Catherine - 2014 EIR Was Based on 2011 Traffic Data

The following was sent to Cupertino City Council and City Manager in April 2017.

I have been reviewing the traffic EIR for the General Plan Amendment 2040 and have found some serious issues with it, first the data is too old and there is missing information.  I am now having to spend the time to visit the traffic engineer who did the study because your city actually doesn't appear to have a complete study.  This is pretty bad.

I wrote David Stillman PE to find what the 'rules' are for the traffic studies and was given this link which I have read through:  http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A0000001frgIIAQ

I am very upset to see our residents and the developer "shills" basically having arguments at city council meetings.  This is absurd and is causing strife.  

I think it would be in the city's best interest if a lawyer came forward and filed a suit against the city's EIR for the GPA to have the process stopped because the city itself is not willing to put the brakes on it.

Why would I say this?  Because errors in the traffic study would lead to wrong conclusions about what can be built.  Even if the report were error free, the city council approved traffic conditions which had serious unavoidable impacts, which is appalling.  The city council was not informed of any problems with the actual traffic study?  Am I supposed to hire a lawyer to sue the city because of the shoddy work and contrived outcome?  Is this the way our city works?

So now we have an atrocious battle going on based on a lousy traffic report done by a company that copied off of AC2s old work and was too lazy to even go do their own counts.  Vallco's traffic report didn't even have baseline counts.  It is a lie piled on another lie.

Please have the traffic study redone ASAP and preferably by Fehr + Peers or equivalent and keep in mind it is supposed to be a document that another engineer can follow without having to drive to their office to get missing information they are trying to (apparently) hide!

I want to hear a response as to what the city is going to do about this.  Wasting people's time and our money talking about Vallco without any idea what the traffic can actually accommodate is asking for a shouting match over nothing.  I do not like having my time wasted having to sort through lousy work and if the developer is that rich, have them pay for the best bullet proof traffic report we can get and get it done before wasting time chatting about Vallco.

Thank you,

C.M.

Oral Communications 4/4/2017:

Good evening city council.  

I have run across some traffic issues with regards to the General Plan Amendment Community Vision 2040 which were apparently never discussed or flagged.  I request that a new, city wide traffic study for the General Plan Amendment be performed as soon as possible and that the General Plan Amendment be revisited.

On March 27, 20I7 received a response email from Cupertino Senior Civil Engineer David Stillman that  the transportation studies are conducted according to the VTA’s TIA or Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines and that they do not have to be done by a California licensed traffic engineer.

While I was writing in regards to problems with the uncertified traffic study performed for the Sand Hill Property Company for the Vallco project, I also wanted to review the traffic portion of the General Plan Amendment 2040.

On December 4, 2014 the City certified the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and adopted “Community Vision 2040”

According to Chapter 6, “Existing Conditions” of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Data Collection for the traffic study “…should not use traffic volume data more than two years old.”

The General Plan Amendment EIR uses traffic data more than two years old at the time of certification.

The General Plan Amendment EIR was certified December 4, 2014.

The traffic portion of the EIR in section 4.13.4.5 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes states:

“Existing traffic volumes were obtained from previous traffic impact analyses and supplemented with new manual peak-hour turning movement counts.” 

And continues…

“For the 34 intersections also included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of the Apple Campus 2 project, the same traffic volumes were used from that study, which were collected in 2012”

With footnote 17, stating:  Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinhouse number 2011082055, June 2013, certified October 2013.

From the  Apple Campus 2 Transportation Impact Analysis we find on pages 3 and 4 that 

“Existing volumes obtained from counts and existing lane configurations, intersection controls and signal operations determined during field visits in May 2011…”

And on page 26 under “Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations” we find that “AM and PM peak-hour intersection turning movement counts were conducted primarily in May 2011.

If we turn to the actual counts made, they are indeed primarily done in May, 2011.

May 2011 is 3 years and 7 months prior to the Certification of the General Plan Amendment EIR, making the data too old.

Additionally, the CMP data used was from 2011, and that again is too old.

I respectfully request a full review of my claims and that the certification of the EIR be called into question.  

No further developments can be studied until this is resolved.

I realize there is a push for Vallco to be developed, however using data to “allow it” which is based on 2011 numbers was unacceptable for the 2014 EIR certification and is unacceptable now.  

Thank you.

Catherine Moore

(References:  http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A0000001frgIIAQ  See section 6 regarding age of traffic data

http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/195/4.13_TranspTraffic.pdf   see section 4.13.4.5

https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Appendix-B-Transportation-Impact-Analysis.pdfsee pages 3 and 4, 26, and data counts for the dates of Apple Campus 2 counts.)

Mistake in Community Vision 2040 - two different policies with the same number, by Xianwen

Xiaowen points out a mistake in Community Vision 2040 - two different policies with the same number LU-13.7.

--------------------------------------------
From: Xiaowen Wang
Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:02 AM
Subject: How many Policy LU-13.7 in Community Vision 2040
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, RebeccaT@cupertino.org, AartiS@cupertino.org

Dear City Staff,

I am reading the Community Vision 2040 and find this mistake. There are two policies that are labeled 13.7. Please see below screen shot. The link that I am reading is http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/439/CupGP_Ch3_LandUse_noblank_FINAL_12.04.2014.pdf.

 

 

​Please keep this for the public record of GPA hearing on May 19, 2015.

 

Thanks,

 

Xiaowen Wang

Cupertino residents
​

Rescind "Community Vision 2040" - It's Your Moral Obligation, by Xiaowen

Xiaowen asked the Council to rescind Resolution 14-211, which contains "Community Vision 2040."

"Community Vision 2040" removed a lot of policies, including job-housing balance and put in a lot of policies, including Priority Development Area. Both were never discussed during any "extensive" outreach meetings in the last 27 months.

Xiaowen pleaded "I understand that whatever you said before midnight Dec. 3, 2014 may not be legally binding, but as elected officials, you at least have the moral obligations to all the voters, do what your words mean."

------------------------------------------------------------
From: Xiaowen Wang
Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:46 AM
Subject: [Better Cupertino WG] Resolution 14-211 on Dec. 4, 2014
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, David Brandt davidb@cupertino.org

Dear City Councils,

After carefully comparing the current GPA Community Vision 2040 and the previous General Plan, I realized that this GPA is not an amendment but a completely rewrite. Hence I would ask you to rescind resolution 14-211 on Dec. 4, 2014 because this is not what you promised to do during this long meeting when everybody were still awake.

 

I was at the Dec. 3, 2014 City Council meeting together with hundreds of my fellow citizens. We all heard from councils that you were not going to make decisions on GPA on that meeting, but to postpone the decision to a later day in order to get more community inputs and also give the two new council members more time to understand the matter. Most of people left before midnight. I was there until 1am. Even before I left, the discussion was still about raise the height limit for a few housing element sites to satisfy the state mandate on housing element. When I left, I was under the impression that this was the last item on the agenda. 

 

However I was disappointed when I found out the complete rewrite of General Plan was actually approved on Dec. 4, 2014 with resolution 14-211. But still under the impression that this is just a placeholder and we are going to go through the all the issues later. With that in mind, I actively participated the workshop and city council meeting in hoping that we, the community and city councils are working together  for a better plan for our city. The recent staff report make me realize that most of part of GPA was already casted in stone. This is really not what the councils promised to the citizens at the Dec. 3/4 meeting. The promise before 1am was that only state mandated Housing Element would be discussed and changes to the general plan would be made per Housing Element requirement.

 

If you look at the current document, a lot of policies in the 2000 - 2020 General Plan were taken out as well as a lot of policies were put in. For example, in the 2000-2020 General Plan, job-housing balance is an important policy, however, this policy was taken out of the General Plan. Similarly, in the new Community Vision 2040, a lot of language (more than one page) is about the Priority Development Area. However, such deletions and assertions have nothing to do with the required Housing Element. Without any discussion on the council meeting, all these important changes just slipped through when you all agree to just discuss only part  related to Housing Element. Moreover, neither the deletion of job-housing balance nor assertion of PDA is discussed during the so called 27 month "extensive" community outreach. I wonder do you really think that this is an appropriate act for a good government?

 

I hereby urge you to consider rescind the resolution 14-211 and do what you promised to hundreds of citizens that day, i.e., only make relevant changes on General Plan to make it consistent with required Housing Element. I understand that whatever you said before midnight Dec. 3, 2014 may not be legally binding, but as elected officials, you at least have the moral obligations to all the voters, do what your words mean.

Thank you very much. 

 

Xiaowen Wang 

Cupertino residents

--