KM - Vallco Specific Plan Must Be Consistent with the General Plan

Dear City Attorney Hom,

Greetings!

The Specific Plan for Vallco must be consistent with the General Plan by law as you already know.  See Ca GC 65450-65457:

http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GOV

The General Plan adopted Scenario A allotments for Vallco and stated that it would fall to Scenario B should a Specific Plan not be adopted by May 31, 2018.

LU-1 and LU-2 and the text of the GP never show Vallco with more than 389 units.

http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12729

The GP EIR studied 600,000 SF retail, 2 Million SF office, 800 residential units, and 339 hotel rooms.  The adopted Scenario A in the GP has 389 units.  35 DU/Ac was not an allotment but a density maximum for the 389 units on the site.  Alternative Scenario B has no housing at Vallco.  The Housing Element supports that Vallco could have 389 units, and refers to those unit quantities as “realistic capacity” in Table HE-5:

http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12736

A reasonable person (reasonable person from:  http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf) would conclude that Vallco was never intended to be a heavy housing site and the General Plan provided Scenario B with other sites available for housing.  The Vallco site was described in the General Plan as:  "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley."  

The goals, policies, and strategies to achieve this vision in the General Plan Land Use section support residential as subordinate to other uses.  See p 51:  http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12729  

Additionally, the 2 million SF of office frustrates the General Plan Housing Element Goal of providing adequate housing by generating an excess of employment.  

While Sand Hill requested that a much denser housing option be studied at Vallco, and that a mix between Measure D and a housing heavy option also be studied, neither of these options are consistent with the General Plan.  

They may not be studied for the Specific Plan.  They cannot be part of the EIR process for the Specific Plan.

If the Vallco owner wants something other than what is in the General Plan the Specific Plan route does not appear to be the way to do it.  

Please review the procedure and halt the technical review of options for a Vallco Specific Plan not consistent with the General Plan and that a reasonable person would not find consistent.   Essentially these inconsistent options are General Plan Amendments but without anyone knowing what they actually are.  How can we have an EIR scoping meeting about a mystery project? 

And a final comment:  attempting to include a reallocation of allotments in and among other sites is beyond the scope of a Vallco Specific Plan, in my opinion.  When office or any other allotment is pulled from the General Plan and placed in the city "pool" it results in an alteration of the General Plan.

This gets into the problem I believe which was caused by allowing the GP EIR to study Vallco at essentially a project level.  

Of the 4 options, they mis-state the Proposed project as having 800 rather than 389 residential units in the GP.  This is inconsistent.

The other EIR alternatives are:  Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall which puts allotments into the city pool which were never studied in the GPA EIR.  

General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix) this is inconsistent with the General Plan.  

The final option is retail and residential (no office) which would in practicality have some office but as long as the totals are within the General Plan, this would be consistent.

It is my interpretation that the original GP allotments may be studied in the EIR (not 800 units but 389), the re-tenanted mall may be studied, and the retail/residential may be studied if the totals are consistent with the General Plan (retail minimum 600,000 SF and 389 units residential) .  Is this interpretation correct?

Best regards,

KM