Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 03-09-2026 Written Communications (Updated 3-10-2026)PC 03-09-2026 Item #2 Update to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan: 2015 - 2040 Community Vision Written Communications From:Piu Ghosh (she/her) (Cupertino Planning Department) To:Lindsay Nelson Subject:Fwd: City General Plan Feedback-Health and Safety Element of the General Plan Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 5:24:36 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jiwoo <mango4704@gmail.com> Date: 3/6/2026, 11:11:14 PM Dear Cupertino Planning Division, My name is Jiwoo Kim, and I am a student at Cupertino High School. I am interested in biological sciences and public health, and I have been reviewing the new Health and Safety Element draft. I would like to share two suggestions based on the "Climate Change Resilience" to help protect our community from extreme heat. 1. Utilize Public Facilities as Cooling Centers I suggest that the City officially designate more public buildings as cooling centers during heat waves, near areas in crowded public places where many residents of Cupertino tend to stay out in the open for long periods of time. It would also help to extend their operating hours on very hot days. Heat can seriously affect people’s health, especially during extreme temperatures, so having accessible air conditioned spaces is important for community safety. 2. I suggest installing a cooling fog system combined with large sunshades in crowded, public areas for people to cool off during the hot days. 3. Nature Based Cooling Solutions (Policy 9.9) I support adding more green roofs and living walls to reduce heat in the city. I hope the City sets clear goals to add these features in areas where students and residents walk or gather. These natural solutions, together with cooling centers, can make our city more prepared for rising temperatures. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share feedback. I hope my suggestions are helpful for improving the final plan. I would appreciate it if you could confirm that my feedback has been received. Sincerely, Jiwoo Kim Did this email go to the Planning Commission email address? Lindsay – Please include in the PC written comms. Thank you, Lauren Sapudar Acting City Clerk ​​​​ City Manager's Office LaurenS@cupertino.gov (408)777-1312 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 8:13 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; lsapuder@cupertino.gov Subject: Written Communications PC Meeting Cupertino Health and Safety Element Item 2 and Include as Comments to the Draft 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. Honorable Chair Kosolcharoen, Vice Chair Scharf, and Commissioners Fung, Lindskog, and Rao, As a resident of Cupertino, I am writing to share observations regarding the Draft Health and Safety Element. This element, as you know, was supposed to be adopted concurrently with the Housing Element. To ensure this document provides a "safe harbor" for our community against the loss of local control, I recommend the Commission transition from discretionary goals to objective, non-discretionary standards. I respectfully suggest the following specific refinements: 1.Wildfire & Evacuation (Objective Safety Standards) The Commission should consider moving beyond "encouraging" safety to requiring it: From:Lauren Sapudar Cc: To: Lindsay Nelson Subject:FW: Written Communications PC Meeting Cupertino Health and Safety Element Item 2 and Include as Comments to the Draft Sunday, March 8, 2026 8:17:57 PM Luke Connolly; Michael Woo Date: Hi Luke and Michael, 5-foot non-combustible "Zone 0" for all new construction in these hazard areas? Are there further enhancements to this section? 2.Environmental Health & Hazardous Materials (PFAS/PCE) To protect our groundwater, the element needs automatic, numeric triggers: Mandatory Phase I/II ESAs: Could the policy state that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is mandatory for any development application on a parcel with a historical industrial or commercial land use? Numeric Cleanup Targets: Should the draft explicitly reference Bay Area or California EPA (CHHSL) residential screening levels for contaminants like PCE and PFAS as the mandatory threshold for occupancy permits? 3.Noise & Public Health (Nighttime Industrial Traffic) The 4 AM truck traffic from local industrial operations is a significant health concern. Lmax Thresholds: Our 24-hour averages (CNEL) do not address sleep disturbance. Could the element include a strict Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) cap of 65 decibel for industrial trucks in residential zones between 10 PM and 6 AM 4.Seismic Resilience: City Hall and EOC Status EOC Retrofit: Our emergency response capability is only as strong as our infrastructure. It has been noted in city records (1985, 2005, 2014) that the City Hall still requires a full seismic retrofit to meet modern Essential Facility safety standards. Could the Commission add an objective goal to complete this upgrade and the Torre Annex within the next five years? By codifying these objective requirements now, we ensure Cupertino retains the power to enforce its safety and health standards regardless of future state-level streamlining. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Dual Ingress/Egress: To prevent entrapment, could the element require that all new residential developments of 5+ units in High/Very High Fire Hazard zones must provide at least two independent, paved points of access with a minimum 20-foot width along with mandatory evacuation plans? Zone 0 Perimeters: To align with current wildfire science, should we mandate a From:DerChang Kau To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Fw: Presentation materials to comment on Agenda #2 planning commission meeting today Date:Monday, March 9, 2026 7:34:37 PM Attachments:20260309 - Feedback to PC March 9 2026 meeting.pptx 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. From: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 7:33:35 PM To: Cupertino Planning Department <planning@cupertino.gov> Subject: Fw: Presentation materials to comment on Agenda #2 planning commission meeting today From: DerChang Kau <derchang@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 2:53:36 PM To: Cupertino Planning Department <planning@cupertino.gov> Cc: Alice Lin <alice.hhlin@gmail.com> Subject: Presentation materials to comment on Agenda #2 planning commission meeting today Dear planning staff, Please see "20260309 - Feedback to PC March 9 2026 meeting.pptx”, attached. The presentation slides will be used for oral comment to Agenda #2 of today’s Planning Commission’s meeting. The presenters are DerChang Kau and Alice Lin. Thank you DerChang Kau OUTDATED INPUTS PLANNING-LEVEL METHODS ARE NOT ENOUGH HIGH-RISK ZONES REQUIRE STREET-LEVEL MODELING BEYOND V/C RATIOS: A TOTAL EVACUATION-TO-SAFETY FRAMEWORK DerChang Kau A resident of the City of Cupertino Feedback to Update to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan: 2015 -2040 Community Vision Outdated Inputs The City’s evacuation analysis is built on pre-rezoning data and cannot support long-range planning. Uses 2023 ACS, 2025 Genasys, and 2024 StreetLight data —“Primarily reflects existing households” —not future density Fails to identify parcels with single ingress/egress as required by California Government Code Section 65302(g)(5)¶ —Evulich Ct. modeled as 4 units, not 51 units allowed under rezoning A 2040 General Plan cannot rely on 2023 conditions The analysis is outdated the moment it is published. 2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65302.&article=5.&hig hlight=true&keyword=Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zone#:~:text=(5)%20Upon%20the%20next%20revision,revision %20of%20the%20safety%20element. ¶ Beyond V/C Ratios: A Total Evacuation-to-Safety Framework V/C ratios hide the true danger. Cupertino needs a Total Evacuation-to-Safety model. V/C > 1 means oversaturation — “the system fails” Current study uses planning-level capacities from year 2000 Missing adjustments: —Spatial (density, terrain, visibility), Temporal (school pickup, curbside parking), Operational (signal outages, red-flash mode) Real evacuation requires modeling: —Queuing delays, Merging delays, Human behavior, Departure lag Residents need to know time to safety, not just where bottlenecks occur. 3 Planning-Level Methods Are Not Enough Cupertino must move beyond broad, planning-level assessments to dynamic, high-resolution evacuation modeling. Current method is a “broad evaluation,” not a plan —Fehr & Peers: constrained areas require dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) DTA has been adopted widely —National guidance exists: ISO 22315, NIST ESCAPE —Peer jurisdictions (e.g., Marin County) already use advanced modeling Needed tools: —Scenario-based simulations, Evacuation time analysis, Departure-behavior modeling, Redundant route & shelter analysis, Quantitative performance metrics Cupertino should be a leader—not a laggard—in evacuation planning. 4 High-Risk Zones Require Street-Level Modeling Four evacuation zones lie within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, yet the City has not modeled their street-level evacuation behavior. All designated evacuation routes lie outside FHSZ But CUP016, CUP017, CUP029, CUP032 lie inside Moderate–Very High FHSZ —CUP029 alone = 38% of all evacuation trips —McClellan Road V/C = 4.2; Foothill Blvd V/C = 4.0 —These are not “constraints”—they are system failures City must adopt: —Street-level DTA, Real-time traffic management, Phased evacuation strategies for FHSZ zone Thousands of residents remain exposed until Cupertino models evacuation where the risk actually exists. 5 Evulich Ct. : Evacuation to Safety Modeling 6The visual animation is courtesy of David Yan, yet another resident of Cupertino ©2025, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved.7 15’ after Red Flag Warning issued5’ after Red Flag Warning issued ©2025, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved.8 45’ after Red Flag Warning issued30’ after Red Flag Warning issued ©2025, DerChang Kau. All rights reserved.9 60’ after Red Flag Warning issued Summary: Cupertino Must Elevate Its Evacuation Planning The current evacuation analysis is not sufficient for a wildfire-exposed, rapidly densifying Cupertino. The City must adopt modern, data-driven methods to meet 2040 safety needs. Dated data source Over simplified methods despite known constraints and consultant guidance High-risk zones (CUP016, 17, 29, 32) require street-level modeling V/C ratios mask true danger — oversaturation means system failure, not delay Residents need time-to-safety modeling, not bottleneck identification Peer jurisdictions already use dynamic traffic assignment & scenario-based tools To protect residents and meet the intent of the Health & Safety Element, Cupertino must move beyond planning-level assumptions and commit to advanced, future-oriented evacuation modeling now. 10