16. Vallco Shopping Center
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Cl
CUPEIQ"INO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. t10
Agenda Date: October 3,2006
Application: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Applicant: Mike Rohde (Valleo Shopping Center)
Property Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-064
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT to allow the parking garage north of Macy's to exceed the
permitted 32-foot height limit and to allow parking on the fourth level.
ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROV AL to allow the parking garage north of Macy's to
exceed the permitted 32-foot height limit and to allow parking on the fourth level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission requests:
The City Council provide clarification on its previous intention not to approve
additional heights on the parking garage prior to the Planning Commission's review
and determine if the item should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Mike Rohde of Vallco Fashion Park, is requesting approval to allow the
parking garage north of Macy's to exceed the 32-foot height limit in order to provide
parking on the fourth level. On January 17, 2006, the City Council approved the garage
at 3 levels not to exceed 32-feet. The Council included the following directive in its
motion approving the garage: There is an intention to not approve any more height to the
structure in the future (See Exhibit A). The applicant is aware of the Council's intent but
feels that the extra stalls on the fourth level are vital to support the center's expansion
and the structure can be designed to respect the relationships to the adjoining
neighbors.
/& - {
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
On September 13, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the
project and recommended a mitigated negative declaration provided that the visual,
noise and lighting impacts to the adjacent residential neighbors are mitigated. In
addition, the ERC required the preparation of a noise report analyzing the potential
noise impacts of the additional parking stalls on the fourth level prior to the approval of
the project. A neighborhood meeting was held by Valleo on September 14, 2006.
During the meeting, neighbors raised concerns on the potential visuat light and noise
impacts from parking on the 4th level. The neighbors wanted to review the noise
reports and see lighting details prior to the public hearings. A noise consultant has
been obtained by the City and is currently collecting sample measurements and
preparing the noise analysis. The applicant will need to submit detailed information on
the fourth level lighting details and sight line analysis from the adjoining affected
residential properties.
Since the Council previously ruled on the garage height issue and has expressed the
intent of not approving additional height extensions, the Planning Commission at its
September 27, 2006 hearing referred the item to the Council for clarification and
consideration. The Commission through a minute order is requesting that the Council
clarify its previously intent regarding the garage height and determine if the item
should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The City Attorney is advising that the October 3,2006 hearing should focus on the
review and decision process. The formal public hearing and deliberation of the item
should be postponed to a date certain so proper legal notices may be sent out to the
neighbors.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
c~
-f--11""" Sf
Approved by:
~~4 Uu f.,t/U if
1 _ David W. Knapp
~ City Manager
Submitted by:
Steve Piase i
Director, Community Development
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: City Council Action Letter
Planning Commission Minute Order (No. 6415)
Planning Commission Staff Report September 26, 2006
f&-;1
Exhibit A
cnvbf
CUPEIQINO
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
FAX: (408) 777-3366
_ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
January 19, 2006
Mike Rohde
Vallco mtemational Shopping Center
10123 N. Wolfe Road, #2030
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Consider Application Nos. U-2005-19, ASA-2005-17, TR-200S-08 (EA-200S-1S); Mike
Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park parking garage), 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-064:
a) Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Use Permit for a portion of a proposed three-level, four-story parking
garage that exceeds the permitted 32-foot height limit (portions of the garage at
approximately 41 feet and elevator tower at 49 feet)
c) Architectural and site approval for a portion of a three-story, four level parking
garage that exceeds the permitted height of32 feet
d) Tree removal and replanting to construct a parking garage
Dear Mr. Rohde:
At its January 17, 2006, regular meeting, the Cupertino City Council approved the project with
the following additional conditions:
. The height of the structure is 32 feet measured from the effective grade of the adjacent family
homes
. The elevator is 49 feet on the southeast corner
. The screening recommended by the planning commission will be included
. Staff will review the architectural and landscaping plan~ rather than the planning commission
. There is an intention that the wall will not be-opened in the future
. There is an intention to not approve any more height to the structure in the future.
Printed on Recycled Paper
(~ -3
U-2005-19
Page 2
January 19, 2006
The Use Permit conditions are as follows:
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Sheets 00-14 of the Plan Set dated 01-03-06.
2. FOURTH PARKING LEVEL
Twenty parking spaces on the fourth parking level shall be removed, which eliminates
the need for barriers and lighting.
3. ARCHITECTURE
Architectural and Site Review by the Planning Commission shall be required for the
following elements:
~ "Green Screen" design
~ Greater architectural detail and interest for garage and entrances
~ Light standards
~ Landscaping, including an evaluation of the ash trees adjacent to the west property
line
~ Sound baffle panels
~ Fourth level barrier'extensions
~ Crosswalks
4. GREEN SCREEN
A "green screen" shall be located on the west and partial north and south elevations.
5. NOISE CONTROL
Noise mitigation requirements included in the Development Agreement sh81l be
implemented as described in the Development Agreement. Sound baffle panels shall be
constructed on the west and partial north and south elevations.
6. LIGHTING
No light standards shall be located on the west perimeter of the fourth level; light~ng shall
be installed in the barriers. All light sources shall be shielded so that the light source is
not visible off-site. The height of the fourth level light standards shall be the minimum
needed to provide adequate lighting. Light levels shall be reduced in the late evening.
7. CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks shall consist of the existing crosswalk on Perimeter Road on the east side of
the proposed garage, the proposed crosswalk between the garage and the shopping center
and an additional crosswalk at the four-way stop on the northeast side of the garage.
Details of the new crosswalks shall be included in the Architectural and Site Approval by
the Planning Commission.
f6.,-L{
U-2005-19
Page 3
January 19, 2006
8. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following
measures shall be added to the protection plan:
~ For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be
installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using
buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed
in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be
consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the drip line of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-
inch depth.
. ~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees,
prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist
prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees
to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit stage, during construction
and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the
trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
9. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash, Coast Redwood or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the
project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree
protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior
to issuance of demolition or building permits.
10. PARKING
Compliance with the number of required parking spaces during construction shall be
demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits for the garage.
11. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building materials shall be recycled. The applicant shall provide evidence
that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits.
12. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
(6 - ;-
U-2005-19
Page 4
January 19, 2006
Government Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging
such exactions.
13. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included
in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall
be provided.
The Architectural and Site Approval conditions are as follows:
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Sheets 00-14 of the Plan Set dated 01-03-06.
2. FOURTHPA~GLEVEL
Twenty parking spaces on the fourth parking level shall be removed, which eliminates
the need for barriers and lighting.
3. ARCHITECTURE
Architectural and Site Review by the Planning shall be required for the following
elements:
~ "Green Screen" design
~ Greater architectural detail and interest for garage and entrances
~ Light standards
~ Landscaping, including an evaluation of the ash trees adjacent to the west property
line
~ Sound baffle panels _
~ Fourth level barrier extensions
~ Crosswalks
4. GREEN SCREEN
A "green screen" shall be located on the west and partial north and south elevations.
I&. -G
U-2005-19
Page 5
January 19, 2006
5. NOISE CONTROL
Noise mitigation requirements included in the Development Agreement shall be
implemented as described in the Development Agreement. Sound baffle panels shall be
constructed on the west and partial north and south elevations.
6. LIGHTING
No light standards shall be located on the west perimeter of the fourth level; lighting shall
be installed in the baITIers. All light sources shall be shielded so that the light source is
not visible off-site. The height of the fourth level light standards shall be the minimum
needed to provide adequate lighting. Light levels shall be reduced in the late evening.
7. CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks shall consist of the existing crosswalk on Perimeter Road on the east side of
the proposed garage, the proposed crosswalk between the garage and the shopping center
and an additional crosswalk at the four-way stop on the northeast side of the garage.
Details of the new crosswalks shall be included in the Architectural and Site Approval by
the Planning Commission.
8. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following
measures shall be added to the protection plan:
>- For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be
installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
>- No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using
buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed
in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be
consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-
inch depth.
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees,
prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist
prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees
to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit stage, during construction
and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the
trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
(& -7
U-2005-19
Page 6
January 19, 2006
9. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash, Coast Redwood or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the
project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree
protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior
to issuance of demolition or building permits.
10. PARKING
Compliance with the number of required parking spaces during construction shall be
demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits for the garage. .
11. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building materials shall be recycled. The applicant shall provide evidence
that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits.
12. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging
such exactions.
13. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included
in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall
be provided.
The Tree Removal conditions are as follows:
SECTION Ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVAL ACTION
Approval is based on Sheets 00-14 of the Plan Set dated 01-03-06.
(G-o
U-2005-19
Page 7
January 19, 2006
2. TREE EV ALVA TION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the west property line shall be evaluated as
part of the Planning Commission's architectural and site approval review of the landscaping
plan.
3. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared
by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be
added to the protection plan:
~ For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be
installed around the dripline ofthe tree prior to any project site work.
~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using
buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed
in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be
consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-
inch depth.
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees,
prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to
issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be
retained and shall provide reviews before building permit stage, during construction and
before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health .of the trees
mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
4. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash, Coast Redwood or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the
project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree
protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to
issuance of demolition or building permits.
5. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exaGtions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount
of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all
((;-7
U-2005-19
Page 8
January 19, 2006
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such
exactions.
Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of
approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for
clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the
plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the
site until required tree protection devices are installed.
The conditions of project approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020( d)(l), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun.
If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barredfrom later challenging such exactions.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city
council's decision in this matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city
clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with
municipal ordinance code 92.08.096.
Sincerely:
~
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Community Development
I & -( ()
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6415 (MINUTE ORDER)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL CLARIFY ITS PREVIOUS EXPRESSED
INTENT OF NOT APPROVING ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS TO THE PARKING
GARAGE NORTH OF MACY'S
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Mike Rohde (Vallco Shopping Center)
10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-064
PARKING GARAGE HEIGHT
The Planning Commission is requesting that the Council provide additional
clarification on its previous intent of not approving additional heights to the parking
garage north of Macy's and determine if the item should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September 2006 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
A YES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Chien, Saadati
and Wong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABST AIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
f sf Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
f sf Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
lle~ II
~.
.~
CITY OF
CUPEI\TINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
~ 'o~\'\'/\\ r(J-
r "r- ~
~'V1\"\;:::;";" f tr-r--.
8-01+
Co~unity Development
KQ..~()("'\ Department
5-ummny
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: September 26, 2006
Application: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Applicant: Mike Rohde (Valleo Shopping Center)
Property Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-064
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT to allow the parking garage north of Macy's to exceed the
permitted 32-foot height limit and to allow parking on the fourth level.
ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROV AL to allow the parking garage north of Macy's to
exceed the permitted 32-foot height limit and to allow parking on the fourth level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Refer the item to the City Council to clarify their previous approval prior to
Planning Commission consideration of this application.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Mike Rohde of Valleo Fashion Park, is requesting approval to allow the
parking garage north of Macy's to exceed the 32-foot height limit in order to provide
parking on the fourth level. On January 17, 2006, the City Council approved the garage
at 3 levels not to exceed 32-feet. The Council included the following: There is an
intention to not approve any more height to the structure in the future. The applicant is
aware of the Council's intent but feels that the extra stalls on the fourth level are vital to
support the center's expansion and the structure can be designed to respect the
relationships to the adjoining neighbors.
DISCUSSION:
On September 13, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the
project and recommended a mitigated negative declaration provided that the visual,
noise and lighting impacts to the adjacent residential neighbors are mitigated. In
addition, the ERC required the preparation of a noise report analyzing the potential
(u -{.2
Applications: M-2006-0, ~SA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Valko Parking Garage
Page 2
noise impacts of the additional parking stalls on the fourth level prior to the approval of
the project. A neighborhood meeting was held by Valleo on September 14, 2006.
During the meeting, neighbors raised concerns on the potential visual, light and noise
impacts of from parking on the 4th level. The neighbors wanted to review the noise
reports and see lighting details prior to the public hearings. Staff is engaging the
services of a noise consultant. The applicant will need to submit detailed information
on the fourth level lighting details and sight line analysis from the adjoining effected
residential properties.
At the Planning Commission agenda review meeting, Chairman Miller recommended
that this item be referred directly to the City Council for consideration of. the garage
height extension-and parking on the 4th level since the Council previously provided
clear directions on this matter. The City Council would have the options of approving
or disapproving the application, or refer it back to the Planning Commission.
Staff agrees that the application should be deferred to the City Council.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner ~ _ .
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
r~-13
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
Kimberly Smith
Page 1 of 1
lO/3/DIo
#-} ~
From: shilpa joshi [urfriendshilpajoshi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7: 19 PM
To: Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Patrick Kwok; Orrin Mahoney
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: You guessed it right!
Hi Everyone,
I am going be very brief. ( I tried)
1. Vallco didnot want to go under grade for garage, gave 2 reasons( Transformer, Macy's) Neighborhood
brought forth evidence to prove otherwise.
2. At that time Vallco had a choice to go under grade to achieve needed parking spots but they said they
don't have to go under grade and will fit the required parking numbers in 32' without a problem. We all
(including Steve) had om doubts, but since they had 32' to dance with, we didnot bother. What we did
not guess is they would come back even after council had given clear directions.
3. My question is what is changed between now and then to grant their request?
The new height will be seen from our side. If they had gone under grade just one level, this would have
been avoided. They probably saved some money doing that... but is it ethical? When I studied Business
Ethics as a business major, this is exactly what we came across.
We are a small community of busy people... will we have justice?
Thank You,
Shilpa Joshi.
1_0_'_0-
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
10/3/2006
Grace Schmidt
IDI ) IDG
:ttllo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janice Ishii [ichibanmamasan@hotmail.com]
Monday, October 02,200612:01 PM
Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Patrick Kwok; Orrin Mahoney; City Clerk
Vallco Garage Height
Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Clerk,
I would like to take this time to remind you that the City Council placed
the height restriction to 32 feet back in January 2006 for the Vallco
garage.
Vallco stated at that time 32 feet was enough to create this garage. Please
do not succumb to this last minute request for additional height approval as
well as parking for 200 cars on the fourth floor.
Please honor your decision of January 2006.
Cordially,
Janice Ishii
Merritt Drive
Cupertino
Grace Schmidt
I D /3/0ta
tfl(g
From: yikewang3@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, October 02,2006 1 :20 PM
To: Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Patrick Kwok; Orrin Mahoney; City Clerk; yikewang3@yahoo.com
Subject: NorthCupertino] Vallco Garage Height
Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Clerk,
I would like to know about the fact of Vall co garage height limited to 32 feet.
I attended all garage/condo related concil meetings since March this year, I still remember project architect and Mr.
Mike Rohde mentioned that the 32 feet height is measured based on "adjacent residential ground level."
But walking on Norwich Ave, which is in parallel with vallco garage, I can tell the garage height toward north side
is FAR HIGHER than the garage at south. I really don't like Vallco management keep telling council memebers and
residents lies again and again....
Now even worst, they want to increase the garage height again without respecting City Councils' decision and residents'
living quality. I would really like to encourage council members to reject their proposal in the meeting based on their
irresponsibility and
incredibility .
Thanks for your consideration,
Yi-Ke Wang
Resident on Merritt Dr.
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business,
lO/2/2006
10/110re
*{~
Grace Schmidt
From: S. Ren [sren17@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:46 PM
To: Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Patrick Kwok; Orrin Mahoney
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Should the Community Pay the Price for Vallco's Poor Management?
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
A few months ago, many residents have pointed out the poor management of Vallco development at the city council
meetings. Mr. Mayor has also made remarks on the lack of good management. It is Vallco's responsibility to plan and
manage their project well. It is the city's responsibility to guide and monitor this development. It should not put the
burden to the community again and again. It is the time to draw a STOP line.
Some of you might say that Vallco's development is crucial to the Cupertino city. It is a flying wheel that needs
additional push. I would like to remind you that you have made your decision on Jan 17 that Vallco's garage height is
32 feet. You have given Vallco many privileges and now it is time for them to grow up and take the consequence.
Some of you might say that we are NIMBY. What I would like to say is that this community has sacrificed enough for
Vallco. When Vallco has problem, the city rescues them no matter what. Who is going to help this community? Who is
going to compensate what this community has gone through emotionally and physically? You are elected to serve the
residents of this city. If you could not even make this small community happy and peace, how could you say that you
have served the Cupertino?
Please honor your decision on Jan. 17.
Sincerely,
Sherry Reo
Do you Yahoo!? .
Get on board. You'rejllYit~d to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
10/2/2006
Grace Schmidt
(~! ] fDro
:#r~
From: James Wang [paulcpoon@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:08 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written communication for Oct. 3 council meeting
Dear Sir:
I'm writing to oppose the application listed in item 16 in the Oct. 3,2006 agenda.
I have not received a letter notifYing me about this agenda item, even though it has a direct and severe effect on my
property on Norwich A venue. The application, if approved, will negatively impact my property due to the following
reasons:
1. Increased noise, air, and garbage pollution
More cars on higher garage means more noise, more dirty air, and more garbage, debris, and other pollutants getting
into my property.
2. Increased visual blight
More cars on higher garage means more view of cars and garage and less view of trees and sky.
3. Decreased privacy and personnal safety
More people and more access to higher garage means easier snooping into my property.
For these reasons, I am opposed to the application. Should the application be approved, I believe I should be duly
compensated for my loss.
Sincerely,
PaulPoon
10291 Norwich Ave., Cupertino
10/2/2006