The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 05-26-2026 Written CommunicationsPC 05-26-2026 Oral Communications Written Communications From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: SB 330 Project at Finch and Stevens Creek Blvd. Date:Sunday, May 24, 2026 7:51:14 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. FYI. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: SB 330 Project at Finch and Stevens Creek Blvd. From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2026, 7:47 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: ( Please consider the following as public input for the City Council meeting on June 2, 2026.) I am very concerned that the proposed SB 330 project for the South East corner of the Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. intersection is just too big and too dense for this heavily used corner next to Cupertino High School. This is already a very busy corner with lots of car, bike and pedestrian traffic, especially since it is across the street from the very busy Main Street Main entrance Of the shopping mall. The Cupertino High School students walk to the County Transit Bus Bench for Bus 23 and 523 which is In front of this proposed complex. This intersection already has too much traffic and this project will be introducing more traffic. The project will be taking out Sunflower Day Care Building and other banks and retail in the current Complex. Daycare is extremely important for people. We have already lost so much retail from the other SB 330s on Stevens Creek Blvd. This building will back up to the high school. There is a driveway currently behind the bank buildings. Will this easement be retained? There is also a back driveway to the two story tech building to the East of the project. Is this also a shared easement? I see no development boards for the project up on Stevens Creek Blvd. When is this project going to put up development boards with information about the project and when will there be community meetings on the project? I understand even SB 330 allows Community Meetings. This project is a high profile project for the Eastern End of Cupertino because we already have had to deal with issues from traffic from The Rise and what is happening to Wolfe Road. Please reach out to the public to begin a dialog about this project so issues with traffic, over building, Student safety and potential gridlock on Stevens Creek Blvd. can be addressed. I do hope the street trees can be retained on the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage and Finch Avenue frontage. I hope Heart of the City can be respected and there will not be skyscrapers along our beautiful Heart of the City. I hope the project can see fit to have the graceful Mission style architecture reflecting Cupertino's historic past which is so gracefully incorporated into The Marketplace Shopping Center across Stevens Creek Blvd. from the old Sears Building at Vallco/ The Rise and so successfully incorporated into the Westport (former The Oaks site) on the west end of the city. De Anza College has lovely Spanish architecture and is always a delight to behold. I hope that the current businesses at this proposed construction site will be contacted and given viable options to stay in the city, especially the daycare which I imagine many Apple employees Utilize for their children. Thank you for your attention to this project and the issues that arise from it. Please let us know The timeline on the project and when the development board is going up. Also, please let us know about Community Meetings. This is the seventh SB 330 along Stevens Creek Blvd since January. It is exhausting. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin Cupertino Resident From:Santosh Rao To:Lindsay Nelson; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Chad Mosley; Michael Woo Subject:Fw: Memorial Park sound attenuation. Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:11:54 PM Dear City Clerk, Please include the below in written communications for the benefit of other planning commissioners and the public. Thank you. Santosh Rao Planning Commissioner SRao@cupertino.gov From: Santosh Rao <SRao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2026 7:46 AM To: Susan Michael <SusanM@cupertino.gov>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.gov>; Michael Woo <MichaelW@cupertino.gov>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov> Subject: Memorial Park sound attenuation. Hello Director Mosley, Ms Michael, I am sharing the below in case you may not have seen it already. https://sportsonicguard.com/ There appear to be different types of products for noise attenuation related to pickleball. Is the CIP structured in a generic enough manner to allow you to explore all of these options so you may find the right balance of dB reduction, fiscal impact and longevity with time to replace or maintain. If not is this something feasible to do so you can structure the CIP to give you enough flexibility to consider any of these options. Thanks. Santosh Rao Planning Commissioner SRao@cupertino.gov From:Santosh Rao To:City Clerk; Lindsay Nelson; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject:Fw: Pickleball Noise Mitigation Solution for Cupertino Memorial Park Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:46:56 PM Attachments:Outlook-i0sdzskw.png Outlook-email logo.png Sonic Guard Brochures.pdf QA-5523a - Sport Surfaces - Sonic guard - ASTM E90 - 12192025.pdf Yacht Club Sonic Guard Study.pdf Please include in written comments. Santosh Rao Planning Commissioner SRao@cupertino.gov From: Zak Wilson <zak@sportsurfaces.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:34 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <Planningcommission@cupertino.gov> Cc: Chad Mosley <Chadm@cupertino.gov>; Susan Michael <Susanm@cupertino.gov> Subject: Pickleball Noise Mitigation Solution for Cupertino Memorial Park 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, As pickleball continues growing across the Bay Area, Cupertino is facing the same challenge many cities are now wrestling with: How do you preserve access to one of the fastest-growing community sports while meaningfully addressing neighborhood noise concerns? At Memorial Park, the concern is understandable. The repetitive paddle impact noise is unique, highly noticeable, and different from tennis. Nearby residents feel it daily. At the same time, the courts have become a major community gathering point with real social value. That balance matters. The good news is: communities do not always need to choose between restricting play and doing nothing. Sonic Guard was developed specifically for this exact challenge. Sonic Guard is a purpose-built acoustic barrier system engineered for pickleball and tennis environments where surrounding residential impact has become a serious concern. Instead of relying only on reduced play hours, court removal, or major site reconstruction, Sonic Guard helps reduce paddle impact noise at the source before it reaches surrounding homes. Key benefits: Reduces the sharp “pop” associated with pickleball paddle impact Helps absorb and interrupt sound before it carries outward Preserves court access and recreational use Integrates with existing fencing and park layouts Supports long-term mitigation planning without major demolition Product Options Sonic Guard Ultra Up to 44 dB noise reduction Best for: active neighborhood complaints city review / planning discussions closest residential setbacks projects requiring strongest mitigation available Sonic Guard Pro Up to 28 dB noise reduction Best for: public courts HOA and park applications strong acoustic performance with efficient coverage Sonic Guard Clear Vision Up to 14 dB noise reduction Best for: maintaining visibility preserving aesthetics adding sound reduction without visually closing off the space For cities like Cupertino evaluating Memorial Park and long-term solutions, acoustic barriers can provide a practical middle ground: Protect neighborhood quality of life while keeping the courts active and accessible. Attached for review: Sonic Guard Product Brochure Lab Test Results / Acoustic Performance Data Case Study / Real-World Installation Reference We would be happy to review: court layout residential setback distances fence elevations existing sound studies and recommended placement options And provide a tailored recommendation based on the site. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, Zak Wilson Sales Executive Sport Surfaces/Sport Sonic Guard 7011 Wilson Rd. WPB, FL. 33413 Office: 1-561-964-2001 Direct: 407-752-9830 8148 NW 74 Avenue Medley, FL, 33166 305.885.3328 ph. | 305.885.3329 fx "This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable." WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org CLIENT: Sports Surfaces LLC 12851 SW 133 ST Miami, Florida 33186 Project No: QA-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025 SAMPLE ID: Series: Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 4’-0’’ (48”) Width x 10’-0’’ (120”) High; See page 3 for full description. SAMPLING DETAIL: The test sample manufactured by Sports Surfaces LLC was submitted directly to QAI by the client. Samples were not independently selected for testing. DATE OF RECEIPT: Samples were received at the QAI Miami Laboratories on November 24, 2025 TESTING PERIOD: December 19, 2025 TESTING LOCATION: QAI Laboratory (QAI) – Miami, Florida, USA AUTHORIZATION: QAI proposal number QAI-4933 dated November 17, 2025, signed by Verena Burner, dated November 20, 2025 TEST PROCEDURE: Testing to the following requirements: ASTM E90 -09 (reapproved 2016) Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements ASTM E2235-04Standard Test Method for Determination of Decay Rates for Use in Sound Insulation Test Methods ASTM E413-22 Classification for Rating Sound Insulation ASTM E1332-16 Standard Classification for Rating Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation TEST RESULTS: The Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System was tested in accordance with the ASTM E90, ASTM E2235, ASTM E413, and ASTM E1332 and achieved an STC31/OITC26. CONTENTS: Test report pages 1 through 5. Prepared By Signed for and on behalf of QAI Laboratories Lusinda Delgado Jose Sanchez Technical Report Writer Operation Manager Lusinda Delgado Prin t e d f r o m a n e - s i g n e d d o c u m e n t Client: Sport Surface Test Report No.: MED-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025 Page 2 of 5 "This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable." WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org Table of Contents Sample A-1 Page Rev Description of Test Sample 3 Panel Construction 3 Equipment 4 Test Chamber Dimensions 4 Results Sample A-1 Acoustical Test ASTM E90 4 Revision Table 5 Remarks Table 5 Technician: Ian McGinley Client: Sport Surface Test Report No.: MED-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025 Page 3 of 5 "This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable." WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE Model Desi nation: Sonic Guard coustic Barrier S stem Overall Size: 4’-0’’ 48” Width x 10’-0’’ 120” Hi h Panel Construction Client: Sport Surface Test Report No.: MED-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025 Page 4 of 5 "This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable." WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org Equipment Instrument Manufacture Model Description Pressure microphone Norsonic 1230 Microphone Oscillatin microphone boom Norsonic N265 Rotatin microphone Loud speaker JBL SR4733 Speaker mplifier s stem QSC RMX1850-HD mplifier Dual band equalizer DBX DBX-1231 Equalizer Test Chamber Dimensions Receivin Room 7875 ft³ Source Room 6840 ft³ Room Conditions: 79.5 °F R.H: 57% ATM: 1017 hPa Data Table TL db deficiencies 95% CI 80 26 - 0.84 100 19 - 1.25 125 17 0 0.65 160 25 0 0.54 200 24 0 0.55 250 25 0 0.32 315 26 1 0.38 400 27 3 0.42 500 26 5 0.39 630 27 5 0.45 800 27 6 0.34 1000 30 4 0.22 1250 32 3 0.17 1600 34 1 0.22 2000 38 0 0.09 2500 40 0 0.15 3150 42 0 0.10 4000 44 - 0.15 Client: Sport Surface Test Report No.: MED-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025 Page 5 of 5 "This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable." WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org Notes QAI does not have, nor does it intend to acquire or will acquire, a financial interest in any company manufacturing or distributing products tested or labeled by QAI. QAI is not owned, operated or controlled by any company manufacturing or distributing products it tests or labels. Drawings referenced in this document are an integral part of this report, therefore, are required when distributing this test report. Test results obtained represent the actual value of the tested specimens and do not constitute opinion, endorsement or certification b this laborator . Test Procedure Samples were installed in a 120 1/2" by 48 1/2" wall opening and were approximately 1/2" from flush with the receive room side of the wall. A filler panel was installed in the wall opening and a sound transmission loss test was initially performed on the wall. Duct seal was used to seal the interior and exterior of the test samples to the wall opening. The sensitivity of the microphones was checked with a calibrator before testing was performed. The sound transmission loss values were obtained for a single direction. Five measurements were conducted for the sound pressure level, background noise and sound absorption. Measurements were collected at each rotating microphone. Data for flanking limit tests, repeatability measurements and reference specimen tests are available on request. REVISION HISTORY: 12/19/2025: Initial report release *******END REPORT******* Studio Shodwe Prepared by : Zak Wilson CASE STUDY YACHT CLUB ON THE INTRACOASTAL FROM NOISE CRISIS TOCOMMUNITY HARMONY IN60 DAYS Location: 160 Yacht Club Way, Hypoluxo, FL 33462 Property: 300-unit waterfront condominium community, 26 acres on the Intracoastal Challenge: Pickleball court noise threatening litigation and property values Solution: 48 Sport Sonic Guard panels, full perimeter installation Result: 75% noise reduction, zero complaints, $200K+ property value protected The Problem COMMUNITY PROFILE Premium gated community with 300+ units, marina, resort amenities, and active lifestyle facilities. Mix of full-time residents and seasonal owners seeking waterfront tranquility. Prepared by : Zak Wilson THE CRISIS Complaints Received: 60+ formal noise complaints from residents in 5 buildings 3 litigation threats from unit owners 20+ residents demanding immediate court closure 2 seasonal owners threatening not to return Sound Measurements (Before): Building 160 (80-120 ft away): 68-72 dB during play Buildings 145/157 (150-180 ft): 62-66 dB during play Buildings 103/110 (180-220 ft): 58- 62 dB during play Background ambient: 42-48 dB (waterfront quiet) Impact: Pickleball noise was 15-25 dB above background—conversation-disrupting and psychologically intrusive.Prepared by : Zak Wilson FAILED SOLUTIONS Time restrictions (10 AM-6 PM only) → Still too loud "Quiet paddle" requirements → Only 2-3 dB improvement Posted "considerate play" signs → Ignored, unenforceable Player education letters → Ineffective Prepared by : Zak Wilson FINANCIAL STAKES Legal consultation fees: $8,500 Units listed below market due to noise: 2 units (-$15K-25K each) Original court conversion investment at risk: $45,000 Potential litigation exposure: $15K-30K Board faced impossible choice: Close courts (waste $45K investment) or face lawsuits. Prepared by : Zak Wilson THE SOLUTION: SPORT SONIC GUARD Acoustic Challenges Identified: Multi-directional exposure (courts centered among buildings) Hard surface amplification (concrete, asphalt, water reflection) Mid-rise buildings (3-4 stories) = elevated units in direct sound path Intracoastal water surface reflecting sound back into community Assessment & Design Read More Prepared by : Zak Wilson THE SOLUTION: SPORT SONIC GUARD 48 Sport Sonic Guard panels (4' W × 10' H each) 192 linear feet (full perimeter enclosure) STC-31/OITC-26 rated (ASTM E90 certified) 10-foot height critical for protecting upper floors Three-phase installation over 3 weeks System Design: Prepared by : Zak Wilson THE RESULTS Noise reduced from "intrusive conversation-disrupting" to "quiet library/barely noticeable" Building 160 (80-120 ft) Buildings 145/157 (150-180 ft) Buildings 103/110 (180-220 ft) 68-72 dB 62-66 dB 58-62 dB 35-42 dB 32-38 dB 30-36 dB Location Before After Prepared by : Zak Wilson COMMUNITY IMPACT Complaint Resolution: Formal complaints before: 60+ over 2 months Formal complaints after: 0 over 9+ months Litigation threats before: 3 residents Litigation threats after: 0 100% resolution rate Prepared by : Zak Wilson RESIDENT TESTIMONIALS Building 160, Unit 303 (Most Vocal Complainant): "We cannot believe the difference. We were skeptical any barrier could work, but we can now sit on our balcony and barely hear the games. The HOA did the right thing." Building 157, Unit 308 (Work-from-home Professional): "I can now work from home with zero disruption. Even with my balcony door open, I hear nothing. The investment was worth every penny Diam donec adipiscing tristique risus nec feugiat in fermentum. Prepared by : Zak Wilson KEY TAKEAWAYS Complete resolution of 60+ complaints and 3 litigation threats 75% noise reduction verified by post- installation testin g $200K+ property value protected from noise-related depreciation Tour Guide ero ongoing complaints 9+ months after installation Courts transformed from liability to amenity generating revenue 300-500% ROI through cost avoidance and value protection Prepared by : Zak Wilson