The URL can be used to link to this page

FEIR Appendix C - Public Comments Section 5.2 and 5.3STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” July 9, 2018 Piu Ghosh Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SCH # 2018022021 GTS # 04-SCL-2016-00422 GTS I.D. 1174 SCL-280- 8.35 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Piu Ghosh: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. Our comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR ). Project Understanding The proposed project is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments (referred to as “the project” or “Specific Plan”). The proposed project is located immediately south of Interstate (I-) 280 in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the I-280/S. Wolfe Road interchange. The project is partly located in the Santa Cara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas Priority Development Area (PDA). Consistent with the build-out envisioned in the adopted General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would facilitate development of a minimum of 600,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of commercial uses, up to 2.0 million sq. ft. of office uses, up to 339 hotel rooms, and up to 800 residential dwelling units on-site. In addition, the project includes up to 65,000 sq. ft. of civic spaces in the form of governmental office space, meeting and community rooms, and a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) lab, as well as a 30-acre green roof. Comment Letter A Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino July 9, 2018 Page 2 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” As a result of the planning process and scoping for environmental review, the City identified the following three project alternatives to the proposed project for review in the EIR, in addition to the No Project alternative required by CEQA: The Specific Plan site is served by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes and indirectly by Caltrain commuter rail service. The site acts as a transfer center for VTA bus routes and as a transit hub for private shuttles run by large employers (such as Google, Genentech, and Facebook). As part of the Specific Plan, the existing transit hub would be upgraded, and would include additional features such as an information center, drop-off point, and a bike sharing distribution point. The Specific Plan would also include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The TDM program could include an on- site transportation coordinator, ride-share marketing and promotion, unbundled parking, a transit incentive program, safe routes to school support programs, transit and/or vanpool subsidy for employees, workplace parking pricing, employee parking cash-out, alternative work schedules and telecommute programs, and guaranteed ride home programs. Additional details about possible TDM measures are included in Table 28 in Appendix H of the DEIR. The TDM program for future development would be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino City’s Project Planner prior to approval of a development permit. Future Specific Plan development would submit an annual monitoring report to the Project Planner to measure the effectiveness of the TDM plan. Additional TDM measures may be required by the City if the TDM measures are not effective. Transportation Impact Analysis Caltrans requests the Lead Agency submit a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Conditions of Approval and Staff Report to Caltrans, and list the transit and active transportation improvements associated with this project under the “Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures” section of the DEIR. Please specify which multimodal projects will be funded by the project’s contribution to the City’s transportation impact fees (TIF) program. The transit and Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino July 9, 2018 Page 3 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” active transportation improvements as well as the project’s contribution to the City’s TIF program should be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. These improvements encourage a shift from single-occupancy vehicles to alternate modes of transportation. Examples of multimodal projects that could be used for mitigating the project’s transportation impacts are the I-280 Channel Trail (Junipero Serra Trail) between Mary Avenue and Vallco Parkway found in the City of Cupertino’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and I- 280/Wolfe Road interchange improvements to provide low-stress access for bicyclists. The State Route (SR) 85 Express Lanes Improvement should be removed as mitigation for the Specific Plan as this improvement is currently under review and its implementation date is uncertain. Caltrans recommends The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan include more vehicle trip reduction mitigation measures and aggressive TDM in the DEIR to reduce its impact on SR 85, SR 82 and I-280 freeway segments as discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Examples of measures that can be implemented to reduce vehicle trips include: reducing vehicle parking and project phasing that allows for fully mitigated transportation impacts at each phase. Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to work with the Lead Agency and local partners to secure the funding for needed mitigation. Traffic mitigation- or cooperative agreements are examples of such measures. The project should remove the Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR-85 Ramps (East) improvement as part of its mitigation measures. The improvement is programed and under construction as mitigation to a significant impact caused by another development. Rather, the TIA should evaluate the Specific Plan’s impact on the intersection post completion of this programmed improvement and provide additional mitigation measures if needed. Please provide operational analysis that demonstrates the proposed mitigation at Intersection #51: I-280/Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive south-bound ramps is feasible and will improve operations. Per Appendix H in the TIA, the project will generate a significant increase in VMT as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit use. The proposed development could change traffic patterns and trigger a need for traffic signal adjustments at Intersections #9, #22, #44, and #47. Signal-related work will have to be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by the Caltrans Office of Signal Operations. The Traffix computational worksheets, provided in the TIA’s Appendices I through K, show that there may be insufficient storage capacity for the intersections and ramp turning movements listed below. a. De Anza Boulevard/I-280 Ramps (North) - Intersection #9, b. Wolfe Road/El Camino Real (SR 82) - Intersection #22, c. I-280 Ramps (West)/Calvert Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard - Intersection #44, d. Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real (SR 82) - Intersection #47. Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino July 9, 2018 Page 4 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” The queues formed at the intersections and ramps may cause spill-back onto the freeway and conventional highway mainlines. The project should provide intersection and ramp evaluations and provide mitigation if negatively impacted. At signalized intersections with turning movements exceeding demands of 300 vph, “dual turn” lanes will need to be provided where applicable, see latest Highway Design Manual sections 405.2 and 405.3. If the existing number of through lanes in each direction cannot accommodate anticipated forecasted traffic as shown on the submittal, additional through lanes may be required. Hydraulics Please submit a drainage plan for Caltrans’s review. The Junipero Serra Channel and major state drainage facilities are located on the I-280/North Wolfe Road interchange area and the project’s impacts to the state drainage facilities will need to be evaluated and mitigated where needed. Landscape Architecture The Lead Agency is directed to reference Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, link provided below, for any landscape work on the state right-of-way. Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to continue collaboration on the project during design review and plan development. Caltrans requests the comments listed below be addressed before the submission of an Encroachment Permit application. • Trees and shrubs should be added where appropriate to maintain or improve a visual screen or buffer between I-280 and the project. Maintain any site clearance setback requirements per the City and Caltrans design guidelines. (DEIR’s Appendix C: Arborist Report). • Remove any dead trees to avoid fall hazards onto I-280, or ramps adjacent to the I-280 right-of-way. (DEIR’s Appendix C: Arborist Report). • Any existing water meters and backflow preventers that may exist just outside of state right-of-way should be identified and protected in place; they are often located just outside of state right-of-way. (DEIR’s Appendix I: Utility Studies). http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/manuals/hdm.html Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State right-of-way requires an Encroachment Permit that is issued by Caltrans. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. To apply, a completed Encroachment Permit application, the adopted environmental document, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State right-of-way must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. David Salladay, District Office Chief Comment Letter B Comment Letter C Sewer Model Run Request: XXX Project Submittal Date:month/date/year Site Address Street # APN XXX-XX-XXX (attach an APN map) Sewer Block Book Page SXX Discharge manhole Existing SXX-XX Proposed SXX-XX Current Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Building Area XX,XXX SF Indicate if this existing building is to remain, be demolished, or else. Proposed Building Area XX,XXX SF Indicate proposed number of units, etc. Average daily discharge X.XX mgd (this flow is provided for special use only, ie. data center, stadium, etc.) Peak Discharge X.XX mgd (this flow is provided for special use only, ie. data center, stadium, etc.) Additional Info 1) Proposed site map (if available). 2) 24-hour average and peak flow graphs of the peak day (this information is needed for special use only, data center, stadium, etc.) 3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 3.17.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Framework State and Regional Plan Bay Area 2040 Table 3.17-5: Existing Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection – Jurisdiction LOS Threshold Peak Hour Delay LOS B- 32.9 C- Table 3.17-5: Existing Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection – Jurisdiction LOS Threshold Peak Hour Delay LOS C C bold text (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) (Less than Significant Impact) Condition of Approval: (Less than Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: MM TRN-2.1: (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) From: "Talbo, Ellen" <Ellen.Talbo@rda.sccgov.org<mailto:Ellen.Talbo@rda.sccgov.org>> Date: July 16, 2018 at 6:51:30 PM PDT To: Piu Ghosh <piug@cupertino.org<mailto:piug@cupertino.org>> Cc: "Prasad, Ananth" <Ananth.Prasad@rda.sccgov.org<mailto:Ananth.Prasad@rda.sccgov.org>>, "Aghegnehu, Ben" <ben.aghegnehu@rda.sccgov.org<mailto:ben.aghegnehu@rda.sccgov.org>> Subject: Response to DEIR for Vallco Specific Area Plan Hi Piu, In March we sent comments regarding the NOP-DEIR for the Vallco Specific Area Plan. After reviewing the draft EIR we have the following comments regarding the traffic analysis. If you have questions or would like to further discuss, please don’t hesitate to contact myself or Ananth Prasad, County Traffic Engineer, who is also cc’d on this email. Thank you for considering our comments at this time. 1.In addition to County maintained intersections already included in the DEIR, the study should also include intersections on San Tomas at El Camino Real, Homestead, and Stevens Creek. As trip distribution (Figure 8) indicated, there are project trips to warrant their inclusion. 2. The HOV reduction factors used for AM LOS calculations at Lawrence Expressway intersections are not correct, NB and SB User Adjusted HOV reductions should be 13%, or 0.87. 3.As indicated in the Queuing Analysis results per Tables 53 & 54, additional left turn capacities should be provided due to project trips, and the proposed project should be responsible for the mitigations at Lawrence/Bollinger and Lawrence/Saratoga. 4.Signal timing should not be a mitigation measure for project impacts as indicated in Table ES-3 on County facilities. 5.As stated in the County Expressway Plan, future improvements including expressway widenings and grade separations are not funded and construction time frames have not been identified. If the proposed project has impacts to County intersections, the project should identify local mitigation measures to address those impacts. Thank you, Ellen Talbo, AICP County Transportation Planner (408) 573-2482 ________________________________ Comment Letter D 456 West Olive Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707 TDD/TYY 408-730-7501 sunnyvale.ca.gov June 28, 2018 Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Project Dear Ms. Ghosh, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan (Plan) Project. This letter includes comments from multiple City of Sunnyvale Departments. General Comments 1.The Plan proposes a development capacity of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units for the Vallco Special Area. The City of Sunnyvale is concerned with the Plan’s imbalance in non-residential uses (office, commercial, and hotel) vs. proposed residential units, especially in regards to recent substantial office development in the immediate area. The housing demand with the proposed non-residential development and recent office development is significant in size and warrants consideration of additional housing units to be on site. The City of Sunnyvale sees the Maximum Residential alternative as a better project in the DEIR because it includes additional residential units which may mitigate some burden on the housing market, and other environmental impacts, such as traffic and transportation and greenhouse gas emissions. 2.The City may want to consider the requirement of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the new development as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements in this area may not be enough to make a difference in reducing single-occupancy vehicles. An association would create cohesiveness among property owners and tenants on TDM strategies. Comment Letter E Page 2 of 3 Traffic and Transportation Comments If you have questions on the following traffic related items, please contact Lillian Tsang, Principal Transportation Engineer, Department of Public Works at ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov or (408) 730-7556. Comments concerning the Transportation related analysis of the project are as follows: 1. When referring to Interstate 280, please change the direction from Eastbound to Southbound (global change). 2. When referring to Interstate 280, please change the direction from W estbound to Northbound (global change). 3. On page 25, last paragraph, please change “City of Santa Clara” to “City of Sunnyvale” in the following sentence: “Significant impacts at signalized City of Santa Clara intersections would occur when the addition of project traffic causes one of the following:” 4. On page 52, under VTA Next Network, please change “in mid- to late-2018” to “2019”. 5. On page 53, Table 9. This table is a summary of the “Next Network Transit Service Summary” instead of “Existing”. Under the Existing Network, Route 81 and Route 323 are still in operations. Route 523 is a future bus route. 6. Bus Route 323 and Bus Route 523 are used in different parts of the report. Please make certain the bus route number is consistently used (global change). 7. On page 67, under Trip Generation Rates, please include the edition of ITE Trip Generation Manual that was used. 8. Table 11, Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates, the references to the table notes in the table and the notes at the end do not match. 9. On page 106, Table 16, the capacity for all segments on SR 85 (both northbound and southbound directions) should be 4,400 instead of 4,600. The freeway mixed-flow segment levels of service shall be recalculated accordingly for all scenarios. 10. In the DEIR, on Page 34, Section 3.0, under Environmental Setting, it was mentioned that “year 2028 is used to evaluate background traffic impacts and year 2040 is used to evaluate cumulative traffic impacts.” In the Traffic Impact Analysis Final Draft report, Chapter 8 presented a discussion on how cumulative traffic was derived. For City of Sunnyvale, why was a growth rate only applied up to 2028 but not to year 2040 STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” August 20, 2018 Piu Ghosh Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SCH # 2018022021 GTS # 04-SCL-2016-00422 GTS I.D. 1174 SCL-280- 8.35 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan – Environmental Impact Report Amendment Dear Piu Ghosh: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. Our comments are based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Amendment. Project Understanding The proposed project is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments (referred to as “the project” or “Specific Plan”). The proposed project is located immediately south of Interstate (I-) 280 in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the I-280/S. Wolfe Road interchange. The project is partly located in the Santa Cara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas Priority Development Area (PDA). The purpose of this recirculated amendment to the draft EIR is to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of an additional project alternative, the housing rich alternative. The housing rich alternative consists of 3,250 residential units, 1.5 million square feet (sf) of office uses, 600,000 sf of commercial uses, 65,000 sf of civic uses (consisting of a 50,000-sf city hall and 15,000 sf of adult education space), and a 30-acre green roof. It is estimated that the Housing Rich Alternative would require approximately 13,880 parking spaces, most of which would be located below ground. Transportation Impact Analysis Caltrans requests the Lead Agency submit a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Conditions of Approval and Staff Report to Caltrans, and list the transit and active transportation improvements associated with this project under the “Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures” section of the EIR Amendment. Please specify which multimodal projects will be funded by the project’s contribution to the City’s transportation impact fees (TIF) program. The Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino August 20, 2018 Page 2 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” transit and active transportation improvements as well as the project’s contribution to the City’s TIF program should be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. These improvements encourage a shift from single-occupancy vehicles to alternate modes of transportation. Examples of multimodal projects that could be used for mitigating the project’s transportation impacts are the I-280 Channel Trail (Junipero Serra Trail) between Mary Avenue and Vallco Parkway found in the City of Cupertino’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and I- 280/Wolfe Road interchange improvements to provide low-stress access for bicyclists. The State Route (SR) 85 Express Lanes Improvement should be removed as mitigation for the Specific Plan as this improvement is currently under review and its implementation date is uncertain. Caltrans recommends The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan include more vehicle trip reduction mitigation measures and aggressive Transportation Demand Management in the EIR Amendment to reduce its impact on SR 85, SR 82 and I-280 freeway segments as discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Examples of measures that can be implemented to reduce vehicle trips include: reducing vehicle parking and project phasing that allows for fully mitigated transportation impacts at each phase. Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to work with the Lead Agency and local partners to secure the funding for needed mitigation. Traffic mitigation- or cooperative agreements are examples of such measures. The project should remove the Intersection #2: Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR-85 Ramps (East) improvement as part of its mitigation measures. The improvement is programed and under construction as mitigation to a significant impact caused by another development. Rather, the TIA should evaluate the Specific Plan’s impact on the intersection post completion of this programmed improvement and provide additional mitigation measures, if needed. Please provide operational analysis that demonstrates the proposed mitigation at Intersection #51: I-280/Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive south-bound ramps is feasible and will improve operations. Per the TIA, the project will generate a significant increase in vehicle miles travelled as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit use. The proposed development could change traffic patterns and trigger a need for traffic signal adjustments at Intersections #9, #22, #44, and #47. Signal-related work will have to be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by the Caltrans Office of Signal Operations. The Traffix computational worksheets, provided in the TIA show that there may be insufficient storage capacity for the intersections and ramp turning movements listed below. a. De Anza Boulevard/I-280 Ramps (North) - Intersection #9, b. Wolfe Road/SR 82 (El Camino Real) - Intersection #22, c. I-280 Ramps (West)/Calvert Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard - Intersection #44, d. Lawrence Expressway/ SR 82 (El Camino Real) - Intersection #47. Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino August 20, 2018 Page 3 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” The queues formed at the intersections and ramps may cause spill-back onto the freeway and conventional highway mainlines. The project should provide intersection and ramp evaluations and provide mitigation if negatively impacted. At signalized intersections with turning movements exceeding demands of 300 vehicles per hour (vph), “dual turn” lanes will need to be provided where applicable, see the latest Highway Design Manual sections 405.2 and 405.3. If the existing number of through lanes in each direction cannot accommodate anticipated forecasted traffic as shown on the submittal, additional through lanes may be required. Hydraulics Please submit a drainage plan for Caltrans’ review. The Junipero Serra Channel and major state drainage facilities are located on the I-280/North Wolfe Road interchange area and the project’s impacts to the state drainage facilities will need to be evaluated and mitigated where needed. Landscape Architecture The Lead Agency is directed to reference Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, link listed at the end of this section, for any landscape work on the state right-of-way. Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to continue collaboration on the project during design review and plan development. Caltrans requests the comments listed below be addressed before the submission of an Encroachment Permit application. • Trees and shrubs should be added where appropriate to maintain or improve a visual screen or buffer between I-280 and the project. Maintain any site clearance setback requirements per the City and Caltrans design guidelines. • Remove any dead trees to avoid fall hazards onto I-280, or ramps adjacent to the I-280 right-of-way. • Any existing water meters and backflow preventers that may exist just outside of state right-of-way should be identified and protected in place; they are often located just outside of state right-of-way. http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/manuals/hdm.html Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state right-of-way requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and six (6) sets of plans clearly indicating state right-of-way must be submitted to: Office of Permits, California DOT, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/. CITY OP CAPITAL OP SILICON VALLEY Planning, Building and Code Enforcement ROSALYNN HUGHEY, DIRECTOR August 20,2018 VIA MAIL AND E-MAIL City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 piug@cupertino.org RE: City of San Jose’s Comment Letter on the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Amendment DEIR Dear Piu Ghosh, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Amendment EIR. The City’s comments are outlined below. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City understands that the Vallco Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated earlier from May 24, 2018 to July 9, 2018. The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan for future redevelopment of the Vallco site, which would facilitate the development of up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential units, all consistent with the City of Cupertino’s adopted General Plan. However, the Draft EIR was amended to evaluate the Housing-Rich Alternative under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Housing-Rich Alternative proposes up to 3,250 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of office uses, and 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 65,000 square feet of civic uses with a 50,000 square-foot City Hall and 15,000 square feet of adult education space and a 30-acre green roof, supported by 13,880 parking spaces. CITY’S COMMENTS As stated in the City’s letter dated March 12, 2018, at the NOP stage, we support infill development on an underutilized site in proximity to major employment centers, residential neighborhoods, retail and transit. This land use planning approach is similar to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan strategy for Urban Villages to accommodate future growth while preserving existing single-family neighborhoods and minimizing greenfield development. 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd FL San Josb, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner August 20, 2018 Page 2 The City is encouraged that the Housing Rich Alternative increases the number of dwelling units at the Vallco site. In addition to providing much needed housing options, balanced and diverse land uses are highly correlated with reductions in regional vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). This is due to an increase in opportunities for employees to live in Cupertino and walk or bike to their jobs, schools, and entertainment. Housing-Rich Alternative As explained in the City’s letter to the NOP, we are encouraging the City of Cupertino to adopt the Housing-Rich Alternative, contributing to the much needed housing supply while redeveloping a site with civic, office and commercial uses. This is an opportunity to develop an important site in Cupertino with contemporary mixed uses supported with the proposed transit- transfer center. Overall, this Alternative provides more balance between land uses and could improve regional vehicle-miles traveled and traffic congestion on 1-280 and SR-85 as compared to the proposed project. Traffic and Circulation The City of San Jose Departments of Public Works and of Transportation will send comments on Traffic and Circulation in a separate letter. Please contact the City of San Jose’s Traffic Manager, Karen Mack for project information. Ms. Mack can be reached at karen.mack@sanjoseca.gov. CONCLUSION Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Amendment to the Draft EIR. The City of San Jose looks forward to continued collaboration, communication, and implementation of the project. If you have questions, please contact Meenaxi R. Panakkal, Supervising Environmental Planner at meenaxi.panakkal@sanioseca.gov or (408) 535-7895. Sincerely, /s/ Rosalynn Hughey, Director Planning, Building and Code Enforcement cc: Department of Public Works August 20, 2018 VIA MAIL AND E-MAIL City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 piug@cupertino.org RE: City of San Jose’s Comment Letter on the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Amendment DEIR Dear Ms. Ghosh, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Amendment to the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Departments of Public Works and Transportation hereby submit the following comments. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City understands that the Vallco Specific Plan DEIR was circulated earlier from May 24, 2018 to July 9, 2018. The DEIR evaluated the proposed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan for future redevelopment of the Vallco site, which would facilitate the development of up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential units, all consistent with the City of Cupertino’s adopted General Plan. However, the Draft EIR was amended to evaluate the Housing-Rich Alternative under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Housing-Rich Alternative proposes up to 3,250 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of office uses, and 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 65,000 square feet of civic uses with a 50,000 square-foot City Hall and 15,000 square feet of adult education space and a 30-acre green roof, supported by 13,880 parking spaces. CITY’S COMMENTS In February 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 requires OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).) SB 743 requires the CEQA Guidelines to develop a metric that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. OPR selected vehicle miles traveled as a replacement measure not only because it satisfies the explicit goals of SB 743, but also because agencies are already familiar with this metric. Vehicle miles traveled is already used in CEQA to study other potential impacts such as greenhouse gas, air quality, and energy impacts and is used in planning for regional sustainable communities’ strategies. Replacing LOS with VMT will streamline development of vibrant, walkable communities. Removing barriers to housing production in areas that have access to services and increasing transportation options will help to reduce both housing and transportation costs—the largest two components of Californians’ cost of living. With VMT mitigation, new development will add less vehicle travel onto highways, leading to better outcomes for regional congestion. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION As explained in the City’s letter to the NOP, we are encouraging the City of Cupertino to adopt the Housing-Rich Alternative. Although the project did not explicitly measure VMT for CEQA purposes, many of the project and cumulative intersection LOS impacts would not be considered CEQA impacts requiring mitigations and considerations of override upon completion of the Natural Resources Agency’s rulemaking process. Alternatively, the project, particularly the Housing-Rich Alternative, could invest in new transit opportunities, multimodal connections to transit, walking and biking, creating far more travel capacity than the focused LOS improvements. In addition, the Housing Rich Alternative proposes a balanced land use that encourages walking, biking and transit and would, in fact, reduce VMT. The Transportation Analysis identified multiple LOS impacts at 18 intersections in Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and County Expressways and Caltrans’s facilities. Various mitigation measures were identified including Signal Coordination and ITS upgrades, intersection improvements such as addition of left-turn pockets and roadway widenings. VMT impacts, conversely, would require the project to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled through better land uses, complete communities, along transit corridors, with good multimodal facilities. The proposed Housing-Rich Alternative has the potential to meet all those objectives. With a strong commitment to both Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and careful parking policy, the Housing Rich Alternative has the potential to be an exemplary model for future smart development and Transit Oriented Development (TOD). We recommend that the Housing Rich Alternative shifts the focus of mitigation measures from roadway capacity- increasing improvements to its strong TDM program as well as transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements that further reduce automobile trip generation beyond the levels projected in the transportation study. Potential avenues of investment would be the outcome of the on-going From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Subject:FW: (In)adequacy of Vallco EIR noticing. Date:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 5:02:22 PM Attachments:output.pdf Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino | Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3214 | catarinak@cupertino.org From: Randy Shingai [] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:03 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: (In)adequacy of Vallco EIR noticing. Dear Council, The adequacy of the noticing for the Vallco Specific Plan EIR was brought up multiple times during last night's meeting. Since a majority of Council Members expressed concern about this issue, I thought I would address that concern. Here's a link to the Vallco Specific Plan NOP. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20866 I went through the responses and picked out the first pages of several comments. These were mostly responses from governmental agencies. All these letters reiterate their understanding of the project. You will see that all these agencies had the same understanding of the project too. It must be standard practice to include a project understanding in responses so that it's clear and provable what the responding agency's understanding of the project was. Now, here is a link to the Draft EIR prepared for that NOP. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 If you go to page xiii of the document you will see a table. The first row has a project description that is mostly the same as the description in the NOP, except that "Civic Spaces" or "Green Roof" were never mentioned in the NOP. The really troubling thing is that there were also 3 "Project Alternatives" in the Draft EIR that have dwelling unit counts that are not described in the NOP. Comment Letter A When the City puts out a NOP that says 800 dwelling units and the draft EIR covers 2,640 and 4,000 dwelling units, I think it's fair to say that the Vallco Notice of Preparation is for all intents and purposes what computer programmers refer to as a "nop" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP). A "nop" is a null operation. Agencies and individuals responding to the NOP were not allowed an opportunity to respond to the real project covered by the draft EIR. The City has not followed the law. Here is that law. Government Code 15082. Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR (a) Notice of Preparation. Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in approving or funding the project. (1) The notice of preparation shall provide the responsible and trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research with sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable the responsible agencies to make a meaningful response. At a minimum, the information shall include: (A) Description of the project, (B) Location of the project (either by street address and cross street, for a project in an urbanized area, or by attaching a specific map, preferably a copy of a U.S.G.S. 15' or 7- 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name), and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. Just for reference the City of San Jose felt it necessary to issue a revised NOP for its "Fortbay Project" at 3400 Stevens Creek Blvd. The differences were relatively modest. Do they know something that Cupertino doesn't? San Jose Fortbay Project original NOP revised NOP residential units 500 582 retail sq. ft.11,500 22,000 office sq. ft.233,000 300,000 Fortbay Feb. 16, 2017 NOP http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66230 Fortbay January 11, 2017 revised NOP. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74426 Thank you. Randy Shingai Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Project Understanding tel Board of Supervisors: County Executive: County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department The Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (Countywide Trails Plan/CWTMP), CWTMP CWTMP I-280 Canal Trail (Junipero Serra Trail) From:Kitty Moore To: Cc: Subject:DEIR Problem Date:Friday, May 25, 2018 2:50:10 PM Attachments:image1.png ATT00001.txt ATT00002.txt Greetings Attorney Hom, The Vallco DEIR came out today. The economist shared these options this week (Charrette #2) Total Control Panel Login To: From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter B file:///cupe-fileserver/...IR%20-%20Appendix%20C%20-%205.2.II.B-Kitty%20Moore-5.25.2018%202.50pm%20-%20Attachment%202.txt[8/28/2018 10:56:01 AM] However, the DEIR studied: Total Control Panel https://asp.reflexion.net/history-detail?hID=28093033323 file:///cupe-fileserver/...IR%20-%20Appendix%20C%20-%205.2.II.B-Kitty%20Moore-5.25.2018%202.50pm%20-%20Attachment%203.txt[8/28/2018 10:56:15 AM] Why are alternatives not studied being tossed around? When the residential units went over 2,640 they studied no office. Please have the DEIR amended? I don’t know how this gets resolved. How can we look at the DEIR and still be fiddling around with the project parameters still, outside of what has been studied? Have a great Memorial Day weekend! Best regards, Kitty Moore Total Control Panelhttps://asp.reflexion.net/history-detail?hID=28093033323 Fro m: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Kitty Moore Vallco Re: DEIR Problem Friday,May 25, 2018 5:31:50 PM Greetings , I do not believe we have a stable Valko plan to comment on and possibly alternatives to project are infeasible. There are some inconsistencies showing up in the water study DEIR regarding what the amount of park land is, which effects irrigation needed . https://www.thomasla:w.com/blog/catego1:y/alternatives / Excepts: "Wa shoe Meado ws Communi ty v. Department of Park s and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 2 77 J m J Share I Tweet Email The First District Comt of Appeal reversed the California Depaitment of Parks and Recreation 's ("Department") approval of the Upper Trnckee River Restorat ion and Golf Comse Reconfigurat ion Project ("Project "), fmding that the failur e to identify a prefell'ed alternative in the Draft EIR compromised the integrity of the EIR process . In 1984, the State of California acquired a 777 -acre parcel encompassing a 2.2 -mile stretch of the Upper Trnckee River. The parcel was later divided into two units: the Washoe Meadows State Park ("State Pai·k") created to p rotect a wetland meadow and the Lake Valley State Recreation Area ("Recreation Area ") created to allow the continuing operat ion of an existing golf course. Since the 1990s, erosion of the river bed of the Upper Trnckee River has raised environmental concerns. The layout of the golf course, which altered the course of the river, apparently contributed to a deterioration of the habitat and water quality. The Project was proposed to reduce the discharge of sediment that diminishes Lake Tahoe's clarity and at the same time to provide public recreation opportunities in the State Park and Recreation Area. The Department issued a scoping notice including four alternative projects and identified one of the alternatives -river restoration with reconfigurat ion of the golf course -as the preferred alternative . In August 20 10 , the Depaitment circulated a draft EIR ("DEIR") for the projec t. Although the DE IR analyzed five ve1y different alternative projects , including the four alternative projects identified in the scoping notice, it did not identify a prefell'ed alternative. The DEIR stated that the lead agency would dete1mine which alternative or combinations of featur es from mul tiple alternatives was the prefell'ed alternat ive in the final EIR ("FEIR"). In September 201 1, the Depaitment issued the FEIR, identifying a version of the project as the prefell'ed alternative . After the Depaitment approved the prefell'ed alternative project in Januaiy 20 12, the plaintiff su ed . The trial court he ld in favor of the p laintiff. On appeal, the comt held that the DETR 's failur e to provide the pub lic with an "accurate , stable Comment Letter C and finite."project descliption prejudicially impaired the public's right to pa1ticipate in the CEQA process, citing County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. Noting that a broad range of possible projects presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives, the comt found that the presentation of five ve1y different alternative projects in the DEIR without a stable project was an obstacle to inf01med public participation. L .A. Conservancy v. City of W. Hollywood , 2017 Cal.App.LEXIS 115 1 liJI Share l Tweet Email The Second District Comt of Appeal affhmed the tlial comt's decision upholding the adequacy of the environmenta l impact repo1t (EIR) and suppo1ting CEQA findings made by the City of West Hollywood (City) concerning approval of a mixed-use project on a three - acre "gateway" site in the City. The Project , as proposed , required demolition of a building built in 1928 and remodeled in 1938, which was considered eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The EIR acknowledged that demolition of the building constituted a significant and unavoidable impact. As a result, the EIR included a project alternative that proposed redesigning the Project in order to preserve the historic building. In approving the Project , the City rejec ted the preservat ion alternative , but required that po1tions of the historic building fas:ade be incorporated into the Project design. Plaintiff Los Angeles Conservancy (plaintiff) alleged that the City violated CEQA because the analysis of the preservation alternative was inadequate, the Final EIR failed to sufficiently re spond to collllllents concerning prese1vation of the histolic building, and evidence did not suppo1t the City's findings that the prese1vation alternative was infeasible. The trial court denied the plaintiff s petition. On appeal, the comt affiimed. First, the comt held that the EIR 's analysis of the conse1vation alternative was detailed enough to pe1mit informed decision making and public pa 1ticipation. The comt rejected plaintiff's argument that the City was required to prepare a "concepn1al design"for the alternative. The comt noted that no legal autho1ity required a conceptual design to be prepai·ed for an alternative included in an EIR. Second, the comt found that collllllents on the draft EIR cited by the plaintiff did not raise new issues or disclose any analytical gap in the EIR's analysis. The comt noted that to respond to comments that merely expressed general Project objections and suppo1t for the prese1vation alternative, the City could properly refer the commenters back to discussion included in the draft EIR concerning the historic building on the project site. Finally , the comt stated that a court must uphold the lead agency's findings concluding an alternative is infea sible if supported by substantial evidence. Inunde1taking this inquiry , "[a]n agency's finding of infeasibility . .. is 'entitled to great deference ' and 'presumed coITect."' While the comt noted that the plaintiff may have demonsn·ated that the City could have concluded the pr eservat ion alternative was not infea sible, other evidence in the record suppo1ted the City's determination that the alternative was impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. Thus, substantial evidence supported the City’s infeasibility findings.” Best regards, Kitty Moore On May 25, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Kitty Moore < > wrote: Greetings Attorney Hom, The Vallco DEIR came out today. The economist shared these options this week (Charrette #2) However, the DEIR studied: Why are alternatives not studied being tossed around? When the residential units went over 2,640 they studied no office. Please have the DEIR amended? I don’t know how this gets resolved. How can we look at the DEIR and still be fiddling around with the project parameters still, outside of what has been studied? Have a great Memorial Day weekend! Best regards, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Logi n To: piug@cupertino.or g From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Lauren Sapudar To: Subject:FW: Vallco Study Session Date:Friday, June 01, 2018 1:36:04 PM Attachments:ATT00001.htm 180601 Vallco.pdf From: Mackenzie Mossing [mailto:mackenziescvas@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 1:37 PM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org> Cc: Shani Kleinhaus <>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco Study Session Dear Mayor Paul and Cupertino Councilmembers, Please find the attached letter from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society regarding the Vallco Specific Plan. We hope you will include bird-safe design in the discussion during Monday’s City Council study session for the plan. Sincerely, Mackenzie Mossing Environmental Advocacy Associate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society mackenzieSCVAS@gmail.com www.scvas.org | Like us on Facebook! (408) 394-0330 Total Control Panel Login To: sscharf@cupertino.org From: Message Score: 50 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. Total Control Panel Login To: sscharf@cupertino.org From: Message Score: 50 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Comment Letter D Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org June 1, 2018 Re: Bird-safe Design for Vallco Dear Mayor Paul and Cupertino Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society engaged in the Vallco Specific Plan charettes in April and May of this year, where we provided City staff and the design team with example policies and guidelines for bird-safe design that have been implemented successfully in nearby cities. We appreciate that the Vallco team has expressed that bird-safe design will be included in the plan, and we hope you will support this decision. Birds collide with glass buildings and structures during the day as they attempt to access resources reflected by or seen through the glass. At night, brightly lit glass buildings lure migrating birds to their death. Many neighboring cities recognize bird-collision with glass as an important issue and make an effort to minimize hazardous construction. The issue is addressed in General and Specific Plans (San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View), in Ordinances and mandatory Guidelines (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Richmond) and in Mitigation Measures for areas near the Bay (Menlo Park). In our experience, when bird-safe design is adopted as a guiding principal, bird collission hazards can be greatly reduced. Please support the integration of bird-safe design policies and guidleines for the Vallco Specific Plan. We represent many members in Cupertino who care to see that the Vallco Project is sensitive to nature and wildlife and does not pose as a hazard for migrating birds. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mackenzie Mossing Environmental Advocacy Associate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Santa Clara ValleyAudubon SocietyEstablished 1926 From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Subject:FW: Comments to DEIR Vallco Specific Plan Date:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 11:42:36 AM From: Kitty Moore [] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 9:35 AM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org> Subject: Comments to DEIR Vallco Specific Plan Greetings, The link provided here contains my comments to the DEIR for the Vallco Specific Plan: https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/d284ea28-1dee-451b-bd04-8ccf813a75e9 Please provide written receipt of the document and that it has been downloaded and submitted for the record. Thanks! I am including the cover page here: COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Reports for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1.Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project 2.Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. Comment Letter E 3. Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4. Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5. Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. 6. Ignoring the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 1 COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Reports for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1.Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project 2. Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. 3. Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4. Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5.Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. 6. Ignoring the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GOV A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado Comment Letter E 2 County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatib]e with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. Potential to Cease EIR Mid-Stream: The EIR scoping meeting provided inadequate and conflicting information with an infeasible “Proposed Project” and infeasible alternatives. According to “CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway,” by Abbott & Kindermann Leslie Z. Walker, on September 22, 2009, the EIR process may be stopped mid-stream: According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete. The article continues: One of the City’s council members opposed the project and asked the City to cease its work on it. The City attorney advised the council members that the City was required to continue processing and completing the EIR. Nonetheless, the objecting council member introduced a motion to suspend the environmental review process until the city council made “a policy decision” to resume the process. The city council ultimately approved a modified motion which also called for the City to cease work on the proposed project. Should the City Council find reason to cease the EIR, such as the “Proposed Project” being inconsistent with the General Plan (explained on the following pages), or that in light of its’ similarity to failed Cupertino ballot Measure D: The Vallco Initiative November 8, 2016, there is precedent as demonstrated above, to do so. 3 Similarity of “Proposed Project” to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should Disqualify It: The Vallco Measure D Initiative is described in the following: CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 and would consist of: • 2,000,000 SF office • 640,000 SF retail • 191 additional hotel rooms, bringing the site total to 339 hotel rooms • 389 residential units with a Conditional Use Permit bringing the total to 800 residential units The November 8, 2016 Election results for Measure D were 55% No. Advertising for the initiative obscured the office and focused on the retail portions. The actual square footage percentages for the Measure D Initiative were: • 56% office • 22% residential • 16% retail • 6% hotel Notice these above percentages result in 84% non-retail uses and would be a majority office park. The “Proposed Project” for the EIR has less retail (600,000 SF) and other uses the same as Measure D. The EIR process is not intended to be a disregard of the city’s General Plan to “try out” alternative concepts which have no consistency with the General Plan. This creates a great deal of confusion and distrust. General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: This section amasses the multiple sections of the General Plan which reference the Vallco Shopping District and describe what it is planned to become. Refer to: Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: In Chapter 2 of the Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: Planning Areas: Vallco Shopping District is described as: “…Cupertino’s most significant commercial center…” and that “…Reinvestment is needed…so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community.” It is referred to as a “shopping district”, not an office park, or a residential community. Following is the actual page from the General Plan describing Vallco Shopping District: 4 CONTENTS Figures..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Comments on DEIR Summary p xii: Proposed Project is a moving Target ...................................................... 8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 18 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ........................................................... 18 No Explanation from Where in the General Plan the Excess Residential Units Came From ...................... 18 Cupertino General Plan 2040 studied a piecemeal plan of Vallco? .............................................................. 18 2.3 Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.1 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2.4.4.1 Common Open Space and Landscaping ............................................................................................... 19 2.4.4.2 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ................................................................................................... 20 2.4.4.3 Transit Center and Transportation Demand Management Program ..................................................... 20 2.4.4.4 Utility Connections and Recycled Water Infrastructure Extension ...................................................... 21 2.4.4.5 Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1.2 Scenic Views and Vistas ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Light and glare .............................................................................................................................................. 29 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 Impact AQ-1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Impact AQ-2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Impact AQ-3: .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-4: .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Impact AQ-6: .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Hazardous Materials Demolition: ..................................................................................................................... 35 Impact AQ-7: .................................................................................................................................................... 36 Cancer Risk Assessment, Construction Phase, Contradicts Previous Study .................................................... 39 Impact AQ-9: .................................................................................................................................................... 41 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 41 5 3.5. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 42 3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 43 3.8 Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ......................................... 43 Impact GHG-1 .................................................................................................................................................. 53 BL2: Decarbonize Buildings............................................................................................................................. 59 BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 59 NW2: Urban Tree Planting ............................................................................................................................... 59 Construction Period Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 59 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................. 61 3.9.1.3 Other Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 61 3.9.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ........................................................................................... 61 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 61 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................. 62 3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 63 3.13 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................................................... 63 Playgrounds....................................................................................................................................................... 63 Future Noise Contours ...................................................................................................................................... 65 Cupertino Municipal Code Maximum Permissible Sound Levels ................................................................... 66 Construction Noise............................................................................................................................................ 66 Vibration ........................................................................................................................................................... 71 3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................................ 72 3.14.12 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 72 Impact POP-1 ................................................................................................................................................ 72 Impact POP-3 ................................................................................................................................................ 72 3.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................................. 73 Sanitary Sewer .................................................................................................................................................. 73 School Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 74 DEIR Student Generation Rates ................................................................................................................... 75 Failed Measure D Hills at Vallco Student Generation Rates to Compare .................................................... 76 6 Park Land Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 79 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 79 3.17 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 79 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 79 Levels of Service............................................................................................................................................... 79 Approved and Pending Projects Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment ............................................ 80 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................................ 82 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 83 FIGURES Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: DEIR Heights ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater .................................................................... 14 Figure 6: From DEIR ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives ........................................................................................ 15 Figure 8: Vallco Project Changes (following page) ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan ........................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application ............................................................................................. 20 Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space .......................................................................... 23 Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees ..................................................... 23 Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco .............................................................................................. 24 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage ......................................................................................................... 29 7 Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation................................................................................................... 30 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match .............................................................. 31 Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks ......................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles ............................................................................................... 33 Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD ......................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High ........................................................................ 39 Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs ................................................................. 40 Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand ..................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors ................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan ........................................................................................... 47 Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan ................................................................................ 48 Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage ............................................................................................................. 48 Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 54 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction ........................................................................................ 55 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating ............................................................................. 56 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions ..................................................................................................... 58 Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions .................................................................................... 60 Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 ........................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 ................................................................................. 66 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise .................................................................................... 67 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors ......................................................................................... 68 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue ..................................................... 71 Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 ............................................................................ 74 Figure 48: DEIR SGR .......................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 76 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables .................................................................................... 77 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs ................................................................................................................. 78 8 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied ........................... 81 Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................................... 81 Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner .................................................................................... 82 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees ....................................................................................................... 84 INTRODUCTION In order to ease review of these comments, they are ordered in parallel with the DEIR document. Comments will follow the headings from the DEIR in order, and any missing informational sections will be discussed at the end. Quotations from the DEIR and appendices are shown in blue. COMMENTS ON DEIR SUMMARY P XII: PROPOSED PROJECT IS A MOVING TARGET The DEIR Summary, p xii, states: “The proposed project is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments.” and continues: “Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would facilitate development of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses, up to 339 hotel rooms, and up to 800 residential dwelling units on-site. The proposed Specific Plan development reflects the buildout assumptions (including the adopted residential allocation available) for the site in the City’s adopted General Plan. In addition, the project includes up to 65,000 square feet of civic spaces in the form of governmental office space, meeting rooms and community rooms and a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) lab, as well as a 30-acre green roof.” Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p. xii, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 The DEIR studied the following projects and alternatives: 9 Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary 1. Proposed Project has incorrect number of residential units. Residential units would be 389. Referring to the General Plan, Vallco “…specific plan would permit 389 units…” not 800 residential units. The Specific Plan process to date shows a 3,200, 2,640 and 3,250 residential unit options. While the housing units may be moved between housing element sites, the General Plan Technical Report for Scenarios A and B do not come close to having this many housing units. None of the options are consistent with the General Plan. When the number of units is over 2,640 in the DEIR, there is no office shown. The Charrette 2 housing units are shown to be 3,200 at the Charrette #2 closing presentation for any options. This was not studied in the DEIR. Low Housing/Low Retail option shared is inconsistent with the General Plan minimum retail of 600,000 SF. DEIR, p. 15 PDF p 51, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p 51, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 10 General Plan Housing Element p H-21: “Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE-5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE-5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District site (Site A2). The redevelopment of Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community’s needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of “Scenario B” in Appendix B - Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments; however the Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.” 2. Clarifications needed for p xii Summary, what is the proposed project? As of the release date of the DEIR, May 24, 2018, there is no approved Specific Plan for Vallco. Two options shared the week of Charrette #2 included: Low Office/High Retail Residential: 3,250 units Office: 750,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 600,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Low Housing/Low Retail Residential: 2,640 units Office: 1,500,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 400,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) 11 Here is the Opticos slide presented the week of Charrette #2, May 23, 2018, informing us of what the project could be: Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options Notice the number of residential units are not consistent with the General Plan in any way. And supporting slide from Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation has further alterations to proposed project: Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options 3. 65,000 SF of civic space, STEM lab, and 30 acre green roof were not discussed in the NOP period for Vallco. In the DEIR civic space and STEM lab are combined into the 65,000 SF. Additionally, the civic/STEM spaces are considered public benefits which would result in higher building heights if the 12 developer includes them. This was mentioned at the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation, May 24, 2018: Figure 4: DEIR Heights 4. To add to the confusion as to what the project may end up being, the maximum height was also shown to be 294’. These height differences will cause different shadow and intrusion issues, such as privacy intrusion into Apple Campus HQ which may be a security risk at the corporate headquarters, guest discomfort at the outdoor swimming pool at Hyatt House, and the lack of privacy for the area homes and back yards. In Section 4.2.1 of the DEIR, heights are shown up to 165’. The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan: 13 14 5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May 31, 2018 with no Sp- ecific Plan adopted for Vallco? P. 162 of DEIR: Cupertino Municipal Code The Vallco Special Area is zoned P(Regional Shopping) – Planned Development Regional Shopping north of Vallco Parkway, and P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial south of Vallco Parkway (west of North Wolfe Road). The Planned Development Zoning District is specifically intended to encourage variety in the development pattern of the community. The Planned Development Regional Shopping zoning designation allows all permitted uses in the Regional Shopping District, which include up to 1,645,700 square feet of commercial uses, a 2,500 seat theater complex, and buildings of up to three stories and 85 feet tall.81 The Planned Development General Commercial designation allows retail businesses, full service restaurants (without separate bar facilities), specialty food stores, eating establishments, offices, laundry facilities, private clubs, lodges, personal service establishments. 81 Council Actions 31-U-86 and 9-U-90. The maximum building height identified was in conformance with the 1993 General Plan and were identified in the Development Agreement (Ordinance 1540 File no. 1-DA-90) at that time 6. The performing arts theater, public benefit was mentioned in the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation May 24, 2018, but not included in the DEIR calculations: Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater 7. 15 8. The lack of a stable project makes writing comments nearly impossible. In Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/washoe-meadows-community-v-department-parks-recreation- 2017-17-cal-app-5th-277/ “…the court held that the DEIR’s failure to provide the public with an “accurate, stable and finite” project description prejudicially impaired the public’s right to participate in the CEQA process, citing COUNTY OF INYO V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. Noting that a broad range of possible projects presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives, the court found that the presentation of five very different alternative projects in the DEIR without a stable project was an obstacle to informed public participation” 9. Proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan: housing is exceeded, park land fails to meet requirements for the park starved east side of Cupertino (Municipal Code requires park land acreage rather than a substitute roof park at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 residents), height bonus tied to community benefits is not in the General Plan, the housing allocation assumes the General Plan allocation system has been removed, and community benefits in the General Plan for Vallco came at no ‘cost’ to the project such as increased heights. Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018. Figure 6: From DEIR Figure 7: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives 16 10. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. We have no identified Specific Plan and the last alternatives presented at the final Charrette #2 do not match any alternatives studied in the DEIR (3,200 residential units along with 750,000-1,000,000 SF office space plus 65,000 SF civic space) and are not consistent with the General Plan. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GO V A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatible with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. Figure 8: Vallco Project Changes (following page) 17 18 CULTURAL RESOURCES The findings and mitigations are adequate. 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS This section fails to state the current zoning designations per the General Plan, no Specific Plan has been adopted: Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan NO EXPLANATION FROM WHERE IN THE GENERAL PLAN THE EXCESS RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAME FROM “As shown in General Plan Table LU-1, the General Plan development allocation for the Vallco Special Area is as follows: up to a maximum of 1,207,774 square feet of commercial uses (i.e., retention of the existing mall) or redevelopment of the site with a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail uses of which a maximum of 30 percent may be entertainment uses (pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.4); up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses; up to 339 hotel rooms; and up to 389 residential dwelling units.5 Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations may be transferred among Planning Areas, provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 Final EIR (SCH#2014032007) (General Plan EIR).6 Therefore, additional available, residential or other, development allocations may be transferred to the project site.” CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2040 STUDIED A PIECEMEAL PLAN OF VALLCO? 19 “6 The General Plan EIR analyzed the demolition of the existing 1,207,774 square foot mall and redevelopment of the site with up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area. Because the Vallco Shopping Mall existed on the site when Community Vision 2015-2040 was adopted, and it was unclear when a project would be developed on the site, General Plan Table LU-2 indicates the square footage of the existing mall in the commercial development allocation to ensure that the mall did not become a non-conforming use at the site. Residential allocations that are available in other Planning Areas may be transferred to the Vallco Shopping District without the need to amend the General Plan.” Page 223 of this DEIR conflicts with the above assertion: “However, the General Plan update process in 2014 analyzed and allocated 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 389 residential units for a redeveloped project on the site.” What was studied in the General Plan EIR for Vallco? 2.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section attempts to obscure Vallco Shopping District’s “shopping, dining, and entertainment” objectives stated in the General Plan. The General Plan refers to Vallco Shopping District as: "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." 2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document. 2.4.4.1 COMMON OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING Park land acreage per Cupertino Municipal Code 13.08.050 states the park land acreage requirement to be 3 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas which are park deficient, such as the east side of Cupertino, the city average residents per dwelling units is 2.83. For Proposed Project, 800 residential units, 2,264 residents: 6.8 acres of park land acreage would be required. For 2,640 residential units, 7,471 residents: 22.4 acres of park land would be required. For 4,000 residential units, 11,320 residents: 34.0 acres of park land would be required. The 30 acre green roof is not park land acreage per the Municipal Code. While it may be considered a recreational area, the uses of such space are limited. Here is a cross section of the SB 35 plan roof: 20 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application Cupertino adopted the Community Vision 2040, Ch. 9 outlines the “Recreation, Parks, and Services Element.” Their Policy RPC-7.1 Sustainable design, is to minimize impacts, RPC-7.2 Flexibility Design, is to design for changing community needs, and RPC-7.3 Maintenance design, is to reduce maintenance. The Vallco green roof violates the three City of Cupertino Parks policies listed: it is not sustainable, it is not flexible (a baseball field cannot be created), and it is extremely high maintenance. Parkland acquisition is supposed to be based on “Retaining and restoring creeks and other natural open space areas” and to “design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to…keep maintenance costs low.” And unfortunately for us, the city states: “If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees based on a formula that considers the extent to which the publicly-accessible facilities meet community need.” 2.4.4.2 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING “Based on a conservative estimate of parking demand, it is estimated that two to three levels of below- ground parking across most of the site (51 acres) would be required.” Should a third level of subterranean parking be required, that will increase excavation haul, and GHG calculations. This would result in about 500,000 CY of additional soil removal and should be calculated. Parking will be inadequate due to park and ride demand from the Transit Center and TDM. 2.4.4.3 TRANSIT CENTER AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The extent of the transit system with Google, Genentech, and Facebook continuing to use the site along with what will likely be Apple, and VTA will result in much higher bus trips than expected. Even at the 808 average daily trips in the GHG and Fehr + Peers studies, that is 404 vehicles in and out of the site daily. This sounds 21 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in the project. 2.4.4.4 UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION The SB 35 application discussed the $9.1 million cost to extend the recycled water line across I-280. There is an insufficient amount of recycled water produced at the Donald M. Somers plant and there is anticipated upstream demand. When there is not enough recycled water, potable water is added to the recycled water to make up the difference. It may be decades before there is adequate output of recycled water for the green roof. Apple Park pays the potable water cost. The previous water study for Measure D showed the following water use: Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D Tertiary treated water from the Donald Somers plant is currently insufficient. Impacts related to the need to expand the plant will include air quality impacts as well. There is not enough capacity at the Donald Somers plant to supply the Vallco “Hills” project. Should the same green roof be added to the project, there would need to be a dual water system on the roof. This is due to the need to flush the recycled water out to keep certain plants healthy. The water use from the dual roof system needs to be addressed in coordination with the arborist report for the green roof irrigation system. The roof irrigation system may need an auxiliary pump system to irrigate gardens 95’+ in the air. 2.4.4.5 CONSTRUCTION Vallco spokesperson Reed Moulds stated construction would take 6-8 years. Depending on the order of construction, for instance if office is built first, the project will worsen the deficit in housing. The length of time of construction is important because it is used in calculating the lbs/day of GHG produced. If one side is to be torn down and rebuilt (eg. the east property) first, then the GHG calculations may significantly alter to really be two separate job sites on separate schedules. 22 2.4.4.6 SPECIFIC PLAN ASSUMPTIONS Items listed as “shall” do not state that all would be according to the requirements stated. For instance: “Future buildings shall install solar photovoltaic power, where feasible.” Requires none actually be installed. For the requirements to have any definite effect, they need to be rewritten for that outcome. Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas. 3.1.1.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS DEIR ignores many pleasant views in the Wolfe Road corridor and took photos in harsh lighting when many of the residents enjoy the space on commutes and going to the gym onsite: Southbound on Wolfe Road with the many mature ash trees: Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings: 23 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space Southbound on Wolfe Road, views of Santa Cruz Mountains. There are few areas in the east part of Cupertino where the Santa Cruz mountains are visible due to structures. Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees 24 East bound on Stevens Creek Blvd. Views of east hills and multiple Apple transit buses. Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles View of Bay Club (large seating area and tv room next to Starbucks) at Vallco. Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco 25 3.1.2 AESTHETIC IMPACTS “Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include scenic quality, sensitivity level, and view access. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views of a specific scenic features (e.g., open space lands, mountain ridges, bay, or ocean views).” Findings of AES-1 and AES-2 are incorrect. The length of a scenic vista is relative to the location. In the east part of Cupertino, there are few long (10 mile) vistas, such that 400’ is a relatively long vista. Glimpses of the Santa Cruz mountains and east bay hills are few and thus more precious. Homes are clustered with 5’ side yards and 25’ setbacks such that neighborhoods have little in the way of long vistas. Creekside Park, Cupertino High School, and Vallco Mall have the largest locally long vistas. Proposed project will have a huge negative aesthetic impact, it will block all views of the Santa Cruz mountains and eliminate the wide vista across the Bay Club parking lot. Most of the homes in the east part of Cupertino have no long site view and no view of the Santa Cruz mountains. The Bay Club and Starbucks (in the Sears Building) has a huge setback and the parking lot has many fairly young trees. This open vista has been there historically. Visitors to the rebuilt site will be relegated to underground parking caves in a crowded environment with thousands of employees and residents. While Apple Park architects did their best to berm and plant a massive 176 acre area, while keeping the maximum elevation to 75’, the Vallco project is the aesthetic antithesis. Ideally, Main Street would have been purchased for park land but that did not happen. While the proposed project suggests to hide park land within the project, there should be a large corner park to maintain the historic open corner space at the northeast corner of Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. The following historical photographs indicate how the corner has never had the view blocked by any solid structure: 26 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 27 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 28 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 29 LIGHT AND GLARE The development of the proposed project and alternatives (other than retenanted mall) would include nighttime and security lighting, and may include building material that is reflective. The project and alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) could result in light and glare impacts. Structures facing the residential areas could have the windows and heights limited with green walls installed to mitigate light and glare effects. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The site historically was an orchard until the late 1970s. With proper planning, a limited portion of the site could be returned to orchard space, on the ground, and possibly on the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Rd. corner. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Data input has some errors to traffic volumes, wind direction (selected “variable” when it is N, NE), project traffic volumes, and input to the program used to model GHG such as: acreage of the lot, apartment total SF, city park acreage is on the roof and will have recycled water which results in an additional GHG, the addition of a 10,000 SF racquet club is inconsistent with the proposed project studied by others, the Government Civic Center is shown smaller than Proposed Project: Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage GHG Trips generated do not match the Fehr + Peers Traffic Study for the DEIR and have nearly 10,000 less ADT. Additionally, the Fehr + Peers average daily trip rate was erroneously low. The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette 30 discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation Fehr + Peers ADT chart: 31 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match IMPACT AQ-1 Impact AQ-1 PM 10, is missing from the DEIR but mitigations to AQ-1 are included in the GHG appendix and are repeated for Impact AQ-2. IMPACT AQ-2 The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: The construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-2.1: 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.” 32 14. Avoid tracking of visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of prior to leaving the site.” These impacts may be better mitigated following Apple Park’s method of power washing on each exit from the site and installing steel grates the trucks drive over. The soil haul on I-280, if this occurs, will need coordination with CalTrans for street sweeping on the freeway. This may take months and severely block traffic due to closing a lane for sweepers. The route for soil haul needs to be made public. Apple Park balanced cut and fill onsite, thus eliminating months of truck haul a considerable distance. The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Initiative, “Measure D” indicated many months of hauling required, trips from 7-12 miles, and that project is approximately 2 Million SF smaller than Proposed Project and alternatives. Additionally, the inclusion of having 85% of parking be subterranean in the Charrette alternatives could result in an extra level of subterranean parking needed. This will mean another 500,000 cubic yards of soil haul off. This was not anticipated in the DEIR and will impact air quality. It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting landfills which are not near the site. The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: MM AQ-2.1: 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.” #6 and #16 impact mitigations are conflicting, is it two minutes or five minutes allowable idling time? How will this be enforced? The highest engine tier available is Tier 4b, the mitigations suggested include Tier 3, which should be deleted and require ALL construction equipment meet Tier 4b emissions standards because the site is adjacent to residences and within a quarter of a mile to a high school and day care. Additionally, the year of construction actually beginning is unknown. How will the City enforce that mitigations such as alternative fuel options (e.g., CNG, bio-diesel) are provided for each construction equipment type? It is the responsibility of the lead agency to ensure the equipment operated by the project actually uses alternative fuel. City must present their enforcement process. Because we have seen developers not pull permits until many years after approval, requiring that equipment be no older than eight years is better than the DEIR requirement of model year 2010 or newer. 33 • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards for NOx and PM, where feasible. • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced: Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks . Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles Source, BAAQMD: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf IMPACT AQ-3: The operation of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 34 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. Incomplete analysis and only one mitigation was suggested for operation of the project which is for architectural coatings specifically paint when ROGs are widely used throughout construction, however the proposed project will likely have multiple sources of ROG air pollution such as air pollution caused by: 1. additional recycled water production: likely unavoidable 2. any electrostatic ozone producing equipment: consider limiting ozone producing equipment or seek alternatives 3. cooling towers: require high efficiency cooling towers 4. operation of the transit hub: require zero emission transit vehicles, especially since there will likely be sensitive receptors living on site. 5. additional electricity generation to operate the project: require solar onsite to provide a minimum 50% of required electricity, including the electricity needed to treat the water and recycled water. Any exposed roofing to be white roof. 6. day to day additional vehicular traffic: require a high percent of EV charging stations, zero emission vehicles, and site loading areas 200’ from residents, medical offices, daycares, parks, and playgrounds. Refer to Comment 2C in the following: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf 7. VOC emission from outgassing of carpets, plastics, roofing materials, curing of concrete, treatment of pool and cooling tower water, materials in the artificial roof infrastructure: require low VOC materials throughout the project to reduce 8. restaurants which may be vented to the roof exposing people to cooking fume exhaust. Main Street Cupertino gases from restaurants are visible and detectable across the street on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The standards for roof venting for a green roof must be higher than typical because people may end up near the vents. 9. Additional traffic backing up on I-280, site is downwind of the freeway: place residential areas, medical facility offices, daycares, school uses, playgrounds, and parks a minimum of 1000’ from the I-280 right of way including the off ramps and particularly the on ramp due to vehicular acceleration resulting in increased air pollution emissions. 10. VOCs are not mitigated with HEPA filtration. This makes siting residences, medical facilities, school facilities, and daycares more than 1000’ from the freeway imperative. Require a Merv 13 filter or better in the 1000’ area and require the replacement of the filters with some city determined verification that the filters are changed. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-freeway-pollution-filters- 20170709-story.html 11. Employees working in the parking garages in the TDM program (valets underground) will need to have air quality monitored for safety. Usually they would have a separate room which is well ventilated and preferably an automated payment system for metered parking. However, if workers are needed to pack 35 cars tightly, then the whole underground parking area would have to be rendered safe for workers exposed to the air pollution found in parking garages for a full work day. Impact AQ-4 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOx, PM10, and/or PM2.5) for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure: MM AQ-4.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1. This is an incomplete analysis with incomplete mitigation measures. Refer to additional air pollution sources and mitigations listed in Impact AQ-3 above. No study of TDM workers in the underground garages has been done. Impact AQ-6 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction dust and diesel exhaust emissions concentrations. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. This impact is not specific enough. Because there is an error in the calculations, explained in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment section fully, the mitigations must be made more strict. It should be mentioned, that the exposure has critical peaks of hazardous levels of GHGs. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEMOLITION: Some of the site interiors appear to have had demolition occur already. Was this done to code? How is that known? “Potential sources of on-site contamination – The Vallco site was historically used for agricultural purposes, and has been developed and operating as a shopping mall since at least 1979. The site is listed on regulatory agency databases as having leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), removing and disposing of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), and a small quantity generator of hazardous materials waste. Surface soils may contain 36 elevated levels of residual pesticides and other chemicals of concern related to past and present use and operations at the site.”- JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report Include the following, modified from VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers: Soil Management Plan: A Soil Management Plan for all redevelopment activities shall be prepared by applicant(s) for future development to ensure that excavated soils are sampled and properly handled/disposed, and that imported fill materials are screened/analyzed before their use on the property. Renovation or Demolition of Existing Structures: Before conducting renovation or demolition activities that might disturb potential asbestos, light fixtures, or painted surfaces, the Town Center/Community Park applicant shall ensure that it complies with the Operations and Maintenance Plan for management and abatement of asbestos-containing materials, proper handling and disposal of fluorescent and mercury vapor light fixtures, and with all applicable requirements regarding lead-based paint. Proposed use of hazardous materials – Development of the VTC and alternatives could include uses that generate, store, use, distribute, or dispose of hazardous materials such petroleum products, oils, solvents, paint, household chemicals, and pesticides. The VTC shall include the following EDF to reduce adverse effects from on-site use of hazardous materials: Hazardous Materials Business Plan: In accordance with State Code, facilities that store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25534(b) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare and implement, as necessary, Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP) for determination of risks to the community. The HMBP will be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process Refer to Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and Gases: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1529.html Impact AQ-7 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC pollutant concentrations. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-7.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) shall implement mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 to reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions, which would thereby reduce the maximum cancer risk due to construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative). 37 The cancer risk assessment is based on erroneous traffic studies and the air quality monitoring stations had old data from 2013 and/or were too far away to use data. The cancer risk needs to be recalculated. The amount of exposure time should reflect seniors not leaving the project area. The baseline air quality monitoring must be taken over an extended period with particular attention paid to the summer months when Ozone levels increase. Here is an example day when children would be playing outdoors, Ozone was the primary pollutant. Note these are regional amounts, and the increases along the freeways are not shown: Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD 38 The I-280 freeway produces substantial TAC pollutant concentrations and the south bay is subjected to the entire bay area’s pollutants which are converted to Ozone in the warm summer months. The DEIR failed to monitor air pollution for the site for any time period, and only modeled pollutants onsite. Fires are expected to be the new normal, bringing potential further impacts to the region’s air quality. The heights of the structures planned, and layout, and planned green roof, will likely concentrate freeway pollutants into the project area and combine and intensify them with onsite traffic. Having 85% of the parking garages underground and with fresh air intake being difficult to locate may result in significantly unhealthy air quality and the need for expensive mechanical filtration which does not filter VOCs. Adding what may be approximately 147,000 SF of restaurant and up to 4,000 residential units producing cooking and restroom exhaust with a challenging ventilation system may further degrade the air quality on site. The roof park may enclose the site to the point of having hazardous air quality. The roof park covering was not studied in the cancer risk assessment model. Reducing the amount of underground parking and having above grade parking with open walls in above ground structures is a mitigation. Alternatively, Merv 13 or better filtration and air quality monitors in the subterranean garages may improve the air quality, but it is not clear which would be better. The project alternative with 4,000 residential units will most likely result in residents within 1,000’ of the freeway, re-tenanted mall results in the least construction and operational pollution, least cancer risk, and least long term GHG exposure since no residential units would be onsite. Project is “down wind” of the freeway. The freeway has over 160,000 vehicles per day and is increasing in congestion. Planned projects in San Jose will likely balance the directional flow of the I-280 and worsen traffic. Freeway pollution has been found to travel up to 1.5 miles resulting in readings above baseline. The project will significantly slow traffic, and therefore it will increase air pollution levels. Pollutants increase dramatically when going 13 mph vs 45 mph for example, see Zhang, Kai, and Stuart Batterman. “Air Pollution and Health Risks due to Vehicle Traffic.” The Science of the total environment 0 (2013): 307–316. PMC. Web. 30 May 2018.. The cumulative effects of the existing air quality next to the freeway, trapping air pollution from the geometry of the buildings proposed and potential roof, must be studied. Project may result in a tunnel effect. see Zhou R, Wang S, Shi C, Wang W, Zhao H, Liu R, et al. (2014) Study on the Traffic Air Pollution inside and outside a Road Tunnel in Shanghai, China. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112195 39 CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT, CONSTRUCTION PHASE, CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS STUDY The construction phase cancer risk assessment is lower than that prepared for the Measure D Vallco Town Center Environmental assessment, which, without EDFs is copied here, this disparity does not make sense: Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High 40 And with EDF’s here: Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs P. 55 of GHG Assessment cancer risk assessment shows much lower risk: “Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum excess residential cancer risks would be 26.7 in one million for an infant/child exposure and 0.9 in one million for an adult exposure. The maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be located at a second floor residence at the location shown in Figure 5. The maximum residential excess cancer risk at the MEI would be greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce this risk to below the BAAQMD threshold of significance.” This lower result for a larger project does not make sense given both the proximity to the I-280, down wind location, and the questionable ability of the city to enforce what types of construction vehicles are used, what types of architectural coatings are used, what company electricity is purchased from, and maintain freeway volumes from increasing and slowing traffic further. 41 Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would cumulatively contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-9.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. This is very incomplete, this suggests the re-tenanted mall is the best alternative. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The conclusions that there are no significant impacts on biological resources are incorrect and mitigations are not achievable. General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.13 “Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.” The DEIR states: “The existing 1,125 trees on the project site were planted as part of the development of Vallco Shopping Mall and, therefore, are all protected trees.” Because of the closing of mall activities, there has very likely been an increase in wildlife on the site with less human presence. The city has demonstrated that they will approve construction of an excessively glazed structure, Apple Park, where both birds and humans will run into the glass and be harmed. There is no assurance that there will be care taken for the existing wildlife on site during construction, and no assurance there will be care in maintaining the habitat in the future. Referring to the Vallco SB 35 application excuse that there are essentially, too many ash trees on the property provides only an expectation that the developer intends to cut them all down. A mitigation suggested includes: “Prohibiting glass skyways and freestanding glass walls” While renderings of the two story walkway over Wolfe Rd. show an all glass walled structure. Roof top amenities shown with tall glass walls. There does not appear to be any intention to enforce this mitigation. The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP: 42 “30. Nitrogen Deposition Fee: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall pay a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Nitrogen Deposition Fee to the Implementing Entity of the Habitat Conservation Plan, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, even though the fee would not otherwise be legally applicable to the future development. The Town Center/Community Park applicant shall pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee commensurate with the issuance of building permits within the Town Center/Community Park.- source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers” 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORICAL RESOURCES Apply the following from VTCSP with multiple historical photographs and educational information boards. “The Vallco Shopping District is designated as a City Community Landmark in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that the redevelopment of the Vallco site would not result in significant impacts to historic resources, if redevelopment is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3.60 The VTCSP would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3 by providing a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description, and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.- source 9212 report JD Powers” Include the history of environmental pollution of the orchard industry from the use of lead arsenate and DDT in the ‘Valley of Heart’s Delight”, photos of child employment “cutting ‘cots’”, to environmental pollution from the computer industry including the Apple Park superfund site and pollutants at 19,333 Vallco Parkway (where pollutants like Freon and TCE were allegedly just dumped out the back door), and the onsite pollution already noted in this DEIR to the history of the site, to proposed project and alternatives. 43 3.6 ENERGY Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand Because the city has no regulatory framework with which to ensure poorly operating equipment is used for the construction of the project, or for operation, or that energy would be purchased from one supplier over another, or that recycled water would come from one source over another, assumptions that the project will have less than significant impact are not verifiable. Additionally, proposed project requires 3 times the electricity, 5 times the natural gas, and 3 times the gasoline demand of the occupied/re-tenanted mall alternative. 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS There is very likely a huge amount of topsoil which was encased in the mounded soil to the north of the JC Penney building. Excavation of the site will remove any and all of what was once topsoil on the site and excavate up to 45’ below the top of curb on Wolfe Road for the subterranean parking structures. 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT Baseline values are unacceptable due to their being a combination of an air quality monitoring station from the west side of Cupertino, in a neighborhood (Voss Avenue site which closed in 2013) and data from San Jose monitoring stations which are approximately 10 miles away. Meteorological data was used from 2006-2010 at the San Jose Mineta airport, which is both too old, too far from the site, and irrelevant due to the recent drought conditions. Project site, adjacent to the I-280, has had no relevant air quality monitoring, ever. Guidelines § 15064.4 in conjunction with Guidelines § 15125 concerning project baselines ("An EIR must include a 44 description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, which was February 8, 2018. The most recent data used as a baseline was from 2016. There is no excuse for not actually monitoring the air quality at the site given the relatively low cost to rent the instruments and the immense size of this project. Additionally, the air quality expectations for the existing sensitive receptors throughout the construction process will impose an increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase, and excavation. 45 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors 46 GHG assessment must require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of the proposed project because “… the proposed project risks exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (California Supreme Court Case No. S213478).” Proposed project will have operational GHG emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. No accurate existing environmental conditions have yet been recorded. Proposed project will exacerbate traffic in the area and especially on I-280, backing up and slowing down traffic. Free flowing traffic produces much less air pollution than stop and go traffic. Proposed project will exacerbate existing environmental hazards to the detriment of future residents and users. Proposed project will reduce and potentially trap airflow due to tall buildings planned and proposed 30 acre green roof which may further impede airflow and trap exhaust from traffic in the interior street grid. The green roof plans so far presented in Measure D and the Vallco SB 35 application thus far do not have living spaces directly under them to have the cooling benefit from the insulation and the roof is planned too high to mitigate air pollution for residents living below it where freeway air pollutants settle. Plans from the Specific Plan process are not finalized but have all shown 2 levels of underground parking. The site location across the freeway and massive Apple Park parking garages make it even more impacted by the freeway because 14,200 Apple employees will work at that site (according to Cupertino Mayor Paul, 6,000 employees had occupied the site as of March, 2018 up from a few hundred in December, 2017) and have acceleration and deceleration off the freeway at the Wolfe Rd. exit. Unfortunately, Vallco site is downwind of the I-280, yet the GHG modeling selected “variable” wind rather than the N NE calm conditions typical, in doing so the pollutants would dissipate differently than actual conditions. CO modeling within the site needs to be performed along with studying the other GHG emissions. This is imperative because (as the traffic study reflects, by showing high trip reduction rates) people are expected to live and work on site and have retail needs met as well, potentially not leaving the area. GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of 16.9’ which is innacurate. 2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean. Mitigation of Operational project that electricity would be purchased from a new company, Silicon Valley Clean Energy is not enforceable, and the assumption in GHG calculations that the site currently uses PG& E is not consistent with the Land Use chapter stating the site currently uses SVCE and will continue to do so. Construction period PM 2.5 Exhaust and PM 10 Exhaust do not have PM 2.5 and PM 10 values resulting from demolition and excavation? They appear to just show exhaust. DEIR GHG and Air Quality reports do not appear to have studied the cooling tower/central plant. The following has been modified from the JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report for the proposed project: “The proposed project and alternatives will likely include a central plant (a stationary source), which would provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for most buildings. The central plant would 47 consist of a condenser water system, cooling towers, and boilers. It is possible that operation of the central plant produce greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD greenhouse gas threshold of significance for stationary sources. The proposed project should include the following EDF to reduce greenhouse gas emission impacts from the central plant: “36. Central Plant Boilers Carbon Offsets: Prior to completion and operation of any Central Plant Boilers with emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall enter into one or more contracts to purchase voluntary carbon credits from a qualified greenhouse gas emissions broker in an amount sufficient to offset the operational emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., on a net present value basis in light of the fact that the applicant shall acquire such credits in advance of any creation of the emissions subject to the offset. Pursuant to CARB’s Mandatory Reporting Requirements, applicant(s) shall register the Central Plant Boilers in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program. The applicant(s) shall provide copies of carbon purchase contracts to CARB during registration. The City would likely first require any feasible on-site modifications to the stationary source to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the greenhouse gas emissions from the stationary source could not be reduced below the BAAQMD threshold of significance, the City would likely require carbon credits (such as those identified in EDF 36) be purchased and that the credits be locally sourced (i.e., within the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, or same air basin).” Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application: Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan 48 Here is the subterranean parking plan from Vallco Measure D, nearly identical: Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan General Comments: GHG emissions should be calculated for the actual construction period which is 6-8 years according to Vallco Property owner representative, Reed Moulds. By dividing tons of GHG by 10 year construction artificially lower results end up being compared to BAAQMD thresholds. The Hyatt House construction will be complete before Proposed Project construction begins and should not be included in the study for construction emissions. The lot acreage input perhaps should read 50.82 acres, instead of 58.00 per the data entry because construction on other parcels is not part of this study, and would be completed, however the operational emissions would include buildout of the entire Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Area: Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage 49 The traffic volume at I-280 was incorrectly pulled from the referenced Caltrans traffic count. I-280, between Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. has an AADT of 176,000 and between Wofe Rd. and De Anza/Saratoga Sunnyvale Blvd. of 168,000: Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic Caltrans, 2017. 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/ The GHG Assessment chose the lowest value from the Caltrans data to use (162,000 AADT), rather than the highest peak month value which would be a base rate of 176,000 AADT: 50 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The following data appears to have no source dividing up vehicular type, speed, and what type of emission each would have, and the 2029 predicted number of vehicles is too low, showing only 183,061 AADT: Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The predicted ADT for I-280 was not included in the GHG calculation which has a 2029 starting date. The following VTA study shows the 2035 ADT predictions for segment A (Vallco site is within segment A). There 51 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035. Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pdf GHG assessment has errors in selecting the AM and PM speeds of traffic, in particular the PM peak period average travel speed of 60 MPH is incorrect, not consistent with the CMP data they used (or our own observations) which is on the following page: 52 53 http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Final%20MC%20Report%202016.pdf “For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average free-flow travel speed of 65 mph was assumed for all vehicles other than heavy duty trucks which were assumed to travel at a speed of 60 mph. Based on traffic data from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's 2016 Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Conformance Report, traffic speeds during the peak a.m. and p.m. periods were identified.15 For two hours during the peak a.m. period an average travel speed of 25 mph was used for west-bound traffic. For the p.m. peak period an average travel speed of 60 mph was used for east-bound traffic. The free-flow travel speed was used for the other directions during the peak periods.” -GHG Assessment p. 39-40 IMPACT GHG-1 Impact GHG-1: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) would not generate cumulatively considerable GHG emissions that would result in a significant cumulative impact to the environment. Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An additional mitigation should include those offered for Measure D, VTCSP: “EDF 18. Transportation Demand Management Plan: Consistent with the Plan Area’s environmental design features, require the preparation and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan with an overall target of reducing Specific Plan officegenerated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.” GHG-1 conclusion that mitigations result in less than significant cumulative impacts is inconsistent with the data from the GHG report which clearly states that the project during construction and at build out would exceed the GHG thresholds of BAAQMD, and that was determined spreading out all emissions over a period of 10 years for the construction phase which is not the actual timeline presented by the developer of 6-8 years: 54 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ROG is likely due primarily from architectural coatings, as the previous Vallco Town Center Measure D Environmental Assessment showed in the Vallco Town Center Environmental Assessment PDF p 652/2023 included in the NOP EIR comments and submitted to the city: 55 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Measure D was included in the EIR NOP comments, the following table shows errors in calculating the criteria pollutants, by dividing the entire construction period into the various pollutants, a much lower daily value is attained, this would not be the case since, architectural coatings will not be applied for the entire multi-year construction time frame, however, the GHG technical report shows 130 days or about 4 months which would likely result in extremely hazardous levels of ROGs. 56 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating Referring back to Table 6, the tonnage of ROGs expected is 41.1, and about 80% of that is from Architectural Coatings. 130 days for architectural coatings that would be approximately 632 lbs/day which is more than ten times the BAAQMD threshold. 41.1 tons of ROG emissions x 2000 lbs/ton/130 days = 632 lbs/dayx80%= 505.6 lbs of ROGs per day over a roughly four month period! On-road emissions would be concentrated into a couple of years. Since the Proposed Project and alternatives are larger than Measure D, we can expect even larger exceeding of the BAAQMD thresholds. Operational air pollution thresholds per BAAQMD are lower than the construction thresholds and only PM 2.5 is not exceeded by the project but very likely exceeded by the freeway contribution. Operational Air Pollutant emissions, subtracts the existing emissions, however, that does not make sense. The threshold is in tons per year produced of GHG, not whether the project will increase the emissions by more than the threshold. 57 58 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions 59 http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886 BL2: DECARBONIZE BUILDINGS Air quality modeling used the old data from an air quality monitoring station set up to study Lehigh Cement and situated on Voss Road which is not adjacent to the I-280 and closed in 2013 making the data irrelevant. Additionally, that data was during a period of lesser traffic regionally. Providing clean energy to the site through an alternative fuel provider is not a mandate. This is potential mitigation. Proposed Project may need to purchase less expensive energy. The assumption that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is the energy provider for the site ignores future condominium, retail, and office space lessors and owners from choosing which energy company serves them. This assumption is unacceptable, any GHG reductions based on this assumption need to be removed. “Electricity is provided to the site by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). SVCE customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent carbon free sources; with 50 percent from solar and wind sources, and 50 percent from hydroelectric. Customers have the option to enroll in the GreenPrime plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar” BL4: URBAN HEAT ISLAND MITIGATION “Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would reduce the urban heat island effect by incorporating measures such as cool surface treatments for parking facilities, cool roofs, cool paving, and landscaping to provide well shaded areas.” There is no approved Specific Plan to make this determination. Any GHG reductions based on this assumption, must be removed. N W2: URBAN TREE PLANTING Consistent: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would provide a comfortable, well- shaded environment. This statement does not mandate tree planting. The cause of shade is not described, it could be a building blocking direct light. With a 30 acre green roof, what trees would be at street level? CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EMISSIONS There is an error in calculating Construction Period emissions because they use the entire 10 year construction period to get a better outcome of the pounds per day of emissions. Additionally, Sand Hill Property Company 60 representative Reed Moulds stated in the Vallco presentation meeting presented by the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce, linked here: https://youtu.be/hiDvHM027R4 that construction would be 6-8 years, not 10. The bulk of the construction exhaust would occur in demolition and haul off which would be a matter of months and not years. There would be peaks in the construction emissions and they will likely exceed BAAQMD thresholds. This chart needs to be recalculated taking into consideration the reality of the construction timeline: Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions 61 “…estimated 2,600 construction workdays (based on an average of 260 workdays per year). Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days” Even with mitigation methods and spreading out the NOx generated from construction over 10 years, only a 25% reduction in NOx was achieved, and it did not meet the BAAQMD threshold. Are there more mitigations available? Construction haul is shown to be 20 miles for demolition, has this been verified? No actual location has been stated to accept materials. Is the 20 miles round trip? What accepting locations are within 10 miles? Within 20 miles for hazardous material drop off (asbestos)? Existing mall does not have enclosed parking garages with elevator which the GHG states. If this means that the parking garages have walls and requisite blowers to bring in fresh air, then this assumption would have an associated energy consumption inconsistent with the current mall parking. Much of the parking is at grade with no garage structure. Where there are parking garages, they are open. Plan provides incomplete data on fuel usage. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Because hazardous materials have already been noted onsite, the distance required to find an accepting landfill must be added into the GHG travel distance for hauling. 3.9.1.3 OTHER HAZARDS The 30 acre green roof may pose a fire hazard. The SB 35 application suggested equipping golf carts on the roof with fire fighting equipment. What mitigations are going to be implemented for Proposed Project and alternatives? To what standard? 3.9.2.1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Wildfire hazard from the green roof may be excessive without a mitigation plan. Emergency response may be too slow given the complex structures. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Proposed project and all alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) drastically alter the existing terrain. Over 2 Million Cubic Yards of soil cut is expected in all plans and an untested green roof over 30 acres is proposed for two of the options. The entire site will be encased in concrete or other non-permeable surface. Attempting to 62 have rainfall percolate into the soil would be extremely difficult given the site plan. The amount of storage area for rainfall to reuse for 50.82 acres would be a prohibitive expense. The city cannot conclude that the roof park, which is sloped and of unknown depth, can or would absorb the same amount of rainfall that a flat grass park would. If the space is landscaped to be drought tolerant, there may be many open spaces and exposed gravel, concrete, and other impermeable areas. There is proposed public entertainment space planned on the roof which would not be permeable. If recycled water is used, and any chemical fertilizers, on the green roof, these will concentrate and enter the water supply. If this runoff is collected and reused on the roof, it will further concentrate. Should gray water also be collected and used for irrigation, this may further degrade the chemical build up on the roof. These issues need to be very carefully thought out. The green roof is an experiment and further analysis into what the runoff coefficient would be is required. The depth of groundwater may be of concern should an additional level of subterranean parking be required, given the shallow depth of the drainage trench along the north end of the property. The project will interfere with groundwater recharge because the consumption of recycled water for the green roof, when it becomes available will redirect that water from being used for groundwater recharge. 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU-2 assumes the General Plan has no residential allocation controls in place, therefore residential alternatives above proposed project are not consistent with the General Plan. DEIR, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Table 3.11.11 has errors due to assuming some type of construction would result in disturbing the exterior environment of the existing mall in the re-tenanted mall option. The assumptions regarding the other alternatives would need to be verified after any corrections are made based on comments to DEIR. The minimization of impermeable surfaces strategy is dependent on whether there is a ground level park. If the re-tenanted mall has areas converted to above grade parking structures, then that option would increase permeable surface area. Policy ES-7.1: This policy is violated by proposed project and alternatives. Strategy ES-7.1.1: The concentration of dissolved solids in the recycled water, along with 30 acres of space requiring fertilizer, may result in unacceptable storm water runoff. 63 Policy ES-7.2: the green roof may increase runoff amounts, it is not the same as park on grade from a hydrologic standpoint. Strategy ES-7.2.3: onsite filtration is beyond the scope of capabilities of a typical development. Policy ES-7.3: this is an unacceptable mitigation because of the scientific background required to monitor the runoff. This should be the responsibility solely of the owner and not suggest volunteers perform this duty. Policy HE-4.1: This policy is violated because there is an excessive amount of green roof space proposed for the 800 residential units in Proposed Project. Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency access and fire prevention. Policy HS-8.1: This policy is violated due to excessive construction and operational noise. Policy HS-8.3: Likely violated because construction vibrations may not be mitigated. Strategy LU-3.3.1, LU- 3.3.2, LU-3.3.3: These strategies are not followed. The existing AMC is 83’ in height. The adjacent 19,800 Wolfe Rd. apartment building is 61’ to tallest parapet. Apple Park maximum height is 75’. The Apple Park parking garages across the I-280 are 48’. The scale of proposed project and alternatives is more than double the height of any building in the area and it is much denser. Strategy LU-19.1.4: The proposed projects shown at the Opticos Charrettes have insufficient retail. The residential amounts over 800 are inconsistent with the General Plan. Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively. Impact LU-4: Due to the Combination of Apple Park, Hamptons, Main Street Cupertino, and Proposed Project and alternatives, the project will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact. 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Agree with DEIR. 3.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION Loud noise can cause hearing loss. The construction noise over the 10 year period may cause hearing loss for sensitive receptors and patrons of the surrounding retail areas. An outdoor concert venue in the proposed project or alternatives, will very likely result in hearing loss. The future noise contours from the DEIR indicate that walking along Wolfe Rd., Stevens Creek Blvd. and the proposed bike path along the I-280 will have areas above 80 dB. The I-280 has directional traffic flow, slowed traffic, and associated decreased noise, during peak hour traffic would only be for 4 of the 8 lanes. There would always be traffic at free flow, generating that noise level. As the freeway continues to decline in service, and development in San Jose increases, the traffic should slow at peak hour in both directions. From DEIR: PLAYGROUNDS 64 “Playground noise would primarily result from activities such as raised voices and the use of playground equipment. Typical noise levels resulting from various playground activities range from 59 to 67 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Maximum instantaneous noise levels typically result from children shouting and can reach levels of 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming playground activities would be restricted to daytime hours only, the minimum setback of the center of the playground areas to the nearest residential property lines would need to be 60 feet for the typical noise levels to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA.” Charrette #2 Closing Presentation shows parks adjacent to back yards of single family residences. This may, combined with Perimeter Rd. noise exceed Municipal Code permissible sound levels. The DEIR does not adequately address this. Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 65 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS The Future Noise Contours map has some omissions regarding noise from the Perimeter Road, western edge park, and proposed amphitheater. The map has gross assumptions regarding what the plan would look like and ignores conditions on the roof which would result in a separate layer of mapping: One layer for ground level (ear level) and one level for the roof park to see if it meets park noise requirements. The future noise contours for the project site exceed residential maximum levels according to the Cupertino Municipal Code 10.48.040. 66 CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 CONSTRUCTION NOISE The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included. During Construction, which is 6-10 years, according to the Ramboll Environ Noise Assessment for Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, noise levels exceed noise limits, and it does not make sense that demolition of the parking garage near R4 would not exceed noise limits: 67 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise 68 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors 69 Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The development of the VTCSP would be subject to applicable noise policies and regulations including those in the General Plan (including Policies HS-8.1, HS-8.2, HS-8.3, and HS-8.4), Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance. The development of the VTCSP could result in the noise and vibration impacts discussed below. • Construction-related noise – Noise generated from construction activities associated with the development of the VTCSP would likely result in significant, temporary noise impacts at adjacent residences. The VTCSP includes the following EDFs that would reduce construction-related noise impacts: On-Site Construction Noise: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall be required to adhere to the construction noise limits of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The following items would further reduce the potential for high levels of noise from construction equipment or activities, and ensure that noise complaints are address promptly and if necessary, corrective action is taken: • Along the western boundary of the Town Center/Community Park and near the existing residential district, prepare and implement a 24-hour construction noise monitoring program to be installed and operated remotely. The noise monitoring program would continuously monitor construction noise levels at select perimeter locations and alert a designated person(s) when noise levels exceed allowable limits. If noise levels are found to exceed allowable limits, additional noise attenuation measures (i.e., sound walls) will be undertaken. • Require that all equipment be fitted with properly sized mufflers, and if necessary, engine intake silencers. • Require that all equipment be in good working order. • Use quieter construction equipment models if available, and whenever possible, use pneumatic tools rather than using diesel or gas-powered tools. • Place portable stationary equipment as far as possible from existing residential areas, and if necessary, place temporary barriers around stationary equipment. • Whenever possible, require that construction contractors lift heavy equipment rather than drag. • For mobile equipment that routine operates near residential area (i.e., within approximately 200 feet), consider placement of typical fixed pure-tone backup alarms with ambient-sensing and/or broadband backup alarms. • Assign a noise control officer to ensure that the above requirements are being implemented. • Implement a noise complaint hotline and post the hotline phone number on nearby visible signs and online. Require that either the noise control officer or a designated person be available at all times to answer hotline calls and ensure that follow-up and/or corrective action is taken, if necessary. Prompt Demolition: To ensure swift completion of the remainder of the Plan Area, a commitment to demolish 100% of the remaining existing Mall improvements within 6 months of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the afore-described initial retail component, subject to existing leases and an appropriate temporary improvement plan for demolished areas. Haul Traffic Noise: To reduce haul traffic noise, contractors for developments pursuant to the Specific Plan shall require that haul trucks travel at low speeds (e.g., l 0 mph) when operating on or adjacent to the Plan Area. The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project 70 applicants for future development shall ensure that this requirement is included in the construction specifications. In addition, the construction contractor shall ensure that haul trucks be fitted with properly sized and functioning exhaust mufflers.” Operation-related noise – Operation of the uses at Vallco under the VTCSP could result in significant noise increases at adjacent sensitive receptors. To mitigate operation-related noise impacts at adjacent sensitive receptors, the City requires compliance with the noise standards in the Municipal Code, and could require measures that limit or attenuate noise such as sound barriers, limitations on hours of operations, and orientation of stages and speakers away from sensitive receptors . Operation of the VTCSP would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site, which could increase noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors. On Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road in the Vallco vicinity, the existing daily trips are 30,000 and 34,000 respectively. In general, for traffic noise to increase noticeably (i.e., by a minimum of three dBA), existing traffic volumes must double.” Traffic volumes on Perimeter Rd. may at a minimum, double. The DEIR did not address this fully. Additional noise requirements from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The noise and land use compatibility of the proposed uses in the VTC with the existing ambient noise environment could also be an issue. Exterior and interior noise levels at future uses at Vallco under the VTC would exceed the City’s noise standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The VTC shall include the following EDF to meet the State and City interior noise standard at future residences on-site: Acoustical Assessment: Prior to completion of detailed design for dwelling units, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall prepare an acoustical assessment to demonstrate how interior sound levels would achieve interior sound levels at or below 45 dBA CNEL. The following development standards shall be included in the acoustical assessments: • Install HVAC systems for all residential units to ensure that windows and doors can remain closed during warm weather; • Install double-glazed windows, especially on sides of buildings that are adjacent to busy roadways; • Ensure that all windows and doors are properly sealed; and • Ensure that exterior wall building materials are of an adequately rated Sound Transmission Class.” If there is an outdoor performance venue, it must not be located where adjacent homes will be impacted, how will the plan address this? The following table is from VTCSP EA: 71 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue VIBRATION It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property. 72 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.14.12 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing population per the footnote provided shows Cupertino’s 2018 population at 60,091 not the 58,915 population estimate they show which is from 2016. The existing condition should be the most current. The city states the population of residents per residential unit is 2.94, per the DEIR: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). IMPACT POP-1 Increases in population for Proposed Project would be 800 residential units resulting in 2,264 residents which would be a 4% increase in city population. This excludes the Hamptons approved 600 residential unit increase to 942 residential units which are adjacent to the project. Alternative with 2,640 residential units would result in 7,471 residents and a 12% population increase to the city. The 4,000 residential unit alternative would result in 11,320 residents and a 19% population increase. The Proposed Project and re-tenanted mall do not induce significant population growth to the city. Project Alternatives with 2,640 and 4,000 residential units induce significant population growth to the city. IMPACT POP-3 The proposed project, with 2 Million SF of office space will result in a housing deficit across the region. Project alternatives will induce significant population growth in an area of the city already impacted with Apple Park and other developments. The Charrette alternatives also induce significant population growth to the city (3,200 residential units) and further exacerbate the excess jobs in the city. The project (and project alternatives) will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impact. 73 Emotional effects of cramped housing on children: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof. Impact PS-2: It is unclear, if a major tech employer were to occupy the 2 Million SF of office space, what additional police support would be necessary. What additional support would a potential 11,320 residents require? SANITARY SEWER “Sanitary Sewer System Capacity – The existing sewer lines in the vicinity of Vallco are in North Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Most sewage generated at Vallco discharges to the 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Under existing peak wet weather flow conditions, flows to this 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road exceed its capacity.37 Development of the VTCSP would intensify the use of the site, which would result in an increase in sewage generated from the site compared to existing conditions. For this reason, the development of the VTCSP would require sewer system improvements to ensure sufficient conveyance capacity. Based on preliminary analysis, redevelopment of Vallco under the General Plan would require the construction of a parallel pipe to the existing 15- inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Facilities: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit(s) for the final construction sequence, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director that adequate sanitary sewer services are available.” – 9212 VTCSP 74 SCHOOL IMPACTS Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 The student generation rates are based off of too small of a sample size and the data appears to have been from Fall of 2015, since the same results for 19,800 Wolfe Rd. and Biltmore have repeated after 2 ½ years. Additionally, from that same initial result, the current SGRs they calculated for the Proposed Project, which is nearly identical to The Hills at Vallco now have inexplicably dropped the SGR’s for the same project. Since the proposed project will likely have the possibility of selling the residential units at some time, and the lack of information regarding the sizes of the units, and the continued growth and interest in the Cupertino High School boundary area, these SGRs are likely too low. A larger sampling size is needed for these figures to be believable. 75 The BMR units proposed will have a higher student generation rate according to Polly Bove of FUHSD (Vallco meeting recorded by League of Women Voters, May, 2018). These higher rates are not reflected. The project alternatives are untested as to number of students generated. DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES Figure 48: DEIR SGR 76 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE 77 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables 78 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs The DEIR may study the impacts of traffic rerouting of students. According to the Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger Memo to the City of Cupertino Attorney, February 25, 2014: “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 79 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.” PARK LAND REQUIREMENTS The city residents per unit is 2.83. The park land calculations are both low and assuming a City Council action to accept park land acreage on a roof in lieu of park land. This has been discussed in earlier sections. RECREATION The 70,000 SF Bay Club gym on site is the only gym in the east side of Cupertino and it will be closed for multiple years during construction and likely will not return. Creekside park is permitted year around to the De Anza Youth Soccer League and has additional camps in the summer using the space. Ranch San Antonio is so over utilized by the region that the neighboring residents had to have permitted parking and parking has been limited to preserve the area because it is a natural area. During the weekdays a return trip across town after 2:30pm results in a 30 minute drive. Due to excess demand on Rancho San Antonio, there is a limited window mid day and mid week where a parking spot may be found. Proposed project and alternatives will have significant negative impacts to the area and further increase demand for the parks existing. Even the low SGR for the school is enough students to start an entire new soccer league. 3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC EXISTING CONDITIONS Counts on January 15, 2018 included the AMC movie theater which is closed, and a transit hub which includes Genentech, Google, and Facebook with no individual counts to separate out these uses. The mall had a 24% occupancy at the time. LEVELS OF SERVICE Please note that LOS is an average and there is some directional flow within the city intersections such that the LOS may not reflect what drivers are experiencing because of the averaging of each lane approach. Of particular concern is how slow the movement of traffic out of the city and returning would be for the 80%+ of Cupertino worker commuters out of the city daily. 80 The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT It is unclear, given that Apple Park has been occupying, how their (Apple Park) traffic has been assigned. For instance, there were traffic counts in May, 2017 which would reflect thousands of trips by construction workers to the site which would likely have been coming from the I-280 and east bound AM and westbound PM. There were also traffic counts in January, 2018, which would perhaps now show a few hundred Apple tech workers who would presumably be coming from other areas along with continued construction workers. As of March, 2018 approximately 6,000 employees were at Apple Park out of the expected 14,200. There have been many requests of the city to wait until Apple Park fully occupies to perform traffic counts. Main Street Cupertino was also under construction during May, 2017 and those construction workers would also be impacting the counts. There have been several intersections under construction, including the Calvert/I-280 project and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 exit project. These multiple projects have rerouted traffic and altered the makeup of drivers into artificial patterns not reflected in the study. What the traffic counts show, is what the area traffic is like with major construction underway. 81 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied Traffic impacts, while significant and unavoidable with mitigation is underestimated. Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates 82 Trips generated are lower than the Hills at Vallco? That seems incorrect. Neither break out actual uses (restaurants, theater, City Halls which all generate much heavier traffic than is shown). Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Projects with recycled water (30 acre green roof) will result in an expansion of recycled water production which is a significant negative impact. Redirecting water which could be used for groundwater recharge and then used for drinking water is wasteful. City must have a regulatory framework to manage conservation claims. 83 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The claim that project and alternatives would have no significant impact is subjective. Residents per unit are inconsistently applied in the DEIR when the population increase from Vallco project and alternatives would largely be accounting for the city-wide population increase, therefore the assumption to population must logically use 2.94 residents per unit: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). 84 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Subject:FW: Comments to DEIR Vallco Specific Plan Update Date:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 12:20:29 PM From: Kitty Moore Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 12:19 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org> Cc: Esq. Bern Steves ; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Comments to DEIR Vallco Specific Plan Update Greetings, The link provided here contains my comments to the DEIR for the Vallco Specific Plan, the alterations are minor, adding a cover page and the CA Government Code for the Notice of Preparation: https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/b09fcb04-956c-4525-b1c2-41a437e32ef4 Please provide written receipt of the document and that it has been downloaded and submitted for the record. Thanks! Here is the opening page for your convenience: COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Reports for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1.Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project. 2.Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. Comment Letter F 3. Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4. Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5. Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. The Specific Plan Process is considering only plans which were not studied in the DEIR. No DEIR alternatives showed 3,200 residential units and 750,000-1,500,000 Square Feet of office space. The General Plan does not allow retail to be reduced below 600,000 SF which the Specific Plan process is considering. 6. Alternatives to Project (General Plan with Maximum Residential Buildout Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) ignore the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan and The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, feasible alternatives: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Deliver to: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org JUNE 6, 2018 1 COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Reports for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1. Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project. 2. Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. 3. Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4. Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5. Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. The Specific Plan Process is considering only plans which were not studied in the DEIR. No DEIR alternatives showed 3,200 residential units and 750,000- 1,500,000 Square Feet of office space. The General Plan does not allow retail to be reduced below 600,000 SF which the Specific Plan process is considering. 6. Alternatives to Project (General Plan with Maximum Residential Buildout Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) ignore the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan and The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, feasible alternatives: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GOV 2 A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatib]e with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. Government Code 15082. Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR (a) Notice of Preparation. Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in approving or funding the project. (1) The notice of preparation shall provide the responsible and trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research with sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable the responsible agencies to make a meaningful response. At a minimum, the information shall include: (A) Description of the project, (B) Location of the project (either by street address and cross street, for a project in an urbanized area, or by attaching a specific map, preferably a copy of a U.S.G.S. 15' or 7- 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name), and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. Potential to Cease EIR Mid-Stream: The EIR scoping meeting provided inadequate and conflicting information with an infeasible “Proposed Project” and infeasible alternatives. According to “CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway,” by Abbott & Kindermann Leslie Z. Walker, on September 22, 2009, the EIR process may be stopped mid-stream: According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved 3 by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete. The article continues: One of the City’s council members opposed the project and asked the City to cease its work on it. The City attorney advised the council members that the City was required to continue processing and completing the EIR. Nonetheless, the objecting council member introduced a motion to suspend the environmental review process until the city council made “a policy decision” to resume the process. The city council ultimately approved a modified motion which also called for the City to cease work on the proposed project. Should the City Council find reason to cease the EIR, such as project alternatives being inconsistent with the General Plan, plan NOP period did not show legal project alternatives, and the Specific Plan process failed to inform the public of the process failings immediately when known and is studying projects which were not studied in the DEIR (explained on the following pages), or that in light of its’ similarity to failed Cupertino ballot Measure D: The Vallco Initiative November 8, 2016, there is precedent as demonstrated above, to do so. Alternatives to Project: “The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project or to the location of a Project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Similarity of “Proposed Project” to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should Disqualify It: The Vallco Measure D Initiative is described in the following: CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 and would consist of: • 2,000,000 SF office • 640,000 SF retail • 191 additional hotel rooms, bringing the site total to 339 hotel rooms • 389 residential units with a Conditional Use Permit bringing the total to 800 residential units The November 8, 2016 Election results for Measure D were 55% No. Advertising for the initiative obscured the office and focused on the retail portions. The actual square footage percentages for the Measure D Initiative were: 4 • 56% office • 22% residential • 16% retail • 6% hotel Notice these above percentages result in 84% non-retail uses and would be a majority office park. The “Proposed Project” for the EIR has less retail (600,000 SF) and other uses the same as Measure D. The EIR process is not intended to be a disregard of the city’s General Plan to “try out” alternative concepts which have no consistency with the General Plan. This creates a great deal of confusion and distrust. General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: This section amasses the multiple sections of the General Plan which reference the Vallco Shopping District and describe what it is planned to become. Refer to: Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: In Chapter 2 of the Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: Planning Areas: Vallco Shopping District is described as: “…Cupertino’s most significant commercial center…” and that “…Reinvestment is needed…so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community.” It is referred to as a “shopping district”, not an office park, or a residential community. “This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley.” - Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 CONTENTS Figures..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Comments on DEIR Summary p xii: Proposed Project is a moving Target ...................................................... 9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ........................................................... 20 No Explanation from Where in the General Plan the Excess Residential Units Came From ...................... 20 Cupertino General Plan 2040 studied a piecemeal plan of Vallco? .............................................................. 20 5 2.3 Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.1 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.1 Common Open Space and Landscaping ............................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.2 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ................................................................................................... 22 2.4.4.3 Transit Center and Transportation Demand Management Program ..................................................... 22 2.4.4.4 Utility Connections and Recycled Water Infrastructure Extension ...................................................... 23 2.4.4.5 Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1.2 Scenic Views and Vistas ....................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Light and glare .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 Impact AQ-1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-3: .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Impact AQ-4: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Impact AQ-6: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Hazardous Materials Demolition: ..................................................................................................................... 37 Impact AQ-7: .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Cancer Risk Assessment, Construction Phase, Contradicts Previous Study .................................................... 41 Impact AQ-9: .................................................................................................................................................... 43 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 43 3.5. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 44 3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 45 3.8 Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ......................................... 45 Impact GHG-1 .................................................................................................................................................. 55 BL2: Decarbonize Buildings............................................................................................................................. 61 BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 61 6 NW2: Urban Tree Planting ............................................................................................................................... 61 Construction Period Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 61 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................. 63 3.9.1.3 Other Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 63 3.9.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ........................................................................................... 63 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 63 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................. 64 3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 65 3.13 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................................................... 65 Playgrounds....................................................................................................................................................... 65 Future Noise Contours ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Cupertino Municipal Code Maximum Permissible Sound Levels ................................................................... 68 Construction Noise............................................................................................................................................ 68 Vibration ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................................ 74 3.14.12 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 74 Impact POP-1 ................................................................................................................................................ 74 Impact POP-3 ................................................................................................................................................ 74 3.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................................. 75 Sanitary Sewer .................................................................................................................................................. 75 School Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 76 DEIR Student Generation Rates ................................................................................................................... 77 Failed Measure D Hills at Vallco Student Generation Rates to Compare .................................................... 78 Park Land Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 81 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 81 3.17 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 81 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 81 Levels of Service............................................................................................................................................... 81 Approved and Pending Projects Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment ............................................ 82 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................................ 84 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 85 7 FIGURES Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: DEIR Heights ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater .................................................................... 15 Figure 6: From DEIR ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 7: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 8: Vallco Project Changes (following page) ............................................................................................ 19 Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan ........................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space .......................................................................... 25 Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees ..................................................... 25 Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation................................................................................................... 32 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match .............................................................. 33 Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks ......................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD ......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High ........................................................................ 41 Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs ................................................................. 42 Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand ..................................................................................................................... 45 8 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors ................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan ........................................................................................... 49 Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan ................................................................................ 50 Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage ............................................................................................................. 50 Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 56 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction ........................................................................................ 57 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating ............................................................................. 58 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions ..................................................................................................... 60 Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions .................................................................................... 62 Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 ........................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 ................................................................................. 68 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise .................................................................................... 69 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors ......................................................................................... 70 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue ..................................................... 73 Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 ............................................................................ 76 Figure 48: DEIR SGR .......................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables .................................................................................... 79 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs ................................................................................................................. 80 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied ........................... 83 Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner .................................................................................... 84 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees ....................................................................................................... 86 9 INTRODUCTION In order to ease review of these comments, they are ordered in parallel with the DEIR document. Comments will follow the headings from the DEIR in order, and any missing informational sections will be discussed at the end. Quotations from the DEIR and appendices are shown in blue. COMMENTS ON DEIR SUMMARY P XII: PROPOSED PROJECT IS A MOVING TARGET The DEIR Summary, p xii, states: “The proposed project is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments.” and continues: “Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would facilitate development of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses, up to 339 hotel rooms, and up to 800 residential dwelling units on-site. The proposed Specific Plan development reflects the buildout assumptions (including the adopted residential allocation available) for the site in the City’s adopted General Plan. In addition, the project includes up to 65,000 square feet of civic spaces in the form of governmental office space, meeting rooms and community rooms and a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) lab, as well as a 30-acre green roof.” Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p. xii, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 The DEIR studied the following projects and alternatives: Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary 10 1. Proposed Project has incorrect number of residential units. Residential units would be 389. Referring to the General Plan, Vallco “…specific plan would permit 389 units…” not 800 residential units. The Specific Plan process to date shows a 3,200, 2,640 and 3,250 residential unit options. While the housing units may be moved between housing element sites, the General Plan Technical Report for Scenarios A and B do not come close to having this many housing units. None of the options are consistent with the General Plan. When the number of units is over 2,640 in the DEIR, there is no office shown. The Charrette 2 housing units are shown to be 3,200 at the Charrette #2 closing presentation for any options. This was not studied in the DEIR. Low Housing/Low Retail option shared is inconsistent with the General Plan minimum retail of 600,000 SF. DEIR, p. 15 PDF p 51, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p 51, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 General Plan Housing Element p H-21: “Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE-5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE-5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District site (Site A2). The redevelopment of Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community’s needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of “Scenario B” in Appendix B - Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments; however the Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.” 11 2. Clarifications needed for p xii Summary, what is the proposed project? As of the release date of the DEIR, May 24, 2018, there is no approved Specific Plan for Vallco. Two options shared the week of Charrette #2 have no relationship to the General Plan, or the DEIR, and included: Low Office/High Retail Residential: 3,250 units Office: 750,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 600,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Low Housing/Low Retail Residential: 2,640 units Office: 1,500,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 400,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Here is the Opticos slide presented the week of Charrette #2, May 23, 2018, informing us of what the project could be: Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options Notice the number of residential units are not consistent with the General Plan or DEIR in any way. The park space is inconsistent with the DEIR. And supporting slide from Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation has further alterations to proposed project: 12 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options 3. 65,000 SF of civic space, STEM lab, and 30 acre green roof were not discussed in the NOP period for Vallco. In the DEIR civic space and STEM lab are combined into the 65,000 SF. Additionally, the civic/STEM spaces are considered public benefits which would result in higher building heights if the developer includes them. This was mentioned at the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation, May 24, 2018: 13 Figure 4: DEIR Heights 4. To add to the confusion as to what the project may end up being, the maximum height was also shown to be 294’. These height differences will cause different shadow and intrusion issues, such as privacy intrusion into Apple Campus HQ which may be a security risk at the corporate headquarters, guest discomfort at the outdoor swimming pool at Hyatt House, and the lack of privacy for the area homes and back yards. In Section 4.2.1 of the DEIR, heights are shown up to 165’. The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan: 14 15 5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May 31, 2018 with no Sp- ecific Plan adopted for Vallco? P. 162 of DEIR: Cupertino Municipal Code The Vallco Special Area is zoned P(Regional Shopping) – Planned Development Regional Shopping north of Vallco Parkway, and P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial south of Vallco Parkway (west of North Wolfe Road). The Planned Development Zoning District is specifically intended to encourage variety in the development pattern of the community. The Planned Development Regional Shopping zoning designation allows all permitted uses in the Regional Shopping District, which include up to 1,645,700 square feet of commercial uses, a 2,500 seat theater complex, and buildings of up to three stories and 85 feet tall.81 The Planned Development General Commercial designation allows retail businesses, full service restaurants (without separate bar facilities), specialty food stores, eating establishments, offices, laundry facilities, private clubs, lodges, personal service establishments. 81 Council Actions 31-U-86 and 9-U-90. The maximum building height identified was in conformance with the 1993 General Plan and were identified in the Development Agreement (Ordinance 1540 File no. 1-DA-90) at that time 6. The performing arts theater, public benefit was mentioned in the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation May 24, 2018, but not included in the DEIR calculations: Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater 7. 16 8. The lack of a stable project makes writing comments nearly impossible. In Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/washoe-meadows-community-v-department-parks-recreation- 2017-17-cal-app-5th-277/ “…the court held that the DEIR’s failure to provide the public with an “accurate, stable and finite” project description prejudicially impaired the public’s right to participate in the CEQA process, citing COUNTY OF INYO V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. Noting that a broad range of possible projects presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives, the court found that the presentation of five very different alternative projects in the DEIR without a stable project was an obstacle to informed public participation” 9. Proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan: housing is exceeded, park land fails to meet requirements for the park starved east side of Cupertino (Municipal Code requires park land acreage rather than a substitute roof park at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 residents), height bonus tied to community benefits is not in the General Plan, the housing allocation assumes the General Plan allocation system has been removed, and community benefits in the General Plan for Vallco came at no ‘cost’ to the project such as increased heights. Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018. Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives 17 10. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. We have no identified Specific Plan and the last alternatives presented at the final Charrette #2 do not match any alternatives studied in the DEIR (3,200 residential units along with 750,000-1,000,000 SF office space plus 65,000 SF civic space) and are not consistent with the General Plan. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GO V A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatible with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. 18 Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self) 19 Figure 8: Vallco Project Changes (self) 20 C ULTURAL RESOURCES The findings and mitigations are adequate. 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS This section fails to state the current zoning designations per the General Plan, no Specific Plan has been adopted: Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan NO EXPLANATION FROM WHERE IN THE GENERAL PLAN THE EXCESS RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAME FROM “As shown in General Plan Table LU-1, the General Plan development allocation for the Vallco Special Area is as follows: up to a maximum of 1,207,774 square feet of commercial uses (i.e., retention of the existing mall) or redevelopment of the site with a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail uses of which a maximum of 30 percent may be entertainment uses (pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.4); up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses; up to 339 hotel rooms; and up to 389 residential dwelling units.5 Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations may be transferred among Planning Areas, provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 Final EIR (SCH#2014032007) (General Plan EIR).6 Therefore, additional available, residential or other, development allocations may be transferred to the project site.” CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2040 STUDIED A PIECEMEAL PLAN OF VALLCO? 21 “6 The General Plan EIR analyzed the demolition of the existing 1,207,774 square foot mall and redevelopment of the site with up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area. Because the Vallco Shopping Mall existed on the site when Community Vision 2015-2040 was adopted, and it was unclear when a project would be developed on the site, General Plan Table LU-2 indicates the square footage of the existing mall in the commercial development allocation to ensure that the mall did not become a non-conforming use at the site. Residential allocations that are available in other Planning Areas may be transferred to the Vallco Shopping District without the need to amend the General Plan.” Page 223 of this DEIR conflicts with the above assertion: “However, the General Plan update process in 2014 analyzed and allocated 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 389 residential units for a redeveloped project on the site.” What was studied in the General Plan EIR for Vallco? 2.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section attempts to obscure Vallco Shopping District’s “shopping, dining, and entertainment” objectives stated in the General Plan. The General Plan refers to Vallco Shopping District as: "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." 2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document. 2.4.4.1 COMMON OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING Park land acreage per Cupertino Municipal Code 13.08.050 states the park land acreage requirement to be 3 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas which are park deficient, such as the east side of Cupertino, the city average residents per dwelling units is 2.83. For Proposed Project, 800 residential units, 2,264 residents: 6.8 acres of park land acreage would be required. For 2,640 residential units, 7,471 residents: 22.4 acres of park land would be required. For 4,000 residential units, 11,320 residents: 34.0 acres of park land would be required. The 30 acre green roof is not park land acreage per the Municipal Code. While it may be considered a recreational area, the uses of such space are limited. Here is a cross section of the SB 35 plan roof: 22 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application Cupertino adopted the Community Vision 2040, Ch. 9 outlines the “Recreation, Parks, and Services Element.” Their Policy RPC-7.1 Sustainable design, is to minimize impacts, RPC-7.2 Flexibility Design, is to design for changing community needs, and RPC-7.3 Maintenance design, is to reduce maintenance. The Vallco green roof violates the three City of Cupertino Parks policies listed: it is not sustainable, it is not flexible (a baseball field cannot be created), and it is extremely high maintenance. Parkland acquisition is supposed to be based on “Retaining and restoring creeks and other natural open space areas” and to “design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to…keep maintenance costs low.” And unfortunately for us, the city states: “If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees based on a formula that considers the extent to which the publicly-accessible facilities meet community need.” 2.4.4.2 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING “Based on a conservative estimate of parking demand, it is estimated that two to three levels of below- ground parking across most of the site (51 acres) would be required.” Should a third level of subterranean parking be required, that will increase excavation haul, and GHG calculations. This would result in about 500,000 CY of additional soil removal and should be calculated. Parking will be inadequate due to park and ride demand from the Transit Center and TDM. 2.4.4.3 TRANSIT CENTER AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The extent of the transit system with Google, Genentech, and Facebook continuing to use the site along with what will likely be Apple, and VTA will result in much higher bus trips than expected. Even at the 808 average daily trips in the GHG and Fehr + Peers studies, that is 404 vehicles in and out of the site daily. This sounds 23 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in the project. 2.4.4.4 UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION The SB 35 application discussed the $9.1 million cost to extend the recycled water line across I-280. There is an insufficient amount of recycled water produced at the Donald M. Somers plant and there is anticipated upstream demand. When there is not enough recycled water, potable water is added to the recycled water to make up the difference. It may be decades before there is adequate output of recycled water for the green roof. Apple Park pays the potable water cost. The previous water study for Measure D showed the following water use: Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D Tertiary treated water from the Donald Somers plant is currently insufficient. Impacts related to the need to expand the plant will include air quality impacts as well. There is not enough capacity at the Donald Somers plant to supply the Vallco “Hills” project. Should the same green roof be added to the project, there would need to be a dual water system on the roof. This is due to the need to flush the recycled water out to keep certain plants healthy. The water use from the dual roof system needs to be addressed in coordination with the arborist report for the green roof irrigation system. The roof irrigation system may need an auxiliary pump system to irrigate gardens 95’+ in the air. 2.4.4.5 CONSTRUCTION Vallco spokesperson Reed Moulds stated construction would take 6-8 years. Depending on the order of construction, for instance if office is built first, the project will worsen the deficit in housing. The length of time of construction is important because it is used in calculating the lbs/day of GHG produced. If one side is to be torn down and rebuilt (eg. the east property) first, then the GHG calculations may significantly alter to really be two separate job sites on separate schedules. 24 2.4.4.6 SPECIFIC PLAN ASSUMPTIONS Items listed as “shall” do not state that all would be according to the requirements stated. For instance: “Future buildings shall install solar photovoltaic power, where feasible.” Requires none actually be installed. For the requirements to have any definite effect, they need to be rewritten for that outcome. Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas. 3.1.1.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS DEIR ignores many pleasant views in the Wolfe Road corridor and took photos in harsh lighting when many of the residents enjoy the space on commutes and going to the gym onsite: Southbound on Wolfe Road with the many mature ash trees: Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings: 25 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space Southbound on Wolfe Road, views of Santa Cruz Mountains. There are few areas in the east part of Cupertino where the Santa Cruz mountains are visible due to structures. Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees 26 East bound on Stevens Creek Blvd. Views of east hills and multiple Apple transit buses. Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles View of Bay Club (large seating area and tv room next to Starbucks) at Vallco. Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco 27 3.1.2 AESTHETIC IMPACTS “Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include scenic quality, sensitivity level, and view access. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views of a specific scenic features (e.g., open space lands, mountain ridges, bay, or ocean views).” Findings of AES-1 and AES-2 are incorrect. The length of a scenic vista is relative to the location. In the east part of Cupertino, there are few long (10 mile) vistas, such that 400’ is a relatively long vista. Glimpses of the Santa Cruz mountains and east bay hills are few and thus more precious. Homes are clustered with 5’ side yards and 25’ setbacks such that neighborhoods have little in the way of long vistas. Creekside Park, Cupertino High School, and Vallco Mall have the largest locally long vistas. Proposed project will have a huge negative aesthetic impact, it will block all views of the Santa Cruz mountains and eliminate the wide vista across the Bay Club parking lot. Most of the homes in the east part of Cupertino have no long site view and no view of the Santa Cruz mountains. The Bay Club and Starbucks (in the Sears Building) has a huge setback and the parking lot has many fairly young trees. This open vista has been there historically. Visitors to the rebuilt site will be relegated to underground parking caves in a crowded environment with thousands of employees and residents. While Apple Park architects did their best to berm and plant a massive 176 acre area, while keeping the maximum elevation to 75’, the Vallco project is the aesthetic antithesis. Ideally, Main Street would have been purchased for park land but that did not happen. While the proposed project suggests to hide park land within the project, there should be a large corner park to maintain the historic open corner space at the northeast corner of Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. The following historical photographs indicate how the corner has never had the view blocked by any solid structure: 28 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 29 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 30 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 31 LIGHT AND GLARE The development of the proposed project and alternatives (other than retenanted mall) would include nighttime and security lighting, and may include building material that is reflective. The project and alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) could result in light and glare impacts. Structures facing the residential areas could have the windows and heights limited with green walls installed to mitigate light and glare effects. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The site historically was an orchard until the late 1970s. With proper planning, a limited portion of the site could be returned to orchard space, on the ground, and possibly on the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Rd. corner. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Data input has some errors to traffic volumes, wind direction (selected “variable” when it is N, NE), project traffic volumes, and input to the program used to model GHG such as: acreage of the lot, apartment total SF, city park acreage is on the roof and will have recycled water which results in an additional GHG, the addition of a 10,000 SF racquet club is inconsistent with the proposed project studied by others, the Government Civic Center is shown smaller than Proposed Project: Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage GHG Trips generated do not match the Fehr + Peers Traffic Study for the DEIR and have nearly 10,000 less ADT. Additionally, the Fehr + Peers average daily trip rate was erroneously low. The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette 32 discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation Fehr + Peers ADT chart: 33 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match IMPACT AQ-1 Impact AQ-1 PM 10, is missing from the DEIR but mitigations to AQ-1 are included in the GHG appendix and are repeated for Impact AQ-2. IMPACT AQ-2 The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: The construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-2.1: 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.” 34 14. Avoid tracking of visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of prior to leaving the site.” These impacts may be better mitigated following Apple Park’s method of power washing on each exit from the site and installing steel grates the trucks drive over. The soil haul on I-280, if this occurs, will need coordination with CalTrans for street sweeping on the freeway. This may take months and severely block traffic due to closing a lane for sweepers. The route for soil haul needs to be made public. Apple Park balanced cut and fill onsite, thus eliminating months of truck haul a considerable distance. The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Initiative, “Measure D” indicated many months of hauling required, trips from 7-12 miles, and that project is approximately 2 Million SF smaller than Proposed Project and alternatives. Additionally, the inclusion of having 85% of parking be subterranean in the Charrette alternatives could result in an extra level of subterranean parking needed. This will mean another 500,000 cubic yards of soil haul off. This was not anticipated in the DEIR and will impact air quality. It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting landfills which are not near the site. The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: MM AQ-2.1: 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.” #6 and #16 impact mitigations are conflicting, is it two minutes or five minutes allowable idling time? How will this be enforced? The highest engine tier available is Tier 4b, the mitigations suggested include Tier 3, which should be deleted and require ALL construction equipment meet Tier 4b emissions standards because the site is adjacent to residences and within a quarter of a mile to a high school and day care. Additionally, the year of construction actually beginning is unknown. How will the City enforce that mitigations such as alternative fuel options (e.g., CNG, bio-diesel) are provided for each construction equipment type? It is the responsibility of the lead agency to ensure the equipment operated by the project actually uses alternative fuel. City must present their enforcement process. Because we have seen developers not pull permits until many years after approval, requiring that equipment be no older than eight years is better than the DEIR requirement of model year 2010 or newer. 35 • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards for NOx and PM, where feasible. • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced: Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks . Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles Source, BAAQMD: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf IMPACT AQ-3: The operation of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 36 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. Incomplete analysis and only one mitigation was suggested for operation of the project which is for architectural coatings specifically paint when ROGs are widely used throughout construction, however the proposed project will likely have multiple sources of ROG air pollution such as air pollution caused by: 1. additional recycled water production: likely unavoidable 2. any electrostatic ozone producing equipment: consider limiting ozone producing equipment or seek alternatives 3. cooling towers: require high efficiency cooling towers 4. operation of the transit hub: require zero emission transit vehicles, especially since there will likely be sensitive receptors living on site. 5. additional electricity generation to operate the project: require solar onsite to provide a minimum 50% of required electricity, including the electricity needed to treat the water and recycled water. Any exposed roofing to be white roof. 6. day to day additional vehicular traffic: require a high percent of EV charging stations, zero emission vehicles, and site loading areas 200’ from residents, medical offices, daycares, parks, and playgrounds. Refer to Comment 2C in the following: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf 7. VOC emission from outgassing of carpets, plastics, roofing materials, curing of concrete, treatment of pool and cooling tower water, materials in the artificial roof infrastructure: require low VOC materials throughout the project to reduce 8. restaurants which may be vented to the roof exposing people to cooking fume exhaust. Main Street Cupertino gases from restaurants are visible and detectable across the street on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The standards for roof venting for a green roof must be higher than typical because people may end up near the vents. 9. Additional traffic backing up on I-280, site is downwind of the freeway: place residential areas, medical facility offices, daycares, school uses, playgrounds, and parks a minimum of 1000’ from the I-280 right of way including the off ramps and particularly the on ramp due to vehicular acceleration resulting in increased air pollution emissions. 10. VOCs are not mitigated with HEPA filtration. This makes siting residences, medical facilities, school facilities, and daycares more than 1000’ from the freeway imperative. Require a Merv 13 filter or better in the 1000’ area and require the replacement of the filters with some city determined verification that the filters are changed. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-freeway-pollution-filters- 20170709-story.html 11. Employees working in the parking garages in the TDM program (valets underground) will need to have air quality monitored for safety. Usually they would have a separate room which is well ventilated and preferably an automated payment system for metered parking. However, if workers are needed to pack 37 cars tightly, then the whole underground parking area would have to be rendered safe for workers exposed to the air pollution found in parking garages for a full work day. Impact AQ-4 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOx, PM10, and/or PM2.5) for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure: MM AQ-4.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1. This is an incomplete analysis with incomplete mitigation measures. Refer to additional air pollution sources and mitigations listed in Impact AQ-3 above. No study of TDM workers in the underground garages has been done. Impact AQ-6 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction dust and diesel exhaust emissions concentrations. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. This impact is not specific enough. Because there is an error in the calculations, explained in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment section fully, the mitigations must be made more strict. It should be mentioned, that the exposure has critical peaks of hazardous levels of GHGs. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEMOLITION: Some of the site interiors appear to have had demolition occur already. Was this done to code? How is that known? “Potential sources of on-site contamination – The Vallco site was historically used for agricultural purposes, and has been developed and operating as a shopping mall since at least 1979. The site is listed on regulatory agency databases as having leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), removing and disposing of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), and a small quantity generator of hazardous materials waste. Surface soils may contain 38 elevated levels of residual pesticides and other chemicals of concern related to past and present use and operations at the site.”- JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report Include the following, modified from VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers: Soil Management Plan: A Soil Management Plan for all redevelopment activities shall be prepared by applicant(s) for future development to ensure that excavated soils are sampled and properly handled/disposed, and that imported fill materials are screened/analyzed before their use on the property. Renovation or Demolition of Existing Structures: Before conducting renovation or demolition activities that might disturb potential asbestos, light fixtures, or painted surfaces, the Town Center/Community Park applicant shall ensure that it complies with the Operations and Maintenance Plan for management and abatement of asbestos-containing materials, proper handling and disposal of fluorescent and mercury vapor light fixtures, and with all applicable requirements regarding lead-based paint. Proposed use of hazardous materials – Development of the VTC and alternatives could include uses that generate, store, use, distribute, or dispose of hazardous materials such petroleum products, oils, solvents, paint, household chemicals, and pesticides. The VTC shall include the following EDF to reduce adverse effects from on-site use of hazardous materials: Hazardous Materials Business Plan: In accordance with State Code, facilities that store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25534(b) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare and implement, as necessary, Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP) for determination of risks to the community. The HMBP will be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process Refer to Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and Gases: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1529.html Impact AQ-7 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC pollutant concentrations. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-7.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) shall implement mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 to reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions, which would thereby reduce the maximum cancer risk due to construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative). 39 The cancer risk assessment is based on erroneous traffic studies and the air quality monitoring stations had old data from 2013 and/or were too far away to use data. The cancer risk needs to be recalculated. The amount of exposure time should reflect seniors not leaving the project area. The baseline air quality monitoring must be taken over an extended period with particular attention paid to the summer months when Ozone levels increase. Here is an example day when children would be playing outdoors, Ozone was the primary pollutant. Note these are regional amounts, and the increases along the freeways are not shown: Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD 40 The I-280 freeway produces substantial TAC pollutant concentrations and the south bay is subjected to the entire bay area’s pollutants which are converted to Ozone in the warm summer months. The DEIR failed to monitor air pollution for the site for any time period, and only modeled pollutants onsite. Fires are expected to be the new normal, bringing potential further impacts to the region’s air quality. The heights of the structures planned, and layout, and planned green roof, will likely concentrate freeway pollutants into the project area and combine and intensify them with onsite traffic. Having 85% of the parking garages underground and with fresh air intake being difficult to locate may result in significantly unhealthy air quality and the need for expensive mechanical filtration which does not filter VOCs. Adding what may be approximately 147,000 SF of restaurant and up to 4,000 residential units producing cooking and restroom exhaust with a challenging ventilation system may further degrade the air quality on site. The roof park may enclose the site to the point of having hazardous air quality. The roof park covering was not studied in the cancer risk assessment model. Reducing the amount of underground parking and having above grade parking with open walls in above ground structures is a mitigation. Alternatively, Merv 13 or better filtration and air quality monitors in the subterranean garages may improve the air quality, but it is not clear which would be better. The project alternative with 4,000 residential units will most likely result in residents within 1,000’ of the freeway, re-tenanted mall results in the least construction and operational pollution, least cancer risk, and least long term GHG exposure since no residential units would be onsite. Project is “down wind” of the freeway. The freeway has over 160,000 vehicles per day and is increasing in congestion. Planned projects in San Jose will likely balance the directional flow of the I-280 and worsen traffic. Freeway pollution has been found to travel up to 1.5 miles resulting in readings above baseline. The project will significantly slow traffic, and therefore it will increase air pollution levels. Pollutants increase dramatically when going 13 mph vs 45 mph for example, see Zhang, Kai, and Stuart Batterman. “Air Pollution and Health Risks due to Vehicle Traffic.” The Science of the total environment 0 (2013): 307–316. PMC. Web. 30 May 2018.. The cumulative effects of the existing air quality next to the freeway, trapping air pollution from the geometry of the buildings proposed and potential roof, must be studied. Project may result in a tunnel effect. see Zhou R, Wang S, Shi C, Wang W, Zhao H, Liu R, et al. (2014) Study on the Traffic Air Pollution inside and outside a Road Tunnel in Shanghai, China. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112195 41 CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT, CONSTRUCTION PHASE, CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS STUDY The construction phase cancer risk assessment is lower than that prepared for the Measure D Vallco Town Center Environmental assessment, which, without EDFs is copied here, this disparity does not make sense: Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High 42 And with EDF’s here: Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs P. 55 of GHG Assessment cancer risk assessment shows much lower risk: “Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum excess residential cancer risks would be 26.7 in one million for an infant/child exposure and 0.9 in one million for an adult exposure. The maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be located at a second floor residence at the location shown in Figure 5. The maximum residential excess cancer risk at the MEI would be greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce this risk to below the BAAQMD threshold of significance.” This lower result for a larger project does not make sense given both the proximity to the I-280, down wind location, and the questionable ability of the city to enforce what types of construction vehicles are used, what types of architectural coatings are used, what company electricity is purchased from, and maintain freeway volumes from increasing and slowing traffic further. 43 Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would cumulatively contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-9.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. This is very incomplete, this suggests the re-tenanted mall is the best alternative. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The conclusions that there are no significant impacts on biological resources are incorrect and mitigations are not achievable. General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.13 “Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.” The DEIR states: “The existing 1,125 trees on the project site were planted as part of the development of Vallco Shopping Mall and, therefore, are all protected trees.” Because of the closing of mall activities, there has very likely been an increase in wildlife on the site with less human presence. The city has demonstrated that they will approve construction of an excessively glazed structure, Apple Park, where both birds and humans will run into the glass and be harmed. There is no assurance that there will be care taken for the existing wildlife on site during construction, and no assurance there will be care in maintaining the habitat in the future. Referring to the Vallco SB 35 application excuse that there are essentially, too many ash trees on the property provides only an expectation that the developer intends to cut them all down. A mitigation suggested includes: “Prohibiting glass skyways and freestanding glass walls” While renderings of the two story walkway over Wolfe Rd. show an all glass walled structure. Roof top amenities shown with tall glass walls. There does not appear to be any intention to enforce this mitigation. The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP: 44 “30. Nitrogen Deposition Fee: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall pay a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Nitrogen Deposition Fee to the Implementing Entity of the Habitat Conservation Plan, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, even though the fee would not otherwise be legally applicable to the future development. The Town Center/Community Park applicant shall pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee commensurate with the issuance of building permits within the Town Center/Community Park.- source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers” 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORICAL RESOURCES Apply the following from VTCSP with multiple historical photographs and educational information boards. “The Vallco Shopping District is designated as a City Community Landmark in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that the redevelopment of the Vallco site would not result in significant impacts to historic resources, if redevelopment is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3.60 The VTCSP would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3 by providing a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description, and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.- source 9212 report JD Powers” Include the history of environmental pollution of the orchard industry from the use of lead arsenate and DDT in the ‘Valley of Heart’s Delight”, photos of child employment “cutting ‘cots’”, to environmental pollution from the computer industry including the Apple Park superfund site and pollutants at 19,333 Vallco Parkway (where pollutants like Freon and TCE were allegedly just dumped out the back door), and the onsite pollution already noted in this DEIR to the history of the site, to proposed project and alternatives. 45 3.6 ENERGY Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand Because the city has no regulatory framework with which to ensure poorly operating equipment is used for the construction of the project, or for operation, or that energy would be purchased from one supplier over another, or that recycled water would come from one source over another, assumptions that the project will have less than significant impact are not verifiable. Additionally, proposed project requires 3 times the electricity, 5 times the natural gas, and 3 times the gasoline demand of the occupied/re-tenanted mall alternative. 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS There is very likely a huge amount of topsoil which was encased in the mounded soil to the north of the JC Penney building. Excavation of the site will remove any and all of what was once topsoil on the site and excavate up to 45’ below the top of curb on Wolfe Road for the subterranean parking structures. 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT Baseline values are unacceptable due to their being a combination of an air quality monitoring station from the west side of Cupertino, in a neighborhood (Voss Avenue site which closed in 2013) and data from San Jose monitoring stations which are approximately 10 miles away. Meteorological data was used from 2006-2010 at the San Jose Mineta airport, which is both too old, too far from the site, and irrelevant due to the recent drought conditions. Project site, adjacent to the I-280, has had no relevant air quality monitoring, ever. Guidelines § 15064.4 in conjunction with Guidelines § 15125 concerning project baselines ("An EIR must include a 46 description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, which was February 8, 2018. The most recent data used as a baseline was from 2016. There is no excuse for not actually monitoring the air quality at the site given the relatively low cost to rent the instruments and the immense size of this project. Additionally, the air quality expectations for the existing sensitive receptors throughout the construction process will impose an increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase, and excavation. 47 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors 48 GHG assessment must require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of the proposed project because “… the proposed project risks exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (California Supreme Court Case No. S213478).” Proposed project will have operational GHG emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. No accurate existing environmental conditions have yet been recorded. Proposed project will exacerbate traffic in the area and especially on I-280, backing up and slowing down traffic. Free flowing traffic produces much less air pollution than stop and go traffic. Proposed project will exacerbate existing environmental hazards to the detriment of future residents and users. Proposed project will reduce and potentially trap airflow due to tall buildings planned and proposed 30 acre green roof which may further impede airflow and trap exhaust from traffic in the interior street grid. The green roof plans so far presented in Measure D and the Vallco SB 35 application thus far do not have living spaces directly under them to have the cooling benefit from the insulation and the roof is planned too high to mitigate air pollution for residents living below it where freeway air pollutants settle. Plans from the Specific Plan process are not finalized but have all shown 2 levels of underground parking. The site location across the freeway and massive Apple Park parking garages make it even more impacted by the freeway because 14,200 Apple employees will work at that site (according to Cupertino Mayor Paul, 6,000 employees had occupied the site as of March, 2018 up from a few hundred in December, 2017) and have acceleration and deceleration off the freeway at the Wolfe Rd. exit. Unfortunately, Vallco site is downwind of the I-280, yet the GHG modeling selected “variable” wind rather than the N NE calm conditions typical, in doing so the pollutants would dissipate differently than actual conditions. CO modeling within the site needs to be performed along with studying the other GHG emissions. This is imperative because (as the traffic study reflects, by showing high trip reduction rates) people are expected to live and work on site and have retail needs met as well, potentially not leaving the area. GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of 16.9’ which is innacurate. 2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean. Mitigation of Operational project that electricity would be purchased from a new company, Silicon Valley Clean Energy is not enforceable, and the assumption in GHG calculations that the site currently uses PG& E is not consistent with the Land Use chapter stating the site currently uses SVCE and will continue to do so. Construction period PM 2.5 Exhaust and PM 10 Exhaust do not have PM 2.5 and PM 10 values resulting from demolition and excavation? They appear to just show exhaust. DEIR GHG and Air Quality reports do not appear to have studied the cooling tower/central plant. The following has been modified from the JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report for the proposed project: “The proposed project and alternatives will likely include a central plant (a stationary source), which would provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for most buildings. The central plant would 49 consist of a condenser water system, cooling towers, and boilers. It is possible that operation of the central plant produce greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD greenhouse gas threshold of significance for stationary sources. The proposed project should include the following EDF to reduce greenhouse gas emission impacts from the central plant: “36. Central Plant Boilers Carbon Offsets: Prior to completion and operation of any Central Plant Boilers with emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall enter into one or more contracts to purchase voluntary carbon credits from a qualified greenhouse gas emissions broker in an amount sufficient to offset the operational emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., on a net present value basis in light of the fact that the applicant shall acquire such credits in advance of any creation of the emissions subject to the offset. Pursuant to CARB’s Mandatory Reporting Requirements, applicant(s) shall register the Central Plant Boilers in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program. The applicant(s) shall provide copies of carbon purchase contracts to CARB during registration. The City would likely first require any feasible on-site modifications to the stationary source to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the greenhouse gas emissions from the stationary source could not be reduced below the BAAQMD threshold of significance, the City would likely require carbon credits (such as those identified in EDF 36) be purchased and that the credits be locally sourced (i.e., within the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, or same air basin).” Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application: Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan 50 Here is the subterranean parking plan from Vallco Measure D, nearly identical: Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan General Comments: GHG emissions should be calculated for the actual construction period which is 6-8 years according to Vallco Property owner representative, Reed Moulds. By dividing tons of GHG by 10 year construction artificially lower results end up being compared to BAAQMD thresholds. The Hyatt House construction will be complete before Proposed Project construction begins and should not be included in the study for construction emissions. The lot acreage input perhaps should read 50.82 acres, instead of 58.00 per the data entry because construction on other parcels is not part of this study, and would be completed, however the operational emissions would include buildout of the entire Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Area: Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage 51 The traffic volume at I-280 was incorrectly pulled from the referenced Caltrans traffic count. I-280, between Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. has an AADT of 176,000 and between Wofe Rd. and De Anza/Saratoga Sunnyvale Blvd. of 168,000: Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic Caltrans, 2017. 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/ The GHG Assessment chose the lowest value from the Caltrans data to use (162,000 AADT), rather than the highest peak month value which would be a base rate of 176,000 AADT: 52 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The following data appears to have no source dividing up vehicular type, speed, and what type of emission each would have, and the 2029 predicted number of vehicles is too low, showing only 183,061 AADT: Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The predicted ADT for I-280 was not included in the GHG calculation which has a 2029 starting date. The following VTA study shows the 2035 ADT predictions for segment A (Vallco site is within segment A). There 53 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035. Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pdf GHG assessment has errors in selecting the AM and PM speeds of traffic, in particular the PM peak period average travel speed of 60 MPH is incorrect, not consistent with the CMP data they used (or our own observations) which is on the following page: 54 55 http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Final%20MC%20Report%202016.pdf “For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average free-flow travel speed of 65 mph was assumed for all vehicles other than heavy duty trucks which were assumed to travel at a speed of 60 mph. Based on traffic data from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's 2016 Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Conformance Report, traffic speeds during the peak a.m. and p.m. periods were identified.15 For two hours during the peak a.m. period an average travel speed of 25 mph was used for west-bound traffic. For the p.m. peak period an average travel speed of 60 mph was used for east-bound traffic. The free-flow travel speed was used for the other directions during the peak periods.” -GHG Assessment p. 39-40 IMPACT GHG-1 Impact GHG-1: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) would not generate cumulatively considerable GHG emissions that would result in a significant cumulative impact to the environment. Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An additional mitigation should include those offered for Measure D, VTCSP: “EDF 18. Transportation Demand Management Plan: Consistent with the Plan Area’s environmental design features, require the preparation and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan with an overall target of reducing Specific Plan officegenerated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.” GHG-1 conclusion that mitigations result in less than significant cumulative impacts is inconsistent with the data from the GHG report which clearly states that the project during construction and at build out would exceed the GHG thresholds of BAAQMD, and that was determined spreading out all emissions over a period of 10 years for the construction phase which is not the actual timeline presented by the developer of 6-8 years: 56 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ROG is likely due primarily from architectural coatings, as the previous Vallco Town Center Measure D Environmental Assessment showed in the Vallco Town Center Environmental Assessment PDF p 652/2023 included in the NOP EIR comments and submitted to the city: 57 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Measure D was included in the EIR NOP comments, the following table shows errors in calculating the criteria pollutants, by dividing the entire construction period into the various pollutants, a much lower daily value is attained, this would not be the case since, architectural coatings will not be applied for the entire multi-year construction time frame, however, the GHG technical report shows 130 days or about 4 months which would likely result in extremely hazardous levels of ROGs. 58 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating Referring back to Table 6, the tonnage of ROGs expected is 41.1, and about 80% of that is from Architectural Coatings. 130 days for architectural coatings that would be approximately 632 lbs/day which is more than ten times the BAAQMD threshold. 41.1 tons of ROG emissions x 2000 lbs/ton/130 days = 632 lbs/dayx80%= 505.6 lbs of ROGs per day over a roughly four month period! On-road emissions would be concentrated into a couple of years. Since the Proposed Project and alternatives are larger than Measure D, we can expect even larger exceeding of the BAAQMD thresholds. Operational air pollution thresholds per BAAQMD are lower than the construction thresholds and only PM 2.5 is not exceeded by the project but very likely exceeded by the freeway contribution. Operational Air Pollutant emissions, subtracts the existing emissions, however, that does not make sense. The threshold is in tons per year produced of GHG, not whether the project will increase the emissions by more than the threshold. 59 60 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions 61 http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886 BL2: DECARBONIZE BUILDINGS Air quality modeling used the old data from an air quality monitoring station set up to study Lehigh Cement and situated on Voss Road which is not adjacent to the I-280 and closed in 2013 making the data irrelevant. Additionally, that data was during a period of lesser traffic regionally. Providing clean energy to the site through an alternative fuel provider is not a mandate. This is potential mitigation. Proposed Project may need to purchase less expensive energy. The assumption that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is the energy provider for the site ignores future condominium, retail, and office space lessors and owners from choosing which energy company serves them. This assumption is unacceptable, any GHG reductions based on this assumption need to be removed. “Electricity is provided to the site by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). SVCE customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent carbon free sources; with 50 percent from solar and wind sources, and 50 percent from hydroelectric. Customers have the option to enroll in the GreenPrime plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar” BL4: URBAN HEAT ISLAND MITIGATION “Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would reduce the urban heat island effect by incorporating measures such as cool surface treatments for parking facilities, cool roofs, cool paving, and landscaping to provide well shaded areas.” There is no approved Specific Plan to make this determination. Any GHG reductions based on this assumption, must be removed. NW2: URBAN TREE PLANTING Consistent: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would provide a comfortable, well- shaded environment. This statement does not mandate tree planting. The cause of shade is not described, it could be a building blocking direct light. With a 30 acre green roof, what trees would be at street level? CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EMISSIONS There is an error in calculating Construction Period emissions because they use the entire 10 year construction period to get a better outcome of the pounds per day of emissions. Additionally, Sand Hill Property Company 62 representative Reed Moulds stated in the Vallco presentation meeting presented by the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce, linked here: https://youtu.be/hiDvHM027R4 that construction would be 6-8 years, not 10. The bulk of the construction exhaust would occur in demolition and haul off which would be a matter of months and not years. There would be peaks in the construction emissions and they will likely exceed BAAQMD thresholds. This chart needs to be recalculated taking into consideration the reality of the construction timeline: Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions 63 “…estimated 2,600 construction workdays (based on an average of 260 workdays per year). Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days” Even with mitigation methods and spreading out the NOx generated from construction over 10 years, only a 25% reduction in NOx was achieved, and it did not meet the BAAQMD threshold. Are there more mitigations available? Construction haul is shown to be 20 miles for demolition, has this been verified? No actual location has been stated to accept materials. Is the 20 miles round trip? What accepting locations are within 10 miles? Within 20 miles for hazardous material drop off (asbestos)? Existing mall does not have enclosed parking garages with elevator which the GHG states. If this means that the parking garages have walls and requisite blowers to bring in fresh air, then this assumption would have an associated energy consumption inconsistent with the current mall parking. Much of the parking is at grade with no garage structure. Where there are parking garages, they are open. Plan provides incomplete data on fuel usage. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Because hazardous materials have already been noted onsite, the distance required to find an accepting landfill must be added into the GHG travel distance for hauling. 3.9.1.3 OTHER HAZARDS The 30 acre green roof may pose a fire hazard. The SB 35 application suggested equipping golf carts on the roof with fire fighting equipment. What mitigations are going to be implemented for Proposed Project and alternatives? To what standard? 3.9.2.1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Wildfire hazard from the green roof may be excessive without a mitigation plan. Emergency response may be too slow given the complex structures. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Proposed project and all alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) drastically alter the existing terrain. Over 2 Million Cubic Yards of soil cut is expected in all plans and an untested green roof over 30 acres is proposed for two of the options. The entire site will be encased in concrete or other non-permeable surface. Attempting to 64 have rainfall percolate into the soil would be extremely difficult given the site plan. The amount of storage area for rainfall to reuse for 50.82 acres would be a prohibitive expense. The city cannot conclude that the roof park, which is sloped and of unknown depth, can or would absorb the same amount of rainfall that a flat grass park would. If the space is landscaped to be drought tolerant, there may be many open spaces and exposed gravel, concrete, and other impermeable areas. There is proposed public entertainment space planned on the roof which would not be permeable. If recycled water is used, and any chemical fertilizers, on the green roof, these will concentrate and enter the water supply. If this runoff is collected and reused on the roof, it will further concentrate. Should gray water also be collected and used for irrigation, this may further degrade the chemical build up on the roof. These issues need to be very carefully thought out. The green roof is an experiment and further analysis into what the runoff coefficient would be is required. The depth of groundwater may be of concern should an additional level of subterranean parking be required, given the shallow depth of the drainage trench along the north end of the property. The project will interfere with groundwater recharge because the consumption of recycled water for the green roof, when it becomes available will redirect that water from being used for groundwater recharge. 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU-2 assumes the General Plan has no residential allocation controls in place, therefore residential alternatives above proposed project are not consistent with the General Plan. DEIR, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Table 3.11.11 has errors due to assuming some type of construction would result in disturbing the exterior environment of the existing mall in the re-tenanted mall option. The assumptions regarding the other alternatives would need to be verified after any corrections are made based on comments to DEIR. The minimization of impermeable surfaces strategy is dependent on whether there is a ground level park. If the re-tenanted mall has areas converted to above grade parking structures, then that option would increase permeable surface area. Policy ES-7.1: This policy is violated by proposed project and alternatives. Strategy ES-7.1.1: The concentration of dissolved solids in the recycled water, along with 30 acres of space requiring fertilizer, may result in unacceptable storm water runoff. 65 Policy ES-7.2: the green roof may increase runoff amounts, it is not the same as park on grade from a hydrologic standpoint. Strategy ES-7.2.3: onsite filtration is beyond the scope of capabilities of a typical development. Policy ES-7.3: this is an unacceptable mitigation because of the scientific background required to monitor the runoff. This should be the responsibility solely of the owner and not suggest volunteers perform this duty. Policy HE-4.1: This policy is violated because there is an excessive amount of green roof space proposed for the 800 residential units in Proposed Project. Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency access and fire prevention. Policy HS-8.1: This policy is violated due to excessive construction and operational noise. Policy HS-8.3: Likely violated because construction vibrations may not be mitigated. Strategy LU-3.3.1, LU- 3.3.2, LU-3.3.3: These strategies are not followed. The existing AMC is 83’ in height. The adjacent 19,800 Wolfe Rd. apartment building is 61’ to tallest parapet. Apple Park maximum height is 75’. The Apple Park parking garages across the I-280 are 48’. The scale of proposed project and alternatives is more than double the height of any building in the area and it is much denser. Strategy LU-19.1.4: The proposed projects shown at the Opticos Charrettes have insufficient retail. The residential amounts over 800 are inconsistent with the General Plan. Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively. Impact LU-4: Due to the Combination of Apple Park, Hamptons, Main Street Cupertino, and Proposed Project and alternatives, the project will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact. 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Agree with DEIR. 3.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION Loud noise can cause hearing loss. The construction noise over the 10 year period may cause hearing loss for sensitive receptors and patrons of the surrounding retail areas. An outdoor concert venue in the proposed project or alternatives, will very likely result in hearing loss. The future noise contours from the DEIR indicate that walking along Wolfe Rd., Stevens Creek Blvd. and the proposed bike path along the I-280 will have areas above 80 dB. The I-280 has directional traffic flow, slowed traffic, and associated decreased noise, during peak hour traffic would only be for 4 of the 8 lanes. There would always be traffic at free flow, generating that noise level. As the freeway continues to decline in service, and development in San Jose increases, the traffic should slow at peak hour in both directions. From DEIR: PLAYGROUNDS 66 “Playground noise would primarily result from activities such as raised voices and the use of playground equipment. Typical noise levels resulting from various playground activities range from 59 to 67 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Maximum instantaneous noise levels typically result from children shouting and can reach levels of 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming playground activities would be restricted to daytime hours only, the minimum setback of the center of the playground areas to the nearest residential property lines would need to be 60 feet for the typical noise levels to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA.” Charrette #2 Closing Presentation shows parks adjacent to back yards of single family residences. This may, combined with Perimeter Rd. noise exceed Municipal Code permissible sound levels. The DEIR does not adequately address this. Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 67 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS The Future Noise Contours map has some omissions regarding noise from the Perimeter Road, western edge park, and proposed amphitheater. The map has gross assumptions regarding what the plan would look like and ignores conditions on the roof which would result in a separate layer of mapping: One layer for ground level (ear level) and one level for the roof park to see if it meets park noise requirements. The future noise contours for the project site exceed residential maximum levels according to the Cupertino Municipal Code 10.48.040. 68 CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 C ONSTRUCTION NOISE The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included. During Construction, which is 6-10 years, according to the Ramboll Environ Noise Assessment for Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, noise levels exceed noise limits, and it does not make sense that demolition of the parking garage near R4 would not exceed noise limits: 69 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise 70 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors 71 Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The development of the VTCSP would be subject to applicable noise policies and regulations including those in the General Plan (including Policies HS-8.1, HS-8.2, HS-8.3, and HS-8.4), Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance. The development of the VTCSP could result in the noise and vibration impacts discussed below. • Construction-related noise – Noise generated from construction activities associated with the development of the VTCSP would likely result in significant, temporary noise impacts at adjacent residences. The VTCSP includes the following EDFs that would reduce construction-related noise impacts: On-Site Construction Noise: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall be required to adhere to the construction noise limits of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The following items would further reduce the potential for high levels of noise from construction equipment or activities, and ensure that noise complaints are address promptly and if necessary, corrective action is taken: • Along the western boundary of the Town Center/Community Park and near the existing residential district, prepare and implement a 24-hour construction noise monitoring program to be installed and operated remotely. The noise monitoring program would continuously monitor construction noise levels at select perimeter locations and alert a designated person(s) when noise levels exceed allowable limits. If noise levels are found to exceed allowable limits, additional noise attenuation measures (i.e., sound walls) will be undertaken. • Require that all equipment be fitted with properly sized mufflers, and if necessary, engine intake silencers. • Require that all equipment be in good working order. • Use quieter construction equipment models if available, and whenever possible, use pneumatic tools rather than using diesel or gas-powered tools. • Place portable stationary equipment as far as possible from existing residential areas, and if necessary, place temporary barriers around stationary equipment. • Whenever possible, require that construction contractors lift heavy equipment rather than drag. • For mobile equipment that routine operates near residential area (i.e., within approximately 200 feet), consider placement of typical fixed pure-tone backup alarms with ambient-sensing and/or broadband backup alarms. • Assign a noise control officer to ensure that the above requirements are being implemented. • Implement a noise complaint hotline and post the hotline phone number on nearby visible signs and online. Require that either the noise control officer or a designated person be available at all times to answer hotline calls and ensure that follow-up and/or corrective action is taken, if necessary. Prompt Demolition: To ensure swift completion of the remainder of the Plan Area, a commitment to demolish 100% of the remaining existing Mall improvements within 6 months of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the afore-described initial retail component, subject to existing leases and an appropriate temporary improvement plan for demolished areas. Haul Traffic Noise: To reduce haul traffic noise, contractors for developments pursuant to the Specific Plan shall require that haul trucks travel at low speeds (e.g., l 0 mph) when operating on or adjacent to the Plan Area. The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project 72 applicants for future development shall ensure that this requirement is included in the construction specifications. In addition, the construction contractor shall ensure that haul trucks be fitted with properly sized and functioning exhaust mufflers.” Operation-related noise – Operation of the uses at Vallco under the VTCSP could result in significant noise increases at adjacent sensitive receptors. To mitigate operation-related noise impacts at adjacent sensitive receptors, the City requires compliance with the noise standards in the Municipal Code, and could require measures that limit or attenuate noise such as sound barriers, limitations on hours of operations, and orientation of stages and speakers away from sensitive receptors . Operation of the VTCSP would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site, which could increase noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors. On Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road in the Vallco vicinity, the existing daily trips are 30,000 and 34,000 respectively. In general, for traffic noise to increase noticeably (i.e., by a minimum of three dBA), existing traffic volumes must double.” Traffic volumes on Perimeter Rd. may at a minimum, double. The DEIR did not address this fully. Additional noise requirements from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The noise and land use compatibility of the proposed uses in the VTC with the existing ambient noise environment could also be an issue. Exterior and interior noise levels at future uses at Vallco under the VTC would exceed the City’s noise standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The VTC shall include the following EDF to meet the State and City interior noise standard at future residences on-site: Acoustical Assessment: Prior to completion of detailed design for dwelling units, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall prepare an acoustical assessment to demonstrate how interior sound levels would achieve interior sound levels at or below 45 dBA CNEL. The following development standards shall be included in the acoustical assessments: • Install HVAC systems for all residential units to ensure that windows and doors can remain closed during warm weather; • Install double-glazed windows, especially on sides of buildings that are adjacent to busy roadways; • Ensure that all windows and doors are properly sealed; and • Ensure that exterior wall building materials are of an adequately rated Sound Transmission Class.” If there is an outdoor performance venue, it must not be located where adjacent homes will be impacted, how will the plan address this? The following table is from VTCSP EA: 73 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue VIBRATION It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property. 74 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.14.12 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing population per the footnote provided shows Cupertino’s 2018 population at 60,091 not the 58,915 population estimate they show which is from 2016. The existing condition should be the most current. The city states the population of residents per residential unit is 2.94, per the DEIR: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). IMPACT POP-1 Increases in population for Proposed Project would be 800 residential units resulting in 2,264 residents which would be a 4% increase in city population. This excludes the Hamptons approved 600 residential unit increase to 942 residential units which are adjacent to the project. Alternative with 2,640 residential units would result in 7,471 residents and a 12% population increase to the city. The 4,000 residential unit alternative would result in 11,320 residents and a 19% population increase. The Proposed Project and re-tenanted mall do not induce significant population growth to the city. Project Alternatives with 2,640 and 4,000 residential units induce significant population growth to the city. IMPACT POP-3 The proposed project, with 2 Million SF of office space will result in a housing deficit across the region. Project alternatives will induce significant population growth in an area of the city already impacted with Apple Park and other developments. The Charrette alternatives also induce significant population growth to the city (3,200 residential units) and further exacerbate the excess jobs in the city. The project (and project alternatives) will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impact. 75 Emotional effects of cramped housing on children: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof. Impact PS-2: It is unclear, if a major tech employer were to occupy the 2 Million SF of office space, what additional police support would be necessary. What additional support would a potential 11,320 residents require? SANITARY SEWER “Sanitary Sewer System Capacity – The existing sewer lines in the vicinity of Vallco are in North Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Most sewage generated at Vallco discharges to the 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Under existing peak wet weather flow conditions, flows to this 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road exceed its capacity.37 Development of the VTCSP would intensify the use of the site, which would result in an increase in sewage generated from the site compared to existing conditions. For this reason, the development of the VTCSP would require sewer system improvements to ensure sufficient conveyance capacity. Based on preliminary analysis, redevelopment of Vallco under the General Plan would require the construction of a parallel pipe to the existing 15- inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Facilities: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit(s) for the final construction sequence, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director that adequate sanitary sewer services are available.” – 9212 VTCSP 76 SCHOOL IMPACTS Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 The student generation rates are based off of too small of a sample size and the data appears to have been from Fall of 2015, since the same results for 19,800 Wolfe Rd. and Biltmore have repeated after 2 ½ years. Additionally, from that same initial result, the current SGRs they calculated for the Proposed Project, which is nearly identical to The Hills at Vallco now have inexplicably dropped the SGR’s for the same project. Since the proposed project will likely have the possibility of selling the residential units at some time, and the lack of information regarding the sizes of the units, and the continued growth and interest in the Cupertino High School boundary area, these SGRs are likely too low. A larger sampling size is needed for these figures to be believable. 77 The BMR units proposed will have a higher student generation rate according to Polly Bove of FUHSD (Vallco meeting recorded by League of Women Voters, May, 2018). These higher rates are not reflected. The project alternatives are untested as to number of students generated. DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES Figure 48: DEIR SGR 78 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE 79 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables 80 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs The DEIR may study the impacts of traffic rerouting of students. According to the Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger Memo to the City of Cupertino Attorney, February 25, 2014: “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 81 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.” PARK LAND REQUIREMENTS The city residents per unit is 2.83. The park land calculations are both low and assuming a City Council action to accept park land acreage on a roof in lieu of park land. This has been discussed in earlier sections. RECREATION The 70,000 SF Bay Club gym on site is the only gym in the east side of Cupertino and it will be closed for multiple years during construction and likely will not return. Creekside park is permitted year around to the De Anza Youth Soccer League and has additional camps in the summer using the space. Ranch San Antonio is so over utilized by the region that the neighboring residents had to have permitted parking and parking has been limited to preserve the area because it is a natural area. During the weekdays a return trip across town after 2:30pm results in a 30 minute drive. Due to excess demand on Rancho San Antonio, there is a limited window mid day and mid week where a parking spot may be found. Proposed project and alternatives will have significant negative impacts to the area and further increase demand for the parks existing. Even the low SGR for the school is enough students to start an entire new soccer league. 3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC EXISTING CONDITIONS Counts on January 15, 2018 included the AMC movie theater which is closed, and a transit hub which includes Genentech, Google, and Facebook with no individual counts to separate out these uses. The mall had a 24% occupancy at the time. LEVELS OF SERVICE Please note that LOS is an average and there is some directional flow within the city intersections such that the LOS may not reflect what drivers are experiencing because of the averaging of each lane approach. Of particular concern is how slow the movement of traffic out of the city and returning would be for the 80%+ of Cupertino worker commuters out of the city daily. 82 The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT It is unclear, given that Apple Park has been occupying, how their (Apple Park) traffic has been assigned. For instance, there were traffic counts in May, 2017 which would reflect thousands of trips by construction workers to the site which would likely have been coming from the I-280 and east bound AM and westbound PM. There were also traffic counts in January, 2018, which would perhaps now show a few hundred Apple tech workers who would presumably be coming from other areas along with continued construction workers. As of March, 2018 approximately 6,000 employees were at Apple Park out of the expected 14,200. There have been many requests of the city to wait until Apple Park fully occupies to perform traffic counts. Main Street Cupertino was also under construction during May, 2017 and those construction workers would also be impacting the counts. There have been several intersections under construction, including the Calvert/I-280 project and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 exit project. These multiple projects have rerouted traffic and altered the makeup of drivers into artificial patterns not reflected in the study. What the traffic counts show, is what the area traffic is like with major construction underway. 83 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied Traffic impacts, while significant and unavoidable with mitigation is underestimated. Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates 84 Trips generated are lower than the Hills at Vallco? That seems incorrect. Neither break out actual uses (restaurants, theater, City Halls which all generate much heavier traffic than is shown). Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Projects with recycled water (30 acre green roof) will result in an expansion of recycled water production which is a significant negative impact. Redirecting water which could be used for groundwater recharge and then used for drinking water is wasteful. City must have a regulatory framework to manage conservation claims. 85 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-I NDUCING IMPACTS The claim that project and alternatives would have no significant impact is subjective. Residents per unit are inconsistently applied in the DEIR when the population increase from Vallco project and alternatives would largely be accounting for the city-wide population increase, therefore the assumption to population must logically use 2.94 residents per unit: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). 86 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees From:Kitty Moore To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Piu Ghosh Cc: Subject:Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan DEIR Comments per CEQA Date:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 5:02:34 PM Attachments:CommentsVallcoDEIR(6JUN18).pdf Dear Principal Planner Piu Ghosh, Attached please find the PDF file with my comments for the Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report 45 day circulation period which began May 24, 2018. I have included an excerpt from the opening pages: Comments for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1.Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project. 2.Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. 3.Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4.Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5.Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. The Specific Plan Process is considering only plans which were not studied in the DEIR. No DEIR alternatives showed 3,200 residential units and 750,000-1,500,000 Square Feet of office space. The General Plan does not allow retail to be reduced below 600,000 SF which the Specific Plan process is considering. Comment Letter G 6. Alternatives to Project (General Plan with Maximum Residential Buildout Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) ignore the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan and The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, feasible alternatives: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Deliver to: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org JUNE 6, 2018 Comment Letter G 1 COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1. Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project. 2. Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. 3. Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4. Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5. Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. The Specific Plan Process is considering only plans which were not studied in the DEIR. No DEIR alternatives showed 3,200 residential units and 750,000- 1,500,000 Square Feet of office space. The General Plan does not allow retail to be reduced below 600,000 SF which the Specific Plan process is considering. 6. Alternatives to Project (General Plan with Maximum Residential Buildout Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) ignore the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan and The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, feasible alternatives: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GOV 2 A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatib]e with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. Government Code 15082. Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR (a) Notice of Preparation. Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in approving or funding the project. (1) The notice of preparation shall provide the responsible and trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research with sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable the responsible agencies to make a meaningful response. At a minimum, the information shall include: (A) Description of the project, (B) Location of the project (either by street address and cross street, for a project in an urbanized area, or by attaching a specific map, preferably a copy of a U.S.G.S. 15' or 7- 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name), and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. Potential to Cease EIR Mid-Stream: The EIR scoping meeting provided inadequate and conflicting information with an infeasible “Proposed Project” and infeasible alternatives. According to “CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway,” by Abbott & Kindermann Leslie Z. Walker, on September 22, 2009, the EIR process may be stopped mid-stream: According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved 3 by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete. The article continues: One of the City’s council members opposed the project and asked the City to cease its work on it. The City attorney advised the council members that the City was required to continue processing and completing the EIR. Nonetheless, the objecting council member introduced a motion to suspend the environmental review process until the city council made “a policy decision” to resume the process. The city council ultimately approved a modified motion which also called for the City to cease work on the proposed project. Should the City Council find reason to cease the EIR, such as project alternatives being inconsistent with the General Plan, plan NOP period did not show legal project alternatives, and the Specific Plan process failed to inform the public of the process failings immediately when known and is studying projects which were not studied in the DEIR (explained on the following pages), or that in light of its’ similarity to failed Cupertino ballot Measure D: The Vallco Initiative November 8, 2016, there is precedent as demonstrated above, to do so. Alternatives to Project: “The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project or to the location of a Project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Similarity of “Proposed Project” to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should Disqualify It: The Vallco Measure D Initiative is described in the following: CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 and would consist of: • 2,000,000 SF office • 640,000 SF retail • 191 additional hotel rooms, bringing the site total to 339 hotel rooms • 389 residential units with a Conditional Use Permit bringing the total to 800 residential units The November 8, 2016 Election results for Measure D were 55% No. Advertising for the initiative obscured the office and focused on the retail portions. The actual square footage percentages for the Measure D Initiative were: 4 • 56% office • 22% residential • 16% retail • 6% hotel Notice these above percentages result in 84% non-retail uses and would be a majority office park. The “Proposed Project” for the EIR has less retail (600,000 SF) and other uses the same as Measure D. The EIR process is not intended to be a disregard of the city’s General Plan to “try out” alternative concepts which have no consistency with the General Plan. This creates a great deal of confusion and distrust. General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: This section amasses the multiple sections of the General Plan which reference the Vallco Shopping District and describe what it is planned to become. Refer to: Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: In Chapter 2 of the Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: Planning Areas: Vallco Shopping District is described as: “…Cupertino’s most significant commercial center…” and that “…Reinvestment is needed…so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community.” It is referred to as a “shopping district”, not an office park, or a residential community. “This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley.” - Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 CONTENTS Figures..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Comments on DEIR Summary p xii: Proposed Project is a moving Target ...................................................... 9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ........................................................... 20 No Explanation from Where in the General Plan the Excess Residential Units Came From ...................... 20 Cupertino General Plan 2040 studied a piecemeal plan of Vallco? .............................................................. 20 5 2.3 Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.1 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.1 Common Open Space and Landscaping ............................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.2 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ................................................................................................... 22 2.4.4.3 Transit Center and Transportation Demand Management Program ..................................................... 22 2.4.4.4 Utility Connections and Recycled Water Infrastructure Extension ...................................................... 23 2.4.4.5 Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1.2 Scenic Views and Vistas ....................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Light and glare .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 Impact AQ-1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-3: .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Impact AQ-4: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Impact AQ-6: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Hazardous Materials Demolition: ..................................................................................................................... 37 Impact AQ-7: .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Cancer Risk Assessment, Construction Phase, Contradicts Previous Study .................................................... 41 Impact AQ-9: .................................................................................................................................................... 43 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 43 3.5. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 44 3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 45 3.8 Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ......................................... 45 Impact GHG-1 .................................................................................................................................................. 55 BL2: Decarbonize Buildings............................................................................................................................. 61 BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 61 6 NW2: Urban Tree Planting ............................................................................................................................... 61 Construction Period Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 61 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................. 63 3.9.1.3 Other Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 63 3.9.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ........................................................................................... 63 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 63 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................. 64 3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 65 3.13 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................................................... 65 Playgrounds....................................................................................................................................................... 65 Future Noise Contours ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Cupertino Municipal Code Maximum Permissible Sound Levels ................................................................... 68 Construction Noise............................................................................................................................................ 68 Vibration ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................................ 74 3.14.12 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 74 Impact POP-1 ................................................................................................................................................ 74 Impact POP-3 ................................................................................................................................................ 74 3.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................................. 75 Sanitary Sewer .................................................................................................................................................. 75 School Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 76 DEIR Student Generation Rates ................................................................................................................... 77 Failed Measure D Hills at Vallco Student Generation Rates to Compare .................................................... 78 Park Land Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 81 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 81 3.17 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 81 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 81 Levels of Service............................................................................................................................................... 81 Approved and Pending Projects Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment ............................................ 82 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................................ 84 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 85 7 FIGURES Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: DEIR Heights ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater .................................................................... 15 Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self) ............................................................................ 18 Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self) ..................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan ........................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space .......................................................................... 25 Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees ..................................................... 25 Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation................................................................................................... 32 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match .............................................................. 33 Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks ......................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD ......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High ........................................................................ 41 Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs ................................................................. 42 Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand ..................................................................................................................... 45 8 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors ................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan ........................................................................................... 49 Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan ................................................................................ 50 Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage ............................................................................................................. 50 Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 56 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction ........................................................................................ 57 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating ............................................................................. 58 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions ..................................................................................................... 60 Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions .................................................................................... 62 Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 ........................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 ................................................................................. 68 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise .................................................................................... 69 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors ......................................................................................... 70 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue ..................................................... 73 Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 ............................................................................ 76 Figure 48: DEIR SGR .......................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables .................................................................................... 79 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs ................................................................................................................. 80 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied ........................... 83 Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner .................................................................................... 84 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees ....................................................................................................... 86 9 INTRODUCTION In order to ease review of these comments, they are ordered in parallel with the DEIR document. Comments will follow the headings from the DEIR in order, and any missing informational sections will be discussed at the end. Quotations from the DEIR and appendices are shown in blue. COMMENTS ON DEIR SUMMARY P XII: PROPOSED PROJECT IS A MOVING TARGET The DEIR Summary, p xii, states: “The proposed project is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments.” and continues: “Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would facilitate development of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses, up to 339 hotel rooms, and up to 800 residential dwelling units on-site. The proposed Specific Plan development reflects the buildout assumptions (including the adopted residential allocation available) for the site in the City’s adopted General Plan. In addition, the project includes up to 65,000 square feet of civic spaces in the form of governmental office space, meeting rooms and community rooms and a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) lab, as well as a 30-acre green roof.” Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p. xii, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 The DEIR studied the following projects and alternatives: Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary 10 1. Proposed Project has incorrect number of residential units. Residential units would be 389. Referring to the General Plan, Vallco “…specific plan would permit 389 units…” not 800 residential units. The Specific Plan process to date shows a 3,200, 2,640 and 3,250 residential unit options. While the housing units may be moved between housing element sites, the General Plan Technical Report for Scenarios A and B do not come close to having this many housing units. None of the options are consistent with the General Plan. When the number of units is over 2,640 in the DEIR, there is no office shown. The Charrette 2 housing units are shown to be 3,200 at the Charrette #2 closing presentation for any options. This was not studied in the DEIR. Low Housing/Low Retail option shared is inconsistent with the General Plan minimum retail of 600,000 SF. DEIR, p. 15 PDF p 51, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p 51, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 General Plan Housing Element p H-21: “Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE-5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE-5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District site (Site A2). The redevelopment of Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community’s needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of “Scenario B” in Appendix B - Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments; however the Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.” 11 2. Clarifications needed for p xii Summary, what is the proposed project? As of the release date of the DEIR, May 24, 2018, there is no approved Specific Plan for Vallco. Two options shared the week of Charrette #2 have no relationship to the General Plan, or the DEIR, and included: Low Office/High Retail Residential: 3,250 units Office: 750,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 600,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Low Housing/Low Retail Residential: 2,640 units Office: 1,500,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 400,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Here is the Opticos slide presented the week of Charrette #2, May 23, 2018, informing us of what the project could be: Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options Notice the number of residential units are not consistent with the General Plan or DEIR in any way. The park space is inconsistent with the DEIR. And supporting slide from Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation has further alterations to proposed project: 12 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options 3. 65,000 SF of civic space, STEM lab, and 30 acre green roof were not discussed in the NOP period for Vallco. In the DEIR civic space and STEM lab are combined into the 65,000 SF. Additionally, the civic/STEM spaces are considered public benefits which would result in higher building heights if the developer includes them. This was mentioned at the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation, May 24, 2018: 13 Figure 4: DEIR Heights 4. To add to the confusion as to what the project may end up being, the maximum height was also shown to be 294’. These height differences will cause different shadow and intrusion issues, such as privacy intrusion into Apple Campus HQ which may be a security risk at the corporate headquarters, guest discomfort at the outdoor swimming pool at Hyatt House, and the lack of privacy for the area homes and back yards. In Section 4.2.1 of the DEIR, heights are shown up to 165’. The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan: 14 15 5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May 31, 2018 with no Sp- ecific Plan adopted for Vallco? P. 162 of DEIR: Cupertino Municipal Code The Vallco Special Area is zoned P(Regional Shopping) – Planned Development Regional Shopping north of Vallco Parkway, and P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial south of Vallco Parkway (west of North Wolfe Road). The Planned Development Zoning District is specifically intended to encourage variety in the development pattern of the community. The Planned Development Regional Shopping zoning designation allows all permitted uses in the Regional Shopping District, which include up to 1,645,700 square feet of commercial uses, a 2,500 seat theater complex, and buildings of up to three stories and 85 feet tall.81 The Planned Development General Commercial designation allows retail businesses, full service restaurants (without separate bar facilities), specialty food stores, eating establishments, offices, laundry facilities, private clubs, lodges, personal service establishments. 81 Council Actions 31-U-86 and 9-U-90. The maximum building height identified was in conformance with the 1993 General Plan and were identified in the Development Agreement (Ordinance 1540 File no. 1-DA-90) at that time 6. The performing arts theater, public benefit was mentioned in the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation May 24, 2018, but not included in the DEIR calculations: Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater 16 7. The lack of a stable project makes writing comments nearly impossible. In Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/washoe-meadows-community-v-department-parks-recreation- 2017-17-cal-app-5th-277/ “…the court held that the DEIR’s failure to provide the public with an “accurate, stable and finite” project description prejudicially impaired the public’s right to participate in the CEQA process, citing COUNTY OF INYO V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. Noting that a broad range of possible projects presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives, the court found that the presentation of five very different alternative projects in the DEIR without a stable project was an obstacle to informed public participation” 8. Proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan: housing is exceeded, park land fails to meet requirements for the park starved east side of Cupertino (Municipal Code requires park land acreage rather than a substitute roof park at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 residents), height bonus tied to community benefits is not in the General Plan, the housing allocation assumes the General Plan allocation system has been removed, and community benefits in the General Plan for Vallco came at no ‘cost’ to the project such as increased heights. Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018. Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives 17 9. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. We have no identified Specific Plan and the last alternatives presented at the final Charrette #2 do not match any alternatives studied in the DEIR (3,200 residential units along with 750,000-1,000,000 SF office space plus 65,000 SF civic space) and are not consistent with the General Plan. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GO V A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatible with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. 18 Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self) 19 Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self) 20 CULTURAL RESOURCES The findings and mitigations are adequate. 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS This section fails to state the current zoning designations per the General Plan, no Specific Plan has been adopted: Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan NO EXPLANATION FROM WHERE IN THE GENERAL PLAN THE EXCESS RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAME FROM “As shown in General Plan Table LU-1, the General Plan development allocation for the Vallco Special Area is as follows: up to a maximum of 1,207,774 square feet of commercial uses (i.e., retention of the existing mall) or redevelopment of the site with a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail uses of which a maximum of 30 percent may be entertainment uses (pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.4); up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses; up to 339 hotel rooms; and up to 389 residential dwelling units.5 Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations may be transferred among Planning Areas, provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 Final EIR (SCH#2014032007) (General Plan EIR).6 Therefore, additional available, residential or other, development allocations may be transferred to the project site.” CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2040 STUDIED A PIECEMEAL PLAN OF VALLCO? 21 “6 The General Plan EIR analyzed the demolition of the existing 1,207,774 square foot mall and redevelopment of the site with up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area. Because the Vallco Shopping Mall existed on the site when Community Vision 2015-2040 was adopted, and it was unclear when a project would be developed on the site, General Plan Table LU-2 indicates the square footage of the existing mall in the commercial development allocation to ensure that the mall did not become a non-conforming use at the site. Residential allocations that are available in other Planning Areas may be transferred to the Vallco Shopping District without the need to amend the General Plan.” Page 223 of this DEIR conflicts with the above assertion: “However, the General Plan update process in 2014 analyzed and allocated 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 389 residential units for a redeveloped project on the site.” What was studied in the General Plan EIR for Vallco? 2.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section attempts to obscure Vallco Shopping District’s “shopping, dining, and entertainment” objectives stated in the General Plan. The General Plan refers to Vallco Shopping District as: "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." 2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document. 2.4.4.1 COMMON OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING Park land acreage per Cupertino Municipal Code 13.08.050 states the park land acreage requirement to be 3 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas which are park deficient, such as the east side of Cupertino, the city average residents per dwelling units is 2.83. For Proposed Project, 800 residential units, 2,264 residents: 6.8 acres of park land acreage would be required. For 2,640 residential units, 7,471 residents: 22.4 acres of park land would be required. For 4,000 residential units, 11,320 residents: 34.0 acres of park land would be required. The 30 acre green roof is not park land acreage per the Municipal Code. While it may be considered a recreational area, the uses of such space are limited. Here is a cross section of the SB 35 plan roof: 22 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application Cupertino adopted the Community Vision 2040, Ch. 9 outlines the “Recreation, Parks, and Services Element.” Their Policy RPC-7.1 Sustainable design, is to minimize impacts, RPC-7.2 Flexibility Design, is to design for changing community needs, and RPC-7.3 Maintenance design, is to reduce maintenance. The Vallco green roof violates the three City of Cupertino Parks policies listed: it is not sustainable, it is not flexible (a baseball field cannot be created), and it is extremely high maintenance. Parkland acquisition is supposed to be based on “Retaining and restoring creeks and other natural open space areas” and to “design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to…keep maintenance costs low.” And unfortunately for us, the city states: “If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees based on a formula that considers the extent to which the publicly-accessible facilities meet community need.” 2.4.4.2 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING “Based on a conservative estimate of parking demand, it is estimated that two to three levels of below- ground parking across most of the site (51 acres) would be required.” Should a third level of subterranean parking be required, that will increase excavation haul, and GHG calculations. This would result in about 500,000 CY of additional soil removal and should be calculated. Parking will be inadequate due to park and ride demand from the Transit Center and TDM. 2.4.4.3 TRANSIT CENTER AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The extent of the transit system with Google, Genentech, and Facebook continuing to use the site along with what will likely be Apple, and VTA will result in much higher bus trips than expected. Even at the 808 average daily trips in the GHG and Fehr + Peers studies, that is 404 vehicles in and out of the site daily. This sounds 23 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in the project. 2.4.4.4 UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION The SB 35 application discussed the $9.1 million cost to extend the recycled water line across I-280. There is an insufficient amount of recycled water produced at the Donald M. Somers plant and there is anticipated upstream demand. When there is not enough recycled water, potable water is added to the recycled water to make up the difference. It may be decades before there is adequate output of recycled water for the green roof. Apple Park pays the potable water cost. The previous water study for Measure D showed the following water use: Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D Tertiary treated water from the Donald Somers plant is currently insufficient. Impacts related to the need to expand the plant will include air quality impacts as well. There is not enough capacity at the Donald Somers plant to supply the Vallco “Hills” project. Should the same green roof be added to the project, there would need to be a dual water system on the roof. This is due to the need to flush the recycled water out to keep certain plants healthy. The water use from the dual roof system needs to be addressed in coordination with the arborist report for the green roof irrigation system. The roof irrigation system may need an auxiliary pump system to irrigate gardens 95’+ in the air. 2.4.4.5 CONSTRUCTION Vallco spokesperson Reed Moulds stated construction would take 6-8 years. Depending on the order of construction, for instance if office is built first, the project will worsen the deficit in housing. The length of time of construction is important because it is used in calculating the lbs/day of GHG produced. If one side is to be torn down and rebuilt (eg. the east property) first, then the GHG calculations may significantly alter to really be two separate job sites on separate schedules. 24 2.4.4.6 SPECIFIC PLAN ASSUMPTIONS Items listed as “shall” do not state that all would be according to the requirements stated. For instance: “Future buildings shall install solar photovoltaic power, where feasible.” Requires none actually be installed. For the requirements to have any definite effect, they need to be rewritten for that outcome. Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas. 3.1.1.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS DEIR ignores many pleasant views in the Wolfe Road corridor and took photos in harsh lighting when many of the residents enjoy the space on commutes and going to the gym onsite: Southbound on Wolfe Road with the many mature ash trees: Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings: 25 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space Southbound on Wolfe Road, views of Santa Cruz Mountains. There are few areas in the east part of Cupertino where the Santa Cruz mountains are visible due to structures. Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees 26 East bound on Stevens Creek Blvd. Views of east hills and multiple Apple transit buses. Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles View of Bay Club (large seating area and tv room next to Starbucks) at Vallco. Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco 27 3.1.2 AESTHETIC IMPACTS “Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include scenic quality, sensitivity level, and view access. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views of a specific scenic features (e.g., open space lands, mountain ridges, bay, or ocean views).” Findings of AES-1 and AES-2 are incorrect. The length of a scenic vista is relative to the location. In the east part of Cupertino, there are few long (10 mile) vistas, such that 400’ is a relatively long vista. Glimpses of the Santa Cruz mountains and east bay hills are few and thus more precious. Homes are clustered with 5’ side yards and 25’ setbacks such that neighborhoods have little in the way of long vistas. Creekside Park, Cupertino High School, and Vallco Mall have the largest locally long vistas. Proposed project will have a huge negative aesthetic impact, it will block all views of the Santa Cruz mountains and eliminate the wide vista across the Bay Club parking lot. Most of the homes in the east part of Cupertino have no long site view and no view of the Santa Cruz mountains. The Bay Club and Starbucks (in the Sears Building) has a huge setback and the parking lot has many fairly young trees. This open vista has been there historically. Visitors to the rebuilt site will be relegated to underground parking caves in a crowded environment with thousands of employees and residents. While Apple Park architects did their best to berm and plant a massive 176 acre area, while keeping the maximum elevation to 75’, the Vallco project is the aesthetic antithesis. Ideally, Main Street would have been purchased for park land but that did not happen. While the proposed project suggests to hide park land within the project, there should be a large corner park to maintain the historic open corner space at the northeast corner of Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. The following historical photographs indicate how the corner has never had the view blocked by any solid structure: 28 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 29 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 30 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 31 LIGHT AND GLARE The development of the proposed project and alternatives (other than retenanted mall) would include nighttime and security lighting, and may include building material that is reflective. The project and alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) could result in light and glare impacts. Structures facing the residential areas could have the windows and heights limited with green walls installed to mitigate light and glare effects. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The site historically was an orchard until the late 1970s. With proper planning, a limited portion of the site could be returned to orchard space, on the ground, and possibly on the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Rd. corner. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Data input has some errors to traffic volumes, wind direction (selected “variable” when it is N, NE), project traffic volumes, and input to the program used to model GHG such as: acreage of the lot, apartment total SF, city park acreage is on the roof and will have recycled water which results in an additional GHG, the addition of a 10,000 SF racquet club is inconsistent with the proposed project studied by others, the Government Civic Center is shown smaller than Proposed Project: Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage GHG Trips generated do not match the Fehr + Peers Traffic Study for the DEIR and have nearly 10,000 less ADT. Additionally, the Fehr + Peers average daily trip rate was erroneously low. The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette 32 discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation Fehr + Peers ADT chart: 33 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match IMPACT AQ-1 Impact AQ-1 PM 10, is missing from the DEIR but mitigations to AQ-1 are included in the GHG appendix and are repeated for Impact AQ-2. IMPACT AQ-2 The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: The construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-2.1: 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.” 34 14. Avoid tracking of visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of prior to leaving the site.” These impacts may be better mitigated following Apple Park’s method of power washing on each exit from the site and installing steel grates the trucks drive over. The soil haul on I-280, if this occurs, will need coordination with CalTrans for street sweeping on the freeway. This may take months and severely block traffic due to closing a lane for sweepers. The route for soil haul needs to be made public. Apple Park balanced cut and fill onsite, thus eliminating months of truck haul a considerable distance. The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Initiative, “Measure D” indicated many months of hauling required, trips from 7-12 miles, and that project is approximately 2 Million SF smaller than Proposed Project and alternatives. Additionally, the inclusion of having 85% of parking be subterranean in the Charrette alternatives could result in an extra level of subterranean parking needed. This will mean another 500,000 cubic yards of soil haul off. This was not anticipated in the DEIR and will impact air quality. It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting landfills which are not near the site. The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: MM AQ-2.1: 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.” #6 and #16 impact mitigations are conflicting, is it two minutes or five minutes allowable idling time? How will this be enforced? The highest engine tier available is Tier 4b, the mitigations suggested include Tier 3, which should be deleted and require ALL construction equipment meet Tier 4b emissions standards because the site is adjacent to residences and within a quarter of a mile to a high school and day care. Additionally, the year of construction actually beginning is unknown. How will the City enforce that mitigations such as alternative fuel options (e.g., CNG, bio-diesel) are provided for each construction equipment type? It is the responsibility of the lead agency to ensure the equipment operated by the project actually uses alternative fuel. City must present their enforcement process. Because we have seen developers not pull permits until many years after approval, requiring that equipment be no older than eight years is better than the DEIR requirement of model year 2010 or newer. 35 • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards for NOx and PM, where feasible. • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced: Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks . Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles Source, BAAQMD: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf IMPACT AQ-3: The operation of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 36 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. Incomplete analysis and only one mitigation was suggested for operation of the project which is for architectural coatings specifically paint when ROGs are widely used throughout construction, however the proposed project will likely have multiple sources of ROG air pollution such as air pollution caused by: 1. additional recycled water production: likely unavoidable 2. any electrostatic ozone producing equipment: consider limiting ozone producing equipment or seek alternatives 3. cooling towers: require high efficiency cooling towers 4. operation of the transit hub: require zero emission transit vehicles, especially since there will likely be sensitive receptors living on site. 5. additional electricity generation to operate the project: require solar onsite to provide a minimum 50% of required electricity, including the electricity needed to treat the water and recycled water. Any exposed roofing to be white roof. 6. day to day additional vehicular traffic: require a high percent of EV charging stations, zero emission vehicles, and site loading areas 200’ from residents, medical offices, daycares, parks, and playgrounds. Refer to Comment 2C in the following: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf 7. VOC emission from outgassing of carpets, plastics, roofing materials, curing of concrete, treatment of pool and cooling tower water, materials in the artificial roof infrastructure: require low VOC materials throughout the project to reduce 8. restaurants which may be vented to the roof exposing people to cooking fume exhaust. Main Street Cupertino gases from restaurants are visible and detectable across the street on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The standards for roof venting for a green roof must be higher than typical because people may end up near the vents. 9. Additional traffic backing up on I-280, site is downwind of the freeway: place residential areas, medical facility offices, daycares, school uses, playgrounds, and parks a minimum of 1000’ from the I-280 right of way including the off ramps and particularly the on ramp due to vehicular acceleration resulting in increased air pollution emissions. 10. VOCs are not mitigated with HEPA filtration. This makes siting residences, medical facilities, school facilities, and daycares more than 1000’ from the freeway imperative. Require a Merv 13 filter or better in the 1000’ area and require the replacement of the filters with some city determined verification that the filters are changed. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-freeway-pollution-filters- 20170709-story.html 11. Employees working in the parking garages in the TDM program (valets underground) will need to have air quality monitored for safety. Usually they would have a separate room which is well ventilated and preferably an automated payment system for metered parking. However, if workers are needed to pack 37 cars tightly, then the whole underground parking area would have to be rendered safe for workers exposed to the air pollution found in parking garages for a full work day. Impact AQ-4 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOx, PM10, and/or PM2.5) for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure: MM AQ-4.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1. This is an incomplete analysis with incomplete mitigation measures. Refer to additional air pollution sources and mitigations listed in Impact AQ-3 above. No study of TDM workers in the underground garages has been done. Impact AQ-6 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction dust and diesel exhaust emissions concentrations. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. This impact is not specific enough. Because there is an error in the calculations, explained in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment section fully, the mitigations must be made more strict. It should be mentioned, that the exposure has critical peaks of hazardous levels of GHGs. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEMOLITION: Some of the site interiors appear to have had demolition occur already. Was this done to code? How is that known? “Potential sources of on-site contamination – The Vallco site was historically used for agricultural purposes, and has been developed and operating as a shopping mall since at least 1979. The site is listed on regulatory agency databases as having leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), removing and disposing of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), and a small quantity generator of hazardous materials waste. Surface soils may contain 38 elevated levels of residual pesticides and other chemicals of concern related to past and present use and operations at the site.”- JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report Include the following, modified from VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers: Soil Management Plan: A Soil Management Plan for all redevelopment activities shall be prepared by applicant(s) for future development to ensure that excavated soils are sampled and properly handled/disposed, and that imported fill materials are screened/analyzed before their use on the property. Renovation or Demolition of Existing Structures: Before conducting renovation or demolition activities that might disturb potential asbestos, light fixtures, or painted surfaces, the Town Center/Community Park applicant shall ensure that it complies with the Operations and Maintenance Plan for management and abatement of asbestos-containing materials, proper handling and disposal of fluorescent and mercury vapor light fixtures, and with all applicable requirements regarding lead-based paint. Proposed use of hazardous materials – Development of the VTC and alternatives could include uses that generate, store, use, distribute, or dispose of hazardous materials such petroleum products, oils, solvents, paint, household chemicals, and pesticides. The VTC shall include the following EDF to reduce adverse effects from on-site use of hazardous materials: Hazardous Materials Business Plan: In accordance with State Code, facilities that store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25534(b) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare and implement, as necessary, Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP) for determination of risks to the community. The HMBP will be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process Refer to Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and Gases: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1529.html Impact AQ-7 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC pollutant concentrations. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-7.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) shall implement mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 to reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions, which would thereby reduce the maximum cancer risk due to construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative). 39 The cancer risk assessment is based on erroneous traffic studies and the air quality monitoring stations had old data from 2013 and/or were too far away to use data. The cancer risk needs to be recalculated. The amount of exposure time should reflect seniors not leaving the project area. The baseline air quality monitoring must be taken over an extended period with particular attention paid to the summer months when Ozone levels increase. Here is an example day when children would be playing outdoors, Ozone was the primary pollutant. Note these are regional amounts, and the increases along the freeways are not shown: Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD 40 The I-280 freeway produces substantial TAC pollutant concentrations and the south bay is subjected to the entire bay area’s pollutants which are converted to Ozone in the warm summer months. The DEIR failed to monitor air pollution for the site for any time period, and only modeled pollutants onsite. Fires are expected to be the new normal, bringing potential further impacts to the region’s air quality. The heights of the structures planned, and layout, and planned green roof, will likely concentrate freeway pollutants into the project area and combine and intensify them with onsite traffic. Having 85% of the parking garages underground and with fresh air intake being difficult to locate may result in significantly unhealthy air quality and the need for expensive mechanical filtration which does not filter VOCs. Adding what may be approximately 147,000 SF of restaurant and up to 4,000 residential units producing cooking and restroom exhaust with a challenging ventilation system may further degrade the air quality on site. The roof park may enclose the site to the point of having hazardous air quality. The roof park covering was not studied in the cancer risk assessment model. Reducing the amount of underground parking and having above grade parking with open walls in above ground structures is a mitigation. Alternatively, Merv 13 or better filtration and air quality monitors in the subterranean garages may improve the air quality, but it is not clear which would be better. The project alternative with 4,000 residential units will most likely result in residents within 1,000’ of the freeway, re-tenanted mall results in the least construction and operational pollution, least cancer risk, and least long term GHG exposure since no residential units would be onsite. Project is “down wind” of the freeway. The freeway has over 160,000 vehicles per day and is increasing in congestion. Planned projects in San Jose will likely balance the directional flow of the I-280 and worsen traffic. Freeway pollution has been found to travel up to 1.5 miles resulting in readings above baseline. The project will significantly slow traffic, and therefore it will increase air pollution levels. Pollutants increase dramatically when going 13 mph vs 45 mph for example, see Zhang, Kai, and Stuart Batterman. “Air Pollution and Health Risks due to Vehicle Traffic.” The Science of the total environment 0 (2013): 307–316. PMC. Web. 30 May 2018.. The cumulative effects of the existing air quality next to the freeway, trapping air pollution from the geometry of the buildings proposed and potential roof, must be studied. Project may result in a tunnel effect. see Zhou R, Wang S, Shi C, Wang W, Zhao H, Liu R, et al. (2014) Study on the Traffic Air Pollution inside and outside a Road Tunnel in Shanghai, China. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112195 41 CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT, CONSTRUCTION PHASE, CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS STUDY The construction phase cancer risk assessment is lower than that prepared for the Measure D Vallco Town Center Environmental assessment, which, without EDFs is copied here, this disparity does not make sense: Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High 42 And with EDF’s here: Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs P. 55 of GHG Assessment cancer risk assessment shows much lower risk: “Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum excess residential cancer risks would be 26.7 in one million for an infant/child exposure and 0.9 in one million for an adult exposure. The maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be located at a second floor residence at the location shown in Figure 5. The maximum residential excess cancer risk at the MEI would be greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce this risk to below the BAAQMD threshold of significance.” This lower result for a larger project does not make sense given both the proximity to the I-280, down wind location, and the questionable ability of the city to enforce what types of construction vehicles are used, what types of architectural coatings are used, what company electricity is purchased from, and maintain freeway volumes from increasing and slowing traffic further. 43 Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would cumulatively contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-9.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. This is very incomplete, this suggests the re-tenanted mall is the best alternative. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The conclusions that there are no significant impacts on biological resources are incorrect and mitigations are not achievable. General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.13 “Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.” The DEIR states: “The existing 1,125 trees on the project site were planted as part of the development of Vallco Shopping Mall and, therefore, are all protected trees.” Because of the closing of mall activities, there has very likely been an increase in wildlife on the site with less human presence. The city has demonstrated that they will approve construction of an excessively glazed structure, Apple Park, where both birds and humans will run into the glass and be harmed. There is no assurance that there will be care taken for the existing wildlife on site during construction, and no assurance there will be care in maintaining the habitat in the future. Referring to the Vallco SB 35 application excuse that there are essentially, too many ash trees on the property provides only an expectation that the developer intends to cut them all down. A mitigation suggested includes: “Prohibiting glass skyways and freestanding glass walls” While renderings of the two story walkway over Wolfe Rd. show an all glass walled structure. Roof top amenities shown with tall glass walls. There does not appear to be any intention to enforce this mitigation. The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP: 44 “30. Nitrogen Deposition Fee: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall pay a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Nitrogen Deposition Fee to the Implementing Entity of the Habitat Conservation Plan, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, even though the fee would not otherwise be legally applicable to the future development. The Town Center/Community Park applicant shall pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee commensurate with the issuance of building permits within the Town Center/Community Park.- source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers” 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORICAL RESOURCES Apply the following from VTCSP with multiple historical photographs and educational information boards. “The Vallco Shopping District is designated as a City Community Landmark in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that the redevelopment of the Vallco site would not result in significant impacts to historic resources, if redevelopment is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3.60 The VTCSP would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3 by providing a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description, and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.- source 9212 report JD Powers” Include the history of environmental pollution of the orchard industry from the use of lead arsenate and DDT in the ‘Valley of Heart’s Delight”, photos of child employment “cutting ‘cots’”, to environmental pollution from the computer industry including the Apple Park superfund site and pollutants at 19,333 Vallco Parkway (where pollutants like Freon and TCE were allegedly just dumped out the back door), and the onsite pollution already noted in this DEIR to the history of the site, to proposed project and alternatives. 45 3.6 ENERGY Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand Because the city has no regulatory framework with which to ensure poorly operating equipment is used for the construction of the project, or for operation, or that energy would be purchased from one supplier over another, or that recycled water would come from one source over another, assumptions that the project will have less than significant impact are not verifiable. Additionally, proposed project requires 3 times the electricity, 5 times the natural gas, and 3 times the gasoline demand of the occupied/re-tenanted mall alternative. 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS There is very likely a huge amount of topsoil which was encased in the mounded soil to the north of the JC Penney building. Excavation of the site will remove any and all of what was once topsoil on the site and excavate up to 45’ below the top of curb on Wolfe Road for the subterranean parking structures. 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT Baseline values are unacceptable due to their being a combination of an air quality monitoring station from the west side of Cupertino, in a neighborhood (Voss Avenue site which closed in 2013) and data from San Jose monitoring stations which are approximately 10 miles away. Meteorological data was used from 2006-2010 at the San Jose Mineta airport, which is both too old, too far from the site, and irrelevant due to the recent drought conditions. Project site, adjacent to the I-280, has had no relevant air quality monitoring, ever. Guidelines § 15064.4 in conjunction with Guidelines § 15125 concerning project baselines ("An EIR must include a 46 description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, which was February 8, 2018. The most recent data used as a baseline was from 2016. There is no excuse for not actually monitoring the air quality at the site given the relatively low cost to rent the instruments and the immense size of this project. Additionally, the air quality expectations for the existing sensitive receptors throughout the construction process will impose an increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase, and excavation. 47 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors 48 GHG assessment must require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of the proposed project because “… the proposed project risks exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (California Supreme Court Case No. S213478).” Proposed project will have operational GHG emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. No accurate existing environmental conditions have yet been recorded. Proposed project will exacerbate traffic in the area and especially on I-280, backing up and slowing down traffic. Free flowing traffic produces much less air pollution than stop and go traffic. Proposed project will exacerbate existing environmental hazards to the detriment of future residents and users. Proposed project will reduce and potentially trap airflow due to tall buildings planned and proposed 30 acre green roof which may further impede airflow and trap exhaust from traffic in the interior street grid. The green roof plans so far presented in Measure D and the Vallco SB 35 application thus far do not have living spaces directly under them to have the cooling benefit from the insulation and the roof is planned too high to mitigate air pollution for residents living below it where freeway air pollutants settle. Plans from the Specific Plan process are not finalized but have all shown 2 levels of underground parking. The site location across the freeway and massive Apple Park parking garages make it even more impacted by the freeway because 14,200 Apple employees will work at that site (according to Cupertino Mayor Paul, 6,000 employees had occupied the site as of March, 2018 up from a few hundred in December, 2017) and have acceleration and deceleration off the freeway at the Wolfe Rd. exit. Unfortunately, Vallco site is downwind of the I-280, yet the GHG modeling selected “variable” wind rather than the N NE calm conditions typical, in doing so the pollutants would dissipate differently than actual conditions. CO modeling within the site needs to be performed along with studying the other GHG emissions. This is imperative because (as the traffic study reflects, by showing high trip reduction rates) people are expected to live and work on site and have retail needs met as well, potentially not leaving the area. GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of 16.9’ which is innacurate. 2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean. Mitigation of Operational project that electricity would be purchased from a new company, Silicon Valley Clean Energy is not enforceable, and the assumption in GHG calculations that the site currently uses PG& E is not consistent with the Land Use chapter stating the site currently uses SVCE and will continue to do so. Construction period PM 2.5 Exhaust and PM 10 Exhaust do not have PM 2.5 and PM 10 values resulting from demolition and excavation? They appear to just show exhaust. DEIR GHG and Air Quality reports do not appear to have studied the cooling tower/central plant. The following has been modified from the JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report for the proposed project: “The proposed project and alternatives will likely include a central plant (a stationary source), which would provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for most buildings. The central plant would 49 consist of a condenser water system, cooling towers, and boilers. It is possible that operation of the central plant produce greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD greenhouse gas threshold of significance for stationary sources. The proposed project should include the following EDF to reduce greenhouse gas emission impacts from the central plant: “36. Central Plant Boilers Carbon Offsets: Prior to completion and operation of any Central Plant Boilers with emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall enter into one or more contracts to purchase voluntary carbon credits from a qualified greenhouse gas emissions broker in an amount sufficient to offset the operational emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., on a net present value basis in light of the fact that the applicant shall acquire such credits in advance of any creation of the emissions subject to the offset. Pursuant to CARB’s Mandatory Reporting Requirements, applicant(s) shall register the Central Plant Boilers in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program. The applicant(s) shall provide copies of carbon purchase contracts to CARB during registration. The City would likely first require any feasible on-site modifications to the stationary source to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the greenhouse gas emissions from the stationary source could not be reduced below the BAAQMD threshold of significance, the City would likely require carbon credits (such as those identified in EDF 36) be purchased and that the credits be locally sourced (i.e., within the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, or same air basin).” Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application: Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan 50 Here is the subterranean parking plan from Vallco Measure D, nearly identical: Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan General Comments: GHG emissions should be calculated for the actual construction period which is 6-8 years according to Vallco Property owner representative, Reed Moulds. By dividing tons of GHG by 10 year construction artificially lower results end up being compared to BAAQMD thresholds. The Hyatt House construction will be complete before Proposed Project construction begins and should not be included in the study for construction emissions. The lot acreage input perhaps should read 50.82 acres, instead of 58.00 per the data entry because construction on other parcels is not part of this study, and would be completed, however the operational emissions would include buildout of the entire Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Area: Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage 51 The traffic volume at I-280 was incorrectly pulled from the referenced Caltrans traffic count. I-280, between Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. has an AADT of 176,000 and between Wofe Rd. and De Anza/Saratoga Sunnyvale Blvd. of 168,000: Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic Caltrans, 2017. 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/ The GHG Assessment chose the lowest value from the Caltrans data to use (162,000 AADT), rather than the highest peak month value which would be a base rate of 176,000 AADT: 52 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The following data appears to have no source dividing up vehicular type, speed, and what type of emission each would have, and the 2029 predicted number of vehicles is too low, showing only 183,061 AADT: Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The predicted ADT for I-280 was not included in the GHG calculation which has a 2029 starting date. The following VTA study shows the 2035 ADT predictions for segment A (Vallco site is within segment A). There 53 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035. Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pdf GHG assessment has errors in selecting the AM and PM speeds of traffic, in particular the PM peak period average travel speed of 60 MPH is incorrect, not consistent with the CMP data they used (or our own observations) which is on the following page: 54 55 http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Final%20MC%20Report%202016.pdf “For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average free-flow travel speed of 65 mph was assumed for all vehicles other than heavy duty trucks which were assumed to travel at a speed of 60 mph. Based on traffic data from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's 2016 Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Conformance Report, traffic speeds during the peak a.m. and p.m. periods were identified.15 For two hours during the peak a.m. period an average travel speed of 25 mph was used for west-bound traffic. For the p.m. peak period an average travel speed of 60 mph was used for east-bound traffic. The free-flow travel speed was used for the other directions during the peak periods.” -GHG Assessment p. 39-40 IMPACT GHG-1 Impact GHG-1: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) would not generate cumulatively considerable GHG emissions that would result in a significant cumulative impact to the environment. Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An additional mitigation should include those offered for Measure D, VTCSP: “EDF 18. Transportation Demand Management Plan: Consistent with the Plan Area’s environmental design features, require the preparation and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan with an overall target of reducing Specific Plan officegenerated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.” GHG-1 conclusion that mitigations result in less than significant cumulative impacts is inconsistent with the data from the GHG report which clearly states that the project during construction and at build out would exceed the GHG thresholds of BAAQMD, and that was determined spreading out all emissions over a period of 10 years for the construction phase which is not the actual timeline presented by the developer of 6-8 years: 56 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ROG is likely due primarily from architectural coatings, as the previous Vallco Town Center Measure D Environmental Assessment showed in the Vallco Town Center Environmental Assessment PDF p 652/2023 included in the NOP EIR comments and submitted to the city: 57 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Measure D was included in the EIR NOP comments, the following table shows errors in calculating the criteria pollutants, by dividing the entire construction period into the various pollutants, a much lower daily value is attained, this would not be the case since, architectural coatings will not be applied for the entire multi-year construction time frame, however, the GHG technical report shows 130 days or about 4 months which would likely result in extremely hazardous levels of ROGs. 58 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating Referring back to Table 6, the tonnage of ROGs expected is 41.1, and about 80% of that is from Architectural Coatings. 130 days for architectural coatings that would be approximately 632 lbs/day which is more than ten times the BAAQMD threshold. 41.1 tons of ROG emissions x 2000 lbs/ton/130 days = 632 lbs/dayx80%= 505.6 lbs of ROGs per day over a roughly four month period! On-road emissions would be concentrated into a couple of years. Since the Proposed Project and alternatives are larger than Measure D, we can expect even larger exceeding of the BAAQMD thresholds. Operational air pollution thresholds per BAAQMD are lower than the construction thresholds and only PM 2.5 is not exceeded by the project but very likely exceeded by the freeway contribution. Operational Air Pollutant emissions, subtracts the existing emissions, however, that does not make sense. The threshold is in tons per year produced of GHG, not whether the project will increase the emissions by more than the threshold. 59 60 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions 61 http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886 BL2: DECARBONIZE BUILDINGS Air quality modeling used the old data from an air quality monitoring station set up to study Lehigh Cement and situated on Voss Road which is not adjacent to the I-280 and closed in 2013 making the data irrelevant. Additionally, that data was during a period of lesser traffic regionally. Providing clean energy to the site through an alternative fuel provider is not a mandate. This is potential mitigation. Proposed Project may need to purchase less expensive energy. The assumption that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is the energy provider for the site ignores future condominium, retail, and office space lessors and owners from choosing which energy company serves them. This assumption is unacceptable, any GHG reductions based on this assumption need to be removed. “Electricity is provided to the site by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). SVCE customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent carbon free sources; with 50 percent from solar and wind sources, and 50 percent from hydroelectric. Customers have the option to enroll in the GreenPrime plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar” BL4: URBAN HEAT ISLAN D MITIGATION “Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would reduce the urban heat island effect by incorporating measures such as cool surface treatments for parking facilities, cool roofs, cool paving, and landscaping to provide well shaded areas.” There is no approved Specific Plan to make this determination. Any GHG reductions based on this assumption, must be removed. NW2: URBAN TREE PLANTING Consistent: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would provide a comfortable, well- shaded environment. This statement does not mandate tree planting. The cause of shade is not described, it could be a building blocking direct light. With a 30 acre green roof, what trees would be at street level? CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EMISSIONS There is an error in calculating Construction Period emissions because they use the entire 10 year construction period to get a better outcome of the pounds per day of emissions. Additionally, Sand Hill Property Company 62 representative Reed Moulds stated in the Vallco presentation meeting presented by the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce, linked here: https://youtu.be/hiDvHM027R4 that construction would be 6-8 years, not 10. The bulk of the construction exhaust would occur in demolition and haul off which would be a matter of months and not years. There would be peaks in the construction emissions and they will likely exceed BAAQMD thresholds. This chart needs to be recalculated taking into consideration the reality of the construction timeline: Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions 63 “…estimated 2,600 construction workdays (based on an average of 260 workdays per year). Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days” Even with mitigation methods and spreading out the NOx generated from construction over 10 years, only a 25% reduction in NOx was achieved, and it did not meet the BAAQMD threshold. Are there more mitigations available? Construction haul is shown to be 20 miles for demolition, has this been verified? No actual location has been stated to accept materials. Is the 20 miles round trip? What accepting locations are within 10 miles? Within 20 miles for hazardous material drop off (asbestos)? Existing mall does not have enclosed parking garages with elevator which the GHG states. If this means that the parking garages have walls and requisite blowers to bring in fresh air, then this assumption would have an associated energy consumption inconsistent with the current mall parking. Much of the parking is at grade with no garage structure. Where there are parking garages, they are open. Plan provides incomplete data on fuel usage. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Because hazardous materials have already been noted onsite, the distance required to find an accepting landfill must be added into the GHG travel distance for hauling. 3.9.1.3 OTHER HAZARDS The 30 acre green roof may pose a fire hazard. The SB 35 application suggested equipping golf carts on the roof with fire fighting equipment. What mitigations are going to be implemented for Proposed Project and alternatives? To what standard? 3.9.2.1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Wildfire hazard from the green roof may be excessive without a mitigation plan. Emergency response may be too slow given the complex structures. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Proposed project and all alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) drastically alter the existing terrain. Over 2 Million Cubic Yards of soil cut is expected in all plans and an untested green roof over 30 acres is proposed for two of the options. The entire site will be encased in concrete or other non-permeable surface. Attempting to 64 have rainfall percolate into the soil would be extremely difficult given the site plan. The amount of storage area for rainfall to reuse for 50.82 acres would be a prohibitive expense. The city cannot conclude that the roof park, which is sloped and of unknown depth, can or would absorb the same amount of rainfall that a flat grass park would. If the space is landscaped to be drought tolerant, there may be many open spaces and exposed gravel, concrete, and other impermeable areas. There is proposed public entertainment space planned on the roof which would not be permeable. If recycled water is used, and any chemical fertilizers, on the green roof, these will concentrate and enter the water supply. If this runoff is collected and reused on the roof, it will further concentrate. Should gray water also be collected and used for irrigation, this may further degrade the chemical build up on the roof. These issues need to be very carefully thought out. The green roof is an experiment and further analysis into what the runoff coefficient would be is required. The depth of groundwater may be of concern should an additional level of subterranean parking be required, given the shallow depth of the drainage trench along the north end of the property. The project will interfere with groundwater recharge because the consumption of recycled water for the green roof, when it becomes available will redirect that water from being used for groundwater recharge. 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU-2 assumes the General Plan has no residential allocation controls in place, therefore residential alternatives above proposed project are not consistent with the General Plan. DEIR, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Table 3.11.11 has errors due to assuming some type of construction would result in disturbing the exterior environment of the existing mall in the re-tenanted mall option. The assumptions regarding the other alternatives would need to be verified after any corrections are made based on comments to DEIR. The minimization of impermeable surfaces strategy is dependent on whether there is a ground level park. If the re-tenanted mall has areas converted to above grade parking structures, then that option would increase permeable surface area. Policy ES-7.1: This policy is violated by proposed project and alternatives. Strategy ES-7.1.1: The concentration of dissolved solids in the recycled water, along with 30 acres of space requiring fertilizer, may result in unacceptable storm water runoff. 65 Policy ES-7.2: the green roof may increase runoff amounts, it is not the same as park on grade from a hydrologic standpoint. Strategy ES-7.2.3: onsite filtration is beyond the scope of capabilities of a typical development. Policy ES-7.3: this is an unacceptable mitigation because of the scientific background required to monitor the runoff. This should be the responsibility solely of the owner and not suggest volunteers perform this duty. Policy HE-4.1: This policy is violated because there is an excessive amount of green roof space proposed for the 800 residential units in Proposed Project. Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency access and fire prevention. Policy HS-8.1: This policy is violated due to excessive construction and operational noise. Policy HS-8.3: Likely violated because construction vibrations may not be mitigated. Strategy LU-3.3.1, LU- 3.3.2, LU-3.3.3: These strategies are not followed. The existing AMC is 83’ in height. The adjacent 19,800 Wolfe Rd. apartment building is 61’ to tallest parapet. Apple Park maximum height is 75’. The Apple Park parking garages across the I-280 are 48’. The scale of proposed project and alternatives is more than double the height of any building in the area and it is much denser. Strategy LU-19.1.4: The proposed projects shown at the Opticos Charrettes have insufficient retail. The residential amounts over 800 are inconsistent with the General Plan. Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively. Impact LU-4: Due to the Combination of Apple Park, Hamptons, Main Street Cupertino, and Proposed Project and alternatives, the project will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact. 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Agree with DEIR. 3.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION Loud noise can cause hearing loss. The construction noise over the 10 year period may cause hearing loss for sensitive receptors and patrons of the surrounding retail areas. An outdoor concert venue in the proposed project or alternatives, will very likely result in hearing loss. The future noise contours from the DEIR indicate that walking along Wolfe Rd., Stevens Creek Blvd. and the proposed bike path along the I-280 will have areas above 80 dB. The I-280 has directional traffic flow, slowed traffic, and associated decreased noise, during peak hour traffic would only be for 4 of the 8 lanes. There would always be traffic at free flow, generating that noise level. As the freeway continues to decline in service, and development in San Jose increases, the traffic should slow at peak hour in both directions. From DEIR: PLAYGROUNDS 66 “Playground noise would primarily result from activities such as raised voices and the use of playground equipment. Typical noise levels resulting from various playground activities range from 59 to 67 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Maximum instantaneous noise levels typically result from children shouting and can reach levels of 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming playground activities would be restricted to daytime hours only, the minimum setback of the center of the playground areas to the nearest residential property lines would need to be 60 feet for the typical noise levels to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA.” Charrette #2 Closing Presentation shows parks adjacent to back yards of single family residences. This may, combined with Perimeter Rd. noise exceed Municipal Code permissible sound levels. The DEIR does not adequately address this. Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 67 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS The Future Noise Contours map has some omissions regarding noise from the Perimeter Road, western edge park, and proposed amphitheater. The map has gross assumptions regarding what the plan would look like and ignores conditions on the roof which would result in a separate layer of mapping: One layer for ground level (ear level) and one level for the roof park to see if it meets park noise requirements. The future noise contours for the project site exceed residential maximum levels according to the Cupertino Municipal Code 10.48.040. 68 CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 CONSTRUCTION NOISE The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included. During Construction, which is 6-10 years, according to the Ramboll Environ Noise Assessment for Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, noise levels exceed noise limits, and it does not make sense that demolition of the parking garage near R4 would not exceed noise limits: 69 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise 70 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors 71 Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The development of the VTCSP would be subject to applicable noise policies and regulations including those in the General Plan (including Policies HS-8.1, HS-8.2, HS-8.3, and HS-8.4), Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance. The development of the VTCSP could result in the noise and vibration impacts discussed below. • Construction-related noise – Noise generated from construction activities associated with the development of the VTCSP would likely result in significant, temporary noise impacts at adjacent residences. The VTCSP includes the following EDFs that would reduce construction-related noise impacts: On-Site Construction Noise: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall be required to adhere to the construction noise limits of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The following items would further reduce the potential for high levels of noise from construction equipment or activities, and ensure that noise complaints are address promptly and if necessary, corrective action is taken: • Along the western boundary of the Town Center/Community Park and near the existing residential district, prepare and implement a 24-hour construction noise monitoring program to be installed and operated remotely. The noise monitoring program would continuously monitor construction noise levels at select perimeter locations and alert a designated person(s) when noise levels exceed allowable limits. If noise levels are found to exceed allowable limits, additional noise attenuation measures (i.e., sound walls) will be undertaken. • Require that all equipment be fitted with properly sized mufflers, and if necessary, engine intake silencers. • Require that all equipment be in good working order. • Use quieter construction equipment models if available, and whenever possible, use pneumatic tools rather than using diesel or gas-powered tools. • Place portable stationary equipment as far as possible from existing residential areas, and if necessary, place temporary barriers around stationary equipment. • Whenever possible, require that construction contractors lift heavy equipment rather than drag. • For mobile equipment that routine operates near residential area (i.e., within approximately 200 feet), consider placement of typical fixed pure-tone backup alarms with ambient-sensing and/or broadband backup alarms. • Assign a noise control officer to ensure that the above requirements are being implemented. • Implement a noise complaint hotline and post the hotline phone number on nearby visible signs and online. Require that either the noise control officer or a designated person be available at all times to answer hotline calls and ensure that follow-up and/or corrective action is taken, if necessary. Prompt Demolition: To ensure swift completion of the remainder of the Plan Area, a commitment to demolish 100% of the remaining existing Mall improvements within 6 months of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the afore-described initial retail component, subject to existing leases and an appropriate temporary improvement plan for demolished areas. Haul Traffic Noise: To reduce haul traffic noise, contractors for developments pursuant to the Specific Plan shall require that haul trucks travel at low speeds (e.g., l 0 mph) when operating on or adjacent to the Plan Area. The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project 72 applicants for future development shall ensure that this requirement is included in the construction specifications. In addition, the construction contractor shall ensure that haul trucks be fitted with properly sized and functioning exhaust mufflers.” Operation-related noise – Operation of the uses at Vallco under the VTCSP could result in significant noise increases at adjacent sensitive receptors. To mitigate operation-related noise impacts at adjacent sensitive receptors, the City requires compliance with the noise standards in the Municipal Code, and could require measures that limit or attenuate noise such as sound barriers, limitations on hours of operations, and orientation of stages and speakers away from sensitive receptors . Operation of the VTCSP would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site, which could increase noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors. On Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road in the Vallco vicinity, the existing daily trips are 30,000 and 34,000 respectively. In general, for traffic noise to increase noticeably (i.e., by a minimum of three dBA), existing traffic volumes must double.” Traffic volumes on Perimeter Rd. may at a minimum, double. The DEIR did not address this fully. Additional noise requirements from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The noise and land use compatibility of the proposed uses in the VTC with the existing ambient noise environment could also be an issue. Exterior and interior noise levels at future uses at Vallco under the VTC would exceed the City’s noise standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The VTC shall include the following EDF to meet the State and City interior noise standard at future residences on-site: Acoustical Assessment: Prior to completion of detailed design for dwelling units, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall prepare an acoustical assessment to demonstrate how interior sound levels would achieve interior sound levels at or below 45 dBA CNEL. The following development standards shall be included in the acoustical assessments: • Install HVAC systems for all residential units to ensure that windows and doors can remain closed during warm weather; • Install double-glazed windows, especially on sides of buildings that are adjacent to busy roadways; • Ensure that all windows and doors are properly sealed; and • Ensure that exterior wall building materials are of an adequately rated Sound Transmission Class.” If there is an outdoor performance venue, it must not be located where adjacent homes will be impacted, how will the plan address this? The following table is from VTCSP EA: 73 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue VIBRATION It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property. 74 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.14.12 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing population per the footnote provided shows Cupertino’s 2018 population at 60,091 not the 58,915 population estimate they show which is from 2016. The existing condition should be the most current. The city states the population of residents per residential unit is 2.94, per the DEIR: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). IMPACT POP-1 Increases in population for Proposed Project would be 800 residential units resulting in 2,264 residents which would be a 4% increase in city population. This excludes the Hamptons approved 600 residential unit increase to 942 residential units which are adjacent to the project. Alternative with 2,640 residential units would result in 7,471 residents and a 12% population increase to the city. The 4,000 residential unit alternative would result in 11,320 residents and a 19% population increase. The Proposed Project and re-tenanted mall do not induce significant population growth to the city. Project Alternatives with 2,640 and 4,000 residential units induce significant population growth to the city. IMPACT POP-3 The proposed project, with 2 Million SF of office space will result in a housing deficit across the region. Project alternatives will induce significant population growth in an area of the city already impacted with Apple Park and other developments. The Charrette alternatives also induce significant population growth to the city (3,200 residential units) and further exacerbate the excess jobs in the city. The project (and project alternatives) will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impact. 75 Emotional effects of cramped housing on children: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof. Impact PS-2: It is unclear, if a major tech employer were to occupy the 2 Million SF of office space, what additional police support would be necessary. What additional support would a potential 11,320 residents require? SANITARY SEWER “Sanitary Sewer System Capacity – The existing sewer lines in the vicinity of Vallco are in North Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Most sewage generated at Vallco discharges to the 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Under existing peak wet weather flow conditions, flows to this 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road exceed its capacity.37 Development of the VTCSP would intensify the use of the site, which would result in an increase in sewage generated from the site compared to existing conditions. For this reason, the development of the VTCSP would require sewer system improvements to ensure sufficient conveyance capacity. Based on preliminary analysis, redevelopment of Vallco under the General Plan would require the construction of a parallel pipe to the existing 15- inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Facilities: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit(s) for the final construction sequence, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director that adequate sanitary sewer services are available.” – 9212 VTCSP 76 SCHOOL IMPACTS Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 The student generation rates are based off of too small of a sample size and the data appears to have been from Fall of 2015, since the same results for 19,800 Wolfe Rd. and Biltmore have repeated after 2 ½ years. Additionally, from that same initial result, the current SGRs they calculated for the Proposed Project, which is nearly identical to The Hills at Vallco now have inexplicably dropped the SGR’s for the same project. Since the proposed project will likely have the possibility of selling the residential units at some time, and the lack of information regarding the sizes of the units, and the continued growth and interest in the Cupertino High School boundary area, these SGRs are likely too low. A larger sampling size is needed for these figures to be believable. 77 The BMR units proposed will have a higher student generation rate according to Polly Bove of FUHSD (Vallco meeting recorded by League of Women Voters, May, 2018). These higher rates are not reflected. The project alternatives are untested as to number of students generated. DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES Figure 48: DEIR SGR 78 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE 79 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables 80 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs The DEIR may study the impacts of traffic rerouting of students. According to the Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger Memo to the City of Cupertino Attorney, February 25, 2014: “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 81 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.” PARK LAND REQUIREMENTS The city residents per unit is 2.83. The park land calculations are both low and assuming a City Council action to accept park land acreage on a roof in lieu of park land. This has been discussed in earlier sections. RECREATION The 70,000 SF Bay Club gym on site is the only gym in the east side of Cupertino and it will be closed for multiple years during construction and likely will not return. Creekside park is permitted year around to the De Anza Youth Soccer League and has additional camps in the summer using the space. Ranch San Antonio is so over utilized by the region that the neighboring residents had to have permitted parking and parking has been limited to preserve the area because it is a natural area. During the weekdays a return trip across town after 2:30pm results in a 30 minute drive. Due to excess demand on Rancho San Antonio, there is a limited window mid day and mid week where a parking spot may be found. Proposed project and alternatives will have significant negative impacts to the area and further increase demand for the parks existing. Even the low SGR for the school is enough students to start an entire new soccer league. 3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC EXISTING CONDITIONS Counts on January 15, 2018 included the AMC movie theater which is closed, and a transit hub which includes Genentech, Google, and Facebook with no individual counts to separate out these uses. The mall had a 24% occupancy at the time. LEVELS OF SERVICE Please note that LOS is an average and there is some directional flow within the city intersections such that the LOS may not reflect what drivers are experiencing because of the averaging of each lane approach. Of particular concern is how slow the movement of traffic out of the city and returning would be for the 80%+ of Cupertino worker commuters out of the city daily. 82 The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT It is unclear, given that Apple Park has been occupying, how their (Apple Park) traffic has been assigned. For instance, there were traffic counts in May, 2017 which would reflect thousands of trips by construction workers to the site which would likely have been coming from the I-280 and east bound AM and westbound PM. There were also traffic counts in January, 2018, which would perhaps now show a few hundred Apple tech workers who would presumably be coming from other areas along with continued construction workers. As of March, 2018 approximately 6,000 employees were at Apple Park out of the expected 14,200. There have been many requests of the city to wait until Apple Park fully occupies to perform traffic counts. Main Street Cupertino was also under construction during May, 2017 and those construction workers would also be impacting the counts. There have been several intersections under construction, including the Calvert/I-280 project and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 exit project. These multiple projects have rerouted traffic and altered the makeup of drivers into artificial patterns not reflected in the study. What the traffic counts show, is what the area traffic is like with major construction underway. 83 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied Traffic impacts, while significant and unavoidable with mitigation is underestimated. Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates 84 Trips generated are lower than the Hills at Vallco? That seems incorrect. Neither break out actual uses (restaurants, theater, City Halls which all generate much heavier traffic than is shown). Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Projects with recycled water (30 acre green roof) will result in an expansion of recycled water production which is a significant negative impact. Redirecting water which could be used for groundwater recharge and then used for drinking water is wasteful. City must have a regulatory framework to manage conservation claims. 85 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-I NDUCING IMPACTS The claim that project and alternatives would have no significant impact is subjective. Residents per unit are inconsistently applied in the DEIR when the population increase from Vallco project and alternatives would largely be accounting for the city-wide population increase, therefore the assumption to population must logically use 2.94 residents per unit: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). 86 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco Shopping District Comments for EIR Date:Thursday, June 07, 2018 1:21:04 PM Attachments:Comments for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan EIR.pdf From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Kitty Moore Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 5:33 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Vallco Shopping District Comments for EIR Dear Planning Department, The following forwarded message from March 9, indicates my EIR comments for the Vallco Shopping District and concern about the EIR process and inconsistent alternatives. Sincerely, Kitty Moore ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kitty Moore Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:35 PM Subject: Vallco Shopping District Comments for EIR To: <planning@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org> Cc: <randolphh@cupertino.org> Dear Cupertino Planning Department, Mayor Paul, and council members, Attached please find my preliminary Comments for the EIR for the Vallco Shopping District. Please take the steps necessary to find a viable "Proposed Project" under CEQA which would have a potential of being passed by City Council. The CEQA EIR process for this project currently, is irregular. Here is a brief summary: Conclusions: Comment Letter H 1. The “Proposed Project” does not appear to be consistent with the General Planbecause it is an office park with over 84% non-retail use when the project is detailed asthe “Vallco Shopping District.” 2. The “Proposed Project” frustrates the General Plan goal to balance employmentwith housing by providing a gross excess of jobs to housing. 3. Cupertino Ballot Measure D, a similar proposal to “Proposed Project”, was placedbefore voters and was rejected 55%. This project, with the high office square footagehas scant support and would likely be rejected by City Council. 4. “No Project” would be a fourth alternative, Occupied/Re-tenanted mall is not thesame as “No Project” 5. Alternative B, with conflicting 2,600-4,000 residential units, is inconstant with theGeneral Plan. 6. Alternative C is too insufficiently described to determine if is consistent with theGeneral Plan. Portions of the mixed uses were eliminated, which seems inconsistent. 7. For the above reasons, the EIR process must be halted for a replacement “ProposedProject” which is consistent with the General Plan. Thank you! Cupertino Resident living one mile from Vallco and a founding Bay Club (Vallco) member Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comments for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report NOP File Number EA- 2017-05 Potential to Cease EIR Mid-Stream: The EIR scoping meeting provided inadequate and conflicting information with an infeasible “Proposed Project” and infeasible alternatives. According to “CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway,” by Abbott & Kindermann Leslie Z. Walker, on September 22, 2009, the EIR process may be stopped mid-stream: According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete. The article continues: One of the City’s council members opposed the project and asked the City to cease its work on it. The City attorney advised the council members that the City was required to continue processing and completing the EIR. Nonetheless, the objecting council member introduced a motion to suspend the environmental review process until the city council made “a policy decision” to resume the process. The city council ultimately approved a modified motion which also called for the City to cease work on the proposed project. Should the City Council find reason to cease the EIR, such as the “Proposed Project” being inconsistent with the General Plan (explained on the following pages), or that in light of its’ similarity to failed Cupertino ballot Measure D: The Vallco Initiative November 8, 2016, there is precedent as demonstrated above, to do so. Similarity of “Proposed Project” to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should Disqualify It The Vallco Measure D Initiative is described in the following: CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 and would consist of: • 2,000,000 SF office • 640,000 SF retail • 191 additional hotel rooms, bringing the site total to 339 hotel rooms • 389 residential units with a Conditional Use Permit bringing the total to 800 residential units The November 8, 2016 Election results for Measure D were 55% No. Advertising for the initiative obscured the office and focused on the retail portions. The actual square footage percentages for the Measure D Initiative were: • 56% office • 22% residential • 16% retail • 6% hotel Notice these above percentages result in 84% non-retail uses and would be a majority office park. The “Proposed Project” for the EIR has less retail (600,000 SF) and other uses the same as Measure D. The EIR process is not intended to be a disregard of the city’s General Plan to “try out” alternative concepts which have no consistency with the General Plan. This creates a great deal of confusion and distrust. General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: This section amasses the multiple sections of the General Plan which reference the Vallco Shopping District and describe what it is planned to become. Refer to: Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: In Chapter 2 of the Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: Planning Areas: Vallco Shopping District is described as: “…Cupertino’s most significant commercial center…” and that “…Reinvestment is needed…so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community.” It is referred to as a “shopping district”, not an office park, or a residential community. Following is the actual page from the General Plan describing Vallco Shopping District: Figure 1 Vallco Shopping District is further described in the General Plan Vision 2040 Land Use Element through goals, policies, and strategies: GOAL LU-19 Create a distinct and memorable mixed-use "town center" that is a regional destination and a focal point for the community VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley. POLICY LU-19.1: SPECIFIC PLAN Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan prior to any development on the site that lays out the land uses, design standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements required. The Specific Plan will be based on the following strategies: STRATEGIES: LU-19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment will require a master developer in order remove the obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the highest levels of urban design. LU-19.1.2: Parcel Assembly. Parcel assembly and a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required prior to adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future. LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The “town center” plan should be based on complete redevelopment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be planned to carry out the community vision. LU-19.1.4: Land Use. The following uses are allowed on the site (see Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria): 1. Retail: High-performing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses. 2. Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference center and active uses including main entrances, lobbies, retail and restaurants on the ground floor. 3. Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail and active uses on the ground floor. Encourage a mix of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active “town center” environment. 4. Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged in a pedestrian- oriented street grid with active uses on the ground floor, publicly-accessible streets and plazas/green space. Figure 2 - “General Plan Table LU-1” Figure 3 – “General Plan Figure LU-2” General Plan Housing Element p H-21 “Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE-5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE-5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District site (Site A2). The redevelopment of Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community’s needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of “Scenario B” in Appendix B - Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments; however the Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.” Page B-116 of General Plan Appendix B Housing Element Technical Report: SITE A2 (VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT): “The site is designated Regional Shopping/Office/Residential in the General Plan and zoned Planned Development with Regional Shopping and Commercial (P[Regional Shopping and P[CG]). Strategy HE-1.3.1 provides that the City will adopt a Specific Plan for the Vallco site by May 31, 2018 that would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The zoning for the site would be modified as part of the Specific Plan process to allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development at a maximum density of 35 units per acre. If the Specific Plan is not adopted, the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco Shopping District as a Priority Housing Site and replacing it with the sites shown in Scenario B.” 5.5. RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY - SCENARIO B As noted above, one particular site identified in Scenario A will involve substantial coordination for redevelopment (Vallco Shopping District, Site A2). Due to the magnitude of the project, the City has established a contingency plan to meet the RHNA if a Specific Plan is not adopted by May 31, 2018. This contingency plan (referred to here as Scenario B and shown on Figure B-8), involves the City removing Vallco Shopping District, adding more priority sites to the inventory, and also increasing the density/allowable units on other priority sites. Four of the sites discussed in Scenario A above are also included in Scenario B, with some modifications to density and realistic capacity on two of these sites. Two additional sites are added to the inventory, one of which was included in the 2007-2014 Housing Element sites inventory. Figure 4 – “General Plan Figure HE-1” “Figure HE-1 indicates the available residential development opportunity sites to meet and exceed the identified regional housing need pursuant to the RHNA. The opportunity sites can accommodate infill development of up to 1,400 residential units on properties zoned for densities of 20 dwelling units to the acre or more. The potential sites inventory is organized by geographic area and in particular, by mixed use corridors. As shown in Table HE-5, sites identified to meet the near-term development potential lie within the North Vallco Park Special Area, the Heart of the City Special Area, and the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. One particular site will involve substantial coordination for redevelopment (Vallco Shopping District, Site A2). Due to the magnitude of the project, the City has established a contingency plan to meet the RHNA if a Specific Plan is not approved within three years of Housing Element adoption. This contingency plan (called Scenario B and discussed further in General Plan Appendix B), would involve the City removing Vallco Shopping District, adding more priority sites to the inventory, and also increasing the density/allowable units on other priority sites.” “DETERMINATION OF REALISTIC CAPACITY Sites inventory capacity must account for development standards such as building height restrictions, minimum setbacks, and maximum lot coverage, as well as the potential for non-residential uses in mixed-use areas. A survey of recent developments (Table 5.2) indicates that recent multi-family residential projects have built to between 82 percent and 99.5 percent of the maximum allowable density. To ensure that the sites inventory provides a “realistic capacity” for each site, estimates for maximum developable units on each site are conservatively reduced by 15 percent.” Figure 5 – “General Plan Figure HE-1 Zoomed in” Figure 6 – “General Plan Figure B-7: Priority Housing Element Sites Scenario A” Figure 7 – “General Plan Figure B-8 Priority Housing Element Sites Scenario B” Figure 8 – “General Plan Table 5.3: Summary of Priority Housing Sites – Scenario A” Notice that Figures B-7 and HE-1, Table LU-1, Table HE-5 show Vallco Shopping District with 389 units and the Legend of both clearly state that the Site Number is Realistic Capacity with the note: “Realistic capacity is generally 85% of maximum capacity”. That would mean that 389 units is 85% of Vallco Shopping District’s maximum, which would be 457.6 units. Current zoning does not allow residential uses at Vallco, and as shown above, and would need to be modified: “The zoning for the site would be modified as part of the Specific Plan process to allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development…” p 116 General Plan Appendix B Housing Element Technical Report: http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12717 Figure 9 – “General Plan Table HE-%: Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites to Meet the RHNA – Scenartio A” Figure 10– “Table 5.5: Summary of Priority Housing Sites – Scenario B” Scenario B more equitably spreads housing across the city and results in some positive consequences and emergency shelter potentials. There also appears to be a RHNA surplus of +384 generated by this Scenario alternative. Figure 11 – Scenario B, the Alternative Insufficient and Conflicting Information Presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results Consistency Requirement with the General Plan The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCo de=GOV A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatib]e with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. Proposed Project and Project Alternatives: A resident of Cupertino spoke to the Fehr + Peers representative during the EIR Scoping Meeting February 22, 2018 regarding the ‘housing heavy’ option and was told that option would have “around 4,000 units.” During the slide show presentation the following slides were shown for the project and the alternatives: Proposed Project: Figure 12 Figure 2 During the presentation, recorded here: https://youtu.be/kb89Oh1WU_0 The “Proposed Project”, Figure 12, was listed as: Proposed Project: • 600,000 S.F. of commercial • 2,000,000 SF office • 339 hotel rooms • 800 residential units The General Plan refers to Vallco Shopping District as: "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." The Square footage amounts would result in primarily office, then residential, then commercial, then hotel: 2,000,000 SF, approximately 961,622 SF (using the Measure D Initiative Square Footage for then proposed 800 units as listed in the “Vallco Specific Plan Initiative Environmental Assessment,” 600,000 SF retail, and approximately 500,000 SF hotel. The hotel total is approximate due to part of the hotel allotment being currently under construction at Hyatt House and 277,332 SF of hotel was mentioned in the Vallco Specific Plan Initiative Environmental Assessment for the remaining 191 hotel rooms available in the allotments. The “Proposed Project” would result in an even smaller percentage of retail than the failed Measure D percentage: 16%. There appears to be no City Council support for 2 million SF of office at Vallco. As stated earlier, the EIR may be stopped, and the reason to stop it would be that it is both inconsistent with the General Plan, and has insufficient support from the city leaders or the community. Retail has definite requiring language regarding Vallco. None of the other parts have more than “encourage”. Residential says “allow”. The Land use portion language is not solidly stating anything is required except for retail. Following this logic, having the 2 Million SF office allotment is inconsistent with the GP language because building that would cause the site to be an office destination with some retail. The GP EIR studied 600,000 SF retail, 2 Million SF office, 800 residential units, and 339 hotel rooms. The adopted Scenario A in the GP has 389 units. 35 DU/Ac was not an allotment but a density maximum for the 389 units on the site in those parts of the mixed use area which would allow housing. Alternative Scenario B has no housing at Vallco. The Housing Element supports that Vallco could have 389 units, and refers to those unit quantities as “realistic capacity” in Table HE-5 (above). The General Plan adopted “Scenario A” allotments for Vallco and stated that it would fall to Scenario B should a Specific Plan not be adopted by May 31, 2018. As shown in the above section “General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan”, Vallco was never shown in any portion of the General Plan having more than 339 residential units. A reasonable person (“reasonable person” from: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf) would conclude that Vallco was never intended to be a heavy housing site and the General Plan provided Scenario B with other sites available for housing with zero housing at Vallco. The Vallco site was described in the General Plan as: "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." While the Vallco owner may wish for something else, that would have to follow a different process such as a General Plan Amendment. The goals, policies, and strategies to achieve this vision in the General Plan Land Use section support residential as subordinate to other uses. Additionally, the 2 million SF of office completely frustrates the General Plan Housing Element Goal of providing adequate housing by generating an excess of employment. 2 million SF of office space would result in 1 employee per 300 SF or 6,667 new employees which far exceeds the number of residential units being studied. This is a project adjacent to 14,200 employees expected at Apple Park which has no onsite housing and 942 residential units planned in an expanded Hamptons complex, increased that complex by 600 residential units. This explains why there is scant support for 2 million SF of office at Vallco. While Sand Hill requested that a much denser housing option be studied at Vallco, and that a mix between Measure D and a housing heavy option also be studied, neither of these options are consistent with the General Plan nor do they lessen the impacts of the “Proposed Project” which is a CEQA requirement. Attempting to include a reallocation of allotments in and among other sites is beyond the scope of a Vallco Specific Plan and the General Plan. When office or any other allotment is pulled from the General Plan and placed in the city "pool" it results in an alteration of the General Plan. These options were not studied in the General Plan EIR. Alternatives to Project: “The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project or to the location of a Project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Figure 13 The EIR Alternatives were listed as: • Occupied Re-Tenanted Mall • General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix) • Retail and Residential (No office) Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall is Not “No Project” CEQA alternatives require the “no project” alternative: “NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate a “No Project” alternative. The purpose of this alternative is to “allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” This alternative analysis compares the environmental effects of the project site remaining in its existing condition against environmental effects that would occur if the proposed project were approved.” The mall has been gradually closed by the owners over the past few years, most recently announcing the departure of AMC theaters. The occupancy rate of the mall in 2014 was 66% according to Appendix 7 Table 2 City of Cupertino 9212 Report for Vallco Specific Plan ‘Measure D’ and had taxable sales of $99,060,000 based on actual performance. AMC will close in March, 2018. (Traffic analysis must occur after their departure.) A “re-tenanted mall” would be an alternative apart from and substantially different to “no project” since the mall has been largely shuttered and the owner has allowed other uses: automobile dealership car storage, Genentech and other shuttle bus commuter parking and transit pickup on the site, with Bay Club gym, Bowlmor lanes, the ice rink, Dynasty restaurant, and new remodeling of the Food Court for Fremont Union High School District classroom use either remaining or upcoming. These conditions are “no project”, not a re-tenanted mall. A re- tenanted mall would be a fourth alternative to project. Alternative B is Not Consistent with the General Plan The second alternative on the EIR Alternatives Slide, Figure 2, “Alternative B” was described as “General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix)” At 8:48 in the recording, linked above, it was stated that the residential ‘may have approximately 2,600 to 2,640 residential units in addition to office and retail and hotel space’. This alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan. Vallco Shopping District in no part of the General Plan was ever described as a housing complex nor were housing totals ever in any vicinity of these amounts. The General Plan consistently shows 389 residential units as the realistic capacity any only by inference could a higher capacity of 457.6 residential units be determined. When I attended the meeting, I did not hear the residential densities spoken and only learned of them through a news blog. In no mailings were these quantities given, and they are not listed on the city website. This is insufficient information describing the project since the slide shows no proposed sizes or any information as to what the non-residential mix could possibly have in it. Given the abundance of office at Apple Park (3.7 million SF with expected 14,200 employees), the variations in “the mix” can cause huge environmental impacts. A reasonable person would find this proposed alternative ‘housing heavy’ option not consistent with the general plan. Alternative C is Insufficiently Described – May be inconsistent Lastly, the third alternative was listed as “Retail and Residential (No office).” This alternative, “Alternative C,” had no quantity either on the slide or spoken about for either retail or residential and omits the hotel room and office allotments from the General Plan. This proposed alternative ‘retail and residential’ is described too insufficiently to determine if it could potentially avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant negative effects of the “Proposed Project”, or not. Conclusions: 1. The “Proposed Project” does not appear to be consistent with the General Plan because it is an office park with over 84% non-retail use when the project is detailed as the “Vallco Shopping District.” 2. The “Proposed Project” frustrates the General Plan goal to balance employment with housing by providing a gross excess of jobs to housing. 3. Cupertino Ballot Measure D, a similar proposal to “Proposed Project”, was placed before voters and was rejected 55%. This project, with the high office square footage has scant support and would likely be rejected by City Council. 4. “No Project” would be a fourth alternative, Occupied/Re-tenanted mall is not the same as “No Project” 5. Alternative B, with conflicting 2,600-4,000 residential units, is inconstant with the General Plan. 6. Alternative C is too insufficiently described to determine if is consistent with the General Plan. Portions of the mixed uses were eliminated, which seems inconsistent. 7. For the above reasons, the EIR process must be halted for a replacement “Proposed Project” which is consistent with the General Plan. Appendix From: Kitty Moore [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 5:43 PM To: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org> Cc: Randolph Hom <RandolphH@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Vallco SB 35 Dear City Attorney Office, The following forwarded message is a request to halt the EIR process due to the invocation of SB 35, dated March 27, 2018. Sincerely, Kitty Moore ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kitty Moore <> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM Subject: Vallco SB 35 To: Piu Ghosh <piug@cupertino.org> Cc: <manager@cupertino.org>, <randolphh@cupertino.org> Hi Piu, Please halt the EIR due to the invocation of SB 35. Please inform neighbors surrounding Vallco that there is no need for an EIR. Note how the structure now towers over neighbors. If you cannot open the article let me know. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/03/27/vallco-cupertino-redevelopment-sb-35- housing.html Comment Letter I Best regards, Kitty Moore From:Kitty Moore To: Cc: Subject:Fwd: Hills at Vallco CEQA Date:Thursday, June 07, 2018 2:33:04 PM Attachments:image.png Vallco2M800unit Program Level EIR Problem.pdf Dear Ms. Ghosh, I would still like to have the ITE trip generation tables, traffic counts and dates from the GPA 2040 DEIR certified 12/4/2014. I requested them over a year ago. In addition, no one has yet clarified what the city had studied at Vallco. The DEIR for Vallco Specific Plan circulated March 24, 2018 states, on page 7, PDF 43, footnote 6: 6 The General Plan EIR analyzed the demolition of the existing 1,207,774 square foot mall and redevelopment of the site with up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area. Source: Vallco DEIR. "Draft Environmental Impact Report, Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2018022021." Cupertino, 24 May 2018. <http://www.cupertino.org/our- city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco>. I have made several requests about what was actually studied in the DEIR for the General Plan Amendment process because it appears now to be very clear that the city engaged in piecemeal planning and delivered benefits to developer in the GPA process. Is that a correct assessment? Attached is an analysis of what has been communicated regarding what was studied in the DEIR for the General Plan Amendment in 2014 vs. what was apparently quite privately studied, this has been sent to the city last month. Here is the conclusion: Comment Letter J Sincerely, Kitty Moore ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kitty Moore <> Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:07 AM Subject: Hills at Vallco CEQA To: piug@cupertino.org Hello, I am researching the CEQA process for the Hills at Vallco and I want to know what the trigger was which got Fehr + Peers contracted early 2015 to conduct a traffic study. The formal announcement to the DEIR came out October 16, 2015. So I'd like to understand why the time lag. I have found some information on CEQA but the trigger question is not clear. I am concerned that the city initiated Citizen's Advisory Committee, which is not developer initiated, will be used as a reason to restart the DEIR. I have read the F+P analysis of Kimley-Horn's traffic study for the EA for Vallco Initiative for the 9212. I concur with most of the problems they found and excess traffic. They did not break apart retail by restaurants or theaters and that will get picked apart. Additionally F+Ps counts are now too old, and the commuter lot and Chevrolet storage on the site may not be counted as a mall usage in the future traffic study. Nor may the mall occupancy be estimated, it is the mall owner's responsibility to maintain tenants, by allegedly telling them erroneously that the mall demolition would start January 2017, he caused the traffic study counts to come down further. That was his choice. I am also reviewing the incomplete GPA 2040 DEIR which was certified 12/4/2014. Who reviewed the traffic portion in the city and "signed off" on it? Please give me their contact information and have the count dates and sheets emailed along with the ITE trip generation tables of calculated daily trips. I don't see how anyone could have signed off in what was posted online and that should have had a CEQA challenge, I am sure you agree. Thank you, Kitty Moore sent from my iPhone Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Vallco – General Plan EIR Inconsistencies Contents General Plan DEIR – June 18, 2014 – No Office Quantity for Vallco, no residential quantity for Vallco .... 1 Public Request Emails Request RE: Allocations to Vallco: ........................................................................... 10 Measure D 9212 Report claims General Plan EIR studied Vallco 2 Million SF and 800 residential units: 15 Summary: The Environmental Impact Report completed in 2014 for the city-wide General Plan Amendment for Cupertino’s General Plan Vision 2040 does not indicate specific allocations for Vallco Shopping District were studied. At issue is whether the city performed a site specific EIR with certain allocations at Vallco, or not. The current property owner (who did not own the entire site at the time of the EIR) and the consultant for the developer’s failed Measure D ballot initiative, the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative, seem to agree that 2 Million SF of office and 800 residential units were indeed studied in the city-wide program level General Plan EIR. Who is correct? Why does the same company conducting the EIR for Vallco’s current Proposed Project believe that the EIR studied 2 Million SF office and 800 residential units in the General Plan EIR back in 2014? How could this have occurred? What are the penalties for studying a project level proposal in a General Plan program level EIR? Why are cities NOT supposed to do this? The following is SOME of the information to support my statements: General Plan DEIR – June 18, 2014 – No Office Quantity for Vallco, no residential quantity for Vallco The June 18, 2014 DEIR has no indication that 2,000,000 SF of office space would be allocated to Vallco Shopping District. There is no indication that 2,000,000 SF of office and other allocations were studied at that location for the DEIR. The following pages from the June 18, 2014 DEIR show that office was mentioned in the text to be in the Proposed Project for the EIR study, but no amount of allocation was mentioned. Proposed Project is also referred to as Alternative C. Public Request Emails Request RE: Allocations to Vallco: In the following exchange it appears that Peter Pau of SHPCO believes that 2 Million SF of office is being studied at Vallco: Here the developer is requesting a specific allocation to Vallco which, they believe was studied in the EIR for that site: Here the Developer reiterates their belief that 2 M SF office and 800 residential units were already studied in the EIR for Vallco in the General Plan EIR: Measure D 9212 Report claims General Plan EIR studied Vallco 2 Million SF and 800 residential units: Cover page: 9212 Report Vallco Measure D Initiative P. 36: For edification, as applicable to SB 35 and Opticos Alternatives stating 2,400+ residential units: Here the 9212 may be contradicting itself, because it states that the General Plan EIR “…did not analyze the impacts of redeveloping the Vallco Area at the same level of detail as would typically be prepared for a proposed specific plan, and instead specifically anticipated that further environmental review would be required.”: Here the 9212 states specifically: “The General Plan EIR assumed Vallco would be redeveloperd with 800 residential units, 2.0 Million square feet of office uses, 625,335 square feet of commercial uses and 339 hotel rooms.”: Conclusion: There appears to be either a non-disclosure of the contents of the General Plan EIR, which would be highly inappropriate, or a serious misunderstanding in the developer and consultants’ belief that 2 Million SF of office and 800 residential units were studied at Vallco in the General Plan Amendment EIR. Neither of these options are good. Please conduct a thorough review which shall include requesting exactly what Hexagon was told to study for the Vallco site specifically. Other consultants for the EIR would also have needed to know where the office and housing allocations were to be spread around the city and would be able to confirm what they were told to analyze. Additionally, the city staff should be asked what they told the developer as to what had been analyzed in the EIR to determine why the developer believes/believed they had studied the 2 Million SF of office and 800 residential units. Lastly, it is very disconcerting that the consultant for the current Vallco EIR believe the 2 Million SF and 800 residential units had already been studied at the Vallco site, was the 9212 report inaccurate in many places? Will the current Vallco EIR be full of inaccuracies? Please make findings public. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco Area Specific Plan Traffic DEIR and Rent"s Rule Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 7:58:50 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Urs Mader Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 7:12 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco Area Specific Plan Traffic DEIR and Rent's Rule Dear Cupertino Planning Department: I live on Tantau in the Loree Estates near Steven’s Creek. I’m hoping that the City is able to stay away from any “E” or “F” Traffic Ratings for whatever becomes approved for the Vallco Site. One thing that is clear from the DEIR on traffic is that roadways in Cupertino are already past their limits without any further development with a long list of intersections that just can’t be improved because of property boundaries. I am not against development, and can see the allure of the green roof and architecture, but certainly question the wisdom of planning decisions that would head significant parts of Cupertino into traffic situations common in cities with poor planning departments. The top contributors of added traffic at Vallco are pretty much proportional to how densely developed that site becomes. It does not seem to matter very much if it is Housing, Office or Retail. It seems like the sensible thing to do would be to significantly shrink the size of the Vallco redevelopment project as currently being proposed. Nowhere in the DEIR is this really analyzed or discussed directly. Only the Housing elements are subject to the limits of new state law if I understand the intent of that legislation. If something needs to be fast tracked for state laws, perhaps guiding re- development only to housing might be the right compromise to get the project quicker through the planning approval process. The current projects proposed are so heavy with office, that the housing being generated really does nothing positive for the regional housing imbalance problem. Very dense cities eventually add subways to increase mobility once street level becomes unusable. Subways give an additional travel layer that isn’t constrained by existing property boundaries. In the digital chip business, it is what is done when you can’t connect all the logic gates: add more metal layers to the chip to handle the increased traffic. Its called “Rent’s Rule”. Until there are more ways to get around, the responsible thing to do would be to cut the project back until traffic fits, or delay the project until subways, or flying cars, are built. Urs Comment Letter K Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:C ty of Cupert no Planning Dept. To: Subject:FW: Deny Val co SB 35 Applica ton Amend Vallco DEIR Date:Thursday June 14 2018 12:09:53 PM Attachments:image.png image ng image.png image.png image ng image.png image.png image ng image.png I’m only copying you guys when it appears to have gone to our general box only. Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino | Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3214 | catarinak@cupertino.org From: Kitty Moore Sent: Thursday June 14 2018 10:57 AM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; Esq. Bern Steves City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Deny Vallco SB 35 Applicaiton Amend Vallco DEIR All, Please correct the depth of cut as 38'-58'. It is still about double what has been previously communicated. The topo map spot elevations are not the FF of the JCP building, the elevations of the topo lines on the Tentative Map which show those spot elevations were all removed so it was not apparent as you can see. Topo map for the Tentative Map Submission, TM.2.1: Actual depth of cut: Comment Letter K Sorry for any confusion. Kitty Moore On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kitty Moore wrote: Dear Mayor Paul and City Council, Please add this to the Public Record for both Vallco DEIR comments and the Vallco SB 35 application: The Vallco SB 35 Project is on a site which is listed for hazardous materials pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5. This makes the site non-compliant with SB 35, Ca. Gov. Code 65913.4(a)(6)(E). Until which time the site is not on this list, the site does not qualify for SB 35 ministerial streamlining. Additionally, the DEIR and SB 35 applications need to reflect the east side property depths of excavation at 38.0'-78.0' and NOT the "20 to 30 feet" currently being incorrectly communicated. CA. GOV. CODE § 69513.4(A)(6)(E) (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies all of the fo lowing objective planning standards (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. This statute is applicable and the project is not compliant and disqualified from SB 35. VTC SB 35 Applicant claims they are exempt from SB 35 Subd. (a)(6-7) in VTC SB 35 Development Application, Project Description SB 35 Elig bility Checklist p. 4, PDF 23. http //www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id 19613 However the DEIR for Vallco shows the site is on the hazardous materials list: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vallco Specific Plan Special Area SCH# 2018022021, p. 143, PDF 179. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument? id 20887 “Impact HAZ-2: The project (and project alternatives) is located on a site which is includedon a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5;” In the DEIR, they go on to say how it can be mitigated to less than significant but that is indeterminate. More importantly, the SB 35 law asks a yes or no question is it on the hazardous materials list or not. It is. Ministerial approval of a site on the Cortese list is beyond the scope of SB 35 and would be a subjective decision on an environmental matter regarding hazardous materials. The pertinent pages from the Vallco DEIR are included to illustrate how these are not simple matters to ignore. What is of note, is that the Vallco SB 35 application does not show this hazardous materials listing, and the Measure D, Hills at Vallco Environmental Assessment, also does not share the listing. AND, the DEIR shows no HAZ impacts. It is only by careful reading that the item is found. I want the Impact HAZ-2 to be changed to SIGNIFICANT and listed in the Impact Summary. It was not included in the Impact Summary and so its significance is not easily noticed. Additionally, site at 19333 Vallco Parkway is prohibited from housing, there has been no testing of the Vallco site to determine if there was any spread of material on the site or previous dumping. Please notice the grave error in excavation depth, Vallco SB 35 plan shows three levels below existing sidewalk grade on the east side of Wolfe Rd. This is at elevation 180' approximately. The parking lot on the north side of JC Penney is at elevation 200'. Architectural Plans Part 3, P-0853 show the finished floor elevation at 143.0, and there would be excavation a few feet below that level for the foundation. Let's be generous and say they only need to excavate 1' below the basement level of the garage, so the depth of excavation on the east side will be to 142.0'. Where are the Property Lines? They do not show them. Now, recall that the ENTIRE property will sit at one level of underground parking, they are claiming incorrectly that there will be only 20 to 30 feet of excavation for underground parking when it will be a MINIMUM 38' to a MAXIMUM 78'. This has to be communicated and fixed in the DEIR. Are you aware of these excavation depths? I am wondering if the soil excavation calculations are correct, I have seen no actual cross sections of cut and do not want to run them myself... As stated above the site is not eligible for SB 35 Ca. Gov. Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(E) due to being on the hazardous materials list pursuant to Ca. Gov. Code Section 65962.5. Please, due to its significance, the listing must moved into the Significant Impacts section of the DEIR and they can demonstrate how this would be remedied. Please read pages 140-143 of the Vallco DEIR: Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Log n To pl g@ p g From R this sender from my allow list You eceived th s message because the sende is on you allow list From:Aarti Shrivastava To:Piu Ghosh Subject:FW: Public Hearing for Vallco DEIR at 5pm today? Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:42:01 AM Aarti From: David Brandt Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:01 AM To: Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Public Hearing for Vallco DEIR at 5pm today? What’s going on? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Liang-Fang Chao Date: June 19, 2018 at 8:12:28 AM PDT To: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org> Subject: Public Hearing for Vallco DEIR at 5pm today? Reply-To: The city council agenda for tonight does not list Public Hearing for Vallco DEIR at 5pm at all. I just checked the cupertino.org/vallco page and it does list June 19, 5pm as the time for public hearing. Has that been changed? Thanks. Liang Total Control Panel Login To: davidb@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter M From:Randy Shingai To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Subject:Access to Draft EIR public comments? Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:48:47 AM Hi, Since a Draft EIR Meeting will be held this afternoon, can I have access to the public comments received thus far? Thank you, Randy Shingai Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter N From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR Sudy Session Missing from Previously Posted Schedule Vallco SB 35 Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:02:19 PM Attachments:CommentsVallcoDEIR(6JUN18).pdf From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Kitty Moore Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:12 AM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Cc: Esq. Bern Steves ; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR Sudy Session Missing from Previously Posted Schedule Vallco SB 35 Dear Mayor Paul, There was a study session for the Vallco Specific Plan DEIR scheduled for today at 5 pm is this now a private meeting or is it still open to the public? I had sent the attached document regarding the DEIR, it seems that certain important individuals in the city do not understand the DEIR process and requirements the way they are written. It also seems quite odd that the Envision Vallco site removed the DEIR study session. If the DEIR is now a relic of a failed effort to bamboozle the public, should we still be reviewing it for comments? Because we have until the start of July to have our comments completed. Is the study session a legal requirement? I guess when the City Attorney is sidelined, laws fly out the window. Are you seriously going to let the 90 SB 35 non-compliance report date by the city pass without lifting a finger and paying M Group in a contract worth $102K of our dollars to sit on their hands? I want to see the findings on Vallco SB 35 from the city's contracted work. It is odd that the City all signed on to oppose SB 35 last year, and now that the largest SB 35 project in the state, which will allegedly ministerially alter Wolfe Rd. to have 11 lanes of traffic in areas plus bike lanes and medians, by right, with no supporting EIR, in a configuration which does not look safe, has fallen in the City's lap and yet no one at the City Comment Letter O has the intellectual curiosity to determine if the plan is SB 35 compliant. Please inform the public regarding the status of the 5 pm Vallco DEIR Study Session Today. Please inform the public whether the Vallco SB 35 project is not compliant with supporting documents just like the City of Berkeley did. Thank you, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Deliver to: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org JUNE 6, 2018 1 COMMENTS FOR VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2018022021 Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan: 1. Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the impacts of Proposed Project. 2. Moving Target Project: Project Not adequately described in NOP period. 3. Insufficient and Conflicting Information presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results. 4. Announcing in a Study Session 6/4/2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan that the project alternatives would require a General Plan Amendment, months after the EIR NOP. 5. Studying further inconsistent alternatives in the ongoing Specific Plan Process which are not in the DEIR requires the recirculation of the DEIR. The Specific Plan Process is considering only plans which were not studied in the DEIR. No DEIR alternatives showed 3,200 residential units and 750,000- 1,500,000 Square Feet of office space. The General Plan does not allow retail to be reduced below 600,000 SF which the Specific Plan process is considering. 6. Alternatives to Project (General Plan with Maximum Residential Buildout Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) ignore the Consistency Requirement with the General Plan and The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, feasible alternatives: The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GOV 2 A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatib]e with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. Government Code 15082. Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR (a) Notice of Preparation. Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in approving or funding the project. (1) The notice of preparation shall provide the responsible and trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research with sufficient information describing the project and the potential environmental effects to enable the responsible agencies to make a meaningful response. At a minimum, the information shall include: (A) Description of the project, (B) Location of the project (either by street address and cross street, for a project in an urbanized area, or by attaching a specific map, preferably a copy of a U.S.G.S. 15' or 7- 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name), and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. Potential to Cease EIR Mid-Stream: The EIR scoping meeting provided inadequate and conflicting information with an infeasible “Proposed Project” and infeasible alternatives. According to “CEQA Does Not Apply to Project Disapproval, Even if the EIR is Underway,” by Abbott & Kindermann Leslie Z. Walker, on September 22, 2009, the EIR process may be stopped mid-stream: According to Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (Sept. 17, 2009, B213637) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the long standing rule that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved 3 by a public agency, allows a public agency to reject a project before completing or considering the EIR. In Las Lomas, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District made clear that a city may stop environmental review mid-stream and reject a project without awaiting the completion of a final EIR. While this holding may avoid wasting time and money on an EIR for a dead-on-arrival project, it will also make it harder for projects to stay in play until the entire environmental document is complete. The article continues: One of the City’s council members opposed the project and asked the City to cease its work on it. The City attorney advised the council members that the City was required to continue processing and completing the EIR. Nonetheless, the objecting council member introduced a motion to suspend the environmental review process until the city council made “a policy decision” to resume the process. The city council ultimately approved a modified motion which also called for the City to cease work on the proposed project. Should the City Council find reason to cease the EIR, such as project alternatives being inconsistent with the General Plan, plan NOP period did not show legal project alternatives, and the Specific Plan process failed to inform the public of the process failings immediately when known and is studying projects which were not studied in the DEIR (explained on the following pages), or that in light of its’ similarity to failed Cupertino ballot Measure D: The Vallco Initiative November 8, 2016, there is precedent as demonstrated above, to do so. Alternatives to Project: “The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project or to the location of a Project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Similarity of “Proposed Project” to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should Disqualify It: The Vallco Measure D Initiative is described in the following: CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 and would consist of: • 2,000,000 SF office • 640,000 SF retail • 191 additional hotel rooms, bringing the site total to 339 hotel rooms • 389 residential units with a Conditional Use Permit bringing the total to 800 residential units The November 8, 2016 Election results for Measure D were 55% No. Advertising for the initiative obscured the office and focused on the retail portions. The actual square footage percentages for the Measure D Initiative were: 4 • 56% office • 22% residential • 16% retail • 6% hotel Notice these above percentages result in 84% non-retail uses and would be a majority office park. The “Proposed Project” for the EIR has less retail (600,000 SF) and other uses the same as Measure D. The EIR process is not intended to be a disregard of the city’s General Plan to “try out” alternative concepts which have no consistency with the General Plan. This creates a great deal of confusion and distrust. General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: This section amasses the multiple sections of the General Plan which reference the Vallco Shopping District and describe what it is planned to become. Refer to: Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: In Chapter 2 of the Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: Planning Areas: Vallco Shopping District is described as: “…Cupertino’s most significant commercial center…” and that “…Reinvestment is needed…so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community.” It is referred to as a “shopping district”, not an office park, or a residential community. “This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley.” - Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 CONTENTS Figures..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Comments on DEIR Summary p xii: Proposed Project is a moving Target ...................................................... 9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ........................................................... 20 No Explanation from Where in the General Plan the Excess Residential Units Came From ...................... 20 Cupertino General Plan 2040 studied a piecemeal plan of Vallco? .............................................................. 20 5 2.3 Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.1 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.1 Common Open Space and Landscaping ............................................................................................... 21 2.4.4.2 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ................................................................................................... 22 2.4.4.3 Transit Center and Transportation Demand Management Program ..................................................... 22 2.4.4.4 Utility Connections and Recycled Water Infrastructure Extension ...................................................... 23 2.4.4.5 Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1.2 Scenic Views and Vistas ....................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Light and glare .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 Impact AQ-1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Impact AQ-3: .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Impact AQ-4: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Impact AQ-6: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Hazardous Materials Demolition: ..................................................................................................................... 37 Impact AQ-7: .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Cancer Risk Assessment, Construction Phase, Contradicts Previous Study .................................................... 41 Impact AQ-9: .................................................................................................................................................... 43 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 43 3.5. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 44 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 44 3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 45 3.8 Greenhouse Gases and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ......................................... 45 Impact GHG-1 .................................................................................................................................................. 55 BL2: Decarbonize Buildings............................................................................................................................. 61 BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 61 6 NW2: Urban Tree Planting ............................................................................................................................... 61 Construction Period Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 61 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................. 63 3.9.1.3 Other Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 63 3.9.2.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ........................................................................................... 63 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 63 3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................. 64 3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 65 3.13 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................................................... 65 Playgrounds....................................................................................................................................................... 65 Future Noise Contours ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Cupertino Municipal Code Maximum Permissible Sound Levels ................................................................... 68 Construction Noise............................................................................................................................................ 68 Vibration ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................................ 74 3.14.12 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 74 Impact POP-1 ................................................................................................................................................ 74 Impact POP-3 ................................................................................................................................................ 74 3.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................................. 75 Sanitary Sewer .................................................................................................................................................. 75 School Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 76 DEIR Student Generation Rates ................................................................................................................... 77 Failed Measure D Hills at Vallco Student Generation Rates to Compare .................................................... 78 Park Land Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 81 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 81 3.17 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 81 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 81 Levels of Service............................................................................................................................................... 81 Approved and Pending Projects Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment ............................................ 82 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................................ 84 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 85 7 FIGURES Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: DEIR Heights ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater .................................................................... 15 Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self) ............................................................................ 18 Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self) ..................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan ........................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space .......................................................................... 25 Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees ..................................................... 25 Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation................................................................................................... 32 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match .............................................................. 33 Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks ......................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD ......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High ........................................................................ 41 Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs ................................................................. 42 Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand ..................................................................................................................... 45 8 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors ................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan ........................................................................................... 49 Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan ................................................................................ 50 Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage ............................................................................................................. 50 Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 56 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction ........................................................................................ 57 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating ............................................................................. 58 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions ..................................................................................................... 60 Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions .................................................................................... 62 Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 ........................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 ................................................................................. 68 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise .................................................................................... 69 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors ......................................................................................... 70 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue ..................................................... 73 Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 ............................................................................ 76 Figure 48: DEIR SGR .......................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables .................................................................................... 79 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs ................................................................................................................. 80 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied ........................... 83 Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner .................................................................................... 84 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees ....................................................................................................... 86 9 INTRODUCTION In order to ease review of these comments, they are ordered in parallel with the DEIR document. Comments will follow the headings from the DEIR in order, and any missing informational sections will be discussed at the end. Quotations from the DEIR and appendices are shown in blue. COMMENTS ON DEIR SUMMARY P XII: PROPOSED PROJECT IS A MOVING TARGET The DEIR Summary, p xii, states: “The proposed project is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments.” and continues: “Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would facilitate development of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses, up to 339 hotel rooms, and up to 800 residential dwelling units on-site. The proposed Specific Plan development reflects the buildout assumptions (including the adopted residential allocation available) for the site in the City’s adopted General Plan. In addition, the project includes up to 65,000 square feet of civic spaces in the form of governmental office space, meeting rooms and community rooms and a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) lab, as well as a 30-acre green roof.” Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p. xii, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 The DEIR studied the following projects and alternatives: Figure 1: DEIR Proposed Project and Alternatives Summary 10 1. Proposed Project has incorrect number of residential units. Residential units would be 389. Referring to the General Plan, Vallco “…specific plan would permit 389 units…” not 800 residential units. The Specific Plan process to date shows a 3,200, 2,640 and 3,250 residential unit options. While the housing units may be moved between housing element sites, the General Plan Technical Report for Scenarios A and B do not come close to having this many housing units. None of the options are consistent with the General Plan. When the number of units is over 2,640 in the DEIR, there is no office shown. The Charrette 2 housing units are shown to be 3,200 at the Charrette #2 closing presentation for any options. This was not studied in the DEIR. Low Housing/Low Retail option shared is inconsistent with the General Plan minimum retail of 600,000 SF. DEIR, p. 15 PDF p 51, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Source: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR, p 51, http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 General Plan Housing Element p H-21: “Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE-5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE-5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District site (Site A2). The redevelopment of Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community’s needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of “Scenario B” in Appendix B - Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments; however the Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.” 11 2. Clarifications needed for p xii Summary, what is the proposed project? As of the release date of the DEIR, May 24, 2018, there is no approved Specific Plan for Vallco. Two options shared the week of Charrette #2 have no relationship to the General Plan, or the DEIR, and included: Low Office/High Retail Residential: 3,250 units Office: 750,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 600,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Low Housing/Low Retail Residential: 2,640 units Office: 1,500,000 SF Retail/Entertainment: 400,000 SF Hotel: 139,000 SF Civic Space: 65,000 SF 5 acres public park(s) Here is the Opticos slide presented the week of Charrette #2, May 23, 2018, informing us of what the project could be: Figure 2: Opticos Specific Plan Process Options Notice the number of residential units are not consistent with the General Plan or DEIR in any way. The park space is inconsistent with the DEIR. And supporting slide from Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation has further alterations to proposed project: 12 Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options 3. 65,000 SF of civic space, STEM lab, and 30 acre green roof were not discussed in the NOP period for Vallco. In the DEIR civic space and STEM lab are combined into the 65,000 SF. Additionally, the civic/STEM spaces are considered public benefits which would result in higher building heights if the developer includes them. This was mentioned at the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation, May 24, 2018: 13 Figure 4: DEIR Heights 4. To add to the confusion as to what the project may end up being, the maximum height was also shown to be 294’. These height differences will cause different shadow and intrusion issues, such as privacy intrusion into Apple Campus HQ which may be a security risk at the corporate headquarters, guest discomfort at the outdoor swimming pool at Hyatt House, and the lack of privacy for the area homes and back yards. In Section 4.2.1 of the DEIR, heights are shown up to 165’. The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan: 14 15 5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May 31, 2018 with no Sp- ecific Plan adopted for Vallco? P. 162 of DEIR: Cupertino Municipal Code The Vallco Special Area is zoned P(Regional Shopping) – Planned Development Regional Shopping north of Vallco Parkway, and P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial south of Vallco Parkway (west of North Wolfe Road). The Planned Development Zoning District is specifically intended to encourage variety in the development pattern of the community. The Planned Development Regional Shopping zoning designation allows all permitted uses in the Regional Shopping District, which include up to 1,645,700 square feet of commercial uses, a 2,500 seat theater complex, and buildings of up to three stories and 85 feet tall.81 The Planned Development General Commercial designation allows retail businesses, full service restaurants (without separate bar facilities), specialty food stores, eating establishments, offices, laundry facilities, private clubs, lodges, personal service establishments. 81 Council Actions 31-U-86 and 9-U-90. The maximum building height identified was in conformance with the 1993 General Plan and were identified in the Development Agreement (Ordinance 1540 File no. 1-DA-90) at that time 6. The performing arts theater, public benefit was mentioned in the Opticos Charrette #2 closing presentation May 24, 2018, but not included in the DEIR calculations: Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater 16 7. The lack of a stable project makes writing comments nearly impossible. In Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/washoe-meadows-community-v-department-parks-recreation- 2017-17-cal-app-5th-277/ “…the court held that the DEIR’s failure to provide the public with an “accurate, stable and finite” project description prejudicially impaired the public’s right to participate in the CEQA process, citing COUNTY OF INYO V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. Noting that a broad range of possible projects presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives, the court found that the presentation of five very different alternative projects in the DEIR without a stable project was an obstacle to informed public participation” 8. Proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan: housing is exceeded, park land fails to meet requirements for the park starved east side of Cupertino (Municipal Code requires park land acreage rather than a substitute roof park at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 residents), height bonus tied to community benefits is not in the General Plan, the housing allocation assumes the General Plan allocation system has been removed, and community benefits in the General Plan for Vallco came at no ‘cost’ to the project such as increased heights. Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018. Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives 17 9. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. We have no identified Specific Plan and the last alternatives presented at the final Charrette #2 do not match any alternatives studied in the DEIR (3,200 residential units along with 750,000-1,000,000 SF office space plus 65,000 SF civic space) and are not consistent with the General Plan. Ca GC 65450-65457: (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65451.&lawCode=GO V A project that is inconsistent with an applicable General Plan or subsidiary land use plan may not be approved without an amendment to the Plan or a variance. See Gov't Code§ 65860. Where a project conflicts with even a single general plan policy, its approval may be reversed. San Bernardino County Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341. Consistency demands that a project both "further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment." Families, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1336; see Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378. Accordingly, where a project opponent alleges that a project conflicts with plan policies, a court need not find an "outright conflict." Napa Citizens at 379. "The proper question is whether development of the [project] is compatible with and will not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to mitigate the adverse effect or effects." Id. 18 Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self) 19 Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self) 20 CULTURAL RESOURCES The findings and mitigations are adequate. 2.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS This section fails to state the current zoning designations per the General Plan, no Specific Plan has been adopted: Figure 9: Cupertino General Plan NO EXPLANATION FROM WHERE IN THE GENERAL PLAN THE EXCESS RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAME FROM “As shown in General Plan Table LU-1, the General Plan development allocation for the Vallco Special Area is as follows: up to a maximum of 1,207,774 square feet of commercial uses (i.e., retention of the existing mall) or redevelopment of the site with a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail uses of which a maximum of 30 percent may be entertainment uses (pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.4); up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses; up to 339 hotel rooms; and up to 389 residential dwelling units.5 Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations may be transferred among Planning Areas, provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040 Final EIR (SCH#2014032007) (General Plan EIR).6 Therefore, additional available, residential or other, development allocations may be transferred to the project site.” CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2040 STUDIED A PIECEMEAL PLAN OF VALLCO? 21 “6 The General Plan EIR analyzed the demolition of the existing 1,207,774 square foot mall and redevelopment of the site with up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area. Because the Vallco Shopping Mall existed on the site when Community Vision 2015-2040 was adopted, and it was unclear when a project would be developed on the site, General Plan Table LU-2 indicates the square footage of the existing mall in the commercial development allocation to ensure that the mall did not become a non-conforming use at the site. Residential allocations that are available in other Planning Areas may be transferred to the Vallco Shopping District without the need to amend the General Plan.” Page 223 of this DEIR conflicts with the above assertion: “However, the General Plan update process in 2014 analyzed and allocated 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 389 residential units for a redeveloped project on the site.” What was studied in the General Plan EIR for Vallco? 2.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section attempts to obscure Vallco Shopping District’s “shopping, dining, and entertainment” objectives stated in the General Plan. The General Plan refers to Vallco Shopping District as: "... a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." 2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document. 2.4.4.1 COMMON OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING Park land acreage per Cupertino Municipal Code 13.08.050 states the park land acreage requirement to be 3 acres per 1,000 residents. In areas which are park deficient, such as the east side of Cupertino, the city average residents per dwelling units is 2.83. For Proposed Project, 800 residential units, 2,264 residents: 6.8 acres of park land acreage would be required. For 2,640 residential units, 7,471 residents: 22.4 acres of park land would be required. For 4,000 residential units, 11,320 residents: 34.0 acres of park land would be required. The 30 acre green roof is not park land acreage per the Municipal Code. While it may be considered a recreational area, the uses of such space are limited. Here is a cross section of the SB 35 plan roof: 22 Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application Cupertino adopted the Community Vision 2040, Ch. 9 outlines the “Recreation, Parks, and Services Element.” Their Policy RPC-7.1 Sustainable design, is to minimize impacts, RPC-7.2 Flexibility Design, is to design for changing community needs, and RPC-7.3 Maintenance design, is to reduce maintenance. The Vallco green roof violates the three City of Cupertino Parks policies listed: it is not sustainable, it is not flexible (a baseball field cannot be created), and it is extremely high maintenance. Parkland acquisition is supposed to be based on “Retaining and restoring creeks and other natural open space areas” and to “design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to…keep maintenance costs low.” And unfortunately for us, the city states: “If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees based on a formula that considers the extent to which the publicly-accessible facilities meet community need.” 2.4.4.2 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING “Based on a conservative estimate of parking demand, it is estimated that two to three levels of below- ground parking across most of the site (51 acres) would be required.” Should a third level of subterranean parking be required, that will increase excavation haul, and GHG calculations. This would result in about 500,000 CY of additional soil removal and should be calculated. Parking will be inadequate due to park and ride demand from the Transit Center and TDM. 2.4.4.3 TRANSIT CENTER AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The extent of the transit system with Google, Genentech, and Facebook continuing to use the site along with what will likely be Apple, and VTA will result in much higher bus trips than expected. Even at the 808 average daily trips in the GHG and Fehr + Peers studies, that is 404 vehicles in and out of the site daily. This sounds 23 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in the project. 2.4.4.4 UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION The SB 35 application discussed the $9.1 million cost to extend the recycled water line across I-280. There is an insufficient amount of recycled water produced at the Donald M. Somers plant and there is anticipated upstream demand. When there is not enough recycled water, potable water is added to the recycled water to make up the difference. It may be decades before there is adequate output of recycled water for the green roof. Apple Park pays the potable water cost. The previous water study for Measure D showed the following water use: Figure 11: WSA from Hills at Vallco Measure D Tertiary treated water from the Donald Somers plant is currently insufficient. Impacts related to the need to expand the plant will include air quality impacts as well. There is not enough capacity at the Donald Somers plant to supply the Vallco “Hills” project. Should the same green roof be added to the project, there would need to be a dual water system on the roof. This is due to the need to flush the recycled water out to keep certain plants healthy. The water use from the dual roof system needs to be addressed in coordination with the arborist report for the green roof irrigation system. The roof irrigation system may need an auxiliary pump system to irrigate gardens 95’+ in the air. 2.4.4.5 CONSTRUCTION Vallco spokesperson Reed Moulds stated construction would take 6-8 years. Depending on the order of construction, for instance if office is built first, the project will worsen the deficit in housing. The length of time of construction is important because it is used in calculating the lbs/day of GHG produced. If one side is to be torn down and rebuilt (eg. the east property) first, then the GHG calculations may significantly alter to really be two separate job sites on separate schedules. 24 2.4.4.6 SPECIFIC PLAN ASSUMPTIONS Items listed as “shall” do not state that all would be according to the requirements stated. For instance: “Future buildings shall install solar photovoltaic power, where feasible.” Requires none actually be installed. For the requirements to have any definite effect, they need to be rewritten for that outcome. Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas. 3.1.1.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS DEIR ignores many pleasant views in the Wolfe Road corridor and took photos in harsh lighting when many of the residents enjoy the space on commutes and going to the gym onsite: Southbound on Wolfe Road with the many mature ash trees: Figure 12: SB Wolfe Rd. Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings: 25 Figure 13: SB Wolfe Rd. Looking West at Vallco Open Space Southbound on Wolfe Road, views of Santa Cruz Mountains. There are few areas in the east part of Cupertino where the Santa Cruz mountains are visible due to structures. Figure 14: SB Wolfe Rd. Santa Cruz Mountains, Vallco Open Space, Trees 26 East bound on Stevens Creek Blvd. Views of east hills and multiple Apple transit buses. Figure 15: EB Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple Shuttles View of Bay Club (large seating area and tv room next to Starbucks) at Vallco. Figure 16: The Bay Club and Starbucks at Vallco 27 3.1.2 AESTHETIC IMPACTS “Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include scenic quality, sensitivity level, and view access. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views of a specific scenic features (e.g., open space lands, mountain ridges, bay, or ocean views).” Findings of AES-1 and AES-2 are incorrect. The length of a scenic vista is relative to the location. In the east part of Cupertino, there are few long (10 mile) vistas, such that 400’ is a relatively long vista. Glimpses of the Santa Cruz mountains and east bay hills are few and thus more precious. Homes are clustered with 5’ side yards and 25’ setbacks such that neighborhoods have little in the way of long vistas. Creekside Park, Cupertino High School, and Vallco Mall have the largest locally long vistas. Proposed project will have a huge negative aesthetic impact, it will block all views of the Santa Cruz mountains and eliminate the wide vista across the Bay Club parking lot. Most of the homes in the east part of Cupertino have no long site view and no view of the Santa Cruz mountains. The Bay Club and Starbucks (in the Sears Building) has a huge setback and the parking lot has many fairly young trees. This open vista has been there historically. Visitors to the rebuilt site will be relegated to underground parking caves in a crowded environment with thousands of employees and residents. While Apple Park architects did their best to berm and plant a massive 176 acre area, while keeping the maximum elevation to 75’, the Vallco project is the aesthetic antithesis. Ideally, Main Street would have been purchased for park land but that did not happen. While the proposed project suggests to hide park land within the project, there should be a large corner park to maintain the historic open corner space at the northeast corner of Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. The following historical photographs indicate how the corner has never had the view blocked by any solid structure: 28 Figure 17: Vallco 1939 29 Figure 18: Vallco 1965 30 Figure 19: Vallco 1974 31 LIGHT AND GLARE The development of the proposed project and alternatives (other than retenanted mall) would include nighttime and security lighting, and may include building material that is reflective. The project and alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) could result in light and glare impacts. Structures facing the residential areas could have the windows and heights limited with green walls installed to mitigate light and glare effects. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The site historically was an orchard until the late 1970s. With proper planning, a limited portion of the site could be returned to orchard space, on the ground, and possibly on the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Rd. corner. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Data input has some errors to traffic volumes, wind direction (selected “variable” when it is N, NE), project traffic volumes, and input to the program used to model GHG such as: acreage of the lot, apartment total SF, city park acreage is on the roof and will have recycled water which results in an additional GHG, the addition of a 10,000 SF racquet club is inconsistent with the proposed project studied by others, the Government Civic Center is shown smaller than Proposed Project: Figure 20: From DEIR: GHG Land Usage GHG Trips generated do not match the Fehr + Peers Traffic Study for the DEIR and have nearly 10,000 less ADT. Additionally, the Fehr + Peers average daily trip rate was erroneously low. The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette 32 discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation Fehr + Peers ADT chart: 33 Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match IMPACT AQ-1 Impact AQ-1 PM 10, is missing from the DEIR but mitigations to AQ-1 are included in the GHG appendix and are repeated for Impact AQ-2. IMPACT AQ-2 The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: The construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-2.1: 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.” 34 14. Avoid tracking of visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of prior to leaving the site.” These impacts may be better mitigated following Apple Park’s method of power washing on each exit from the site and installing steel grates the trucks drive over. The soil haul on I-280, if this occurs, will need coordination with CalTrans for street sweeping on the freeway. This may take months and severely block traffic due to closing a lane for sweepers. The route for soil haul needs to be made public. Apple Park balanced cut and fill onsite, thus eliminating months of truck haul a considerable distance. The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Initiative, “Measure D” indicated many months of hauling required, trips from 7-12 miles, and that project is approximately 2 Million SF smaller than Proposed Project and alternatives. Additionally, the inclusion of having 85% of parking be subterranean in the Charrette alternatives could result in an extra level of subterranean parking needed. This will mean another 500,000 cubic yards of soil haul off. This was not anticipated in the DEIR and will impact air quality. It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting landfills which are not near the site. The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2: “Impact AQ-2: MM AQ-2.1: 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.” #6 and #16 impact mitigations are conflicting, is it two minutes or five minutes allowable idling time? How will this be enforced? The highest engine tier available is Tier 4b, the mitigations suggested include Tier 3, which should be deleted and require ALL construction equipment meet Tier 4b emissions standards because the site is adjacent to residences and within a quarter of a mile to a high school and day care. Additionally, the year of construction actually beginning is unknown. How will the City enforce that mitigations such as alternative fuel options (e.g., CNG, bio-diesel) are provided for each construction equipment type? It is the responsibility of the lead agency to ensure the equipment operated by the project actually uses alternative fuel. City must present their enforcement process. Because we have seen developers not pull permits until many years after approval, requiring that equipment be no older than eight years is better than the DEIR requirement of model year 2010 or newer. 35 • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards for NOx and PM, where feasible. • All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced: Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks . Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles Source, BAAQMD: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf IMPACT AQ-3: The operation of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 36 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. Incomplete analysis and only one mitigation was suggested for operation of the project which is for architectural coatings specifically paint when ROGs are widely used throughout construction, however the proposed project will likely have multiple sources of ROG air pollution such as air pollution caused by: 1. additional recycled water production: likely unavoidable 2. any electrostatic ozone producing equipment: consider limiting ozone producing equipment or seek alternatives 3. cooling towers: require high efficiency cooling towers 4. operation of the transit hub: require zero emission transit vehicles, especially since there will likely be sensitive receptors living on site. 5. additional electricity generation to operate the project: require solar onsite to provide a minimum 50% of required electricity, including the electricity needed to treat the water and recycled water. Any exposed roofing to be white roof. 6. day to day additional vehicular traffic: require a high percent of EV charging stations, zero emission vehicles, and site loading areas 200’ from residents, medical offices, daycares, parks, and playgrounds. Refer to Comment 2C in the following: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf 7. VOC emission from outgassing of carpets, plastics, roofing materials, curing of concrete, treatment of pool and cooling tower water, materials in the artificial roof infrastructure: require low VOC materials throughout the project to reduce 8. restaurants which may be vented to the roof exposing people to cooking fume exhaust. Main Street Cupertino gases from restaurants are visible and detectable across the street on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The standards for roof venting for a green roof must be higher than typical because people may end up near the vents. 9. Additional traffic backing up on I-280, site is downwind of the freeway: place residential areas, medical facility offices, daycares, school uses, playgrounds, and parks a minimum of 1000’ from the I-280 right of way including the off ramps and particularly the on ramp due to vehicular acceleration resulting in increased air pollution emissions. 10. VOCs are not mitigated with HEPA filtration. This makes siting residences, medical facilities, school facilities, and daycares more than 1000’ from the freeway imperative. Require a Merv 13 filter or better in the 1000’ area and require the replacement of the filters with some city determined verification that the filters are changed. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-freeway-pollution-filters- 20170709-story.html 11. Employees working in the parking garages in the TDM program (valets underground) will need to have air quality monitored for safety. Usually they would have a separate room which is well ventilated and preferably an automated payment system for metered parking. However, if workers are needed to pack 37 cars tightly, then the whole underground parking area would have to be rendered safe for workers exposed to the air pollution found in parking garages for a full work day. Impact AQ-4 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOx, PM10, and/or PM2.5) for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure: MM AQ-4.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1. This is an incomplete analysis with incomplete mitigation measures. Refer to additional air pollution sources and mitigations listed in Impact AQ-3 above. No study of TDM workers in the underground garages has been done. Impact AQ-6 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction dust and diesel exhaust emissions concentrations. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures: MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. This impact is not specific enough. Because there is an error in the calculations, explained in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment section fully, the mitigations must be made more strict. It should be mentioned, that the exposure has critical peaks of hazardous levels of GHGs. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEMOLITION: Some of the site interiors appear to have had demolition occur already. Was this done to code? How is that known? “Potential sources of on-site contamination – The Vallco site was historically used for agricultural purposes, and has been developed and operating as a shopping mall since at least 1979. The site is listed on regulatory agency databases as having leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), removing and disposing of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), and a small quantity generator of hazardous materials waste. Surface soils may contain 38 elevated levels of residual pesticides and other chemicals of concern related to past and present use and operations at the site.”- JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report Include the following, modified from VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers: Soil Management Plan: A Soil Management Plan for all redevelopment activities shall be prepared by applicant(s) for future development to ensure that excavated soils are sampled and properly handled/disposed, and that imported fill materials are screened/analyzed before their use on the property. Renovation or Demolition of Existing Structures: Before conducting renovation or demolition activities that might disturb potential asbestos, light fixtures, or painted surfaces, the Town Center/Community Park applicant shall ensure that it complies with the Operations and Maintenance Plan for management and abatement of asbestos-containing materials, proper handling and disposal of fluorescent and mercury vapor light fixtures, and with all applicable requirements regarding lead-based paint. Proposed use of hazardous materials – Development of the VTC and alternatives could include uses that generate, store, use, distribute, or dispose of hazardous materials such petroleum products, oils, solvents, paint, household chemicals, and pesticides. The VTC shall include the following EDF to reduce adverse effects from on-site use of hazardous materials: Hazardous Materials Business Plan: In accordance with State Code, facilities that store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25534(b) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare and implement, as necessary, Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP) for determination of risks to the community. The HMBP will be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process Refer to Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and Gases: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1529.html Impact AQ-7 : The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC pollutant concentrations. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-7.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) shall implement mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 to reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions, which would thereby reduce the maximum cancer risk due to construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative). 39 The cancer risk assessment is based on erroneous traffic studies and the air quality monitoring stations had old data from 2013 and/or were too far away to use data. The cancer risk needs to be recalculated. The amount of exposure time should reflect seniors not leaving the project area. The baseline air quality monitoring must be taken over an extended period with particular attention paid to the summer months when Ozone levels increase. Here is an example day when children would be playing outdoors, Ozone was the primary pollutant. Note these are regional amounts, and the increases along the freeways are not shown: Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD 40 The I-280 freeway produces substantial TAC pollutant concentrations and the south bay is subjected to the entire bay area’s pollutants which are converted to Ozone in the warm summer months. The DEIR failed to monitor air pollution for the site for any time period, and only modeled pollutants onsite. Fires are expected to be the new normal, bringing potential further impacts to the region’s air quality. The heights of the structures planned, and layout, and planned green roof, will likely concentrate freeway pollutants into the project area and combine and intensify them with onsite traffic. Having 85% of the parking garages underground and with fresh air intake being difficult to locate may result in significantly unhealthy air quality and the need for expensive mechanical filtration which does not filter VOCs. Adding what may be approximately 147,000 SF of restaurant and up to 4,000 residential units producing cooking and restroom exhaust with a challenging ventilation system may further degrade the air quality on site. The roof park may enclose the site to the point of having hazardous air quality. The roof park covering was not studied in the cancer risk assessment model. Reducing the amount of underground parking and having above grade parking with open walls in above ground structures is a mitigation. Alternatively, Merv 13 or better filtration and air quality monitors in the subterranean garages may improve the air quality, but it is not clear which would be better. The project alternative with 4,000 residential units will most likely result in residents within 1,000’ of the freeway, re-tenanted mall results in the least construction and operational pollution, least cancer risk, and least long term GHG exposure since no residential units would be onsite. Project is “down wind” of the freeway. The freeway has over 160,000 vehicles per day and is increasing in congestion. Planned projects in San Jose will likely balance the directional flow of the I-280 and worsen traffic. Freeway pollution has been found to travel up to 1.5 miles resulting in readings above baseline. The project will significantly slow traffic, and therefore it will increase air pollution levels. Pollutants increase dramatically when going 13 mph vs 45 mph for example, see Zhang, Kai, and Stuart Batterman. “Air Pollution and Health Risks due to Vehicle Traffic.” The Science of the total environment 0 (2013): 307–316. PMC. Web. 30 May 2018.. The cumulative effects of the existing air quality next to the freeway, trapping air pollution from the geometry of the buildings proposed and potential roof, must be studied. Project may result in a tunnel effect. see Zhou R, Wang S, Shi C, Wang W, Zhao H, Liu R, et al. (2014) Study on the Traffic Air Pollution inside and outside a Road Tunnel in Shanghai, China. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112195 41 CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT, CONSTRUCTION PHASE, CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS STUDY The construction phase cancer risk assessment is lower than that prepared for the Measure D Vallco Town Center Environmental assessment, which, without EDFs is copied here, this disparity does not make sense: Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High 42 And with EDF’s here: Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs P. 55 of GHG Assessment cancer risk assessment shows much lower risk: “Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum excess residential cancer risks would be 26.7 in one million for an infant/child exposure and 0.9 in one million for an adult exposure. The maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be located at a second floor residence at the location shown in Figure 5. The maximum residential excess cancer risk at the MEI would be greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce this risk to below the BAAQMD threshold of significance.” This lower result for a larger project does not make sense given both the proximity to the I-280, down wind location, and the questionable ability of the city to enforce what types of construction vehicles are used, what types of architectural coatings are used, what company electricity is purchased from, and maintain freeway volumes from increasing and slowing traffic further. 43 Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would cumulatively contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM AQ-9.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1 MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 g/L or less) on operational architectural coatings and no hearths or fireplaces (including natural gas-powered) shall be installed in the residential units. This is very incomplete, this suggests the re-tenanted mall is the best alternative. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The conclusions that there are no significant impacts on biological resources are incorrect and mitigations are not achievable. General Plan Strategy LU-19.1.13 “Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.” The DEIR states: “The existing 1,125 trees on the project site were planted as part of the development of Vallco Shopping Mall and, therefore, are all protected trees.” Because of the closing of mall activities, there has very likely been an increase in wildlife on the site with less human presence. The city has demonstrated that they will approve construction of an excessively glazed structure, Apple Park, where both birds and humans will run into the glass and be harmed. There is no assurance that there will be care taken for the existing wildlife on site during construction, and no assurance there will be care in maintaining the habitat in the future. Referring to the Vallco SB 35 application excuse that there are essentially, too many ash trees on the property provides only an expectation that the developer intends to cut them all down. A mitigation suggested includes: “Prohibiting glass skyways and freestanding glass walls” While renderings of the two story walkway over Wolfe Rd. show an all glass walled structure. Roof top amenities shown with tall glass walls. There does not appear to be any intention to enforce this mitigation. The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP: 44 “30. Nitrogen Deposition Fee: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall pay a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Nitrogen Deposition Fee to the Implementing Entity of the Habitat Conservation Plan, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, even though the fee would not otherwise be legally applicable to the future development. The Town Center/Community Park applicant shall pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee commensurate with the issuance of building permits within the Town Center/Community Park.- source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers” 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORICAL RESOURCES Apply the following from VTCSP with multiple historical photographs and educational information boards. “The Vallco Shopping District is designated as a City Community Landmark in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that the redevelopment of the Vallco site would not result in significant impacts to historic resources, if redevelopment is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3.60 The VTCSP would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU-6.3 by providing a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description, and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.- source 9212 report JD Powers” Include the history of environmental pollution of the orchard industry from the use of lead arsenate and DDT in the ‘Valley of Heart’s Delight”, photos of child employment “cutting ‘cots’”, to environmental pollution from the computer industry including the Apple Park superfund site and pollutants at 19,333 Vallco Parkway (where pollutants like Freon and TCE were allegedly just dumped out the back door), and the onsite pollution already noted in this DEIR to the history of the site, to proposed project and alternatives. 45 3.6 ENERGY Figure 28: DEIR: Energy Demand Because the city has no regulatory framework with which to ensure poorly operating equipment is used for the construction of the project, or for operation, or that energy would be purchased from one supplier over another, or that recycled water would come from one source over another, assumptions that the project will have less than significant impact are not verifiable. Additionally, proposed project requires 3 times the electricity, 5 times the natural gas, and 3 times the gasoline demand of the occupied/re-tenanted mall alternative. 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS There is very likely a huge amount of topsoil which was encased in the mounded soil to the north of the JC Penney building. Excavation of the site will remove any and all of what was once topsoil on the site and excavate up to 45’ below the top of curb on Wolfe Road for the subterranean parking structures. 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES AND AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT Baseline values are unacceptable due to their being a combination of an air quality monitoring station from the west side of Cupertino, in a neighborhood (Voss Avenue site which closed in 2013) and data from San Jose monitoring stations which are approximately 10 miles away. Meteorological data was used from 2006-2010 at the San Jose Mineta airport, which is both too old, too far from the site, and irrelevant due to the recent drought conditions. Project site, adjacent to the I-280, has had no relevant air quality monitoring, ever. Guidelines § 15064.4 in conjunction with Guidelines § 15125 concerning project baselines ("An EIR must include a 46 description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, which was February 8, 2018. The most recent data used as a baseline was from 2016. There is no excuse for not actually monitoring the air quality at the site given the relatively low cost to rent the instruments and the immense size of this project. Additionally, the air quality expectations for the existing sensitive receptors throughout the construction process will impose an increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase, and excavation. 47 Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors 48 GHG assessment must require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users of the proposed project because “… the proposed project risks exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (California Supreme Court Case No. S213478).” Proposed project will have operational GHG emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. No accurate existing environmental conditions have yet been recorded. Proposed project will exacerbate traffic in the area and especially on I-280, backing up and slowing down traffic. Free flowing traffic produces much less air pollution than stop and go traffic. Proposed project will exacerbate existing environmental hazards to the detriment of future residents and users. Proposed project will reduce and potentially trap airflow due to tall buildings planned and proposed 30 acre green roof which may further impede airflow and trap exhaust from traffic in the interior street grid. The green roof plans so far presented in Measure D and the Vallco SB 35 application thus far do not have living spaces directly under them to have the cooling benefit from the insulation and the roof is planned too high to mitigate air pollution for residents living below it where freeway air pollutants settle. Plans from the Specific Plan process are not finalized but have all shown 2 levels of underground parking. The site location across the freeway and massive Apple Park parking garages make it even more impacted by the freeway because 14,200 Apple employees will work at that site (according to Cupertino Mayor Paul, 6,000 employees had occupied the site as of March, 2018 up from a few hundred in December, 2017) and have acceleration and deceleration off the freeway at the Wolfe Rd. exit. Unfortunately, Vallco site is downwind of the I-280, yet the GHG modeling selected “variable” wind rather than the N NE calm conditions typical, in doing so the pollutants would dissipate differently than actual conditions. CO modeling within the site needs to be performed along with studying the other GHG emissions. This is imperative because (as the traffic study reflects, by showing high trip reduction rates) people are expected to live and work on site and have retail needs met as well, potentially not leaving the area. GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of 16.9’ which is innacurate. 2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean. Mitigation of Operational project that electricity would be purchased from a new company, Silicon Valley Clean Energy is not enforceable, and the assumption in GHG calculations that the site currently uses PG& E is not consistent with the Land Use chapter stating the site currently uses SVCE and will continue to do so. Construction period PM 2.5 Exhaust and PM 10 Exhaust do not have PM 2.5 and PM 10 values resulting from demolition and excavation? They appear to just show exhaust. DEIR GHG and Air Quality reports do not appear to have studied the cooling tower/central plant. The following has been modified from the JD Powers VTCSP 9212 report for the proposed project: “The proposed project and alternatives will likely include a central plant (a stationary source), which would provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for most buildings. The central plant would 49 consist of a condenser water system, cooling towers, and boilers. It is possible that operation of the central plant produce greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD greenhouse gas threshold of significance for stationary sources. The proposed project should include the following EDF to reduce greenhouse gas emission impacts from the central plant: “36. Central Plant Boilers Carbon Offsets: Prior to completion and operation of any Central Plant Boilers with emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall enter into one or more contracts to purchase voluntary carbon credits from a qualified greenhouse gas emissions broker in an amount sufficient to offset the operational emissions above 10,000 MT C02e/yr., on a net present value basis in light of the fact that the applicant shall acquire such credits in advance of any creation of the emissions subject to the offset. Pursuant to CARB’s Mandatory Reporting Requirements, applicant(s) shall register the Central Plant Boilers in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program. The applicant(s) shall provide copies of carbon purchase contracts to CARB during registration. The City would likely first require any feasible on-site modifications to the stationary source to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the greenhouse gas emissions from the stationary source could not be reduced below the BAAQMD threshold of significance, the City would likely require carbon credits (such as those identified in EDF 36) be purchased and that the credits be locally sourced (i.e., within the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, or same air basin).” Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application: Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan 50 Here is the subterranean parking plan from Vallco Measure D, nearly identical: Figure 31: VTC Hills at Vallco Subterranean parking Plan General Comments: GHG emissions should be calculated for the actual construction period which is 6-8 years according to Vallco Property owner representative, Reed Moulds. By dividing tons of GHG by 10 year construction artificially lower results end up being compared to BAAQMD thresholds. The Hyatt House construction will be complete before Proposed Project construction begins and should not be included in the study for construction emissions. The lot acreage input perhaps should read 50.82 acres, instead of 58.00 per the data entry because construction on other parcels is not part of this study, and would be completed, however the operational emissions would include buildout of the entire Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Area: Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage 51 The traffic volume at I-280 was incorrectly pulled from the referenced Caltrans traffic count. I-280, between Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. has an AADT of 176,000 and between Wofe Rd. and De Anza/Saratoga Sunnyvale Blvd. of 168,000: Figure 33: Caltrans Traffic Caltrans, 2017. 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/ The GHG Assessment chose the lowest value from the Caltrans data to use (162,000 AADT), rather than the highest peak month value which would be a base rate of 176,000 AADT: 52 Figure 34: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The following data appears to have no source dividing up vehicular type, speed, and what type of emission each would have, and the 2029 predicted number of vehicles is too low, showing only 183,061 AADT: Figure 35: DEIR, GHG, Traffic The predicted ADT for I-280 was not included in the GHG calculation which has a 2029 starting date. The following VTA study shows the 2035 ADT predictions for segment A (Vallco site is within segment A). There 53 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035. Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pdf GHG assessment has errors in selecting the AM and PM speeds of traffic, in particular the PM peak period average travel speed of 60 MPH is incorrect, not consistent with the CMP data they used (or our own observations) which is on the following page: 54 55 http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Final%20MC%20Report%202016.pdf “For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average free-flow travel speed of 65 mph was assumed for all vehicles other than heavy duty trucks which were assumed to travel at a speed of 60 mph. Based on traffic data from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's 2016 Congestion Management Program Monitoring and Conformance Report, traffic speeds during the peak a.m. and p.m. periods were identified.15 For two hours during the peak a.m. period an average travel speed of 25 mph was used for west-bound traffic. For the p.m. peak period an average travel speed of 60 mph was used for east-bound traffic. The free-flow travel speed was used for the other directions during the peak periods.” -GHG Assessment p. 39-40 IMPACT GHG-1 Impact GHG-1: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) would not generate cumulatively considerable GHG emissions that would result in a significant cumulative impact to the environment. Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An additional mitigation should include those offered for Measure D, VTCSP: “EDF 18. Transportation Demand Management Plan: Consistent with the Plan Area’s environmental design features, require the preparation and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan with an overall target of reducing Specific Plan officegenerated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.” GHG-1 conclusion that mitigations result in less than significant cumulative impacts is inconsistent with the data from the GHG report which clearly states that the project during construction and at build out would exceed the GHG thresholds of BAAQMD, and that was determined spreading out all emissions over a period of 10 years for the construction phase which is not the actual timeline presented by the developer of 6-8 years: 56 Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions ROG is likely due primarily from architectural coatings, as the previous Vallco Town Center Measure D Environmental Assessment showed in the Vallco Town Center Environmental Assessment PDF p 652/2023 included in the NOP EIR comments and submitted to the city: 57 Figure 38: DEIR, GHG, Notice Days of Construction The Environmental Assessment for Vallco Town Center Measure D was included in the EIR NOP comments, the following table shows errors in calculating the criteria pollutants, by dividing the entire construction period into the various pollutants, a much lower daily value is attained, this would not be the case since, architectural coatings will not be applied for the entire multi-year construction time frame, however, the GHG technical report shows 130 days or about 4 months which would likely result in extremely hazardous levels of ROGs. 58 Figure 39: DEIR, GHG, 130 Days for Architectural Coating Referring back to Table 6, the tonnage of ROGs expected is 41.1, and about 80% of that is from Architectural Coatings. 130 days for architectural coatings that would be approximately 632 lbs/day which is more than ten times the BAAQMD threshold. 41.1 tons of ROG emissions x 2000 lbs/ton/130 days = 632 lbs/dayx80%= 505.6 lbs of ROGs per day over a roughly four month period! On-road emissions would be concentrated into a couple of years. Since the Proposed Project and alternatives are larger than Measure D, we can expect even larger exceeding of the BAAQMD thresholds. Operational air pollution thresholds per BAAQMD are lower than the construction thresholds and only PM 2.5 is not exceeded by the project but very likely exceeded by the freeway contribution. Operational Air Pollutant emissions, subtracts the existing emissions, however, that does not make sense. The threshold is in tons per year produced of GHG, not whether the project will increase the emissions by more than the threshold. 59 60 Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions 61 http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886 BL2: DECARBONIZE BUILDINGS Air quality modeling used the old data from an air quality monitoring station set up to study Lehigh Cement and situated on Voss Road which is not adjacent to the I-280 and closed in 2013 making the data irrelevant. Additionally, that data was during a period of lesser traffic regionally. Providing clean energy to the site through an alternative fuel provider is not a mandate. This is potential mitigation. Proposed Project may need to purchase less expensive energy. The assumption that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is the energy provider for the site ignores future condominium, retail, and office space lessors and owners from choosing which energy company serves them. This assumption is unacceptable, any GHG reductions based on this assumption need to be removed. “Electricity is provided to the site by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). SVCE customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent carbon free sources; with 50 percent from solar and wind sources, and 50 percent from hydroelectric. Customers have the option to enroll in the GreenPrime plan, which generates its electricity from 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar” BL4: URBAN HEAT ISLAN D MITIGATION “Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would reduce the urban heat island effect by incorporating measures such as cool surface treatments for parking facilities, cool roofs, cool paving, and landscaping to provide well shaded areas.” There is no approved Specific Plan to make this determination. Any GHG reductions based on this assumption, must be removed. NW2: URBAN TREE PLANTING Consistent: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would provide a comfortable, well- shaded environment. This statement does not mandate tree planting. The cause of shade is not described, it could be a building blocking direct light. With a 30 acre green roof, what trees would be at street level? CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EMISSIONS There is an error in calculating Construction Period emissions because they use the entire 10 year construction period to get a better outcome of the pounds per day of emissions. Additionally, Sand Hill Property Company 62 representative Reed Moulds stated in the Vallco presentation meeting presented by the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce, linked here: https://youtu.be/hiDvHM027R4 that construction would be 6-8 years, not 10. The bulk of the construction exhaust would occur in demolition and haul off which would be a matter of months and not years. There would be peaks in the construction emissions and they will likely exceed BAAQMD thresholds. This chart needs to be recalculated taking into consideration the reality of the construction timeline: Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions 63 “…estimated 2,600 construction workdays (based on an average of 260 workdays per year). Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days” Even with mitigation methods and spreading out the NOx generated from construction over 10 years, only a 25% reduction in NOx was achieved, and it did not meet the BAAQMD threshold. Are there more mitigations available? Construction haul is shown to be 20 miles for demolition, has this been verified? No actual location has been stated to accept materials. Is the 20 miles round trip? What accepting locations are within 10 miles? Within 20 miles for hazardous material drop off (asbestos)? Existing mall does not have enclosed parking garages with elevator which the GHG states. If this means that the parking garages have walls and requisite blowers to bring in fresh air, then this assumption would have an associated energy consumption inconsistent with the current mall parking. Much of the parking is at grade with no garage structure. Where there are parking garages, they are open. Plan provides incomplete data on fuel usage. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Because hazardous materials have already been noted onsite, the distance required to find an accepting landfill must be added into the GHG travel distance for hauling. 3.9.1.3 OTHER HAZARDS The 30 acre green roof may pose a fire hazard. The SB 35 application suggested equipping golf carts on the roof with fire fighting equipment. What mitigations are going to be implemented for Proposed Project and alternatives? To what standard? 3.9.2.1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Wildfire hazard from the green roof may be excessive without a mitigation plan. Emergency response may be too slow given the complex structures. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Proposed project and all alternatives (other than re-tenanted mall) drastically alter the existing terrain. Over 2 Million Cubic Yards of soil cut is expected in all plans and an untested green roof over 30 acres is proposed for two of the options. The entire site will be encased in concrete or other non-permeable surface. Attempting to 64 have rainfall percolate into the soil would be extremely difficult given the site plan. The amount of storage area for rainfall to reuse for 50.82 acres would be a prohibitive expense. The city cannot conclude that the roof park, which is sloped and of unknown depth, can or would absorb the same amount of rainfall that a flat grass park would. If the space is landscaped to be drought tolerant, there may be many open spaces and exposed gravel, concrete, and other impermeable areas. There is proposed public entertainment space planned on the roof which would not be permeable. If recycled water is used, and any chemical fertilizers, on the green roof, these will concentrate and enter the water supply. If this runoff is collected and reused on the roof, it will further concentrate. Should gray water also be collected and used for irrigation, this may further degrade the chemical build up on the roof. These issues need to be very carefully thought out. The green roof is an experiment and further analysis into what the runoff coefficient would be is required. The depth of groundwater may be of concern should an additional level of subterranean parking be required, given the shallow depth of the drainage trench along the north end of the property. The project will interfere with groundwater recharge because the consumption of recycled water for the green roof, when it becomes available will redirect that water from being used for groundwater recharge. 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU-2 assumes the General Plan has no residential allocation controls in place, therefore residential alternatives above proposed project are not consistent with the General Plan. DEIR, states in 2.4.2: “The General Plan, however, controls residential development through an allocation system. This alternative [General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative] assumes that there are no residential allocation controls in place and development can occur at the maximum density allowed by the General Plan”. Table 3.11.11 has errors due to assuming some type of construction would result in disturbing the exterior environment of the existing mall in the re-tenanted mall option. The assumptions regarding the other alternatives would need to be verified after any corrections are made based on comments to DEIR. The minimization of impermeable surfaces strategy is dependent on whether there is a ground level park. If the re-tenanted mall has areas converted to above grade parking structures, then that option would increase permeable surface area. Policy ES-7.1: This policy is violated by proposed project and alternatives. Strategy ES-7.1.1: The concentration of dissolved solids in the recycled water, along with 30 acres of space requiring fertilizer, may result in unacceptable storm water runoff. 65 Policy ES-7.2: the green roof may increase runoff amounts, it is not the same as park on grade from a hydrologic standpoint. Strategy ES-7.2.3: onsite filtration is beyond the scope of capabilities of a typical development. Policy ES-7.3: this is an unacceptable mitigation because of the scientific background required to monitor the runoff. This should be the responsibility solely of the owner and not suggest volunteers perform this duty. Policy HE-4.1: This policy is violated because there is an excessive amount of green roof space proposed for the 800 residential units in Proposed Project. Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency access and fire prevention. Policy HS-8.1: This policy is violated due to excessive construction and operational noise. Policy HS-8.3: Likely violated because construction vibrations may not be mitigated. Strategy LU-3.3.1, LU- 3.3.2, LU-3.3.3: These strategies are not followed. The existing AMC is 83’ in height. The adjacent 19,800 Wolfe Rd. apartment building is 61’ to tallest parapet. Apple Park maximum height is 75’. The Apple Park parking garages across the I-280 are 48’. The scale of proposed project and alternatives is more than double the height of any building in the area and it is much denser. Strategy LU-19.1.4: The proposed projects shown at the Opticos Charrettes have insufficient retail. The residential amounts over 800 are inconsistent with the General Plan. Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively. Impact LU-4: Due to the Combination of Apple Park, Hamptons, Main Street Cupertino, and Proposed Project and alternatives, the project will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact. 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Agree with DEIR. 3.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION Loud noise can cause hearing loss. The construction noise over the 10 year period may cause hearing loss for sensitive receptors and patrons of the surrounding retail areas. An outdoor concert venue in the proposed project or alternatives, will very likely result in hearing loss. The future noise contours from the DEIR indicate that walking along Wolfe Rd., Stevens Creek Blvd. and the proposed bike path along the I-280 will have areas above 80 dB. The I-280 has directional traffic flow, slowed traffic, and associated decreased noise, during peak hour traffic would only be for 4 of the 8 lanes. There would always be traffic at free flow, generating that noise level. As the freeway continues to decline in service, and development in San Jose increases, the traffic should slow at peak hour in both directions. From DEIR: PLAYGROUNDS 66 “Playground noise would primarily result from activities such as raised voices and the use of playground equipment. Typical noise levels resulting from various playground activities range from 59 to 67 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Maximum instantaneous noise levels typically result from children shouting and can reach levels of 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming playground activities would be restricted to daytime hours only, the minimum setback of the center of the playground areas to the nearest residential property lines would need to be 60 feet for the typical noise levels to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA.” Charrette #2 Closing Presentation shows parks adjacent to back yards of single family residences. This may, combined with Perimeter Rd. noise exceed Municipal Code permissible sound levels. The DEIR does not adequately address this. Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2 67 FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS The Future Noise Contours map has some omissions regarding noise from the Perimeter Road, western edge park, and proposed amphitheater. The map has gross assumptions regarding what the plan would look like and ignores conditions on the roof which would result in a separate layer of mapping: One layer for ground level (ear level) and one level for the roof park to see if it meets park noise requirements. The future noise contours for the project site exceed residential maximum levels according to the Cupertino Municipal Code 10.48.040. 68 CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040 CONSTRUCTION NOISE The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included. During Construction, which is 6-10 years, according to the Ramboll Environ Noise Assessment for Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, noise levels exceed noise limits, and it does not make sense that demolition of the parking garage near R4 would not exceed noise limits: 69 Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise 70 Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors 71 Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The development of the VTCSP would be subject to applicable noise policies and regulations including those in the General Plan (including Policies HS-8.1, HS-8.2, HS-8.3, and HS-8.4), Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance. The development of the VTCSP could result in the noise and vibration impacts discussed below. • Construction-related noise – Noise generated from construction activities associated with the development of the VTCSP would likely result in significant, temporary noise impacts at adjacent residences. The VTCSP includes the following EDFs that would reduce construction-related noise impacts: On-Site Construction Noise: The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall be required to adhere to the construction noise limits of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The following items would further reduce the potential for high levels of noise from construction equipment or activities, and ensure that noise complaints are address promptly and if necessary, corrective action is taken: • Along the western boundary of the Town Center/Community Park and near the existing residential district, prepare and implement a 24-hour construction noise monitoring program to be installed and operated remotely. The noise monitoring program would continuously monitor construction noise levels at select perimeter locations and alert a designated person(s) when noise levels exceed allowable limits. If noise levels are found to exceed allowable limits, additional noise attenuation measures (i.e., sound walls) will be undertaken. • Require that all equipment be fitted with properly sized mufflers, and if necessary, engine intake silencers. • Require that all equipment be in good working order. • Use quieter construction equipment models if available, and whenever possible, use pneumatic tools rather than using diesel or gas-powered tools. • Place portable stationary equipment as far as possible from existing residential areas, and if necessary, place temporary barriers around stationary equipment. • Whenever possible, require that construction contractors lift heavy equipment rather than drag. • For mobile equipment that routine operates near residential area (i.e., within approximately 200 feet), consider placement of typical fixed pure-tone backup alarms with ambient-sensing and/or broadband backup alarms. • Assign a noise control officer to ensure that the above requirements are being implemented. • Implement a noise complaint hotline and post the hotline phone number on nearby visible signs and online. Require that either the noise control officer or a designated person be available at all times to answer hotline calls and ensure that follow-up and/or corrective action is taken, if necessary. Prompt Demolition: To ensure swift completion of the remainder of the Plan Area, a commitment to demolish 100% of the remaining existing Mall improvements within 6 months of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the afore-described initial retail component, subject to existing leases and an appropriate temporary improvement plan for demolished areas. Haul Traffic Noise: To reduce haul traffic noise, contractors for developments pursuant to the Specific Plan shall require that haul trucks travel at low speeds (e.g., l 0 mph) when operating on or adjacent to the Plan Area. The Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project 72 applicants for future development shall ensure that this requirement is included in the construction specifications. In addition, the construction contractor shall ensure that haul trucks be fitted with properly sized and functioning exhaust mufflers.” Operation-related noise – Operation of the uses at Vallco under the VTCSP could result in significant noise increases at adjacent sensitive receptors. To mitigate operation-related noise impacts at adjacent sensitive receptors, the City requires compliance with the noise standards in the Municipal Code, and could require measures that limit or attenuate noise such as sound barriers, limitations on hours of operations, and orientation of stages and speakers away from sensitive receptors . Operation of the VTCSP would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site, which could increase noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors. On Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road in the Vallco vicinity, the existing daily trips are 30,000 and 34,000 respectively. In general, for traffic noise to increase noticeably (i.e., by a minimum of three dBA), existing traffic volumes must double.” Traffic volumes on Perimeter Rd. may at a minimum, double. The DEIR did not address this fully. Additional noise requirements from the VTCSP 9212 report: “The noise and land use compatibility of the proposed uses in the VTC with the existing ambient noise environment could also be an issue. Exterior and interior noise levels at future uses at Vallco under the VTC would exceed the City’s noise standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The VTC shall include the following EDF to meet the State and City interior noise standard at future residences on-site: Acoustical Assessment: Prior to completion of detailed design for dwelling units, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall prepare an acoustical assessment to demonstrate how interior sound levels would achieve interior sound levels at or below 45 dBA CNEL. The following development standards shall be included in the acoustical assessments: • Install HVAC systems for all residential units to ensure that windows and doors can remain closed during warm weather; • Install double-glazed windows, especially on sides of buildings that are adjacent to busy roadways; • Ensure that all windows and doors are properly sealed; and • Ensure that exterior wall building materials are of an adequately rated Sound Transmission Class.” If there is an outdoor performance venue, it must not be located where adjacent homes will be impacted, how will the plan address this? The following table is from VTCSP EA: 73 Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue VIBRATION It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property. 74 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.14.12 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing population per the footnote provided shows Cupertino’s 2018 population at 60,091 not the 58,915 population estimate they show which is from 2016. The existing condition should be the most current. The city states the population of residents per residential unit is 2.94, per the DEIR: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). IMPACT POP-1 Increases in population for Proposed Project would be 800 residential units resulting in 2,264 residents which would be a 4% increase in city population. This excludes the Hamptons approved 600 residential unit increase to 942 residential units which are adjacent to the project. Alternative with 2,640 residential units would result in 7,471 residents and a 12% population increase to the city. The 4,000 residential unit alternative would result in 11,320 residents and a 19% population increase. The Proposed Project and re-tenanted mall do not induce significant population growth to the city. Project Alternatives with 2,640 and 4,000 residential units induce significant population growth to the city. IMPACT POP-3 The proposed project, with 2 Million SF of office space will result in a housing deficit across the region. Project alternatives will induce significant population growth in an area of the city already impacted with Apple Park and other developments. The Charrette alternatives also induce significant population growth to the city (3,200 residential units) and further exacerbate the excess jobs in the city. The project (and project alternatives) will have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impact. 75 Emotional effects of cramped housing on children: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof. Impact PS-2: It is unclear, if a major tech employer were to occupy the 2 Million SF of office space, what additional police support would be necessary. What additional support would a potential 11,320 residents require? SANITARY SEWER “Sanitary Sewer System Capacity – The existing sewer lines in the vicinity of Vallco are in North Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Most sewage generated at Vallco discharges to the 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Under existing peak wet weather flow conditions, flows to this 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road exceed its capacity.37 Development of the VTCSP would intensify the use of the site, which would result in an increase in sewage generated from the site compared to existing conditions. For this reason, the development of the VTCSP would require sewer system improvements to ensure sufficient conveyance capacity. Based on preliminary analysis, redevelopment of Vallco under the General Plan would require the construction of a parallel pipe to the existing 15- inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road. Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Facilities: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit(s) for the final construction sequence, the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director that adequate sanitary sewer services are available.” – 9212 VTCSP 76 SCHOOL IMPACTS Figure 47: DEIR SGR and Students Generated. DEIR p. 247 The student generation rates are based off of too small of a sample size and the data appears to have been from Fall of 2015, since the same results for 19,800 Wolfe Rd. and Biltmore have repeated after 2 ½ years. Additionally, from that same initial result, the current SGRs they calculated for the Proposed Project, which is nearly identical to The Hills at Vallco now have inexplicably dropped the SGR’s for the same project. Since the proposed project will likely have the possibility of selling the residential units at some time, and the lack of information regarding the sizes of the units, and the continued growth and interest in the Cupertino High School boundary area, these SGRs are likely too low. A larger sampling size is needed for these figures to be believable. 77 The BMR units proposed will have a higher student generation rate according to Polly Bove of FUHSD (Vallco meeting recorded by League of Women Voters, May, 2018). These higher rates are not reflected. The project alternatives are untested as to number of students generated. DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES Figure 48: DEIR SGR 78 Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE 79 Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables 80 Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs The DEIR may study the impacts of traffic rerouting of students. According to the Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger Memo to the City of Cupertino Attorney, February 25, 2014: “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 81 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.” PARK LAND REQUIREMENTS The city residents per unit is 2.83. The park land calculations are both low and assuming a City Council action to accept park land acreage on a roof in lieu of park land. This has been discussed in earlier sections. RECREATION The 70,000 SF Bay Club gym on site is the only gym in the east side of Cupertino and it will be closed for multiple years during construction and likely will not return. Creekside park is permitted year around to the De Anza Youth Soccer League and has additional camps in the summer using the space. Ranch San Antonio is so over utilized by the region that the neighboring residents had to have permitted parking and parking has been limited to preserve the area because it is a natural area. During the weekdays a return trip across town after 2:30pm results in a 30 minute drive. Due to excess demand on Rancho San Antonio, there is a limited window mid day and mid week where a parking spot may be found. Proposed project and alternatives will have significant negative impacts to the area and further increase demand for the parks existing. Even the low SGR for the school is enough students to start an entire new soccer league. 3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC EXISTING CONDITIONS Counts on January 15, 2018 included the AMC movie theater which is closed, and a transit hub which includes Genentech, Google, and Facebook with no individual counts to separate out these uses. The mall had a 24% occupancy at the time. LEVELS OF SERVICE Please note that LOS is an average and there is some directional flow within the city intersections such that the LOS may not reflect what drivers are experiencing because of the averaging of each lane approach. Of particular concern is how slow the movement of traffic out of the city and returning would be for the 80%+ of Cupertino worker commuters out of the city daily. 82 The trips generated by the Proposed Project calculated by Fehr + Peers are incorrect and artificially low due to selecting lower trip generation rates. For instance, no break out of retail trips was made to account for a movie theater, restaurants which generate 4-10 times as much traffic as retail, ice rink, bowling alley, hotel conference room, or the performing arts center. The Civic rate is undercalculated, the SF should be 65,000 to match the charrette discussions and the ITE Government Building 710 trip generation rate should be used. A high turnover restaurant which we would see in a business area would result in a trip generation rate of nearly 90. By using generalities for the “Shopping Center” when the Vallco Shopping District is supposed to be a regional destination with shopping, dining, and entertainment uses, the Daily trips generated are undercalculated by about 50%. The SB 35 Vallco application has 120,000 SF entertainment, 133,000 SF retail stores, and 147,000 SF restaurants. The restaurants would likely be high turnover due the high number of office employees in the area. APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT It is unclear, given that Apple Park has been occupying, how their (Apple Park) traffic has been assigned. For instance, there were traffic counts in May, 2017 which would reflect thousands of trips by construction workers to the site which would likely have been coming from the I-280 and east bound AM and westbound PM. There were also traffic counts in January, 2018, which would perhaps now show a few hundred Apple tech workers who would presumably be coming from other areas along with continued construction workers. As of March, 2018 approximately 6,000 employees were at Apple Park out of the expected 14,200. There have been many requests of the city to wait until Apple Park fully occupies to perform traffic counts. Main Street Cupertino was also under construction during May, 2017 and those construction workers would also be impacting the counts. There have been several intersections under construction, including the Calvert/I-280 project and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 exit project. These multiple projects have rerouted traffic and altered the makeup of drivers into artificial patterns not reflected in the study. What the traffic counts show, is what the area traffic is like with major construction underway. 83 Figure 52: Sample of local advertising showing higher employees per 1000 SF than studied Traffic impacts, while significant and unavoidable with mitigation is underestimated. Figure 53: DEIR Trip Generation Estimates 84 Trips generated are lower than the Hills at Vallco? That seems incorrect. Neither break out actual uses (restaurants, theater, City Halls which all generate much heavier traffic than is shown). Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Projects with recycled water (30 acre green roof) will result in an expansion of recycled water production which is a significant negative impact. Redirecting water which could be used for groundwater recharge and then used for drinking water is wasteful. City must have a regulatory framework to manage conservation claims. 85 SECTION 4.0 GROWTH-I NDUCING IMPACTS The claim that project and alternatives would have no significant impact is subjective. Residents per unit are inconsistently applied in the DEIR when the population increase from Vallco project and alternatives would largely be accounting for the city-wide population increase, therefore the assumption to population must logically use 2.94 residents per unit: Note: The estimated residential population and jobs/employees for buildout of the General Plan are based on the following general, programmatic rates: 2.94 residents per unit, 1 employee/450 square feet of commercial uses, 1 employee/300 square feet of office uses, and 0.3 employees/hotel room (City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040. October 15, 2015. Page 3-12.). 86 Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR Sudy Session Missing from Previously Posted Schedule Vallco SB 35 Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:03:24 PM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Kitty Moore Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:18 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR Sudy Session Missing from Previously Posted Schedule Vallco SB 35 Dear Planning Department, Please update your form letter to have the date the DEIR circulated. Thanks. Thank you for your interest and comments regarding the Vallco project. Your comments will be included in the public record for the project for the decision-makers to consider. If your comments are related to potential environmental effects that the Vallco Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should analyze, they will be addressed in the Draft EIR which is expected to be available in late Spring/early Summer 2018. We hope that you continue to stay connected and provide your input in this journey of envisioning a vibrant community. Your choices for timely updates include: ü Signing up for e-notification regarding Vallco here: http://www.cupertino.org/visitors/enotification-signup ü Follow City of Cupertino on our social media channels Facebook | Twitter | Nextdoor ü View project updates on http://envisionvallco.org. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:12 AM, City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> wrote: Thank you for your interest and comments regarding the Vallco project. Your comments will be included in the public record for the project for the decision-makers to consider. If your comments are related to potential environmental effects that the Vallco Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should analyze, they will be addressed in the Draft EIR which is expected to be available in late Spring/early Summer 2018. Comment Letter P We hope that you continue to stay connected and provide your input in this journey of envisioning a vibrant community. Your choices for timely updates include: ü Signing up for e-notification regarding Vallco here: http://www.cupertino.org/visitors/enotification-signup ü Follow City of Cupertino on our social media channels Facebook | Twitter | Nextdoor ü View project updates on http://envisionvallco.org. Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To:Catarina Kidd; Piu Ghosh Cc:Aarti Shrivastava; Benjamin Fu Subject:FW: Vallco Hazardous Materials: Remove GP Housing at Vallco - Deny SB 35 Date:Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:26:44 PM Attachments:Review of Environmental Reporting Pertaining to Vallco Site.pdf From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Kitty Moore [mailto:ckittymoore@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:00 PM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; BC-StrategyDiscuss <bc- strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <scharf.steven@gmail.com>; Esq. Bern Steves <bernsteves@californiabizlaw.com> Subject: Vallco Hazardous Materials: Remove GP Housing at Vallco - Deny SB 35 Dear Mayor Paul, Please place this in the Public Record for Vallco Specific Plan DEIR and Vallco SB 35 for review. As you are aware, the Vallco site fails SB 35 qualifications due to environmental issues with the site. Additionally, I see no indication that the site had a thorough review when the City Council voted to December 4, 2014 to designate it a Priority Housing site. There was an Environmental Impact Report performed even, yet there does not appear to be a study on a site which had a gas station, two automotive centers, a giant cooling tower for the ice rink, and at least two above ground storage tanks. Reading through the Appendices for the Vallco DEIR: Vallco DEIR: http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20865 Appendix E Part 1 (Environmental Site Assessment by Cornerstone Earth Group): http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20875 Appendix E Part 2 ( Environmental Site Assessment by Cornerstone Earth Group): http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20874 It is dismaying that the Vallco owner did not fill out the questionnaire provided by Cornerstone Earth Group regarding potential hazardous materials (a page from the Simeon questionnaire is in the attached file) and provided three older and mutually conflicting ESAs. None of the previous ESAs mention the 1,000 gallon waste oil Underground Storage Tank on the west side of the Sears Automotive Building, yet the current ESA shows a photo of the lid Comment Letter Q presumably of the tank, and did not lift the lid! The tank apparently shows up on building plans from 1969. The potential for contamination from pesticide use historically is mentioned, yet no samples were taken to deny their presence. Lead and arsenic used to be mixed with water (lead arsenate) to spray the trees locally and then they moved on to DDT. The site was an orchard at least from 1939 through 1974. The buildings show up as early as 1897 so it may be far longer pesticide use than we can imagine. Was all the soil piled on the north side of JC Penney, concentrating pesticides in it? I had been told the Main Street Apartments required some soil haul off due to contamination. I could not find this information made public. The 19,333 Vallco Parkway site is prohibited from residential by deed restriction. The contamination area is about 100' from the Vallco site. Is it possible the PCE and Freon were not always dumped out their own back door? Who would know this? Please, when the non-compliance for SB 35 has been determined and announced, schedule the hearings for the consideration of removal of Vallco as a Housing Element Priority site. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: ckittymoore@gmail.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Survey of Environmental Reporting Pertaining to Vallco Site USTs and Hazardous Materials Vallco SB 35 and Vallco Specific Plan Site Usage June 21, 2018 CONTENTS Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 VALLCO SPECIAL AREA DEIR INDICATES PROJECT ON LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE § 65962.5 Not SB 35 Allowable .............. 3 TEXT OF SB 35 GOV. CODE § 69513.4(A)(6)(E). ................................................................ 5 Text of Gov. Code § 65962.5......................................................................................................... 5 Vallco Specific Plan DEIR ............................................................................................................. 8 Historical Images from The Environmental Site Assessment ...................................................... 12 Environmental Site Assessment By Cornerstone Earth Group ..................................................... 26 Environmental Records Summary Table from ESA ..................................................................... 33 Site Photos from Environmental Site Assessment ........................................................................ 37 Where are Forms Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65962.5? .................................................................. 41 Historical Site Use ........................................................................................................................ 42 2013 ESA ...................................................................................................................................... 52 2006 ESA for Main Vallco Shopping Mall Building Property..................................................... 52 2003 ESA ...................................................................................................................................... 56 State and Federal Law Regarding UST Owners and Operators ................................................... 57 Single Wall UST and Associated Single Wall Piping Removal Law ........................................... 61 State Density Bonus Law requirements per Vallco SB 35 application: ....................................... 61 Vallco Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Summary .................................... 62 References ..................................................................................................................................... 68 SUMMARY There are gross omissions, in the Vallco DEIR environmental reporting, namely, that a 1,000 gallon waste oil underground storage tank (UST) from 1969 was never filed as being removed and the 2018 site inspection by Cornerstone Earth Group found a lid in the location where that UST would have been located and elected to not open the lid to look inside, then claim that the Proposed Project and alternatives would have no significant impact. This potential UST is mentioned in the current ESA, but the three reports provided by the Vallco property owner dated 2003, 2006, and 2013 which are included in the DEIR Appendices, do not mention the 1,000 gallon tank. Additionally, the Vallco property owner did not fill out the questionnaire provided by Cornerstone Earth Group and did not provide previous property owner information. The whereabouts of a 500 gallon UST is unknown: (Cornerstone Earth Group, Appendix E Part 1, p. 28) Readings exceeding allowable for residential: (Cornerstone Earth Group, Appendix E, Part 1, p. 11) There is an existing on site battery acid neutralization chamber, not removed. There is no mention of whether there are remaining USTs from when the orchard was operating (which was up until 1974 according to the aerial photographs). There is a group of buildings near the intersection of N. Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. which may have had a UST. Sedgwick annex site, for instance, had a UST presumably for farm equipment. One building historically shows up on Vallco Parkway which may have had a UST. The ice rink had allegedly required some environmental cleanup which is undocumented. There was no testing for pesticides while mentioning they were likely used. Pesticides used historically in the area include lead arsenate and DDT until they were banned. “In Santa Clara, officials also have learned that old farmland often holds surprises. At the city’s Ulistac Natural Area, which once held an orchard and then a golf course, testing to create a wetland revealed that significant amounts of soil were contaminated with DDT, lead and arsenic…” (Lynch) Removing contaminated soil is expensive and may require long haul distances not anticipated in the Vallco DEIR regarding GHG: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20150811/NEWS/150819937 Since no soil samples to determine if lead arsenate or DDT are in the soils, there can be no way of denying their presence. Additionally, the JC Penney site has a large mound of soil, about 20’ above natural prior grade which may potentially have an even higher concentration of pesticide contamination due to collecting and depositing soil from other areas of the site there. The site has not been cleared for residential uses and it is not clear whether the 1,000 gallon storage tank and associated piping has been removed, it seems it is in place. The site was designated on a map in the General Plan as retail/office/residential, a change which occurred in the General Plan Amendment December 4, 2014, and there was no environmental survey of the site for suitability as residential. See City Council resolution 14-211, December 4, 2014 which references the DEIR for the GPA. This site needs to be removed from the listings for residential use and have hearings according to the process outlined in the General Plan after May 31, 2018. Due to the findings on the site and need for further sampling, this site should not be included for residential until substantial environmental review has been performed. VALLCO SPECIAL AREA DEIR INDICATES PROJECT ON LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE § 65962.5 NOT SB 35 ALLOWABLE “Impact HAZ-2: The project (and project alternatives) is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5;” See Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vallco Specific Plan Special Area, SCH# 2018022021, p. 143, PDF 179. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20887 The JC Penney’s and the Sears Automotive sites are on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0608500770 http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0608552828 Because no previous study provided by the Vallco property owner mentioned the 1,000 gallon UST which the current ESA mentions, and because that tank is from 1969, and the lack of a clear timeline on the USTs on the site, there may be others not described. Lastly, state and federal law requires reporting on USTs, if the cover found is indeed the 1,000 gallon UST described, it has to be reported: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/tech_notices/docs/ca_fed_regs.pdf Directly adjacent to the Vallco mall site is 19,333 Vallco Parkway, which is prohibited from housing, day cares, etc.: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000000740 The 19,333 Vallco site contamination included PCE and Freon 113, the site is closed in the public record but has a deed restriction: • DAY CARE CENTER PROHIBITED • ELDER CARE CENTER PROHIBITED • HOSPITAL USE PROHIBITED • LAND USE COVENANT • NOTIFY AFTER CHANGE OF PROPERTY OWNER • NOTIFY PRIOR TO CHANGE IN LAND USE • PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR PERSONS UNDER 21 PROHIBITED • RESIDENCE USE PROHIBITED TEXT OF SB 35 GOV. CODE § 69513.4(A)(6)(E). Gov. Code § 69513.4(a)(6)(E): (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies all of the following objective planning standards: (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following: (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses. TEXT OF GOV. CODE § 65962.5. GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210] ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) CHAPTER 4.5. Review and Approval of Development Projects [65920 - 65964.1] ( Chapter 4.5 added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 1200. ) ARTICLE 6. Development Permits for Classes of Projects [65960 - 65964.1] ( Article 6 added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 1271. ) (a) The Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following: (1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to former Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land. (4) All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. (b) The State Department of Health Services shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. (c) The State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following: (1) All underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) All solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 13273 of the Water Code. (3) All cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. (d) The local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, shall compile as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery shall compile the local lists into a statewide list, which shall be submitted to the Secretary for Environmental Protection and shall be available to any person who requests the information. (e) The Secretary for Environmental Protection shall consolidate the information submitted pursuant to this section and distribute it in a timely fashion to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located. The secretary shall distribute the information to any other person upon request. The secretary may charge a reasonable fee to persons requesting the information, other than cities, counties, or cities and counties, to cover the cost of developing, maintaining, and reproducing and distributing the information. (f) Before a lead agency accepts as complete an application for any development project which will be used by any person, the applicant shall consult the lists sent to the appropriate city or county and shall submit a signed statement to the local agency indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site that is included on any of the lists compiled pursuant to this section and shall specify any list. If the site is included on a list, and the list is not specified on the statement, the lead agency shall notify the applicant pursuant to Section 65943. The statement shall read as follows: HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement that contains the following information: Name of applicant: Address: Phone number: Address of site (street name and number if available, and ZIP Code): Local agency (city/county): Assessor’s book, page, and parcel number: Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: Regulatory identification number: Date of list: _____ Applicant, Date _____ _____ (g) The changes made to this section by the act amending this section, that takes effect January 1, 1992, apply only to projects for which applications have not been deemed complete on or before January 1, 1992, pursuant to Section 65943. (Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 39, Sec. 26. (SB 1018) Effective June 27, 2012.) VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR Figure 1: p. 140 Vallco DEIR Circulated May 24, 2018 Figure 2: p. 141 Vallco DEIR Circulated May 24, 2018 Figure 3: p. 142 Vallco DEIR Circulated May 24, 2018 Figure 4: p. 143 Vallco DEIR Circulated March 24, 2018 HISTORICAL IMAGES FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT This 1897 Historical Topo Map indicates the buildings in the furthest south and east corner of the property at what is now the NE corner of N. Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Historically, there was no mound indicated to the north of the JC Penney building: This is the first aerial photograph in the ESA, clearly the property is filled with trees and the buildings are shown near Stevens Creek Blvd. This photograph from 1950 shows the continued use as an orchard: The property is still in use as an orchard in 1963: Still an orchard in 1968 (minimum 30 years of orchard use): ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT BY CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SUMMARY TABLE FROM ESA (Cornerstone Earth Group, pp. 8-15, PDF 12-19) SITE PHOTOS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WHERE ARE FORMS PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE § 65962.5? HISTORICAL SITE USE Simeon environmental questionnaire (Sand Hill Property company did not fill one out and no previous owners information was provided to Cornerstone Earth Group). Notice ASTs and USTs are asked about, along with many other items: (Cornerstone Earth Group, PDF 46) (Cornerstone Earth Group, PDF 47) (Cornerstone Earth Group, PDF 48) 2013 ESA Previous ownership of the mall: Appendix E, Part 2, PDF 119 2006 ESA FOR MAIN VALLCO SHOPPING MALL BUILDING PROPERTY Sears had a leak reported in April 11, 1985, as of June 31, 2001, no action had been taken. Statement conflicts with current ESA. 2003 ESA Only 6 USTs mentioned being removed in 1985, no mention of the 1,000 gallon waste oil UST: STATE AND FEDERAL LAW REGARDING UST OWNERS AND OPERATORS See the following for required reporting of USTs: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/tech_notices/docs/ca_fed_regs.pdf This is a sampling page of the entire document. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/tech_notices/docs/ca_fed_regs.pdf SINGLE WALL UST AND ASSOCIATED SINGLE WALL PIPING REMOVAL LAW On September 25, 2014, California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 25292.05 became effective, requiring the permanent closure of all single-walled USTs by December 31, 2025. The statutory definition of UST in HSC Section 25281 includes connected piping. As a result, the universe of single-walled (SW) UST components that need to be removed and replaced includes SW tanks, as well as SW piping connected to double-walled (DW) tanks. Source: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/adm_notices/jan_dec2017_fnl_cal_ ust_annual_rpt.pdf History of UST fabrication materials here: https://www.steeltank.com/Portals/0/Articles/UST%20History.pdf?ver=2009-05-31-010756-110 STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUIREMENTS PER VALLCO SB 35 APPLICATION: Under the State Density Bonus law, the City can only deny an incentive or concession if it finds that an incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment; or would violate state or federal law. It is the City’s burden to provide the evidence supporting such findings. (Vallco SB 35, p. 16, PDF 16) Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2): (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. HOUSING ACCOUNTABILTY ACT REQUIREMENTS PER VALLCO SB 35 APPLICATION: The Vallco SB 35 Applicant states the following: The City is only permitted to reject a project under these circumstances if there is a preponderance of evidence that the project would have a significant, unavoidable, and quantifiable impact on “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” Gov. Code §65589.5(j). There is no evidence, let alone a preponderance of evidence, that the Project would have any impact on public health and safety that cannot be feasibly mitigated. A broad range of plaintiffs can sue to enforce the Housing Accountability Act, and the City would bear the burden of proof in any challenge. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). As recently reformed in the 2017 legislative session, the Housing Accountability Act makes attorney’s fees and costs of suit presumptively available to prevailing plaintiffs, requires a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit for jurisdictions that fail to comply with the act within 60 days, and authorizes fines to be multiplied by five times if a court concludes that a local jurisdiction acted in bad faith when rejecting a housing development. (Vallco SB 35, p. 17, PDF 17) There is “…a preponderance of evidence that the project would have a significant, unavoidable, and quantifiable impact on “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” Gov. Code §65589.5(j)” (Vallco SB 35, p. 17, PDF 17) VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY The Environmental Impact Report for the Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015- 2040, certified December 4, 2014 studied the following scenario at Vallco: The General Plan EIR analyzed the demolition of the existing 1,207,774 square foot mall and redevelopment of the site with up to 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area (Vallco DEIR, p. xiii, PDF 14) The SB 35 plan was not studied, nor anything remotely close to it, in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR, however, found significant unavoidable impacts with mitigation to air quality (AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-6), noise (NOISE-3, NOISE-5), and traffic (TRAF-1, TRAF-2, and TRAF-6) as tabulated in EIR Table 2.2, Executive Summary, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. (GP DEIR, pp. 8-28, PDF 14-34). The DEIR for Vallco Special Area has numerous significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation, and indicates the site is on a hazardous materials listing pursuant to Gov. Code § 65962.5 The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, a.k.a. Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan, circulated for public 45 day review May 24, 2018 studied the following Proposed Project and project alternatives: Table 1: Vallco DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives (Vallco DEIR, p. xiii, PDF 14) The Vallco SB 35 application has 2,402 residential units, 400,000 SF retail, 1,810,000 SF office and a roof park. The Vallco SB 35 configuration is similar to the Vallco DEIR Project Alternative “General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative” which has 2,640 residential units, 600,000 SF retail, 339 hotel rooms and only 1,000,000 SF office. Note that 148 of the 339 hotel rooms are under construction and nearing completion. The Vallco Project Alternatives were based on the Vallco SB 35 plans and the results of the Vallco DEIR apply to the Vallco SB 35 plan, although, due to the number of significant negative impacts with mitigation, the Vallco SB 35 plan warrants an environmental impact report on its’ specific configuration. Table 2: Comparison of SB 35 Plan to Projects studied in various EIRs Projects at Vallco Studied in GP EIR or Vallco Special Area DEIR vs. SB 35 Plan Commercial SF Office SF Hotel Rooms Residential Dwelling Units Civic Space Green Roof (acres) General Plan EIR 2014 600,000 2,000,000 339 800 no no Vallco Special Area DEIR 2018 Proposed Project 600,000 2,000,000 339 800 65,000 30 Project Alternatives General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative 600,000 1,000,000 339 2,640 65,000 30 Retail and Residential Alternative 600,000 0 339 4,000 0 0 Occupied/Re- tenanted Mall 1,207,774 0 148 0 0 0 Vallco SB 35 Plan 400,000 1,810,000 (148 under construction) 2,402 0 “Up to 26 acres”1 The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan states the following significant negative impacts with mitigation: SECTION 6.0 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS As discussed in detail in Section 3.0, the project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, and Retail and Residential Alternative would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: 1 Per Vallco SB 35 Development Application p. 15 PDF 51 • Impact AQ-2: The construction of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact AQ-3: The operation of the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would violate air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact AQ-4: The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOx, PM10, and/or PM2.5) for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact AQ-6: The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction dust and diesel exhaust emissions concentrations. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact NOI-1: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would not expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan Municipal Code, or applicable standard of other agencies. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact NOI-3: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact NOI-4: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact NOI-6: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a cumulatively considerable permanent noise level increase at existing residential land uses. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact TRN-1: Under existing with project conditions, the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system; and conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including standards established for designated roads or highways. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact TRN-2: Under background with project conditions, the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system; and conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including standards established for designated roads or highways. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) • Impact TRN-7: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative transportation impact. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) (Vallco DEIR, pp. 406-407, PDF 442-443) The following tables from the Vallco Specific Plan DEIR describe the sources and health effects which arrise from the air pollutants mentioned in the Air Quality portion of the DEIR: Table 3: DEIR Health Effects of Air Pollutants (Vallco DEIR, p. 52 PDF 88) Table 4: DEIR Health Effects of Air Pollutants (Vallco DEIR, p. 53, PDF 89) The above significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation represent: “…a preponderance of evidence that the project would have a significant, unavoidable, and quantifiable impact on “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” Gov. Code §65589.5(j)” (Vallco SB 35, p. 17, PDF 17). Setbacks Non-Compliance – Applicant does not Reference Existing Curb REFERENCES City of Cupertino. "GPA-2014 EIR." General Plan Amendment 2014 Environmental Impact Report. Cupertino, 7 October 2014. Cornerstone Earth Group. "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 118-71-2 Appendix E Part 1." Environmental Site Assessment. 26 February 2018. <http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20875>. "GP 2014 and Amendments 2015." Cupertino Community Vision 2040 (Dec. 4, 2014) and Amendments to Community Vision 2040 Resolution No. 15-087,October 20, 2015. Cupertino, 4 December 2014. <http://www.cupertino.org/our- city/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan/general-plan/archived- general-plans>. "GP EIR." City of Cupertino General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Cupertino, 7 October 2014. <http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/edoc/391441/Exhibit%20CC%2010-07- 14%201%20Draft%20EIR.pdf?searchid=5baf2925-bdeb-4f76-a575-e11bcc9ab7da>. Group, Cornerstone Earth. "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 118-71-2 Appendix E Part 2." ESA Part 2. Cupertino, 26 February 2018. <http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20874>. Lynch, April. "Cities in Valley Respond to Risk of Pesticides in Parklands." Mercury News 4 November 2007. 21 June 2018. <https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/11/04/cities-in- valley-respond-to-risk-of-pesticides-in-parklands/>. Vallco DEIR. "Draft Environmental Impact Report, Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, SCH# 2018022021." Cupertino, 24 May 2018. <http://www.cupertino.org/our- city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco>. VTC SB 35 App. "Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Application." Cupertino, 27 March 2018. <http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19613>. "VTC SB 35 Plan." Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Application Architectural Drawings Part 3. Cupertino, 27 March 2018. <http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=19621>. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Records Request for Various addresses at Vallco, Separate Applications for Each Attached Date:Friday, June 22, 2018 1:46:00 PM Attachments:FD Summary Files Showing what was given to Cornerstone from FD and how previous requests turned up nothing.pdf FYI… From: Kitty Moore Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 1:45 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org> Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Esq. Bern Steves Subject: Fwd: Records Request for Various addresses at Vallco, Separate Applications for Each Attached Dear City Manager's Office, Please notice that only the current Vallco ESA shows the FD records, the previous ESAs provided by Vallco Property owner show no records from the FD. This information is in the attachments. I have attached the records the FD provided Cornerstone Earth Group. The hazardous materials apparently onsite should be registered where? Aren't there some state and federal laws which must be complied with? I am particularly curious about the 10,000 cu ft of Freon 22, the status of the battery acid neutralization chamber, the ASTs, removal of USTs with no documentation, and the accounting errors on the USTs. You have this information all at your fingertips. It seems to me that stating the Vallco Site is compliant, would make the City Complicit (in fact the lack of information the city has provided the various ESA's is darn curious! That is in the attachment as well. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login Comment Letter R ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SUMMARY TABLE FROM ESA (Cornerstone Earth Group, pp. 8-15, PDF 12-19) SITE PHOTOS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WHERE ARE FORMS PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE § 65962.5? Where Did Each ESA Collect Their Info From? WSP 2014 ESA: CERES 2003 CERES 2006 From:City of Cupertino Plann ng Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Non Compla nt Vallco Date:Monday June 25 2018 12:33:39 PM Attachments:ATT00001.htm image5.png image6.png From the Planning Department s general mailbox From: Grace Schmidt Sent: Monday June 25 2018 10 02 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: FW Non Complaint Vallco From: Kitty Moore Sent: Thursday June 21 2018 8 01 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Timm Borden <Timmb@cupertino.org>; David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Randolph Hom <RandolphH@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino org>; Subject: Non Complaint Vallco City Manager, Please be aware of the 1,000 Gallon UST on the west side of Sears Automotive which allegedly was installed around 1969 which would likely be leaking. It is an unaccounted for waste oil tank. Also Pursuant to Section 65926.5 GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66210] ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) CHAPTER 4.5. Review and Approval of Development Projects [65920 - 65964.1] ( Chapter 4.5 added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 1200. ) ARTICLE 6. Development Permits for Classes of Projects [65960 - 65964.1] ( Article 6 added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 1271. ) (a) The Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following (1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to former Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land. (4) All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. (b) The State Department of Health Services shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. (c) The State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following (1) All underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) All solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 13273 of the Water Code. (3) All cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. (d) The local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, shall compile as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery shall compile the local lists into a statewide list, which shall be submitted to the Secretary for Environmental Protection and shall be available to any person who requests the information. (e) The Secretary for Environmental Protection shall consolidate the information submitted pursuant to this section and distribute it in a timely fashion to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located. The secretary shall distribute the information to any other person upon request. The secretary may charge a reasonable fee to persons requesting the information, other than cities, counties, or cities and counties, to cover the cost of developing, maintaining, and reproducing and distributing the information. (f) Before a lead agency accepts as complete an application for any development project which will be used by any person, the applicant shall consult the lists sent to the appropriate city or county and shall submit a signed statement to the local agency indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site that is included on any of the lists compiled pursuant to this section and shall specify any list. If the site is included on a list, and the list is not specified on the statement, the lead agency shall notify the applicant pursuant to Section 65943. The statement shall read as follows HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement that contains the following information Name of applicant Address Phone number Address of site (street name and number if available, and ZIP Code) Local agency (city/county) Assessor s book, page, and parcel number Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code Regulatory identification number Date of list _____ Applicant, Date _____ _____ (g) The changes made to this section by the act amending this section, that takes effect January 1, 1992, apply only to projects for which applications have not been deemed complete on or before January 1, 1992, pursuant to Section 65943. (Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 39, Sec. 26. (SB 1018) Effective June 27, 2012.) https //files.acrobat.com/a/preview/925ab1de-c379-4731-9490-a700477cf051 Comment Letter S There has been no testing of lead arsenate, DDT or other pesticides which likely were used on the site over more than 40 years. I do not want this site disturbed without testing. Pop the lid on the alleged 1,000 gallon UST. Failure to do so and have an inspection makes the city now knowingly allow a potential hazardous waste dump go unreported and that wi be your legacy. Best regards, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: cityclerk@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco DEIR comments RE General Plan Requirements Date:Friday, July 06, 2018 8:09:51 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Kitty Moore Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 10:23 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Cc: Esq. Bern Steves ; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco DEIR comments RE General Plan Requirements Planning Department, The "Recognized Environmental Conditions" at Vallco outlined in the DEIR merit the immediate start of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment with soil vapor testing included and then a Phase III ESA. There must be NO completion of the DEIR until both a Phase II and a Phase III is done and published. I do not want the same firm to conduct the Phase II and III studies as performed the Phase I study. It is imperative that further study be completed in a timely manner. Vallco Specific Plan DEIR is missing most of the following items from the General Plan, emphasishas been added and comments in red where needed: Goal LU-1: Create a balanced community with a mix of land uses that supports thriving businesses, all modes of transportation, complete neighborhoods and a healthy community Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2020: allocate a minimum 600,000 SF retail, 389 residential units, 2,000,000 SF office, 339 hotel rooms. Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2020: 389 residential units will be allocated to Vallco as a Priority Housing Element Site (see also HE-1.3.1 and Table HE-5). Policy LU-1.4: Land Use in all Citywide Mixed- Use Districts. Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed-use districts and economic goals. Policy LU-1.X: Jobs/Housing Balance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. (No calculations provided) Figure LU-2: Community Form Diagram: Maximum residential density for Vallco Shopping District Special Area is 35 units per acre. (This is inconsistent with the General Plan allocations and city wide totals). STRATEGIES: LU-19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment will require a master developer in order removethe obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the highest levels of urban design.(This was not included) Comment Letter T LU-19.1.2: Parcel Assembly. Parcel assembly and a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required prior to adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future. LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The “town center” plan should be based on complete redevelopment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be planned to carry out the community vision. LU-19.1.4: Land Use. The following uses are allowed on the site (see Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria): 1. Retail: High-performing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. Maintain a minimumof 600,000 square feet of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the City.Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retailuses. 2. Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference center and active uses including main entrances, lobbies, retail and restaurants on the ground floor. 3. Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail and active uses on the groundfloor. Encourage a mix of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active “town center” environment. (This is discriminatory towards families with children, seniors with disabilities, and low income non-professional workers). 4. Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged in a pedestrian-oriented street grid with active uses on the ground floor, publicly-accessible streets and plazas/green space. LU-19.1.5: “Town Center” Layout. Create streets and blocks laid out using “transect planning” (appropriate street and building types for each area), which includes a discernible center and edges, public space at center, high quality public realm, and land uses appropriate to the street and building typology. LU-19.1.6: Connectivity. Provide a newly configured complete street grid hierarchy of streets, boulevards and alleys that is pedestrian-oriented, connects to existing streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings and open space. It should also incorporate transit facilities, provide connections to other transit nodes and coordinate with the potential expansion of Wolfe Road bridge over Interstate 280 to continue the walkable, bikeable boulevard concept along Wolfe Road. The project should also contribute towards a study and improvements to a potential Interstate280 trail along the drainage channel south of the freeway and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections from the project sites to the trail. (this is essentially a trail for Apple employees to traverse between campuses at the expense of Vallco) LU-19.1.7: Existing Streets. Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate the connections to Rosebowl and Main Street. (These corridors have unhealthful noise and pollution levels; pedestrians and bicyclists should be protected with separation from the roadway with increased setbacks). LU-19.1.8: Open Space. Open space in the form of a central town square on the west and east sides of the district interspersed with plazas and “greens” that create community gathering spaces, locations for public art, and event space for community events. LU-19.1.9: Building Form. Buildings should have high-quality architecture, and an emphasis on aesthetics, human scale, and create a sense of place. Taller buildings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the surrounding area. LU-19.1.10: Gateway Character. High-quality buildings with architecture and materials befitting the gateway character of the site. The project should provide gateway signage and treatment. LU-19.1.11: Phasing Plan. A phasing plan that lays out the timing of infrastructure, open space and land use improvements that ensures that elements desired by the community are included in early phases. LU-19.1.12: Parking. Parking in surface lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Underground parking beneath buildings is preferred. Above grade structures shall not be located along major street frontages. In cases, where above-grade structures are allowed along internal street frontages, they shall be lined with retail, entries and active uses on the ground floor. All parking structures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with a high quality “town center” environment. LU-19.1.13: Trees. Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new development are proposed. LU-19.1.14: Neighborhood Buffers. Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting single family residential areas from visual and noise impacts. Policy LU-27.7: Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site design, setbacks, and other appropriate measures. Policy M-1.2: Participate in the development of new multi-modal analysis methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743. However, until such impact thresholds are developed, continue to optimize mobility for all modes of transportation while striving to maintain the following intersection Levels of Service (LOS) at AM and PM peak traffic hours: • Major intersections: LOS D; • Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard: LOS E+; • Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road: LOS E+; and • De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road: LOS E+ (This policy is absolutely NOT met. See the traffic study.) POLICY M-4.7: VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT TRANSFER STATION Work with VTA and/or other transportation service organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates a hub for alternative transportation services such as, car sharing, bike sharing and/or other services. (Vallco is currently operating as a transit hub and park and ride according to the Vallco DEIR, this shall continue with ample parking provided for commuters). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Jon Willey Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 4:30 PM To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>> Subject: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Hello Piu, From the city website, it indicates that you are the principle planner for the Vallco Specific Plan and I have a few questions. I read a couple weeks ago in the Q&A in the Cupertino Scene about the Vallco SB35 and it left me with more questions than it answered. Would you answer my following questions, and if it helps, I will gladly come to the Planning Department. 1. The rules for Vallco are specified in the General Plan – clarify/confirm - The General Plan says Vallco requirements are per a developer Specific Plan that is to be reviewed and either approved or rejected by the City Council - clarify/confirm - The Specific Plan is to detail the building heights, building mass, building locations, public spaces, and uses, and so the City Council can accept or reject the Specific Plan - clarify/confirm - For there to be Residential and Office at Vallco, the site must be rezoned which is to be approved by the City Council . . . but Vallco consists of about 7 parcels, so does the City have to rezone all the parcels or can the City Council rezone just specific parcels to add Residential and rezone just specific parcels for Office, and leave some parcels as Retail only? 2. In the Cupertino Scene article and from what I have read for the SB35 law, it appears that the developers project must meet the General Plan requirements . . which would then indicate that the City Council does have the authority to reject building heights, site density, and amounts of Residential Units and Office space . . . is that correct? 3. For Marina, the site is ~8 acres and about ½ was designated for the hotel and about ½ was designated for the residential. Then for the residential half, the four acres at 35 units per acre Comment Letter U and with the added bonus for low income, the allowed RU’s was then 188 units. But for Vallco to come up with 2400 Residential Units, I think it would require the full 50 acres to be used in the calculation. This seems to indicate that the Vallco developer is being treated very differently than Marina . . . please clarify. Thank you for your assistance, Jon Willey The content of this message is APPLIED MATERIALS CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me, delete this email and do not use or distribute this email. ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: jon_willey@amat.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Beth Ebben To: Subject:FW: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 8:04:22 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN ] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 9:02 AM To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Hello, Council Member Scharf As I said, I (along with others) appreciate your thoughtfulness with regard to Cupertino's issues. Therefore, as a private citizen, I offer you a few Vallco thoughts for your consideration. 1. Transportation. • Some of the trip reduction tools suggested by the consultant Patrick Siegman show real promise. I especially like his ideas for reconfiguring Stevens Creek Boulevard. • The upcoming Junipero Serra bike road is the greatest opportunity we have for connecting Vallco via foot and bike. Let's make sure it ties in well with the final design. • Pedestrian and bicycle access through the perimeter wall is vehemently opposed by some neighbors, but such access would serve the greater good. 2. Trees. I know that there is a lot of support for large trees, but I want to underscore my support of large species planted in abundance. 3. Parks. The 30-acre living roof is okay, but smaller ground level parks are also important - for convenient multigenerational recreation, youth socialization, and perhaps even solitude. 4. Height. I know this is a hot button issue, but when there is an opportunity to create ground level open space by adding height to a building next to a major freeway, I favor the open space. Since the City Council can approve a specific plan and a general plan amendment in one single action, if such an action would result in a better long-term solution, let's do it! 5. Beauty. Ground level approachability and less massive tall buildings (pyramid-like) are design elements that have stood the test of time. In some cases, a great deal of time. Comment Letter V 6. Environmental innovation. As one who is concerned about the environment, I would hope that you are able to help shape Vallco into a development that is truly innovative with regard to transportation, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, and the like. I look forward to great things for Cupertino. Regards, Geoff Paulsen Geoffrey Paulsen private citizen Total Control Panel Login To: sscharf@cupertino.org From: Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Beth Ebben To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 8:07:07 AM Attachments:ATT00001.txt ATT00002.htm From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: Hello, Vice Mayor Sinks I really appreciate your thoughtfulness and attention to detail with regard to transportation and energy. Here are a few thoughts (as a private citizen) about Vallco. 1. Transportation. • Some of the trip reduction tools suggested by the consultant Patrick Siegman show real promise. I especially like his ideas for reconfiguring Stevens Creek Boulevard.• The upcoming Junipero Serra bike road is the greatest opportunity we have for connecting Vallco via foot and bike. Let's make sure it ties in well with the final design.• I know you are great supporter of connectivity, and pedestrian and bicycle access through the perimeter wall would, despite some neighbor opposition, serve the greater good. 2. Environmental innovation. As one who is concerned about the environment, I would hope that you are able to help shape Vallco into a development that is truly innovative with regard to transportation, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, and the like. Trees can be a part of this as well. 3. Height. I know this is a hot button issue, but when there is an opportunity to create ground level parks by adding height to a building next to a major freeway, I favor the parks. Since the Council can approve a specific plan and a general plan amendment in one single action, let's do it! Vallco can be a landmark - not just physically, but functionally. Regards, Geoff Geoffrey Paulsen private citizen From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN [ Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 9:04 AM To: Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Total Control Panel Login To: rsinks@cupertino.org From: Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Comment Letter W Block this sender This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Beth Ebben To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 8:05:08 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN [] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 9:06 AM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Hello, Mayor Paul Just a few thoughts (as a private citizen) about Vallco . 1. Beauty. a. Ground level attractiveness. This is important for both for retail and recreation. b. Managing the mass of tall buildings. No one wants view or sunlight to be blocked, but there are ways to reduce the size of the upper stories of a tall building to make it more attractive. 2. Parks. The 30-acre living roof is okay, but smaller ground level parks are also important. 3. Relationships with neighbors. Pedestrian and bicycle access through the perimeter wall is vehemently opposed by some neighbors, but such access would serve the greater good. Also, the neighbors will like it when there is something on the other side of the wall that's more attractive than a parking garage. 4. Youth mental health. I really appreciate your concern about youth mental health, and a well-designed Vallco can help. a. Habitat for healthy youth socialization can help build social skills, reinforce self-esteem, etc. b. Trees. More studies are showing that trees reduce stress - and even improve test scores. Darcy, you always struck me as the consummate diplomat when I served with you on the Parks and Recreation commission. I know there are many concerns about Vallco, but it is my sincere hope that the ultimate project will Comment Letter X serve to help unite what has recently become a somewhat divided city. Best, Geoff Geoffrey Paulsen private citizen Control Panel Login To: dpaul@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Beth Ebben To: Cc: Subject:FW: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 8:03:25 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 9:08 AM To: Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco thoughts - as a private citizen Hello, Council Member Chang Here are a few thoughts about Vallco that I’m sharing with you as a private citizen. 1. Air quality. I have always appreciated your concern for air quality, especially now that three members of my family have asthma (from living a block downwind from 280?). Therefore, I would hope that you would help shape the Vallco project into something that is a model for air quality. This can be done through multimodal transportation, an abundance of (soot- catching) large trees, and LED platinum buildings. 2. Innovation. As a realtor, I know you appreciate fine design, and I would hope that we would not shrink back from building something truly stunning at Vallco. Since the City Council can approve a specific plan and a general plan amendment in one single action, let's do it! 3. Legacy. As your years of dedicated public service in Cupertino draw to a close, I would hope that part of your legacy will be to build something in Cupertino that will endure for decades – perhaps even centuries. We could borrow some ideas from the great cities of the world, in fact even from cities in China and India. I look forward to great things. Best, Geoff Geoffrey Paulsen Comment Letter Y private citizen Total Control Panel Login To: bchang@cupertino.org From: Message Score: 40 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Liang-Fang Chao To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Document to request 30-acre green roof Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 1:59:10 PM Page 11 of the DEIR has the following footnote: "During the scoping process for the project, interest in including a green roof and civic space (such as a school lab facility and office space for police and fire staff) was expressed by community members, local schools, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and Santa Clara County Fire Department. As a result, the project was augmented to include a 30-acre green roof and 65,000 of civic space." I would like all documents that support the above statements from "community members, local schools, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and Santa Clara County Fire Department". Please provide me such documents immediately or as a public record request. And please include such documents in the final EIR so that the EIR is complete. Thank you. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter Z From:Liang-Fang Chao To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Parkland is parkland, not open space, town square or green roof Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 2:19:47 PM Parkland requirement is in place for "parkland". No amount of open space, town square or green roof should be allowed to replace the parkland requirement. Any project option that does not satisfy the parkland requirement under Municipal Code Chapter 14.05 and Title 18 is NOT a legal option under the Municipal Code. The NOP did not mention any 30-acre roof park. There is no evaluation on the earthquake risk for the 30-acre roof park at all. There is no estimation on the fiscal impact on the city for the roof park in maintenance. Every acre of land at Vallco costs about $5-6 million dollars. Every acre of parkland requirement NOT provided onsite is a free giveaway to the developer. For 800 housing units, that's 4.3 acres of parkland required. For 2400 housing units, that's 14,3 acres of parkland required. For 3000 housing units, that's 17,875 acres of parkland required. For 4000 housing units, that's 23,8 acres of parkland required. Ground-level parkland is worth a lot of money than rooftop, which is hard to access and harder to maintain. Please clearly specify in the table of options the amount of required parkland under Municipal Code Chapter 14.05 and Title 18 i so that the reader has a clear picture for transparency. Only listing the 30 acre roof park without listing the required parkland is misleading. Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter AA From:Liang-Fang Chao To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:The TOTAL building height should be clearly specified Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 2:28:26 PM The EIR should clearly specify the TOTAL building height, including the rooftop structures, for transparency and accountability. The DEIR states: Amenities, such as cafés or gymnasiums, may be located on the rooftop and could add up to 20 feet to the height of the buildings so long as they are centrally located on the building. The maximum building height would be between 45 feet and 120 feet, with taller buildings anticipated to be located closer to North Wolfe Road, on the west side of North Wolfe Road and between 90 feet and 145 feet, with the taller buildings anticipated to be located away from North Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway. So, are we looking at 145+20 feet as the TOTAL building height, i ncluding the rooftop structures. How about the space between the ceiling of the top floor and the green roof? Would that add another few feet? For the purpose of the EIR, please clearly specify the TOTAL building height, including any rooftop structures. Liang Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter BB From:Liang-Fang Chao To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Impact on Fire Department - need a new fire station? Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 3:03:15 PM The TOTAL building height will be 145 to 160 feet tall and there will be structure, even dining areas on the roof top. The fire department should give a written comment on their current ability to reach such height with their current equipment. The fire department should specify whether they need to acquire new equipments to service potential fire at the 160 feet tall. "Personal communication" is NOT a valid source of information. Please obtain written communication for the record, especially for such a large scale project. The distance from the fire department might be small, but there will be impact on the total number of households the fire department will serve. Will the response time for other households served by the Fire Department be impacted because the Fire Department will serve more people? Such impact is NOT studied. "The target responses times and actual 2017 response times for SCCFD for emergency incidents east of Blaney Avenue within the City of Cupertino are summarized in Table 3.15- 1." => The area that's east of Blaney in Cupertino is a small area. How about all other areas currently served by the SCCFD? What's their response time? Please also include their response times since adding 3- 400 more housing units and 15,000 more workers to the traffic around Vallco will affect the response time to the entire area served by SCCFD, specifically the area served by the fire station at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard. "SCCFD data show that response times have increased and SCCFD attributes the increase in travel time to increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic congestion in the area." => How much the response time has increased? Especially in the past two years since traffic congestion has worsened. Please provide quantifiable data. How has the response time been compared with the prediction done for the Apple Park EIR in 2013? "SCCFD has identified the need for an additional fire station on the east side of the City to continue meeting response time goals on the east side of the City. Currently, there are no available sites or potential sites identified by the SCCFD for a new fire station." => This seems to imply that SCCFD does NOT think it can continue to meet the response time goals WITHOUT adding a fire station for the east side of Cupertino. Since there is no available site right now, it does seem to suggest that SCCFD does expect they will NOT be able to meet the response time goals any more. Please clarify this. And please provide documentation from SCCFD that concludes that the east of Cupertion needs a new fire station. Impact PS-1: The project (and project alternatives) would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts) in order to maintain acceptable service Comment Letter CC ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (Less than Significant Impact)" "The project (and project alternatives) would increase the number of occupants and would likely result in an increase in fire protection service calls to the project site compared to existing conditions. Given the proximity of the Cupertino Fire Station to the project site, the SCCFD confirmed that the project (and project alternatives) would be adequately served by existing fire protection facilities and response time goals would be met." => This only confirms that the project area will be serviced with adequate response time. But it does not address the potential delay in response time to the other areas currently served by the SCCFD. All existing residential residents and office occupants will be impacted by adding a mega project at Vallco. But the EIR completely ignores any impact in response time to existing residents, office occupants and businesses. "SCCFD data show that response times have increased and SCCFD attributes the increase in travel time to increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic congestion in the area. SCCFD has identified the need for an additional fire station on the east side of the City to continue meeting response time goals on the east side of the City. Currently, there are no available sites or potential sites identified by the SCCFD for a new fire station." Specifically, SCCFD already stated that there is already delay due to "increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic congestion" and there is already a need for a new station for the east of Cupertino. How could adding 2400 to 4000 housing units plus 2 million square feet of office have no impact. Lives are at stack. Please get a written response from the SCCFD to confirm. Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Liang-Fang Chao To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Impact on police response time will increase, but how much? No impact estimated. Date:Monday, July 09, 2018 3:20:18 PM The DEIR stated: "The Sheriff’s Office is currently meeting the above response time goals. Over the last several years, there has been an increase in calls for service and an increase in traffic congestion, which have increased response times." How much is the increase in calls for service and increase in traffic in the last few years? Quantified data should be provided in order to estimate the impact of adding 2400 to 4000 more housing units plus 2 million sqft office space to an already very congested area. Please Apple Park is NOT fully occupied yet. The EIR should provide qualified estimated increase in calls and increase in response time due to increase in traffic congestion from the surrounding area plus the increase in congestion due to the Vallco project. Plus, the increase in response time to all areas of Cupertino and withint 5 miles of Vallco should be evaluated. The EIR should not ONLY estimate the impacts to the future residents of Vallco. The EIR is supposed to evaluate the impacts to existing residents and businesses and provide potential mitigation methods. That's missing. "The project (and project alternatives) would increase the number of occupants and would likely result in an increase in police protection service calls to the project site compared to existing conditions. Given the trend with increased response times, the additional growth and traffic congestion from the project (or project alternatives) could add delays to existing response times." => The DEIR recognize that there will be increase, but there is no quantifiable data to estimate the impact or how to mitigate the impact. Therefore, the conclusion that there is "less than significant impact" has no basis. The estimated impact is based on "personal communication" with the Sheriff. For a project of such a magnitude, please obtain written communication from the Sheriff's office for transparency and accountability. There needs to be specific data. At what level, the impact will become significant? How much delay would be considered significant? The DEIR recognizes that there will be increase in response time, but there is no estimate on how much increase. Then, there is simply no way the DEIR can conclude that the impact is "less than significant". Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident, Total Control Panel Login Comment Letter DD To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Schools near the project area are at capacity Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:16:25 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 3:37 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Schools near the project area are at capacity The DEIR only evaluated the alternative for 800 housing units or 2400 units. The impact for 3000 or 4000 units are not considered at all. The DEIR states "Students in the project area attend Collins Elementary School or Eisenhower Elementary School,97 Lawson Middle School, and Cupertino High School. Currently, 717 students are enrolled at Collins Elementary School, 624 students are enrolled at Eisenhower Elementary School, 1,228 students are enrolled at Lawson Middle School, and 2,273 students are enrolled at Cupertino High School." All of the schools in the attendance area are at capacity or a little over capacity. For the General Plan buildout, the DEIR estimates to add 528 elementary school students (almost an entire school) plus 158 middle school and 158 high school students. There is simply no capacity to accommodate 528 more students in Collins or Eisenhower. Plus, more housing projects are being approved in San Jose, which will fall in Eisenhower too. At 1228 students, Lawson Middle School is at capacity too. Cupertino HS is also at its highest capacity so far. The overall enrollment of CUSD/FUHSD might be declining, but the area with student population decline is near the south western area of the district, far away from Vallco area. In order to accept more students near the Vallco area, the districts will need to somehow re- district or encourage students to attend alternative schools, which will likely create more traffic congestion and need for transportation services. Such impact on the school districts are not identified and the mitigation methods are not identified. The decline in student population elsewhere in the school districts do not automatically create space for students from Vallco. The travel time to a school with more capacity needs to be considered. Additional traffic migitation or crossing guards for the added traffic congestion should be considered. Comment Letter EE The DEIR did not sufficiently evaluate the impact on the schools near Vallco or identify mitigation methods. Therefore, the DEIR cannot conclude that the impact is "less than significant". Liang Chao Cupertino Resident (speaking as myself) Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Impact on Library facilities - No basis Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:16:45 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 3:48 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Impact on Library facilities - No basis Cupertino Library did not provide enough program space even at the time it was built. Due to funding restrictions, around 2000, the city chose to reduce the square footage of the library than what was recommended. Now, Cupertino Library is very short in meeting rooms, program rooms and parking spaces. The approved Master Plan may or may not be implemented and it still does not provide sufficient facility space even for the existing Cupertino population. Cupertino has about 20,000 households now. The General Plan Build out will add 2400 more housing units. A 12% increase in population. The 2 million sqft office space will add more daytime population, which will also use the County Library. The DEIR should provide a comparison of program spaces per 1000 library users versus other libraries to argue whether the existing library facility is sufficient for existing residents and daytime workers. The DEIR should provide quantifiable data to estimate the impact on the library facilities, including personnel cost, more program spaces, study rooms, parking spaces etc. The DEIR cannot simply conclude "less than significant" impact for a project of the magnitude as 2400 to 4000 housing units plus 2 million sqft by verbal communication or top- of-head thinking without any basis. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter FF From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Significant impact on parkland for the east of Cupertino Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:17:24 AM Attachments:Chris Bencher"s Park Land Analysis - Cupertino City Council Presentation 2014 11 10.pdf From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 4:05 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Significant impact on parkland for the east of Cupertino The east side of Cupertino is already starved on parkland. See attached for a parkland analysis done in 2014 by Chris Bencher. He concludes that North Blaney& Valconeighborhoods are at 16% of target allocation for parklands. The proposed Housing Element and General Plan Amendment will result in 33% reduction of park-land ratio. Result will be North Blaney& Valcoend at only 10% of target allocation for park lands. Note that the analysis was based on the proposed General Plan in 2014, which includes maybe 600 units of housing at Vallco. Impact PS-5: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would not require new or physically altered park facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts) in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (Less than Significant Impact) The DEIR should list the current parkland ratio per 1000 residents for the east side of Cupertino. Then, estimate the parkland ratio with the proposed project. Since open space, town square or green roof do not count as parkland, the parkland ratio should be estimated for real parkland. If you wish, you maybe also include a ratio with "alternative" open space. But before you rush to conclude "less than significant impact", please provide data. What is the current service level? What will be considered "significant impact"? What will be considered "less than significant impact"? Simply giving vague description without any quantifiable data is not sufficient for the EIR determination. Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login Comment Letter GG To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Quimby Act Compliance Analysis Speaker: Chris Bencher Contact: Page 9 Conclusion Cupertino Park Land Dedication was written for the Health, Welfare & Safety Census track 5081 is at only 16% of target 10% with the proposed plan. Delay the General Plan Amendment until the park-land equalization strategy is in-place. Delay all re-zoning in Track 5080/5081 until you have a PLAN. We Need City Council to Fight for the People and Close our Park Land Gap Back-Up Material Source: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/cupertino/cityofcupertinocaliforniamunicipalcode?f =templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:cupertino_ca Page 10 18.24.060 Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. A.General Formula. If there is no park or recreation facility designated in the open space and conservation element of the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the market value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 18.24.080, Valuation of the land described above shall be determined, for in lieu fee purposes, under the procedures described in Section 18.24.080. C.Use of Money. The money collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the City or his or her authorized agent. Such money shall be placed in a special revenue fund which is hereby created and which shall be known as the "park dedication in-lieu fee fund."Money within this fund shall be used and expended solely for the acquisition, improvement, expansion or implementation of parks and recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the public by way of the purchase of necessary land, or, if the City Council deems that there is sufficient land available for this use, then secondly this money shall be used for improving such land for park and recreational purposes. Cupertino Municipal Code: Park Land Dedication Requirement Chapter 18:24 From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Impact on Fire Department - need a new fire station? Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:17:51 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 4:06 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Impact on Fire Department - need a new fire station? But before you rush to conclude "less than significant impact", please provide data. What is the current service level? What will be considered "significant impact"? What will be considered "less than significant impact"? Simply giving vague description without any quantifiable data is not sufficient for the EIR determination. On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Liang-Fang Chao <> wrote: The TOTAL building height will be 145 to 160 feet tall and there will be structure, even dining areas on the roof top. The fire department should give a written comment on their current ability to reach such height with their current equipment. The fire department should specify whether they need to acquire new equipments to service potential fire at the 160 feet tall. "Personal communication" is NOT a valid source of information. Please obtain written communication for the record, especially for such a large scale project. The distance from the fire department might be small, but there will be impact on the total number of households the fire department will serve. Will the response time for other households served by the Fire Department be impacted because the Fire Department will serve more people? Such impact is NOT studied. "The target responses times and actual 2017 response times for SCCFD for emergency incidents east of Blaney Avenue within the City of Cupertino are summarized in Table 3.15- 1." => The area that's east of Blaney in Cupertino is a small area. How about all other areas currently served by the SCCFD? What's their response time? Please also include their response times since adding 3-400 more housing units and 15,000 more workers to the traffic around Vallco will affect the response time to the entire area served by SCCFD, specifically the area served by the fire station at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard. "SCCFD data show that response times have increased and SCCFD attributes the increase in travel time to increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic congestion in the area." => How much the response time has increased? Especially in the past two years since traffic congestion has worsened. Please provide quantifiable data. How has the response time been compared with the prediction done for the Apple Park EIR in 2013? Comment Letter HH "SCCFD has identified the need for an additional fire station on the east side of the City to continue meeting response time goals on the east side of the City. Currently, there are no available sites or potential sites identified by the SCCFD for a new fire station." => This seems to imply that SCCFD does NOT think it can continue to meet the response time goals WITHOUT adding a fire station for the east side of Cupertino. Since there is no available site right now, it does seem to suggest that SCCFD does expect they will NOT be able to meet the response time goals any more. Please clarify this. And please provide documentation from SCCFD that concludes that the east of Cupertion needs a new fire station. Impact PS-1: The project (and project alternatives) would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts) in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (Less than Significant Impact)" "The project (and project alternatives) would increase the number of occupants and would likely result in an increase in fire protection service calls to the project site compared to existing conditions. Given the proximity of the Cupertino Fire Station to the project site, the SCCFD confirmed that the project (and project alternatives) would be adequately served by existing fire protection facilities and response time goals would be met." => This only confirms that the project area will be serviced with adequate response time. But it does not address the potential delay in response time to the other areas currently served by the SCCFD. All existing residential residents and office occupants will be impacted by adding a mega project at Vallco. But the EIR completely ignores any impact in response time to existing residents, office occupants and businesses. "SCCFD data show that response times have increased and SCCFD attributes the increase in travel time to increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic congestion in the area. SCCFD has identified the need for an additional fire station on the east side of the City to continue meeting response time goals on the east side of the City. Currently, there are no available sites or potential sites identified by the SCCFD for a new fire station." Specifically, SCCFD already stated that there is already delay due to "increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic congestion" and there is already a need for a new station for the east of Cupertino. How could adding 2400 to 4000 housing units plus 2 million square feet of office have no impact. Lives are at stack. Please get a written response from the SCCFD to confirm. Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Impact on police response time will increase, but how much? No impact estimated. Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:19:26 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 4:06 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Impact on police response time will increase, but how much? No impact estimated. But before you rush to conclude "less than significant impact", please provide data. What is the current service level? What will be considered "significant impact"? What will be considered "less than significant impact"? Simply giving vague description without any quantifiable data is not sufficient for the EIR determination. On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Liang-Fang Chao > wrote: The DEIR stated: "The Sheriff’s Office is currently meeting the above response time goals. Over the last several years, there has been an increase in calls for service and an increase in traffic congestion, which have increased response times." How much is the increase in calls for service and increase in traffic in the last few years? Quantified data should be provided in order to estimate the impact of adding 2400 to 4000 more housing units plus 2 million sqft office space to an already very congested area. Please Apple Park is NOT fully occupied yet. The EIR should provide qualified estimated increase in calls and increase in response time due to increase in traffic congestion from the surrounding area plus the increase in congestion due to the Vallco project. Plus, the increase in response time to all areas of Cupertino and withint 5 miles of Vallco should be evaluated. The EIR should not ONLY estimate the impacts to the future residents of Vallco. The EIR is supposed to evaluate the impacts to existing residents and businesses and provide potential mitigation methods. That's missing. "The project (and project alternatives) would increase the number of occupants and would likely result in an increase in police protection service calls to the project site compared to existing conditions. Given the trend with increased response times, the additional growth and traffic congestion from the project (or project alternatives) could add delays to existing response times." => The DEIR recognize that there will be increase, but there is no quantifiable data to estimate the impact or how to mitigate the impact. Therefore, the conclusion that there is Comment Letter II "less than significant impact" has no basis. The estimated impact is based on "personal communication" with the Sheriff. For a project of such a magnitude, please obtain written communication from the Sheriff's office for transparency and accountability. There needs to be specific data. At what level, the impact will become significant? How much delay would be considered significant? The DEIR recognizes that there will be increase in response time, but there is no estimate on how much increase. Then, there is simply no way the DEIR can conclude that the impact is "less than significant". Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident, Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Mitigation for Sewage system should be required under the General Plan Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:21:55 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 4:32 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Mitigation for Sewage system should be required under the General Plan The DEIR identified that the sewage system is at capacity and needs to be replaced. "Based on the modeling and analysis by the CuSD, development of the project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) would exceed the current capacity of the 12-, 15-, and 27-inch sewer mains serving the site. In addition, modeling results show that CuSD existing flows with flows from the project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative), would exceed the peak flow of 13.8 mgd of the City of Santa Clara interceptor located downstream of the project site." I'd like to request that the General Plan is amended to require mitigation for sewage system so that any new project cannot be streamlined unless the project includes the mitigation listed below: MM UTIL-2.1: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall replace the existing sewer mains in Wolfe Road with new mains of an adequate size as determined by CuSD, and shall install an 18- to 21-inch parallel pipe to the existing mains to accommodate existing and project flows. MM UTIL-2.2: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall replace the existing 27-inch sewer main in Wolfe Road and Homestead Road with new mains of an adequate size as determined by CuSD. MM UTIL-2.3: Developer shall complete improvements as designated in the City of Santa Clara’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan to allow for adequate downstream sewer capacity through the City of Santa Clara sewer system. No occupancies can occur on the project site that would exceed the current contractual permitted sewer flows through the City of Santa Clara until the contractual agreement Comment Letter JJ between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is amended to recognize and authorize this increased flow. Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Schools near the project area are at capacity Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:22:17 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 4:41 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Schools near the project area are at capacity For the added alternative of 3000 to 4000 housing units, the number of students generated will increase dramatically. A table is needed to clearly identify the number of students generated for each option. And the mitigation measures to add almost 1000 students to elementary schools need to be identified for options with 2400, 3000 or 4000 housing units. Similarly for middle school and high schools. On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Liang-Fang Chao wrote: The DEIR only evaluated the alternative for 800 housing units or 2400 units. The impact for 3000 or 4000 units are not considered at all. The DEIR states "Students in the project area attend Collins Elementary School or Eisenhower Elementary School,97 Lawson Middle School, and Cupertino High School. Currently, 717 students are enrolled at Collins Elementary School, 624 students are enrolled at Eisenhower Elementary School, 1,228 students are enrolled at Lawson Middle School, and 2,273 students are enrolled at Cupertino High School." All of the schools in the attendance area are at capacity or a little over capacity. For the General Plan buildout, the DEIR estimates to add 528 elementary school students (almost an entire school) plus 158 middle school and 158 high school students. There is simply no capacity to accommodate 528 more students in Collins or Eisenhower. Plus, more housing projects are being approved in San Jose, which will fall in Eisenhower too. At 1228 students, Lawson Middle School is at capacity too. Cupertino HS is also at its highest capacity so far. Comment Letter KK The overall enrollment of CUSD/FUHSD might be declining, but the area with student population decline is near the south western area of the district, far away from Vallco area. In order to accept more students near the Vallco area, the districts will need to somehow re- district or encourage students to attend alternative schools, which will likely create more traffic congestion and need for transportation services. Such impact on the school districts are not identified and the mitigation methods are not identified. The decline in student population elsewhere in the school districts do not automatically create space for students from Vallco. The travel time to a school with more capacity needs to be considered. Additional traffic migitation or crossing guards for the added traffic congestion should be considered. The DEIR did not sufficiently evaluate the impact on the schools near Vallco or identify mitigation methods. Therefore, the DEIR cannot conclude that the impact is "less than significant". Liang Chao Cupertino Resident (speaking as myself) Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From: Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. To: Cc: Subject:FW: Alternatives Allowed under CEQA Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:23:18 AM From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Liang-Fang Chao Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 5:26 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Alternatives Allowed under CEQA The Retail and Residential Alternative has 600,000 sqft retail space, 0 office, and 4000 housing units. "The Retail and Residential alternative consists of developing the site without any office use. The retail commercial component is assumed to be 600,000 square feet (same as the proposed project), and the residential density is dependent on a preliminary economic feasibility analysis of constructing this alternative." (based on "Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic Information in Support of Vallco Special Area Alternatives Memorandum. February 1, 2018." ) "As a result of the planning process and scoping for environmental review, the City identified three alternatives to the proposed project for review in the EIR: the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential, Retail and Residential, and Occupied/Re- Tenanted Mall alternatives." "CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The purpose of the alternatives discussion is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6)." In order to comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce the significant impacts anticipated to occur if the project is implemented and try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The Guidelines emphasize a common sense approach – the alternatives should be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. The range of alternatives selected for analysis is governed by the “rule of reason” which requires the EIR to discuss only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. For the Retail and Residential Alternative with 0 office and 4000 housing units (way beyond Comment Letter LL the General Plan Buildout of 35 units/acre), what effects of the project, this alternative would be made "less than significant"? For the General Plan Buildout alternative with 1 million sqft office and 2640 housing units, how is the 1640 units calculated? What effects of the project, this alternative would be made "less significant"? From Table 7.2-1: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts, the impact of the two alternatives "General Plan Buildout" or "Residential Max of 4000 units)" do not fit the CEQA guideline. CEAQ does not consider economic impact, so any economic analysis that might justify the "Residential Max of 4000 units)" alternative should not be considered. Please only consider alternatives that comply with the General Plan and comply with CEQA guidelines. Please justify each alternative you consider under the General Plan and CEQA guideline. Thanks. Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: planning@cupertino.org From Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Jon_Willey@amat.com To:Piu Ghosh Subject:RE: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 8:56:13 AM Hello Piu, Thank you for the reply and the answers. And while a few of my questions seem to be answered, I still have a few questions. And so as to not keep you tied up with too many additional questions, I will take a couple days to better define my remaining questions. Thank you, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Piu Ghosh [mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 7:32 PM To: Jon Willey <Jon_Willey@amat.com> Subject: [External] Re: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Hello! Mr. Willey Apologies for the delay. We’re developing FAQ’s for the Vallco SB 35 project. They may help with some of your questions. In general: 1. A.Specific Plan development - the GP does not solely require that the specific plan be developed by a developer for the Council’s consideration. 1. B. The City Council can adopt, either a developer prepared, or city prepared specific plan. 1. C. Rezoning for the site is subject to state law requirements and subject to direction and approval by the Council. Do note that the entire Vallco Shopping District is considered a Housing Priority Site. 2. When the SB 35 project was submitted the only applicable GP standards were the allocations for non-residential development (note that a Density Bonus concession has been requested for a reduction in the retail allocation) and residential density (35 du/acre, in addition to which a 35% Density Bonus has been requested.) 4. In the case of the Marina development, the hotel parcel was a separate parcel and not considered a Housing Element site. For the Vallco development, the entire site 58 acres is considered a Housing Element site; however currently ~56 acres is developable. The other +/-2 acres is under construction with the Hyatt Hotel. Hope this helps. Regards Piu Sent from my iPhone Comment Letter MM On Jul 10, 2018, at 6:11 PM, "Jon_Willey@amat.com<mailto:Jon_Willey@amat.com>" <Jon_Willey@amat.com<mailto:Jon_Willey@amat.com>> wrote: Hello Piu, I’m checking to see that you received my e-mail with questions. Could you let me know if you received it. Thank you, Jon Willey From: Jon Willey Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 4:30 PM To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>> Subject: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Hello Piu, From the city website, it indicates that you are the principle planner for the Vallco Specific Plan and I have a few questions. I read a couple weeks ago in the Q&A in the Cupertino Scene about the Vallco SB35 and it left me with more questions than it answered. Would you answer my following questions, and if it helps, I will gladly come to the Planning Department. 1. The rules for Vallco are specified in the General Plan – clarify/confirm - The General Plan says Vallco requirements are per a developer Specific Plan that is to be reviewed and either approved or rejected by the City Council - clarify/confirm - The Specific Plan is to detail the building heights, building mass, building locations, public spaces, and uses, and so the City Council can accept or reject the Specific Plan - clarify/confirm - For there to be Residential and Office at Vallco, the site must be rezoned which is to be approved by the City Council . . . but Vallco consists of about 7 parcels, so does the City have to rezone all the parcels or can the City Council rezone just specific parcels to add Residential and rezone just specific parcels for Office, and leave some parcels as Retail only? 2. In the Cupertino Scene article and from what I have read for the SB35 law, it appears that the developers project must meet the General Plan requirements . . which would then indicate that the City Council does have the authority to reject building heights, site density, and amounts of Residential Units and Office space . . . is that correct? 3. For Marina, the site is ~8 acres and about ½ was designated for the hotel and about ½ was designated for the residential. Then for the residential half, the four acres at 35 units per acre and with the added bonus for low income, the allowed RU’s was then 188 units. But for Vallco to come up with 2400 Residential Units, I think it would require the full 50 acres to be used in the calculation. This seems to indicate that the Vallco developer is being treated very differently than Marina . . . please clarify. Thank you for your assistance, Jon Willey The content of this message is APPLIED MATERIALS CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me, delete this email and do not use or distribute this email. ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: jon_willey@amat.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Piu Ghosh To:"Janet M. Laurain" Subject:RE: The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and Vallco Town Center Project Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 5:12:00 PM Janet These are expected in September and October. Please sign up on our city’s website at www.cupertino.org/vallco for updates. Regards Piu From: Janet M. Laurain [mailto:jlaurain@adamsbroadwell.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:25 PM To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and Vallco Town Center Project Hi Piu, Can you please tell me if there is a projected timeline for release of and hearing on the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Project? Thank you, in advance, for the update. Janet Laurain Janet M. Laurain, Paralegal Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 589-1660 jlaurain@adamsbroadwell.com ___________________ This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: jlaurain@adamsbroadwell.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Comment Letter NN Via Email and Overnight Mail July 12, 2018 Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director City of Cupertino, Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 benjaminf@cupertino.org Grace Schmidt, City Clerk City Clerk’s Office City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 cityclerk@cupertino.org City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 planning@cupertino.org Re: Comment on Vallco Special Area Specific Plan (SCH# 2018022021) Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Fu, Ms. Schmidt and Ms. Ghosh: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 270 and its members living in Santa Clara County and/or the City of Cupertino (“LiUNA”), regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and the Recirculated Amendment to the EIR (“EIR Amendment”) prepared for the Project known as Vallco Special Area Specific Plan (SCH# 2018022021) located on both sides of North Wolfe Comment Letter OO July 12, 2018 LiUNA Comments on Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Page 2 Road between Vallco Parkway and Interstate 280 (I-280) on the east side and between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway on the west side in the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (“Project”). APNs: 316-20-080, -081, -082, -088, -092, -094, -095, -099, -100, -101, -103, -104, -105, -106, and -107. After reviewing the DEIR and the EIR Amendment, we conclude that the DEIR and EIR Amendment fail as an informational documents and fail to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. Commenters request that the City of Cupertino Community Development Department, City Council, and your staffs address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., prior to considering approvals for the Project. We reserve the right to supplement these comments during review of the Final EIR for the Project and at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). We hereby request that the City send by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following:  Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091.  Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including, but not limited to: o Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA. o Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4. o Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9. o Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092. o Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. o Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. July 12, 2018 LiUNA Comments on Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Page 3 o Notices of approval or certification of an y EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. o Notices of determination that a project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law. o Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. o Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152. Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. In addition, we request that the City send to us via email, if possible or U.S. Mail a copy of all Community Development Department and/or City Council meeting and/or hearing agendas related to the Project. Please send notice by email, if possible or U.S. Mail to: Richard Drury Theresa Rettinghouse Lozeau Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 510 836-4200 richard@lozeaudrury.com theresa@lozeaudrury.com Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Douglas Chermak From:Piu Ghosh To:"Jon_Willey@amat.com" Subject:RE: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Date:Wednesday, July 18, 2018 3:11:00 PM From: Jon_Willey@amat.com [mailto:Jon_Willey@amat.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 1:25 PM To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Hello Piu, Below are the questions that I am still needing clarification on. I have put your answers in red next to the initial questions and then my second questions in blue. Thank you, Jon 1.The rules for Vallco are specified in the General Plan – clarify/confirm - The General Plan says Vallco requirements are per a developer Specific Plan that is to be reviewed and either approved or rejected by the City Council - clarify/confirm PIU 1. A. Specific Plan development - the GP does not solely require that the specific plan be developed by a developer for the Council’s consideration. Jon 1. A. Can the City Council reject the Sand Hill Specific Plan that is submitted for Vallco?] There is no Specific Plan submitted by Vallco at this time. Sand Hill has submitted a project for approval. So long as they meet all objective planning standards and objective design review standards, the City has to approve the project without any public hearings or any actions that will in any way “inhibit, chill or preclude the ministerial approval” provided for under SB 35. More information online at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml? bill_id=201720180SB35. - The Specific Plan is to detail the building heights, building mass, building locations, public spaces, and uses, and so the City Council can accept or reject the Specific Plan - clarify/confirm Piu 1. B. The City Council can adopt, either a developer prepared, or city prepared specific plan. Jon 1.B. If the City Council does not like the Sand Hill Specific Plan building heights, building mass, building locations, public spaces and uses, can the City Council reject the Specific Plan? There is no Sand Hill Specific Plan submitted with the City. See response to #1.A. above. - For there to be Residential and Office at Vallco, the site must be rezoned which is to be approved by the City Council . . . but Vallco consists of about 7 parcels, so does the City have to rezone all the parcels or can the City Council rezone just specific parcels to add Residential and rezone just specific parcels for Office, and leave some parcels as Retail only? Piu 1. C. Rezoning for the site is subject to state law requirements and subject to direction and Comment Letter PP approval by the Council. Do note that the entire Vallco Shopping District is considered a Housing Priority Site. Jon 1.C. Does the City Council have to rezone all parcels at Vallco for Office buildings/uses, does the City Council have to rezone all parcels at Vallco for Residential buildings/uses? It is at the Council’s discretion for the Vallco Specific Plan but if the SB 35 plan is approved by the City, no Council action is required for Sand Hill to approve the project or initiate construction. 2. In the Cupertino Scene article and from what I have read for the SB35 law, it appears that the developers project must meet the General Plan requirements . . which would then indicate that the City Council does have the authority to reject building heights, site density, and amounts of Residential Units and Office space . . . is that correct? Piu 2. When the SB 35 project was submitted the only applicable GP standards were the allocations for non-residential development (note that a Density Bonus concession has been requested for a reduction in the retail allocation) and residential density (35 du/acre, in addition to which a 35% Density Bonus has been requested.) Jon 2. Per the SB35 Law, does the City Council have the authority to reject the building heights, site density, and which parcels the City Council wants Office Space on and which parcels the City Council wants Residential Units on? SB 35 FAQs are in development. Please refer to those. What Sand Hill has submitted is NOT to be confused with a Specific Plan. Sand Hill has submitted a project. Since there is no adopted specific plan, they can devise any rules they want to for development, so long as they do not run afoul of any objective planning standards in place when the project was submitted. (see answer above.) In general, there is NO discretion in the review of this project. At this time, the only review allowed is objective design review. Examples of objective design review might be: Roof tile must be red. All buildings must be painted purple and yellow. 3. For Marina, the site is ~8 acres and about ½ was designated for the hotel and about ½ was designated for the residential. Then for the residential half, the four acres at 35 units per acre and with the added bonus for low income, the allowed RU’s was then 188 units. But for Vallco to come up with 2400 Residential Units, I think it would require the full 50 acres to be used in the calculation. This seems to indicate that the Vallco developer is being treated very differently than Marina . . . please clarify. Piu 4. In the case of the Marina development, the hotel parcel was a separate parcel and not considered a Housing Element site. For the Vallco development, the entire site 58 acres is considered a Housing Element site; however currently ~56 acres is developable. The other +/-2 acres is under construction with the Hyatt Hotel. Jon 3. Who decided the Hotel Site was separate from the other site? When the City specified which sites were Housing Element sites, did they specifically say the second Marina parcel was not included or did the City say the “Marina site” was a Housing Element site and not specifically specify one piece from the other piece . . . and then the developer did not object when he did his calculations for just the one parcel? The Hotel site was clearly not a Housing Element site and not contemplated to be used for residential purposes in the General Plan EIR (as best as I can recall.) The City has identified the Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) that are Housing Element sites. Please check the General Plan at: www.cupertino.org/gp. -----Original Message----- From: Piu Ghosh [mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 7:32 PM To: Jon Willey Subject: [External] Re: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Hello! Mr. Willey Apologies for the delay. We’re developing FAQ’s for the Vallco SB 35 project. They may help with some of your questions. In general: 1. A.Specific Plan development - the GP does not solely require that the specific plan be developed by a developer for the Council’s consideration. 1. B. The City Council can adopt, either a developer prepared, or city prepared specific plan. 1. C. Rezoning for the site is subject to state law requirements and subject to direction and approval by the Council. Do note that the entire Vallco Shopping District is considered a Housing Priority Site. 2. When the SB 35 project was submitted the only applicable GP standards were the allocations for non-residential development (note that a Density Bonus concession has been requested for a reduction in the retail allocation) and residential density (35 du/acre, in addition to which a 35% Density Bonus has been requested.) 4. In the case of the Marina development, the hotel parcel was a separate parcel and not considered a Housing Element site. For the Vallco development, the entire site 58 acres is considered a Housing Element site; however currently ~56 acres is developable. The other +/-2 acres is under construction with the Hyatt Hotel. Hope this helps. Regards Piu Sent from my iPhone On Jul 10, 2018, at 6:11 PM, "Jon_Willey@amat.com<mailto:Jon_Willey@amat.com>" <Jon_Willey@amat.com<mailto:Jon_Willey@amat.com>> wrote: Hello Piu, I’m checking to see that you received my e-mail with questions. Could you let me know if you received it. Thank you, Jon Willey From: Jon Willey Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 4:30 PM To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>> Subject: Questions On The Vallco Specific Plan And The SB35 Hello Piu, From the city website, it indicates that you are the principle planner for the Vallco Specific Plan and I have a few questions. I read a couple weeks ago in the Q&A in the Cupertino Scene about the Vallco SB35 and it left me with more questions than it answered. Would you answer my following questions, and if it helps, I will gladly come to the Planning Department. 1. The rules for Vallco are specified in the General Plan – clarify/confirm - The General Plan says Vallco requirements are per a developer Specific Plan that is to be reviewed and either approved or rejected by the City Council - clarify/confirm - The Specific Plan is to detail the building heights, building mass, building locations, public spaces, and uses, and so the City Council can accept or reject the Specific Plan - clarify/confirm - For there to be Residential and Office at Vallco, the site must be rezoned which is to be approved by the City Council . . . but Vallco consists of about 7 parcels, so does the City have to rezone all the parcels or can the City Council rezone just specific parcels to add Residential and rezone just specific parcels for Office, and leave some parcels as Retail only? 2. In the Cupertino Scene article and from what I have read for the SB35 law, it appears that the developers project must meet the General Plan requirements . . which would then indicate that the City Council does have the authority to reject building heights, site density, and amounts of Residential Units and Office space . . . is that correct? 3. For Marina, the site is ~8 acres and about ½ was designated for the hotel and about ½ was designated for the residential. Then for the residential half, the four acres at 35 units per acre and with the added bonus for low income, the allowed RU’s was then 188 units. But for Vallco to come up with 2400 Residential Units, I think it would require the full 50 acres to be used in the calculation. This seems to indicate that the Vallco developer is being treated very differently than Marina . . . please clarify. Thank you for your assistance, Jon Willey The content of this message is APPLIED MATERIALS CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me, delete this email and do not use or distribute this email. ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login To: piug@cupertino.org From: jon_willey@amat.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From: Kitty Moore [] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:27 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; Esq. Bern Steves <> Subject: Vallco Specific Plan DEIR Amendment Public Comment - All Appropriate Inquiries Rule Greetings, The DEIR Amendment, PDF 17 fails to indicate the existing issues at the JC Penney site left 'undone' during the 'case closure' which are not included in the DEIR Amendment or original DEIR. It is in the records at the SCCFD which the previous ESAs provided by the property owner AND the city's shoddy Environmental Impact Reports for the 2005 and 2014 General Plan Amendments placing housing at Vallco failed to review, and the current only Phase I ESA also missed. Please go look again to find it. https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21328 When there are known Recognized Environmental Conditions such as the USTs and the numerous other items in the DEIR, there is a need to perform a Phase II ESA. This DEIR Amendment and the previous DEIR appear to be worded in such a way as to put the sensitive receptors (people who live near the site) in harm's way and attempt to circumvent a Phase II ESA with soil vapor and metals testing. I must be mistaken, please correct my ignorance with the dates the Phase II ESA had been performed. Please read the following, because you will find examples in the DEIR and DEIR Amendment which support my claim: All Appropriate Inquiries Rule: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/aai_reporting_factsheet.pdf Sincerely, Kitty Moore Comment Letter QQ From: Kitty Moore ] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 7:40 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Cc: Esq. Bern Steves <b >; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco DEIR Amendment Comments Greetings, The housing scenarios in the DEIR are not consistent with the General Plan requirement that affordable housing be provided at 15%. The requirement that the Density Bonus of 35% be met means that there would be a minimum 18.33% affordable housing which is inconsistent with the General Plan. Therefore the DEIR is not studying alternatives to project which are feasible. The DEIR fails to consider alternative locations to Proposed Project which would include the Scenario B sites. The DEIR does not give an explanation for why these locations are not considered: The city proposes covering 30 acres of the site with a roof and does not study the impacts of trapping the air pollution under the roof adjacent to I-280. The city is considering support of the I-280/Wolfe freeway cap which will further trap pollutants and further limit sunlight. Is the city really considering covering and irrigating over 33 acres of land with no study if the environment below it is safe for people to breathe? Sincerely, Kitty Moore > From: Kitty Moore <> > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 12:11 PM > To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org> > Subject: Yes to Costco at Vallco > > Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager, > > I believe a Costco representative already spoke to many of you. I also spoke with a Costco real estate representative today, and am interested in their ideas. > > I support Costco at Vallco. I also support them having constructive meetings with the developer to create a rational project. > > Costco has a project going in Mexico City which has a (artificially) turfed soccer field and basketball courts on the roof. They can also do residential over retail. They are willing to be flexible. > > They are interested in the east side location and need about 150,000 Square Feet. > > I drive to the Santa Clara or Regnart Costcos regularly, and would prefer a closer location. > > Please consider the opportunity to have Costco come to the table and help work out a plan that is reasonable. > > With a rebuilt gym or pool, this could be interesting. > > Alternatively, a referendum will burn up a lot of time. > > Thank you for your consideration. > > Best regards, > > Kitty Moore > From: Venkat Ranganathan [] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 4:02 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Vallco draft environmental impact report (DEIR) Hi I am a resident of the City of Cupertino, living at the junction of Dennison& Amherst Drive, just a short distance from the Vallco mall. I am very concerned about the impact of the specific plan and its impact on the current residents. This impact description from this link captures the concerns succinctly. I urge the city to look at this with a fresh pair of eyes 7 Towers up to 228' • An untested 26-acre green roof despite the objective standard Municipal Code and Quimby Act requirement for 12.96 acres of actual park land acreage (not roof space). Does it fail the Objective Standards test? • Residents within 1,000' of the I-280 freeway breathing air pollution • Only 400,000 sq. ft. of retail which will mostly be eaten up by the theatre, bowling alley, ice rink, and restaurants for 12,600 workers. Actual shop space only 133,000 SF, that is about half the size of the Sears building (257,548 SF). • 960+ more kids in crowded schools. • 623 BMR units will be clustered (housing project?), and all of the 1,201 BMR apartments are below the green roof, like a class divide. • Crams nearly twice the square footage of all Apple Campus 2 on less than 1/3 the acreage. • Entombs nearly the entire site in subterranean garage concrete so that all that is left for over 6,000 residents is a roof "park" on no actual land. Kids will grow up playing on a roof, 90' in the air, adjacent to the freeway. • Uses $750,000 (approx.) worth of water per year--that's three times what Apple Park HQ uses! • Wastes our last chance for a true downtown in Cupertino while San Jose builds Urban Villages on our borders to soak up our tax dollars. • Uninviting grid layout squashes limited retail to the Wolfe and Stevens Creek frontage areas and retail is only on the west side. Thanks Venkat Sent from Outlook Comment Letter TT Board of Directors Ron Gonzales, Chair Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Janice Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Housing Trust Silicon Valley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Christine Carr Katie Ferrick LinkedIn Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Andrea Osgood Eden Housing Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Attention: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Vallco Special Area Specific Plan - Recirculated EIR Amendment In July 2018, the City of Cupertino received the Draft Environmental Impact Report which evaluates the proposed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, as required by California Air Quality Act. The DEIR explored four alternative projects for the 70 acre Vallco Special Area. During this period an Amendment to the Draft EIR was completed which added a “Housing Rich Alternative,” with 3,250 residential units at least 15% of which will be affordable, as a fifth option for environmental review. This letter is a formal comment on the Recirculated Amendment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Silicon Valley at Home has been following the progression of the Vallco area development process for a number of years. We believe that there is finally consensus that the area provides a unique and essential opportunity to invest in the housing resources available in the City of Cupertino, and to simultaneously optimize the number of affordable homes. As the Amendment documents, the Housing Rich alternative does not substantially change the analysis, and has only minor effects on the impacts already identified in the original Draft EIR. We would point out that the area with the clearest differential impact relates to transit services for the surrounding area. We believe these transit challenges are manageable in the long term, and further highlight the need for the City to step up its engagement with the VTA as local demand for services increases appreciably. We believe the current Housing Rich Alternative, of 3,250 units with a set aside of 15% for low- and very-low income households, augmented with a set aside of 15% for moderate-income households, will best serve the varied interests of Cupertino. This approach will do a better job of addressing the jobs-to-housing imbalance that exacerbates the region’s housing crisis. Our version of the Housing Rich Alternative provides opportunity for significant community benefits that will help in developing consensus around the proposal. And, most importantly, this approach will produce 975 desperately needed affordable homes for Cupertino – homes to house lower- wage workers and technology workers alike. Sincerely, Pilar Lorenzana Deputy Director Comment Letter UU From: Kitty Moore ] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 2:42 AM To: Amy Chan <amyc@cupertino.org> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Yes to Costco at Vallco Sent this back to city, hope others are writing... Dear Interim Manager Chan, Thank you for the detailed response. Several problems with Sand Hills’ and the city’s continued pushback on helping the retail portion at Vallco include: 1. The Vallco Shopping District is intended to be a shopping, dining, and entertainment destination for Santa Clara County according to the General Plan and we have a reasonable expectation that will occur. 2. In order for retail to succeed, it needs to be planned for success and not as a cast off, buried in pack and stack, to be relegated to feeding the masses who live and work at the location as a cafeteria and odds and ends supply with claustrophobic cave-like parking. 3. Santana Row, for example, has had 33 store front changes and found that the luxury market was not their identity. The restaurants take in )$1,000-$2,000 per SF and retail underperforms Valley Fair by hundreds of dollars per SF. 4. Retail under residential with underground parking is not a successful arrangement for retail. Shoppers prefer horizontal layout for retail. (Source: CAREA Real Estate Amazon Effect Seminar which Cupertino’s Economic Development Manager attended) 5. Costco has requested to be in on the design because they want to be in a successful location and have identified the east side property off Vallco Parkway. Comment Letter WW 6. Sears had analyzed Sand Hills’ previous plans and found that the excessive traffic would actually hurt their operations and reduce visitor traffic to their store. Link attached. 7. Because the city refuses to remedy the DEIR traffic study to account for the inevitable plethora of restaurants the developer will rely on, the excessive traffic from being a cafeteria has not been addressed. Restaurants generate 4-10 times the traffic as retail. The city is accepting ITE code 810 for a regular shopping center rather than requiring a realistic number. Therefore, we can expect no difference should the developer actually provide what the residents would like: a Costco with a Costco gas station. 8. Cupertino has been unwilling to challenge San Jose regarding the Marriott at Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stern Ave. This project removes one of the only remaining gas stations in the area. http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2018/08/95-high-stern-avenue-7-story-hotel.html?m=1 Costco would provide a gas station in a prime location near the freeway. 9. The Specific Plan process yielded no defined result because the city required a 35% Density Bonus. We have learned a hard lesson on what the “concessions” mean from VTC SB35: http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2018/08/have-we-been-tricked-by-city-in-vallco.html?m=1 10. It is apparent the city/Sand Hill has no interest in listening to experienced local real estate experts or working with a valuable retailer, Costco, who is clearly interested in participating in the process to be a success. 11. The city, and developer, together, are working to provide what will likely be a failing retail scheme from the outset, and show no interest in resident requests and solid commercial interest about retail. Sears letter: https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/ca6e1eeb-4a4b-4d7d-960f-8893d0eaa1fc Best regards, Kitty Moore Comment Letter BB Comment Letter DD