Liang - Civic Center should allow open bids

From: Liang C

Date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:41 AM
Subject: Five Internationally-Renowned Teams Compete for the $51 Million Project in San Francisco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt davidb@cupertino.org

 

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Please put Civic Center project out for open bids. Perkins+Will should not be allowed to participate in bidding to avoid any implication that they might have somehow influenced the Council to choose the most expensive option for their own benefits.

Five Internationally-Renowned Teams Compete for a $51 Million Project in San Francisco.

Check out the beautiful designs submitted to Presidio Parklands project in San Francisco. The project first have RFQ for the "imagine" phase to solicit concept design with $25,000 stipend for 5 firms. Then, they will have another RFG for the "implementation" phase to select one firm among many.

The New Presidio Parklands Project in San Franciscocreates a singular opportunity to establish a magnificent 13-acre landscape that integrates the waterfront with the Presidio’s historic core. Once completed, visitors will enjoy an unparalleled experience of the Golden Gate.
The estimated total cost of the New Presidio Parklands Project is $51 million.

After responding to an Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in early 2014, five internationally-renowned teams were invited to participate the “imagine” phase of the project. The teams included:

1. CMG Landscape Architecture, San Francisco
2. James Corner Field Operations, New York
3. OLIN, Philadelphia/Los Angeles
4. SNØHETTA, Oslo/New York /San Francisco
5. West 8 Team, Rotterdam/Brussels/New York

Each of the teams is awarded a $25,000 stipend to develop its proposal over two months, and present its designs to the public in the fall of 2014. The teams developed creative concepts that have served to spark a robust public dialogue about the future of site.

Here is the RFQ of the "imagine" phase.

Here is the FAQ of the RFQ of the "imagine" phase.

Note that there will be another RFQ for the implementation phase, where one or more teams who participated in the "imagine" phase will be invited to join. And it states:
"The Presidio Trust reserves the right to expand distribution of the RFP to a broader list  of design teams should additional input be deemed necessary."

-----------------------

REFERENCE:

Presidio Trust Selects Five Internationally Acclaimed Firms and Invites Public to Create Vision for New Presidio Parkland Create Vision for New Presidio Parkland

Five Proposals Unveiled for Presidio Parklands in San Francisco, Sep. 9, 2014, Arch Daily

Presidio, Take 2 - finalists reveal plans for Parklands project, Sep. 2014, The Architects Newspaper

 

 

Liang on Vallco Specific Plan - ground-level parkland should be required at Vallco

From: Liang C

Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan - ground-level parkland should be required at Vallco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

With 800 housing units at Vallco, there would be in average 2,288 residents (for 2.86 persons/household from 2010 census). Vallco should provide 6.9 acres of parkland or 11.44 ares of parkland under the 5-acre standard. This parkland should not be substituted by the sky park, which may or may not be realized or maintained. The following policies are in both the previous 2000-2020 General Plan and the 2040 General Plan:

Policy RPC-1.2: Parkland Standards. Continue to implement a parkland acquisition and implementation program that provides a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.

Strategy RPC-1.2.2: Amend Parkland Standard. Explore increasing the parkland standard to five acres per 1,000 residents as part of the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Please enforce the General Plan policies on Vallco.

In the so-called 30-acre sky park, visitors have to stay on trail and now allowed to walk on the 'grass'. So, it is really just some rooftop walkways, but not parkland. In a park, kids can run around, play soccer, Frisbee, roll on the grass. But the 30-acre sky park wouldn't allow that. Ground level parkland should be required at Vallco.

The parkland required in the Quimby Act does not include school site or rooftop as parks.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Julie on Civic Center - Can my son afford a BMW with his salary?

From: Julie Chu

Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Civic Center - Affordability Analysis
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org, citymanager@cupertino.org

Dear City Council:

My friend told me that Cupertino is going to spend 70 million dollars to build a new city hall. I thought. Nice. Cupertino must be rich.

Then, I found that you will borrow 60 million dollars and put the city in debt.

I looked at your report and I don't think you have enough information to decide the "affordability" of such a large sum.

If my son wanted to buy a BMW that's going to cost one year of his income, I would ask him the following questions:

1. How much is your income now and for the past 5 years?
2. How much is your income for the next 5 years?
3. What would you do in case you lose your job and lost income or have to find a lower-paid job?
4. How much are your fixed expenses each month? Like rental for apartment, food and clothes, electricity, internet, other necessary expenses to sustain his life standards, like taking a vacation.
5. How much is your disposable income every month?
6. Any future necessary expenses during the loan period, like getting engaged, taking a trip to Europe, buying a house, starting a family.
7. What's the percentage of loan payment in comparison to the amount of disposable income?

Then, he can decide whether he can afford that BMW. Or, maybe he wants to save the money to go to Europe or buy an engagement ring.

Here is the missing information that you should consider before deciding whether Cupertino can afford to spend 70 million dollars to build a brand new city hall.

1. How much is the current revenue of Cupertino? How much is the revenue for the past 10 years?
2. How much is the revenue for the next 10 years?
3. What's the contingency plan? In case of another recession and a big one, when the revenue is significantly reduced, what do you plan to do?
4. How much are the expenses each year? Like staffing and retirement fund, police, fire, and other civic services, expenses for infrastructure, like bike path enhancement or crossing guards.
5. How much is our disposable income each year for the past 5-10 years? How much surplus?
6. Any potential future big expenditure? For the next 10 or 20 years, are there no more projects in sight? If there is any, you should make a plan and decide whether you could still afford the other future projects while paying a debt for the 70 million dollars. Maybe expanding the senior center or provide a community shuttle bus?
7. What's the percentage of loan payment in comparison to the amount of disposable income? (Not the percentage loan payment in relation to the total revenue.)

Then, you can decide whether Cupertino can afford that shiny new City Hall. Or, maybe Cupertino should save the money for something else more important in the future that actually enhance the lives around the city.

My son said: "I have money now."

I said: "Even if you can pay for that BMW with all cash, you should look at your future expenses and think whether that money is better saved for something you might need even more later."

There you have it.

I hope you do a better job managing the city than my son in managing his finance.

Regards,

Julie Chu

Liang on Civic Center - bank will own City Hall? recurring expenses? any future projects?

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:04 PM
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center master Plan - Affordability Analysis
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, TimmB@cupertino.org
Cc: Grace Schmidt cityclerk@cupertino.org

Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,

 

This email is being sent on behalf of Liang-Fang Chao.

 

In regard to the Lease-Financing plan mentioned in the Study Session material:

1.      In the event that the City cannot afford to pay the annual fee anymore, what happens?

a.      Does the bank then own City Hall?

b.      What would the City do to make up the difference to make the payment?

2.      We have been told that our City relies on Apple and its success for our city’s financing.  If for some unknown reason, Apple is no longer successful, how would this impact the City’s ability to make these payments?

a.      What would the City do to make up the difference to make the payment?

b.      What would happen if they don’t make the payment?

3.      The analysis discusses revenue and the expenses are mentioned in terms of the surplus amounts (more than $11million/year of the next 5 years).

a.      What are the actual recurring expenses – the amounts?

b.      How much are they projected to increase over the next 30 years?

c.      What about other projects other than City Hall?  Are they factored into this projection?  If not, what are the upcoming projects over the next 30 years that our City needs to address?  Will we have money for them?  If so, where will that money come from?

4.      Surplus of $90 million – I believe this includes the $30 million from the sale of Pruneridge Avenue, which is a one-time income.

a.      Can you provide a 10-year chart of our revenue and expenses and the net surplus?

 

Sincerely,

Liang-Fang Chao

Peggy on Civic Center - worst case scenario, ownwership of city hall,

From: Peggy Griffin <Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center Master Plan - Affordability Analysis
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, TimmB@cupertino.org
Cc: Grace Schmidt <cityclerk@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,

 

I realize this is just a few hours from the study session but I have read through the material for tonight’s study session and have a few concerns that I hope you can address or clarify to the public before any decision is made:

 

1.     The material is supposed to address “affordability”.  It does a thorough job of showing the City’s finances now which is a “best case scenario”.  It does not cover how the City would be able to afford this debt during a “worst case scenario” such as during 2008/2009 time frame.

a.     REQUEST:  Please provide a worst case scenario showing how the debt would be covered if the economy takes a significant dip.  30 years is a long time and dips happen!

2.     LEASE FINANCING / ASSET TRANSFER – can you please, during the study session, explain what this is – slowly and clearly.

a.     “Lease” to me, means the City will not own the buildings anymore!  Right now, land and property are very valuable.  It is a way for businesses and residents to control their costs by avoiding rents.

                                                    i.     Q:  Is the City selling the buildings? 

                                                  ii.     Q:  Are they selling the land?

                                                 iii.     Q:  Who will end up owning the land?

                                                 iv.     Q:  Who will end up owning the buildings?

b.     “Asset transfer” to me, means transferring ownership of property.

                                                    i.     Q:  What is being sold/transferred?

3.     COP vs BONDS – I understand COP doesn’t require a 2/3rds vote and BONDS do but…

a.     Q:  what about financing differences?  Is one cheaper?  What about ownership?

4.     NEXT STEPS –  It seems to be to be a BIG conflict of interest to have the same company that does this overall plan, also do the job!

a.     BIDS  Q:  Why not go out to bid for other architects? 

                                                    i.     At home, we get at least 3 bids before doing ANY big job!  Each time we get a bid, we learn a lot and get very different perspectives.

                                                  ii.     It also forces us to decide exactly what we need and what frills we can do away with.

                                                 iii.     It also helps with costs.  If the planner does the job and knows there’s no competition, why bother giving a competitive bid?

b.     I do not think resurrecting the old August 18, 2015 CC request should occur.  I believe there should be a bidding process. 
The original request that triggered this study session was the failed approval of a request for $5,500,000 for design consultant services and the ability for the City Manager to approve up to an additional $2M.  This “design consultant services” was REALLY VAGUE!  Nobody could tell what exactly was being done for $5.5M.  If it is brought up again, (which I do not think it should) it needs to be detailed. 

                                                    i.     Q:  What in the world are we getting for $5.5M? 

                                                  ii.     Q:  What are the deliverables and the timelines?

                                                 iii.     Q:  Where and how does this fit into the overall project and costs?

Sincerely,

Peggy Griffin

 

 

Thank you,

Peggy Griffin

Liang on Civic Center - put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact fees as funding

From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015
Subject: Civic Center - put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact fees as funding
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sink, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

The agenda description of the Study Session of Civic Center once again did not mention the estimated cost of the project $70 million, even when funding analysis is being discussed.

Thank you for considering the Civic Center on the ballot.
Please do put the Civic Center project on ballot for the residents to decide. However it is financed, all the tax payers and our children will be paying for the project for the next 30 years. We should get to decide. You are spending our money. Please be open about the price tag of the project and mention it clearly in meeting agenda and any news report from the city or in the Courier. And please give the residents a clear written explanation on why the $70 million dollar is necessary.

If the Civic Center project will be implemented, please put the $70 million project out for other architecture firms to bid with their best designs. Many other cities have done this for their projects. With $20,000 stipend each for 5 firms, we can get innovative designs for City Hall and the library expansion. Some top architecture firms are even willing to submit their designs for free just to get a chance of bidding on the project. If we have to build a new City Hall, that's do it right and open it out for bids.

Architecture firm Perkins+Will should not be permitted to work on the Civic Center project due to conflict of interest. They have been instrumental in presenting options to the Council and they provided testimonies that led the Council towards the decision of tearing down the City Hall to re-build. It is in their best interest to make the project as big as possible, whether they did it intentionally or not. Perkins+Will should not participate in Civic Center project anymore just to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Hamptons donated $7 million dollar for Civic Center project. Sand Hill might want to pay for the underground garage. Maybe other developers might donate more. However, $7 million spent on the Civic Center project, if not necessary, is still $7 million dollars that could have been spent elsewhere on improving civic services that directly impact residents' quality of life and even save lives.

Also, any donation from a developer earmarked for a controversial project, like Civic Center, that many residents oppose to should be avoided. This can be seen as a way to please any one of the Councilmembers who approve of the Civic Center project and trying to gain approval from the opposing residents. The Council should ask Hamptons and other developers to not earmark their donation to Civic Center to avoid any such undesirable implication.

The Funding Analysis report only explored one type of financing options, getting funding from the bank, which always involves added interest. No other funding sources have been looked at.
The Council should look into other financing options like Development Impact Fee for Infrastructure, like city hall, libraries, police stations, etc. that many other cities have implemented for years already. Of course, Development Impact Fee can only cover a small amount that's justifiable for the new projects. But that will reduce the amount we need to borrow from the bank.

Palo Alto has a Finance Committee, appointed by their City Council, to look at various funding options, like sales tax increase, hotel transient tax increase or bond measures to enhance their infrastructure. These options, like an increase in sales tax, may not be preferable, but they should at least be explored. Palo Alto has just raised their hotel transient tax again in order to cover the cost of facilities for infrastructure. And they have twice our annual revenue, but the same amount of population.

Palo Also also charges Transportation Impact Fee for development projects to cover aggregated impact on traffic citywide. Any mitigation from EIR usually covers only impact close to a project. But the impact of traffic congestion usually spread to other parts of the city. Transportation Impact Fee could recover that cost from new developments.

On the one hand, the City says we need more money for infrastructure and you approved the new GPA procedure to allow developers to pay "community benefits" in exchange for more height and more office and more density. On the other hand, you are going to spend $70 million dollar on a project without fulling exploring the different options. And you also are unwilling to look at other financing options for the City.

Please be consistent in your decision making. Be open and clear in your intention and consequence of the decisions you make. Your decisions will impact all of our lives for years to come.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Liang - Vallco impact - safety and security in udnerground garage

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - pedestrian safety in the parking garages and overall security
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

The Parking Drawing shows very tight parking stalls with zero space for pedestrian walk ways.

Please study the pedestrian safety when walking inside a mega parking lot with 5,000 parking spaces.

Please study the overall safety of keeping shoppers and workers safe in such a large underground space.

Are there security measures for people who need emergency medical help or police help?

Are there going to be sufficient security cameras in case of car jacking or even other more scary crimes?

Liang Chao

Concerned Citizen - Vallco impact on groundwater issues

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:56 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR: Ground water issues.
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR.

Here are comments from a concerned citizen:

The building right next to JCP had a semiconductor manufacturing facility in it in the 70s.   There was groundwater contamination from that original Four-Phase facility.  Reference the California Regional Water Quality Control Board File Number 43S1129 (RWP).  It is known as the 19333 Vallco Parkway site.  APN 316-20-076 is one of the parcel that this site is on.  It is immediately to the east of the JCP site in the Vallco Mall.

Here is the Sate Water Resources Control Board entry for this site:

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000000740

The Apple 2 EIR addressed the problem of ground water contamination, and specifically mentioned the 19333 Vallco Parkway site along with many other sites in the vicinity of its project.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Apple_Campus_2_Project_EIR_Public_Review_5h-Hazards.pdf

Of particular concern are the restrictions placed on the 19333 Vallco Parkway site by the State Water Resources Control Board.  Schools for persons under 21 are prohibited.  Residence use is prohibited.  The list goes on and on.

Sand Hill Property Company intends to place two underground floors of parking right next to the 19333 Vallco Parkway site.  The 19333 Vallco Parkway site cannot be used for residential housing or for schools.  If a flume from the 19333 Vallco Parkway site were found in the area planed for excavation for a parking garage, the site would perhaps not be considered suitable for the proposed FUHSD technology center.

The EIR should detail how testing for any contamination that may have seeped from nearby contaminated sites known to the State Water Resources Control Board (and other government agencies) will be performed.  It should also characterize the possible spectrum of mitigation measures that could be employed if contamination were found at various levels.  There should also be a discussion on which existing land use restrictions that apply to the 19333 Vallco Parkway site could reasonably be applied to the proposed Vallco development in the event that contamination were discovered.

Govind - Vallco impact - comparative study, misc

From: Govind Tatachari
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Vallco Project EIR
To: cityclerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, PiuChosh@cupertino.org, citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear planning commissioners and council members,

The proposed Vallco project is too humongous and will not only have a huge enviromental impact but also alter the quality of life of residents of Cupertino as well as those in neighboring areas on a vast scale. It behoves that all of you who represent the residents of Cupertino City must exercise caution by making sure that the scope of environmental impact is as comprehensive as possible.

The environmental study should not only include the estimates of the impact but also all the assumptions made to arrive at the estimates including references to existing authoritative sources of data and calculations used as part of the assumptions and estimates. In case of all the significant and unavoidable impacts the estimates should provide specific values and avoid using a grade scale since it is impossible to discern the real value from grade scale. The estimates should include both impact from individual classes of allocations and cumulative Impacts

The scope should include a comparative study of environmental impact of existing zoning with existing retail space allocation vis-a-vis the new zoning and new retail, housing and allocation that the council approved on Dec 4th, 2014. In case if the developer requests for additional allocation, the comparative study should also include the environmental impact of the difference requested vis-a-vis the Dec 4th approved allocation.

The scope of environmental impact study should include at the minimum the following areas (on local, citywide and neighborhood city basis):
 1. Traffic and transportation impact
 2. Open space
 3. Population and housing pressure due to increased office space
 4. Public Services
 5. Utilities and Service Systems
 6. Energy requirements and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 7. Air Quality
 8. Hydrology (including water table) and water quality
 9. Biological resources in the current and neighbouring areas
10. Waste disposal include sewerage and other wastes
11. Noise
I believe there are set california state standards for what is included in these categories and specific areas in terms of an environmental impact study.

Thanking you in this regard.

Sincerely,

Govind Tatachari

Cupertino Resident

Peggy - Vallco impact on schools and traffic

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:21 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impact of school changes to future traffic
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: Grace Schmidt <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, Planning Commission <planning@cupertino.org>

SUBJECT:  Vallco EIR Scoping Comments – impact to schools

 

Both the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District have signed Letters of Intent with Sand Hill Properties regarding the Hills-at-Vallco project.  These agreements should be included in the EIR scope of study.  All impacts throughout both districts, regardless of city should be studied. 

 

Traffic – already boundaries are starting to change as a result of this and other proposed projects.  This changes traffic patterns so future change in traffic patterns should also be studied for both the high school and elementary/middle school districts.

 

Traffic – CUSD has started changing and offering open enrollment which changes the traffic pattern.  All future boundary and changes in open enrollment/different student programs should be studied as it impacts future traffic patterns and safe routes to school.

 

Space at Vallco for FUHSD – all students from all high schools will be able to use this space.  Traffic should be studied based on all locations of high schools throughout the FUHSD.

 

Sincerely,

Peggy Griffin

 

Liana - Vallco impact on safety measures for suicide prevention

From: 'Liana Crabtree'
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR Comments - mitigation of attractive nuisance presented by the 30-acre green roof
To: "planning@cupertino.org" <planning@cupertino.org>

Vallco EIR Comments - mitigation of attractive nuisance presented by the 30-acre green roof

We have been saddened in recent years by the suicides of students from Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools, several of whom killed themselves by stepping in front of commuter trains that travel at high speeds through Palo Alto neighborhoods.

In 2009, four (4) Palo Alto teens killed themselves by stepping in front of trains.

In the 2014-2015 academic year, despite the addition of a security patrol whose mission is to intervene when encountering people loitering by train tracks, possibly contemplating a suicide attempt, eight (8) people killed themselves by stepping in front of trains on Caltrain tracks. One was a Gunn student. Another was a recent Gunn graduate.

For the Palo Alto community, commuter train tracks represent a deadly attractive nuisance for their young people who are vulnerable to fleeting or persistent thoughts of suicide.

When I look at the landscape drawings of the green roof that is part of the current development proposal for the Vallco Shopping District, I am concerned that we will be introducing a different but equally deadly attractive nuisance in Cupertino if this project is allowed to proceed as planned. Our students are under the same academic pressures and high societal expectations as students in Palo Alto; we must be prepared that some of our students will seek a quick, devastating path away from their troubles just as some have in Palo Alto. Without proper mitigation, the Hills at Vallco could be the host of countless suicide tragedies.

The landscaped roof is described as 30 acres total, connecting office and residence towers of heights ranging from 50' to 80' (approximate). Even a fall from the lowest point of the green roof will certainly be fatal, if not mitigated by safety barrier, such as a net. I am struck by the miles of roof edge that will need to be monitored for people contemplating a jump to their death, similar to the way the Caltrain tracks are monitored for loiterers waiting to step in front of a train. Refer to roof drawing page 6 for an aerial view of the miles of roof edges and cutouts that will require monitoring: https://s3.amazonaws.com/the-hills-at-vallco/Landscape-Drawings.pdf

Please study the following environmental concerns related to suicide prevention that would be introduced in the community if the development proposal for the Vallco Shopping District is allowed to proceed with the green roof as planned today:

 - Who will be responsible for paying for public security on the green roof?

 - Who will be responsible for determining how much security is required for maintaining public safety on the green roof during the day when the park is open and at night when the park is closed?

 - At the end of each day, what will be the protocol for ensuring that all visitors have left the park before closing?

 - How many public and private access routes from the ground to the roof will be included in the project?

 - How many security professionals will be responsible for monitoring roof access when the park is open and at night when the park is closed?

 - If an intruder is detected on the roof when the park is closed, who is expected to be the first to engage with the intruder: on site security professionals or deputies from the Sheriff's Department?

 - From the moment an after hours intruder is detected, how much time is expected to elapse before a first responder will be expected to engage with the intruder face-to-face or within speaking-voice distance?

- What barriers or mitigation measures, such as nets, will be installed in the project to prevent death in the event of a suicide attempt or other fall from the roof?

- If barriers or mitigation measures, such as nets, are installed in the project, who is responsible for rescuing anyone who has fallen from the roof but has been spared death and caught in the safety barrier?

- Will teams responsible for rescuing people caught in safety barriers require special equipment or training to support these rescues? If yes, who pays for the equipment and training?

I recognize that my letter and questions are grisly and disturbing. However, we must consider fully the intended and unintended ways structures that are added to our community will change our community.

Thank you,

Liana Crabtree

Brooke - Vallco impact on nitrogen deposits, health impact of car emissions, PCB

From: Brooke

To: PiuChosh@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org, citycouncil@cupertino.org
Sent: 11/16/2015 4:20:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Vallco EIR Request

Dear Commissioners and Council Members:

The proposed Vallco project, aka “The Hills at Vallco” has the potential to impact Cupertino for generations.  Because of the enormity of the impact, it is the imperative that the environmental impacts of such a commitment be studied in depth as it will impact the nature of the community, habitat, and the health of its residents.  In particular, I am requesting the following issues be evaluated and studied because of the health impacts on residents because of the addition of 2 million square feet of office space in Cupertino:

·         The impact of nitrogen deposits on the native habitat in the area, including, but not limited to--the vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species listed in the final Santa Clara Valley Habitant Conservation Plan.  The listed species are:

·          Invertebrate
Bay Checker spot Butterfly

·         Amphibians & Reptiles
California Tiger Salamander
California Red-legged Frog
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
Western Pond Turtle

·         Birds
Western Burrowing Owl
Least Bell’s Vireo
Tri colored Blackbird

·         Mammals
San Joaquin Kit Fox

·         Plants
Tiber Indian Paintbrush
Coyote Acanthus
Mount Hamilton Thistle
Santa Clara Valley Dudleya
Fragrant Fritillary
Loam Prieta Hoita
Smooth Lessingia
Metcalf Canyon Jewelflower
Most Beautiful Jewelflower

·          The study conducted for Santa Clara County demonstrated that nitrogen deposits from the emissions additional automobiles in the target area enriched the serpentine soils, causing invasive species to crowd out native species that are accustomed to poorer soils.

·         The impact car emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and ozone on pregnant women because of the projected increase of an additional 79,000 car trips.  The prolonged exposure to these compounds during the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, according to medical studies, is associated with neural tube defects or malformations of the brain and spine. According to Stanford University School of Medicine pregnant women who are exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide were almost twice as likely to give birth to children with spina bifida or anencephaly as pregnant women with a lower level of exposure.  

·         The impact car emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and ozone on young children because of the projected increase of an additional 10,000 + commuters.  A UCLA study indicates that children exposed in utero to pollutants are more likely to die in infancy, have respiratory and digestive problems. The UCLA study indicated that infants living in areas with higher level air pollution were at greater risk of death the first year of life from respiratory issues, like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or SIDS.

·         The health impacts that car emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and ozone have on children with asthma and other respiratory issues.  The UCLA study authored by Drs. Ritz and Williams noted that children living in areas with high traffic 500-1000 or their homes were more likely to visit emergency rooms or be hospitalized for respiratory issues than children not living close to traffic.

·         The impact on the health of the community because of toxic releases into the air resulting from of the destruction of the current Vallco mall, particularly from asbestos, a known carcinogen.  Asbestos has banned from wide scale use in the United States since the 1970’s because it is a carcinogen, causing a cancer of the abdomen and lungs. In addition, asbestos has been shown to be linked to higher rates of gastrointestinal and colorectal cancer. There is also an elevated risk of throat, kidney, gallbladder, and esophageal cancer linked to asbestos.

·         The impact of PCBs on health of human life and the lives of other species. PCB’s have been demonstrated to have a significant on human health according to the United States Environment Protection Agency.  People with significant PCB exposure have an increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Epstein-Barr syndrome. Women who have had significant exposure to PCB’s have had difficulty conceiving and give birth to lower birth weight babies, setting these children up for a lifetime of compromised health. Exposure to PCB’s has been linked to neurological deficits in both humans and animals.

I would like for these toxic building materials to be examined at multiple depths and locations throughout the site. I understand that after discussing the site with the EPA, that Perkins and Will has put together a database listing all toxic building materials used in construction.  The city needs to have its agents examine the site for these substances as well.

 

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Regards,

Brooke Ezzat

Liang - Vallco impact on cell signals, internet and new facilities

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - cell signal strength and need of new facilities
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." planning@cupertino.org

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR


http://www.citylab.com/tech/2011/09/cell-phones-and-density/172/

"We’ve all experienced the expanding cell phone system’s shortcomings, from dropped calls to no service to a slow Internet connection. When one of those things happens, chances are it’s because too many people are crowded into one area. Poor service due to crowding is most apparent at concerts or other large events, but it’s becoming an everyday occurrence as more people use more connected devices"

Cupertino has a worker population of 32,000 and only 20,000 households.

Apple Campus 2 will add 14,000 and Vallco will add another 10,000 workers, just from office alone.

This will increase the working population in Cupertino by 50%.

Thus, the demand for cell signals will increase by 50%.

People are already experiencing dropped calls when going to crowded areas in Cupertino.

Please study the impact on existing cell signals in all carriers.

If more cell towers are needed, please install them far away from schools to reduce any potential health impact on children.

The increase of 3.5 million s.f. of office and 2 million s.f. at Vallco and 260,000 s.f. in Main Street would total 5.76 million square feet, which is over 50% of total office space in a short time.

Please study the impact on the capacity of high speed internet and cable services from such a large capacity increase.

Please study the impact on internet speed and reliability of signals for other home users when a large population nearby might eat up all internet bandwidth.

Note that many companies do have employees who work longer hours until 8, 9 or 10 o'clocks.

 

Please study the impact from 3pm to 6pm when many school children need to use internet to do school homework as more and more school homework is now done online.

Please study the impact during early evenings when the residence population and also school-aged children need access to internet for either entertainment or homework.

Liang Chao

Peggy - Vallco impact - pesticide, hazardous material, groundwater contamination

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:40 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts to be studied
To: planning@cuperitno.org
Cc: Grace Schmidt <cityclerk@cupertino.org>

SUBJECT:  Vallco EIR Scoping Comments –impacts to be studied

 

1.      Agricultural Pesticides - The Vallco Specific Plan Area and the Hills-at-Vallco project site are located on old orchard land.
Please study the content of the soil for pesticides common during that time period. 

a.      Please test all areas of the project site and at different depths, all the way down to the depth of the lowest level garage.

b.      Please test along Perimeter Road bordering the Superfund site at 19333 Vallco Pky at different depths and locations.

2.      Hazardous Building Materials – State-recognized carcinogens such as lead compounds, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used as coolants and lubricants, Fluorescent lighting, ballasts, mercury thermometers were used during the time period the Vallco Mall was built.

Please study the impact of demolition and disposal of these building materials found in the buildings and any other hazardous building materials commonly used during that time period.


3.      Groundwater contamination on Superfund site adjacent to JCP bordering on Perimeter Road - The building right next to JCP had a wafer fab in it in the 1970s.  There was groundwater contamination from that original 4-Phase (old company no longer in business) fabrication.  Tandem Computers did some last mask processing in that building afterwards.  Tandem was later required to clean up the site.  Since Sand Hill is planning to dig down into the dirt right next to this former Superfund site for its 2 story underground parking, the possibility of groundwater contamination and hazardous materials leaking into the adjacent site must be significant.

Please study this possible groundwater contamination, possible leakage into the surrounding area and it’s possible impact on people parking underground or working above ground.

Please study the possibility of the contamination spreading to the rest of the area.

Please study the proposed monitoring methods proposed to keep people save from contamination.

Please study any and all methods proposed to seal off these contaminants from the project site.

As an ex-Superfund site adjacent to JCP, there are still land use prohibitions on the 19333 Vallco Pky. site.  In particular, they are not allowed to build residences or schools for persons under 21 on that property.  The contamination was toward the JCP side of that parcel which borders Perimeter Road. 

Please study the proposed uses related to the prohibited uses if any contaminants are found to be present along the border and at multiple distances and depths from the border of the property. 


4.      Since the project proposes to dig deep into the ground along all areas, the probability of contaminants from neighboring sites/uses should be studied.  For example, there is a Jiffy Lube and a Union 76 Gas Station located across the street.

Please make a report on all sites (past sites, too) surrounding the Vallco site, especially since the proposed project plans to dig 2 stories underground.

 

Sincerely,

Peggy Griffin

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL:

Here are the Post Closure Site Management Requirements here:

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000000740

 

Liang - Vallco Specific Plan - underground and air right over Wolfe Road

This is a follow-up comment to this one where Liang mistook the tunnel between two underground garages as the tunnel along Perimeter.
http://letters2cupertinocc.blogspot.com/2015/11/Liang-vallco-impact-tunnel-not-parking.html

---------------------
From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan - underground and air right over Wolfe Road
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." planning@cupertino.org

I misread the diagram.

The tunnel between the east and west parking garage would in fact be a new tunnel, in addition to the tunnel along Perimeter Road. The tunnel along Perimeter Road will remain.

Page 6 of Existing Condition shows the existing easement, which was granted to a previous Vallco owner in exchange for another easement (air and underground right) near I-280 for a future light rail station. But Sand Hill does not own that property.

 

 

 

Page 8 of Existing Condition shows the proposed easement: Sand Hill wants to expand the air right over Wolfe to almost an entire block.

Pink blocks shows easement for both underground tunnel and air rights of unspecified depth and height.

Then, we would request that any public land for private use should be used only to the benefits of the public to provide ease of access.

Any air right or underground right should not be granted without a fair exchange or a fair rent, adjustable to inflation.

If only tunnel is required for The Hills at Vallco, the easement should not grant the air right in the agreement without justification, such as the two pink boxes in the diagram.

If the air right is granted, the minimum and maximum height should be specified so that only the air right within a given height is granted.

If the tunnel right is granted, the minimum and maximum depth should be specified so that only the tunnel right within a specified depth is granted.

No structure from the easement either in the tunnel or the air should be counted towards the required provision for the projects, such as parking stalls, or retail shops.

Thanks,

Liang

Liang - Vallco impact on traffic should be based on realistic data

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - traffic based on realistic data
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." planning@cupertino.org

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

From Parking-Drawing.pdf submitted by The Hills at Vallco, here are the parking spaces available.

Total parking spaces = 9,175.

Office: 5033; Retail: 2,500; Residential: 1,427; On-street parking: 215.

The number of parking spaces for the 10,000 workers is apparently insufficient.

Even using the low estimate of 8,000 workers (250 square feet per worker), 5033 parking spaces only provides spaces for 62% of 8,000 workers.
5033 parking spaces only provides spaces for 50% of 8,000 workers.

And some more space has to be reserved for outside visitors for the 2 million square feet of office. So, the actual number of spaces available for employees would be even lower.

If the EIR will assume that some of the workers will use other modes of transportation, such as light rail, biking, walking or carpool, please use realistic assumption that's reasonable.

The 2 million square feet of office will not have only one or major employers. There could be 10 or 20 or even 200 office tenants. If assumption is going to be made about any shuttle service provided by the office tenants, it has to be based on actionable plan that's committed in the Development Agreement. And all office tenants have to be disclosed of the limitation and sign onto any traffic management plan.

Based Apple EIR, even at Apple Inifinite Loop, where the culture promotes biking and other modes of transportation, 72% of the employees arrive in single-occupancy vehicle, another 10% arrive in carpool. So, still the number of parking spaces needed is 82% of the employee population.

With Apple Campus 2, Apple has committed to reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips to 60% with the best efforts. The Hills at Vallco with simply an office park with any number of tenants cannot assume to do even better.

If any assumption is made about the number of single-occupancy vehicles or carpools, please provide realistic data to back it up.

Apple EIR also pointed out the difficulty of using public transit: (Page 38 of Apple EIR Appendix B Transportation Impact Analysis)

"Although there is a fair amount of transit service within the vicinity of Apple Campus 2, there are no easy public transfers to existing high capacity transit corridors such as Caltrain commuter rail and various bus lines along El Camino Real. Express transit services typically operate in directions that inhibit travel using solely public transit to Apple Campus 2 from residential areas along the Peninsula. Furthermore, the poor walkability of the streets around the project site, due to higher traffic volumes, discourages people from walking longer distances to transit stops or stations.

To make some of these Caltrain stations more accessible, Apple provides daily shuttle service to the Lawrence and Sunnyvale Stations. The travel time on Apple shuttles between these Caltrain stations and Apple Campus 2 is approximately 15 minutes to 20 minutes.

Most commuting cyclists travel at a rate of about nine to 10 miles per hour, meaning the Lawrence, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara Caltrain stations are located about an 18, 23, and 28-minute bicycle ride away from Apple Campus 2, respectively. Only the Lawrence Caltrain station has continuous bicycle infrastructure that connects it to Apple Campus 2 in the form of Class II lanes along Wolfe Road, Reed Avenue, and Aster Avenue."

The condition for taking transit and biking or walking hasn't changed, since Apple EIR.

If any assumption is to be made about the percentage of employees who are able to use public transit or walk or bike, please use realistic data to back it up.

If shuttles are going to be used to transport employees or shoppers to The Hills at Vallco, please study the impact on the parking facilities at each pick up location. Are there sufficient parking spaces today? How many more parking spaces will be necessary for the shuttles of The Hills at Vallco?

A large percentage of passengers riding buses in Cupertino are the 30,000 students at De Anza College. They are provided a free bus pass to encourage bus usage, since it is already charged as a part of their tuition. They are also single young adults who do not have other family responsibilities so that they have to be at multiple places in one day at a fixed time.

So, any statistics about bus ridership should only account for non-student population, unless The Hills at Vallco is going to hire only single young adults and provide them with bus passes for free.

Liang Chao

Liang - Vallco Specific Plan - Underground tunnel NOT for parking

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:25 AM
Subject: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan - Underground tunnel is for bicycle and pedestrians, not for parking
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan

The underground tunnel under Wolfe Road should not be used for parking spaces, as the Parking Drawing of The Hills at Vallco shows.
 

The tunnel currently has two car lanes and one more lane used for pedestrians and bicycles.

It is a common path for bicyclists to use to get across Wolfe to avoid traffic and the danger of Wolfe Road.

Vallco Specific Plan should include a policy to preserve easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists through the tunnel. It is an important part of a walkable and bikable city.

Below is the diagram from Page 2 of the Parking Drawing.

Not only there is no path way for pedestrian or bicycle to use. And the tunnel is not easily accessible by any bicyclist or pedestrian who need to cross Wolfe Road.

The underground tunnel has been used for parking spaces. It will have to be widened from its current width to provide two rows of parking.

The underground space of a public road belongs to the public. It can only be used to provide ease of access for the public. It should not be used as parking spaces at all, and not parking spaces for a private project.

 

Liang - Vallco impact during heavy rain

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:59 AM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact of heavy rain
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

Although it doesn't rain much in Silicon Valley, during rainy season, there might be heavy rain, which results in flooding in different areas of the City.

The Hills at Vallco will cover the entire 52-acre of the site with concrete. When it rains heavily, all of the rainwater from the 52-acre would accumulate and it may become a torrent.

Please study the rainwater collection system to see if the capacity is sufficient to cover the heavy rainfall. In case of even heavier rain, please study the impact of an overflow from rain water collection system.

Since the rooftop has varying height from 114 feet to 65 feet at street level, please study the impact of heavy rainwater overflow that might cause more slippery road condition on Wolfe Road and other impacted roads.

On the greenroof slope at west side, which goes from street level to 45 feet and then 65 feet in a short distance, please study the impact of heavy rainwater overflow onto the Perimeter Road.

Please study the safety of bike paths during heavy rain. Is any bike path in danger of being flooded with rainwater on its way to drainage system.

Please study the impact of traffic condition during heavy rain when most people won't bike or walk or even take bus to work, since most bus stops do not have anything to protect waiting passengers from rain.
 

Liang - Vallco impact on overflow parking to neighborhoods. Farmers' Market

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:10 AM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on overflow parking to the neighborhood
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

Please study the impact of overflow parking demands on neighboring streets, such as Portal and other side streets, and shopping centers, especially the center with JoAnne Frabric and United Furniture across the street.

Please study the impact of overflow parking demands on neighboring streets of the new K-5 elementary school at Nan Allen Elementary site.

It is well known that the parking stalls required for office park, residential or mixed use sites in the zoning code is well below the needed amount, since the zoning code makes an unrealistic assumption on the number of people who uses alternative methods of transportation. As a result, the neighborhood streets often become parking lot for the nearby mixed use sites.

One resident just spoke on Nov. 3rd about Apple employees at Infinity Loop taking up street parking near Lawson. As a result, parents cannot park near school and are forced to double park to pick up students. The local residents do not want the city to turn the street into a permit parking zone since it means added cost for the residents and added trouble for their guests.

The neighborhood streets around Biltmore Apartments are always full 24-7 to the point that even a guest cannot find a parking space.

Apple Campus 2 with expected emplyes of 14,000 and a commitment to provide alternative transportation for 40% of them, including carpool. So, the expected number of single-driver vehicle is 8,000. The number of parking stalls provided in Apple Campus 2 is 10,980 parking spaces, according to its EIR.

The Hills at Vallco provides only 9,175 vehicles, the very minimum required by the Zoning Code.

Let's see how much would actually be needed.

The Hills at Vallco contains

• 2 million square feet of office, which will house about 10,000 workers. If 20% car pool or use alternative means (which is already higher than the average from 2010 census), it will need 8,000 parking spaces.
•  800 housing units, which would require 2 cars per unit or more (if multiple young singles share one apartment or any family has a teenager of driving age). Thus, it will require 1,600 spaces.
•  625,000 square feet of retail space. Per 1,000 square feet of retail space is recommended to have 5-10 parking spaces. Thus, 3,1250 to 6,250 parking space is recommended.

• According to "Site Design, Parking and Zoning for Shopping Centers" from Planning.org: "the recommended standard of 10.0 car spaces per 1,000 square feet of net retail area (or a parking ratio of 3:1, i.e., three square feet of parking area for every one square foot of retail sales area)."
• Loss in Value due to Inadequate Parking: "The shopping center could accommodate the  peak holiday shopping during Thanksgiving and Christmas when the  merchants make up to 50% of their profit for the year.  If a business can not  accommodate its customers during that time, then the property may not have  adequate parking and the property may suffer from obsolescence.  Other  studies have been done which show a need of 5 parking spaces for every 1,000  square feet of building area."

The total parking spaces needed is 8000+1600+3125 = 12,725.

The 9,175 parking spaces at Vallco is only 72% of needed space,

When other shopping center needs extra parking, it overflows to the next one or two streets.

When The Hills at Vallco overflows, it will overflow to the next 10 to 20 streets since the project is more than 10 times bigger than any other shopping mall in Cupertino.

Since there is little mass transit and even less ridership in Cupertino, any assumption of the number of visitors or workers who take public transit has to be realistic.

Note that even in San Jose where there are lightrail, the ridership is still low since the VTA transportation network does not cover enough areas so that most people still had to drive.

Any solution to solve the last mile problem is still experimental, such as Uber or Lyft. The EIR impact analysis should not be based on unproven future trend. It should be based on real data and real transportation method available today or in any committed plan.

Therefore, the effect of overflow parking from The Hills of Vallco needs to be studied using realistic data in every day situation and also worst case situation during Christmas shopping season.

The impact of difficulty of parking on the accessibility of retail shops and other amenities at The Hills at Vallco should be studied.

The impact of difficulty of parking on the willingness of customers to visit shops and other amenities in The Hills at Vallco should be studied.

The impact of difficulty of parking on the sales volume of the shops during Christmas season when most retail shops make 50% of their sales should be studied since it affects the sustainability of the shopping center at Vallco.

The impact of difficulty of parking on community events, like Farmers' Market, hosted at The Hills at Vallco should be studied.

Where will the Farmers' Market be held? Since most farmers sell their produce right off their truck. Would there be space for the farmers to drive up their truck into the Farmers' Market?

Liang Chao

Liang - Vallco impact on bike path and pedestrian safety

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:38 AM
Subject: Comment on Vallco impact - bike path and pedestrian safety
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

Please study the impact on bike paths on all artery streets that are logical shortcuts of freeway exits to reach Vallco when freeways or the exits or entrances are congested.

Please study the impact on bike paths on all secondary streets that are logical shortcuts when artery streets are congested.

Please study the impact on bike accident rates in relation to increased volume of vehicles.

Please study the impact on bike accident rates in relation to increase volume of vehicles at intersections making left or right turns.

Please study the impact on bike accident rates in relation to increase volume of vehicles when a bike is making a right turn, left turn or simply straight.

Please study the impact of accident rates involving pedestrians at intersections when the vehicle volume increases.

Liang Chao

Liang - Vallco impact on emergency response time should be based on real data

From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:14 AM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on emergency response time should be based on real data.
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

Please study the emergency response time for fire protection, police and especially medical emergency with real data.

With an increase of 30% residence population and 50% worker population, the EIR of GPA concludes that
"TRAF-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access."

This conclusion is derived simply by mentioning a bunch of General Plan policies, which are often not enforced. There is no real data on the current response time and no data on the predicted response time. No data on the expected expansion needed to provide service to the added population.

The traffic analysis shows that LOS of local streets and freeways would become much worse to the worst level of "Significant and Unavoidable" impact. And yet, the data from traffic analysis is not used at all to evaluate the emergency response time.

Merely reference to a bunch of General Plan policies is not an acceptable way to evaluate the impact.
For example, the following is EIR for GPA Section 4.13. Page 63.

"Because the proposed Project is a program-level planning effort, it does not directly address project-level
design features or building specifications; however, the General Plan includes polices that once adopted
would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access are provided in the city, which would help facilitate
emergency response. Within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-8, Early Project Review, would direct
the City to “involve the Fire Department in early design stages of projects requiring public review.....”

"Ongoing implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s engineering standards would ensure
that adequate emergency access is provided in Cupertino. Therefore, impacts associated with the
implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant."

This is not good enough. For emergency response time, please study the real impact using real data.

Do not use any personal communication or policies that have not been implemented yet.

Please study the amount of time for residents to reach the nearest hospital in a private vehicle in the event of non-life threatening emergency.

For example, the amount of extra delay in each intersection is already calculated in the LOS study of local streets. The average speed of freeways and delay on freeway on-ramp and off-ramp are also available in the traffic study. Such data could be used to compute the amount of time to reach a hospital from different areas of Cupertino.

Please study the impact on emergency response time for an ambulance to reach a home and from the home to the nearest hospital.

Liang Chao