence line and the house in place this may need to be adjusted on another piece of ordinance
in the future please see that it happens.
2
I also have issues and have had issues about the Apple Computer R & D facility next to my home for years they have
been polluting the homes nearby and I
would like to see them moved this building is zoned for commercial and residential it is not zoned for industrial and that
is what this R & D Facility is so please
see what you can do about this my family and I have suffered long enough from their pollution to the Air, Water and
Soil. Apple installed a massive HVAC system
on top of this building so it is very evident what is going on in secret the Fire Department will not act in any way to stop
this. In the past the BAAQMD and the EPA have done
nothing to correct this problem so I will be bringing this before the City of Cupertino's City Council.
Please provide my concerns to the commissions for their review meetings that need to be conducted at City Hall but if
you wish to have them also on the web that
is ok with me. I would also like to stress that having meeting of any kind especially the City Council meetings that last
late into the evening does not accomodate
all of the public's needs and views please set up a 10:00 PM limit.
I also ask that the City council old and new members coming in will receive my comments from this e‐mail message.
These matters are serious and I also have a great
deal more issues that I have constantly been sending e‐mails to the City and Council about that have not been rectified.
I ask that someone get back to me ASAP!
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcement Advocate
CAP‐Citizens Against Pollotion
408‐253‐0490
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 5:00 PM City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> wrote:
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:45 p.m.
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:45 p.m.
To register for this teleconference meeting, please refer to the agenda linked below.
3
View agenda:
Agenda
Live Webcast
To view the past minutes and webcast archives visit:
Agenda, Minutes & Webcast Archives
Contact Phone: (408) 777‐3308
cupertino.org
City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help
This email was sent to cathyhelger@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, CA ꞏ 10300
Torre Avenue ꞏ Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Brian Schmidt <brian@greenfoothills.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 11, 2022 5:58 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Subject:Planning Commission 10/11/22 Agenda Item #2: Please do not allow illuminated signs facing
Highway 280 Exemption
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission:
Green Foothills strongly supports the protection of the night sky and applauds Cupertino for its Dark Sky ordinance. In
keeping with the spirit of protecting the night sky, we ask you not to approve any illuminated signs facing Highway 280.
Besides being a distraction for drivers, they add cumulatively to the light pollution while not assisting local traffic. In the
modern age of smart phone maps, people do not need these signs to find a business, and the light pollution hurts
everyone.
Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt
‐‐
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.photo
Brian Schmidt
Policy and Advocacy Director
(415) 994-7403 | greenfoothills.org
Celebrating 60 years of protecting local nature.
Get tickets for our Nature's Inspiration extravaganza on September 25th!
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Cyrah Caburian
Sent:Thursday, October 13, 2022 10:33 AM
To:Rhoda Fry
Subject:RE: Why didn't my comments make it into the public record?
(City Clerk and Planning Commission moved to bcc)
Good morning Rhoda,
Thank you for the email and apologize that your email from Sunday evening was not included though the emails were. I
just uploaded the late written communications this morning around the time of your email (which includes Brian of
Greenfoothill’s email); that being said, I will reupload to include your comments as submitted. Feel free to contact me
with any questions.
Best,
Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
cyrahc@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1374
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 10:04 AM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>
Subject: Why didn't my comments make it into the public record?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi City Clerk,
I’m looking at the public record for this meeting and do not see my comments posted as shown below.
I understand that Greenfoothills also wrote the Planning Commission and do not see their comments either.
Can you correct the administrative record?
Thanks,
Rhoda
From: Rhoda Fry [mailto:fryhouse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2022 1:00 AM
To: 'planningcommission@cupertino.org' <planningcommission@cupertino.org>
Cc: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Planning Commission 10/11/22 Agenda Item #2 Not in Favor of Sign Exemption
Dear Planning Commission,
2
I am writing you regarding the Planning Commission on 10/11/22 Agenda Item #2 for a sign exemption. I am
not in favor of large illuminated signs that would face Highway 280. Two illuminated signs, totaling ~320
square feet, would directly face the freeway and a third of ~50 square feet would likely be visible from the
freeway. This agenda item can be found here:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5868412&GUID=E33E36EA-CD6C-45FE-AB5C-
8114692E266E&Options=&Search=
Concerns:
1. Has this item been reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee?
2. The City of Cupertino recently passed a Dark Sky Ordinance to protect birds and other wildlife and it is
surprising to see that the City would consider approving an exemption for illuminated signage that
would increase the number of allowed signs.
3. Having an illuminated sign facing Highway 280 would create a significant and unavoidable impact to a
portion of Highway 280 that is eligible to be a State Scenic Highway (adjacent portions of Highway 280
are already designated as State Scenic Highways). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-
architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways Consequently, I do not believe that this
project is not exempt from CEQA.
4. Please consider this story from KQED that explains, “Why Aren't Any Billboards on 280?”
https://www.kqed.org/news/11805469/why-arent-any-billboards-on-280
5. Page 5 of the Staff Report states, “This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15301: Existing Facilities.” However, this
project has not even completed construction according to the building permit history. Out of 8 permits
pulled, only two are finaled – for demolition and temporary power. Even more confusing, a permit was
already issued for illuminated signs (it appears to have expired). All of this makes the project really look
like it is piecemealing or segmenting of CEQA; this does not look good and it might not even be
allowable. Consequently, this project is likely not exempt from CEQA. Please read on to find the permit
history.
6. According to the staff report, “The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental
Services Division, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed the project and have no
objections.” How about the California Department of Transportation / Caltrans?
7. If you absolutely must approve signs facing 280, please do not allow them to be illuminated.
8. Does the City of Cupertino want to be known for defiling one of California’s eligible State Scenic
Highways?
Please find below a permit history (extracted from the database on 10/09/2022):
Date: 11/18/2019
Permit #: BLD-2019-1380
Status: Issued
Description: PUBLIC STORAGE - BUILDING B - NEW 4 STORY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT (137,140 SF)REV #1-
REVISED SHORING PLAN TO SHOW ONE EXACTION FOR BUILDINGS B IN LIEU OF SEPARATE EXCAVATIONS
PER BUILDING; REVISED ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSULTANT PLANS (SEE NARRATIVE IN
DOCUMENTS PORTLET/PDOX FOR COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES) - APPROVED 2/24/2021REV #2 -
REVISE A FEW UNITLITY ITEMS PER CALWATER AND CLEAN UP ROOF DRAINS DISCREPANCIES - CIVIL AND
PLUM BULLETIN 2; REVISE DOORS IN FARE WALL TO BE ADA COMPLIANT, REVISE DOOR HARDWARE - ACRH -
ELEC BULLETIN 4; REVISE DIMENSIONS AND NOTING TO CLEAN UP DISCREPANCIES - STRUCT BULLETIN 4;
ADD EXHAUST FAN FRO FIRE PUMP ROOM - MECH BULLETIN 4 - APPROVED 7/21/2021REV # 3 - REVISED
DISCREPENCIES ON ROOF DRAINS (CIVIL & PLUMBING - BULLETIN 7); REVISED METAL PANEL AND SOME
PAINT CALL OUT THE ELEVATION AND SECTIONS - BULLETIN 7. UPDATED THE SOLAR PANEL
SPECIFICATIONSREV #4 - ADD TWO HOUR RATED SHAFT AROUND FIRE SPRINKLE PIPING BEHIND
ELEVATORS - APPROVED 7/1/2022REV#5 - SEE NARRATIVE - DEF#1 - ELEVATOR PACKAGE - APPROVED
5/26/21DEF#2 - REVISED ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM-APPROVED 4/21/2021DEF#3 - EXTERIOR METAL CANOPY
- APPROVED 11/9/21DEF#4 - UNIT STORAGE LOCKERS - APPROVED 07/28/2021-DEF#5 - EXTERIOR PANELS -
APPROVED 04/05/2022DEF#4 REV#1 - LOCKER DOORS ADJUSTED (9)-
3
Date: 11/18/2019
Permit #: BLD-2019-1381
Status: Issued
PUBLIC STORAGE - SITE IMPROVEMENTSREV # 1 - REVISED A FEW UTILITY ITEMS PER CAL WATER AND
CLEANED UP A FEW DISCREPANCIES ON ROOF DRAINS (CIVIL AND PLUMBING - BULLETIN 2 & 5); REVISED
WATER SERVICE FOR LANDSCAPE -BULLETIN 5; SHIFTED DRAINS - BULLETIN 7
Date: 11/18/2019
Permit #: BLD-2019-1385
Status: Issued
PUBLIC STORAGE - BUILDING A - NEW 4-STORY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT (134,358 SF) REV #1 - REVISED
SHORING PLAN TO SHOW ONE EXACTION FOR BUILDINGS A IN LIEU OF SEPARATE EXCAVATIONS PER
BUILDING; REVISED ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSULTANT PLANS (SEE NARRATIVE IN
DOCUMENTS PORTLET/PDOX FOR DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES.) - APPROVED 02/24/2021REV #2 - REVISE A
FEW UNITLITY ITEMS PER CALWATER AND CLEAN UP ROOF DRAINS DISCREPANCIES - CIVIL AND PLUM -
BULLETIN 2; REVISE DOORS IN FARE WALL TO BE ADA COMPLIANT, REVISE DOOR HARDWARE - ACRH -ELEC
BULLETIN 4; REVISE DIMENSIONS AND NOTING TO CLEAN UP DISCREPANCIES - STRUCT BULLETIN 4; ADD
EXHAUST FAN FOR FIRE PUMP ROOM - MECH BULLETIN 4 - APPROVED 09/27/2021 REV # 3 - REVISED
DISCREPENCIES ON ROOF DRAINS (CIVIL & PLUMBING - BULLETIN 7); REVISED METAL PANEL AND SOME
PAINT CALL OUT THE ELEVATION AND SECTIONS REV # 4 - REVISED OFFICE PLAN AND ADDED A UNISEX
RESTROOM BESIDE OFFICE - (BULLETIN 8) REV#5 - SEE NARRATIVE-DEF#1 - ELEVATOR PACKAGE-APPROVED
5/25/2021DEF#2 - REVISED ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM-APPROVED 4/21/2021DEF # 3 - EXTERIOR METAL
CANOPY - APPROVED 09/28/2021DEF#4 - UNIT STORAGE LOCKERS - APPROVED 07/28/21DEF# 4 - REV # 1 -
REVISE LOCKERS FOR BUILDING (A) - APPROVED 07/13/2022DEF#5 - EXTERIOR PANELS - APPROVED
07/13/2022
Date: 12/4/2019
Permit #: BLD-2019-1495
Status: Finaled
DEMO (9) ONE STORY STORAGE BUILDINGS AND SITE WORK (54,186 SF).
Date: 11/20/2020
Permit #: BLD-2020-1945
Status: Issued
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER (480 SF).
Date: 1/5/2021
Permit #: BLD-2021-0020
Status: Issued
PUBLIC STORAGE (N) 306-PANEL ROOF MOUNTED PV SYSTEM (100 kW); (N) SOLAR PANELBOARD (200 AMP);
(N) FUSED AC DISCONNECT.REV#1 - UPDATED THE SOLAR PANEL SPECIFICATIONS-APPROVED 8/3/2021
Date: 1/28/2021
Permit #: BLD-2021-0191
Status: Finaled
PUBLIC STORAGE - TEMP POWER FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE (2) 100 AMP SUB-PANELS; AND (1) 100 AMP SUB-
PANEL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TRAILER.
Date: 7/6/2021
Permit #: BLD-2021-1294
Status: Issued
PUBLIC STORAGE - INSTALL (7) (N) SIGNS (648 SF) TOTAL : - (3) ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGNS:
SIGN #1 (82 SF), SIGN #3 (265 SF) , SIGN #6 (265 SF) - (3) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS NON ILLUMINATED: SIGN #2 (3
SF), SIGN #4 (2 SF), SIGN #5 (2 SF)- (1) GROUND LED ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN: SIGN # 7 (30 SF)
Thank You for your consideration.
Warm Regards,
Rhoda Fry
4
CC: Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Greenfoothills, City Council
PC 10-11-2022
Item #2
Public Hearing,
Senate Bill 9
Proposed Ordinance
(MCA-2022-001)
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Tej Kohli <jetkohli@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 11, 2022 4:44 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Subject:A short presentation for todays meeting
Attachments:Lot Split Oct 2022.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Planning Commision team:
Thanks to the planning department for coming up with these new amendments to the interim guidance on
SB9.
We had originally applied for an SB9 lot split way back in Jan 2022. It was rejected based on the interim rules.
Looks like these new rules will allow us the original lot split that we had asked for. We thank you for that but it
has caused a lot of unneeded delay and angst.
Have a few questions to understand go forward options for the potential buyer of our split lot.
Included in the presentation attached.
Thanks
Tej and Nitu Kohli
21411 Columbus Ave
21411 Columbus Ave
Cupertino
SB9 Split Prelim Request
Oct,2022
Original request was made Jan 2022!!!
Tej and Nitu Kohli
•We are proud 21 year Cupertino residents
•Our two kids (now adults) went thru Lincoln, Regnart , Kennedy and
Monta Vista. They went on to UC Davis and SJSU
•We are proud to call Cupertino our home
•We are requesting a SB9 lot split to allow us to build a nice home for
ourselves and another to welcome new Cupertino residents
Intro: Our unique corner of Cupertino
•Approx 44 homes
(~15000 sqft lots)
•Unique U shaped
road off Bubb
•Expansive 100 ft
frontage homes
•Want to retain the
charm of this unique
street
•Blue marker is our
house
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
2526
35
Suggesting SB9 lot split (Golden Ration 4:3)
For our 15,000 sq ft size lot (100’ x 150’)
BEFORE SPLIT
Goals for split
•Want to maintain a congruous look on
our street
•Good architectural proportions for
buildability
AFTER SPLIT
•Build two env-friendly “green” houses
•Our current house was built in the 50s
and is not in good shape
•Yellow Strip is 20 ft wide easement for
shared access to both properties
2
1
Our proposal
Split to make two proportional 100’x75’ lots
2
1 East >< West
Columbus Ave
⁺Maintains and enhances the look and feel of the
street
⁺Maintains the unique 100ft frontage
⁺ALL our neighbors love this
⁺Totally workable for 60/40 split or 50/50 splits
⁺Very proportional 100’x75’ lots (Golden Ratio)
⁺Architecturally appealing and highly sought after
⁺Privacy and open-air spaces are well maintained
⁺100’s of lots in Cupertino that meet these specs
⁺Setbacks are way more workable with these dimensions
⁺East/West direction of street: Solar issues
⁺Both get East/West/South exposure
⁺Meets the spirit and intent of SB9
⁺Want to invest and build two new green & modern
homes that fully integrate with our neighborhood
… all men are created equal Land is land
•We split our lot based on this new
SB9 guidance
•A buyer buys this 7,500 sq ft lot
•To build there are now two building
standards –the discretionary one
and the SB9 ministerial one.
1) Under discretionary
•FAR will allow for a ~3,375 sq ft build
•Allowed to have conforming basements and
attics that are NOT included in FAR
calculations
•JADU and ADU per existing standards
2) Under SB9
•Will allow for max living space of 2,000 sq ft
for 1 structure?
•NOT allowed to have basements?
•How much allowed for the second structure?
•Does FAR come into play?
•JADU and ADU per existing standards?
•What is the new lot split fee?
•The old fee of $19,000 was very
excessive
To the Planning Committee, Planning
Department & the City Council
•Thank you for working with residents to understand input and
understand the special cases
•We intend to file as soon as there is final clarity
•We would like to finalize our architect and start the detailed planning
as soon as this is approved
THANK YOU
1
Cyrah Caburian
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Meeting
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2022 7:03 AM
To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>;
Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello All especially City Clerk,
Please forward this e‐mail message to the Planning Commission, City Council and to any one else that is involved with
these matters it seems that this is the
only way to contact everyone.
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ 408‐253‐0490
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting
To: <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com>
Hello,
It is time to put all commissions and meetings Cupertino has at the City Hall for all people to come to the meeting. I ask
that you change your meeting over
to accommodate those who wish to attend in‐house meetings.
I am against signs being put up at the storage units near the 280 freeway. It is bad enough that the storage units are
there and that the public can see them
from the freeway and now you want to put up signs to please stop this allowance from taking place.
I think it is fine to have more than one unit on a very large piece of the single family home plots but under certain
circumstances as long as it does not interfere
with the neighboring properties this should be really observed case by case. I would also like to see tiny houses put on
the property but there are restrictions
with the footage from the fence line and the house in place this may need to be adjusted on another piece of ordinance
in the future please see that it happens.
2
I also have issues and have had issues about the Apple Computer R & D facility next to my home for years they have
been polluting the homes nearby and I
would like to see them moved this building is zoned for commercial and residential it is not zoned for industrial and that
is what this R & D Facility is so please
see what you can do about this my family and I have suffered long enough from their pollution to the Air, Water and
Soil. Apple installed a massive HVAC system
on top of this building so it is very evident what is going on in secret the Fire Department will not act in any way to stop
this. In the past the BAAQMD and the EPA have done
nothing to correct this problem so I will be bringing this before the City of Cupertino's City Council.
Please provide my concerns to the commissions for their review meetings that need to be conducted at City Hall but if
you wish to have them also on the web that
is ok with me. I would also like to stress that having meeting of any kind especially the City Council meetings that last
late into the evening does not accomodate
all of the public's needs and views please set up a 10:00 PM limit.
I also ask that the City council old and new members coming in will receive my comments from this e‐mail message.
These matters are serious and I also have a great
deal more issues that I have constantly been sending e‐mails to the City and Council about that have not been rectified.
I ask that someone get back to me ASAP!
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcement Advocate
CAP‐Citizens Against Pollotion
408‐253‐0490
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 5:00 PM City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> wrote:
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:45 p.m.
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:45 p.m.
To register for this teleconference meeting, please refer to the agenda linked below.
3
View agenda:
Agenda
Live Webcast
To view the past minutes and webcast archives visit:
Agenda, Minutes & Webcast Archives
Contact Phone: (408) 777‐3308
cupertino.org
City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help
This email was sent to cathyhelger@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, CA ꞏ 10300
Torre Avenue ꞏ Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:08 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: SB 9 Authors are Incompetent
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
FYI.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject: SB 9 Authors are Incompetent
From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022, 9:02 PM
To: CityCouncil@Cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear City Council:
It is apparent that the people who wrote SB 9 are incompetent. The lack of land use
Knowledge in the bill text is immediately evident. Trying to do a ministerial lot
Split and have only four foot setbacks on new house construction are really bad
Choices in land use. Evidently no one checked the fitness of the authors of sb 9
To write land use bills.
So the governor has signed SB 9. The governor has signed into law a bill that is basically
Incompetent written by incompetent authors.
How does the public or the state deal with this?
Evidently, the governor is being advised poorly about the legitimacy of such bills as
SB 9.
What recourse does the public or the city have to rectify this incompetency in a bill
Like SB 9?
Do we have to declare the bill bill and void due to the incompetence of the bill
And it's text? No one has revealed the bill's authors. Therefore, no one can know
The competency of these authors to write such a bill as SB 9.
If the governor has been duped into signing such a incompetent bill as SB 9,
What is the remedy for this action?
How do we remove such an incompetent bill? Do the politicians who advised the
2
Governor so poorly bear responsibility?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Nagesh Vempaty <nvempaty@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 13, 2022 12:28 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council
Cc:Nagesh Vempaty; mohamed genidy; Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Please remove or change the grade restrictions in City of Cupertino's SB-9 Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Members of the City of Cupertino Planning Committee and the City Council,
I attended the City Planning Committee Meeting on SB‐9 on Oct 11, 2022 via Zoom and spoke during the SB‐9 session.
I want to bring your attention to the Grade Change Limitation for SB‐9 urban lot splits in the City of Cupertino.
The City Planning Department Proposed changes in the Grading section of the Ordinance copied below this email.
Briefly, The City Planning Department proposed in the draft
ordinance to ' allow a 12” grade change on lots with slopes between 0 – 5%, 24”
grade change on lots with slopes between 6 – 10% and require a peer reviewed
grading and drainage plan to confirm that grading on all slopes exceeding 10% is
limited to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate on‐site parking and
living space.'
THIS WAS REJECTED IN THE MEETING IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING UPTO A MAXIMUM OF 12" GRADE CHANGE IN ALL
SITUATIONS.
This will not work especially in RHS lots with a hill slope. The argument made was to reduce the impact to hills. I want to
bring your attention to the fact that
there is already an onerous restriction of 2500 cubic yards of cut and fill permitted in the unsplit lot, which now applies
to the combined cut and fill of 2500 cubic yards
for the resulting two lots after a lot split. This is already very restrictive when two homes are to be built with a total limit
of 2500 cubic yards of cut and fill.
There is no need to make an additional restriction of a maximum of one foot on the grading allowed, as this restriction
already protects the hills from excessive grading.
The current restriction of 6 six inches on grading was shown to be inadequate for a lot with 5% slope and a 20 foot deep
garage.
The proposed change to the restriction of 12 inches on grading will be inadequate on lots with even a 6% slope.
For example, to build a 20 ft deep garage on a 6% slope lot requires a 14.4 inch grade change. It is even higher on lots
with steeper slopes.
The planning department correctly identified that one solution does not fit all and proposed a solution that scales to
different situations,
at the same time minimizing the grade change.
The discussed notion of building on stilts/pillars to eliminate grade change does not work as this results in a driveway
with a steeper slope and a crawl space of more than 4feet depth, both of which are not permitted. This is illustrated in
the attached diagram. And we are only talking about a garage, not even the rest of the living space. The average
dimensions for living spaces are 40ftx30ft for a two story house and even larger elsewhere.
2
I recommend the City of Cupertino's Council and the Planning Committee to revisit this issue and change to the City
Planning Department's proposal of
'allow a 12” grade change on lots with slopes between 0 – 5%, 24”
grade change on lots with slopes between 6 – 10% and require a peer reviewed
grading and drainage plan to confirm that grading on all slopes exceeding 10% is limited to the minimum extent
necessary to accommodate on‐site parking and living space.'
This accommodates more situations.
Adding 12” limit specifically on SB‐9 lot split while not applying it under regular zoning or even SB‐9 developments
without lot split means it is NOT an objective measure and is inconsistent with existing ordinances. It appears it is used
as a tool to disqualify lot splits under SB‐9 in R1/RHS zoning. The selective 12” limit appears to be tailored to circumvent
SB‐9 and hence not consistent with state intent that SB‐9 applies to all R1/RHS zoning and rules should be objective and
consistent with existing rules.
We currently own an RHS lot in Cupertino and our preliminary proposal for an SB‐9 lot split is blocked by this item in the
City Ordinance. I am requesting the City's Planning Commission and the City Council to pay attention to these details and
rectify these issues adequately in the upcoming revision in Dec 2022.
If we need a further discussion, please let me know when and where.
Thanks,
Nageshwara Rao Vempaty
Proposed section pages 93‐95 of 235 in PC 10‐11‐2022 City if Cupertino AGENDA Planning Commision Document.
This proposal is workable for most sites.
E. Site Grading
1. Maximum
Grading
Quantity
a. Cumulative total of 2,500 cubic yards, cut plus fill.
Includes: grading for building pad, yard areas,
driveway and all other areas requiring grading.
Excludes: basements
b. All cut and fill shall be rounded to contour with
natural contours and planted with landscaping
which meets the requirements in Section
19.40.050G
c. For each of the lots developed or created pursuant
3
to Government Code Sections 64411.7 and
65852.21, a cumulative total of 1,250 cubic yards,
cut plus fill (including grading for building pad,
yard areas, driveway, all other areas requiring
grading, and basements), except if the original lot
that was subdivided has already performed prior
PC 10‐11‐2022
93 of 235
Ordinance No. XX‐XXX
Page 36
grading, then the amount of grading that has
previously occurred shall be reduced from the
maximum grading quantity allowed cumulatively
on the two resulting lots.
d. For each of the lots developed or created pursuant
to Government Code Sections 64411.7 and
65852.21, unless required by the City Engineer or
to meet Fire Code requirements, grading activity
on lots with an average slope of:
i. Less than five percent shall not result in a
change in grade elevation by more than 12‐
inches from existing natural grade.
ii. Between five and ten percent shall not
result in a change in grade elevation by
more than 24‐inches from existing natural
grade.
iii. Ten percent or more shall result in a
change in elevation that is limited to the
minimum extent necessary to
accommodate on‐site parking and living
space, as demonstrated by a grading and
drainage plan prepared by a registered
civil engineer, subject to third‐party peer
review, at the applicant’s cost.
In all cases, the following shall apply:
i. Change in grade elevation shall be limited
to the minimum extent necessary to ensure
adequate drainage and access as
demonstrated by a grading and drainage
plan prepared by a registered civil
engineer.
ii. Split level designs shall be used to avoid
additional change in grade elevation.
iii. Unless otherwise required by the City
Engineer, spoils shall be balanced on site
and shall match the existing grading and
drainage pattern of the site.
PC 10‐11‐2022
94 of 235
Ordinance No. XX‐XXX
Page 37