KM - Vallco VTC Specific Plan FEIR Insufficiencies= Do Not Certify

From: KM
Date: September 13, 2018 at 10:02:19 PM PDT
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupertino.org
Subject: Vallco VTC Specific Plan FEIR Insufficiencies= Do Not Certify

Dear City Council,

The FEIR for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan has insufficiencies and must not be certified.

Here's an EIR primer out of San Jose State I referenced:

http://www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/docs/URBP229Materials/CEQAbriefing_229.pdf

Other than errors and omissions in their science, I think these are solid insufficiencies with the EIR and process:

1.  The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR.  PDF 11. We did not have this. They even changed what the proposed project is in the FEIR with another alternative and call it the Revised Project.  Previous Project is the original Proposed Project:

DEIR, original:

Amended DEIR:

FEIR, bait and switch proposed project:

2.  Segmentation due to sewage system and recycled water issues.PDF12. Having insufficient capacity for recycled water or sewage treatment requiring construction of new facilities.

3.  A fundamental requirement of CEQA is that an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a proposed activity together with other past and reasonably foreseeable activities be included in an environmental assessment.PDF 14. Must study the 7 SB35 towers for example.  Vallco SB35 is a foreseeable project.

4.  The FEIR is too long and includes public comments inline and the changes to the DEIR and Amended EIR are included as lines out edits making it a mess to read.

FEIR part 1

https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=22378

FEIR part 2

https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=22380

5.  The addition of the necessity to Amend the General Plan was briefly mentioned at the June 4 CC Study Session, 4 months after the Specific Plan process began.  This means the project clearly isn't consistent with the General Plan.  Does anything say they can't slam a GPA Amendment concurrent with a project EIR?  What if the amount of housing in the entire GP is less than what is studied?  Does an entire GPA city-wide need to be redone?

6.  The effects of moving school boundaries requires EIR study and mitigations.  That is allowed even with SB 50.  Refer to the SB 50 memo to city:  https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a081262d-8ab9-4d6e-b427-4fdf8b10bd20

Excerpt:

"Therefore,  a  lead  agency  may  consider,  in  an  EIR,  among  other  factors  the following impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction: 

 ·  traffic  impacts  associated  with  more  students  traveling  to  school; 

 ·  dust  and  noise  from  construction  of  new  or  expanded  school  facilities; 

 ·  effects  of  construction  of  additional  school  facilities  (temporary  or  permanent) on  wildlife  at  the  construction  site;

 ·  effects  of  construction  of  additional  school  facilities  on  air  quality;

 ·  other  "indirect  effects"  as  defined  by  CEQA  Guidelines  §  15258  (a)(2) (growth-inducing  effects,  changes  in  pattern  of  land  use  and  population density,  related  effects  on  air  and  water  and  other  natural  systems).  See Chawanakee Unified School District, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029.   

CONCLUSION 

When  it  comes  to  arguments  about  the  impact  of  a  proposed  development  on existing  school  facilities  and  their  ability  to  accommodate  more  students,  the  CEQA process  is  essentially  ministerial.    Agencies  must  accept  the  fees  mandated  by  SB  50  as the  exclusive  means  of  considering  and  mitigating  the  impacts  of  the  proposed development  on  school  facilities.    However,  nothing  in  SB  50  or  in  CEQA  or  current  case law  prohibits  an  agency  from  conducting  environmental  review  of  an  application  that creates  significant  environmental  impacts  on  non-school-facility  settings  or  sites, regardless  of  whether  the  applicant  has  agreed  to  pay  mitigation  fees  under  SB  50. "

Due to the above insufficiencies of the Vallco Project it must not be certified.

Sincerely,

KM