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
[email protected]
(408) 777-1312
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2026 8:13 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected] 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,
From: Jean Bedord
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Feedback on Health and Safety Element - Evacuations Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 9:42:24 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.
HI,
Overall, this was an excellent document - I didn't realize there were so many plans. The one concern was the evacuation maps. They need to be more user friendly. There are PDF maps for CUP-E001 to CUP-E034, but no labels to identify the areas.https://www.cupertino.gov/evacuation
Evacuations continue to be a concern to
residents so this area could be expanded.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
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
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 7:33:35 PM
To: Cupertino Planning Department <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Presentation materials to comment on Agenda #2 planning commission meeting today
From: DerChang Kau
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 2:53:36 PM
To: Cupertino Planning Department <[email protected]> Cc: Alice Lin
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
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§ionNum=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 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 Feedback Health and Safety Element_Hill.docx 3/10/2026 To: Cupertino Planning Department
From: Steve Hill, Cupertino resident
Subject: Feedback on the Draft Health and Safety Element Date March 10, 2026
Artificial turf falls into multiple hazardous materials categories
Artificial turf’s negative effect on human and environmental health
1. Artificial turf contains a class of chemicals called PFAS.
The F stands for fluorine. Fluorine atoms combine with carbon atoms in the polyethylene grass blades to create carcinogenic forever chemicals harmful to humans.
2. Negative health effects from PFAS chemicals (NIH).
Epidemiological studies have revealed associations between exposure to specific PFAS and a variety of health effects, including:
Liver disease
Kidney disease
Cancer
Adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes
Altered immune and thyroid function
Lipid and insulin dysregulation
3. Plastic grass carpets are hardscapes.
Plastic grass is an impervious surface: it blocks infiltration, prevents aquifer recharge, and accelerates polluted runoff. Even artificial turf that claims to allow water to filtrate through pollutes our watershed and ocean with microplastics that will never break down from the turf.
Natural turf and native groundcovers, on the other hand, absorb and filter water, turning stormwater from a liability into a resource.
Rainwater runs off artificial turf and the biome in soil beneath dies. Artificial turf does not sequester carbon like natural grass. Plastic ‘blades’ degrade into microplastics that infiltrate sources of drinking water and are washed into the Bay where they can be consumed by aquatic life thinking its food.
Cupertino has approximately 18 acres of artificial turf at its three high schools, and residents are using artificial turf in lieu of real grass for landscaping.
4. Artificial turf emits climate warming gases methane and ethylene.
From: Andrea Wald
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Feedback on the Draft Health and Safety Element Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 8:57:34 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.
Following are my comments regarding the Draft General Plan Health and Safety Element. It is my understanding that this plan is being based upon/linked to Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan from August 16, 2022.
Both documents contain a broad range of issues that Cupertino is addressing such that you will become more resilient to earthquakes, flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, and other hazards.
I’d like to specifically comment on the areas of CLIMATE CHANGE, HEAT, WASTE, WATER and CARBON SEQUESTRATION.
The City of Cupertino’s vulnerability assessment as summarized in Table 2 (page 23 of the Climate Action Plan) says that Cupertino is extremely susceptible to extreme heat and specifically says young children, seniors, people with pre-existing conditions and low income communities are at risk.
It also mentions that there is a predicted increase in extreme heat days by year 2050 and even more by 2100.
will experience.
Understanding that planting trees is helpful but also keeping in mind that ALL installations of artificial turf and PIP (poured-in-place) rubberized surfaces are counter to combating the heat island effect whether those installations are on Cupertino owned land (including parks and athletic fields), residential or commercial properties or on school grounds.
And on Pages 69 & 70 from the Draft Plan Policy HS-9.4 says:
Recognize extreme heat as a significant hazard in Cupertino, integrating extreme heat into emergency preparedness and response procedures.
Then under Strategies there is mention of shade, vegetation and trees and natural resources – all in an effort to absorb/mitigate climate-related hazards.
Having a formal plan is great, however, all the verbiage used in these documents is rather vague and broad.
What I want to point out is that one thing the city can and should do to address some of these issues is to look into a ban of artificial turf. Artificial turf only exacerbates all the issues that this report is supposed to be addressing. It creates heat islands, is impacting climate change, releases carbon instead of absorbing it (which natural plants – grasses, trees, shrubs do), is not recyclable and therefore ends up in landfill or is shipped far off to be burned, and is poisoning the environment and water with the toxic chemicals (PFAS) it is made with and the microplastics that shed off.
In addition to mentioning things that the city should do – it behooves you to mention things the city should NOT DO – and that is to not install any artificial turf, encourage residents to not use in their own landscaping (I’ve seen way too much as I walk the neighborhoods) and to never again install any PIP in your playgrounds.
I tried to get the city to not install it at the
Magical Bridges playground at Jollyman Park. I was told by the time I brought this up it was too late to change plans. What a shame. The PIP and artificial turf surfaces get very hot – and just wait til summer time when those days of extreme heat that are predicted do happen.
These surfaces also wear out and will end up shedding toxic materials into the environment.
They are simply unnatural and unhealthy!
Thank you for considering my input to your document/report.
Sincerely,
Andrea Wald
Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces
From: Linda Liu
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Public Comment: Draft Health and Safety Element — Freeway Noise Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 8:01:41 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 Cupertino Planning Division,
I am submitting this comment during the public review period for the Draft Health and Safety Element. I am a resident of Cupertino living in the Homestead Villa neighborhood near the Interstate 280 / Foothill Expressway / State Route 85 interchange, and I am writing to urge the City to strengthen the updated Element's noise policies with specific reference to the I-280 corridor and the noise pollution that it is generating for Cupertino residents.
Current Situation
Measured noise levels in my neighborhood can reach 70 dB — exceeding the U.S. EPA's residential daytime limit of 65 dB and the WHO's daytime safe threshold of 40 dB. The existing Health and Safety Element already acknowledges that "Interstate 280 and Highway 85" are among the greatest contributors to noise pollution in Cupertino (Chapter 7, Noise section). While this issue has been acknowledged by the City, the Interstate 280 corridor has not received adequate noise mitigation and conditions have worsened in recent years due to increased traffic volumes, deteriorating pavement, heavier vehicles with wider tires (e.g., EVs with heavy batteries), and aging or absent soundwall infrastructure.
Additionally, the 2020 VTA off-ramp widening project added northbound Interstate 280 capacity without a corresponding noise mitigation component, leaving residents on both sides of Foothill Expressway near the interchange with little or no acoustic protection. There are also structural gaps in soundwall coverage on both sides of the off- and on-ramps.
Requested Changes to the Draft Element
I respectfully request the following additions in the updated Health and Safety Element:
1. Soundwall Eligibility Review
Include a strategy for the City to formally request that Caltrans evaluate the Interstate 280 and State Route 85 corridor for eligibility under the Caltrans Retrofit Noise Barrier Program.
Where soundwalls are not possible, request to evaluate other options such as a sound- attenuating fence.
2. Rubberized Asphalt Advocacy
Add language to advocate with VTA for noise-reducing pavement (rubberized asphalt) on Interstate 280 within Cupertino's jurisdiction. Rubberized asphalt can reduce noise by 4–6 dB.
3. City-led Noise Abatement
From: Jean Bedord
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Feedback on Health and Safety Element - Evacuations Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 9:42:24 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.
HI,
Overall, this was an excellent document - I didn't realize there were so many plans. The one concern was the evacuation maps. They need to be more user friendly. There are PDF maps for CUP-E001 to CUP-E034, but no labels to identify the areas.https://www.cupertino.gov/evacuation
Evacuations continue to be a concern to
residents so this area could be expanded.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord