The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 11-12-2025 Written CommunicationsPC 11-12-2025 Item No.2 Idlewild Shopping Center/United Furniture Written Communications From:Kitty Moore To:City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar Subject:Written Communications Item 2 Planning Commission November 12, 2025 Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 10:00:38 AM Attachments:20251020_Revised SVE Progress Report_2023-17s.pdf Dear City Clerk, Please include the following along with the attached PDF for Written Communications for Item 2 of the Planning Commission meeting November 12, 2025: The United Furniture/Idlewild/East Estates Dr. Project is on Geotracker and the uploaded documents may be found here: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report? global_id=T10000021095 The Placeworks Categorical Exemption Memo (Category 32) and the Cupertino Staff Report do not contain a complete record and the most recent information regarding the site contamination. The most recent, October 20, 2025 letter from SCCDEH, for instance, is attached and an excerpt is here: "The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Revised 2025 Second Quarter Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Progress Report (Report) prepared by Terraphase Engineering and dated September 30, 2025. The Report documents operational parameters of the SVE system and soil vapor concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE) at several sampling locations across the site. DEH accepts the Report. The Report states “Current PCE concentrations in the subsurface are well below levels of concern and are expected to be effectively mitigated by a properly installed vapor mitigation system, which will protect future occupants living at the Site.” The DEH does not agree with this statement. The current concentrations of PCE reported beneath the site exceed the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for both commercial and residential land uses by one to two orders of magnitude and continue to represent a risk for vapor intrusion." The above mentioned letter is linked here: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/4966718375/20251020_Revised%20SVE%20Progress%20Report_2023-17s.pdf Another report was due to the Regulator on October 31, 2025 and another in January, 2026. Placeworks accessed the Geotracker records May 5, 2025 for this site according to their Memo page 63: State Water Resources Control Board, 2024, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000021095, accessed May 5, 2025. The last letter from SCCDEH would have been April 3, 2025 that Placeworks would have seen given that access date, here is a link to that letter: https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/1255811393/20250403_Requirement%20for%20Remedial%20Progress%20Reports_2023- 17.pdf ONE-HOUR DRY CLEANERS (T10000021095) - (MAP)SIGN UP FOR EMAIL ALERTS 10045 EAST ESTATES DRIVECUPERTINO, CA 95014SANTA CLARA COUNTYCLEANUP PROGRAM SITE (INFO) OPEN - REMEDIATION AS OF 6/1/2024 - DEFINITION PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY / CSM REPORT CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES SANTA CLARA COUNTY LOP (LEAD) - CASE #: 2023-17s CASE MANAGER: AARON COSTA Summary Cleanup Action Report Regulatory Activities Environmental Data (ESI) Site Maps / Documents Community Involvement Related Cases Regulatory Profile PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS OPEN - REMEDIATION AS OF 6/1/2024 - CLEANUP STATUS HISTORY POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN SOIL VAPOR, UNDER INVESTIGATION FILE LOCATION ALL FILES ARE ON GEOTRACKER OR IN THE LOCAL AGENCY DATABASE DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(S) - DEFINITIONS MUN, AGR, IND, PROC DWR GROUNDWATER SUB-BASIN NAME Santa Clara Valley - Santa Clara (2-009.02) CALWATER WATERSHED NAME Santa Clara - Palo Alto (205.50) Kitty Moore Vice Mayor City Council KMoore@cupertino.gov (408) 777-1389 County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300 San José, CA 95112-2716 (408)918-3400www.ehinfo.org/hazmat Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga County Executive: James R. Williams October 20, 2025 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Idlewild TIC c/o Victor Castello vcastello@redwoodeg.com Re: One-Hour Dry Cleaners 10045 East Estates Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 APN: 369-06-022 Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17s GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095 Dear Mr. Castello, The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Revised 2025 Second Quarter Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Progress Report (Report) prepared by Terraphase Engineering and dated September 30, 2025. The Report documents operational parameters of the SVE system and soil vapor concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE) at several sampling locations across the site. DEH accepts the Report. The Report states “Current PCE concentrations in the subsurface are well below levels of concern and are expected to be effectively mitigated by a properly installed vapor mitigation system, which will protect future occupants living at the Site.” The DEH does not agree with this statement. The current concentrations of PCE reported beneath the site exceed the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for both commercial and residential land uses by one to two orders of magnitude and continue to represent a risk for vapor intrusion. The Report also states “Both SVE wells (SVE-01 and SVE-02) will continue to operate with the system running. A second rebound test is planned for later this year in anticipation that the results will show the PCE mass remaining in the ground is no longer a significant threat to human health or the environment.” The DEH requires written notification of when the SVE system will be shutdown to initiate a second rebound test. Please note that in order to adequately demonstrate that soil vapor concentrations have reached equilibrium, the SVE rebound monitoring period shall last a minimum of six months after SVE shutdown with a minimum of three soil vapor sampling events during the rebound monitoring period. One-Hour Dry Cleaners October 20, 2025 Page 2 of 3 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS You are required to submit the following documents to DEH (Attention: Mr. Aaron Costa) via GeoTracker according to the following schedule. 3Q25 SVE Progress Report – October 31, 2025 Notification of SVE System Shutdown for Rebound Testing – Prior to SVE System Shutdown Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule. The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional. PERJURY STATEMENT All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party which states, at a minimum, the following: "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. In the future, reports that are either missing perjury statements, or include perjury statements that are not signed by a legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party, will be denied by DEH. ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS You are required to electronically submit any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site in accordance with the Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR). You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves). For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html. One-Hour Dry Cleaners October 20, 2025 Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 918-1954 or via email. Sincerely, Aaron Costa Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist Site Cleanup Program aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group, jsl@svlg.com Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering, jeff.raines@terraphase.com Gian Paolo Martire, City of Cupertino Planning, gianm@cupertino.gov File – GeoTracker From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Gian Martire Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-11-12 Planning Commission Meeting-ITEM 2 United Furniture Project - NO Tentative Map to review Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 2:40:00 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING ITEM. Dear Planning Commission and Staff, I understand that there are recent laws preventing the posting copyrighted project documents BUT part of what the Planning Commission is being asked to review and approve is Attachment 4 - Tentative Final Map. ISSUE1: Attachment 4 has no map! REQUEST: If this is a document that is protected, the staff can obtain permission from the applicant to provide this map. Please do so to help the review process. Thank you. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Gian Martire Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-11-12 Planning Commission Meeting - ITEM 2 United Furniture Project Date:Tuesday, November 11, 2025 2:58:15 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING ITEM. Dear Planning Commission and Staff, On the United Furniture project site there was a dry cleaners that leaked and caused contamination. The status of this contamination is still OPEN IN REMEDIATION so it has not corrected the problem. The Staff Report does not mention anything regarding this issue with the land or the planned mitigation. REQUEST: Please postpone approval until the mitigation has been completed. Below is the detailed information regarding this site. I have also attached a picture of the map showing the location of both the dry cleaners and the 3 LUST sites. ONE-HOUR DRY CLEANERS 10045 East Estates Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 GeoTracker #T10000021095 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?global_id=T10000021095 Also note, right next to this United Furniture project are 3 LUST sites. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-11-12 Planning Commission Meeting-ITEM 2 United Furniture…11” setback??? Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:23:06 AM 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ITS ATTACHMENT AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA ITEM. Dear Gian and Planning Commission, On page 2 of the Staff Report it states that the rear setback proposed is 11 inches! Q: Is this a typo? If so, what is the correct setback proposed? Attached is a screenshot of page 2. Thank you, Peggy Griffin From:Anne Ezzat To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Subject:United Furniture Housing Site Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:19:41 AM 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 Chairman Rao, Vice Chair Kosolcharoen, Commisorer Fun, Commissioner Lindskog, and Commissioner Schart, I noticed that the United Furniture housing site is on the agenda for approval and am concerned about this site. As you know, the site housed a dry cleaning facility and chemicals from dry cleaning can be extremely toxic. One chemical in particular can cause heart damage to a fetus if the mother is exposed to the chemical during the earliest stage of pregnancy. While I think the idea of townhouses is lovely, it should not come at the expense of future residents' health. Please ensure the project is remediated before granting approval. Thank you and best regards, Brooke Ezzat From:Mahesh Gurikar To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Toll Brothers Project on Stevens Creek Blvd Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 12:30:18 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 members, The new project by Toll brothers at Stevens creek blvd and east estates Dr needs to be subject to CEQA requirements. Please do not put future residents of this development at risk of exposure to residual chemicals from existing business. Also, please make sure Traffic and Parking issues are addressed before you approve this project. Thank you, Mahesh Gurikar From:James Lloyd To:planning@cupertino.govs; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:public comment re item 2 for tonight"s Planning Commission meeting Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 1:36:34 PM Attachments:Cupertino - 10075 E. Estates & 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA letter.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 Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment regarding item 2 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 55-unit housing development project at 10075 E. Estates & 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 median-income units and 5 moderate-income units. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ Nov 12, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 10075 E. Estates & 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd. By email: planning@cupertino.govs; planningcommission@cupertino.gov; srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov; slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov; CC: piug@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 55-unit housing development project at 10075 E. Estates & 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 median-income units and 5 moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Housing Element Law, AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to side and rear setbacks, building forms, lot coverage, retail requirements, mixed-use requirements, and common area design. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) CalHDF would like to remind the City of its responsibilities under the “no net loss” provisions of the Housing Element Law. Government Code 65863, subdivision (c)(2): If the approval of a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel and the jurisdiction does not find that the remaining sites in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level, the jurisdiction shall within 180 days identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level. Nothing in this section shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to disapprove a housing development project on the basis that approval of the housing project would require compliance with this paragraph. (Emphasis added.) The Housing Element Law does not allow the City to disapprove the project based on the “no net loss” issues identified in the staff report. Rather, the City must within 180 days make available additional sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA 2 of 3 Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also likely eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-ﬂung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:United Furniture Site at East Estates & Stevens Creek Blvd. Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 1:38:43 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 consider the following comments as public input for Item Number 2 on the Cupertino Planning Commission agenda for 11/12/25). The proposed housing complex at the United Furniture site is being heard at the Planning Commission Meeting as Item Number 2 on November 12, 2025. I have a few comments about the proposed project. 1. There were no outreach meetings about this project to the public. This is a high visibility project As it concerns the Wolfe/Miller Corridor and Stevens Creek Blvd. It is also directly across the street From The Rise/Vallco which has been a major point of concern over the years for the adjacent neighborhoods. 2. I am very happy there has been serious attempts to honor the Stevens Creek Blvd. Heart of the City Plans as the project fronts along a major section of Stevens Creek Blvd. HOC was established to provide and retain a certain green, leafy look and feel to Stevens Creek Blvd. and it is indeed a refreshing site to behold as you enter the city from areas where there might be no trees or greenery. Wolfe/Miller is a major north/south travel corridor from other places and people travel through this Area as they continue to other cities. It is important to maintain this green tranquil corridor and I feel the proposed project had tried to do this. Green and leafy and green setbacks is much the Codeword for HOC. 3. I am very glad that there are at least two parking spaces for each of the 55 proposed housing units. These are large living units and they will have families or possibly three to four individuals per unit. There needs to be adequate room to have several cars per unit. The selling price point of these units justify this as well as practicality. If you have a three to four bedroom housing unit, there will Be at least two to three cars per unit. I am concerned that there will not be enough visitor parking. I think there are only eight extra parking spaces. These will be quickly taken up and you don't Want the overflow parking in the neighborhoods or at the adjacent shopping centers. I think It would be nice to have at least 15 extra parking spaces. There are problems with parking at Westport by Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. One hopes that parking will not be a problem at the United Furniture site. 4. I am confused about the adus being part of this project. There are nine adus being proposed for this project. I am assuming the adus belong to a town house? Are the adus sold with the townhouse? Do the adus have kitchens? Who will live in them? Do the townhouse owners rent them out for extra income? Will the townhouses with adus sell for more money? What about the affordable townhouses with adus? They are supposed to sell to income restricted individuals or families with Lower incomes. If there is an adu as part of this affordable townhouse, what happens to the adu? Does the low income owner get to rent the adu out and will the adu be under rent control too? The townhouse owner in the income restricted units should not be able to rent the adu out at market rate. The city needs to watch how these adus are handled. The adus should only be rented To low income people and not become Airbnbs. There should be monitoring of this. Also, will the adus have parking spaces? The eight extra visitor parking spaces mentioned above Should not be just for the adus. There needs to be more parking on site. 5. What is the proposed number of children from this complex and how will that affect adjacent Schools? What schools will these children attend? Will they have to cross Stevens Creek Blvd.? 6. I am very concerned about the overwhelming loss of retail in Cupertino, especially along Stevens Creek Blvd. I am worried about the city becoming a food desert and a shopping desert. I wish this project had retail in it. 7. I hope the United Furniture project will not create a traffic flow problem on Stevens Creek Blvd., especially by the entrance to Stevens Creek from East Estates and by the gas station. It is already very congested at this area and the adjacent intersections now. 8. Please use harmonious colors on this housing unit complex. Red and bright yellow are not Good choices for this area. Subdued and elegant are always much appreciated. Thank you to everyone for trying to make this project a success and a very classy and beautiful Addition to our precious Cupertino. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin Cupertino Resident From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council Subject:Fwd: United Furniture Site at East Estates & Stevens Creek Blvd. Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 1:41:14 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 City Clerk: Please include the following as public comments for Item Number 2 on the Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda for the 11/12/25 meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: United Furniture Site at East Estates & Stevens Creek Blvd. From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 1:38 PM To: planningcommission@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com,citycouncil@cupertino.org Dear Planning Commission: (Please consider the following comments as public input for Item Number 2 on the Cupertino Planning Commission agenda for 11/12/25). The proposed housing complex at the United Furniture site is being heard at the Planning Commission Meeting as Item Number 2 on November 12, 2025. I have a few comments about the proposed project. 1. There were no outreach meetings about this project to the public. This is a high visibility project As it concerns the Wolfe/Miller Corridor and Stevens Creek Blvd. It is also directly across the street From The Rise/Vallco which has been a major point of concern over the years for the adjacent neighborhoods. 2. I am very happy there has been serious attempts to honor the Stevens Creek Blvd. Heart of the City Plans as the project fronts along a major section of Stevens Creek Blvd. HOC was established to provide and retain a certain green, leafy look and feel to Stevens Creek Blvd. and it is indeed a refreshing site to behold as you enter the city from areas where there might be no trees or greenery. Wolfe/Miller is a major north/south travel corridor from other places and people travel through this Area as they continue to other cities. It is important to maintain this green tranquil corridor and I feel the proposed project had tried to do this. Green and leafy and green setbacks is much the Codeword for HOC. 3. I am very glad that there are at least two parking spaces for each of the 55 proposed housing units. These are large living units and they will have families or possibly three to four individuals per unit. There needs to be adequate room to have several cars per unit. The selling price point of these units justify this as well as practicality. If you have a three to four bedroom housing unit, there will Be at least two to three cars per unit. I am concerned that there will not be enough visitor parking. I think there are only eight extra parking spaces. These will be quickly taken up and you don't Want the overflow parking in the neighborhoods or at the adjacent shopping centers. I think It would be nice to have at least 15 extra parking spaces. There are problems with parking at Westport by Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. One hopes that parking will not be a problem at the United Furniture site. 4. I am confused about the adus being part of this project. There are nine adus being proposed for this project. I am assuming the adus belong to a town house? Are the adus sold with the townhouse? Do the adus have kitchens? Who will live in them? Do the townhouse owners rent them out for extra income? Will the townhouses with adus sell for more money? What about the affordable townhouses with adus? They are supposed to sell to income restricted individuals or families with Lower incomes. If there is an adu as part of this affordable townhouse, what happens to the adu? Does the low income owner get to rent the adu out and will the adu be under rent control too? The townhouse owner in the income restricted units should not be able to rent the adu out at market rate. The city needs to watch how these adus are handled. The adus should only be rented To low income people and not become Airbnbs. There should be monitoring of this. Also, will the adus have parking spaces? The eight extra visitor parking spaces mentioned above Should not be just for the adus. There needs to be more parking on site. 5. What is the proposed number of children from this complex and how will that affect adjacent Schools? What schools will these children attend? Will they have to cross Stevens Creek Blvd.? 6. I am very concerned about the overwhelming loss of retail in Cupertino, especially along Stevens Creek Blvd. I am worried about the city becoming a food desert and a shopping desert. I wish this project had retail in it. 7. I hope the United Furniture project will not create a traffic flow problem on Stevens Creek Blvd., especially by the entrance to Stevens Creek from East Estates and by the gas station. It is already very congested at this area and the adjacent intersections now. 8. Please use harmonious colors on this housing unit complex. Red and bright yellow are not Good choices for this area. Subdued and elegant are always much appreciated. Thank you to everyone for trying to make this project a success and a very classy and beautiful Addition to our precious Cupertino. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin Cupertino Resident From:Rhoda Fry To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc:City Council Subject:Comments for 11/12/2025 Meeting regarding E Estates Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 3:11:56 PM Attachments:20230615_101480_RAA_Notification_One-Hour_Dry_Cleaners.pdf 20251020_Revised SVE Progress Report_2023-17s.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 Planning Commissioners, I am beyond shocked that the City is considering to agree to a categorical CEQA exemption for this project given that the hazmat clean-up for this site is incomplete. In my opinion, this puts our City at legal risk and certainly puts our residents at health risk. You can find all of the documents and studies pertaining to this property at this link on GeoTracker. Please do not consider this project to be CEQA exempt. There are many documents that you can peruse here: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000021095 I have attached a couple of documents related to the site. The first attachment appears to be the oldest document on the site where the property owner is well-aware of the issues. The second attachment appears to be the newest document on the site, dated October 20, 2025, where the County Department of Environmental Health is in disagreement with the findings of the developer’s subcontractors. Furthermore, because of a history of hazmat, this project is by default on the Cortese list, which, to my knowledge, restricts CEQA exemptions. Furthermore, Cupertino is becoming less walkable. I am disappointed by the lack of proposed retail. At that site, there had been a supermarket and later a fabric store. I loved to walk there when I moved to Cupertino and lived on Miller nearby. In fact, for the first year and a half that I lived in Cupertino, I did not have a car. Similarly, my own neighborhood in Monta Vista, there had been a Supermarket and a Hardware Store and later a green grocer. Now all gone. Having retail is important for our sales-tax base – for every $100 spent on taxable goods, Cupertino receives $1. And it is important for property values and property-tax-revenue to the City. And most importantly, it is vital for quality-of-life. Isn’t that why we chose to live in Cupertino? Thanks Much, 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: Jeffrey V. Smith Date: SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Nicole Yuen John Wolfenden Department of Toxic Substances Control Regional Water Quality Control Board Berkeley Regional Office San Francisco Bay Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov John.Wolfenden@waterboards.ca.gov Notification of Intent to Enter into a Remedial Action Agreement Required by CA Health & Safety Code, Sections 101480 & 101487 Section I: Local Agency Information Name: County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Address: 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300, San Jose CA 95112 Local Officer: Dr. Marilyn Underwood, Director, Department of Environmental Health marilyn.underwood@deh.sccgov.org 408-918-1976 Section II: General Site Information Site Information Site Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners GeoTracker ID: T10000021095 Local Case Number: TBD APN: 369-06-002 Site Address: 10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Responsible Party or Project Proponent Information Name: Idlewild TIC Primary Contact: Victor M. Castello Email: vcastello@redwoodeg.com Phone: (408) 450-4816 Address: PO Box 254, Saratoga, CA 95071 Property Owner Information (if different from Responsible Party) Joseph Nacy Castello, an individual; Rosalie Castello Flores, an individual; Tamara M. Foglesong, an individual; Jennifer Castello, an individual; Rick Costello II, an individual; Victor M. Castello, an individual; Gina C. Wagner, an individual; Geno I. Castello, an individual; Victoria M. Castello, an individual; Rosalyn J. Castello, an individual; Trust for Dana E. Clover under the 1996 Grace M. Clover Living Trust U/D/T November 5, 1996; Ryan Andersen, as successor trustee of the Trust for Dana E. Clover under the 1996 Grace M. Clover Living Trust U/D/T November 5, 1996; Cara Clover Borromei, an individual; Danica Cavigliano, an individual; and Nicolas Cavigliano, an individual (collectively referred to as “Idlewild Tenants in Common [TIC]”). Primary Contact: Victor M. Castello Email: vcastello@redwoodeg.com Phone: (408) 450-4816 Address on file with Assessor: 2323 Gunar Drive, San Jose, CA 95124 DocuSign Envelope ID: 12898908-07CD-4C2E-B21C-7B080560D9EE 6/15/2023 One-Hour Dry Cleaners Page 2 of 3 Section III: Agency Involvement & Background DEH is not aware of any planned local, state, or federal regulatory involvement at the waste release site beyond the scope of work described in this notice. A review of EnviroStor and GeoTracker identified open cases located within approximately 500 feet of the waste release site, as listed below. Site Name ID Number Site Address Lead Agency Vallco Town Cente T10000017167 10123 North Wolfe Road DEH 19720 Stevens Creek Blvd T10000016970 19720 Stevens Creek Blvd DEH Contamination associated with the above case(s) may be affecting the waste release site. Section IV: Operational and Release Information Land-use (past, current, and planned, if known): Currently commercial use with previous dry cleaner tenant. Historical and future use unknown but likely extends off site. Type of Contamination: ☒Petroleum ☐PFAS/PFOAs ☐Pesticides ☒Chlorinated Solvents ☐PCBs ☐Metals ☐Dioxins/Furans ☐Semi-Volatiles (e.g., PAHs) ☒Unknown ☐Other: Maximum Concentrations Detected (if known): Soil and groundwater conditions are unknown. Applicant has provided preliminary information identifying a maximum concentration of tetrachloroethene (PCE) in soil gas at 30,000 micrograms per cubic meter. Indoor air concentrations of PCE and benzene were also reported, with the indoor air concentration of benzene reportedly exceeding indoor air screening criteria. The nature and extent of contamination is unknown. Extent of Contamination: ☐Limited to Source Property ☐Extends Beyond Source Property ☒Unknown Threatened Receptors: ☐Water Well ☐Surface Waters ☐Residence ☐School/Daycare ☒Unknown ☐Other: Section V: Planned Investigation and Remediation Anticipated Investigation Type: ☒Groundwater ☒Soil ☒Soil Vapor ☐ Surface Water ☐ Air The planned oversight by DEH is to direct additional investigations, if needed, in order to complete the conceptual site model (CSM) and understand potential risk(s) to on-site and off-site receptors. Interim remedial actions may be required to protect human health. Once the CSM is better understood, DEH will direct the development and implementation of a site management plan and/or remedial action plan or similar document, including cleanup goals, as well as any long-term mitigation measure(s) needed to protect human health and the environment. DocuSign Envelope ID: 12898908-07CD-4C2E-B21C-7B080560D9EE One-Hour Dry Cleaners Page 3 of 3 Section VI: Local Officer Acknowledgement I, Marilyn Underwood, acknowledge the following statements: 1. The information in this notification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. 2. DEH has the technical expertise and staff resources available to provide regulatory oversight for the waste release site identified in this notification. Information supporting this statement has been submitted to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) within the past 12 months, as required by Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(b)(2). Please inform DEH whether DTSC or the Regional Water Board will retain oversight authority for the waste release site. The attached form has been provided to assist you. If DEH receives no response within 30 days of the date of this notice, DEH will proceed with entering into a Remedial Action Agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(f)(2). If you need any additional information about this project, please contact Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist Travis Flora at (408) 918-3486 or travis.flora@deh.sccgov.org. Sincerely, Marilyn C. Underwood, PhD Director, Department of Environmental Health Attachments: DTSC Determination of Regulatory Oversight Regional Water Board Determination of Regulatory Oversight cc: Marikka Hughes, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Site Mitigation Program (Marikka.Hughes@dtsc.ca.gov) Steven McMasters, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality (Steven.McMasters@waterboards.ca.gov) DocuSign Envelope ID: 12898908-07CD-4C2E-B21C-7B080560D9EE DTSC Determination of Regulatory Oversight The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) may use this attachment to inform DEH whether they will retain oversight authority for the waste release site described below. If DEH receives no response within 30 days of the date of this notice, DEH will proceed with entering into a Remedial Action Agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(f)(2). Site Information Site Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners GeoTracker ID: T10000021095 Local Case Number: TBD APN: 369-06-002 Site Address: 10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 DTSC Determination ☐ DTSC will not retain oversight authority for the waste release site. ☐ DTSC will retain oversight authority for the waste release site. Please provide the following information only if retaining oversight authority for the waste release site. Reason for retaining oversight authority: If retaining oversight authority, the DTSC will post public records regarding the waste release site on the following website: ☐ www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov ☐ Other: This determination was made by: Name: Phone: Email: Signature: Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: 12898908-07CD-4C2E-B21C-7B080560D9EE Nicole Yuen nicole.yuen@dtsc.ca.gov 6/15/2023 X Regional Water Board Determination of Regulatory Oversight The Regional Water Board may use this attachment to inform DEH whether they will retain oversight authority for the waste release site described below. If DEH receives no response within 30 days of the date of this notice, DEH will proceed with entering into a Remedial Action Agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(f)(2). Site Information Site Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners GeoTracker ID: T10000021095 Local Case Number: TBD APN: 369-06-002 Site Address: 10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Regional Water Board Determination ☐ Regional Water Board will not retain oversight authority for the waste release site. ☐ Regional Water Board will retain oversight authority for the waste release site. Please provide the following information only if retaining oversight authority for the waste release site. Reason for retaining oversight authority: If retaining oversight authority, the Regional Water Board will post public records regarding the waste release site on the following website: ☐ www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov ☐ Other: This determination was made by: Name: Phone: Email: Signature: Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: 12898908-07CD-4C2E-B21C-7B080560D9EE X 6/15/2023 John Wolfenden 5106222444 john.wolfenden@waterboards.ca.gov County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300 San José, CA 95112-2716 (408) 918-3400 www.ehinfo.org/hazmat Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga County Executive: James R. Williams October 20, 2025 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Idlewild TIC c/o Victor Castello vcastello@redwoodeg.com Re: One-Hour Dry Cleaners 10045 East Estates Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 APN: 369-06-022 Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17s GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095 Dear Mr. Castello, The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Revised 2025 Second Quarter Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Progress Report (Report) prepared by Terraphase Engineering and dated September 30, 2025. The Report documents operational parameters of the SVE system and soil vapor concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE) at several sampling locations across the site. DEH accepts the Report. The Report states “Current PCE concentrations in the subsurface are well below levels of concern and are expected to be effectively mitigated by a properly installed vapor mitigation system, which will protect future occupants living at the Site.” The DEH does not agree with this statement. The current concentrations of PCE reported beneath the site exceed the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for both commercial and residential land uses by one to two orders of magnitude and continue to represent a risk for vapor intrusion. The Report also states “Both SVE wells (SVE-01 and SVE-02) will continue to operate with the system running. A second rebound test is planned for later this year in anticipation that the results will show the PCE mass remaining in the ground is no longer a significant threat to human health or the environment.” The DEH requires written notification of when the SVE system will be shutdown to initiate a second rebound test. Please note that in order to adequately demonstrate that soil vapor concentrations have reached equilibrium, the SVE rebound monitoring period shall last a minimum of six months after SVE shutdown with a minimum of three soil vapor sampling events during the rebound monitoring period. One-Hour Dry Cleaners October 20, 2025 Page 2 of 3 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS You are required to submit the following documents to DEH (Attention: Mr. Aaron Costa) via GeoTracker according to the following schedule. 3Q25 SVE Progress Report – October 31, 2025 Notification of SVE System Shutdown for Rebound Testing – Prior to SVE System Shutdown Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule. The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional. PERJURY STATEMENT All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party which states, at a minimum, the following: "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. In the future, reports that are either missing perjury statements, or include perjury statements that are not signed by a legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party, will be denied by DEH. ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS You are required to electronically submit any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site in accordance with the Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR). You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves). For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html. One-Hour Dry Cleaners October 20, 2025 Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 918-1954 or via email. Sincerely, Aaron Costa Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist Site Cleanup Program aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group, jsl@svlg.com Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering, jeff.raines@terraphase.com Gian Paolo Martire, City of Cupertino Planning, gianm@cupertino.gov File – GeoTracker