CC 04-13-2023 Item No. 4 VP1_Written CommunicationsCC 04-13-2023
Item No. 4
Development Proposal
Apple Vallco Parkway
Written Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council; Gian Martire
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:4-13-2023 City Council Mtg-ITEM 4 Apple Development on Vallco Parkway RETAIL ISSUES
Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 6:27:15 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 COMMUNICATION FOR THIS MEETING AND
ITEM.
Dear City Council and Staff,
The Main Street “retail” in the 2 Apple buildings has been a farce. In the past, it has not welcomed
the public. In the past it has posted 2 prices, one for employees and one for “others”. It has not
accepted payment except using ApplePay or employee methods. It has shutdown completely at 5
pm when the public is off work and can shop and has not been open on the weekends! It’s basically
been a shop for Apple employees, not the public which was the intent of the retail space
requirement in exchange for the additional floor!
If you are exchanging height for retail, make it real retail, open to the public and make it welcoming
to the public. Do not give height away for free! The General Plan intent was to allow an additional
floor if the ground floor was retail. This is just a token corner of the building!
Regarding the proposed retail on the bottom floor in exchange for additional height:
1. RETAIL Square Footage Too Small - 2300 sq ft is too small for an adequate bike shop. Normal bike
shops are at least 4000-5000 sf or larger.
2. RETAIL Days/Hours of Operation - If this is really retail, open to the general public, it should stay
open later and be open on weekends. It should not close at 5pm when Apple employees go home.
3. Payment Accepted - The public should be able to pay with cash, credit cards, etc. instead of being
limited to their Apple employee accounts and ApplePay.
4. Prices Posted for General Public - Prices need to be posted that are for all - not just employee
prices!
5. Parking for the Public – Q: Will there be parking spaces for retail shoppers or people bringing in
their broken bikes?
6. Q: Will it be a real bike shop run by a 3rd party or operated by Apple employees?
We need retail. We need tax dollars. Don’t give away height in a token exchange.
REQUEST: Please add the following to the development agreement:
Double the size to 4600 sf
That it SHALL BE open to the public.
Specify exact number of spaces for retail shoppers.
Specify days and hours of operation will match or exceed other bike shops in Cupertino.
Specify it will follow the Bird Safe AND Dark Sky Ordinances.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Ashley M. Gjovik
To:City Clerk
Cc:Gian Martire
Subject:Public Comments for Public 4/13 Hearing on 19191 Vallco Parkway Project (Apple VP1)
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2023 10:12:48 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.
Hello,
I’m submitting written comments for the April 13 2023 City Council meeting. Gian Martire
approved written comments for the agenda item about 19191 Vallco Parkway.
This item: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CACUPERTINO/bulletins/352f189
Public Comments for Public Hearing on 19191 Vallco Parkway Redevelopment Project
(Apple VP1)
I reviewed the project documentation posted on the Cupertino city website, as well as the 2021
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment provided directly by the city by request. I also
skimmed the state EPA documentation for the adjacent toxic waste clean-up site at 19333
Vallco (a site so contaminated it was previously considered for federal Superfund status). I
have a few concerns I’d like to raise about the 19191 project. Because of these concerns I’d
argue against a full CEQA waiver, and suggest either a modified negative declaration or a full
EIR due to the environmental risks at the site, and the site being located so close to restaurants
and hotels.
Per the documentation, only a fraction of the 19191 building was tested for solvent vapors
from pollution in the soil. Both 2007 & 2021 test results show that only the northeast corner of
the building was tested, which is only about 1/5th of the overall building. The report notes that
Apple apparently didn't let the environmental consultant even visually survey the rest of the
building. That does not seem sufficient. Apple's argument was apparently that the rest of the
building was secure lockdowns; however, after the building is vacated, additional testing could
still be done. The justification for only testing the NE corner appears to be that historic data
points to that area for chemical storage, however that type of documentation isn’t always
complete and at least a visual survey should be required to assess risk, especially considering
the variety of solvent contamination that has already been found in the soil onsite and next-
door. I also don't see why additional testing wasn't done in at least the atrium, which would not
disrupt work in the lockdown areas. Considering the known contamination onsite and at
adjacent properties, any request to waive an EIR seems like it should be justified with
thorough preliminary testing. If the team would like to request a full CEQA waiver, I suggest
they should do additional testing first, or obtain a sign off from the experts at the Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health that their testing was adequate.
Similarly, since there is literally no data about the status of potential pollution for the majority
of the building, if the team does not want to do additional testing, perhaps they can fill
knowledge gaps with EH&S data, as the building has been occupied by Apple for some time
now. Have any employees reported headaches, dizziness, or other symptoms of solvent
exposure? Has Apple performed any indoor air testing that could provide insight into risk?
Nothing is mentioned in the report. If prior indoor air testing shows contamination, that could
signal the need for an EIR. If prior testing has always come back with great results, that could
be evidence of lower risk and support a mitigated negative declaration.
Next, the Apple offices at 19333 next-door to the project site, per Geotracker, are subject to an
restrictive land use covenant due to the contamination known to be on site. In fact, the
restrictions include a prohibition of day care, elder care, residence use, or schools for anyone
21 and under - among other bans. Has it been confirmed these restrictions do not apply to any
part of 19191? Even if not, I'd like to review consideration as to why land directly next to this
site is so polluted as to ban children from being present, while the project team for this site
would also like a full CEQA waiver. This seems odd to me.
Finally, the 2007 report notes the building and site has asbestos pipes, tiles, and roof materials.
The CEQA waiver request notes that demolition can easily pollute air, water, and soil with
asbestos. If you look at the site under satellite view on a maps program, you can see it's right
next to hotels (residential windows) and restaurants (with outdoor patios). It seems fair those
businesses be given a notice and comment opportunity through a formal EIR for the
demolition, at least related to that potential asbestos exposure. If not an EIR, I’d suggest some
sort of formal oversight on the asbestos in the site control plan for the demolition work, that
also includes a notice to the community.
The 2021 site assessment report was labeled "Confidential" and "Need to Know" by Apple
and EKI. The Cupertino community needs more transparency, not less, with projects like this
that are expected to disturb carcinogenic and otherwise toxic substances so close to short-term
residential and outdoor eating spaces.
- Ashley Gjovik, a prior Cupertino resident & ex-Apple employee
(last name pronounced JOE-vick)
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:City Council 4-13-2023 Agenda #4 New Apple Building Public Comment
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2023 11:32:50 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.
City Council 4-13-2023 Agenda #4 New Apple Building Public Comment
Dear City Council,
I have a few questions and observations regarding this new beautiful building proposal.
1. How many more people will be occupying the building and how will this affect housing
demand?
2. This area had been designated for all ground-floor retail. Why is there a density bonus when
ground floor retail is already expected? Regardless, it looks like the height of the building does
fit in with what is across the street and it also provides more opportunities to plant trees.
3. When the new Apple building was built, there had been models made to determine that the
normally-required parking area could be made smaller due to alternative modes of
transportation. How has the model worked out? Is the same model being used for this new
building?
4. It seems that the ground floor retail is on the small side when compared with the size of other
bicycle shops as outlined in my comments to the planning commission. I hope that it is
successful and helps to serve the community and bring in sales tax money.
5. As mentioned earlier, this area had been anticipated for ground-floor retail. I think that having
a large-employer head-count tax could help mitigate the loss of ground-floor retail sales-tax
income to the City.
6. Apple builds beautiful buildings and we’re lucky to have them in our community. I do hope
that they’ll also consider Connie Cunningham’s suggestions to do the best for birds and even
more so because the building has so much fenestration and it is adjacent to a creek.
Thank You,
Rhoda Fry
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council; Gian Martire
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-04-13 City Council Mtg ITEM4 - Apple re-development COVENANT REQUIRED BEFORE ANY TOC!
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2023 4:17:53 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 THE EMAIL BELOW AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE 4-13-
2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 4 - Apple Redevelopment on Vallco Parkway.
Dear City Council and Staff,
If this re-development is approved, the conditions of approval should REQUIRE:
1. A deed restriction i.e. covenant to be filed with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office and it
should run with the land. If the property is sold, it should apply to any current and future owners.
Permits should validate that it continues to be followed.
2. This covenant should be reviewed and signed off by the City Attorney to ensure it meets the
conditions of approval and is legally binding.
3. Proof of the recording MUST BE REQUIRED prior to ANY Temporary Occupancy permit is
approved/issued.
Main Street is an example of what can go wrong if these steps are not taken. The Planning Dept had
negotiated retail space in both buildings but the covenant the developer initially filed to get a TOC
permit was grossly wrong. It took 5-6 months after they were using the building to get the
developer to fix the errors in the covenant.
Examples of the covenant errors were:
- The 2 Main Street office buildings were on 2 parcels but the covenant only applied to one parcel!
- The covenant stated that as long as Apple had a lease the retail condition would not be honored
and Apple’s lease could go for 25 years!
- Square footage was left up to negotiation with Planning! It should be specified in the conditions of
approval! Then the amount of square footage ended up stating 1600 sf when Planning had stated
3200 sq ft, half in each building (1600 sf in each building).
These are serious errors and it took extra work to undo and the city had no leverage to get the
developer to resolve it quickly.
Please do not make the same mistakes again! MAKE SURE IT’S RIGHT AND PROPERLY RECORDED the
first time to save the city many hours of staff time fixing it later.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin