I have several comments regarding the NOP for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, File Number EQ-2017-05
1)
A detailed water supply study should be done to assess any associated
environmental impacts for the life-time of the project with special
attention given to likely future drought situations. Also, I do not
believe that the Donald Sommer’s Plant will be enough to supply the
project as other developments tap into the purple pipe earlier up the
road. If the green roof is built it is going to need its own water
supply.
2) There
is currently a 12” sanitary sewer line servicing Vallco. Will that be
enough to handle such an increase in density to the site when combined
with storm water and surrounding developments?
3) How will groundwater filtration be affected by all of the cement, building and paved areas at Vallco.
4)
Environmental impacts from the Apple 2 Campus and the Steven’s Creek
Urban Village (approved) must also be taken into account (at full
planned capacity).
5)
Careful consideration should be taken in removing soil where the old
Sears Automotive or any other potentially contaminated sites are
located.
6) I was quite surprised to find a completely different description of the Vallco Plan in alternative number two at the scoping session as was printed in Cupertino Today:
"According
to Cupertino Senior Planner Piu Ghosh, “the General Plan currently
allows residential development at the site of up to 35 dwelling units
per acre.” According to City calculations revealed at the scoping
session, the “General Plan build-out” (alternative 2) will have
approximately 2,600 or 2,640 housing units. However, using the formulas
that include the state density bonus, the City’s ballpark estimate of
residential will likely increase to upwards of 2,800 residential units.”
Where
on earth did that come from? As far as residents knew we were looking
at roughly 380-800 housing units.This sounds like an entirely different
project altogether!
7) The proposed project seems totally inconsistent with the General Plan:
a) The Proposed project is not a “destination for shopping, dining, and entertainment at only 16% retail.
b)
The Proposed project does not match the Housing Element in our General
Plan. It would create almost 7,000 new jobs, but only 800 residential
units digging us much deeper into the housing deficit hole.
8)
There should be a fair and realistic assessment of how the residential
will impact the local schools, especially in light of the new Steven’
Creek Urban Villages.
9) Traffic numbers or
VMT’s should include everything related to Vallco, including customers,
combined with the potential impacts of the Steven’s Creek Urban Villages
since those are already approved, plus impacts from Apple 2 at full
occupancy. Special consideration should be taken near 280 and at clogged
off and onramps where idling cars will produce high rates of prolonged
exhaust.
10) Parking is already a serious problem in the area according to this article:
11)The
Steven’s Creek Urban Villages again must be taken into consideration
because I believe they are planning on only .63 parking spaces per unit.
Inadequate parking at Vallco will kill any businesses that locate there
or those existing at Main Street and people WILL park in the
surrounding neighborhoods and businesses if parking space is
insufficient.
12) Careful precautions must be
taken to protect the surrounding neighborhoods during demolition and
construction from traveling debris in the wind that could contain
harmful chemicals and substances.
13) Building
housing next to the freeway should consider the potential detrimental
impacts of being located adjacent to a traffic clogged freeway. This are
should not be used for low income housing as those people are much less
likely to have good access to healthcare or legal representation.
Please take the following from USC (one of many similar studies) into
consideration. People suffering from exhaust related illnesses are a
growing astronomical cost to insurance and therefore to the general
public.
14)
As for the green roof, I would like to see an entire special task force
to determine it’s impacts and possible negative consequences. We are
potentially talking about people’s lives here if it were to collapse.
Also, any green roof should not be considered to suffice as a public
green space or park space from my understanding of city documents.
Thank you sincerely for your time and attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Danessa T
No comments:
Post a Comment