Authorizing EIR for Vallco Seems Premature by Eric

From: Eric Schaefer
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM
Subject: Public comment: City Council meeting 6/16/2015: Agenda item #10 "Approval of consultant services for environmental review for ... Vallco"
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org

Council members,

Authorizing EIR for Vallco seems premature.  
- There has been little or no public feedback re: Sand Hill's specific plan.
- There is currently confusion among the public (and the City?) regarding GP amendments that were passed in Dec. 2014.
- Spending money on a plan that has not been vetted gives the plan unwarranted legitimacy.
- Spending money on a plan that has not been vetted is a waste of money if the plan turns out to be a plan that is not to the liking of Cupertino.
 
Thank you for your consideration.

Eric Schaefer

Vallco Requires Open Discussion with Community and Neutral EIR by Phyllis

From: Dicksteinp
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR process
To: cityclerk@cupertino.org, citycouncil@cupertino.org, davidb@cupertino.org, CityAttorney@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org

Dear City Council members,

I would like to add something to the excellent presentations of my colleagues. The agenda item on the EIR should be deferred. It is premature.

1) To embark on an EIR is to assume that the Sand Hill "vision" is acceptable in its broad outlines and therefore all that needs to be worked out are the details. But that vision is precisely what is not acceptable to a large part of the community. Many members of the community would like Vallco to remain a retail/entertainment center, and almost no one wants to see a 2 million sq ft office park added to Wolfe Road. We have yet to see any city-sponsored working groups nor has there been an open discussion with community input on the vision itself, as recommended by the staff before actual work is undertaken on major projects. 

Furthermore, since we now have in effect an "opposition", they should be given an allotment of time similar to the developer's, in order to make a well-organized presentation on such an important matter. Condemning the opposition to disjointed three minute interventions is unfair.

Finally, an EIR should be done by a strictly neutral company not afraid to speak truth to power, not someone who promises to work hand-in-glove with the developer.

Phyllis Dickstein

Travigne Villas

Sample Letter to Postpone Vallco EIR, shortened by Fred

=================================================================

1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan to the 2005 General Plan.   Councils agreed this is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan.  Right now, the redline copy is still open for public comments until the deadline of July 31.   We shall not decide any plan until after July 31.  Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to start the VALLCO PROJECT.  We are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept in the new General Plan, it is impossible to have an EIR done correctly before this review period by July 31. 

2. The scope of the current EIR is not aligned with visions of most residents and does not have sufficient community inputs.   In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as

● 2 million square feet of office,

● 800 housing units,

● 600,000 square feet of retail,

which is purely based on the developer’s request.  It is not the vision of Cupertino residents!  There is no community outreach done in forming this current scope.   In fact, a lot residents urged Councils to keep Vallco as only a retail center, reported in the May 19 meeting .  Moreover, city’s own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer’s request is appropriate to keep the project financially viable.  Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope.

3. Furthermore, the above EIR scope is almost the same as the new EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is ● 2 million square feet of office, ● 600 housing units,● 600,000 square feet of retail.  But In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and have unavoidable impacts.   Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure.  With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on this or earlier EIR?  We must review the whole project concept of both EIRs.  We must have a solution of above problems for such a huge project at Vallco. 

4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected.  For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find.  I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process.  City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose.  

5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included in the EIR.  Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino, not only serving Cupertino but also the huge area in South San Jose valley. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges.   Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have more options for comparison.   Above all, we should further analyze the option of keeping Vallco mainly as a retail center.  With all the developments around Vallco, there may be opportunity to increase the existing retail square footage at Vallco.  All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate.  

 

In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet.   For the healthy growth of the city, we must first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco.   Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR.

We Should Not Start Vallco EIR, by Yu

Vallco should not be put on the agenda until there is a General Plan acceptable by the resudents and all Council members.
--------------------------------------------
From: Yu Ying
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Subject: We should not start Vallco EIR
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk cityclerk@cupertino.org

Dear Council members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to start EIR on Vallco with the current project scope.

Since the council meeting of 12/04, cupertino residents have been confused about what was city's strategy on Vallco development. The "specific plan" is actually a very vague term, and has been used for the past council meetings to bypass any discussions, and community inputs. 

Around May 19's council meeting, we, the residents, suddenly knew that there are indeed confusions on the GPA guidelines. In other words, current GPA is a re-write of the 2005 GP, and it has no community input at all yet it was PASSED on Dec 04!! There is a strong request from our residents that this GPA should be rescinded. And we know Councilman Barry and Councilman Darcy are supporting the rescind from the 05/19 council meeting. We also know the staff is preparing a redline copy that waits for community input by 07/31. 

Given the above status, our GPA is not yet acceptable by the residents and some council members. Then, Vallco, as covered by current legal 2005 GP, is a land for retail, NOT a land for housing and offices. Vallco, as being planed in the GPA, should not be put onto the agenda before this GPA is acceptable by residents and all council members. Vallco is in no position to be studied whether to be able to have 800 housing+2 million sqft office. We should not start Vallco EIR study. 

 

Please put this correspondence to the public record of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.

 

Thanks,

 

Yu (Cupertino Residents)

Scope of Vallco EIR Should Have Community Input, by Xiaowen

---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Xiaowen Wang
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Vallco EIR process
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear City Council members,

I am writing to express my concerns on the Vallco EIR process.

The agenda item 10 on 6/16, 2015 council meeting is about start negotiation and budget of an Vallco EIR. From what I read and the city planning process I followed so far, I have the following concerns.

 

1. The consultant selection process is not open. According to the staff report, SHP submit the request for EIR on June 4. Then within two weeks, a consultant is nailed down. It does not seem to have an open bidding process for this consultant. With the possible largest mixed use development in city's history, how can there is only one consultant firm be considered? Has the city send invite for other companies to bid? I strongly urge the council to direct the staff to have an open bidding process when we are ready to proceed with the Vallco Specific Plan. Cupertino citizens deserve a quality work.

 

2. The scope of EIR need to be defined carefully with enough community inputs. It seems the scope of this EIR is purely based on developer's request. This is not what community wants. The EIR's scope should be studied and defined more carefully. Most importantly, for a project with this much complexities, more options should be included and studied. It will not be a proper study with only one option in the EIR. I would urge councils to direct staff have a study session on the scope of EIR and invite public inputs in this study. 

 

Finally thank council members and city staff for your hard work and dedication.

 

Please add this correspondence to the public record of the City Council Meeting on June 16, 2015.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Xiaowen Wang

Sample Letter to postpone Vallco EIR, by Xiaowen

Please email the letter to citycouncil@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org, davidb@cupertino.org

Please make sure to include the bold part of the sample letter below. It would be better that you could rephrase it as your own word. For the rest of the letter, you could choose to whatever you deem appropriate for your letter.

====================================================================

Dear City Council members,

I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request.

1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so that we can have a better plan for Cupertino’s future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards, we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead to a more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco.

        

Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city’s planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan, it is impossible to have a EIR done correctly.

2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as

• 2 million square feet of office
• 800 housing units
• 600,000 square feet of retail

Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer’s request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city’s own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer’s request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope.

3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is

• 2 million square feet of office
• 600 housing units
• 600,000 square feet of retail

In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR?  Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring?

.

4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating  greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose.

5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate.

In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope.

Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.

Sincerely yours,

 

XXX

Concerns on EIR Agreement for Vallco by Randy

Randy raised many concerns regarding various aspsects of the EIR agreement for Vallco.

----------------------------
Public Comments for Agenda Item 10m June 16, 2015 Cupertino Council Meeting, by Randy Shingai

Agenda Item 10 is a request for the Council to approve an agreement with David J.
Powers and Associates, Inc. for the preparation of an EIR for a "proposed Vallco
Specific Plan Redevelopment Project." There are some disconcerting issues with the
timeline for this item.

Dates of Estimates and “Approval” by Sand Hill Properties
Attachment A of the Staff Report is a "Scope of Work and Cost Estimate" from David J.
Powers is dated June 9, 2015.
Attachment B of its Staff Report is a letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated
June 5, 2015. The following was taken from this letter:
"We have received the contract amount and staff reimbursement amount from you
and will be submitting the necessary funds to the City to fully cover the cost of
the contract being approved, including commencing this initial administrative and
preparatory work."

The letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated 4 days before the proposal from
David J. Powers. It seems unusual that an entity supposedly being overseen was
advised of contract particulars in advance of the actual proposal from the consultant. A
reasonable person would infer that Sand Hill Properties had decision making power
over the contract with David J. Powers. One could characterize the letter from Sand Hill
Property Company as its formal and explicit approval of the consulting contract that the
City Council is now being asked to approve.

I would like City Staff to explain what the common practice is with respect to the
interactions between City Staff, an entity being overseen and the producer of EIRs and
other supposedly impartial reviews.

Work Completed Prior to Approval by Council
David J. Powers will enlist the services of another consultant, Fehr & Peers, to conduct
the traffic evaluation. Appendix B in the David J. Powers proposal was prepared Fehr &
Peers, the traffic subcontractor. Under "Task 2 - Data Collection" in the Fehr & Peers
report is the following:

"We have already collected most necessary intersection count data under a separate
contract directly with the City, with the exception of the following five locations:
22. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Torre Avenue-Vista Drive
24. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Portal Avenue
25. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Perimeter Road
32. Miller Avenue/Calle De Barcelona
33. Miller Avenue/Phil Lane
  

As part of this task, we will collect existing AM (7:00 to 10:00 AM) and PM (4:00 to 7:00
PM) peak period intersection counts (including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular turning
movement volumes) prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015) when many area schools
begin to have irregular schedules due to upcoming summer breaks.."

Fehr and Peers performed data collection work prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015).
I assume there was some sort of agreement, tacit or otherwise, between the City and
David J. Powers / Fehr & Peers to pay for work performed in advance of an actual
agreement between the City and David J. Powers.

If it is considered normal and proper practice for a contractor to perform work for the
City in advance of approval by the City Council, then the Council City Council should
affirm the practice in its deliberation of this consent item.

'However, I would suggest that any work performed by a contractor prior to the approval
of an agreement by the City Council should not be billable nor should the City accept
that work. To do otherwise invites abuse by City employees, because as the saying
goes, “It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.”

Work Already Paid for by the City

The Fehr & Peers estimate references work that the City has already paid for. Since the
City has paid for work that can be reused to complete the Sand Hill Property EIR,
shouldn’t Sand Hill Property be required to share the cost of that work with the City?

Thank you,

Randy Shingai