Liang - Trips Generated Beyond Commute trips should not be ignored

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:33 PM
Subject: Trips Generated Beyond Commute trips should not be ignored.
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

RE: Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan (NOT Vallco Special Area, which doesn't exist in the General Plan)

Dear Vallco Planners,

Traffic generated does not all come from commute trips.

http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Documents/B2_CIA_Role%20Overall%20Travel_web_2.pdf

The above report is based on data from 2009, but people's needs to take trips for their daily needs do not change much.
It shows that commuting contribute to less than 20% of all trips traveled, which means buses which provide "frequent" services only during rush hours do not serve the need for the other 80% trips needed by residents in TOD with only bus services. When there is no bus or any other alternative, people drive.

When there is not enough parking space, they park on neighborhood streets. This can be seen in any metropolitan area. Taking away people's parking spaces won't reduce their needs to travel by car when no other reliable and efficient option available.

The other purposes that take up about 20% of all trips are 20% for work-related trips (but not commute, so not during commute hours), 20% for personal errands, 20% for social/recreation and the other 20% for other purposes.

The EIR should take into account the other 80% trips taken by people.
Housing near jobs have not been proven to reduce traffic. If the EIR or any traffic management system want to make such a claim, please provide actual case study from a city with similar transit services and similar demographics.
In fact, recent reports from LA have shown that housing near transit in fact reduce transit ridership because of ineffective transit services there.

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5878723825331240843#editor/target=post;postID=2680687971258481715;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=5;src=postname

" Passengers on Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses and trains took 397.5 million trips in 2017, a decline of 15% over five years. Metro's workhorse bus system, which carries about three-quarters of the system's passengers, has seen a drop of nearly 21%. "

Less 10% people live within walking distance to work. Even if they move closer to work initially, they change job or the company change location to expand and their spouse work too. If any claim is made about housing closer to jobs will reduce commute trips, please back it up with data to show the realistic reduction over time.

LA Times reporters did some investiation and found that many people living in transit-rich development still drive to work.

"Near the rails but on the road"

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2007/jun/30/local/me-transit30

• In Los Angeles alone, billions of public and private dollars have been lavished on transit-oriented projects such as Hollywood & Vine, with more than 20,000 residential units approved within a quarter mile of transit stations between 2001 and 2005.
• But there is little research to back up the rosy predictions. Among the few academic studies of the subject, one that looked at buildings in the Los Angeles area showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars. It also found that, over time, no more people in the buildings studied were taking transit 10 years after a project opened than when it was first built.

Since 80% of all trips are not used for commuting, your traffic analysis should take those into account too. Besides 20% trips for commuting, there are 20% for work-related trips (but not commute, so not during commute hours), 20% for personal errands, 20% for social/recreation and the other 20% for other purposes.

If Vallco Shopping District is developed into an area with substantial retail components, it will fulfill the trips taken by Cupertino area residents for personal errands for shopping, social and recreation. Not only it will generate more sales tax for the City of Cupertino, it will also reduce the trips taken to go to other shopping malls, such as Great Mall, Stanford Mall, Westridge Mall or Valley Fair.

For each residential unit, there are at most one trip per person going out and one trip coming back in the morning. Even if the residential unit is closer to work, it will only reduce the length of two trips per person daily. However, a substantial retail components with vibrant shops and entertainment or gathering space will get visited by thousands of customers or visitors daily. When the retail component is closeby, thousands of trips will be shortened because Vallco will serve these local residents who otherwise have to travel 10 or 20 miles away to get their shopping, retail, entertainment needs met.
Please consider the trip reduction as a result of a substantial retail component at Vallco.

The Retail Strategy Report done for 2014 GPA has a Leakage analysis which showed that a lot of retail dollars went to other cities. These dollars also come with trips to other cities that could be saved or reduced if we have a vibrant shopping mall in Cupertino. (The city has moved the location of the Retail Strategy Report from 2014, so I don't have a current link. Please get a copy from the city to help you analyze the trips that might be reduced from local retail locations.)

Regards,

Liang C
Cupertino Resident

---------------------
From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Trips Generated Beyond Commute trips should not be ignored.
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

As you estimate the trips generated for shopping, please also distinguish the trip patterns between retail in mixed use projects with token retail space and the trip patterns to a major shopping area with a critical mass of a variety of shopping, restaurants, and entertainment experiences.

For example, people tend to spend more time for a trip to a shopping mall with substantial components, you shop, dine, watch a movie, everyone in the family purchase something or browse something by visiting multiple stores.

Yet, if these shops are scattered in token retail in mixed use, a family would have to make multiple trips to individual stores in multiple locations. Thus, more trips will be generated.

If the family goes to a shopping mall 10  miles away or 20 miles away, more miles traveled.

When there is not a sufficient concentration of retail shops, families often have to make multiple trips to find the proper apparel for their family members or gifts for friends and relatives.

So, a larger shopping mall with substantial retail component to provide vibrant and worthwhile experience saves multiple trips traveled. Much better for the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emission. Especially in this area where there is literally no transit as an option.

Commuter trips can be serviced by corporate buses or car pools due to the regularity of such trips. However, family errands, trips to visit customers, trips for social and entertainment purposes are usually more individualized and cannot be serviced by commuter buses or car pools.

Therefore, for better environment, we need to place a substantial component with retail, dining, entertainment, fitness and community gathering at Vallco Shopping District to be at least 1.2 million square feet to serve the growing population of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, west San Jose, and Santa Clara areas. The reduction in miles traveled for such substantial components comes from not only the reduced distance, but also combined trips since one trip can serve multiple purposes.

Please take this into consideration in your EIR analysis.

Liang C

Cupertino Resident

Liang - Erroneous or Misleading Information Presented in Vallco Scoping Session and in the NOP

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:16 AM
Subject: Fwd: Erroneous or Misleading Information Presented in Vallco Scoping Session and in the NOP
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan (NOT Vallco Special Area, which doesn't exist in the General Plan)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:14 AM
Subject: Erroneous or Misleading Information Presented in Vallco Scoping Session and in the NOP
To: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear City Attorney,

The erroneous information, intentional or not, in the EIR Scoping session for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan has led to incorrect interpretation in an article in CupertinoToday.com claiming that Vallco calls for "up to 600,000 square feet of retail".

I am afraid that many Cupertino residents and even the Vallco consultants are misled by such confusion.

https://cupertinotoday.com/2018/03/01/vallco-2640-homes-5-million-sq-ft-development/

"While the City is studying the original General Plan-compliant "Hills at Vallco" application from 2015 – a project that calls for up to a 600,000 square feet of retail, 2,000,000 square feet of office space, 800 housing units and 339 hotel rooms – last week's meeting also saw the introduction of various project alternatives to be studied as well in the EIR, as is required by law."

This is because the Notice of Preparation and the slide from the EIR scoping session both mistakenly listed the minimum allowed amount for retail, 600,000 square feet, while the maximum allowed amounts are used for the other land uses: 2,000,000 square feet of office and 800 housing units (allowable only if the council approved their request to wipe out residential allocation from all other areas to put in Vallco).

The residents and public agencies won't be able to provide complete comments due to such erroneous information so that the option of 1,200,000 sqft of retail space is NOT evaluated except in the No Change option. This is troublesome.

Please evaluate the following options:

    1,200,000 sqft retail space + 800 units of housing + 338 hotels + 0 office space (except small business office under CG zoning)

Mistake 1: The current General Plan did not only allow 600,00 sf of commercial, but a minimum of 600,000 sf and a maximum of 1,200,000 sf.

(In fact, there was no public notice or engagement when the amount of retail space at Vallco Shopping Mall was reduced from 1,200,000 sf to 600,000 sf back in 2014. It was sort of slipped into a giant General Plan Amendment advertised as Housing Element updates and some cleanup items.)

Mistake 2: The current General Plan does not allow 800 residential units. The 9212 report argues that 800 unit is possible ONLY if the Council allows the transfer of units from other areas. But such transfer has not been requested nor approved.)

Would such mistake render the Notice of  Preparation for Vallco EIR insufficient, since the NOP did not accurately describe the land use allocations to be studied?

The NOP also, intentional or not, did not use the proper name for the area to be studied: Vallco Shopping District, to distinguish from the North Vallco Park and South Vallco Park area. The term "Vallco Special Area" was never used in the General Plan at all. However, "Vallco Special Area" is used in the title of the NOP and throughout the document, except one place.

This coupled with the fact that the maximum allowable amount of 1,200,000 sqft retail space was mistakenly listed as 600,000 sqft (intentional or not) gives the impression that the City, without any approval from the City Council, is trying to push for a smaller retail space, against the wishes of many residents.

The NOP also neglected to mention that

"Buildout totals for Office and Residential allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a Specific Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific Plan is
not adopted by that date, City will consider the removal of the Office and Residential allocations for Vallco Shopping District."
"Due to the magnitude of the project, the City
has established a contingency plan to meet the RHNA if a Specific Plan is not
approved within three years of Housing Element adoption. This contingency
plan (called Scenario B and discussed further in General Plan Appendix B),
would involve the City removing Vallco Shopping District,..."

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

Liang - 2/3 Residential = 389 Units or 800 Units

From: Liang C
Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:55 PM
Subject: 2/3 Residential = 389 Units or 800 Units
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan (NOT Vallco Special Area, which doesn't exist in the General Plan)

One of the options listed by the EIR consultant is "2/3 residential and 1/3 non-residential".

No units are specified. Any reasonable person would assume that the 2/3 residential refers to either 389 units allocated in the 2040 General Plan or the 800 units as described as a possibility, pending Council approval, in the NOP.

The Zoning Map as of today shows Vallco Shopping District is zoned P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping).

No residential zoning on any parcel. Anyone who wants to justify 35 units per acre for the entire 58-acre site is on shaky ground since the Council had never shown any intention to rezone the entire Vallco Shopping District site with residential use and the Council has never taken any action to do so.

As pointed out in the enclosed email to the City Council, the Council should only rezone a parcel of the size 11.11 acre to accommodate 389 units per acre.

In case the Council takes any action to transfer units from the rest of Cupertino to Vallco to make up 800 units, the Council should rezone more parcels to accommodate 411 more units then. Not BEFORE.

Of course, since the residential units could be transferred to other parcels, the 389 units could be

transferred to a large site, say 20 acres, but the residential density should be lowered to 20 units/acre to match the allocation. In light of SB 35, which would ignore max unit allocation, the Council should set a tighter objective in the Zoning so that there is no ambiguity as to the residential density at Vallco Shopping District.

I am sure that the EIR consultants and consultants for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan would carefully interpret the General Plan and respect the Zoning Map so that they don't inadvertently exceed the standards set by Cupertino City Council, 389 units specifically. It is best to avoid the perception that the consultants somehow relaxed the standards set by the City Council to please the developer or any outside advocates.

Thank you.

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Subject: No More Free Giveaway to Developer. Rezone Minimal Required to Residential Use. No Office Use. Please.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council, Planning Commissioners, Vallco Planners and City Manager,

The City Council set a deadline for the provisional allocation at Vallco Shopping District area of May 31, 2018 because the city planners told the City Council that they have until that date to make the final decision. It seems the City Council will miss the deadline. I was also told by a city planner that the deadline to rezone Vallco, according to HCD, is in fact earlier than May 31, perhaps May 4. In that case, shouldn't the deadline to make a decision on Vallco Shopping District be moved up to early May? If no plan is approved, the provisional residential allocation and office allocation should be removed. That was the promise made by the City Council in December 2014 that the provisional allocation will expire. Any intention to keep that promise at all?

Even if the City Council wishes to extend the deadline for the provisional allocation at Vallco Shopping District, the Council should not give MORE FREE GIVEAWAY to Sand Hill by rezoning the entire Vallco Shopping District site to allow THOUSANDS of HOUSING UNITS BEFORE the approval of Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan. The FREE GIVEAWAY of 2 million square feet of office space without sufficient public input already caused us so much headache over the past three years, while the developer gave no promise of any community benefits at all. NO MORE FREE GIVEAWAYS, please.

When the description of a special area includes a certain land use, it does not require that the entire special area needs to be rezoned to include that land use designation. It is perfectly legal and common for parcels in a special area to have different land use designations. For example, the Vallco Shopping District site has two different zoning designations: P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping). Therefore, it is perfectly legal and common to rezone ONLY ONE parcel to P(CG,R) to allow residential use. JUST ONE.

The provisional residential allocation for Vallco Shopping District is 389 units. The Council ONLY needs to rezone enough parcels in the area to allow 389 units. NO MORE.

With 35 units per acre, the Council only needs to rezone 11,11 acres to include residential resignations. NO MORE.

In light of the 2017 pro-housing laws, it is essential that the Council sets clear and objective standards when rezoning parcels to include residential use.

There is no need to rezone the entire 58 acres of Vallco Shopping District to include residential use. Such grand-scale rezoning will cause confusion and community distrust and it is not consistent with the residential allocation of 389 units in the approved General Plan.

Vallco Shopping District contains about 13 parcels. See the attached map. Some are as small as 2 or 3 acres. The largest appears to be 12.4 acres. There is no need at all to rezone ALL parcels in the Vallco Shopping District to include residential use. Only 11.11 acres is necessary to fulfill HCD's requirement.

Furthermore, there is not need to rezone ANY site to include office use at all before May 2018. It is quite common for the zoning map to not completely agree with the General Plan as the land use map reflects the General Plan. Zoning Map could be updated later when the Vallco Specific Plan is actually approved with office use.

Note that the current P(CG) Zoning in some part of Vallco Shopping District does allow small business offices or small clinics or afterschools. There is no need to rezone any parcel in Vallco Shopping District at this time, especially since no one mentioned office use at the Vallco kickoff meeting at all.

In neither the NOP for Vallco EIR nor the presentation of the EIR Scoping Meeting, no where was the likelihood of allowing 35 units/acre on all 58 acres mentioned at all. No where was the likely impact of state legislatures were specified at all. The presentation in EIR Scoping Meeting only mentioned one option with 2/3 residential and 1/2 non-residential. A reasonable person would understand that to mean 389 units or at most 800 units, as stated in NOP by transferring 411 units, could occupy 2/3 footage of the entire project. The other 1/3 would be commercial, such as 1.2 million square feet of retail space.

To build trust and transparency, I urge you to keep your promise to the citizens. No more unnecessary free giveaways without any public inputs. Please rezone at most 11.11 acres for residential use and 0 acre for office use. No more.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Cupertino Resident

KM - Vallco Shopping District Comments for EIR

From: KM
Date: March 9, 2018 at 4:35:31 PM PST
To: planning@cupertino.org, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>
Cc: randolphh@cupertino.org
Subject: Vallco Shopping District Comments for EIR

Dear Cupertino Planning Department, Mayor Paul, and council members,

Attached please find my preliminary Comments for the EIR for the Vallco Shopping District.  Please take the steps necessary to find a viable "Proposed Project" under CEQA which would have a potential of being passed by City Council.  The CEQA EIR process for this project currently, is irregular.

Here is a brief summary: 

Conclusions:

1.      The "Proposed Project" does not appear to be consistent with the General Plan because it is an office park with over 84% non-retail use when the project is detailed as the "Vallco Shopping District."

2.      The "Proposed Project" frustrates the General Plan goal to balance employment with housing by providing a gross excess of jobs to housing.

3.      Cupertino Ballot Measure D, a similar proposal to "Proposed Project", was placed before voters and was rejected 55%.  This project, with the high office square footage has scant support and would likely be rejected by City Council.

4.      "No Project" would be a fourth alternative, Occupied/Re-tenanted mall is not the same as "No Project"

5.      Alternative B, with conflicting 2,600-4,000 residential units, is inconstant with the General Plan.

6.      Alternative C is too insufficiently described to determine if is consistent with the General Plan.  Portions of the mixed uses were eliminated, which seems inconsistent.

7.      For the above reasons, the EIR process must be halted for a replacement "Proposed Project" which is consistent with the General Plan.

Thank you!

Cupertino Resident living one mile from Vallco and a founding Bay Club (Vallco) member

Randy - Comments for Vallco NOP

From: Randy S
Date: Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:05 PM
Subject: Comments for Vallco NOP.
To: planning@cupertino.org
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Planning Department,

Here are yet more comments to the NOP for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, File Number EA-2017-05.

Please let me know if you have any problems with the attachment.

Thank you,

Randy Shingai

<><><><><><><><><><>

Comments for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report NOP
File Number EA-2017-05

Government Code 15082. Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR
(a) Notice of Preparation. Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact
report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and
Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that
an environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be sent to
every federal agency involved in approving or funding the project.
(1) The notice of preparation shall provide the responsible and trustee agencies and
the Office of Planning and Research with sufficient information describing the project
and the potential environmental effects to enable the responsible agencies to make a
meaningful response. At a minimum, the information shall include:
(A) Description of the project,
(B) Location of the project (either by street address and cross street, for a project in an

urbanized area, or by attaching a specific map, preferably a copy of a U.S.G.S. 15' or 7-
1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name), and
(C) Probable environmental effects of the project.

I am concerned with the lack of detail in the Project description in the Notice of
Preparation. Is “600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office
uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units onsite” sufficient detail to start
preparing an EIR? Saying that the Specific Plan will contain the details necessary to
prepare an EIR is not enough information to enable anyone to write a meaningful response
to the NOP, especially when the draft Specific Plan is not expected for several months.
I am also concerned that the planner responsible for the project supposedly described an
entirely different project in an article in Cupertinotoday.com. The expansion of the project
to 2,600 or 2,800 housing units would require an amended NOP, wouldn’t it?

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.

https://cupertinotoday.com/2018/03/01/vallco-2640-homes-5-million-sq-ft-development/

Lastly, I want to make the point that a public meeting presenting the “existing condition”
for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan is scheduled a day after the deadline for comments
to this NOP. The deadline for comments to the NOP is Monday, March 12, 2018
by 4:30 p.m. The “Existing Condition Presentation” is Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 6 p.m. So
in addition to the Notice of Preparation being deficient with respect to providing
information on the “probable environmental effects of the project”, a public meeting that
might provide those that could attend information that was not included in the NOP will
happen after the NOP comment period is past.
http://www.cupertino.org/Home/Components/News/News/2035/26?NavID=412

Government Code 65451

(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of
the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space,
within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components
of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by
the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public
works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3).
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to
the general plan.

Timeline for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan has “Summer 2018” as the planned
completion date of the Draft Specific Plan. Since the purpose of a Notice of Preparation is to
solicit comments for the preparation of an EIR for the Specific Plan, and a draft Specific
Plan will not be available until Summer 2018, the Notice of Preparation seems premature.
If there was not enough information to formulate a meaningful “description of the project”,
then there was not enough information to make the determination that a NOP was even
necessary. Ordinarily one could claim “no harm, no foul”, but in this case the public is
being denied its opportunity to make meaningful comments on the preparation of the EIR
for the Specific Plan.

http://www.cupertino.org/Home/Components/News/News/2035/26?NavID=412

https://envisionvallco.org/event/draft-specific-plan

Government Code 15125(d)

(d) The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and
applicable general plans and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but are not
limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan or State
Implementation Plan, area-wide waste treatment and water quality control plans,
regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation
plans, natural community conservation plans and regional land use plans for the
protection of the Coastal Zone, Lake Tahoe Basin, San Francisco Bay, and Santa
Monica Mountain

Please cover any inconsistencies between the General Plan and any other plans, with the
yet-to-be-drafted Specific Plan. I would like to supply more details for some of these items,

but the information is not available, and supposedly has yet to be written.
None the less, please be sure to cover any inconsistencies with these General Plan items:

HE-1.3.1 Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions

This paragraph:

If the specific plan and rezoning are
not adopted within three years of
Housing Element adoption (by May 31,
2018), the City will schedule hearings
consistent with Government Code
Section 65863 to consider removing
Vallco as a priority housing site
under Scenario A, to be replaced by
sites identified in Scenario B (see
detailed discussion and sites listing of

“Scenario B” in Appendix B - Housing
Element Technical Appendix).

Appendix B: Housing element Technical Report

This paragraph:

The site is designated Regional Shopping/Office/Residential in the General
Plan and zoned Planned Development with Regional Shopping and Commercial
(P[Regional Shopping and P[CG]). Strategy HE-1.3.1 provides that the City will
adopt a Specific Plan for the Vallco site by May 31, 2018 that would permit 389
units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The zoning for the site
would be modified as part of the Specific Plan process to allow residential uses

as part of a mixed-use development at a maximum density of 35 units per acre.
If the Specific Plan is not adopted, the City will schedule hearings consistent with
Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco Shopping District
as a Priority Housing Site and replacing it with the sites shown in Scenario B.

LU-3.2 Building Heights and Setback Ratios
LU-3.3 Building Design
LU-3.4 Parking
LU-4 Streetscape Design
LU-10 Regional Cooperation and Coordination
LU-19 Vallco Shopping District Special Area

LU-19.1.1 Master Developer
LU-19.1.2 Parcel Assembly
LU 19.1.3 Complete Redevelopment
LU-19.1.4 Land Use
LU-19.1.5 “Town Center” Layout
LU-19.1.6 Connectivity
LU-19-1.7 Existing Streets

LU-19.1.8 Open Space
LU-19.1.9 Building Form
LU-19.1.11 Phasing Plan

LU-19.1.12 Parking
LU-19.1.13 Trees
LU-19.1.14 Neighborhood Buffers

RPC-1.2 Parkland Standards
RPC-2 Distribution
RPC-3 Preservation of Natural Areas
RPC-4 Park Integration
RPC-5 Trails
RPC-7 Facilities
RPC-8 Schools

Government Code 15088

Government Code 15088 requires a response for all comments on “environmental issues”
received be addressed in the EIR. I want to make sure that any issues that qualify under
Government Code 15125(d) are considered “environmental issues” so that they are

responded to in the EIR.

Sanitary Sewer Capacity

There is currently a 12” sanitary sewer line servicing the site. The capacity of the existing
12” sewer line and downstream lines should be evaluated to make sure they have adequate
capacity for the project and for storm water infiltration. The study should include any
parking areas, especially the underground parking areas that could drain into the sanitary
sewer system.

An analysis of the project’s sanitary sewer needs and the environmental impacts of
supplying those needs for the expected life of the project should be covered.

Groundwater Infiltration

Changes to the permeable areas of the site must be evaluated with respect to groundwater

infiltration.

Water Supply Impacts

An analysis of the project’s possible sources of water and the environmental impacts of
supplying that water for the expected life of the project should be covered.

Environmental Baselines

Many development projects in the area, such as the Apple II buildings are not yet fully
operational. There are also expected effects from climate change. Existing and future
conditions should be considered.

Contaminated Sites

There are 2 contaminated sites within the Vallco Specific Plan area and many other
adjacent sites that are listed on the State’s Water Resources Control Board’s website. In
particular any soil excavation and/or removal should include an assessment of any risk
from these sites:

J.C. PENNEY (T0608500770)
SEARS AUTOMOTIVE CENTER (T0608552828)
FORMER TANDEM / APPLE (T10000000740)
TOSCO #11220 (T0608575840)
MOBIL (T0608500926)

SHELL (T0608501269)

Compliance during Demolition and Construction and Use

I would like to make sure that soil, air, water, noise pollution and biological impacts during
demolition and construction are covered. The situation that occurred at Candlestick Point
should not be repeated here.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Lennar-Crews-Use-Drinking-Water-Not-

Recycled-to-Douse-Construction-Site-at-Candlestick-Park-303881781.html

Impacts from greenhouse gas emissions from demolition, construction and use must be
analyzed. Any demolition and construction in the air space over Wolfe Road is a big

concern.

Thresholds for Determining Impact Significance

Thresholds and standards for the determination of impact significance must be
characterized and justified. Individual components must also be aggregated to see if their
cumulative effects are significant. Indirect effects that are reasonably foreseen must
likewise be addressed.

Thank you,
Randy S
San Jose
March 7, 2018

Liang - No More Free Giveaway to Developer. Rezone Minimal Required to Residential Use. No Office Use. Please.

From: Liang X

Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Subject: No More Free Giveaway to Developer. Rezone Minimal Required to Residential Use. No Office Use. Please.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council, Planning Commissioners, Vallco Planners and City Manager,

The City Council set a deadline for the provisional allocation at Vallco Shopping District area of May 31, 2018 because the city planners told the City Council that they have until that date to make the final decision. It seems the City Council will miss the deadline. I was also told by a city planner that the deadline to rezone Vallco, according to HCD, is in fact earlier than May 31, perhaps May 4. In that case, shouldn't the deadline to make a decision on Vallco Shopping District be moved up to early May? If no plan is approved, the provisional residential allocation and office allocation should be removed. That was the promise made by the City Council in December 2014 that the provisional allocation will expire. Any intention to keep that promise at all?

Even if the City Council wishes to extend the deadline for the provisional allocation at Vallco Shopping District, the Council should not give MORE FREE GIVEAWAY to Sand Hill by rezoning the entire Vallco Shopping District site to allow THOUSANDS of HOUSING UNITS BEFORE the approval of Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan. The FREE GIVEAWAY of 2 million square feet of office space without sufficient public input already caused us so much headache over the past three years, while the developer gave no promise of any community benefits at all. NO MORE FREE GIVEAWAYS, please.

When the description of a special area includes a certain land use, it does not require that the entire special area needs to be rezoned to include that land use designation. It is perfectly legal and common for parcels in a special area to have different land use designations. For example, the Vallco Shopping District site has two different zoning designations: P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping). Therefore, it is perfectly legal and common to rezone ONLY ONE parcel to P(CG,R) to allow residential use. JUST ONE.

The provisional residential allocation for Vallco Shopping District is 389 units. The Council ONLY needs to rezone enough parcels in the area to allow 389 units. NO MORE.

With 35 units per acre, the Council only needs to rezone 11,11 acres to include residential resignations. NO MORE.

In light of the 2017 pro-housing laws, it is essential that the Council sets clear and objective standards when rezoning parcels to include residential use.

There is no need to rezone the entire 58 acres of Vallco Shopping District to include residential use. Such grand-scale rezoning will cause confusion and community distrust and it is not consistent with the residential allocation of 389 units in the approved General Plan.

Vallco Shopping District contains about 13 parcels. See the attached map. Some are as small as 2 or 3 acres. The largest appears to be 12.4 acres. There is no need at all to rezone ALL parcels in the Vallco Shopping District to include residential use. Only 11.11 acres is necessary to fulfill HCD's requirement.

Furthermore, there is not need to rezone ANY site to include office use at all before May 2018. It is quite common for the zoning map to not completely agree with the General Plan as the land use map reflects the General Plan. Zoning Map could be updated later when the Vallco Specific Plan is actually approved with office use.

Note that the current P(CG) Zoning in some part of Vallco Shopping District does allow small business offices or small clinics or afterschools. There is no need to rezone any parcel in Vallco Shopping District at this time, especially since no one mentioned office use at the Vallco kickoff meeting at all.

In neither the NOP for Vallco EIR nor the presentation of the EIR Scoping Meeting, no where was the likelihood of allowing 35 units/acre on all 58 acres mentioned at all. No where was the likely impact of state legislatures were specified at all. The presentation in EIR Scoping Meeting only mentioned one option with 2/3 residential and 1/2 non-residential. A reasonable person would understand that to mean 389 units or at most 800 units, as stated in NOP by transferring 411 units, could occupy 2/3 footage of the entire project. The other 1/3 would be commercial, such as 1.2 million square feet of retail space.

To build trust and transparency, I urge you to keep your promise to the citizens. No more unnecessary free giveaways without any public inputs. Please rezone at most 11.11 acres for residential use and 0 acre for office use. No more.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Cupertino Resident

Attachment:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7RMc9DXGhUAa3I5blIxcGdnMVV6Tm5NQldUU2o1NFBTNXUw/view?usp=sharing

Randy - Resolution 14-201 states Vallco allocations are "contingent on approval of a Specific Plan by May 31, 2018"

From: Randy S
Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:52 PM
Subject: "Vallco Specific Plan" - revocable office and housing allocations.
To: piug@cupertino.org, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>

​Dear Council and Staff

This a comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan.  There are assertions regarding the commercial, office, hotel and residential authorized in the General Plan for the "Special Plan."  The Notice of Preparation says:

Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the Specific Plan would facilitate the development of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units onsite.

http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19386

​I downloaded the latest copy of Resolution 14-210 from the City's archive. It is attached to this e-mail.  This is what was approved by the City Council and signed on Dec. 4, 2014.  Note the following:

1. A Vallco Shopping District Special Plan satisfying the conditions set in Resolution 14-210 was a condition for the provisional allocations for office space and housing becoming permanent. 

2. The General Plan's 389 housing units identified for the Vallco Shopping District is contingent on approval of a Specific Plan by May 31, 2018.

3. The General Plan's 2,000,000 sq. ft. office allocation for the Vallco Shopping District is contingent on approval of a Specific Plan by May 31, 2018. 

 I cut and pasted the following from Resolution 14-210 (the highlights are mine):

Page I-3

The development allocations in the Approved Project are as follows:

Office allocation: 2,000,000 square feet of office allocation is identified for the Vallco

Shopping District site contingent on timely approval of a specific plan for the Vallco

Shopping District). The remainder of the existing allocation is unchanged and is still

available for citywide use as provided for in the General Plan.

Residential allocation: 1, 400 dwelling units of the existing residential allocation on

sites recommended for the 2014-2022 Housing Element Inventory, 389 of which are

identified for the Vallco Shopping District contingent on timely approval of a

specific plan for the Vallco Shopping District site

Page I-4

As stated, these Approved Project allocations rely in part on timely preparation of a specific
plan for the Vallco Shopping District that meets the requirements of the General Plan. If a
Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan is not approved by May 31, 2018, then the City will
consider removing the 2,000,000 square feet of office allocation from the Vallco Shopping
District. In addition, as described in section II.B, below, the Council will further consider
redistributing the residential allocation of 389 units for the Vallco Shopping District
Housing Element site to other Housing Element sites and removing the Vallco site from the
Housing Element Inventory.

Page I-5

The Approved Project involves a list of five Priority Housing Sites (Scenario A) and analternate list of six Priority Housing Sites (Scenario B). Four of the sites are in both lists. Ifthe City has not approved a specific plan for the Vallco Shopping District site, which islisted in Scenario A, by May 31, 2018, the City will consider actions to remove the VallcoShopping District site from the Housing Element Inventory and to add the GlenbrookApartments site and the Homestead Lanes site( Scenario B), and will considerredistributing the 389 units that could have been developed on the Vallco site as follows:35 additional units to the Oaks Shopping Center site, 150 additional units to The Hamptonssite, 58 units to the Glenbrook Apartments site, and 132 units to the Homestead Lanes site.These changes in the recommended Housing Element sites do not have the potential tocreate any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment, becauseall of the Housing Element sites were analyzed in the EIR at or above the number of unitsshown for those sites in the Approved Project.

​Also, please redact my e-mail address and include this as a response to the NOP for the Vallco Shopping District.

Thank you,

Randy S

San Jose

Liang - "Vallco Shopping District" is the proper term used in the General Plan

From: Liang C

Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:49 PM
Subject: "Vallco Shopping District" is the proper term used in the General Plan
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Vallco Project Managers,

For this community-driven specific plan process to be successful, transparency and trust are important.

Perhaps, it should start with NOT trying to steer the process towards one direction or another intentionally. Or at least do not give any perception that the city is attempting to do so.

This should start with recognizing the purpose specified in the General Plan: " a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley".

"The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into 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." (Cupertino's 2040 General Plan)

And the proper term for the planning area is "Vallco Shopping District", as it is used throughout the 2040 General Plan.

However, the Notice of Preparation is titled "Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan", while the term "Vallco Special Area" is not used anywhere in the General Plan. The General Plan also uses other terms like "North Vallco Park Special Area" and "South Vallco Park Special Area" to refer to other areas. So, "Vallco Special Area" is a confusing and inaccurate term.

For transparency, accuracy and trust, please use the proper term "Vallco Shopping District" or "Vallco Shopping District Special Area" in all communications in the future to avoid any confusion. We don't want to give people the impression that the city is somehow discouraging the shopping center use at Vallco Shopping District when the area is specifically marked "Regional Shopping" in the approved South Vallco Master Plan and marked P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping) in the Zoning Map.

The proper term "Vallco Shopping District" is not used even once in the official city web site: http://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco

The term "Vallco Special Area" is used in http://envisionvallco.org too. Unless the City amend the General Plan to specify where is "Vallco Special Area", please use the proper General Plan term.

Please let the community-drive process actually reflect the wishes of the community and NOT confuse the process with any misuse of terms that might give the wrong impression.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Liang - Vallco Specific Plan Should be Based on the Max Allocations in the Adopted General Plan

From: Liang C
Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Vallco EIR NOP Provides Inaccurate Information on General Plan Allocation
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Vallco Project Managers,

The EIR consultant has provided inaccurate information for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan in the adopted General Plan during the EIR Scoping Session. It refers to 600,000 square feet of retail space and 800 housing units when the maximum allowed retail space is 1.2 million square feet and the maximum residential allocation is 389 units.

In fact, the 9212 report for Measure D correctly specified the allocation. How come the EIR consultant is provided inaccurate information this time?

Notice that the above paragraph uses the "max" allocation for all land uses, which is consistent. These numbers appear as the "Buildout" column (namely the maximum buildout allowed).

Yet the NOP states that the Specific Plan would only include ONLY 600,000 sqft of retail space, but doubled the residential allocation to 800 housing units.

This is quite confusing.

When did the City Council decide to only evaluate 600,000 sqft of retail space and double the residential allocation to 800 units? Just wondering when was such decision made?

Shouldn't such decision be made AFTER the so-called community-driven specific plan process?

Thank you for making the attempt to create a community-drive specific plan process with ample chances for community inputs. I am looking forward to a transparent and interactive process that involve all stakeholders.

Please clarify the notices sent out from the city to reduce confusion and improve transparency and trust in the community-driven specific plan process.

Thank you.

Liang

---------------------------------------

From: Liang Chao
Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Vallco EIR NOP Provides Inaccurate Information on General Plan Allocation
To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

I found the rationalization to allow 800 units of housing at Vallco from the 9212 Report of Measure D:

The Initiative does not specify how many additional residential units may be developed in the Vallco area “consistent with the General Plan.” For purposes of analysis, this Report assumes that the maximum number of residential units
that could be authorized with a CUP is 800, based on the following assumptions:
• The total number of residential units allocated citywide under the General Plan is 1,882.
• Of that total number, 1,400 residential units are specifically allocated to Priority Housing Element Sites and 28 additional units have been approved, which leaves 454 units to be allocated.51

By the time a developer of the Vallco area could apply for a CUP for additional residential units, the City assumes that sufficient unallocated units (approximately 410) would be available to develop a maximum of 800 units in the Vallco area. Moreover, the General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1 provides that allocations may only be transferred among planning areas provided “no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)” for the General Plan. The General Plan EIR studied a maximum 800 units for the
Vallco area. As a result, 800 is considered the likely maximum number of residential units that could be developed within the Vallco area, consistent with the General Plan and with a CUP.

Sorry for my ignorance earlier. Now I understand where the "800 units" come from. However, I believe many Cupertino residents would be as confused as me.

And it still doesn't explain when the City Council decided that the Specific Plan for Vallco Shopping District would only evaluate 600,000 sqft of retail space and would be allowed to double the residential allocation to 800 units?

Regards,

Liang

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

Liang - Cupertino Gives Away $1.5 Billion Dollars Worth of Entitlement To Developer For Free?!

[Nextdoor post]
Cupertino City appears to have turned the provisional allocation of 2 million square feet of office space to Vallco Shopping District, rejected by the voters in Measure D, into direct entitlement, free and clear.

This is a very generous giveaway, which is worth almost $1.5 billion dollars (Measure D is valued at $3 billion dollars and 50% of the project is the 2 million sqft office space)

What did the city council negotiate in return for such a free giveaway? None. Any promised community benefits at all? NONE!

The City Council specifically said in the video of Dec. 4 2014 Council meeting that the 2 million sqft office allocation "will expire" in 3 years (by May 31, 2018) if there is not a Vallco Specific Plan approved by the Council.
However, apparently the 2 million sqft of office space has become entitlement WITHOUT any public input and WITHOUT any city council decision and WITHOUT any approval of Vallco Specific Plan.
The free giveaway just suddenly appeared in the Notice of Preparation for Vallco EIR.
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19386

What's going on?!

<><><><><><><><>

From: Liang C
Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR NOP Provides Inaccurate Information on General Plan Allocation
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and City Council Members,

The Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation provides inaccurate information the the General Plan Allocation for Vallco Shopping District.
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19386

Please instruct the staff to correct the General Plan Allocation as it is stated in the 2040 General Plan.

On December 4, 2014, the City Council promised that the office and residential allocation at Vallco "will expire" by May 31, 2018.

It can be proved by the city council video. The citizens attending the meeting and watching the video later will hold you accountable to your promise.

The Planning Commission recommended 0 office space and 0 housing units specifically because they said "the community hasn't weighed in yet." Some Council members pushed to give Sand Hill a chance to start the design process, so the Council gave them "provisional allocation", not entitlement.

However, As stated in the Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation (quoted below), the office and residential allocation have become "entitled". When did the City Council make such a decision to alter the General Plan? How come the community was never notified?

As shown in General Plan Table LU-1, the General Plan development allocation for the Vallco Special Area is as follows: approximately 1.2 million square feet of commercial uses (minimum 600,000 square feet of retail uses with a maximum of 30 percent of entertainment uses, pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.4), 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 389 residential dwelling units.2 Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations may be transferred among Planning Areas provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 Final EIR (SCH#2014032007).

General Plan Table LU-1 specifically included the condition approved by the City Council.

The Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation did not mention the fact that the Housing Element has two scenarios, specifically because the allocation of 389 units at Vallco is "provisional". The NOP should not attempt to alter the content of the General Plan and the Housing Element.

It is important to establish the baseline in the Vallco EIR Notice of Preparation and the EIR document that the site is still zoned P(CG) and P(Regional Shopping) as of today.
The office and residential allocation for Vallco is "provisional", pending on the approval of Vallco Specific Plan.

In the South Vallco Master Plan, approved by the City Council on September 19, 2008, designated Vallco area as "Regional Shopping".

Who made the decision to turn Vallco Shopping District into a housing development BEFORE the community process?

There is NO entitlement for 2 million square feet of office space at Vallco Shopping District.

There is NO entitlement for 389 housing units at Vallco Shopping District.

Not yet. Not until Vallco Specific Plan is approved.

There might be stronger community sentiment to accept some housing units at Vallco Shopping District, but it is predicated on the condition that the developer would be able to deliver a strong retail experience component, including shopping, dining, entertainment, fitness and more.

The retail experience component cannot be a side note.

Therefore, it is important to establish the baseline that the site is still zoned for Regional Shopping. That should be the starting point of any negotiation.

Please do not allow outside forces to alter Cupertino's General Plan.

Please do not start the Vallco process by altering the General Plan to give out entitlements without any community inputs.

Sincerely,

Liang C

Cupertino Resident

KM - Vallco Specific Plan must be consistent with General Plan - EIR

"The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into 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." (Cupertino's 2040 General Plan)

<><><><><><><><><>
From: KM
Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Vallco Specific Plan must be consistent with General Plan - EIR
To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, savitav@cupertino.org, Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul, City Council, and Manager Brandt,

I am very confused and concerned about the EIR scoping and Opticos process.  Please have the City Attorney’s office look into the Vallco Specific Plan process alternatives SHPCO has requested the review of (heavy housing and Measure D/heavy housing mix).  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/spe cific_plans.pdf

https://leginfo.legislature.ca .gov/faces/codes_displaySectio n.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 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:  "The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into 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.  The residents voted it down, and yet it is being studied in the Specific Plan EIR?  Why spend the money when we know it will not happen?  

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.

Best regards,

KM