Randy raised many concerns regarding various aspsects of the EIR agreement for Vallco.
----------------------------
Public Comments for Agenda Item 10m June 16, 2015 Cupertino Council Meeting, by Randy Shingai
Agenda Item 10 is a request for the Council to approve an agreement with David J.
Powers and Associates, Inc. for the preparation of an EIR for a "proposed Vallco
Specific Plan Redevelopment Project." There are some disconcerting issues with the
timeline for this item.
Dates of Estimates and “Approval” by Sand Hill Properties
Attachment A of the Staff Report is a "Scope of Work and Cost Estimate" from David J.
Powers is dated June 9, 2015.
Attachment B of its Staff Report is a letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated
June 5, 2015. The following was taken from this letter:
"We have received the contract amount and staff reimbursement amount from you
and will be submitting the necessary funds to the City to fully cover the cost of
the contract being approved, including commencing this initial administrative and
preparatory work."
The letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated 4 days before the proposal from
David J. Powers. It seems unusual that an entity supposedly being overseen was
advised of contract particulars in advance of the actual proposal from the consultant. A
reasonable person would infer that Sand Hill Properties had decision making power
over the contract with David J. Powers. One could characterize the letter from Sand Hill
Property Company as its formal and explicit approval of the consulting contract that the
City Council is now being asked to approve.
I would like City Staff to explain what the common practice is with respect to the
interactions between City Staff, an entity being overseen and the producer of EIRs and
other supposedly impartial reviews.
Work Completed Prior to Approval by Council
David J. Powers will enlist the services of another consultant, Fehr & Peers, to conduct
the traffic evaluation. Appendix B in the David J. Powers proposal was prepared Fehr &
Peers, the traffic subcontractor. Under "Task 2 - Data Collection" in the Fehr & Peers
report is the following:
"We have already collected most necessary intersection count data under a separate
contract directly with the City, with the exception of the following five locations:
22. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Torre Avenue-Vista Drive
24. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Portal Avenue
25. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Perimeter Road
32. Miller Avenue/Calle De Barcelona
33. Miller Avenue/Phil Lane
As part of this task, we will collect existing AM (7:00 to 10:00 AM) and PM (4:00 to 7:00
PM) peak period intersection counts (including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular turning
movement volumes) prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015) when many area schools
begin to have irregular schedules due to upcoming summer breaks.."
Fehr and Peers performed data collection work prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015).
I assume there was some sort of agreement, tacit or otherwise, between the City and
David J. Powers / Fehr & Peers to pay for work performed in advance of an actual
agreement between the City and David J. Powers.
If it is considered normal and proper practice for a contractor to perform work for the
City in advance of approval by the City Council, then the Council City Council should
affirm the practice in its deliberation of this consent item.
'However, I would suggest that any work performed by a contractor prior to the approval
of an agreement by the City Council should not be billable nor should the City accept
that work. To do otherwise invites abuse by City employees, because as the saying
goes, “It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.”
Work Already Paid for by the City
The Fehr & Peers estimate references work that the City has already paid for. Since the
City has paid for work that can be reused to complete the Sand Hill Property EIR,
shouldn’t Sand Hill Property be required to share the cost of that work with the City?
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
No comments:
Post a Comment