Loading...
Written Communications 2-13-2024 Complete Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 2024 Written Communications From:Rhoda Fry To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:Planning Commission Public Comment - Concerns regarding Vallco project Date:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:11:28 PM Attachments:Potential Development Plan Changes Letter 8.22.2023.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 City Clerk, Please add this email to public comment for the Planning Commission meeting. Dear Planning Commission, Having briefly perused the Vallco plans, I have a number of concerns and requests. I hope that this submittal will be considered a NEW project rather than a MODIFICATION. I hope that the City rejects the developer’s assumption that the 2016 building codes will be used. I hope that the City can prevent the destruction of 700 trees at Vallco (see second attachment). The plans state that the 2016 building codes will be used – that means less energy-efficiency, no bird-safe, and a huge burden on the building department to inspect buildings using older standards – especially as the years go on. And, a less energy-efficient building, means that it would cost more to heat and cool and be less affordable to its residents. The developer proposes to build the project under the 2016 building codes, which would be a huge step backwards for the environment. See the first attachment with a snip from the cover page. By building to the 2016 code, the developer can avoid a number of environmental improvements that have been made in subsequent code cycles. The codes are updated every three years. In 2016 there was no requirement for solar, no requirement for electric-only, and for Cupertino, no requirement for bird-safe construction. The 2022 code was adopted on 1/1/2023, among other improvements, the 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. A less-energy efficient home is bad for the environment and less affordable to heat and cool. There have also been updates to the fire codes. What makes the situation even worse is that the developer intends to develop the project in stages as indicated by the subdivision map in the plan set and a letter from the Department of Environmental Health (third attachment). Imagine, it could easily take 20 years to build out this project (or more) and by that time, the building codes will have even progressed further. Also, it makes it very difficult for the building department to inspect projects to older codes. The proposal also subdivides the project and builds it in phases – what would be done to guarantee that the affordable-housing component would be built first (or at all)? Please consider the bait-and-switch experience we had with this same developer on Main St, who retained concessions from the City while reneging on promises made to our community. Please also consider that the developer has had a checkered past and most recently defaulted on an office building in Mountain View. Please put measures in place to hold the developer accountable. And by the way, the plans have 200-foot-tall residential buildings and nearly 230-foot-tall office buildings (see below). With respect to the 85-foot tall residential buildings, a new law allows sb-35 residential buildings 85-feet or lower to not require skilled and trained labor. That is unfortunate. Finally, you might be interested in a letter than has been sent from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health pertaining to this project. It is hard to understand how this project can be considered to be an SB-35 project, because projects under SB-35 are not allowed to have hazmat. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division Site Mitigation Program 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112-2716 (408)918-3400 FAX (408)280-6479 Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: James R. Williams August 22, 2023 APN: 316-20-120 Vallco Property Owner, LLC c/o Nandy Kumar (nkumar@shcmllc.com) 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: Parcel West of Wolfe Road Site Cleanup Case Name: Vallco Town Center 10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Santa Clara County Case No.: 2021-16s Dear Mr. Kumar: As you know, the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) approved the Site Management Plan (SMP) dated November 2022 for the Vallco Town Center site described above (“Site”) in a Directive Letter dated December 12, 2022. DEH’s approval of the SMP is limited to the project description included in the SMP and, restated in DEH’s Directive Letter. On July 21, 2023, the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) met with your development team to discuss certain material changes you may make to the development plans which would necessitate conforming changes be made to the SMP. Those proposed changes, as we understand them, are as follows: 1. Site development and occupancy in phases. (The approved SMP does not consider phasing the Site development and occupancy). 2. Construction of six additional buildings at the Site for a total of 12 buildings. (The approved SMP considers construction of only six buildings, referred to as Blocks 1 through 6.) 3. Elimination of subterranean parking garages beneath some or all of the buildings. (The approved SMP includes mechanically ventilated parking garages beneath every building). DEH considers these potential changes to the proposed development plan to be significant deviations from the development plan considered by DEH when it approved the SMP. Of particular significance is the removal of the subterranean mechanically ventilated parking garages from some or all of the buildings. This is because the approved vapor intrusion risk evaluation relied, in part, upon a mechanically ventilated parking garage to disrupt potential vapor intrusion. The soil excavation necessary to construct the approved parking garage was also expected to remove contaminated soil. Vallco Town Center, 10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA August 22, 2023 Page 2 of 2 At this time, DEH has not received written notice confirming that the proposed changes to the development plan discussed during the July meeting are final and understands that you are still evaluating whether to implement these proposed changes to the development plan. Please be aware that if you decide to make changes to the development plan, you are required to notify the DEH in writing of these changes. Specifically, Condition of Approval #3 in DEH’s Directive Letter states: DEH approval applies only to the proposed development as described in this Directive Letter and the SMP. If there are changes to the development plan as described in this Directive Letter and SMP, you are required to notify the DEH in writing, and you may be required to submit an updated SMP to DEH for approval. Once DEH receives and reviews modifications to the development plan, it will determine whether corresponding modifications to the SMP are necessary. If so, DEH may rescind approval of the SMP and you may be required to submit an updated SMP to DEH for approval. Depending on the nature and scope of modifications to the development plan, DEH may also require additional site assessment, risk evaluations, and mitigation measures. If required, these items would need to be incorporated into a revised SMP that must be resubmitted to DEH for approval. Therefore, please be aware that changes to the approved development plan may result in delays to the construction schedule. In addition, if changes to the approved development plan cause residual contamination to remain on the Site, DEH may require the recordation of a restrictive covenant on the property as well as long-term monitoring and inspections to manage the long-term risks. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 918-1974 or via email. Sincerely, Gerald O’Regan, PG Environmental Health Geologist Site Cleanup Program Gerald.O’Regan@deh.sccgov.org Cell: (408) 771-1336 cc: Rick Freudenberger, WSP (rick.freudenberger@wsp.com) Albert Salvador, City of Cupertino, Special Project Executive (Alberts@Cupertino.org) File – GeoTracker Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 2024 Written Communications Item #3 From:Santosh Rao To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Chad Mosley Subject:02/13 planning commission. Items to vote for from items not chosen. Date:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 6:13:47 AM Attachments:B - Items Not Included in FY 23-25 City Work Program.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 commission, I urge you to vote for the following items from the list of items not chosen: 1. Student internship 2. Sign ordinance update There has been great partnership between parks and rec and the teen commission as well as youth activity board. It has been a way of bringing staff and the community together to develop a shared appreciation of each other and develop empathy for the needs of each. The student internship will likewise extend the goodwill to planning and public works. When Cupertino o families send their teen and youth to volunteer as interns with the city it develops shared empathy for each other and an appreciation of the opportunities and challenges. I highly encourage you to adopt the student internship work item. Secondly, I request you to vote for the sign ordinance update. We need to tighten the sign ordinance to prevent loopholes from being exploited as has been done by public storage over the last year. Kindly prioritize the sign ordinance update. Thank you. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12651014&GUID=4B2F4D11-4DE4- 4B0A-BA29-2FCA4C7C46EF Thanks, Santosh Rao From:Bill Fry Construction To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Planning Commission Meeting = please put signage ordinance on the work plan Date:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4:49:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, please put signage ordinance on the work plan Thanks, Rhoda Fry Vice Chair Seema Lindskog suggestions displayed during the 2/13/2024 Planning Commission meeting. 1.Complete Streets Ordinance Use the City of San Jose Complete Streets Ordinance as a starting point, so we’re not starting from scratch San Jose Municipal Code Chapter 13.05 “The City shall, to the maximum extent practicable, plan for, design, construct, operate, and maintain an appropriate and integrated multi-modal transportation system for the safe accommodation of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, and users of all ages and abilities in new construction, retrofit, and reconstruction projects of public streets. The system's design is to be supportive of the community, recognizing that transportation needs vary and must be balanced in a flexible, safe, and cost-effective manner.” 2. Small Business Revitalization Ordinance Create a “Small Business Revitalization” ordinance to support our small businesses, fill empty storefronts, and create a thriving city. ●Increase the number of online permits ●Streamline outdoor dining approvals ●Streamline approval process for pop-up shops ●Streamline approval process for food trucks, outdoor music, wine/beer tasting, etc. ●Make is easier to do streetscape improvements outside small businesses like benches and landscaping. 3. Simplify Permits for Minor Repairs and Small Projects Streamline the process for obtaining permits for minor repairs and small projects. ●Increase the number of online permits ●Streamline permit process for small repairs and projects ●Keep the permit scope only about the specific repair or project and don’t add additional requirements Resident 1 In 2019,our (non-residential)property made some extensive changes to the landscaping, including putting in a detached pergola,trees,and pouring concrete walkways.All of the work was outdoors,not touching any of the buildings.The appropriate permits were pulled and inspections made.During one of the inspections,the city building inspector went into the bathroom in one of the nearby buildings and stated that the bathroom must be renovated to bring it up to current code and ADA standards,which added $50K to the project,doubling the total cost.Neither this building nor the bathroom in the building was in any way affected by the landscaping project,but nonetheless these changes were now required. Since then,we have contemplated making minor changes requiring permits to buildings,but have decided against them due to fear that ‘add on’changes will be required.One of these changes we contemplated this year was to add a simple non-load bearing interior wall (with no wires or plumbing)with a door,to add a large closet space to an existing room.Per city code,a permit must be pulled to do this if it is being added to a non-single family residence.We made the decision to not not do the work.The decision was solely because we had no idea how much the expense would be because permit inspectors could come in and ask for many updates to this room and/or other rooms and buildings.Creating this wall would have been a minimal expense,but the ‘add on’changes asked for by the city building department could have been very expensive Resident 2 A few years ago,we wanted to replace the bathroom fan in our bathroom.We decided to do it right and get a permit for the work.When I went to the city office to get the permit,the staff person I spoke to asked me how long it had been since the bathroom had been renovated.I told her it was done by the previous owners,so probably 10+years ago.The staff person then told me that in order to get the permit to change the bathroom fan,we would have to also update the toilet and shower to be compliant with the new low-flow requirements.We have a colored toilet and that color is not available as a low-flow toilet so we would have had to renovate the entire bathroom for thousands of dollars,just to change the fan.We decided to just do the work without a permit.