Muni - OAKs aka Westport Project GPA

From: Muni
Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:51 PM
Subject: OAKs aka Westport Project GPA.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor and City Council,

As a vested resident of this city and community with desire to spend rest of my life here, I respectfully request that you vote against OAKs/Westport project GPA request on August 1st. 

I am in favor of approving the other 2 GPA requests as they both are requesting Hotel allocations within the city and they are not trying to trample over our GP on heights and density. It makes sense to accommodate business visitors to Cupertino offices within the city and gain tax revenues.

On the other hand, OAKs/Westport developer is playing hardball with our city and we should not be caving in for their hardball tactics. Here are the reasons why their GPA request should be denied.

1. Their Plan 2 is almost identical to the plan you voted down in 2016 with 4-1 verdict against it.

2. Their Plan 1 adds too many residences to an area that is already congested; moreover, these kids will go into Garden Gate elementary that has 50% classrooms as portables.

3. Adding any office allocation there further aggravates housing balance in Cupertino. We need to stop this vicious cycle of imbalance as we are maxed out on what Cupertino can take.

4. Traffic at that exit is at dangerous levels. There is no alternate public transport option.

5. The developer could not get enough signatures to put their request on ballot measure.

If they are honest about developing that property, they need to bring forward a plan that is within GP; not exceed 45 feet heigh limit, meet setback requirements and not exceed 200 housing units allowable within current GP. If they refuse to honor the GP and Muni code, then you should show your power by voting down their request. This is not a game of chicken to see who blinks first; this is about future of our city; we could be causing irreparable damage to our city by approving their request. 

Alternately, you could consider buying out OAKs property and put it to city use like we did 30 years ago with Cupertino Sports Center property. That would be a perfect solution given that it is located right next to Cupertino Sports Center, Memorial Park and Cupertino Senior Center.

The fact that the developer could not get signatures to support their project shows where residents stand on this project. You are representing the residents who elected you; I hope you listen to the voices of residents. I would hate to see this become another Vallco like contentious issue. I believe Cupertino history is filled with residents standing up for what they believe in and defeating any incursions through referendums. I would hate to see city resources wasted on such efforts.

Please listen to your audience and serve them in good faith.

Thanks

Muni 

Cupertino Resident.

Suzanne - Cupertino Should Purchase Oaks Shopping Center Site

From Suzanne:

Date: Wednesday July 26, 2017

Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang;

I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals ignore our General Plan, and would increase the already terrible traffic congestion in this area.

I would like to submit an idea that would be a true enhancement to Cupertino. I respectfully ask our City Council to consider the idea of issuing a Bond for the City to buy the Oaks property and add it to Memorial Park. Something similar was done when the City purchased the property where the Cupertino Sports Club is located. A friend, who lived behind that property at that time, told me a hotel was proposed to be built there. The citizens of Cupertino objected, and the City issued a Bond to build the Sports Center.

I have spoken to many friends and neighbors about having The Oaks become an extension of Memorial Park, and there is much enthusiasm for this idea. Cupertino could use more park and open space, and this is great opportunity to add the 8 acres of The Oaks to make Memorial Park a larger recreation area. The Oaks location would be a good place for an amphitheater for festivals and events, with adequate parking, which is not available near the current amphitheater. There would be space for an Arts and Crafts building, perhaps a small theater, more opportunities for children's activities, and much more. Cupertino could then have a place similar to Sunnyvale's Community Center. The existing Memorial Park could be planted with more trees, walking paths, and shaded areas for people to sit and enjoy the outdoors.

I feel we should keep as much greenery and recreation opportunities as possible in our City. We don't have many parks, and if this land becomes high density, it will never become green again. This idea could be a place for everyone to enjoy, and a star in Cupertino's crown.

Thank you for considering what many of us in Cupertino would like to see in our City – a place of serenity and for community activities instead of more density and traffic problems.

Liang (to SJ CC) - Traffic Congestion Coming from 15-story Buildings on Stevens Creek Blvd.

From: Liang Chao
Date: Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Traffic Congestion Coming from 15-story Buildings on Stevens Creek Blvd.
To: "Jones, Chappie" <chappie.jones@sanjoseca.gov>, mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom1@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom2@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom3@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom4@sanjoseca.gov, Planningcom5@sanjoseca.gov, "Cc: Pressman, Christina" <Christina.Pressman@sanjoseca.gov>, "Ferguson, Jerad" <Jerad.Ferguson@sanjoseca.gov>, "Xavier, Lesley" <lesley.xavier@sanjoseca.gov>, "Brilliot, Michael" <Michael.Brilliot@sanjoseca.gov>

Dear Council Member Jones and Planning Commissioners,

As requested by one Planning Commissioner in the May 24 Planning Commission meeting, please justify the height numbers used for Stevens Creek Urban Village (SCUV) and also the other two urban villages to be approved on June 27 by the City Council.

The SCUV plan will double the existing building heights of many buildings to 65 feet and quadruple the heights to 120 feet or 150 feet.

The maximum heights of five Urban Village plans already approved:

• The Alameda Urban Village: Up to 85’. Mostly under 65’.
• Roosevelt Park Village Plan: 55’ or 85’.
• Little Portugal Urban Village: 58’ or 70’.
• Five Wounds Urban Village: up to 120’ (one site). Mostly under 70’.
• 24th & William Urban Village: 30’-35’ or 55’-65’.

The approved urban village plans above are near the planned BART stations close to downtown. They are located in an area with easy access existing CalTrain, light rail, BRTs and bus lines. As one can see, the max heights are mostly 65 to 85 feet even near San Jose downtown. Only one site in one Urban Village has the maximum height of 120 feet.

The maximum heights of three Urban Village plans to be approved on June 27:

• Valley Fair/Santana Row Urban Village: Up to 150’. Unlimited with community benefits.
• Winchester Urban Village: up to 85’.
• Stevens Creek Village: 85 feet or up to 120’ to 150’.

Even with San Jose standards, the maximum heights being throwing at Stevens Creek Blvd. area are extraordinary and baseless. That area is far away from any existing or planned BART, light rail or real BRT with dedicated lanes. How will people commute to and from work then?

 

The EIR for Envision 2040 was done in 2011, which is 6 years ago, and the traffic congestion has worsened considerably in 2017, especially in the area of I-280, Lawrence and I-880. The building heights allocated to SCUV are not consistent with the job and housing allocation assigned to SCUV, which can fit easily under 65 feet. By doubling the building heights, you would encourage doubling the density and the amount of allocation in SCUV. Thus, SCUV does not comply with Envision 2040 General Plan.

Please justify the max. building heights in the three urban villages to be approved. Every story generates more density and traffic and more cost for infrastructure support. The building heights are not just numbers to be negotiated like in a bargaining game. The building heights have to make sense in the context of the entire city, based on the transportation capacity and the allocation.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

Liang - Conditions for a meaningful Vallco CAC

From: Liang Chao
Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:23 AM
Subject: Conditions for a meaningful Vallco CAC
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Savita and City Council Members,

Some citizens under the code name "United Cupertino" have quoted snippets of a letter I sent to Cupertino Courier on Oct. 17, 2016 as a support for Vallco CAC (Citizens Advisory Committee). However, they have quoted my statement completely out of context.

“… we can form a Vallco Advisory Committee with residents, developers and the city staff to study various options for Vallco Specific Plan.” Liang Chao Oct 16, 2016

Here is the context of the snippet from my original letter. The full letter is included below.

To have any meaningful negotiation with Sand Hill, we need to revert to the previous state of Vallco as a shopping center in order to start the negotiation at even footing. The Council shouldn't give away their negotiation power easily by granting massive allocation first. After Measure C is adopted, we can form a Vallco Advisory Committee with residents, developers and the city staff to study various options for Vallco Specific Plan. Then, the City can put the Vallco Specific Plan with a combined vision for a vote in 2018 General Election.

For Vallco CAC to have any meaningful result, we need the following two conditions:

• Revert Vallco to a shopping center in order to start negotiation at even footing.
• Put Vallco Specific Plan to a citizens' vote in 2018 to ensure that the plan is a combined vision of the majority of Cupertino voters.

The City Council has continued to conduct substantive discussion on Vallco CAC while the meeting agenda is either goal setting or Work Program. In order to deliberate and conduct business openly, I urge the City Council to re-conduct any discussion on Vallco CAC under a properly notified agenda item in a future meeting so that all interested citizens have a fair chance to express their views on the subject.

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

-----------[Full Text of the letter]--------------

http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2016/10/Liang-Yes-C-necessary-true-revitalization-vallco.html

“Yes on C” is necessary for true revitalization of Vallco Shopping District

The City Council allocated 2 million sf office space to Vallco AND removed height limit back in Dec. 2014 without sufficient public input. To have any meaningful negotiation with Sand Hill, we need to revert to the previous state of Vallco as a shopping center in order to start the negotiation at even footing. The Council shouldn't give away their negotiation power easily by granting massive allocation first. After Measure C is adopted, we can form a Vallco Advisory Committee with residents, developers and the city staff to study various options for Vallco Specific Plan. Then, the City can put the Vallco Specific Plan with a combined vision for a vote in 2018 General Election. The City is under no obligation to hold a special election for any project or general plan amendment. If the developer wishes to pay for a special election to speed up the process, the city may choose to accept it. Measure C gives the City Council a way to push back against overly ambitious projects that stretch Cupertino beyond the available supporting infrastructure and beyond the needs and desires of the stakeholder residents.

“Yes on C” is necessary since the City Council has not slowed down to listen to citizens’ concerns in 2014 and 2015 and there is no guarantee that they will after the November election for Vallco or other future mega projects.

“Yes on C” is necessary for true revitalization of Vallco Shopping District.

“Yes on C” is necessary to allow breathing room for Cupertino when the City Council is under tremendous pressure to approve projects with higher density and higher height. The Council can always ask the citizens to revoke Measure C at a future election as necessary.

Liang Chao, 18-year resident of Cupertino

Govind - Proposal: General Plan Advisory Committee

From: Govind Tatachari Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal: General Plan Advisory Committee
To: citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, cityclerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>

Dear  Cupertino Council members,

Recently, there has been discussion of a Citizen Advisory Committee for the Vallco project. This approach is direct challenge of the election outcome by the City council to NULLIFY the outcome of Measure D during the November 2016 election. It is requested that the City NOT pursue this utterly irregular and deceptive approach to NULLIFY an election outcome.

Instead, if needed, the City MUST pursue a City-sponsored measure to be voted on by the Cupertino voters to make any determination or change in favor of Vallco project.

I would like to take this opportunity to resubmit the Proposal for General Plan Advisory Committee enclosed with this email (which I submitted on December 20, 2017.) I request your attention and earnest consideration of this proposal.

I am not able to attend today's council meeting but I request you to please  include this as part of the public record.

Thanking you,

Govind Tatachari
Cupertino Resident

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Govind Tatachari <gtc2k7@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Cupertino council members,

I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected council members Rod Sinks and Steven Scharf and the newly elected Mayor Savita Vaidyanathan and Vice-Mayor Darcy Paul.

I wish the new council success in handling of all the upcoming and ongoing governance and planning issues with due diligence and utmost care, foresight and a sense of fair play respecting the concerns of all parties concerned.

The 2016 November election has been historic in many ways at many levels of government. For Cupertino, the election had two Measures on the ballot related to the issues of sensible and sustainable growth and the Vallco Town Center proposal respectively. The Voters rejected both these measures. This in spite of millions of dollars of marketing expense incurred by the Vallco developer and related groups.

These measures represent just two of the many measures which might follow. Both these measures were related to the important issue of General plan and specific land-use decisions.

In view of this, it behoves the new council to attend to the issues of the General plan and land-use choices that Cupertino City is facing. I propose that the new council constitute a General plan advisory committee with a charter to evaluate and advise the council on the goals, projections and allocations related to the 25-year (long-term) General plan, related land-use choices and project proposals.

I believe this will help the City council keep the Citizenry engaged in the Cupertino planning and development activities. It is best that the City advertises this effort and invites a representative percentage (one in thousand) of Cupertino population in this exercise. It is also imperative that most of this committee is made up of ordinary residents. Formation of such a committee of Cupertino residents will also help avoid or reduce the chance of costly initiatives and referendums in the future.

I am unable to attend today's council meeting in person and talk about this proposal as part of the Oral communications. However I request that this email be entered as part of the public input.

Thanking you,

With good wishes and Sincerely,

Govind Tatachari

Cupertino Resident

Liana - Goal Setting Meeting Did Not Discuss Vallco CAC Specifically

From: Liana Crabtree
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <rsinks@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; City Manager <manager@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:24 AM
Subject: Discussions from 2/26/2017 Special Council Meeting Did Not Authorize the Formation of a Vallco CAC

Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members Chang, Scharf, and Sinks:

Please add my letter to the public record regarding the formation of a possible Vallco citizens’ advisory committee (VCAC).

The purpose of this letter is to identify that the City Council did not approve the formation of a VCAC during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, despite numerous public claims to the contrary.

Refer to the end of this message for a link to the recording of the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, and to the transcript of the meeting segment when Mayor Vaidhyanathan conducted a straw vote related to “a process to address Vallco”. To view the video recording, either download the recording to your own device, or log in to DropBox using a paid DropBox account and view online.

Many thanks to Better Cupertino for sponsoring the live stream broadcast and video archive of the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting.

It is unclear why the City would choose not to record such an important meeting, especially given the many public references City officials have made about the “goal setting meeting” since 2/26/2017.

The start times in this letter are relative to the beginning of the cited video recording (start time 0:00:00).

Discussion of Council Member Sinks’s priority item number 3, “Process to Address Vallco” begins at 2:15:25 with this statement from Mayor Vaidhyanathan:

“And the other one. The process to address Vallco. I’ll wait for Council Member Sinks to talk about that one.”

Discussion of Council Member Sinks’s priority item number 3, “Process to Address Vallco” concludes at 2:52:30 with this statement from Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan:

“So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens.”

One Council Member’s priority item number 3, which was not recognized as a shared goal by even one other Council Member, consumed approximately 37 minutes of a 240 minute meeting. How can it be that 15% of the Special City Council meeting on 2/26/2017 was dedicated to this fringe topic?

Regarding the concluding statement above from Mayor Vaidhyanathan concerning Council Member Sinks’s priority item number 3:

• The “vote” captured above was recorded under the agenda item “Goal Setting”. Where is the notice to the public that a vote related to the establishment of a “process to address Vallco” would be voted on during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting?
  
• Where is the motion, the second, the definition of what the “process to address Vallco” would or would not include, and the discussion of cost, (except beyond the opinions of a few Council Members asserting that the City should pay for the process)?
  
• How did the statement above from Mayor Vaidhyanathan transform to the following item in the minutes for the 2/26/2017 Special City Council Meeting:
  
  “Council agreed on the following items to be added to the Work Program:
  …
  “4. City‐sponsored Vallco Citizens’ Advisory Task Force to conduct televised public workshops with experts’ participation and researching other cities that have successfully transformed failing malls?"
  

References to a VCAC have become common in the last month, especially from Mayor Vaidhyanathan, as she has referenced or implied, in multiple forums since the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, that the VCAC has been approved and will move forward. Public references to an “approved” VCAC include comments made at the 3/1/2017 State of the City Address event, the 3/7/2017 City Council meeting, and the 3/31/2017 coffee with State Assembly Member Evan Low.

And yet, where is the over-and-done City Council decision to spend tax payer money ($1 Million?) on an undefined VCAC? Despite assertions to the contrary, a decision to approve a Vallco citizens' advisory committee does not appear to be found in the activities that occurred during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting.

Sidebar: I notice that there is a poll originating from a neighborhood west of De Anza Blvd that asks residents if they support the creation of a Vallco citizens’ advisory committee. While western Cupertino can be an area where views tolerant of high density development in eastern Cupertino neighborhoods are common, remarkably, of the 219 people who have responded to the poll so far, 89% oppose the formation of a VCAC. Only 8% favor the formation of a VCAC and 3% have no opinion.

City Council, should you decide to move forward with a VCAC that will be funded with public tax dollars, whom are you representing? Evidence is scant that you would be acting in accordance with the needs and interests of a majority of Cupertino residents. If not residents, then whom would be the recipient of this $1 Million VCAC gift?

Sincerely,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident


(START Partial Transcript with Footnotes: Special Meeting (Goal Setting), Cupertino City Council, 2/26/2017)

LINK to video recording of the Special City Council Meeting, 2/26/2017: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvh07nt6uf9we38/Full%20Meeting%20022617.mp4?dl=0

Times are approximate.

Discussion of item “Process to Address Vallco” begins at 2:15:25.

Time for the resolution of the discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco":
Start: 2:46:40
End: 2:52:30

Transcript for the resolution of the discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco":

Steven Scharf (SS): “ And we can move on to something besides Vallco.”

Savita Vaidhyanathan (SV): “Since there were no checkmarks(1), it was brought up(2), so we are discussing it. So, I am hearing that we would like to have workshops, we would like to have the public present. We do not want the developer to pay for it. And, we would like to have someone who can oversee it who has technical expertise and can facilitate something so that you can call these into a decision that can be then forwarded to the developer.”

Barry Chang (BC): “Right. And, I want all the meetings to be televised. So, just no mis—”

SV: “No misunderstanding and communication.”

SS: “And I would like research into all these other cities that transformed their failing malls into successful malls.

BC: “Yeah, that’s good.”

SV, gesturing to Darcy Paul: “I still haven’t heard in the discussion whether you want or do not want the developer present at these meetings.”

Darcy Paul (DP): “Well, you can’t prevent them from going to these meetings.”

SS: “Right, it’s a public meeting—“

SV: “And speaking. And speaking. Because—“

DP: “They’re a stakeholder. They’re obviously a major stakeholder, So, yeah, of course, they would be a participant. I mean, it’s one of these things where, ah, if they refused to engage then let’s just not even sign for your process (unintelligible)—“

SV: “So this is building information from people of all walks of life.”

DP: “Right.”

SV: “And the second. We talked about the funding.”

DP: “Right.”

SV: “Not to come from the developers. I agree with that. Televised, sure. Um, let’s say we are talking Vallco. That was my original question. Would you like to have a combined workshop where we talk general? Or, do you want to be specific to one development at a time, or do it holistically and say, ‘this is what our community wants to see whether you have it in this location or that location—‘“

SS: “I think it has to be holistically because you are talking about moving office and housing—“

SV: “Okay. It’s puzzle pieces. It is puzzle pieces. So, it’s just (unintelligible) we are extending the scope. Um, but it’s always good to have the big picture rather than focus on one and then revise it—“

Rod Sinks (RS): “I would be specific. I think it’s gonna, this is so broad that you’re just back to another General Plan—”

SV: “You can be specific to the project that you’re discussing, but I think the goal should be to cover all of them. In one given meeting, I’m not saying you take all the projects, but overall you should—“

RS: “Could somebody tell me how this is different from the process we ran?”

SV: “I think what I’m hearing is the previous process did not have enough public input.”

DP: “And I agree if it’s city-wide it’s a massive undertaking. And, you know, personally, I prefer to focus on this because this is 80 acres of space. It is the biggest issue facing our community in this last election cycle, um, and it’s not going to go away in terms of, you know, the import to our city of this central space. And, I agree with what Barry is saying it is much better for us to fund this as a city. Now, I will only add that that opens up the possibility for us to really think about things like open space and civic space and how much that would cost. I mean just doing my back-of-the-napkin kind of math, with 20,000 households in Cupertino, um, every $200 Million represents $10,000 from a household. You know, the developer spent $300 Million and we’re talking about putting out a Billion dollars as a City. That is the equivalent of $50,000 per household. I mean that is possibly completely illegitimate analysis, but I would like to know, you know, if we are going to engage in this type of process, what are our options.”

SV: “I am hearing Vallco specific. Council Member Scharf is saying more holistic.”

SS: “I mean what I see is that other, let’s take KT Urban, they saw ‘oh my God, Vallco got 2 Million square feet. We are entitled to a comparable amount of square feet of office for, based on the size of our land’. And then someone else is going to come by and say, ‘yeah, office is the most profitable—‘“

RS: “I wonder how they feel about being shot down on a 4-1 vote, and then getting told in court that they didn’t do it right. So what are they going to—”

SS: “Yeah, I don’t know if they’re going to come back with another—“

RS: “Maybe they do, but on a 4-1 vote, we were pretty clear with them about their prior proposal. I think Vallco is the big elephant in the room.”

(Someone): “I agree with you.”

RS: “Unfocus it too much, we’re just back to (unintelligible)—“

SV: “So, we have 3-to-2 on that. Vallco and two of us wanted it holistically. I am okay with that. We do Vallco first. It is 3-to-2, so there isn’t really too much discussion.”

(Several people speaking at once): “Barry—“

SV: “I’m so sorry….From your earlier comments, that’s what I—please, please—“

BC: “That’s okay. I think both sides, you know, has a reason, makes sense. But my concern—“

SV: “I would love to—“

BC: “My concern is if you go to the whole city, then too many targets to hit at, so I’m afraid you may not be able to accomplish anything. So, and as Council Member Darcy Paul says and also Council Member Sinks says this is the biggest issue that we are facing and the biggest problem that we are dealing with and the initiative and the recall. I’m the one that got it, right? So, I don’t want, I want to solve this one. Focus on it and see if we can find a solution and solve it. If we can, we can. So be it. I’ll be here less than two years, so—“

SS: “My number 2 was to distribute housing and office space—”

SV: “So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens.”

RS: “It’s 11:20 (am)”

SV: “And, since it’s 11:20, I have (unintelligible) that we finish the actual goals that we’ve actually checked. So we are going to go ahead with some of the goals, and Minh if you could summarize that for the goals that we, the Council, has already checked.”


Footnotes

(1) Earlier goal setting activity had each Council Member identify his or her top 3 priorities for the City in 2017. Council Member Sinks identified “Process to Address Vallco" as his priority item number 3 for 2017. The reference “since there were no check marks” from Mayor Vaidhyanathan indicates that no other Council Members checked the item as an additional or supported priority for them. (Meeting minutes identify each Council Member’s top 3 priority items for 2017.)

(2) See how the “process to address Vallco” topic began with Mayor Vaidhyanathan’s comment at 2:15:25.

(END Partial Transcript with Footnotes: Special Meeting (Goal Setting), Cupertino City Council, 2/26/2017)

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.)