The URL can be used to link to this page

Desk Items ��9 �� - �c i Beth Ebben From: Kris Mitchener[kris.mitchener@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:54 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: comment for public hearing on proposed development of 10645 Cordova Road Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, I am unable to attend the meeting scheduled for June 9, 2014, but wanted to offer comment on the proposed development of 10645 Cordova Road. My property is immediately across from the three lots of the proposed development — 10676 Cordova Road. I wish to make clear that I respect the rights of the property owners to develop the land, but I have several concerns about both the nature of the development and any construction that takes place. Let me first comment on the development. Properties in this neighborhood are hillside developments in a semi-rural area where owners have purchased due to the physical terrain and environment. The character of the neighborhood is not high density, but rather wooded with lots of animals (deer, quail, rabbit, etc.) that give it its natural charm. The current proposal suggests the construction of three separate single family homes toward the end of a street which is gated due the street's narrow width and steep pitch. Currently, there are only 5 houses toward the end of the street where it narrows significantly, and where the proposed driveway will be constructed to allow entry for these three new houses. First, uncreasing the number of houses by nearly 40% at this end of the street raises serious concerns about safety. Driveways in this area are somewhat blind, and with several residences having young children (including mine), I worry about the total number of cars going up and down a narrow, windy road on a permanent basis. Second, it will permanently alter the character of the neighborhood. Houses recently built in the immediate vicinity, 22755 San 7uan Rd and a second presently being constructed in the lot next door (22735?), seem to take the rural environment into account by not overdeveloping the lots. Although it appears 10645 somehow received zoning for three houses some time ago, a development of three houses today simply does not fit the character of the present neighborhood. It will irrevocably alter the rural feel for the worse, substantially existing homes' hedonic values with potentially adverse effects on tax revenues from these properties. The second concerns the nature of the construction project. If the recent house construction projects in the neighborhood are any indication of what is to be expected of typical contractor hours in the morning, some consideration must again be made for how this particular project will impact the current residences of the neighborhood on what effectively is a one-lane road. Construction activity between the hours of 7:30 and 9 a.m. will make it impossible for parents to deliver children to school. At least three of the houses have school-age children that need to be delivered during these hours. As mentioned above, there is only one way out of the neighborhood from my house and the four others at the end of the street — down the hill. If any trucks are blocking the road, it is impossible to pass and children will be late for school. I do not want to have to negotiate on an ad hoc basis each time I need to pass in the morning; this places the burden on construction workers to deal with this sort of issue when the responsibility lies with the developers. Therefore, I am requesting that any construction activity not commence on school days until after 9 a.m. Thank you for your consideration. Kris 7ames Mitchener 10676 Cordova Road Cupertino, CA 95014 408-982-5357 1 June I, 2014 To: Cupertino Planning Department From: Carl Tucci Re:Objections to Little Tree Daycare use permit �� - � /� � ��. �- � ��.�D JUN 0 3 2p14 By:_-- As the adjacent property owner (20149 Stevens Creek), I emphatically object to the application for a change of use for property known as 20085 Stevens Creek, Cupertino. The existing office building and I have had a harmonious relationship for over 3 decades. New buyer bought the property as an office building, and now seeks to change the use from office to daycare. This is a bad idea for me, for the surrounding neighbors, and for the City of Cupertino. NOISE POLLUTION A daycare facility on the eastern boundary of my property will severely impact the PEACEFUL USE AND ENJOYMENT OF MY PROPERTY, and will significantly reduce the market value of my property because of the NOISE POLLUTION that would emanate from the proposed playground just inches away from my front doors. Page three of the "noise study" prepared by applicant clearly states that "between 10 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. there could be between 24 and 32 kids at a time playing outside in scheduled periods..... outdoor play activities of this type can create intermittent brief noise from voices 50 to 65 dba at a distance of 35-50 feet." The noise levels that this playground activity would be IN VIOLATION of the CITY NOISE ORDINANCE section 10.48.040 which apply to this project. The ordinance CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY limits noise during daytime hours (7a.m. To 8a.m.) to adjacent residential property to 60dBA AND TO SOURCES ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TD 65dBA. The report qoes on to erroneously state in no uncertain terms: "brief daytime noise incidents on this site would be somewhat hiaher noise levels bv ordinance 10.48.050 because they last less than 15 minutes. This is pure unadulterated FICTION: THIRTY FOUR sustained SCREAMING CHILDREN IS NOT PLEASANT. IT IS IN FACT VEXING AND INTRUSIVE. I VEHEMENTLY OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT. The report does not even consider the "ECHO or ricochet off of the block-wall (the easterly side) of my building. I have witnessed first hand the daycare playground facility behind Cort FURNITURE. This is no picnic. I have video of the NOISE POLLUTION STEMMING FROM THE PLAY AREA WITH ONLY 20 kids and and staff. The noise was unbearable for more an a few minutes. The report goes on. " noise levels on the playground from traffic )on Stevens Creek) would be between 60-70 DBAAT LEAST HALF OF THE TIME, WITH AN AVERAGE LEVEL ABOUT 60 DBA. While this is not a DAMAGING NOISE LEVEL IT IS DIFFICULT FOR NORMAL CONVERSATION AND IS NOT A PLEASANT ENVIRONMENT FOR KIDS TO PLAY." Couple that noise level with anticipated sporadic voices of kids and staff approximating 50 to 65 DBA (at a distance of 35-50 feet) and you have a recipe for Impossible (health damaging) noise pollution that significantly impacts the use and value of my property. TRAFFIC AND PARKING WOES The traffic report clearly states that "the proposed day care would generate MORE one-way trips (in bound and out bound) at the site during both the a.m. And p.m. Peak hours than are ALLOWED UNDER THE THE EXISTING SITE AGREEMENT. The 20885 Stevens Creek site is already woefully lacking in adequate parking. The OVERFLOW is already evident. Both sides of Randy Lane are already parked bumper to bumper with overflow parking from 20885 Stevens Creek Parkers. They park there in the morning-trek across my property-stay all day and even use my parking lot without regard. The plan submitted calls for the elimination of approximately 40 parking spaces where the proposed playground would be: RIDICULES, SHORT-SIGHTED AND UNWORKABLE. Randy Lane will become a parking lot for 20885 Stevens Creek, and that will cause problems not imagined at this juncture. The plan as presented shows an easement across my property. NO EASEMENT WILL BE GRANTED. This will further make ingress and egress to 20885 Stevens Creek more cumbersome. Stevens Creek Boulevard, CUPERTINO is a premier address. A daycare facility is at this site is NOT in the interest of CUPERTINO...and certainly does nothing to foster the property values of neighboring properties. Day care users drop their kids off in the morning and pick them up at night. They do not add to the commercial entities in the vicinity, I.e., restaurants and retail businesses. They offer no tax base for the city. My commercial property does generate SALES TAX AND PROPERTYTAX. Several potential tenants have approached me regarding my property. Restaurants were not interested with the potential for noise pollution so close to the property. Developers with an eye to build condos also stated that a daycare playground so proximate would can their interest. A long term lease of my property to Little Tree is a possibility. That would eliminate many of my concerns. It may be possible for them to negotiate an easement to facilitate their traffic flow problems. If the proposed playground was placed BEHIND the office building, and an 8' tall wooden fence with soundproofing, I would not be as opposed to this project. In that case the area that is now proposed for a playground could serve as an outlet to Stevens Creek. This would also eliminate ambient noise from Stevens Creek, and be a healthier environment for kids at play. In the best interest of the neighbors, myself, and the fine CITY OF CUPERTINO, I request a REJECTION OF THE USE PERMIT BY LITTLE TREE SCHOOL. Carl Tucci, ATTORNEY AT LAW � � ^ . �� 4` �_-� —�� c� Carl Tucci Attorney at law RECEI�l�:�.� 408-377-1600 JUN 09 2014 June 8,2014 BY� To: CUPERTINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: 20885 and 20149 Stevens Creek Please find recommendations for dealing with the noise pollution problems alluded to in previous communications. 1 . Erect an 8 foot high wooden fence around the perimeter of the play area per the recommendation made by applicants sound study. Page 3. . ."a solid fence eight feet high along the sound boundary of the playground area is recommended to reduce the noise levels by 6-8 dB and provide a more pleasing outdoor environment. This wall can be constructed of any solid material, with no cracks between elements or at ground level , such as a combination of 3/4" wood, 3/16" shatterproof glass, or 1 /2" plexiglass. 2. A buffer zone from the southern most of property corner of my building to playground, 10' is preferable. 3. Total cost of solving noise pollution is minuscule in relation to purchase price. (less than 1 /10th of one percent.) 4. Paint the easterly side of the 20149 Stevens Creek building with SOUND ABSORBING PAINT. 5. Gate on Stevens Creek shall be be used for emergencies only to prevent parking on my parking lot and on Randy Lane to drop-off children . if these suggestions are implemented into the plan , I will drop my objections to the change of use permit. Carl tucci, Attorney at Law �s �;� f i'° n i � i�� .� � _ ��' i�, . ! �.,riM , aa •....► �i flf i ' P(ML) �__. .,�-�-.,,.,t ��v,��. _� is _. ..�_e:.� f Yy1� . 3-* ' ,t;�._� ..�';.+-q. :.�., rr�`: ' �� yrii!'i . ��-�°T` �,� ��,..�.,...}... .. � i%>r: `� � ... ., � R1 < s 4 S'� i�; �� f v � � l �� t � � � n � .i r, �.. `:7 �� ,� t-^; � -.� z 0 � tr: � 7? v � .i� i."1 � � -C :� %i � � � �- .z '� �� . a .. � � � ro � � � � `� �-r � R l J ..+. � �1 � � R $J r�-� � � e-�-. c�; ^� CU C', h c--- \l � � CU 1 � � '�7' � � � r v HAiE�BF�YJkDD. Fa��IFKA DR S I IUERA DO A.V E � = � � � �,� ��;,; ,� _ �, s -A, LEGEND �-....�._..-..�,�. � Q Heart of the City Specific P1an Area Boundary � �� " � South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Pian Area �»,,,,,R� � �� e.� ;''; South De Anza Boulevard Spetiai Area* .__. City Center Sub-Area _�� South Vallco Master P1an Area *Properries wirh frontage exclusively on South De Anza Bouleva�d(noi incJuding City Center norih) „,,,,_, are nor required ro insiall Heari of Che City srree[scape features. For these properties,Che setback shal!be consistent with the South De Anza Boulevard ConcepCual Plan. � t � � � � � � � � � � 1 ! i T \ ��° �� r r C m � � � �. � .� �� J � �� a