---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: KM
Date: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:09 PM
Subject: Flawed Opticos Vallco General Plan Non-Compliant Plans Presented 4/13/2018
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, gpaulsen@cupertino.org, atakahashi@cupertino.org, jliu@cupertino.org, dsun@cupertino.org, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, rsinks@cupertino.org, savitav@cupertino.org, bchang@cupertino.org, Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>
Cc: Randolph Hom <randolphh@cupertino.org>
From: KM
Date: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:09 PM
Subject: Flawed Opticos Vallco General Plan Non-Compliant Plans Presented 4/13/2018
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, gpaulsen@cupertino.org, atakahashi@cupertino.org, jliu@cupertino.org, dsun@cupertino.org, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, rsinks@cupertino.org, savitav@cupertino.org, bchang@cupertino.org, Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>
Cc: Randolph Hom <randolphh@cupertino.org>
Greetings City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Department,
Please refer to the attached documents which contain the missing photos which are too large to share and has proper formatting, Thank You.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This evening Opticos presented some options for Vallco which have some serious flaws, and also shed some light to the issues with the Vallco SB 35 application. The Vallco SB 35 application has not yet been reviewed by the attorneys and yet it is being used as a benchmark for the subsequent options which is rattling the residents and is totally inappropriate. The city should remain absolutely mum on the topic and state it is under review. However, that is not the approach being taken. That is a bad plan. The benchmark should be the General Plan allocations at the most. Why dupe the residents like this?
First, the Vallco SB 35 application has some severe flaws in it, namely the addition of residential parking in the square footage of an optional plan when square footage is not clearly defined in the law and the law should probably be litigated to nail down the definition more clearly. In the SB 35 application, the inclusion of residential parking allows the excessive build of office space. This in turn results in 12,600 employees according to the application, and housing for 6,005 residents. This means the applicant would worsen the housing crisis while using a housing bill designed to help the housing crisis. Even if every man, woman, and child who lived at Vallco SB 35 worked there (impossible) there would be at a very minimum 6,595 employees needing a place to live.
The Opticos team presented various options for Vallco and referred to them as SB 35 Alternatives however, NONE resulted in the required 2/3 residential by square footage total and NONE should be accepted. But we may glean some critical information from what they presented to underscore the lack of compliance in the SB 35 plan the developer submitted. Each plan shows the residential total around 3 Million SF vs the SB 35 application at 4.7 Million SF. This discrepancy is very likely due to the parking garages being added in to the square footage total.
4/13/2018
Vallco Shopping District Plan Options:
1. Why is a project (SB 35 Vallco) which has not been determined to be SB 35 compliant, which the attorneys have not conferred over, being used as if it is a baseline for determining what would be at Vallco Shopping District?
a. SB 35 Vallco:
i. 1.81 Million SF office
ii. 0.4 Million SF retail
iii. 2.2 Million SF residential
1. Residential amenities included parking and totaled 2.5 Million SF
2. Total Residential claimed to be 4.7 Million SF
2. The project alternatives provide some insight regarding the residential square footage actually being proposed without the residential parking spaces being included. During the presentation, 2,400 (not 2,402 per SB 35 application) residential units were discussed. Then, as the following photos from the boards Opticos presented demonstrate, the residential SF ended up 3,078,000 SF for SB 35, 2,999,000 SF for the SB 35 Low Office option, and 3,097,000 SF for the SB 35 Western Green option. Each one of these options is about 1.7 Million SF LESS than what the developer claims in the SB 35 Vallco application for residential. Recalling that the SB 35 Vallco application included residential parking (because they used the requirements to calculate floor area ratio, FAR, to determine the percentage of residential square footage, essentially inventing their own definition where the SB 35 provided no definition of "residential square footage". In using the FAR definitions, again recall that office and retail which totaled 3.4 Million SF are NOT included)
3. All Opticos alternatives are neither SB 35 compliant, NOR Compliant with the General Plan as follows:
4. Evaluate the "SB 35" option, refer to SB 35 plan posted by Opticos below
a. Total: 5,585,000 SF
b. Residential: 3,078,000 SF, Target SF 3,000,000 SF. Note this is NOT Compliant with the General Plan 389 units Scenario A, zero units Scenario B.
c. Retail/Entertainment: 415,000 SF. Note this is NOT Compliant with the General Plan Minimum 600,000 SF.
d. Office: 1,812,000 SF. Note this is above 1,810,000 SF in the SB 35 application
e. Civic: 65,000 SF
f. Open Space: 215,000 SF (5 acres), actually 4.93 Acres. The requirement for this many residents is about 12 acres…
g. Actual Residential percentage = 3,078,000 SF/5,585,000 SF = 55% NOT SB 35 Compliant (below 2/3)
h. Not Compliant with Cupertino's General Plan
5. Evaluate the "SB 35 Low Office" option plan posted by Opticos, below:
a. Total: 4,985,200 SF
b. Residential: 2,999,000 SF, Target SF 3,000,000 SF. Note this is NOT Compliant with the General Plan 389 units Scenario A, zero units Scenario B.
c. Retail/Entertainment: 395,200 SF. Note this is NOT Compliant with the General Plan Minimum 600,000 SF.
d. Office: 1,311,000 SF. Target: 1,300,000 SF. Note this is above 1,810,000 SF in the SB 35 application
e. Civic: 65,000 SF
f. Open Space: 215,000 SF (5 acres), actually 4.93 Acres. The requirement for this many residents is about 12 acres…
g. Actual Residential percentage = 2,999,000 SF/4,985,200 SF = 60% NOT SB 35 Compliant (below 2/3)
h. Not Compliant with Cupertino's General Plan
6. Evaluate the "SB 35 Western Green" option plan posted by Opticos, below:
a. Total: 5,694,000 SF
b. Residential: 3,097,000 SF, Target SF 3,000,000 SF. Note this is NOT Compliant with the General Plan 389 units Scenario A, zero units Scenario B.
c. Retail/Entertainment: 411,000 SF. Note this is NOT Compliant with the General Plan Minimum 600,000 SF.
d. Office: 1,812,000 SF. Target: 1,800,000 SF. Note this is above 1,810,000 SF in the SB 35 application
e. Civic: 65,000 SF
f. Open Space: 309,000 SF (8 acres), actually only 7.09 Acres. The requirement for this many residents is about 12 acres…
g. Actual Residential percentage = 3,097,000 SF/5,694,000 SF = 54% NOT SB 35 Compliant (below 2/3)
h. Not Compliant with Cupertino's General Plan
7. None of the plans are compliant with setbacks and heights.
8. Gray buildings are undefined.
9. Parking is not discussed. SB 35 application has approximately 10,500 parking spaces in two floors underground and several internal structures within the residential buildings each at around 8-9 stories. Note the air quality in an 8-9 story internal garage will be poorer than one open to the air as in Valley Fair and that HEPA filtration is unable to filter VOCs from the I-280 and interior traffic.
10. Please insist on being given the Costar Location Score for Vallco. It does not even compare to those of dying malls.
In closing, I do not like how the residents are being treated in this process. You are distressing people in an abusive way.
I hope some emails are sent to the community apologizing for this mess quickly.
Sincerely,
Kitty Moore
No comments:
Post a Comment