Jon - Comments For Sand Hills Vallco Specific Plan

From: Jon
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:32 AM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org; CityClerk@cupertino.org
Subject: Re: Comments For Sand Hills Vallco Specific Plan

Cupertino Council,

First, as a resident of Cupertino, I am absolutely against the massive Vallco Specific Plan.  This overwhelming proposal clearly goes against our Municipal Code section 19.04.020 which says "to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population".  How can three complete levels of underground parking, and 14 story buildings on top, not be considered "overcrowding of land" in Cupertino, this is not San Francisco.  How can 3000 apartments on top of 2M ft2 of office buildings not be considered "undue concentration of population" in Cupertino, this is not San Francisco?

Well, the SH VSP clearly violates the Cupertino Municipal Code and is clearly not what I want.  

But is it what our residents want?  Do you remember Measure D?  The residents voted down Measure D.  

And I have knocked on hundreds of doors and talked to hundreds of residents, totally at random, and the almost unanimous answer is they also do not want the Massive Vallco Specific Plan Proposal, they do want Sensible Growth.

So it is then your job, the elected city council, to represent the will of the people and put an end to this continuing developer attack.  Again, the residents voted down Measure D.  So tell Sand Hill that all projects proposed in Cupertino must meet the General Plan, and be consistent with the building density and scale of our community. 

As our elected officials, your responsibility is to represent the residents of Cupertino first, not the developers, and clearly not the people from other cities showing up at our council meetings and making statements "you must do this".

You are elected to represent the residents of Cupertino!  That is Democracy!

Jon Willey

Cupertino Resident

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

Muni - Vote against Vallco Specific Plan on Sept 18, 2018.

From: Munisekar 

Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Vallco Specific Plan on Sept 18, 2018.
To: <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>

Hello Council member Ms.Savita Vaidhyanathan,

My name is Muni Madhdhipatla and I am a Cupertino resident. I have been very concerned about the way our city council has been handling Vallco shopping mall issue. You are one of the 5 council members and hence my appeal to you.

Vallco is a regional shopping mall zoned for retail only and should not have been allocated with 2 mil SFT office space and unlimited heights in Dec 2014 General Plan amendment. Nevertheless, it was done late night of Dec 5, 2014 despite massive protest from the residents. I understand it was only one month on the job for you at that time.

In 2016, the developer tried to maximize profitability by taking advantage of the allocations by proposing 2 mil SFT of office space and 900 units of apartments and measly 16% of the build out for shopping. Basically, Vallco went from 100% shopping mall to only 16% shopping. I don't need to remind you that the residents rejected their plan in 2016 elections by voting down Measure D.

It is my understanding that Dec 2014 GPA allocations were conditional upon the developer having an approved plan for Vallco by May 2018. That means, those allocations should have expired automatically after May 2018; to make things clear, the city council could have voted to remove those allocations in early June 2018. Given the residents repeated concern about traffic congestions and lack of shopping experience in Cupertino as evidenced in city Godbe surveys, you had an opportunity to revert this space to original zoning of shopping; but failed to do so.

Cupertino is a suburban community without any mass transit capability; highway 280 is the 3^rd worst congested highway in the bay area. With the addition of 2.8 mil SFT Apple Campus II, roughly 10,000 more daytime workers are likely to enter and exit Wolfe exit from 280. With the latest Vallco proposal of 2400 to 2900 housing units and 1.8 mil SFT office space, we are likely to see additional 9000 daytime office workers and 5000 residents overloading that same exit. Our freeways and backroads cannot handle that load.

As a mayor in 2017, you sent a letter to San Jose city [attached here] on our behalf of residents opposing their plan to build 180 feet tall buildings along Stevens Creek Blvd adjacent to Cupertino. Now, our city will be considering approving seven towers of 22 story tall buildings [230 to 240 feet height] at Vallco. We don't want to be getting a letter from San Jose reminding our city's double standards. BTW, even the cities like Sunnyvale with CalTrain are not building such tall buildings in residential areas.

Except for Regnart and Blue Hills elementary schools on west side, all other schools are overflowing with kids; 252 portable class rooms across 25 CUSD schools are a proof that we have overcrowding of our schools [attached doc]. BTW, these portables are built at the cost of open playing space for the kids. Adding 2400 to 2900 housing units at Vallco will exacerbate this problem by adding more than school going 800 kids; I arrived at this number based on 0.32 kid per household from CUSD demographer.

Moreover, adding 1.8 mil SFT office space will create housing to office imbalance in our city. As per ABAG guidelines, we are supposed to build a housing unit for every 1.4 jobs created. With 9000 jobs created out of that office space, we will be forced to build 6500 units of new housing. Cupertino does not have infrastructure to handle such housing and office growth. Also, please take into consideration the water shortage and overloading of sewage pipelines.

As an elected representative of residents, I request you to vote against the most egregious plan being presented by the developer for Vallco on Sept 18, 2018. I understand they are trying to maximize profitability; but it is your job as our representative to safeguard the interests of residents. 

I am writing to you as you will be one of the key votes on this matter. I am writing to you so that my silence is not interpreted as supporting of Vallco Specific Plan. I hope common sense prevails.

Thank you.

Muni Madhdhipatla

Cupertino Resident.

Liang - Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on civic services should be based on real data

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on civic services should be based on real data
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

I have sent the enclose EIR comments for the NOP of Vallco project.

However, none of the issues I raised were studied. The impact on civic services, like police, firefighter, libraries etc. are still based on off-record phone communication.

Now the proposed Vallco Specific Plan development will be even denser Measure D.

Please at least provide some real data on the impact for police, emergency services and firefighter services, especially for high-rise buildings of 14 stories tall.

It's a matter of life and death when you do not provide solid data to back up your claim.

Below is a recent report where Police and Firefighters say they can't get through traffic

Rapid Growth in Sunnyvale Spurs Concerns in Public Safety

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Rapid-Growth-in-Sunnyvale-Spurs-Concerns-in-Public-Safety-492660451.html

Police officers and firefighters in Sunnyvale are going public with their concerns that the city is allowing business to boom without enough consideration for public safety.

On Thursday, the public safety officers union sent a letter to City Council members formally requesting they take a closer look at the Sunnyvale's looming development plans, especially the proposed massive Google campus.

It's yet another sign that Sunnyvale is losing its small-town atmosphere to Silicon Valley growth.

For the city's public safety officers, who alternate between being cops and firefighters, it's becoming more than they can handle

In one national survey, Sunnyvale has been hailed as the country's safest city for the past three years. It's probably one reason Google has applied to build massive projects there, including a reported 1 million square foot campus as well as another 400,000 square foot project, adding thousands of new employees.

Google is also asking the city to consider building new high density housing.

The president of Sunnyvale's Public Safety Officers Association, made up of 200 cops, firefighters and dispatchers, is worried.

"I'm sure they're kind of star struck with some of these big companies wanting to come to the city to do business, which we're all for," union President Frank Bellucci said. "But we just want to make sure that type of growth is done wisely."

So, the union sent the letter to City Council members, formally requesting impacts to public safety be specifically analyzed. The letter points out the city last year saw a 13-year high in some major crimes, including rape, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny and vehicle thefts.

"We are also seeing huge problems with traffic in our city,' Bellucci said. "That will add response time to our being able to get to you when you call 911, and it's also causing some problems with some of our pedestrian collisions that are occurring in the city.

A union consultant and adviser said the focus is on protecting public safety but added litigation has not been ruled out.

I urge you to specifically analyze the impact on public safety, response time, ambulance trip delays with real numbers for both residents at Vallco site and residents in surrounding areas who will be impacted by the added traffic volume.

Thank you.

Liang

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> wrote:

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

The impact for civic services should be based on real data, not personal communications that cannot be verified or quantified, such as done for the EIR for 2014 GPA.

Specifically, the emergency response time for ambulance and fire station should be quantified.

How the response time has changed in the pas 4 years as the traffic is getting worse? How the response time will become with increased residential or working population?

What's the response time of other cities with denser population for comparison?

What's their investment in police forces per capita? Would we get reduced police services as the population increase?

(I have heard of comments that San Jose police department doesn't have resource to come to schools to give students safety instructions as in Cupertino schools because San Jose police has to deal with a lot more incidents due to their population density.)

The 2005 General Plan used to have noise level data. Please use quantitative analysis for noise and pollution.

Please refer to the enclosed email for more details.

Thank you.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>Date: Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:22 AM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on civic services should be based on real data
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment for Vallco EIR

Please study the impacts on civic services, such as library, police, fire station, medical emergency services based on real data.

Please study the impact on medical services, emergency and otherwise. The non-resident population would increase the demand for medical services since medical offices are open mostly only during working hours.

Even though the city doesn't provide any service for ambulances, the response time of an ambulance often means life or death even by just one second. Please study the response time of emergency vehicles to various points in Cupertino since traffic congestion could delay an emergecy vehicle to reach a residence on the other side of the town.

Please study not only facility and personnel needs, but also the impact on level of service. Especially, the response time for medical, police, fire emergencies. And the response time during peak hours in average and also worse case scenarios. Any delay in response time could mean life or death for both the resident and non-resident population. Please study the realistic impact supported by real data.

Please please study the impacts of non-resident population on these civic services since the employees do spend more than 8 hours a way in Cupertino and they need the parks and recreation services, police, fire and medical services as any other resident.

Please include cummulative impact, including ongoing projects like Apple Campus 2 and Main Street, and also proposed projects, like Marina, Hamptons, Oaks.

Please provide real data and statistics to support your claim or conclusion, instead of any undocumented personal communication, as it has been done for the EIR of GPA.

If any personal communication is documented through email, it should be provided in the appendix for reference.

e.g. Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Derek Wolfgram, Deputy County Librarian for Community Libraries, April 4, 2014.)
e.g. Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.

e.g. Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014

Please do not make assumption that employees generated do not add any impact without providing sufficient data to back it up, such as the following:

e.g. EIR of GPA states: "Although the proposed Project would result in an increase in employees throughout Cupertino as well, only residents within Santa Clara County can apply for a library card; therefore, the following analysis considers expected population increases, and not employment generation as a result of implementation of the proposed Project."

Most of the employees in Cupertino are probably Santa Clara County residents also. If the EIR would claim that most residents are NOT Santa Clara County residents, statistics should be given to support that claim. In fact, even non-resident of Santa Clara County can hold a library card, according to an official from Santa Clara County Library:

"All public libraries in Santa Clara County allow free reciprocal borrowing regardless of address.  Currently 45,312 non-resident have a library card from our system.  This is 18% of our total library cards.

In the EIR for GPA, the impact level for fire station and police are also derived without any data. With 30% increase in residence population and 50% increase in non-residence employee population, the EIR concludes that there will be no additional staffing needs for fire station or police. But the conclusions were only based on "personal communication" with no document and no data to support it.

For example, based on personal communications, the EIR concludes that there is no need to expansion for police for 30% increase in residence population and 50% increase in non-residence employee population.

e.g. "However, the West Valley Patrol Division has confirmed that future development

under the General Plan would not result in the need for expansion or addition of facilities." (Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.)

If there is no need to expand, a written letter should be provided so that whoever makes the statement would be responsible for the claim. And attempt should be made to estimate the realistic impact of population increase and to explain using data why there will be no significant impact.

Thank you.

Liang Chao

Liang - Please Fix Vallco Website to Clearly State What's Going to be on Sept. 18 Council Agenda

From: Liang-Fang Chao 

Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 5:56 PM
Subject: Please Fix Vallco Website to Clearly State What's Going to be on Sept. 18 Council Agenda
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>, <manager@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear City Manager,

Curiously enough, there is not one web page which clearly states what configurations will the City Council consider. The public might get the impression that the City is trying to hide the important numbers from the public, such as the total of office space, number of housing units, the total building height, etc.

There is a big contrast between the web pages for Westport Oaks and Vallco.

• " a redevelopment proposal for the existing 71,254 square foot Oaks Shopping Center " - The web page for Westport clearly states that it will replace the Oaks Shopping Center. Why not the Vallco page? What are you trying to hide?
• " 204 housing units, 20,000 square feet of retail space, and 31,087 square feet of common open space on an 8-acre parcel. " - The web page for Westport clearly states that the parameters in retail space, housing units and acreage of the site and even common open space. Why not the Vallco page? What are you trying to hide?

https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/westport-cupertino

The Westport Cupertino development is a redevelopment proposal for the existing 71,254 square foot Oaks Shopping Center, located on an approximately 8 acre site.  The proposed project is described as follows:

1. Development Permit  (DP-2018-05) application and environmental analysis (EA-2018-04) to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 204 housing units, 20,000 square feet of retail space, and 31,087 square feet of common open space on an 8-acre parcel.

I cannot even find a succinct description of the configurations proposed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 in the Staff Report for the Sept. 4 Planning Commission meeting. Is that by design? What are you trying to hide?

I hope that the perception of deception could be avoided by clearly stating what exactly the City Council will approve. And the history of the project should also be included as the City Staff has always done so well in the past.

Please include the facts that:

• Vallco Shopping Mall was still zoned Regional Shopping and Commercial General TODAY.
• Sand Hill purchased the property in November while it was still zoned for Regional Shopping and Commercial General.
• The Council approved an amendment of 2 million sqft office space and 389 units and up to 1.2 million sqft retail space and no height limit, pending on the Vallco Specific Plan.
• Measure D proposal has 800 housing units, 2 million sqft office space and 600,000 sqft retail space and it was rejected by the voters.
• SB 35 application includes 2 million sqft office space and 2400 housing units. Please explain why SB 35 is considered compliant to the General Plan when the limit is supposed to be 389 units and not the entire 50 acres have to get zoned to have residential use.
• Please clearly state what's in Tier 1 and what's in Tier 2. And specifically what's the maximum total building height.

Please be transparent when communicating with the residents on the largest project in the history of Cupertino.

And please provide justification on why there is a rush to approve the Vallco Specific Plan in one meeting, in case you do, while other cities often take several meetings to deliberate and consider different portions of a project.

Please also provide ample documentation on how the Performing Art Center and the City Hall entered into the supposedly community-driven plan, while other community requests, like ample ground-level parkland and open space and ample retail space for shopping, entertainment, etc. got dropped.

It appears that the final decisions on the public amenities have been done completely behind closed doors and not even discussed in any Council meeting. You have to provide ample documentation and justification for these decisions made behind closed doors if you want to claim this plan as "community-driven".

BTW, the update for the Sept. 4 Planning Commission meeting has a lot of details on which resolutions got approved. But amazingly it managed to avoid the important parameters that people are interested to know, namely size of office space, # housing units, size of retail space, building height, etc.

Please send an email update to all the residents who have signed up with the important parameters for Tier 1 and Tier 2 under consideration. These residents took the time to participate and you owe them an update that won't require them to dig through thousands of pages of documents in order to find out what exactly is being considered.

Thank you.

Looking forward to a clear Vallco web page and Staff Report and email update.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

Danessa - Please Don't Hastily Move Vallco Forward

To Cupertino City Council

Hello All,

I’ve spent months talking to residents about Vallco and they are not happy with any of the proposed plans and are just waiting to see what finally lands on the table before they react. I noticed that the developer’s latest letter to the public left out the total number of housing units or amount of office at Vallco which seems totally misleading. We are being sold pretty pictures of a giant green roof that isn’t going to happen and not the giant office park that hides underneath. We will be adding over 30% of our City’s population in less than a tenth of a square mile! 

I never heard any residents asking for the huge office allocation or15-story towers looking down in their yards. The reduction to 6 acres of parkland which Include a pedestrian bridge and storefront plaza paving as parkland is ludicrous. That side of town only has 16% of the necessary parkland. It’s just wrong! Who asked for any of that in the Charettes? Reed Moulds went on about all of the precious housing that they will build while ignoring that the number of office workers created that will be almost double and thus inviting the state to step in and take control of our City’s future planning. Is that really what you want to see? And who’s going to occupy our city’s entire 30-year office allocation? I hope it’s not more Apple like the 90% of it that we got at Main Street. That’s certainly a poorly balanced portfolio. And the glorious Performing Arts Center? Where are we going to get the money to finish the completed interiors and fixtures of the City Hall or Performing Arts Center? Flint Center has a hard enough time booking or filling their center, and Mountain View and downtown San Jose have the contracts for California Theatre, Children’s Theatre, The Opera, Symphony and more. As someone who does attend these events, I rarely if ever run into Cupertino residents and the tickets often start at $100. I would advise that you research this whole PAC issue further and make sure that it isn’t a setup for a failed venue the SHP will want to convert into more office later. 

At Tuesdays Planning Meeting you mentioned that all the small expensive units at Vallco would be great for young well-paid engineers, but might I ask where they are going to go when they get married and have children? Multiple studies show that 75% of those millennials eventually want to have single family homes like they were raised in. So is Vallco just to become a revolving door community? And 20% BMR is too low for the many homeless families who have an important place in our community. If we get a Costco I’d like to see the tax money be dog-eared for BMR housing property.

The insufficient and paid parking at Vallco has neighbors very alarmed that people will park on their streets, not to mention that the traffic will be so bad that they can’t get out of their neighborhoods onto Steven’s Creek, Blaney. Tantau or Miller. It will also kill the retail which is what SHP wants. I would not be at all be surprised to see residents fight back as they see this traffic and parking overflow as an enormous threat to their quality of life and their home values. 

Where are the future plans and sources of funding for the transportation fixes? Good luck getting people out of thier cars. More magical thinking. The rest of the valley is going to view us as a giant roadblock in the middle of the already crowded 280. The plans are too tall, too dense, and we can’t undue it when the traffic becomes unbearable. Vallco will have 33% of our population in about a tenth of a square mile. How about the 30% water cutbacks coming our way? What about earthquake or fire evacuation? I was given the answer that the buildings would be earthquake safe, but how are you going to get all of those panicked people out of the area? Do you want to be responsible? 

In the Developer’s Agreement Sand Hill mentioned the imposition of monetary penalties against the city if the community challenges their project. As a resident I certainly don’t appreciate it. So accordingly the developer can propose something unpalatable and then withdraw their monetary public and school concessions if anyone objects whether it’s residents, Sierra Club, a housing group, or the YIMBYs?  How can you all sit there and watch SHP bully you like that? You know that residents will react. In just a few hours on Sunday I had about 65 residents approach our table to ask what legal action residents could take. They said that they gave up writing-in or coming to Council Meetings because our Council doesn’t listen and the Charettes were a joke. That’s horrible! 

You had better comb that DA for threats like the following before you sign anything. They are treating all of you like three-year-old children. 

“The City is to automatically return about $10 million of the transportation benefit funds to us if this Specific Plan, or any of the future approvals required under it, meets with the same kind of litigation or ballot box challenge we’ve seen in Cupertino the last few years.”

“$9 Million for CUSD: $9 Million for FHUSD unless the community takes steps to interfere with the approval process.” See PDF 4 of DA:

“Vallco would pay $11 million to City to fund work in connection with the Wolfe Road/I-280 and the Junipero Serra Bike/Pedestrian Trail. This would decrease to $5.5 million if there is a challenge to the Project.

Vallco would fund up to $1 Million for a 1-year pilot shuttle program and, if successful $750,000 thereafter for 9 years, which would decrease if there is a challenge to the Project.”

PLEASE don’t be so hasty to move Vallco forward that you are losing the forest through the trees, don’t let the developer bully you like you are spineless cowards, and remember that the people who you are supposed to represent will be stuck with this mess of an office park forever and it will be YOUR legacy. I think of many of you as my friends, and I care deeply about the future of this city.

Thank you for your consideration. Please enter this into the city records. 

Most sincerely,

Danessa T

KM - No Phase II ESA - Oppose the Vallco GPA and Final EIR, Investigate USTs

From: KM
Date: September 3, 2018 at 6:19:33 PM PDT
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, Piu Ghosh <piuG@cupertino.org>, "City Attorney's Office" <cityattorney@cupertino.org>, gpaulsen@cupertino.org, atakahashi@cupertino.org, dfung@cupertino.org, jliu@cupertino.org, dsun@cupertino.org
Cc: "Esq. Bern Steves"
Subject: No Phase II ESA - Oppose the Vallco GPA and Final EIR, Investigate USTs

Greetings,

First, the obvious conclusion from the Environmental Review Committee meeting Friday, is that Vallco is not compliant with SB35 due to the environmental problems on the site. 

During the ERC Meeting, the consultant demonstrated knowledge of various "Recognized Environmental Concerns" such as Underground Storage Tanks at Vallco and stated that she 'thought there had been a couple of Phase II Environmental Site Assessments' done at Vallco.  I have already requested that the city provide me with these alleged documents, but I do not believe you will find any because of how the previous Phase I ESAs were conducted (extremely limited records search and site recon) and if a Phase II ESA was ever performed, it has not been publicly disclosed, ever and was not included in any Vallco EIR documentation or appendices.  

See ERC Meeting consultant in Youtube recording at 1:21:59 https://youtu.be/1yPBDr6wYWY  

Finding Recognized Environmental Concerns is one of the prime reasons a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is performed to assist in all sorts of decision-making, especially decisions regarding people's health.  The EIR consultant could only guess at what was on the site, and the EIR was not complete in their review of documentation at the SCCFD missing PCE use, for example, which is dry cleaning fluid.  The city is failing to protect the residents and failing to provide full disclosure to the public and anyone who may be financing the project or investing in it.  

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/aai_factsheet_lender_liability_epa_560_f_17_192_508.pdf  

The city is in such a hurry to force this project onto the residents that you refuse to inform and protect us.  

A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment will take a brief amount of time, and it may indicate that onsite air monitors during construction are necessary and extra precautionary steps are needed.  That is the right way to take care of people.

The previous Phase I ESAs made claims that there either were no records at the SCCFD or did not even go to look.  There were NO Phase II ESAs presented to the city by the Vallco owner, the Vallco and Hyatt House owners did not fill out Cornerstone Earth Group's environmental questionnaire. 

In order to look at the Fire Department records you have to fill out a public records request and go to the Los Gatos Office where they give you a quick tutorial on how to look up the records.  I did this with some assistants over three visits and 8 hours.  I brought in the stack of records to the public comment period for the Amended EIR August 7.  Cornerstone Earth Group could very easily link their PDFs of these documents. 

The City, City Manager, and City Attorney, are now on the hook for the Underground Storage Tank issue along with the developer because this is your jurisdiction and your documentation would have all hazardous materials sites within the city.  Sears apparently was allowed by the city to not be properly closed three years ago and the city did not do anything about that while the site groundwater drains into the storm drain system and the photograph of one of the 'alleged' USTs 'allegedly' been at the location since 1969 so it has had a good long time to rot while it sits 'allegedly' 2 feet from a storm drain inlet.  How many more years do you plan to allow this to go on?  The city must report this and have it cleaned up.  Vallco could sit another 10 years before the developer does anything.  

The CA Gov. Code statute for Underground Storage Tanks is thus:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/regulatory/docs/hs6_7.pdf 

  25299. Violations; Civil and Criminal Penalties 

(a) Any operator of an underground tank system shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) or more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each underground storage tank for each day of violation for any of the following violations: 

(1) Operating an underground tank system which has not been issued a permit, in violation of this chapter.

(2) Violation of any of the applicable requirements of the permit issued for the operation of the underground tank system. 

(3) Failure to maintain records, as required by this chapter. 

(4) Failure to report an unauthorized release, as required by Sections 25294 and 25295. 

(5) Failure to properly close an underground tank system, as required by Section 25298. 

(6) Violation of any applicable requirement of this chapter or any regulation adopted by the board pursuant to Section 25299.3. 

(7) Failure to permit inspection or to perform any monitoring, testing, or reporting required pursuant to Section 25288 or 25289. 

(8) Making any false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report, or other document submitted or required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter. 

(9) Tampering with or otherwise disabling automatic leak detection devices or alarms. 

(b) Any owner of an underground tank system shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) or more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per day for each underground storage tank, for each day of violation, for any of the following violations: 

(1) Failure to obtain a permit as specified by this chapter. 

(2) Failure to repair or upgrade an underground tank system in accordance with this chapter. 

(3) Abandonment or improper closure of any underground tank system subject to this chapter. (4) Violation of any applicable requirement of the permit issued for operation of the underground tank system. CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH & SAFETY CODES 25280 – 25299.8 54 (5) Violation of any applicable requirement of this chapter or any regulation adopted by the board pursuant to Section 25299.3. 

(6) Failure to permit inspection or to perform any monitoring, testing, or reporting required pursuant to Section 25288 or 25289. 

(7) Making any false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report, or other document submitted or required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter. 

(c) Any person who intentionally fails to notify the board or the local agency when required to do so by this chapter or who submits false information in a permit application, amendment, or renewal, pursuant to Section 25286, is liable for a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each underground storage tank for which notification is not given or false information is submitted. 

(d) 

(1) Any person who violates any corrective action requirement established by, or issued pursuant to, Section 25296.10 is liable for a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each underground storage tank for each day of violation. 

(2) A civil penalty under this subdivision may be imposed in a civil action under this chapter, or may be administratively imposed by the board or a regional board pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 13323) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of the Water Code. 

(e) Any person who violates Section 25292.3 is liable for a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each underground storage tank for each day of violation. 

(f) 

(1) Any person who falsifies any monitoring records required by this chapter, or knowingly fails to report an unauthorized release, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 

(2) Any person who intentionally disables or tampers with an automatic leak detection system in a manner that would prevent the automatic leak detection system from detecting a leak or alerting the owner or operator of the leak, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. 

(g) In determining both the civil and criminal penalties imposed pursuant to this section, the board, a regional board or the court, as the case may be, shall consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of harm or potential harm caused by the violation, the nature of the violation and the period of time over which it occurred, the frequency of past violations, and the corrective action, if any, taken by the person who holds the permit. 

(h) 

(1) Each civil penalty or criminal fine imposed pursuant to this section for any separate violation shall be separate, and in addition to, any other civil penalty or criminal fine imposed pursuant to this section or any other provision of law, except that no civil penalty shall be recovered under subdivision 

(d) for violations for which a civil penalty is recovered pursuant to Section 13268 or 13350 of the Water Code. The penalty or fine shall be paid to the unified program agency, the participating agency, or the state, whichever is represented by the office of the city attorney, district attorney, or Attorney General bringing the action. 

(2) Any penalties or fines paid to a uniform program agency or a participating agency pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deposited into a special account and shall be expended only to fund the activities of the unified program agency or participating agency in enforcing this chapter within that jurisdiction pursuant, to the uniform program specified in Chapter 6.11 (commencing with Section 25404). 

(3) All penalties or fines collected by the board or a regional board or collected on behalf of the board or a regional board by the Attorney General shall be deposited in the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account in the State Water Quality Control Fund, and are available for expenditure by the board, upon appropriation, pursuant to Section 13441 of the Water Code. (i) Paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) does not prohibit the owner or operator of an underground storage tank, or his or her designee, from maintaining, repairing, or replacing automatic leak detection devices or alarms associated with that tank.    

Additionally, the air quality impacts are terrible at Vallco, both during construction and when operational.  Air doesn't have borders.

Lastly, no study was ever conducted to indicate the safety of putting a 30 acre lid over streets next to a 200,000 vehicle per day freeway which has a potential added freeway cap being looked at.  That is completely irresponsible.  

I respectfully request that the USTs be investigated at Vallco.  

I request that the EIR and all associated Development Agreement and General Plan Amendment documents NOT be approved for submittal to the City Council.  

I believe the Vallco GPA requested is so far out of alignment, and not in accordance with the city legislated General Plan Authorization Process, or with the actual General Plan policies (such as noise, air quality) that an entire new General Plan with a new city-wide EIR needs to be performed.  

Sincerely,

KM