Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
Vallco Specific plan FEIRAugust 2018
Vaallllccoo SSppeciaVallco Special Area Specific Plan
SCH# 2018022021
In Consultation with
Prepared by
Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2.0 Revised Project ............................................................................................................... 2
Section 3.0 Summary of Draft EIR and EIR Amendment Public Review Process ......................... 81
Section 4.0 Draft EIR and EIR Amendment Recipients ................................................................. 82
Section 5.0 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR and EIR Amendment ...................................... 83
Section 6.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions ........................................................................................... 821
Section 7.0 Draft EIR Amendment Revisions ............................................................................... 921
Appendix A - Air Quality Modeling Memo
Appendix B - Revised Project Traffic Memo
Appendix C - Public Comments
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 1 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and EIR Amendment
(EIR Amendment), constitutes the Final EIR for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan.
PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, this
Final EIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed
project. The Final EIR also examines mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project
intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The Final EIR is intended to be
used by the City and responsible agencies in making decisions regarding the project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall
certify that:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the
decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR
prior to approving the project; and
(3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
CONTENTS OF THE FINAL EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specify that the Final EIR shall consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
d) The Lead Agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
PUBLIC REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines [PRC §21092.5(a) and Guidelines §15088(b)]
the City shall provide a written response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency
at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR. The Final EIR and all documents referenced in the Final
EIR are available for public review at Cupertino Community Hall located at 10350 Torre Avenue on
weekdays during normal business hours. The Final EIR is also available for review on the City’s
website: www.cupertino.org/vallco.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 2 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 2.0 REVISED PROJECT
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As discussed in the Draft EIR, the City is undertaking a community-based planning process to
develop a Specific Plan for the project site, the Vallco Special Area. Based on input from City
Council at its June 4, 2018 Study Session on the Vallco Specific Plan, the City has identified another
alternative to the proposed project that would achieve all the goals expressed by the different
councilmembers at that meeting, including the desire to have a more balanced jobs and housing
community. This alternative is the “revised project,” which consists of revisions to the project
analyzed in the Draft EIR (referred to, below, as the “previous project”).
The revised project includes 460,000 square feet of commercial uses (including a 60,000 square foot
performing arts theater), 1,750,000 square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, 2,923 residential
units, 35,000 square feet of civic uses (including 10,000 square foot of governmental use and 35,000
square feet of education space), and a 30-acre green roof. A comparison of the revised project to the
previous project and project alternatives is provided in Table 2.1-1.
Table 2.1-1: Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternatives Development
Summary
Land Uses
Commercial
(square
footage)
Office
(square
footage)
Hotel
(rooms)
Residential
(dwelling
units)
Civic
Space
(square
feet)
Green
Roof
(acres)
Revised Project 460,000 1,750,000 339 2,923 35,000 30
Previous 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 Alternative* 1,207,774 0 148 0 0 0
Housing Rich
Alternative† 600,000 1,500,000 339 3,250 65,000 30
Notes:
* Project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR.
† Project alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 3 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Compared to the previous project, the revised project proposes the same land uses and revises the
amounts of commercial, office, residential, and civic space development proposed, as shown in Table
2.1-1. All other aspects of the revised project (including on-site amenities, maximum building
height, setbacks, General Plan and zoning amendments, and other programming elements) are the
same as the previous project described in the Draft EIR (and as amended in the EIR Amendment and
Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this Final EIR).
In addition, the revised project includes construction or funding for the construction of a new City
Hall at the Cupertino Civic Center as described in the City’s Civic Center Master Plan. The
environmental impacts of replacing the existing City Hall building with a new 40,000 square foot
City Hall building (as well as expanding the existing library to include a new Program Room) were
evaluated in the May 2015 Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan Initial Study, incorporated herein by
reference. The City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Cupertino Civic Center Master
Plan project and approved the project in July 2015.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the City’s objectives for the project are as
follows:
• Create a distinct and memorable mixed use Town Center that is a regional destination and is
a focal point for the community involving substantial redevelopment of the Vallco Special
Area;
• Provide adequate development capacity on the project site to help achieve the City’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation consistent with the Housing Element;
• Provide adequate development capacity for a mix of uses that will allow for the development
of an economically feasible project;
• Provide the City with an avenue for generating additional sales tax revenue;
• Create a pedestrian, bike and transit-friendly environment that enhances mobility and
connectivity; and
• Create a high-quality sustainable development with respect to energy, resources and
ecosystems that meets the City’s environmental goals and the City’s Climate Action Plan.
The revised project meets all of the project objectives listed above because it includes a mix of uses
(including housing) and sales tax revenue generating commercial uses, and would create a multi-
modal, sustainable development.
Mitigated Negative Declaration (July 7, 2015) and City Council Resolution No. 15-060 (July 7, 2015).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 4 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An analysis of the environmental impacts of the revised project, by environmental resource and for
each EIR impact, is provided below. Because the revised project is very similar in nature to the
previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, readers are
referred to the analysis and details in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Also refer to the Draft EIR
and EIR Amendment (including revisions included in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this Final EIR) for
detailed descriptions of the existing environmental setting, thresholds of significance, and mitigation
measures. As discussed below, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more
severe significant impacts than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
2.3.1 Aesthetics Impacts
Impact AES-1: The revised project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. (Less
than Significant Impact)
Impact AES-2: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative aesthetic impact. (Less than
Significant Cumulative Impact)
Because the revised project has the same programming elements (e.g., maximum building height,
setbacks, and open space) as the previous project and project alternatives (except the Retail and
Residential Alternative and the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) evaluated in the Draft EIR
and EIR Amendment, and pursuant to SB 743 which states that “aesthetic and parking impacts of a
residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a transit priority area
shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment,”2 the revised project would result in
the same less than significant aesthetics impacts as discussed for the previous project and project
alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact, Less than
Significant Cumulative Impact)
2.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact AG-1: The revised project would not convert farmland, conflict with zoning for
agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
Impact AG-2: The revised project would not conflict with existing zoning of forest land
or timberland, or result in the loss or conversion of forest land. (No
Impact)
Impact AG-3: The revised project would not contribute to a significant cumulative
impact on agricultural and forestry resources. (No Cumulative Impact)
As discussed in the Draft EIR, the project site is not used, zoned, or designated for agricultural,
forestry, or timberland purposes. There are no lands in the vicinity of the site that are used for
agricultural, forestry, or timberland purposes. In addition, the project site is not subject of a
Public Resources Code section 21099(d)(1).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 5 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the revised project would not result in impacts to
agricultural and forestry resources. (No Impact, No Cumulative Impact)
2.3.3 Air Quality
The following discussion is based in part on an air quality modeling memo prepared by Illingworth
& Rodkin, Inc. in August 2018 for the revised project. A copy of this memo is included in Appendix
A of this Final EIR.
Impact AQ-1: The revised project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
The revised project proposes the same land uses and programming elements as the previous project.
For this reason, the revised project would have the same consistency with applicable Clean Air Plan
(CAP) control measures as stated in Table 3.3-3 of the Draft EIR for the previous project and would
not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the CAP. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact AQ-2: The construction of the revised project would violate an air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Impact AQ-6: The revised project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial
construction dust and diesel exhaust emissions concentrations.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The revised project would have the same construction timeframe (10 years) and develop a similar
amount of development as the previous project and project alternatives (except the Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative) analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. As shown in Table
2.1-2, estimated construction emissions for the revised project are similar to (though less than) the
emissions of the Housing Rich Alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment. The revised project
would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed previously in
the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
The revised project would implement mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 and AQ-6.1, identified in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment (and as revised in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this Final EIR), to reduce
the impact. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the implementation of the
mitigation measures would reduce the impact but not to a less than significant level. (Significant
and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 6 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-1: Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternative Construction Period
Emissions
ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
(pounds per day)
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Revised Project
Average daily emissions 44.9 165.8 1.4 1.3
Previous Project
Average daily emissions 31.6 149.2 1.3 1.2
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative
Average daily emissions 39.7 153.2 1.3 1.2
Retail and Residential Alternative
Average daily emissions 42.1 135.0 1.3 1.2
Housing Rich Alternative
Average daily emissions 46.9 167.5 1.4 1.3
Note: Bold and highlighted emissions indicate emissions exceeding the threshold of significance.
Mitigation Measure for Impact AQ-2:
MM AQ-2.1: Future development under the revised project shall implement the following
BAAQMD-recommended measures to control dust, particulate matter, and diesel
exhaust emissions during construction:
Basic Measures
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.
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.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes unless
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 7 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues). Clear signage shall
be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Applicable Enhanced Control Measures
9. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain
minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified
by lab samples or moisture probe.
10. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended
when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends
beyond site boundaries.
11. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward
side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive
receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
12. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be
planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately
until vegetation is established.
13. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-
disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall
be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed
surfaces at any one time.
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.
15. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one
percent.
16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to
two minutes unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 8 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Exhaust Control Measures
17. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 25 horsepower) to be used in the construction
project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a
minimum project wide fleet-average 25 percent NOx reduction and 65
percent PM (particulate matter) exhaust reduction compared to the
CalEEMod modeled average used in this report. Acceptable options for
reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission
diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-
treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other
options as such become available. The following are feasible methods:
• 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.
• If Tier 4 equipment is not 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 and include particulate matter
emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve an 85 percent
reduction in particulate matter exhaust.
• Use of alternatively-fueled equipment with lower NOx emissions
that meet the NOx and PM reduction requirements above.
• Diesel engines, whether for off-road equipment or on-road
vehicles, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, except
as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations (e.g.,
traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction
sites shall have posted legible and visible signs in designated
queuing areas and at the construction site to clearly notify
operators of idling limit.
• All on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 33,000 pounds or greater (EMFAC Category HDDT)
used at the project site (such as haul trucks, water trucks, dump
trucks, and concrete trucks) shall be model year 2010 or newer.
• Develop a Transportation Demand Management program for
construction worker travel that includes transit and carpool
subsides in order to reduce worker trips.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of
construction to minimize the use of diesel powered stationary
equipment, such as generators.
18. A project-specific construction management plan describing the
measures to minimize construction emissions shall be required of future
development. As part of the construction management plan, the on-site
Construction Manager shall ensure and regularly document that
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 9 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
equipment, trucks, and architectural coatings meet the above mitigation
requirements. The documentation shall be submitted regularly to the City
for review and compliance.
Mitigation Measure for Impact AQ-6:
MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1.
Impact AQ-3: The operation of the revised project would violate an 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 revised project 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)
The revised project proposes a similar amount of development and would generate similar average
daily trips as the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment. As shown in Table 2.1-3, the revised project would result in similar significant criteria
air pollutant emissions as the Housing Rich Alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment. The
revised project would result in slightly fewer ROG emissions and a 1.6 to 2.8 percent increase in
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. The significant operational criteria air pollutant emissions impact
of the revised project is not a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed previously in
the EIR Amendment.
The revised project would implement mitigation measures MM AQ-3.1 and AQ-4.1 identified in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to reduce the impact. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment, the implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impact but not to a
less than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 10 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-2: Annual Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternative Operational
Air Pollutant Emissions
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
(tons per year)
Existing Conditions 2.65 5.29 5.82 1.58
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Project and Project Alternatives
Net Revised Project Emissions* 34.43 40.77 47.06 13.09
Net Previous Project Emissions* 23.58 29.91 33.68 9.35
Net General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative Emissions* 27.64 28.32 31.47 8.81
Net Retail and Residential Alternative
Emissions* 26.27 14.89 15.13 4.40
Net Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall
Alternative Emissions* 7.18 8.97 9.37 2.58
Net Housing Rich Alternative Emissions* 35.50 40.13 45.75 12.75
Note: * Minus Existing Operations; Bolded and highlighted emissions indicate emissions above the threshold of
significance.
Mitigation Measures for Impact AQ-3:
MM AQ-3.1: Future development under the revised project 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.
Mitigation Measures for Impact AQ-4:
MM AQ-4.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1.
Impact AQ-5: The revised project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO
concentrations. (Less than Significant Impact)
The revised project would generate a similar number of average daily trips as the previous project
and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment and, therefore, would not
increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The revised
project, therefore, would result in a similar less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial CO concentrations as described for the previous project and project alternatives in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 11 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Impact AQ-7: The revised project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC
pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
As described above, the revised project would have the same construction timeframe and a similar
amount of development as the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative). For this reason, it is anticipated that construction of the revised project
would result in similar health risk exposure to sensitive receptors as described for the previous
project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft
EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised project would implement the same mitigation measure MM
AQ-7.1 identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Since the revised project would result in similar construction-related health risk
exposure as the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative), it is anticipated it would result in a similar less than significant cumulative health risk
impact as described for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated, Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Mitigation Measure for Impact AQ-7:
MM AQ-7.1: Future development under the revised project 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.
Impact AQ-8: The revised project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. (Less than Significant Impact)
The revised project would allow the same land uses as the previous project and project alternatives.
The revised project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant odor impact for the same
reasons as described for the previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact, Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the revised project would cumulatively contribute to
cumulatively significant air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Basin. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Cumulative Air Pollutant Emissions
As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, if a project exceeds the identified significance
thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air
quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Given the revised project would result in significant and unavoidable operational emissions (see
Impact AQ-3), it would also result in significant and unavoidable cumulative operational air quality
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 12 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
impacts. The revised project would implement mitigation measure MM AQ-9.1 in the Draft EIR and
EIR Amendment to reduce this impact. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measure for Impact AQ-9:
MM AQ-9.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1.
Cumulative Exposure of Sensitive Receptors from Project Construction Activity
Given the revised project would result in similar construction-related emissions as the previous
project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative), it is
anticipated that it would also result in similar less than significant cumulative construction-related air
quality impacts as described for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than
Significant Cumulative Impact)
Cumulative Odor Impacts
As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, there are no significant sources of odors (e.g.,
wastewater treatment, food processing facilities, and chemical plants) in the project vicinity;
therefore, there would be no significant cumulative odor impact. (Less than Significant
Cumulative Impact)
2.3.4 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. (Less than
Significant Impact)
The revised project is proposed on the same site and subject to the same existing biological resources
conditions as described in Draft EIR. The revised project would disturb the same area/site as the
previous project and project alternatives. The revised project would implement the same standard
permit conditions identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment for the previous project and
project alternatives to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. The revised
project, therefore, would result in the same impact to nesting birds as described for the previous
project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 13 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Standard Permit Conditions:3
• Construction and tree removal/pruning activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting
season to the extent feasible. If feasible, tree removal and/or pruning shall be completed
before the start of the nesting season to help preclude nesting. The nesting season for most
birds and raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1 through August 31.
• If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31
then a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to identify active bird
nests that may be disturbed during project construction. This survey shall be completed no
more than seven days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities (including
tree removal and pruning). During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and
other possible nesting habitats in and immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests.
• If the survey does not identify any nesting birds that would be affected by construction
activities, no further mitigation is required. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to
work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist (in consultation with the
CDFW) shall designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100
feet for non-raptors) to be established around the nest to ensure that no nests of species
protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during
construction activities. The buffer shall remain in place until a qualified ornithologist has
determined that the nest is no longer active.
• A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology, survey date(s),
map of identified active nests (if any), and protection measures (if required), shall be
submitted to the Planning Manager and be completed to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director prior to the start of grading.
Impact BIO-2: The revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian
habitat, wetland, or other sensitive natural community. (No Impact)
As described in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the entire project site is developed, disturbed by
human use, and located in an urban area. The project site does not contain sensitive habitats, such as
riparian habitat and wetlands. (No Impact)
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 14 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Impact BIO-3: The revised project would not interfere substantially with the movement of
fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant Impact)
As described in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the project site is developed and surrounded by
urban development. There are no sensitive habitats on-site or on surrounding properties. Future
development under the revised project would include the same bird safe design measures identified
for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment and, therefore, would result in the same less than
significant impact as described for the previous project. (Less than Significant Impact)
The revised project would include bird-safe building design policies such as the following:
• Avoiding large, uninterrupted expanses of glass near open areas,
• Prohibiting glass skyways and freestanding glass walls,
• Avoiding transparent glass walls coming together at building corners,
• Prohibiting up-lighting or spotlights,
• Shielding outdoor lights,
• Utilizing fritted, glazed, and/or low reflective glass.
Impact BIO-4: The revised project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance. (Less than Significant Impact)
Like the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the
revised project could result in the removal of trees on-site and could result in the removal of trees in
the existing right-of-way of roadways for utility improvements. The revised project would
implement the same standard permit conditions as the previous project and project alternatives
described in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment and therefore, would result in the same less than
significant impact as described for the previous project.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 15 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Standard Permit Conditions:4
• An updated arborist report shall be prepared by a certified arborist and submitted to the City.
The updated arborist report shall include updated tree assessments and tree maintenance and
protection measures for trees to be preserved. The development project shall be required to
implement the recommendations in the arborist report to protect trees identified to be
preserved.
• Per Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.190, trees removed shall be replaced as follows:
Trunk Size of Removed Tree Corresponding Replacement Tree
Up to 12 inches One 24-inch box tree
Over 12 inches and up to 18 inches Two 24-inch box trees
Over 18 inches and up to 36 inches Two 24-inch box trees or one 36-inch box tree
Over 36 inches One 36-inch box tree
Heritage Tree of any size One 48-inch box tree
The species and location of the replacement trees and monitoring of replanting success shall
be approved by the City of Cupertino Arborist and Community Development Director, in
conformance with the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance requirements.
If a replacement tree for the removal of a non-heritage tree or tree with trunk size equal to or
less than 36-inches cannot be reasonably planted on the project site, an in-lieu tree
replacement fee shall be paid to the City’s tree fund to add or replace trees on public property
in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area or add trees or landscaping on City property.
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 16 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.5 Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: The revised project would not cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historic resource. (Less than Significant Impact)
The revised project is proposed on the same site as evaluated in the Draft EIR and would result in the
same impact to historic resources as described for the previous project and project alternatives
(except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Like
the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative),
the revised project would comply with General Plan Policy LU-6.3 and include a policy that requires
the following:
• Future development shall provide a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the
site to explain the historic significance of the mall. The plaque shall include the city seal,
name of resource (i.e., Vallco Shopping District), date it was built, a written description, and
photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the
information.
The revised project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant impact to historic
resources as described for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact CR-2: The revised project would not significantly impact archaeological
resources, human remains, or tribal cultural resources. (Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The revised project is proposed on the same site as the previous project and project alternatives and
proposes the same level of ground disturbance as the previous project and project alternatives (except
for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative). The revised project would implement the same
mitigation measure MM CR-2.1 as identified for the previous project and project alternatives (except
for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) and, therefore, result in the same impact described
for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Mitigation Measures for Impact CR-2:
MM CR-2.1: A qualified archaeological monitor shall be retained by the project proponent for
future development under the revised project to inspect the ground surface at the
completion of demolition activities as they occur to search for archaeological site
indicators. Site indicators include, but are not limited to: darker than surrounding
soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire affected rock or
earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of stone, bone, or
shellfish; and burials, either human or animal.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 17 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
In the event that any indicators are discovered, work shall be halted within a
sensitivity zone to be determined by the archaeologist. The archaeologist shall
prepare a plan for the evaluation of the resource to the CRHP and submit the plan
to the Cupertino Planning Department for review and approval prior to any
construction related earthmoving within the identified zone of archaeological
sensitivity. The plan shall also include appropriate recommendations regarding
the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The identified
mitigation shall be implemented and can take the form of limited data retrieval
through hand excavation coupled with continued archaeological monitoring
inside of the archaeologically sensitive zone to ensure that significant data and
materials are recorded and/or removed for analysis. Monitoring also serves to
identify and thus limit damage to human remains and associated grave goods.
MM CR-2.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of
the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery
of human remains during construction of the revised project, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of the
remains or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination
as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that
the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the NAHC within 24
hours. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the
remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human
remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
MM CR-2.3: If archaeological resources are identified during construction of the revised
project, a final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be
submitted to the City’s Project Planner prior to issuance of building permits. This
report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented
and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a
list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the
disposition/curation of the resources.
MM CR-2.4: The City of Cupertino shall coordinate with the applicable Native American tribal
representatives following approval of a development on-site under the revised
project to ensure appropriate cultural sensitivity training is provided to all
contractors prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 18 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Impact CR-3: The revised project would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geological feature. (No Impact)
The revised project is proposed on the same site as the previous project and project alternatives,
which is a site located on deposits too recent to contain paleontological resources and does not
contain unique geologic features. The revised project, therefore, would result in the same impact to
paleontological resources and unique geological features as described for the previous project and
project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (No Impact)
Impact CR-4: The revised project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative cultural resources impact. (Less
than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Impacts to Historic and Paleontological Resources
As discussed above, the revised project would not impact historic or paleontological resources. For
this reason, the revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant impact to historic or paleontological resources. (No Cumulative Impact)
Impacts to Archaeological Resources, Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural Resources
The development of cumulative projects in proximity to the project site, in conjunction with the
development of the revised project, could significantly impact unknown buried archaeological
resources. The cumulative projects are required to comply with the federal, state, and local
regulations put in place to protect cultural resources.
The revised project would comply with the same regulations and implement the same mitigation
measure MM CR-4.1 identified for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) to reduce the impact to a less than significant level
described in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measure for Impact CR-4:
MM CR-4.1: Implement MM CR-2.1 through MM CR-2.4.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 19 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.6 Energy
Impact EN-1: The revised project would not result in a significant environmental impact
due to the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy
during construction or operation. (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction
The revised project proposes a similar amount of development as evaluated for previous project and
project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and
EIR Amendment. For this reason, it is anticipated that the revised project would have a similar
energy demand during construction activities as described for the previous project and project
alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment. The revised project would implement the same measures to minimize idling times of
construction equipment, require properly maintained construction equipment, and require the use of
alternative fueled construction equipment as described for the previous project and project
alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment. In addition, like the previous project and project alternatives, the revised project would
comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program. For these reasons,
like the previous project and project alternatives, the construction of the revised project would not
use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner. (Less than Significant Impact)
Operation
A summary of the energy demand of the revised project, previous project, and project alternatives is
provided in Table 2.1-4. As shown in Table 2.1-4, the revised project would result in similar energy
demands during operation as the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR
and EIR Amendment. The revised project would result in a 1.4 percent increase in electricity use
compared to the Housing Rich Alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment. The estimated energy
demand of the revised project is not a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed
previously in the EIR Amendment. Like the previous project and project alternatives, the revised
project would not use energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, given the project features that reduce
energy use, including the following:
• Developing an infill site;
• Proposing a mix of uses;
• Proposing high-density residential uses near existing bus transit;
• Implementing a TDM program to promote automobile-alternative modes of transportation
(see Section 2.4.4); and
• Constructing in conformance with the Title 24 and CALGreen to promote energy and water
efficiency.
(Less than Significant Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 20 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-3: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Energy Demand
Estimated
Electricity
Demand*
(GWh per year)
Estimated Natural
Gas Demand*
(Btu per year)
Estimated Gasoline
Demand†
(gallons per year)
Existing 7 703 million 1,260
Revised Project 72 75 billion 11,900
Previous Project 70 64 billion 9,435
General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative 60 63 billion 8,411
Retail and Residential Alternative 45 57 billion 4,460
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative 19 12 billion 3,270
Housing Rich Alternative 71 76 billion 11,466
Notes: * The net energy demand is identified for the revised project, previous project, and project alternatives.
† The estimated gasoline demand was based on the estimated vehicle miles traveled and the average fuel economy
of 35 mpg.
Sources: 1) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment. May 2018. Attachment 2. 2) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Housing Rich Alternative Air
Quality Modeling. June 2018. Attachment 1. 3) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Program Operational Alternative Air
Quality Modeling. August 2018.
Impact EN-2: The revised project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant
Impact)
As described above for the previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment, electricity would continue to be provided by SVCE under the revised project. In
addition, future development under the revised project would be completed in compliance with the
same energy efficiency standards described for the previous project and project alternatives in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. For these reasons, like the previous project and project alternatives,
the revised project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or
energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact EN-3: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact. (Less than
Significant Cumulative Impact)
As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, if a project is determined to have a significant
energy impact, it is concluded that the impact is a cumulative impact. As discussed above, the
revised project would not result in a significant energy impact. Therefore, the revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact. (Less
than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 21 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.7 Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: The revised project would not expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects from rupture of a known fault, strong seismic ground
shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), and/or
landslides. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-2: The revised project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil or create substantial risks to life or property due to expansive soil.
(Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-3: The revised project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading or
subsidence. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-4: The revised project would not be located on soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
(No Impact)
Impact GEO-5: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative geology and soil impact. (Less
than Significant Impact)
The revised project is subject to the same geology and soil conditions as described for the previous
project and project alternatives and proposes a similar amount of development as the previous project
and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised project includes
the same programming elements (e.g., maximum building height, below ground parking, 30-acre
green roof) as analyzed for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Retail and
Residential Alternative and Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative). Like the previous project and
project alternatives, the revised project would comply with California Building Code (CBC) Section
1803 and complete a site-specific geotechnical investigation and implement the identified
recommendations; implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and conform with
City grading and excavation requirements. For these reasons, the revised project would result in the
same less than significant geology and soil impacts as identified for the previous project and project
alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact)
2.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The revised project 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)
The revised project generates similar average daily vehicle trips and proposes a similar amount of
development as the previous project and project alternatives (except the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative) analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. As shown in Table 2.1-5, the revised
project would result in similar (though fewer) construction-related GHG emissions than the Housing
Rich Alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment. As shown in Table 2.1-6, buildout operation of
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 22 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
the revised project would have similar significant annual GHG emissions as the previous project
analyzed in the Draft EIR and the Housing Rich Alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment. The
revised project would have 2.8 percent more annual GHG emissions per service population than the
previous project and Housing Rich Alternative. The significant GHG emissions per service
population impact from the revised project is not a new or substantially more severe impact than
disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Like the previous project and project alternatives (except the Retail and Residential Alternative and
the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative), the revised project would implement the same
mitigation measure MM GHG-1.1 identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Table 2.1-4: Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternative Construction-
Related GHG Emissions
Estimated GHG Emissions
(metric tons)
Revised Project 90,215
Previous Project 77,467
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative 82,593
Retail and Residential Alternative 75,124
Housing Rich Alternative 91,976
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 23 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-5: Summary of Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Source
Category
Existing Revised
Project
Previous
Project
Project Alternatives
General
Plan
Buildout
w/Maximum
Residential
Retail and
Residential
Occupied/
Re-
Tenanted
Mall
Housing
Rich
(MTCO2e)
Area
(appliances,
fireplaces,
etc.)
<1 37 10 33 50 <1 41
Energy
Consumption 38 4,164 3,442 3,417 3,102 665 4,136
Mobile 4,803 42,556 31,901 30,059 16,752 12,496 41,577
Solid Waste
Generation 157 1,878 1,696 1,654 1,336 679 2,018
Water Usage 30 596 641 562 427 127 590
Total 5,028 49,231 37,690 35,725 21,667 13,967 48,362
Estimated
MTCO2e/year/service
population*
3.5 3.4 3.3 2.3 5.5 3.4
Significance Threshold
(MTCO2e/year/service
population)
2.6
Notes: Bolded and highlighted emissions are above the threshold.
• * The service population for the previous project is assumed to be 11,194, 10,874 for the General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, 9,400 for the Retail and Residential Alternative, 2,550 for the
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative, 14,085 for the Housing Rich Alternative, and 14,024 for the revised
project. (Sources: 1. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Population and Employment Projections. April 26,
2018. 2. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Housing Rich Alternative Project Buildout Population Projections.
June 20, 2018. 3. 3. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Revised Project, Project Buildout Population
Projections. August 13, 2018.)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 24 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Mitigation Measure for Impact GHG-1:
MM GHG-1.1: Under the revised project, the project proponent shall prepare and implement a
GHG Reduction Plan to offset the revised project-related incremental increase of
greenhouse gas emissions resulting in the exceedance of the significance
threshold of 2.6 MTCO2e/year/service population. Refinement of the estimated
GHG emissions from the revised project shall be completed as part of the GHG
Reduction Plan in order to reflect the most current and accurate data available
regarding the project’s estimated emissions (including emission rates). The GHG
Reduction Plan shall include the implementation of a qualifying TDM program to
reduce mobile GHG emissions. Additional offsets and reductions may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• Construct on-site or fund off-site carbon sequestration projects (such as a
forestry or wetlands projects for which inventory and reporting protocols
have been adopted). If the revised project develops an off-site project, it
must be registered with the Climate Action Reserve or otherwise
approved by BAAQMD in order to be used to offset project (or project
alternative) emissions; and/or
• Purchase of carbon credits to offset revised project annual emissions.
Carbon offset credits shall be verified and registered with The Climate
Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, or another source approved by
CARB or BAAQMD. The preference for offset carbon credit purchases
include those that can be achieved as follows: 1) within the City; 2)
within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of
California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Provisions of evidence
of payments, and funding of an escrow-type account or endowment fund
would be overseen by the City.
Impact GHG-2: The revised project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Less
than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Like the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative), the revised project would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 because it includes
development of housing and reduces GHG emissions by developing a compact, mixed use
development near transit, promoting automobile-alternative modes of transportation, implementing a
TDM program, and implementing a GHG Reduction Plan (refer to MM GHG-1.1).
In addition, because the revised project proposes the same land uses, a similar amount of
development, and the same programming elements as the previous project, it would have the same
consistency with applicable CAP control measures and the City’s Climate Action Plan as described
for the previous project in the Draft EIR.
For the same reasons discussed in the Draft EIR for the previous project, the revised project would
not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 25 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The revised project would not create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through routine transport, use, disposal, or foreseeable
upset of hazardous materials; or emit hazardous emissions or hazardous
materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less
than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Impact HAZ-2: The revised project is located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5; however, the revised project would not create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment as a result. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HAZ-3: The revised project is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (No Impact)
Impact HAZ-4: The revised project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HAZ-5: The revised project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact)
Impact HAZ-6: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative hazardous materials impact. (Less
than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The revised project is subject to the same existing hazardous and hazardous materials conditions as
described in the Draft EIR and proposes the same land uses and ground disturbance activities (i.e.,
excavation across most of the site at a maximum depth of 20 to 30 feet below ground) as described
for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Like the previous project and project alternatives
(except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative), the revised project would implement
mitigation measures MM HAZ-1.1 through HAZ-1.4 to reduce the impact to a less than significant
level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measures for Impact HAZ-1:
MM HAZ-1.1: A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be
prepared and implemented for demolition and redevelopment activities under the
revised project. The purpose of the SMP and HSP is to establish appropriate
management practices for handling impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater or
other materials that may potentially be encountered during construction activities,
especially in areas of former hazardous materials storage and use, and the
profiling of soil planned for off-site disposal and/or reuse on-site. The SMP shall
document former and suspect UST locations, hazardous materials transfer lines,
oil-water separators, neutralization chambers, and hydraulic lifts, etc. The SMP
shall also identify the protocols for accepting imported fill materials, if needed.
The SMP and HSP shall be submitted to SCCDEH for approval and the approved
SMP and HSP shall be submitted to the City Building Division prior to
commencement of construction (including demolition) activities.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 26 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM HAZ-1.2: The site contains equipment and facilities associated with past activities that are
known to or may contain residual hazardous materials. The following measures
shall be implemented under the revised project during building demolition and
shall be indicated on demolition plans:
• Sears and JC Penney Automotive Centers:
− Sears: Remnant piping that appears to have formerly distributed
grease, oil and transmission fluid from storage locations to the
service bays located along interior building walls, ceilings and
within the basement shall be properly removed and disposed, and
stains and residual oil shall be cleaned from the interior building
surfaces. This work shall be coordinated with the SCCFD.
− Sears: The below ground oil-water separator (connected to floor
drains within the building) and an acid neutralization chamber
(connected to drains within a former battery storage room) shall
be cleaned and removed. This work shall be coordinated with the
SCCFD and SCCDEH. Soil quality below each of the structures
shall be evaluated via sampling and laboratory analyses.
− Sears: The potential presence of a waste oil UST shall be further
investigation by removing the access cover and, if uncertainty
remains, the subsequent performance of a geophysical survey. If
a UST is identified, it shall be removed in coordination with the
SCCFD and SCCDEH, and underlying soil quality shall be
evaluated. If no UST is identified, soil quality at the location of
the waste oil UST, as depicted on the 1969 building plan, shall be
evaluated via the collection of soil samples from borings for
laboratory analyses.
− Sears and JC Penney: Each of the below-ground lift casings and
any associated hydraulic fluid piping and reservoirs from
hydraulic lifts shall be removed and properly disposed. An
Environmental Professional shall be retained to observe the
removal activities and, if evidence of leakage is identified, soil
sampling and laboratory analyses shall be conducted.
− JC Penney: The project proponent shall obtain a permit from
SCCDEH to properly remove and dispose of the 750 gallon oil-
water separator during redevelopment activities. Collection and
analysis of confirmation soil samples would be required under
oversight of SCCDEH.
• Existing staining and spilled oil on-site, including at the Sears
Automotive Center and Cupertino Ice Center, shall be properly cleaned.
When these facilities are demolished, an Environmental Professional shall
be present to observe underlying soil for evidence of potential impacts
and, if observed, collect soil samples for laboratory analyses.
• If the lead-based paint on-site is flaking, peeling, or blistering, it shall be
removed prior to demolition. Applicable OSHA regulations shall be
followed; these include requirements for worker training and air
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 27 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
monitoring and dust control. Any debris containing lead shall be
disposed appropriately.
• An asbestos survey shall be completed of the buildings prior to their
demolition in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines. NESHAP guidelines
require the removal of potentially friable ACMs prior to building
demolition or renovation that may disturb the ACM.
• Once existing buildings and improvements are removed, soil sampling
shall be completed to evaluate if agricultural chemicals and lead are
present. The agricultural pesticide sampling shall focus on former
orchard and row crop areas, as well as in the vicinity of outbuilding
(barns and sheds) that were formerly located on the southeast portion of
the site. Testing for lead contamination shall be completed at the former
structure locations. The sampling, which shall follow commonly
accepted environmental protocols, shall be performed prior to soil
excavation activities in order to appropriately profile the soil for off-haul
to a disposal facility. The analytical data shall be compared to either
residential screening levels and/or the specific acceptance criteria of the
accepting facility. If this soil is planned to be reused on-site, it shall be
compared to residential screening levels and/or natural background levels
of metals.
MM HAZ-1.3: Prior to issuance of demolition and/or grading permits, groundwater monitoring
wells shall be properly destroyed in accordance with the SCVWD Ordinance 90-
1.
MM HAZ-1.4: As part of the facility closure process for occupants that use and/or store
hazardous materials, the SCCFD and SCCDEH typically require that a closure
plan be submitted by the occupant that describes required closure activities, such
as removal of remaining hazardous materials, cleaning of hazardous material
handling equipment, decontamination of building surfaces, and waste disposal
practices, among others. Facility closures shall be coordinated with the Fire
Department and SCCDEH to ensure that required closure activities are completed
prior to issuance of demolition and/or grading permits.
Mitigation Measures for Impact HAZ-6:
MM HAZ-6.1: Implement MM HAZ-1.1 through -1.4.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 28 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: The revised project would not violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
(Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-2: The revised project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-3: The revised project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area which would result in substantial erosion,
siltation, or flooding; violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements; or degrade water quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-4: The revised project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area; impede or redirect flood flows; expose people or structures to
significant risk involving flooding; or be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-5: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative hydrology and water quality
impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
The revised project is subject to the same existing hydrology and water quality site conditions (e.g.,
groundwater depth, flooding, and inundation) described in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. In
addition, the revised project proposes the same below ground excavation and same amount of new
open space and landscaped areas as described for the previous project and project alternatives (except
for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised
project would comply with the same regulations and implement the same standard permit conditions
as described for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted
Mall Alternative) and, therefore, result in the same less than significant impact as described for the
previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Standard Permit Conditions:5
During Construction
• The revised project shall comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to
construction grading the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and receive a Waste
Discharger Identification (WDID) number to comply with the General Permit and prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that includes storm water quality best management
practices (BMPs). The Storm Water Management Plan shall detail how runoff and associated
water quality impacts resulting from the revised project will be controlled and/or managed.
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 29 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The
specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design
and site-specific considerations and shall be determined prior to issuance of building and
grading permits.
Post-Construction
• The revised project shall comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP NPDES permit, which
provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm water for new
development. Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development
shall include provisions for post-construction storm water controls in the project design in
compliance with the MRP Provision C.3 requirements, and shall include source control and
on-site treatment control BMPs for reducing contamination in stormwater runoff as
permanent features of the project. The revised project shall include a stormwater
management plan that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) measures such as
bioretention areas, porous concrete, infiltration facilities, and water harvesting devices to
reduce the pollutant loads and volumes of stormwater runoff from the site. The stormwater
management plan shall be consistent with the landscaping plan and trees to be preserved.
• To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs that are primarily
infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a
minimum, the following conditions:
− Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater;
− Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater;
− Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained;
− Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high
groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or
high groundwater table, BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis
(considering potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of
pretreatment, similar factors); and
− Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any
water supply wells.
− Class V injection wells are not permitted.
• BMPs shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in
accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent versions of the following
documents:
− City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix;
− SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations for New and
Redevelopment Projects;”
− NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region;
− California BMP Handbooks;
− Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) “Start at the
Source” Design Guidance Manual;
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 30 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
− BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm
water Quality – A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and
− City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard.
• To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term
maintenance programs.
• The applicant, project arborist, and landscape architect, shall work with the City and the
SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use, as appropriate, and the
plant selection will be reflected in the landscape plans.
2.3.11 Land Use
Impact LU-1: The revised project would not physically divide an established community.
(Less than Significant Impact)
Impact LU-2: The revised project would not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Impact LU-3: The revised project would not conflict with applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan. (No Impact)
Impact LU-4: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact. (Less than
Significant Cumulative Impact)
The revised project is subject to the same existing land use conditions as described in the Draft EIR.
The revised project would redevelop the site in a similar manner as described for the previous project
and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Because the revised project proposes
the same land uses and includes the same programming elements as the previous project, the revised
project result in the same consistency with General Plan policies and strategies as discussed for the
previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. For these reasons, the revised project would result in the same land
use impacts as described for the previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 31 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.12 Mineral Resources
Impact MIN-1: The revised project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site. (No
Impact)
Impact MIN-2: The revised project would not contribute to a significant cumulative
mineral resources impact. (No Cumulative Impact)
The revised project is subject to the same existing mineral resources conditions as described in the
Draft EIR. Because the project site is not identified as a natural resource area containing mineral
resources in the City’s General Plan, nor are there any known mineral resources on-site, the revised
project would not result in impacts to mineral resources. (No Impact)
2.3.13 Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1: The revised project would 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)
The revised project is subject to the same existing noise and vibration conditions as described in the
Draft EIR. The revised project proposes the same land uses and programming elements and would
result in a similar amount of average daily vehicle trips as the previous project and project
alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) analyzed in the Draft EIR and
EIR Amendment. The revised project would implement the same standard permit conditions and
mitigation measures identified for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to reduce land use
and noise compatibility impacts. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment for the
previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative), the
implementation of the standard permit conditions and mitigation measures would reduce the impact
but not to a less than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Standard Permit Conditions:6
• An acoustical study shall be completed during the application process when project-specific
information, such as building elevations, layouts, floor plans, and position of buildings on the
site, is known. The study shall determine compliance with the noise and land use
compatibility standards, identify potential noise impacts, and propose site-specific measures
to reduce exposure to exterior and interior noise levels that exceed maximum permissible
levels.
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 32 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• To reduce exterior noise levels to meet the normally acceptable thresholds of 65 dBA CNEL
at multi-family residences or 70 dBA CNEL at commercial uses, locate noise-sensitive
outdoor use areas away from major roadways or other significant sources of noise when
developing site plans. Shield noise-sensitive spaces with buildings or noise barriers to reduce
exterior noise levels. The final detailed design of the heights and limits of proposed noise
barriers shall be completed at the time that the final site and grading plans are submitted.
• The following shall be implemented to reduce interior noise levels to meet the normally
acceptable thresholds of 45 dBA CNEL at multi-family residences or 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) at
commercial uses during hours of operations:
− If future exterior noise levels at residential building facades are between 60 and 65
dBA CNEL, incorporate adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation to reduce interior
noise levels to acceptable levels by closing the windows to control noise.
− If future exterior noise levels at residential building facades exceed 65 dBA CNEL,
forced-air mechanical ventilation systems and sound-rated construction methods are
normally required. Such methods or materials may include a combination of smaller
window and door sizes as a percentage of the total building façade facing the noise
source, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated exterior wall assemblies, and
mechanical ventilation so windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion.
− If the 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) threshold would not be met, other site-specific measures, such
as increasing setbacks of the buildings from the adjacent roadways, using shielding
by other buildings or noise barriers to reduce noise levels, implementing additional
sound treatments to the building design, etc. shall be considered to reduce interior
noise levels to meet the Cal Green Code threshold.
Mitigation Measures for Impact NOI-1:
MM NOI-1.1: Construction activities under the revised project shall be conducted in accordance
with provisions of the City’s Municipal Code which limit temporary construction
work to daytime hours,7 Monday through Friday. Construction is prohibited on
weekends and all holidays pursuant to Municipal Code Section
10.48.053(B)(C)(D).8 Further, the City requires that all equipment have high-
quality noise mufflers and abatement devices installed and are in good condition.
Additionally, the construction crew shall adhere to the following construction
best management practices listed in MM NOI-1.2 below to reduce construction
noise levels emanating from the site and minimize disruption and annoyance at
existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
Per Municipal Code Section 10.48.010, daytime is defined as the period from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekdays.
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(B): Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to
engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of
a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in
Section 10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(C): Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited
on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(D):
Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime
standards of Section 10.48.040.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 33 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM NOI-1.2: Future development shall prepare and submit a construction noise control plan to
the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval.
The on-site Construction Manager shall implement the construction noise control
plan, which would include, but not be limited to, the following available controls:
• Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary
noise-generating equipment. Temporary noise barrier fences would
provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-
of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is
constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
• Enforce idling limit of two minutes for internal combustion engines
unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or
portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as
feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with
enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise
levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or
venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would
create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
• Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and
parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are
not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise control blanket
barriers shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the
adjacent land uses.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile holes shall be pre-
drilled to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-
drilling foundation pile holes is a standard construction noise control
technique. Pre-drilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the
pile. Notify all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major
noise-generating construction activities and provide it to adjacent land
uses. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination
with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be
scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 34 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures be implemented
to correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and
included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction
schedule.
MM NOI-1.3: A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained for development under the
revised project to review mechanical noise, as these systems are selected, to
determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to ensure noise complies
with the City’s noise level requirements. Mechanical equipment shall be selected
and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level
requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
• Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
• Installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to
block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors;
• Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
MM NOI-1.4: Section 10.48.062 prohibits deliveries between 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM on
weekdays and between 6:00 PM and 9:00 AM on weekends and holidays, which
shall be enforced as part of the revised project. Additionally, the effect of loading
zone activities would be evaluated for noise impacts and help determine design
decisions once project-specific information for the revised project, such as type
and size of the commercial uses, hours of operation, frequency of deliveries, and
location of loading zones, is available. Noise reduction measures could include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• Move loading zones inside (e.g., within parking structures), where
possible, and as far from adjacent residential uses as possible.
• Implement a no idling policy at all locations that requires engines to be
turned off after two minutes.
• Recess truck docks into the ground or locate them within parking
structures.
• Equip loading bay doors with rubberized gasket type seals to allow little
loading noise to escape.
MM NOI-1.5: Prior to issuance of building permits, a noise study shall be completed to
determine noise levels due to truck deliveries at the proposed buildings, and the
specific noise control that shall be implemented to reduce noise levels below the
City’s thresholds at adjacent residential property lines shall be identified.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 35 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Impact NOI-2: The revised project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Given that the revised project would result in similar amount of development over the same
construction timeframe as the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative) and is subject to the same existing conditions as described in the Draft
EIR and EIR Amendment, it is anticipated that the revised project would result in the same vibration
impact as identified for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised project would
implement the same mitigation measure MM NOI-2.1 identified in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted
Mall Alternative) to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measure for Impact NOI-2:
MM NOI-2.1: Where vibration levels due to construction activities under the revised project
would exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at nearby sensitive uses, development shall:
• Comply with the construction noise ordinance to limit hours of exposure.
The City’s Municipal Code allows construction noise to exceed limits
discussed in Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours. No construction is
permitted on Sundays or holidays.
• In the event pile driving would be required, all receptors within 300 feet
of the project site shall be notified of the schedule a minimum of one
week prior to its commencement. The contractor shall implement “quiet”
pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than
one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of
portable acoustical barriers), in consideration of geotechnical and
structural requirements and conditions.
• To the extent feasible, the project contractor shall phase high-vibration
generating construction activities, such as pile driving/ground-impacting
operations, so they do not occur at the same time with demolition and
excavation activities in locations where the combined vibrations would
potentially impact sensitive areas.
• The project contractor shall select demolition methods not involving
impact tools, where possible (for example, milling generates lower
vibration levels than excavation using clam shell or chisel drops).
• The project contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near
sensitive areas.
• Impact pile driving shall be prohibited within 90 feet of an existing
structure surrounding the project site. Vibratory pile driving shall be
prohibited within 60 feet of an existing structure surrounding the project
site.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 36 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Prohibit the use of heavy vibration-generating construction equipment,
such as vibratory rollers or clam shovel, within 20 feet of any adjacent
sensitive land use.
• If pile driving is required in the vicinity of vibration-sensitive structures
adjacent to the project site, survey conditions of existing structures and,
when necessary, perform site-specific vibration studies to direct
construction activities. Contractors shall continue to monitor effects of
construction activities on surveyed sensitive structures and offer repair or
compensation for damage.
• Construction management plans for substantial construction projects,
particularly those involving pile driving, shall include predefined
vibration reduction measures, notification requirements for properties
within 200 feet of scheduled construction activities, and contact
information for on-site coordination and complaints.
Impact NOI-3: The revised project 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)
The revised project would generate approximately 39,063 average daily trips, which is similar to the
23,417 to 41,314 average daily trips generated by the previous project and project alternatives
analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. For this reason, it is anticipated that the revised
project would result in a similar, permanent ambient noise increase due to project-generated traffic as
described for the previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
The revised project would implement the same mitigation measure MM NOI-3.1 to reduce the
impact. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the implementation of the mitigation
measure would reduce the impact but not to a less than significant level. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measure for Impact NOI-3:
MM NOI-3.1: Future development under the revised project shall implement available measures
to reduce project-generated noise level increases from project traffic on Perimeter
Road. The noise attenuation measures shall be studied on a case-by-case basis at
receptors that would be significantly impacted. Noise reduction methods could
include the following:
• New or larger noise barriers or other noise reduction techniques
constructed to protect existing residential land uses. Final design of such
barriers shall be completed during project level review.
• Alternative noise reduction techniques, such as re-paving Perimeter Road
with “quieter” pavement types including Open-Grade Rubberized
Asphaltic Concrete. The use of “quiet” pavement can reduce noise levels
by two to five dBA, depending on the existing pavement type, traffic
speed, traffic volumes, and other factors.
• Traffic calming measures to slow traffic, such as speed bumps.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 37 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Building sound insulation for affected residences, such as sound-rated
windows and doors, on a case-by-case basis as a method of reducing
noise levels in interior spaces.
Impact NOI-4: The revised project 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)
The revised project is subject to the same existing ambient noise conditions as described in the Draft
EIR and would construct a similar amount of development within the same timeframe as the previous
project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) analyzed in
the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the revised project would
result in the same significant temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to construction activities
as discussed for the previous project and project alternatives (except for the Occupied/Re-Tenanted
Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised project would implement the
same mitigation measure MM NOI-4.1 identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to reduce the
impact. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the implementation of the mitigation
measure would reduce the impact but not to a less than significant level. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measure for Impact NOI-4:
MM NOI-4.1: Implement MM NOI-1.1 and -1.2.
Impact NOI-5: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, or in the vicinity of a private
airstrip. (No Impact)
As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, the project site is not located within an airport
land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, the revised project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive airport-related noise levels. (No Impact)
Impact NOI-6: The revised project would result in a cumulatively considerable permanent
noise level increase at existing residential land uses. (Significant and
Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The revised project would result in a similar amount of vehicle trips as analyzed for the previous
project and project alternatives (except the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. For this reason, it is anticipated that the revised project would result
in the same significant cumulatively considerable permanent noise level increase at existing
residential land uses as described for the previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR
and EIR Amendment. The revised project would implement the same mitigation measure MM NOI-
6.1 identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to reduce the impact. As discussed in the Draft
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 38 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
EIR and EIR Amendment, the implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the impact
but not to a less than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Mitigation Measure for Impact NOI-6:
MM NOI-6.1: Implement MM NOI-3.1 to reduce project-generated noise level increases on
Perimeter Road north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway east of
North Wolfe Road.
2.3.14 Population and Housing
Impact POP-1: The revised project would not induce substantial population growth in the
area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact POP-3: The revised project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impact.
(Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
The Draft EIR and EIR Amendment concluded that the previous project and project alternatives
would not induce substantial population growth in the area. Because the revised project proposes a
similar amount of development as the previous project and project alternatives (except the
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, it is
anticipated that the revised project would result in the same less than significant impact.
The amount of commercial, office, and hotel uses proposed by the revised project are already
planned for the site in the City’s General Plan. The revised project, therefore, would not result in
substantial population growth beyond what is planned for in the City’s General Plan in regards to
those uses. The revised project (like the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative), however, proposes
more residential units than currently allocated to the project site in the City’s General Plan.
The project site is allocated 389 residential units in the City’s General Plan. The City would allow
for the transfer of up to 377 residential units of the available 724 citywide residential unit allocations
to the project site. The project site, therefore, would have allocations for 766 residential units.
Assuming the revised project meets the state Density Bonus Law criteria and is granted a 35 percent
density bonus above the base residential yield of 2,165 units to achieve the proposed 2,923
residential units and an additional 377 citywide residential units (in addition to the 389 residential
units already allocated to the project site) are allocated to the project site, the revised project would
result in 1,399 residential units above the number of available residential units citywide. Added to
the projected citywide buildout of 23,294 units, the revised project (not including the 35 percent
density bonus) would represent a 6.0 percent increase in the total number of residential units planned
for in the City’s General Plan.
The Draft EIR and EIR Amendment evaluated project alternatives resulting up to a 7.0 percent
increase in the total number of residential units planned for in the City’s General Plan. The revised
project, like the project alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, would not
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 39 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, because it would occur
on an infill site, would be consistent with the General Plan goals for focused and sustainable growth,
and would support the intensification of development in an urbanized area currently served by
existing roads, transit, utilities, and public services. In addition, the proposed number of residential
units are within the Plan Bay Area projections for the City and County.
Like the previous project and project alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment,
infrastructure improvements, including sewer system improvements, the recycled water extension,
and roadway improvements, for the revised project would be sized to accommodate existing and
planned development and development from the revised project only. For this reason, the
infrastructure improvements would not be growth inducing. No new off-site roads would be
constructed to serve the revised project.
In addition, as discussed previously, the revised is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 because it
includes development of housing and reduces GHG emissions by developing a compact, mixed use
development near transit (bus lines on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road), promoting
automobile-alternative modes of transportation, implementing a TDM program, and implementing a
GHG Reduction Plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact POP-2: The revised project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or residents, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with commercial uses and does not contain dwelling units or
residents. For this reason, the revised project would not displace existing housing or people. (No
Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 40 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.15 Public Services
Impact PS-1: The revised project 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)
Impact PS-2: The revised project would not require new or physically altered police
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)
Impact PS-3: The revised project would not require new or physically altered school
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)
Impact PS-4: The revised project would not require new or physically altered library
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)
Impact PS-5: The revised project 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)
Impact PS-6: The revised project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to
public services. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
The revised project is subject to the same existing public services conditions as described in the Draft
EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised project proposes the same land uses, same programming
elements, and a similar amount of development as the previous project and project alternatives
analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. As shown in Table 2.1-12 of this document, the
revised project would result in a similar number of employees and residents on-site. For these
reasons, it is anticipated that the revised project would result in similar impacts to public services as
described for the previous project and project alternatives (except the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The revised project would comply with the same
regulations (including Government Code Section 65996 requiring the payment of school impact fees)
and implement the same standard permit condition identified for the previous project and project
alternatives (except the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative) in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment to reduce impacts to public services to a less than significant level. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 41 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Standard Permit Condition:9 Future development under the revised project shall dedicate land
through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the
provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000
residents.
2.3.16 Recreation
Impact REC-1: The revised project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of
recreational facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact REC-2: The proposed open space under the revised project would not result in an
adverse physical effect on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact REC-3: The revised project would not result in significant cumulative recreation
impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Given that the revised project proposes a similar amount of development and the same amount of
open space (including a 30-acre green roof), and would result in a similar amount of growth (see
Table 2.1-12) as the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment, it is anticipated that the revised project would result in a similar less than significant
impact to recreational facilities.
The revised project would result in 5,846 new residents on-site.10 According to General Plan Policy
RPC-1.2, the revised project residents would require approximately 15.8 acres of parkland. The
revised project includes 10.5 to 14 acres of common open space, landscaping, and town squares, as
well as a 30-acre green roof that would include outdoor use areas such as outdoor dining,
playgrounds, walking paths, and picnic areas. The proposed open space on-site, therefore, would
offset the revised project’s demand on recreational facilities. In addition, impacts to County and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities would be mitigated through the property taxes
levied on the property and the revised project would implement the same standard permit condition
as the previous project and project alternatives to reduce impacts to recreational facilities. (Less
than Significant Impact)
Standard Permit Condition:11 Future development under the revised project shall dedicate land
through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the
provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000
residents.
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
The estimated number of residents was based on the same 2.0 residents per unit assumption used for the previous
project and project alternatives. (Sources: 1. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Population and Employment
Projections. April 26, 2018. 2. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Housing Rich Alternative Project Buildout
Population Projections. June 20, 2018.).
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 42 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.17 Transportation/Traffic
The following discussion is based in part on a traffic memo prepared by Fehr & Peers in August
2018 for the revised project. A copy of this memo is included in Appendix B of this Final EIR.
Impact TRN-1: Under existing with project conditions, the revised project 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 revised project 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-3: Revised project construction-related traffic would not conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Impact TRN-4: The revised project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that
results in substantial safety risks. (No Impact)
Impact TRN-5: The revised project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); and would not result in
inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact TRN-6: The revised project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or
otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities. (Significant
and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Impact TRN-7: The revised project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative transportation impact. (Significant
and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The revised project is subject to the same existing transportation conditions as described for the
previous project and project alternatives described in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The
revised project proposes a similar amount of development as the previous project and project
alternatives. As shown in Table 2.1-7, below, the revised project generates similar (though fewer)
average daily trips and peak hour trips than the Housing Rich Alternative evaluated in the EIR
Amendment. Because the revised project proposes the same land uses and a similar amount of land
uses as the Housing Rich Alternative, the vehicle distribution and assignment for the revised project
is similar to those of the Housing Rich Alternative. In addition, as shown in Table 2.1-8, below, the
revised project is estimated to result in lower vehicle miles traveled per service population compared
to the previous project.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 43 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
For the above reasons, it is anticipated that the revised project would result in similar transportation
impacts as described for the Housing Rich Alternative and previous project in the EIR Amendment
and Draft EIR. The revised project would not result in a new or substantially more severe
transportation impacts than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. The
revised project would implement the same mitigation measures and conditions of approval identified
for the Housing Rich Alternative in the EIR Amendment to reduce impacts. As discussed in the EIR
Amendment, the implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts but not to a
less than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Table 2.1-6: Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternative Trip Generation
Estimates Summary
Average
Daily Trips
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Revised Project 39,063 2,570 3,243
Previous Project 37,006 2,628 3,218
Alternatives
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential 33,507 2,082 2,632
Retail and Residential 27,935 1,330 2,251
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall 23,417 307 2,398
Housing Rich 41,314 2,558 3,430
Fehr & Peers. Trip Generation Estimates and Impact Discussion for the Revised Project Description for the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA. August 20, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 44 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-7: Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternative Vehicle Miles
Traveled Estimates
Total VMT Average Trip
Length
VMT Per
Service
Population
Revised Project 416,531 10.66 29.7
Previous Project 330,220 8.98 30.0
General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative 294,407 8.79 27.6
Retail and Residential Alternative 156,110 5.59 16.6
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative 114,447 4.89 44.9
Housing Rich Alternative 401,316 9.71 28.5
Note: A discussion of the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative is provided in the EIR for informational
purposes only. This alternative is a permitted land use, and can be implemented without further discretionary
approvals from the City or environmental review under CEQA. No mitigation measures or additional conditions
of approval can be required.
Mitigation Measures for Impact TRN-1:
MM TRN-1.1: Develop and implement a TDM Program which includes a trip cap that is based
on a 34 percent non-SOV rate for the office uses. The TDM Program includes
the creation of a Transportation Management Association that would:
• Provide concierge services to residents and retail owners (for their
employees);
• Coordinate with the office component; and
• Oversee the overall TDM program among property owners and tenants to
achieve the office trip caps
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to
implement the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM
reduction goals are achieved. The TDM Monitoring Program shall require a
robust Monitoring Program to ensure that this TDM program mitigation measure
is implemented and that the required trip caps are achieved. The Monitoring
Program shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Cupertino and
would include driveway monitoring for all office uses during the AM and PM
peak hours. The TDM Monitoring Program would occur in the fall (mid-
September through mid-November) after six months occupancy of 50 percent of
the total approved buildout. The TDM Monitoring Program shall be conducted
annually for the first 10 years. If the monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 45 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
have not been exceeded in the last three years of the first 10 years of annual
monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be reduced to once every two years (i.e..
year 10, 12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial report reveals that the peak trip
counts have been exceeded, the monitoring shall revert to annual monitoring until
such time that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded for three consecutive
annual reports. If future development is not able to meet the identified TDM
goal, then the City would collect penalties (assigned proportionately between the
uses that do not meet the trip cap), as specified in the Specific Plan’s TDM
Monitoring Program. Penalties collected from the TDM Monitoring Program will
be used to improve multimodal access around the site and throughout the City of
Cupertino.
The TDM program is expected to reduce the severity of intersection and freeway
impacts, although not necessarily to a less than significant level. (Significant
and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-1.2: Intersection 12, De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road: convert the shared left-
turn/through lane on the eastbound approach of McClellan Road to a dedicated
through lane (for a total of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn
lane). This would allow converting the phasing on the east-west approaches from
split phasing to protected left-turn phasing. This improvement is included in the
City’s TIF Program and would improve intersection operations to an acceptable
LOS D. Future development under the revised project shall pay transportation
mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
However, because the TIF improvements are not fully funding and the timing of
implementation is not known at this time, the impact to Intersection 12 is
considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-1.3: A fair-share payment contribution to improvements identified in VTA’s VTP
2040 for freeway segments on SR 85, I-280, and I-880 that the project (or project
alternative) significantly impacts shall be paid by future development associated
with the revised project.
The VTA’s VTP 2040 identifies several freeway projects that are relevant to the
identified freeway segment impacts, including:
• VTP ID H1: SR 85 Express Lanes: US 101 (South San José to Mountain
View). This project would convert 24 miles of existing HOV lanes to
express lanes, and allow single-occupancy vehicles access to the express
lanes by paying a toll. An additional express lane will be added to create
a two-lane express lane along a portion of the corridor. On November 13,
2017, the cities of Cupertino and Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 46 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
entered into a settlement agreement13 with VTA and Caltrans that
requires VTA to implement the 2016 Measure B State Route 85 Corridor
Program Guidelines which include preparing a Transit Guideway Study
for this corridor to identify the most effective transit and congestion relief
projects on SR 85 that will be candidates for funding. Upon completion of
the study, and implementation plan for these projects will be developed.
• VTP ID H11: I-280 Express Lanes: Leland Avenue to Magdalena
Avenue. This project converts existing HOV lanes to express lanes.
• VTP ID H13: I-280 Express Lanes: Southbound El Monte Avenue to
Magdalena Avenue. This project builds new express lanes.
• VTP ID H15: I-880 Express Lanes: US 101 to I-280. This project would
build new express lanes on I-880.
• VTP ID H35: I-280 Northbound: Second Exit Lane to Foothill
Expressway. This project constructs a second exit lane from northbound
I-280 to Foothill Expressway.
• VTP ID H45: I-280 Northbound Braided Ramps between Foothill
Expressway and SR 85: This project would conduct preliminary
engineering, environmental studies, and design to widen the existing off-
ramp to Foothill Expressway from Northbound I-280 from a single-lane
exit to a two-lane exit opening at I-280.
Mitigation Measures for Impact TRN-2:
MM TRN-2.1: Implement MM TRN-1.1. The TDM program is expected to reduce the severity
of intersection and freeway impacts, although not necessarily to a less than
significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.2: Intersection 12, De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road: Implement MM TRN-1.2.
Implementation of MM TRN-1.2 would improve intersection the average
intersection delay to better than background (without project or project
alternative) conditions. However, because the TIF improvements are not fully
funded and the timing of implementation is not known at this time, the impact is
considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.3: Intersection 31, Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway: Provide an overlap phase for the
westbound right-turn movement, which would provide for a green right-turn
arrow while the southbound left-turn movement has its green phase. Southbound
U-turns shall also be prohibited. Implementation of this mitigation measure
As part of the Settlement Agreement, City of Saratoga, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al.
(Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214), which was a suit by the three cities challenging
Caltrans’s approval of the State Route 85 Express Lanes Project, was dismissed on November 17, 2017.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 47 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
would improve intersection level of service to an acceptable LOS D. (Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.4: Intersection 42, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue: Provide a northbound
left-turn lane (for a total of one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn
lane). This would allow converting the phasing on the east-west approaches from
split phasing to protected left-turn phasing. This improvement is included in the
City’s TIF Program and would improve intersection operations to an acceptable
LOS D. Future development under the revised project shall pay transportation
mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
However, because the TIF improvements are not fully funding and the timing of
implementation is not known at this time, the impact is considered significant and
unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.5: Intersections 43-45, Contribute a fair-share to a traffic signal timing study and
implementation of the revised timings on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stern
Avenue, Calvert Drive, and Agilent Driveway. The revised project impacts
would likely improve with modifications to the signal timings as traffic volumes
change, but the impact is concluded to be significant and unavoidable because the
effectiveness of the improvement would be determined through the signal timing
study and because the intersection is under the jurisdiction of another agency and
the City cannot guarantee the implementation of the signal timing study.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.6: Intersection 48, Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road: Pay a fair-share
contribution to the near-term improvement identified in the Santa Clara County’s
Expressway Plan 2040 Study for this intersection. The Expressway Plan 2040
Study identifies a near-term improvement of an additional eastbound through lane
on Homestead Road. With this improvement, intersection operations would
improve, but the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F with delays
greater than under background conditions.
The ultimate improvement identified by the County’s Expressway Plan 2040 is to
grade-separate the intersection. That is a long-term improvement, however,
which would not be implemented within the next 10 years. Therefore, the impact
is considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.7: Intersection 51, Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive-I-280 Southbound Ramp:
Improvements to mitigate the impact would include providing a fourth
northbound through lane (for a total of four through lanes and one right-turn
lane). This would require four receiving lanes north of Calvert Drive-I-280
Southbound Ramps. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at
acceptable LOS E or better. The widening of Lawrence Expressway from three
to four lanes in each direction between Moorpark Avenue to south of Calvert
Drive is included in the VTP 2040 as a constrained project (VTP 2040 Project#
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 48 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
X10). The VTP 2040 does not include widening of Lawrence Expressway at or
north of Calvert Drive, however. The fourth northbound through lane on
Lawrence Expressway could potentially be provided with an added receiving lane
that would connect directly to the off-ramp to Lawrence Expressway (also known
as “trap” lane) just north of the I-280 overcrossing. The City shall coordinate
with the County of Santa Clara to and Caltrans to determine if a fourth through
lane could be provided. Future development under the revised project shall be
required to pay a fair-share contribution if the improvement is feasible. The
impact would remain significant and unavoidable because the feasibility of the
improvement is yet to be determined, and because the intersection is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency and the City cannot guarantee
the improvement would be constructed concurrent with the revised project.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.8: Intersection 53, Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road: Improvements to
mitigate the revised project’s impact would include providing a fourth
northbound through lane (for the PM peak hour impact) and fourth southbound
through lane (for the AM peak hour impact). The widening of Lawrence
Expressway from three to four lanes in each direction between Moorpark Avenue
to south of Calvert Drive is included in the VTP 2040 as a constrained project
(VTP 2040 Project# X10). This VTA project also includes the provision of an
additional westbound through lane on Moorpark Avenue.
Assuming that both the northbound and southbound approaches would be
modified to accommodate four through lanes, the intersection would operate at or
better than acceptable LOS E under the revised project during the AM and PM
peak hours. Future development under the revised project shall be required to
pay a fair-share to VTP Project# X10. The impact would remain significant and
unavoidable, however, because the intersection is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another agency and the City cannot guarantee the improvement
would be constructed concurrent with the revised project. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-2.9: Implement MM TRN-1.3. The VTP 2040 projects will enhance vehicular travel
choices for the project (and project alternatives), and make more efficient use of
the transportation roadway network, and the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study will
help improve transit options in the SR 85 corridor. These freeway operations
enhancements would not improve all impacted freeway segments to less than
significant levels, however. The TDM Program proposed under the revised
project and mitigation measure MM TRN-2.1 would reduce project-generated
vehicle trips, thereby reducing the revised project impact on freeway segments,
but it is not anticipated that the freeway impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level. For the above reasons, the revised project would remain
significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRN-2.1 and -2.9.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measures for Impact TRN-6:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 49 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM TRN-6.1: The VTA’s VTP 2040 identifies the Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit project
(VTP ID T4) as an improvement near the project site. Ultimately, the VTP ID T4
would enhance travel choice for the revised project and make more efficient use
of the transportation network. Thus, future development under the revised project
would be required to contribute its fair-share to VTP ID T4. However, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable because the implementation of the
VTP projects are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency and
the City cannot guarantee the improvement would be implemented concurrent
with the revised project. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
Mitigation Measures for Impact TRN-7:
MM TRN-7.1: Implement MM TRN-1.1. The TDM program is expected to reduce the severity
of intersection and freeway impacts, although not necessarily to a less than
significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.2: Intersection 2, Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 northbound ramps: The City’s
TIF Program identifies the addition of an exclusive northbound left-turn lane
from the SR 85 off-ramp onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. This
improvement would mitigate the revised project’s to a less than significant level.
Future development under the revised project shall pay transportation mitigation
fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact. However,
because the TIF improvements are not fully funding and the timing of
implementation is not known at this time, the impact to Intersection 2 is
considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.3: Intersection 8, De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road: The City’s TIF Program
identifies the widening of De Anza Boulevard to four through lanes between the
I-280 interchange and Homestead Road. This improvement would mitigate the
revised project’s to a less than significant level. Future development under the
revised project shall pay transportation mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to
the TIF program to mitigate this impact. However, because the TIF
improvements are not fully funding and the timing of implementation is not
known at this time, the impact to Intersection 8 is considered significant and
unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 50 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM TRN-7.4: Intersection 12, De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road: Implement MM TRN-1.2.
Implementation of MM TRN-1.2 would improve intersection operations to better
than cumulative (without) revised project conditions. However, because the TIF
improvements are not fully funded and the timing of implementation is not
known at this time, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.5: Intersection 23, Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue: Provide a dedicated southbound
right-turn lane from Wolfe Road onto westbound Fremont Avenue. This would
improve intersection delay to lower than cumulative conditions under the revised
project. Thus, the impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The City of Sunnyvale recently approved improvements to the “Triangle” area of
Wolfe Road/El Camino Real, Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue, and El Camino
Real/Fremont Avenue. The “Triangle” improvements include the provision of a
southbound right-turn lane from Wolfe Road to Fremont Avenue. Thus, future
development under the revised project would be required to contribute their fair-
share to the “Triangle” improvement project. However, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable because the intersection is within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another agency and the City cannot guarantee the
improvement would be constructed concurrent with the revised project.
(Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.6: Intersection 26, Wolfe Road/Homestead Road: Provide a dedicated southbound
right-turn lane from Wolfe Road onto westbound Homestead Road. To minimize
secondary impacts to pedestrian travel, the right-turn lanes would need to be
signal controlled, right-turns on red would be prohibited, and pedestrians should
have a leading pedestrian phase (i.e., a pedestrian walk indication is provided
several seconds before the right-turning vehicle traffic). This mitigation
measures would improve intersection operations but not to a less than significant
level.
The City’s TIF Program includes the provision of the dedicated southbound right-
turn lane. Future development under the revised project shall pay transportation
mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
However, because the TIF improvements are not fully funding and the timing of
implementation is not known at this time, the impact to Intersection 26 is
considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.7: Intersection 31, Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway: Implement MM TRN-2.3.
Implementation of this measure would mitigate the revised project’s cumulative
impact to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Cumulative
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 51 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM TRN-7.8: Intersection 42, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue: Implement MM TRN-
2.4. However, because the TIF improvements are not fully funding and the
timing of implementation is not known at this time, the impact is considered
significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.9: Intersections 43-45: Implement MM TRN-2.5. As discussed under Impact TRN-
2, implementation of this measure would reduce the revised project’s impact but
not to a less than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative
Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.10: Intersection 48, Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road: Implement MM TRN-
2.6. As discussed under MM TRN-2.6, the revised project shall pay a fair-share
contribution to the long-term improvement identified in the Santa Clara County’s
Expressway Plan 2040 Study for this intersection. The impact would remain
significant and unavoidable, however, because the intersection is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency and the City cannot guarantee
the improvement would be constructed concurrent with the revised project.
(Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.11: Intersection 51, Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive-I-280 Southbound Ramp:
Implement MM TRN-2.7. The impact is significant and unavoidable because the
feasibility of the improvement is yet to be determined, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable, and because the intersection is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency and the City cannot guarantee
the improvement would be constructed concurrent with the revised project.
(Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.12: Intersection 53, Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road: Implement MM TRN-
2.8. Implementation of this measure would improve intersection operations to an
acceptable LOS E or better. The impact would remain significant and
unavoidable, however, because the intersection is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another agency and the City cannot guarantee the improvement
would be constructed concurrent with the revised project. (Significant and
Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.13: Intersection 60, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Cabot Avenue: Contribute a fair-share
to a traffic signal timing study and implementation of the revised timings on
Stevens Creek Boulevard at Cabot Avenue. The revised project impact would
likely improve with modifications to the signal timings as traffic volumes change.
The impact would be significant and unavoidable, however, because the
effectiveness of the improvement would be determined through the signal timing
study and because the intersection is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another agency and the City cannot guarantee the implementation of the signal
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 52 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
timing study. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.14: Intersection 38, Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road: Restripe the southbound
approach (Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left-turn lane and shared
through/right-turn lane (including removal of on-street parking). This
improvement is included in the City’s TIF Program and would improve
intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. Future development under the
revised project shall pay transportation mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to
the TIF program to mitigate this impact. However, because the TIF
improvements are not fully funded and the timing of implementation is not
known at this time, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.15: Implement MM TRN-1.3. The VTP 2040 projects will enhance vehicular travel
choices for the project (and project alternatives), and make more efficient use of
the transportation roadway network, and the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study will
help improve transit options in the SR 85 corridor. These freeway operations
enhancements would not improve all impacted freeway segments to less than
significant levels, however. The TDM Program proposed under the revised
project and mitigation measure MM TRN-7.1 would reduce project-generated
vehicle trips, thereby reducing the revised project impact on freeway segments,
but it is not anticipated that the freeway impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level. For the above reasons, the revised project would remain
significant and unavoidable with the implementation of MM TRN-7.1 and -7.15.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.16: Intersection 3, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road: Provide an additional
second eastbound left-turn lane from Stevens Creek Boulevard onto northbound
Stelling Road. This mitigation measure would improve intersection operations to
an acceptable LOS D-.
The City’s TIF Program identifies the addition of a second eastbound left-turn
lane from Stevens Creek Boulevard onto northbound Stelling Road as a General
Plan Mitigation Measure. Future development under the revised project shall pay
transportation mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to
mitigate this impact. However, because the TIF improvements are not fully
funded and the timing of implementation is not known at this time, the impact is
considered significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 53 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Conditions of Approval:14
• To ensure neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking intrusion are minimized, future
development under the revised project shall fund neighborhood cut-through traffic
monitoring studies and provide fees in the amount of $500,000 to the City of Cupertino,
$150,000 to the City of Santa Clara, and $250,000 to the City of Sunnyvale to monitor and
implement traffic calming improvements and a residential parking permit program to
minimize neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking intrusion, if determined to be needed
by the respective City’s Public Works Department. The details of the neighborhood parking
and traffic intrusion monitoring program shall be determined when the conditions of approval
for project development are established. The monitoring program shall include the following
components: (1) identifying the monitoring areas (roadways where the monitoring would
occur), (2) setting baseline conditions (number of parked vehicles and traffic volumes on the
roadways), (3) determining thresholds for parking and traffic volume increases requiring
action, (4) establishing the monitoring schedule, and (5) creating reporting protocols. The
baseline conditions shall be established prior to but within one year of initial occupancy.
Monitoring shall then occur annually for five years.
• Consistent with VTA Guidelines, the project proponent shall coordinate with the City and
VTA to identify feasible transit priority measures near the affected facility and include
contributions to any applicable projects that improve transit speed and reliability.
• For left-turn storage deficiencies at Intersections #11 (De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard), #31 (Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway), #41 (Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway), #42
(Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue), contribute one payment of $100,000 to citywide
ITS improvements (such as adoptive signal control, advanced signal loop detectors or video
image detectors) to improve signal operations and queuing.
• Intersection #21 – Stevens Creek Boulevard / Perimeter Road: Reconfigure the median on
Stevens Creek Boulevard to reduce the westbound left-turn lane to Portal Avenue to
accommodate an additional 80 feet of capacity for the eastbound left turn from Stevens Creek
Boulevard to Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #31 – Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway: Reconfigure the median on Vallco
Parkway between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road to provide a continuous median with a
325-foot westbound left-turn lane at Wolfe Road and a 220-foot eastbound left-turn lane at
Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #32 – Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard: Extend the inner
eastbound left-turn lane from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Wolfe Road to the same length as
the outer left-turn lane to provide approximately 260 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #53 – Lawrence Expressway / Bollinger Road: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share to reduce the median width on the northbound approach of
Lawrence Expressway to provide for approximately 325 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #56 – Lawrence Expressway / Saratoga Avenue: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share of additional funding needed to reduce the median width on
the eastbound approach of Saratoga Avenue to maximize the left-turn queuing capacity.
Conditions of approval are required of the project by the City. The conditions of approval are not mitigation
measures because they do not reduce an environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 54 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Standard Permit Conditions:15
• Construction truck access to the site shall be prohibited during peak commute times (7:00
AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM) and conform the City’s Municipal Code
requirements.
• Future development under the revised project shall be subject to City development review to
ensure that minimum design standards are met, including adequate sight distance and
configurations (including adequate width and turn radii for continuous unimpeded circulation
through the site for passenger vehicles, emergency vehicles, and large trucks). The final
design of roadways, driveways, and access points shall be approved by the City.
2.3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-1: The revised project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Impact UTL-2: The revised project would require improvements to the existing sewer
system, however, the construction of the improvements would not cause
significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Impact UTL-3: The wastewater treatment provider (RWF) would have adequate capacity
to serve the revised project in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments. (Less than Significant Impact)
The revised project proposes the same land uses as the previous project and project alternatives
analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment,
it is not anticipated that the sewage generated from the proposed uses would exceed the wastewater
treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The estimated net sewage generation from the revised project, previous project, and project
alternatives is summarized in Table 2.1-9, below. As shown in Table 2.1-9, the revised project
would generate a similar (though less) amount of sewage than the Housing Rich Alternative analyzed
in the EIR Amendment. For this reason, it is anticipated that the revised project would have similar
impacts to sewage treatment and conveyance facilities as described for the Housing Rich Alternative
in the EIR Amendment. The revised project would implement the same mitigation measures MM
UTIL-2.1 through -2.3 (as revised in Section 6.0 of this Final EIR) as identified for the Housing Rich
Alternative to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Standard permit conditions are measures required by laws and regulations or required to comply with laws and
regulations. Standard permit conditions are not mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are measures that will
minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 55 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-8: Estimated Net Sewage Generation
Estimated Net Average Sewage Generation
(mgd)
Revised Project 0.59
Previous Project 0.40
General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative 0.53
Retail and Residential Alternative 0.58
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Alternative 0.26
Housing Rich Alternative 0.65
Note: The sewage generation identified is the net increase in sewage generation anticipated under the revised
project, previous project, and project alternatives compared to existing conditions. Source: City of Cupertino.
Sewer Capacity Calculation. August 13, 2018.
Mitigation Measures for Impact UTIL-2:
MM UTIL-2.1: Future development under the revised project shall replace the existing 12- and
15-inch sewer mains in Wolfe Road with new mains of an adequate size as
determined by CuSD, or shall install an 18- to 21-inch parallel pipe to the existing
12- and 15-inch mains to accommodate existing and project flows.
MM UTIL-2.2: Future development under the revised project shall replace the existing 27-inch
sewer main in Wolfe Road and Homestead Road with new mains of an adequate
size determined by the CuSD, or install a parallel pipe of an adequate size to the
existing 27-inch sewer main as determined by CuSD.
MM UTIL-2.3: No certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the City for structures or units that
would result in the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd
through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system being exceeded. The estimated
sewage generation by the revised project shall be calculated using the sewer
generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and from the City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007, unless alternative (i.e., lower)
sewer generation rates achieved by future development are substantiated by the
developer based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CuSD.
The average dry weather sewerage generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity
Assessment, May 2007, for the different uses within the project are as follows: High Density Residential = 121
gpd/unit; Commercial/Retail = 0.076 gpd/SF; Commercial/Restaurant = 1.04 gpd/SF; Office = 0.1 gpd/SF; Hotel =
100 gpd/Room; Civic Space (office) = 0.21 gpd/SF; Adult Education = 15 gpd/Person; and Civic Space
(Auditorium) = 0.11 gpd/SF.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 56 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Impact UTL-4: The revised project would not require the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. (Less than Significant
Impact)
The revised project, like the previous project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative, would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces on-site.
The decrease in impervious surfaces on-site would result in a corresponding decrease in surface
runoff from the site. For this reason, it is concluded the existing storm drain system would continue
to have capacity to serve runoff from the site under the revised project. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Impact UTL-5: The revised project would have sufficient water supply available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Using the same water generation rates used in the water supply assessments completed for the
previous project and project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, it is estimated that
the revised project would have a net water demand of 317 acre feet per year. A summary of the
revised project, previous project, and project alternative net water demand is provided in Table
2.1-10, below. As shown in Table 2.1-10, the revised project would have a similar (thought lower)
water demand than the Housing Rich Alternative. It is anticipated, therefore, that the revised project
would result in a similar less than significant impact on water supply as described for the Housing
Rich Alternative in the EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Table 2.1-9: Project and Project Alternative Net Water Demand Compared to Existing
Conditions
Net Water Demand (AFY)
Revised Project 317
Previous Project 249
General Plan Build-out with Maximum
Residential Alternative 297
Retail and Residential Alternative 266
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative 167
Housing Rich Alternative 354
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 57 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Impact UTL-6: The revised project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal and would
comply with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
(Less than Significant Impact)
Using the same solid waste generation rates used for the previous project and project alternatives in
the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, it is estimated that the revised project would have a net solid
waste generation of 33,370 cubic yards per year. A summary of the revised project, previous project,
and project alternative net solid waste generation is provided in Table 2.1-11. As shown in Table
2.1-11, the revised project would generate a similar (though lower) amount of solid waste than the
Housing Rich Alternative. It is anticipated, therefore, that the revised project would result in a
similar less than significant impact on solid waste disposal as described for the Housing Rich
Alternative in the EIR Amendment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Table 2.1-10: Project and Project Alternative Estimated Net Solid Waste Generation
Estimated Net Solid Waste Generation
(cubic yards per year)
Revised Project 13,686
Previous Project 9,443
General Plan Build-out with Maximum
Residential Alternative 11,908
Retail and Residential Alternative 9,374
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative 4,150
Housing Rich Alternative 14,805
Sources: 1) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment. May 2018. Attachment 2. 2) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Housing Rich Alternative Air
Quality Modeling. June 2018. Attachment 1. 3)Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Program Operational Alternative Air
Quality Modeling. August 2018.
Impact UTL-7: The revised project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to
utilities and service systems. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
As discussed above, the revised project would have similar (and sometimes lesser) impacts to utilities
than the Housing Rich Alternative analyzed in the EIR Amendment. For this reason, the revised
project’s contribution to cumulative utility impacts would be similar to that of the Housing Rich
Alternative described in the EIR Amendment. The revised project, therefore, would have a similar
less than significant cumulative impact as the Housing Rich Alternative described in the EIR
Amendment. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 58 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2.3.19 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Impact GRO-1: The revised project would not foster or stimulate significant economic or
population growth in the surrounding environment. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Table 2.1-12, below, summarizes the revised project, previous project, and project alternatives
estimated residential population and employee projections. The revised project would result in
similar less than significant growth-inducing impacts as described for the previous project and
project alternatives in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment because it includes jobs and housing
within the projections of the City’s General Plan or Plan Bay Area. The projected number of
employees from the revised project are anticipated in the citywide buildout of the General Plan. The
revised project (not including the 35 percent density bonus) would allow for 1,399 more residential
units than anticipated with the buildout of the City’s General Plan (see discussion in Section 2.3.14).
These additional units, however, are within the Plan Bay Area Projections for the City and County.
In addition, the impacts of the revised project on community facilities is discussed in Sections 2.3.15
and 2.3.16 and the revised project would construct infrastructure improvements (i.e., roadway
mitigation, recycled water extension, and/or sewer system upgrades) to mitigate its impacts. Utility
improvements would be sized to serve the development of the revised project and would not have
excess capacity. For this reason, the utility improvements would not remove obstacles to population
growth. In addition, like the previous project, the revised project would pay all applicable impact
fees and taxes, which would offset impacts to public facilities and services, including police and fire,
schools, and parks. As a result, growth associated with implementation of the revised project would
not have a significant impact on community service facilities, nor would it make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to such impacts, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause
significant environmental effects.
For the reasons stated above, the revised project would not result in significant indirect growth-
including impacts. (Less than Significant Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 59 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-11: Estimated Revised Project, Previous Project, and Project Alternative,
Citywide, and Countywide Residential Population and Employee Projections
Estimated Dwelling
Units
Estimated
Residential
Population
Estimated
Jobs/Employees
Plan Bay Area Projections Year 2040
Santa Clara County 818,400 2,423,500 1,229,520
Cupertino 24,040 71,200 33,110
General Plan 2040 Buildout
Cupertino General Plan
Buildout 2040 23,294 69,183 48,509
Project and Project Alternatives Buildout
Revised Project 2,923 5,846 8,178
Previous Project 800 1,600 9,594
General Plan Buildout
with Maximum
Residential Alternative
2,640 5,280 5,594
Retail and Residential
Alternative 4,000 8,000 1,400
Occupied/Re-Tenanted
Mall Alternative 0 0 2,550
Housing Rich Alternative 3,250 6,500 7,585
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.). The estimated population and
jobs/employees for the project and project alternatives are based on a project-specific study of the specific uses
proposed by the project completed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. The estimated residential and
jobs/employees for the project and project alternatives are based on the following project-specific rates: 2.0
residents per unit, 1 employee/250 square feet of office, 1 employee/400 square feet of retail/restaurant, 1
employee/1,000 square of entertainment retail, and 1 employee/2 hotel rooms (Sources: 1. Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. Population and Employment Projections. April 26, 2018. 2. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Housing Rich Alternative Project Buildout Population Projections. June 20, 2018. 3. Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. Revised Project, Project Buildout Population Projections. August 13, 2018.).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 60 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: The revised project would
not result in significant aesthetic impacts.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact AES-2: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
aesthetic impacts.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG-1: The revised project would
not convert farmland, conflict with zoning
for agricultural use, or conflict with a
Williamson Act contract.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact AG-2: The revised project would
not conflict with existing zoning of forest
land or timberland, or result in the loss or
conversion of forest land.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: The revised project would
not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 61 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact AQ-2: The construction of the
revised project would violate an air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Impact AQ-3: The operation of the revised
project would violate an air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Impact AQ-4: The revised project 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.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Impact AQ-5: The revised project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants (CO) for
which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 62 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact AQ-6: The revised project would
expose sensitive receptors to substantial
construction dust and diesel exhaust
emissions concentrations.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Impact AQ-7: The revised project would
expose sensitive receptors to substantial
TAC pollutant concentrations.
LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS NI LTS/M
Impact AQ-8: The revised project would
not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact AQ-9: Implementation of the
revised project would cumulatively
contribute to significant air quality impacts
in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The revised project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on
species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 63 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact BIO-2: The revised project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on
riparian habitat, wetland, or other sensitive
natural community.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact BIO-3: The revised project would
not interfere substantially with the
movement of fish or wildlife species or with
established wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact BIO-4: The revised project would
not conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact BIO-5: The revised project would
not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved habitat conservation plan.
NI NI NI NI NI NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 64 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact BIO-6: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
biological resources impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: The revised project would
not cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historic resource.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact CR-2: The revised project would
not significantly impact archaeological
resources, human remains, or tribal cultural
resources.
LTS LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS NI LTS
Impact CR-3: The revised project would
not destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological
feature.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact CR-4: The revised project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
cultural resources impact.
LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS NI LTS/M
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 65 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Energy
Impact EN-1: The revised project would
not result in a significant environmental
impact due to the wasteful, inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy during
construction or operation.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact EN-2: The revised project would
not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plans for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact EN-3: The revised project would
not have a considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative energy impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: The revised project would
not expose people or structures to
substantial adverse effects from rupture of a
known fault, strong seismic ground shaking,
seismic-related ground failure (including
liquefaction), and/or landslides.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 66 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact GEO-2: The revised project would
not result in substantial soil erosion or loss
of topsoil or create substantial risks to life
or property due to expansive soil.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact GEO-3: The revised project would
not be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading or subsidence.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact GEO-4: The revised project would
not be located on soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact GEO-5: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
geology and soil impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 67 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Greenhouse Gas
Impact GHG-1: The revised project would
not generate cumulatively considerable
GHG emissions that would result in a
significant cumulative impact to the
environment.
LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS SU NI LTS/M
Impact GHG-2: The revised project would
not conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions.
LTS LTS LTS LTS NI NI LTS
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The revised project would
not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through routine
transport, use, disposal, or foreseeable upset
of hazardous materials; or emit hazardous
emissions or hazardous materials within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS NI LTS/M
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 68 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact HAZ-2: The revised project is
located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5; however, the project (and project
alternatives) would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment as a
result.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact HAZ-3: The revised project is not
located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact HAZ-4: The revised project would
not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact HAZ-5: The revised project would
not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 69 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact HAZ-6: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
hazardous materials impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: The revised project would
not violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact HYD-2: The revised project would
not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact HYD-3: The revised project would
not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area which would
result in substantial erosion, siltation, or
flooding; violate water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements; or degrade
water quality.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 70 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact HYD-4: The revised project would
not place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area; impede or redirect flood flows;
expose people or structures to significant
risk involving flooding; or be inundated by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact HYD-5: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
hydrology and water quality impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Land Use
Impact LU-1: The revised project would
not physically divide an established
community.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact LU-2: The revised project would
not conflict with applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 71 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact LU-3: The revised project would
not conflict with applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact LU-4: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative land
use impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Mineral Resources
Impact MIN-1: The revised project would
not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource or locally-
important mineral resource recovery site.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact MIN-2: The revised project would
not contribute to a significant cumulative
mineral resources impact.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 72 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1: The revised project 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.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Impact NOI-2: The revised project would
not expose persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration.
LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS NI LTS/M
Impact NOI-3: The revised project would
result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M SU NI SU/M
Impact NOI-4: The revised project would
result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M LTS NI SU/M
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 73 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact NOI-5: The project site is not
located within an airport land use plan,
within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, or in the vicinity of a
private airstrip.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact NOI-6: The revised project would
result in a cumulatively considerable
permanent noise level increase at existing
residential land uses.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M SU NI SU/M
Population and Housing
Impact POP-1: The revised project would
not induce substantial population growth in
the area.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact POP-2: The revised project would
not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or residents, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Impact POP-3: The revised project would
not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
population and housing impact.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 74 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Public Services
Impact PS-1: The revised project 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.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact PS-2: The revised project would
not require new or physically altered police
protection facilities (the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts) in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact PS-3: The revised project would
not require new or physically altered school
facilities (the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts) in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives.
LTS LTS LTS LTS NI NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 75 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact PS-4: The revised project would
not require new or physically altered library
facilities (the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts) in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact PS-5: The revised project 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.
LTS LTS LTS LTS NI NI LTS
Impact PS-6: The revised project would
not result in significant cumulative impacts
to public services.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 76 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Recreation
Impact REC-1: The revised project would
not result in substantial physical
deterioration of recreational facilities.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact REC-2: The proposed open space
under the revised project would not result in
an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
LTS LTS LTS LTS NI NI LTS
Impact REC-3: The revised project would
not result in significant cumulative
recreation impacts.
LTS LTS LTS LTS NI NI LTS
Transportation
Impact TRN-1: Under existing with project
conditions, the revised project 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.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M SU NI SU/M
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 77 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact TRN-2: Under background with
project conditions, the revised project
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.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M SU NI SU/M
Impact TRN-3: Revised project
construction-related traffic would not
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance,
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact TRN-4: The revised project would
not result in a change in air traffic patterns
that results in substantial safety risks.
NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 78 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact TRN-5: The revised project would
not substantially increase hazards due to a
design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment); and would not
result in inadequate emergency access.
LTS LTS LTS LTS NI NI LTS
Impact TRN-6: The revised project would
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease
the performance of safety of such facilities.
SU/M LTS LTS LTS LTS NI SU/M
Impact TRN-7: The revised project would
result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
transportation impact.
SU/M SU/M SU/M SU/M SU NI SU/M
Utilities and Service System
Impact UTL-1: The revised project would
not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 79 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact UTL-2: The revised project would
require improvements to the existing sewer
system, however, the construction of the
improvements would not cause significant
environmental effects.
LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS/M LTS NI LTS/M
Impact UTL-3: The wastewater treatment
provider (RWF) would have adequate
capacity to serve the revised project demand
in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact UTL-4: The revised project would
not require the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact UTL-5: The revised project would
have sufficient water supply available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 80 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2.1-12: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Impacts
Impacts Revised
Project
Previous
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/
Re-Tenanted
Mall
Alternative
No Project
Alternative
Housing
Rich
Alternative
Notes: SU= significant and unavoidable impact; SU/M = significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated; LTS/M = less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated; LTS = less than significant impact; NI = no impact
Bold impact text indicates that the impact is reduced for the alternative compared to the revised project.
Impact UTL-6: The revised project would
be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal and would
comply with applicable statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Impact UTL-7: The revised project would
not result in significant cumulative impacts
to utilities and service systems.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Growth Inducing Impacts
Impact GRO-1: The revised project would
not foster or stimulate significant economic
or population growth in the surrounding
environment.
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NI LTS
Meets Project Objectives? Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially No Yes
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 81 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 3.0 SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR AND EIR AMENDMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The Draft EIR for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan project, dated May 2018, was circulated to
affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period from May 24, 2018
through July 9, 2018. The City undertook the following actions to inform the public of the
availability of the Draft EIR:
• A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published on the City’s website
(www.cupertino.org/vallco), Santa Clara County, and in the Cupertino Courier;
• The Draft EIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse on May 24, 2018, as well as sent to
various governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals (see Section 3.0
for a list of agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals that received the Draft EIR);
• Copies of the Draft EIR were made available on the City’s website
(www.cupertino.org/vallco), and several libraries including: Cupertino Library, Los Altos
Library, Saratoga Library, San Jose Public Library – Calabazas and King Branches,
Sunnyvale Library.
• The EIR Amendment for the project, dated July 2018, was circulated to affected public
agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period from July 6, 2018 through August
20, 2018. The City undertook the following actions to inform the public of the availability of
the EIR Amendment:
• An NOA for the EIR Amendment was published on the City’s website
(www.cupertino.org/vallco), Santa Clara County, and in the Cupertino Courier;
• Notification of the availability of the EIR Amendment was mailed to project-area residents
and other members of the public who had indicated interest in the project;
• The EIR Amendment was delivered to the State Clearinghouse on July 6, 2018, as well as
sent to various governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals (see
Section 3.0 for a list of agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals that received the
Draft EIR);
• Copies of the EIR Amendment were made available on the City’s website
(www.cupertino.org/vallco), and several libraries including: Cupertino Library, Los Altos
Library, Saratoga Library, San Jose Public Library – Calabazas and King branches,
Sunnyvale Library.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 82 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 4.0 DRAFT EIR AND EIR AMENDMENT RECIPIENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15086 requires that a local lead agency consult with and request
comments on the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment prepared for a project of this type from responsible
agencies (government agencies that must approve or permit some aspect of the project), trustee
agencies for resources affected by the project, adjacent cities and counties, and transportation
planning agencies.
The NOA for the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment was sent to owners and occupants adjacent to the
project site and to adjacent jurisdictions. The following agencies received a copy of the Draft EIR
from the City or via the State Clearinghouse:
• California Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3
• California Department of Housing and Community Development
• California Department of Parks and Recreation
• California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery
• California Department of Transportation, District 4
• California Department of Water Resources
• California Highway Patrol
• California Native American Heritage Commission
• California Office of Emergency Services
• California Office of Historic Preservation
• California Public Utilities Commission
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2
• California Resources Agency
• Valley Transportation Authority
• ABAG CEQA Clearinghouse
• City of San Jose
• City of Sunnyvale
• City of Santa Clara
• City of Saratoga
• City of Los Altos
• County of Santa Clara
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 83 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 5.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND EIR
AMENDMENT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this document includes written responses to
comments received by the City of Cupertino on the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. This section
also summarizes and addresses verbal comments related to the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment
received at the public meetings held on July 18, 2018 and August 7, 2018, as well as other verbal
comments provided during City Council and Planning Commission meetings pertaining to the Draft
EIR, EIR Amendment, and/or proposed Specific Plan.
Comments are organized under headings that refer to the source of the letter and its date. The
comments from each of the letters and/or emails that raise environmental issues are presented
followed by a response to that comment. Copies of the letters and emails received by the City of
Cupertino are included in their entirety in Appendix C of this document. Comments received are
listed below.
The comments and responses included in this section of the Final EIR pertain to the previous
project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer
to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description of the revised project and a discussion of its
impacts on the environment.
Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response
Master Responses ..................................................................................................... 87
Written Responses .................................................................................................... 91
I. Public Agencies ........................................................................................................ 91
A. California Department of Transportation (dated July 9, 2018) ........................................ 91
B. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (dated July 9, 2018) ................................... 100
C. City of Santa Clara (dated July 16, 2018) ...................................................................... 105
D. Santa Clara County (dated July 16, 2018) ...................................................................... 116
E. City of Sunnyvale (dated July 17, 2018) ........................................................................ 119
F. California Department of Transportation (dated August 20, 2018) ............................... 123
G. City of San José-Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (dated
August 20, 2018) ............................................................................................................ 127
H. City of San José-Department of Transportation (dated August 20, 2018) ..................... 129
II. Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals ............................................................ 133
A. Randy Shingai (dated June 5, 2018, 12:03PM) .............................................................. 133
B. Kitty Moore (dated May 25, 2018, 2:50PM) .................................................................. 140
C. Kitty Moore (dated May 25, 2018, 5:32PM) .................................................................. 142
D. Audubon Society (dated June 1, 2018) ........................................................................... 145
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 84 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
E. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 9:35AM) ................................................................... 147
F. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 12:19PM) .................................................................. 256
G. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 5:02PM) .................................................................... 334
H. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 5:33PM) .................................................................... 412
I. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 5:43PM) .................................................................... 441
J. Kitty Moore (dated June 7, 2018, 2:33PM) .................................................................... 442
K. Urs Mader (dated June 7, 2018, 7:12PM) ...................................................................... 459
L. Kitty Moore (dated June 14, 2018, 10:57AM) ............................................................... 461
M. Liang Chao (dated June 19, 2018, 8:12AM) .................................................................. 471
N. Randy Shingai (dated June 19, 2018, 9:49AM) ............................................................. 472
O. Kitty Moore (dated June 19, 2018, 11:12AM) ............................................................... 473
P. Kitty Moore (dated June 19, 2018, 11:18AM) ............................................................... 550
Q. Kitty Moore (dated June 21, 2018, 5:27PM) .................................................................. 551
R. Kitty Moore (dated June 22, 2018, 1:45PM) .................................................................. 624
S. Kitty Moore (dated June 25, 2018, 8:01PM) .................................................................. 640
T. Kitty Moore (dated July 5, 2018, 10:23PM) .................................................................. 645
U. Jon Willey (dated July 6, 2018, 4:30PM) ....................................................................... 651
V. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:02AM) ............................................................ 653
W. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:04AM) ............................................................ 655
X. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:06AM) ............................................................ 656
Y. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:08AM) ............................................................ 657
Z. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 1:59PM) ..................................................................... 658
AA. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 2:19PM) ..................................................................... 658
BB. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 2:28PM) ..................................................................... 661
CC. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:03PM) ..................................................................... 662
DD. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:20PM) ..................................................................... 665
EE. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:37PM) ..................................................................... 667
FF. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:48PM) ..................................................................... 669
GG. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:05PM) ..................................................................... 671
HH. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:06PM-fire) ............................................................... 679
II. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:06PM-police) .......................................................... 681
JJ. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:32PM) ..................................................................... 683
KK. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:41PM) ..................................................................... 684
LL. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 5:26PM) ..................................................................... 685
MM. Jon Willey (dated July 11, 2018, 8:56AM) .................................................................... 687
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 85 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
NN. Janet Laurain (dated July 11, 2018, 3:25PM) ................................................................ 688
OO. Lozeau Drury (dated July 12, 2018) ............................................................................... 689
PP. Jon Willey (dated July 18, 2018, 1:25PM) ..................................................................... 691
QQ. Kitty Moore (dated August 17, 2018, 9:27 PM) ............................................................ 694
RR. Kitty Moore (dated August 20, 2018, 7:40AM) ............................................................. 695
SS. Kitty Moore (dated August 20, 2018, 12:11PM) ........................................................... 697
TT. Venkat Ranganathan (dated August 20, 2018, 4:02PM) ................................................ 699
UU. SV@Home (dated August 20, 2018, 4:14PM) ............................................................... 701
VV. Daniel Chow (dated August 21, 2018, 3:46AM) ........................................................... 702
WW. Kitty Moore (dated August 23, 2018, 2:42AM) ............................................................. 704
Verbal Comments Received ................................................................................... 708
A. Jennifer Griffin (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .............................................................. 708
B. Deborah Jamison (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ........................................................... 708
C. Ed Hirshfield (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .................................................................. 709
D. Phyllis Dickstein (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ........................................................... 709
E. Michael Newman (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ........................................................... 710
F. Janet Van Zoeren (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .......................................................... 710
G. Jan Stokley (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ..................................................................... 711
H. Geoff Paulsen (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................ 711
I. Jason Uhlenkott (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................. 712
J. John Stubblebine (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................ 712
K. Randy Shingai (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................ 713
L. Liang Chao (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .................................................................... 713
M. Lisa Warren (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................... 714
N. Kitty Moore (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................... 714
O. Nathan Ho (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ...................................................................... 715
P. Pilar Lorenzana (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................. 715
Q. Tracey Edwards (June 4, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................. 716
R. Max Kapcynski (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .............................................................. 716
S. Reed Moulds (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .................................................................. 716
T. Jennifer Griffin (June 4, 2018 public meeting) .............................................................. 717
U. Ignatius Ding (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ................. 717
V. Liang Chao (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ..................... 718
W. Alan Takahashi (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) .............. 718
X. Lisa Warren (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ................... 719
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 86 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Y. Randy Shingai (June 19, 2018 public meeting) .............................................................. 719
Z. Rick Haffner (June 19, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................ 720
AA. Liang Chao (June 19, 2018 public meeting) .................................................................. 721
BB. Connie Cunningham (June 19, 2018 public meeting) .................................................... 722
CC. David Fung (June 19, 2018 public meeting) .................................................................. 723
DD. Kitty Moore (June 19, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................. 723
EE. Eileen McLaughlin (July 19, 2018 public meeting) ....................................................... 801
FF. Ed Hirshfield (June 19, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................ 801
GG. Lisa Warren (June 19, 2018 public meeting) ................................................................. 802
HH. Janet Van Zoeren (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ......... 802
II. Randy Shingai (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) .............. 803
JJ. Peggy Griffin (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ............... 803
KK. Jennifer Griffin (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ............ 804
LL. Danessa Techmanski (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ... 804
MM. Res Dent (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ....................... 805
NN. Jon Willey (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) .................... 805
OO. Liang Chao (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ................... 806
PP. Kitty Moore (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ................. 806
QQ. Hannah Follweiler (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications) ....... 807
RR. Lisa Warren (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting) ....................................................... 807
SS. Kitty Moore (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting) ...................................................... 808
TT. Randy Shingai (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting) ................................................... 808
UU. Jennifer Griffin (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting) ................................................... 809
VV. Ignatius Ding (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting) ...................................................... 809
WW. Jennifer Griffin (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting) ................................................... 810
XX. Connie Cunningham (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting) ........................................... 810
YY. Kitty Moore (July 31, 2018 City Council meeting) ....................................................... 811
ZZ. Liang Chao (July 31, 2018 City Council meeting) ......................................................... 811
AAA. Kitty Moore (August 7, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................... 812
BBB. Steven Scharf (August 7, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................. 818
CCC. Lisa Warren (August 7, 2018 public meeting) ............................................................... 819
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 87 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MASTER RESPONSES
Many of the comments received raised similar concerns and questions regarding the following topics:
• Relationship between the proposed Specific Plan, a future development project implementing
the Specific Plan, and the Vallco Town Center Project Application Pursuant to Senate Bill
35,
• Relationship between the EIR and Specific Plan processes,
• Adequacy of the Notice of Preparation,
• Evaluation of Alternatives, and
• Scope of the Draft EIR.
Since many of the comments raised the same concerns and questions, a number of master responses
have been prepared. The purpose of the master responses is to provide comprehensive answers in
one location and to avoid redundancy throughout the individual responses. Cross references to
master responses are made, when appropriate, in individual responses.
Master Response 1: The relationship between the proposed Specific Plan, a future
development project implementing the Specific Plan, and the Vallco Town Center Project
Application Pursuant to Senate Bill 35
Comments were received pertaining to the relationship between the proposed Specific Plan, a future
development project implementing the Specific Plan, and the Vallco Town Center Project application
pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 35 (“SB 35 project”). The Specific Plan, future development projects
implementing the Specific Plan, and the SB 35 project are not one in the same.
The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan
The Draft EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the previously proposed Vallco Special Area
Specific Plan. As stated on page 10 of the Draft EIR: “The City is currently undertaking a
community-based planning process to develop a Specific Plan for the Vallco Special Area. The
previous project, as well as the revised project, is the adoption of the community-developed Vallco
Special Area Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The EIR
evaluates the development parameters of the previously proposed Specific Plan to disclose the
significant environmental effects of its implementation.” Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR
for a description of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment.
The Specific Plan is a City-initiated project that is identified in the General Plan. The Specific Plan
contains the development standards (or parameters) that will apply to future development on the
project site. The maximum development parameters evaluated in the previous Specific Plan are
described in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a
description of the revised project.
Development Projects Implementing the Specific Plan
Comments were received regarding specific information regarding the details of building design,
location of specific uses that would be permitted on the site, and heights of individual buildings
within the allowable height limits, and other development details, which are unknown at this time. If
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 88 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
the Specific Plan is approved, future development would be proposed within the maximum
development parameters that were studied in the Draft EIR and adopted as part of the Specific Plan.
A development project complying with these parameters is proposed by the City. For this reason,
details about future development, beyond the development standards and parameters studied in the
EIR for the Specific Plan, are unknown.
When a future development application is submitted subsequent to the approval of the Specific Plan,
details regarding the applicant’s proposed building architecture, location of uses, building heights,
and other aspects of the project design would be provided by the applicant and the City would assess
compliance with the standards adopted in the Specific Plan through its development review process.
Vallco Town Center SB 35 Project
The Vallco Town Center SB 35 project was initiated by Sand Hill Property Company (Sand Hill) on
March 27, 2018, Sand Hill). On that date, Sand Hill submitted an application to the City titled
“Vallco Town Center Project Pursuant to Senate Bill 35 (SB 35).” That application is separate from
the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, which is analyzed in the EIR. SB 35 applications are
considered ministerial projects and therefore, exempt from review under CEQA. On June 22, 2018,
the City sent a letter informing Sand Hill that the application met the qualifying requirements under
SB 35, and requested additional information to assist the City in its continued review of the
application. For more information, see the project page on the City’s website at
www.cupertino.org/vallcosb35.
Master Response 2: Relationship between the EIR and Specific Plan processes
Comments were received regarding the relationship between the EIR and the Specific Plan processes,
including comments on the difference between the development analyzed in the Draft EIR and the
development discussed in the Specific Plan charrettes.
As discussed on page 10 of the Draft EIR, concurrent with the environmental review process the City
undertook a community-based planning process to develop the Vallco Specific Plan. Although the
EIR and specific plan processes were occurring in parallel, and the detailed aspects of the Specific
Plan (including design guidelines) were still being planned when the Draft EIR was being prepared,
consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR evaluated only the aspects of the previous Specific Plan that
could result in significant adverse effects on the physical environment (environmental impacts).
Accordingly, the EIR analyzed the proposed development parameters (e.g., square footages of land
uses, maximum amounts of development, maximum building heights, conceptual street layouts,
amounts of common open space and landscaping, etc.) discussed in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR.
Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description of the revised project.
The EIR provides environmental review for a previous Specific Plan that is consistent with the
development assumptions listed in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR. The development of the revised
Specific Plan since the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment were issued for public review and comment
has not identified Specific Plan elements that would result in a new or substantially more severe
significant environmental impact than disclosed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer
to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts
on the environment.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 89 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Master Response 3: Adequacy of the Notice of Preparation
Comments were received requesting that the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project be revised
and recirculated to identify the proposed 30-acre green roof, civic spaces, and project alternatives.
To begin the environmental review process, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, which
started the 30-day “scoping” comment period during which the City solicited guidance from the
public and other public agencies on the scope and content of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections
15082 and 15375). The purpose of the NOP is to commence the EIR scoping process, and is
intended to elicit comments about the scope of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15375).
Therefore, it is appropriate to adjust the project description in the Draft EIR, as needed, based on the
scoping comments received in response to the NOP and during public outreach. These comments
were used by the City to help determine the range of proposed actions and significant effects that will
be studied in the EIR.
During the public outreach and planning process for the Specific Plan (which occurred concurrent
with the preparation of the Draft EIR), as explained in Master Response 2, and subsequent to the
publication of the NOP, interest in including a green roof and civic space as part of the project was
expressed by community members, local schools, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and Santa
Clara County Fire Department. For this reason, a 30-acre green roof and 65,000 square feet of civic
space were included as part of the previous project and analyzed in the Draft EIR.
The purpose of the NOP and early public consultation (i.e., scoping), prior to completion of the Draft
EIR, is to give the City of Cupertino early notice of the issues and concerns other agencies and public
might have so that they are addressed in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15082(a)(1), at a minimum, the information in the NOP shall include:
• Description of the project,
• Location of the project, and
• Probable environmental effects of the project.
CEQA does not require that the project alternatives be identified in the NOP (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15082(a)(1)(A)-(C)).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15083, “scoping has been helpful to agencies in identifying
the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth
in an EIR….”
The NOP for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan was completed in accordance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. The addition of the 30-acre green roof and 65,000 square feet of civic space
to the project description, following completion of the scoping process, did not deprive public
agencies and the public from commenting on the scope and content of the project description. These
previous project elements have been adequately described and evaluated in the Draft EIR. The
revised project is described and evaluated in Section 2.0 of this Final EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 90 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The 30-day NOP public comment period was not the only opportunity for agencies or the public to
provide input on the EIR. In addition to the NOP 30-day public comment period, agencies and the
public have had, and will have, the following opportunities to submit comments:
• The 45-day comment period on Draft EIR (May 24, 2018 through July 9, 2018),
• Public Meeting to take comments on the Draft EIR (June 19, 2018),
• The 45-day comment period on Recirculated Amendment to the EIR (July 6, 2018 through
August 20, 2018),
• Public Meeting to take comments on the EIR Amendment (August 7, 2018),
• Environmental Review Committee meeting (anticipated in late August/early September),
• Planning Commission Hearings (anticipated in September), and
• City Council Hearings (anticipated in mid-September/early October).
Master Response 4: Evaluation of Alternatives
Comments were received stating that alternatives, which require amendments to the City’s General
Plan, should not be analyzed and do not lessen the impacts of the project. CEQA does not require
that alternatives to the project evaluated in an EIR must be consistent with the general plan. While
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that general plan consistency “may be taken into
account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives,” an alternative’s inconsistency does not make
it automatically infeasible. On the contrary, the fact that an alternative to the proposed project
requires a general plan amendment does not necessarily mean that the alternative must be
disregarded. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 573 (“the
mere fact that an alternative may require a legislative enactment does not necessarily justify its
exclusion from the EIR”).
Table 7.2-1 starting on page 414 of the Draft EIR and Table 8.1-1 starting on page 274 of the EIR
Amendment provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the previous project and project
alternatives. As shown in the tables, some project impacts are lessened under a project alternative.
The revised project is described and analyzed in Section 2.0 of this Final EIR.
Master Response 5: Scope of the Draft EIR
Comments were received comparing the analysis in the Draft EIR to previous analyses completed for
the project site including the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning Draft EIR (2014) (General Plan EIR), a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2006), an
Election Code 9212 Report completed for Measure D on the project site (2016), and an
Environmental Site Assessment completed for Measure D (2016). The purpose and scope of the
Draft EIR was to evaluate the environmental impacts of the previous Specific Plan and project
alternatives. The revised project is described and evaluated in Section 2.0 of this Final EIR. The
purpose of the EIR is not to verify, validate, or compare previous analyses completed for the project
site. In addition, the 2016 Election Code 9212 Report and Environmental Site Assessment
completed for Measure D evaluated a similar, but different project than what is currently proposed.
For these reasons, detailed responses to comments requesting verification or validation of previous
analyses of the project site and/or for any project other than the previous and revised Vallco Special
Area Specific Plan are not provided in this EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 91 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
WRITTEN RESPONSES
I. PUBLIC AGENCIES
A. California Department of Transportation (dated July 9, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment A.1: 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.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 92 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response A.1: The above comment describes the project, as described in Section 2.4
of the Draft EIR. Refer to the text revision on page 33 of the Draft EIR in Section 6.0
of this Final EIR for clarification on the description of the proposed Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program.
Comment A.2: 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 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.
Response A.2: The City of Cupertino will prepare and submit a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), Conditions of Approval (COA), and
associated staff reports to Caltrans as requested. The MMRP and COA will list the
transit and active transportation improvements associated with this project including
those included as part of the project description and those to be constructed as
mitigation measures. Following approval of the Specific Plan, applicants for
development implementing the Specific Plan will be required to pay the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The City’s TIF Program includes bicycle improvements
throughout the City totaling about $87.2 million, including the I-280 Channel Trail
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 93 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Junipero Serra Trail). The City has the discretion to prioritize implementation of
TIF projects as funding become available, therefore, it cannot be determined at this
time whether they would include the I-280 Channel Trail (Junipero Serra Trail) or
other low stress bicycle facilities along Wolfe Road near the I-280/Wolfe Road
interchange.
Comment A.3: 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.
Response A.3: The City agrees that, although this project is currently included in
VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 plan as a financially constrained
project, for the reasons stated in the discussion of Mitigation Measure TRN-1.3 on
pages 313-314 of the Draft EIR, the project and project alternatives’ impact on
freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable.
Comment A.4: 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.
Response A.4: The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan includes TDM requirements.
As clarified in the text revision to page 310 of the Draft EIR in Section 6.0 of this
Final EIR, office uses must achieve a 34 percent non-single-occupant vehicle (non-
SOV) mode share, which would be enforced by trip cap monitoring and penalties for
non-compliance. Parking maximums (reduced vehicle parking) is one of the
suggested TDM measures identified in the Specific Plan. The City is happy to meet
with Caltrans to discuss mitigation funding at the time future development
implementing the Specific Plan is proposed.
Comment A.5: 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 for 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.
Response A.5: The City of Cupertino was not aware of any pending improvement to
Intersection #2 as of the time approved and funded roadway improvements to be
included as part of the background (no project) scenario were confirmed by the City
of Cupertino (at the onset of the project Notice of Preparation (NOP) process in
February 2018). For this reason, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR-85 Ramp (east)
intersection was evaluated with the current intersection configuration in all analysis
scenarios. The intersection is estimated to operate at acceptable service levels under
existing and background conditions. Under cumulative conditions, the intersection is
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 94 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
projected to have an impact for all project alternatives. As discussed on page 362 of
the Draft EIR and detailed in Appendix H of the Draft EIR, the intersection is
projected to operate at acceptable service levels under cumulative conditions with the
proposed mitigation measure MM TRN-7.2 (adding an exclusive northbound left-turn
lane from SR 85 off-ramp onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard) identified in the
City Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). Thus, if the TIF mitigation measure is
constructed as mitigation for another project and was included in the background and
cumulative without project scenarios, the intersection would likely operate at
acceptable levels, no impacts would be identified, and no additional mitigation
measures would be required.
Comment A.6: 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.
Response A.6: As discussed on page 334 of the Draft EIR, the feasibility of
mitigation measure MM TRN-2.7 (adding a fourth northbound through lane on
Lawrence Expressway) is uncertain; therefore, the impact would be significant and
unavoidable. Lawrence Expressway is a County facility and improvements to this
intersection would be under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County in coordination
with Caltrans. Future studies, including preparing design documents and conducting
traffic operational analysis, would be required prior to moving forward with the
improvement. Future development will be required to pay a fair-share contribution to
the improvement, if it is identified to be feasible. As discussed on page 334 of the
Draft EIR and in Appendix H of the Draft EIR, the initial assessment shows that that
the mitigation measure would improve intersections operations, especially in the
morning peak hour, during the peak direction of traffic on northbound Lawrence
Expressway.
Comment A.7: 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.
Response A.7: The project could change traffic patterns in the area necessitating
traffic signal re-timing. Any traffic signal modifications to Caltrans-operated signals
will be coordinated with Caltrans.
Comment A.8: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 95 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response A.8: The table below shows the intersection storage capacity and vehicle
trips at the off-ramps for the four intersections listed in the comment. Overall, trips
for the previous project and project alternatives would be minimal at the De Anza
Boulevard/Northbound I-280 Ramps (#9) and I-280 Ramps (West)/Calvert Drive-
Stevens Creek Boulevard (#44) intersections.
Available Storage Length and Project Alternatives Project Trips
Intersection Movement Available Storage
Length1 (feet) Peak Hour Project Trips2
9 De Anza Boulevard /Northbound I-280 Ramps
(North) WBR 945 AM 1 - 3
PM 4 - 6
22 Wolfe Road/El Camino Real (SR 82) WBL 300 AM 4 - 34
PM 18 - 28
44 I-280 Ramps (West /Calvert Drive- Stevens Creek
Boulevard SBL 1,000 AM 0
PM 0
47 Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real (SR 82)
WBL 235 AM 3 - 31
PM 14 - 26
EBL 505 AM 2 - 21
PM 13 - 29
Notes:
1 For ramps, the storage length is measured from the limit line to the gore. For intersections, storage length is the length of the
longest turn lane.
2 Project trips are a range of the lowest to highest, with lowest trips coming from the Occupied/ Re-tenanted Mall and highest
trips from the Housing Rich Alternative or Proposed Project.
The previous project and/or project alternatives add more than 15 trips to the
westbound left at Wolfe Road/El Camino Real (SR 82), and westbound and
eastbound left at Lawrence Expressway / El Camino Real (SR 82). The lengths of the
queues for these movements are shown in the two tables below from the Draft EIR
for the existing and background scenarios, respectively.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 96 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Existing Plus Project Alternatives Left-turn Pocket Queuing Analysis
Intersection Movement Available
Storage
Length1
(feet)
Peak
Hour
Projected Queue Length (feet)2
Existing Proposed
Project
General Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Retail and
Residential
Occupied /
Re-
tenanted
Mall3
Housing
Rich
22
Wolfe Road /
El Camino
Real (SR 82)
WBL 300
AM 525 525 500 500 500 525
PM 500 500 500 500 500 500
47
Lawrence
Expressway /
El Camino
Real (SR 82)
WBL 235 AM 275 300 275 250 250 275
PM 250 250 250 250 250 250
EBL 505 AM 200 200 200 200 175 200
PM 200 200 200 200 175 200
Notes:
1 For ramps, the storage length is measured from the limit line to the gore. For intersections, storage length is the length of the
longest turn lane.
2 Queue length is measured in feet for one lane.
3 Impact results for the Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall alternative is presented for informational purposes only. The mall is an
entitled land use and would not require any impact assessment or CEQA clearance to re-occupy.
Bold text indicates projected queue length exceeds available storage length.
Background Plus Project Alternatives Left-turn Pocket Queuing Analysis
Intersection Movement Available
Storage
Length1
(feet)
Peak
Hour
Projected Queue Length (feet)2
Background Proposed
Project
General
Plan
Buildout
with
Maximum
Residential
Retail and
Residential
Occupied /
Re-
tenanted
Mall3
Housing
Rich
22
Wolfe
Road / El
Camino
Real (SR
82)
WBL 300
AM 600 625 625 625 600 600
PM 650 700 675 675 700 675
47
Lawrence
Expressway
/ El Camino
Real (SR
82)
WBL 235 AM 275 300 300 300 275 275
PM 250 275 275 275 275 300
EBL 505 AM 325 350 350 350 350 325
PM 225 250 250 250 250 250
Notes:
1 For ramps, the storage length is measured from the limit line to the gore. For intersections, storage length is the length of the
longest turn lane.
2 Queue length is measured in feet for one lane.
3 Impact results for the Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall alternative is presented for informational purposes only. The mall is an
entitled land use and would not require any impact assessment or CEQA clearance to re-occupy.
Bold text indicates projected queue length exceeds available storage length.
Source: Fehr & Peers, July 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 97 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
As shown in the tables above, the Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real (#47)
intersection has adequate storage capacity on the eastbound left-turn to accommodate
the existing and anticipated queues with the project and project alternatives. The
westbound left-turn movement at Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real (#47)
intersection exceeds available storage capacity without the project or project
alternatives. Thus, the queueing at this location is an existing operational issue and
not the result of the project or project alternatives. The westbound left-turn
movement at the Wolfe Road/El Camino Real (SR 82) (#22) intersection exceeds
available storage capacity without the project or project alternatives. Thus, the
queueing at this location is also an existing operational issue and not the result of the
project or project alternatives.
Comment A.9: 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.
Response A.9: The number of left-turn lanes is dependent on the volume of left-
turning vehicles, in addition to the traffic volumes and number of lanes for the
conflicting movements, and overall intersection operations. The California Highway
Design Manual states that at “… double left-turn lanes should be considered if the
left-turn demand is 300 vehicles per hour or more.” This is provided as guidance
and, pursuant to the language in the California Highway Design Manual, does not
require the provision of dual left-turn lanes. In other words, while 300 vehicles per
hour is used to consider whether a second lane is needed, it is not a requirement that a
second lane be provided if this volume is exceeded.
Comment A.10: 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.
Response A.10: The project is a Specific Plan for the Vallco Special Area,
which is a planning area identified in the General Plan. Following approval of the
Specific Plan, when a future development application for a project implementing the
Specific Plan is submitted, details regarding drainage would be provided by the
applicant and the application would be subject to the City’s development review
process. The City will coordinate with Caltrans, as appropriate, regarding drainage of
future development on the project site.
Comment A.11: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 98 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• 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
Response A.11: If future development implementing the Specific Plan requires
an encroachment permit from Caltrans or landscape work in the state right-of-way,
the applicants for such future development will address the comments above as part
of applying for an encroachment permit from Caltrans.
Comment A.12: 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
Office of Permits, MS 5E
California Department of Transportation, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
See the following website for more information:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ep/index.html
Response A.12: If future development project implementing the Specific Plan
is proposed and includes work within state right-of-way, applicants for such future
development will coordinate with Caltrans to obtain an encroachment permit. Refer
to Section 5.2 Response I.A.11.
Comment A.13: Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Cupertino is responsible for all project mitigation, including any
needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling,
implementation responsibilities and Lead Agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all
proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, this project meets the criteria to be deemed of
statewide, regional, or areawide significance per CEQA Guidelines §15206. The DEIR should be
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 99 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
submitted to MTC, ABAG and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for review and
comment.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any
questions regarding this letter, please contact Jannette Ramirez at (510) 286-5535 or jannette.ramire
z@dot.ca.gov.
Response A.13: A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was sent to ABAG’s
Regional Clearinghouse and was also sent to the VTA.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 100 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
B. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (dated July 9, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment B.1: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the NOP
for 6000,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms,
and 800 dwelling units to replace an existing shopping center on a 70-acre site on both sides of
Wolfe Road. We have the following comments.
VTA Key Topics
VTA supports the City’s efforts to develop a specific plan for the Vallco Special Area which will
intensify land uses along the Steven Creek Boulevard transit corridor. VTA’s key topics on the
proposed project are below, followed by our detailed comments.
1. Supports the project’s Wolfe Road bike lane improvements.
2. Requests a meeting to discuss further details regarding the Transit Hub, Congestion,
Management Program (CMP) Impact and Mitigation Measures and Transit Vehicle
Delay.
3. Commends the City for performing a VMT analysis and offers some revised details and
guidance.
Response B.1: Responses to individual comments are provided below.
Comment B.2: Bicycle Accommodations
In VTA's 3/12/2018 comments on the Notice of Preparation, VTA recommended analyzing
opportunities to improve bicycle lanes along Wolfe Road. VTA is pleased to that the proposed
project will provide buffered bicycle lanes on Wolfe Road in the immediate project vicinity, and
install on-site bicycle lanes. Wolfe Road is designated as a "Cross-County Bikeway Corridor"
(CCBC) per the VTA Santa Clara County Bicycle Plan. VIA recommends that CCBCs are designed
to be high-quality, low stress and context-sensitive. The VTA Santa Clara County Bicycle Plan can
downloaded here: http://www.vta.org/pro jects-and-programs/planning/bike-plan.
Response B.2: At the time future development projects implementing the Specific
Plan are proposed, the City will coordinate with VTA in the design of the bicycle
lanes.
Comment B.3: VTA recommends requirements for high-capacity bicycle parking for all new
development within the Specific Plan. Bicycle parking facilities can include bicycle lockers or
secure indoor parking for all-day storage and bicycle racks for short-term parking. VTA’s Bicycle
Technical Guidelines provide parking guidance (Chapter 10), it can be downloaded from
http://www.vta.org/bikeprogram.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 101 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response B.3: At the time specific development projects implementing the Specific
Plan are proposed, the City will require short and long-term bicycle parking in
compliance with its bicycle parking requirements in the Municipal Code and will
consider VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines as part of the planning process.
Comment B.4: Transit Hub
VTA request further details as to the location and operations of the proposed Transit Hub. As with
previous proposals at this location, VTA requests that a new Transit Hub complement and improve
operations for VTA’s Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor routes, Route 23 (currently operating) and
the Rapid 523 (near-term implementation per the 2018-2019 Transit Operation Plan, Next Network).
Therefore, an optimal location for the Transit Hub would be on Stevens Creek Boulevard. VTA
recommends “bulb-out” or “floating-island” stops to maintain transit travel speeds and provide safe
passenger boarding. We recommends that space be provided to accommodate one 40-foot bus and
one 60-foot articulated bus. VTA requests a meeting with the City to discuss how VTA transit will
be accommodated at the new Transit Hub. We would also like to discuss improvements to the
existing Vallco bus stop on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Response B.4: The Draft EIR evaluates the development parameters of the previous
Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan includes an upgraded transit hub that
would have an information center, drop-off point, and bike sharing distribution point.
At the time specific development projects implementing the Specific Plan are
proposed, the City will consider the existing VTA infrastructure when determining
the final location of the transit hub. While the optimal location for the transit hub
from VTA’s perspective might be on Steven Creek Boulevard; there are other factors,
such as ease of shuttle access and location of office land uses, that would be
considered to determine the final transit hub location. As with all development
projects, the City will coordinate with the VTA regarding the improvements at the
existing Vallco bus stops.
Comment B.5: Transit Vehicle Delay
VTA notes that Table 3.17-19 reflects a one minute and 39 seconds delay to the future Rapid 523,
and one minute and 36 second delay to Route 23, which the DEIR regards as a “Less than
Significant” impact to transit. Both of these routes carry large passenger loads and will be part of
VTA's new ‘Frequent’ network. Degrading the speed and quality of this network will result is
reduced performance and increased transit travel times making transit a less attractive option for
travelers. These impacts could negate the proposed TDM measures designed to support transit and
shift solo vehicles trips for the project. While VTA is generally supportive of increased land use
intensification along transit corridors we believe that the effect of increased roadway traffic
congestion on existing and planned transit operations should be adequately addressed. VTA requests
more detail and coordination with the City regarding the proposed Condition of Approval that “the
project proponent shall coordinate with the City and VTA to identify feasible transit priority
measures near the affect facility and include contribution to applicant project that improve transit
speed a reliability.” (DEIR pg. 353).
Response B.5: The Draft EIR evaluates the development parameters of the previous
Specific Plan. At the time future development projects implementing the Specific
Plan are proposed, the City will coordinate with VTA to identify transit priority
measures.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 102 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Draft EIR mitigation measures TRN-2.5 and TRN-7.13, requiring signal timing
adjustments along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Cabot Avenue and Stern
Avenue, are proposed to help address significant intersection impacts identified along
the corridor. These signal timing adjustments would improve progression along the
Steven Creek Boulevard corridor where VTA operates Routes 23 and 323/523. Thus,
these mitigation measures would help to reduce the added travel time delay in the
corridor.
In addition, pursuant to Draft EIR mitigation measure TRN-7.1 (and as revised in
Section 5.0), the Specific Plan will require a TDM Program with monitoring and a
penalty system. Vehicle reductions associated with the required TDM Program were
not considered in the transportation analysis in the EIR; therefore, the associated
transit delays calculated for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor would be lower
than those presented in the analysis.
Comment B.6: Transportation Demand Management/Trip Reduction
VTA commends the City for including a commitment to a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program with vehicle trips reduction targets of 25-35% in office vehicle trips based on ITE
Land Use 710, and a penalty structure if the TDM goals are not met. VTA supports the additional
TDM tools discussed in the TIA, including a parking management program (cash- out/unbundled
parking) and VTA SmartPass transit subsidies for residents and employees.
Response B.6: Refinements to the proposed TDM program have been made and are
shown as text revisions to pages 33 and 310 of the Draft EIR in Section 5.0 of this
Final EIR. As updated, the TDM program would require proposed office uses to
achieve a a minimum of 34 percent non-single-occupant vehicle (non-SOV) mode
share, which would be enforced via trip cap monitoring and penalties for non-
compliance.
Comment B.7: CMP Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The DEIR/TIA identifies significant impacts to 14 mixed-flow segments in the AM peak hour, 18
mixed-flow segments in the PM peak hour, five HOV segments in the AM peak hour, and five HOV
segments in the PM peak hour. VTA supports the City for including a mitigation measure stating
that future development pay “a fair-share payment contribution to improvements
identified in VTA’s VTP 2040 for freeway segments on SR 85, I-280, and I-880 that the project,”
including Express Lanes on SR 85, US 101 and I-280, and ramp improvements on I-280 and I- 880
(DEIR pg. 313). Express Lanes in operation have been shown to provide improved travel speeds,
lower levels of congestion, higher traffic throughput carrying capacity and overall improved traffic
operations. VTA recommends adding the I-280 Wolfe Interchange Project to the recommended
project list.
Response B.7: With the City’s fair share contribution and Measure B funds
earmarked for the project, when they become available, the I-280 Wolfe Road
Interchange Project is already fully funded and development of the Vallco Special
Area Specific Plan would not be required to contribute to the interchange project.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 103 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment B.8: VTA looks forward to working with the City to identify contribution opportunities
as projects come forward in the Vallco Specific Plan area. VTA requests a meeting with City staff to
discuss these future improvements.
Response B.8: Cupertino staff will attend a meeting with VTA to discuss future
improvements in the Vallco area.
Comment B.9: VTA also notes the DEIR’s Mitigation Measures TRN 2.5 and 7.13, which include
signal timing adjustments along different intersections on Steven Creek Boulevard. VTA requests
coordinating these improvements with the City to review traffic operational changes, in order to
improve, and at least do no harm to transit speed and reliability, specifically for Route 23 and Rapid
523.
Response B.9: When future development projects implementing the Specific Plan are
proposed, the City will coordinate traffic signal timing changes for intersections
along Stevens Creek Boulevard with VTA to ensure that they maintain or improve
bus operations.
Comment B.10: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
VTA commends the City for performing an analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) effects of the
proposed project, in light of Senate Bill 743 and the upcoming transition from congestion- based
measures to VMT-based analysis in CEQA. VTA recognizes that this analysis was performed for
informational purposes only because the City has not yet adopted VMT thresholds for Transportation
analysis in CEQA. VTA also commends the City for including a discussion of how the results of the
VMT analysis of the proposed project compare to the results in the City’s General Plan Amendment,
Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR several years ago.
Response B.10: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Comment B.11: VTA offers the following specific comments on the VMT Analysis and discussion
of SB 743:
• The Year 2020 and Year 2040 regional average VMT per service population (referenced on
DEIR p. 324 and TIA p. 234) are based on the MTC I ABAG regional model, which is an
activity-based/tour-based model rather than a trip-based model as utilized by some other
jurisdictions.
Response B.11: Text has been added to the Draft EIR and TIA to clarify that
the MTC/ABAG regional model is an activity-based/tour-based model rather than a
trip- based model as used by other jurisdictions, including VTA. Refer to Section
5.0.
Comment B.12:
• There is an error in the statements in the DEIR and TIA about what VMT thresholds the
current draft guidance for SB 743 would translate to in the Bay Area. The DEIR/TIA states
that “This translates to thresholds of 15.5 (21.8 x 85%) and 17.3 (20.3 x 85%) for the years
2020 and 2040, respectively” while the first figure should actually be 18.5 (21.8 x 85%).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 104 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response B.12: The text of the Draft EIR and TIA have been revised in
response to the above comment. Refer to Section 5.0
Comment B.13:
• The section on of the TIA report on “Level of Service and Senate Bill (SB) 743” states that
“Pending expected adoption in mid-2018, the proposed new CEQA Guidelines are currently
scheduled to apply statewide on July 1, 2019” (TIA p. 19). Please note that in the California
Natural Resource Agency's latest rule-making document, the 15-Day Revisions (available at
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/), the state has clarified that the expected date of statewide
application of VMT is July 1, 2020.
Response B.13: The text of the TIA has been revised in response to the above
comment. Refer to Section 5.0.
Comment B.14: VTA notes that Proposed New Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (from the
California Natural Resources Agency’s latest rule-making documents) states that “A lead agency has
discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled
... A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those
estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to
estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and
explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.” For specific questions about
emerging VMT analysis practices in Santa Clara County, please contact Robert Swierk at
Robert.Swierk@vta.org
Response B.14: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 105 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
C. City of Santa Clara (dated July 16, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment C.1: Thank you for including the City of Santa Clara in the environmental review
process for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Project (“Project”). City staff has reviewed the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the development of a Specific Plan for the Vallco
Special Area that 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 within the Plan area. The following comments are provided following our review of
the EIR.
Background Information
In section 2.3 Background Information, page 10, it states that the Sand Hill Property Company filed
an application pursuant to SB 35 (Government Code section 65913-4) at the Project’s subject
location. Please clarify whether or not the Sand Hill Property Company application will be covered
under the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Project EIR, or if there will be separate environmental
clearance (CEQA).
Response C.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan (subject of the Draft EIR) and the Sand Hill Property SB 35 application.
Comment C.2: Sewer Wastewater Treatment/Sanitary Sewer System
The City of Cupertino's waste water service provider, Cupertino Sanitary District (CuSD) provides
services to the City of Cupertino, portions of City of Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and
surrounding unincorporated areas. Most of the Cupertino Sanitary District's waste water flows
through the City of Santa Clara's sanitary sewer system. The EIR recognizes that the City of Santa
Clara has an agreement with the CuSD, and per said agreement, the peak flow from CuSD is capped
at 13.8 MGD, and the projected flow with the proposed Vallco Special Area Specific Plan (Project)
would exceed the peak flow of 13.8 MGD. However; the EIR does not evaluate the sanitary sewer
conveyance capacity impacts of the buildout of the Project to the City of Santa Clara's sanitary sewer
system.
The EIR provides three mitigation measures (page 390, MM UTIL-2. 1, MM UTIL-2.2, and MM
UTIL-2.3), however; the impacts and mitigation measures are only for the CuSD's infrastructure.
The evaluation needs to continue through the City of Santa Clara sanitary sewer system which takes
the flow all the way to the treatment plant. Mitigation measure MM UTIL-2.3 does not address the
impacts to the City of Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The attached exhibit entitled, "Cupertino
Sanitary District Interceptor Sewer Exhibit”, shows the City of Santa Clara's major trunks that carry
CuSD waste water.
An evaluation of the sanitary sewer conveyance capacity impacts of this Project to the City of Santa
Clara’s sanitary sewer system is required and the results of the evaluation along with the mitigation
measures need to be included in the EIR. To evaluate impacts, a Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 106 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
run analyzing the impacts of the buildout of the Project is needed. The modeling and analysis must
be done by the City of Santa Clara. The CuSD staff must schedule a meeting with the City of Santa
Clara Water and Sewer Utilities and Public Works staff to discuss the Project details, including the
proposed flow data and diurnal curve from the CuSD and current sewage discharge capacity
agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Cupertino Sanitation District. The sewer model run
review process may take up to 4-6 weeks to complete the model run, evaluate impacts, and prepare
an evaluation report after the $8,844 fee is paid and the City of Santa Clara has been provided with
all the required information (see the attached exhibit entitled, “Sewer Model Run Request Form”) to
perform the sanitary sewer model run.
Response C.2: The text of mitigation measure UTIL-2.3 has been revised to clarify
the mitigation measures for sanitary sewer impacts downstream of the project, within
the City of Santa Clara. Refer to Section 5.0 (revisions to pages 389-390 of the Draft
EIR) and Section 6.0 (revisions to pages 255-256 of the Draft EIR Amendment) for
the text revisions.
Comment C.3: Transportation/Traffic
Please see the attachment entitled, “Transportation/Traffic Comments” for comments on section 3.17
Transportation/Traffic pages 273, 288, 289, 311, 326, and 330. In addition, please verify if the latest
CMP counts were used for the CMP intersections per the date of the NOP.
Response C.3: Responses to the individual comments in the attachment are provided
below, within the attachment. The City conducted new traffic counts in 2018 to have
consistent counts along the corridor and did not use the 2016 CMP counts that were
published in 2017 by VTA.
Comment C.4: Conclusion
Please revise the EIR and technical reports per the comments above. Should you have any questions
regarding this letter, please contact Reena Brilliot, Planning Manager, via email at
rbrilliot@SantaClaraCA.gov or phone at 408-615-2452.
Response C.4: The text of the Draft EIR and technical reports have been revised, as
necessary, in response to the City of Santa Clara’s comments.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 107 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ATTACHMENT 1 TO COMMENT LETTER
Comment C.5:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 108 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ATTACHMENT 2 TO COMMENT LETTER
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.)
Response C.5: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.C.2.
ATTACHMENT 3 TO COMMENT LETTER
Comment C.6:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 109 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 110 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 111 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 112 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response C.6: The above comment interposed on Draft EIR page 273 indicates
Intersections 46, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway ramps (west) and
Intersection 50, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway ramps (east) are
under the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Clara. The tables and text in the Draft EIR
and EIR Amendment have been revised accordingly. Refer to Section 5.0 and 6.0.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 113 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment C.7:
Response C.7: As discussed on page 311 of the Draft EIR (and shown in the above
comment), a dedicated right-turn lane, bike lane, and through lane on Stevens Creek
Boulevard would require a minimum width of 25 feet. The existing right-of-way is
18 feet in the eastbound direction. It could be feasible to adjust the striping to
increase the available right-of-way to 20 feet. While this would allow for a separate
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 114 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
right-turn lane; this improvement would preclude the addition of a bike lane and is
not recommended for this location.
Comment C.8:
Response C.8: The comment appears to request future development to fund
neighborhood cut-through traffic monitoring studies and provide fees to the City of
Santa Clara. Text has been added to the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment to provide
funds and fees in the amount of $150,000 to the City of Santa Clara to monitor and
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 115 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
implement traffic calming improvements. Refer to Section 5.0 (text revisions to page
326) and Section 6.0 (text revision to page 196).
Comment C.9:
Response C.9: The comment interposed on Draft EIR page 330 indicates
Intersections 48, Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road is under the jurisdiction of
the City of Santa Clara. Intersection #48 is under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara
County, as indicated in the Draft EIR and the above excerpt.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 116 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
D. Santa Clara County (dated July 16, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment D.1: 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.
Response D.1: The trip distribution and assignments were reviewed and the San
Tomas intersections at El Camino Real, Homestead Road, and Stevens Creek
Boulevard do not meet the 10 trip per lane threshold. The City estimates that there
would be about 30 to 45 trips that depart or approach the Lawrence Expressway
intersections at El Camino Real and Homestead Road (the study intersections closest
to the San Tomas Expressway intersections). These intersections on Lawrence
Expressway are about 1.5 miles from San Tomas Expressway and have numerous
access roads along the corridor. Thus, the number of trips that would reach San
Tomas Expressway would be less than 10 trips per lane (i.e., trips would divert to
parallel facilities, such as Pomeroy Road and Kiley Boulevard).
Comment D.2:
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.
Response D.2: The Transportation Impact Analysis included in Appendix H of the
Draft EIR was completed following VTA’s TIA Guidelines (October 2014) and
VTA’s Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Guidelines (June 2003). The TIA
Guidelines, which were developed to analyze the regional CMP transportation
system, have been adopted by local agencies within Santa Clara County for
evaluation of the local transportation system.
Based on the LOS Guidelines, county expressway intersections with HOV lanes are
evaluated with a volume adjustment to account for HOV traffic. The adjustment
factors are obtained from the VTA’s CMP network TRAFFIX file that is published
every other year as part of the CMP monitoring process. The most recent TRAFFIX
file available includes data from 2016, which was used in the TIA. The TRAFFIX
file contains data for the PM peak hour (and not the AM peak hour), since traffic is
generally more congested during the PM. Because AM peak hour data, including the
HOV lane volume adjustment factors, is not published, it is standard practice to apply
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 117 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
the PM peak volume adjustment factors. This approach was used in the Vallco
Specific Plan TIA and has been used in many other prior TIAs. In the City’s
experience, the County has not previously requested separate AM peak hour HOV
volume adjustment factors. Based on standard practice, and because the TIA uses the
best information available, the Vallco Specific Plan TIA adequately addresses
potential impacts on the Lawrence Expressway intersections during the AM peak
hour.
Comment D.3:
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.
Response D.3: As shown in Tables 53 and 54 of the TIA, the median width at
Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road can be reduced to provide an additional 325
feet of storage capacity. Future development implementing the adopted Specific Plan
will be required to pay a fair-share contribution to the circulation improvements
(including reducing the median width to provide an additional left-turn lane and
maximum queue storage at Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road) identified in
Tables 53 and 54 of the TIA. It is the City’s understanding that the cost for reducing
the median width to provide an additional left-turn lane at Lawrence
Expressway/Bollinger Road (which is already partially funded by previous
development) has increased and that the County is seeking additional funding to
construct the improvement. Future development implementing the Specific Plan will
be required to pay its fair-share contribution towards the remaining improvement
cost.
Comment D.4:
4. Signal timing should not be a mitigation measure for project impacts as indicated in Table ES-
3 on County facilities.
Response D.4: County intersections were evaluated to determine if feasible physical
mitigation measures could be implemented to address identified mitigation measures.
For intersections where no feasible physical mitigation measures could be identified,
the impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable. Signal timing
adjustments are not identified for the County intersections. Table ES-3 has been
updated for the Lawrence Expressway/Calvert-I-280 Southbound Ramp to reflect the
proposed improvements described in the TIA mitigation discussion.
Comment D.5:
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 118 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response D.5: As discussed in the Draft EIR and TIA mitigation sections, feasible
mitigation measures were evaluated to determine if they would mitigate the identified
impacts. In most cases, additional through capacity is needed on Lawrence
Expressway. The County Expressway Plan includes the widening of Lawrence
Expressway, for this reason, the County Expressway Plan is referenced as mitigation
for impacts requiring the widening of Lawrence Expressway.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 119 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
E. City of Sunnyvale (dated July 17, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment E.1: 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.
Response E.1: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project.
Following circulation of the Draft EIR, a fifth alternative to the previous project, the
Housing Rich Alternative, was identified in response to community and City interest
in having a greater number of housing units. The Housing Rich Alternative includes
3,250 dwelling units, 1.5 million square feet of office, 600,000 square feet of
commercial use, 339 hotel rooms, 65,000 square feet of civic space, and 30 acres of
green roof. An EIR Amendment to the Draft EIR that analyzes the Housing Rich
Alternative was issued for a 45-day public review and comment period from July 6,
2018 through August 20, 2018.
Comment E.2:
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 120 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.2: The proposed Specific Plan includes a TDM program, which as been
refined. The refinements are shown as text revisions to pages 33 and 310 of the Draft
EIR in Section 5.0 of this Final EIR. As updated, the TDM program would require
proposed office uses to achieve a a minimum of 34 percent non-single-occupant
vehicle (non-SOV) mode share, which would be enforced via trip cap monitoring and
penalties for non-compliance. The TDM program requires the City to establish a
Transportation Management Association (TMA).
Comment E.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 Westbound to Northbound
(global change).
Response E.3: VTA references I-280 in its Congestion Management Program as an
east-west facility; even though I-280 is generally considered a north-south facility.
To be consistent with VTA, which oversees freeway operations in Santa Clara
County, no changes have been made to the EIR and TIA.
Comment E.4:
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.
Response E.4: The TIA in Appendix H of the Draft EIR has been revised in response
to the above comment.
Comment E.5:
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 121 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.5: According to VTA guidelines, three lane freeway segments have a
lane capacity of 2,300 for freeways that have three or more lanes. Highway 85 has
three lanes, two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV-lane. Thus, consistent with VTA’s
guidelines and CMP monitoring report, a capacity of 4,600 was applied to the
analysis of Highway 85.
Comment E.6:
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 for the cumulative conditions? As
indicated in the DEIR, year 2028 is used to evaluate background traffic, and year 2040 is used
to evaluate cumulative traffic conditions.
Response E.6: The analysis reflects General Plan buildout (year 2040) conditions for
the City of Cupertino. For the City of Cupertino, this includes approved and pending
developments within and around the City. A growth factor was applied to the
volumes within the City of Sunnyvale to develop cumulative forecasts, in accordance
with the City of Sunnyvale’s practices. The City of Sunnyvale typically applies the
growth factor to the buildout year of projects and not the full General Plan buildout
year. Thus, in concurrence with City of Sunnyvale practices, a 10-year growth factor
was applied, in addition to adding in traffic volumes from approved and pending
developments in the area.
Comment E.7:
11. On page 218, Table 49, the transit route descriptions are incorrect for Bus Route 53, Express
Routes 101 and 182, and Rapid Bus Route 323/523.
12. On pages 219-220, Tables 50 and 51, the destination for Rapid Bus Route 323/523 is incorrect.
13. On page 221, last paragraph, change "exiting peak hour" to "existing peak hour".
Response E.7: The TIA in Appendix H of the Draft EIR has been revised in response
to the above comment.
Comment E.8:
14. Page 237, under the Conclusion section, the City of Sunnyvale would like to request to increase
the fees to monitor and implement traffic calming improvements and a residential parking
permit program (if needed) from $150,000 to $250,000. Also, the City of Sunnyvale would
like to clarify that the cost of data collection/data analysis/preparation of report would be on
top of the fee.
Response E.8: The City of Cupertino agrees to increasing the fee to monitor and
implement traffic calming improvements and a residential parking permit program to
$250,000. The text of the condition of approval has been revised to reflect the
increased amount (refer to Sections 5.0 and 6.0). The cost of the data collection/data
analysis/report preparation are included in the fee.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 122 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment E.9:
15. Page 237, under the Conclusion section, the City of Sunnyvale would like to request that
neighborhood traffic and parking monitoring studies were to be administrated by the City of
Cupertino, and that the City of Sunnyvale would have a chance to review and comment on the
baseline conditions report.
The City of Sunnyvale appreciates your consideration of the requested study scope elements
described above. Please contact Amber Blizinski, Principal Planner, at (408) 730-2723 or
ablizinski@sunnyvale.ca.gov if you have any questions or concerns about items discussed in this
letter.
Response E.9: The City of Cupertino will administer the neighborhood and parking
intrusion monitoring and provide the City of Sunnyvale with the opportunity to
review and comment on the baseline conditions report.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 123 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
F. California Department of Transportation (dated August 20, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment F.1: 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.
Response F.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Comment F.2: 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 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 I280/Wolfe Road interchange improvements to
provide low-stress access for bicyclists.
Response F.2: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 124 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment F.3: 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.
Response F.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.3.
Comment F.4: 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.
Response F.4: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.4.
Comment F.5: 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.
Response F.5: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.5
Comment F.6: 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.
Response F.6: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.6.
Comment F.7: 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.
Response F.7: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.7.
Comment F.8: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 125 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.8: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.8.
Comment F.9: 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.
Response F.9: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.9.
Comment F.10: 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.
Response F.10: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.10.
Comment F.11: 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
Response F.11: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.11.
Comment F.12:
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 126 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/.
Response F.12: Refer to Section 5.2 Response I.A.12.
Comment F.13: Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Cupertino is responsible for all project mitigation, including any
needed improvements to the State transportation network. The project’s fair share contribution,
financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and Lead Agency monitoring should be fully
discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, this project meets the criteria to be
deemed of statewide, regional, or areawide significance per California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines §15206. The EIR Amendment should be submitted to MTC, ABAG and the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority for review and comment.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any
questions regarding this letter, please contact Jannette Ramirez at (510) 286-5535 or jannette.ramire
z@dot.ca.gov.
Response F.13: A Notice of Availability of the EIR Amendment was sent to
ABAG’s Regional Clearinghouse and was also sent to the VTA.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 127 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
G. City of San José-Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (dated
August 20, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment G.1: 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 Altemative 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 José 2040 General Plan
strategy for Urban Villages to accommodate future growth while preserving existing single-family
neighborhoods and minimizing greenfield development.
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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 128 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 José Departments of Public Works and of Transportation will send comments on
Traffic and Circulation in a separate letter. Please contact the City of San José'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 José 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@sanjoséca.gov or (408) 535-7895.
Response G.1: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 129 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
H. City of San José-Department of Transportation (dated August 20, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment H.1: 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.
Response H.1: As discussed on page 266 of the Draft EIR: in response to SB 743, the
General Plan includes guidance to balance the needs of all transportation modes and
allows the use of measures such as VMT and multi-modal analysis methods when
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 130 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
thresholds are adopted by the state or at a local level. VMT for the Housing Rich
Alternative, therefore, is discussed for informational purposes only in the EIR
Amendment (pages 192-194). The General Plan also states that until such impact
thresholds are developed, the City will continue to optimize mobility for all modes of
transportation while striving to meet the LOS standards applicable to transportation
roadway operations at major intersections, as specified in General Plan Policy M-1.2.
While the General Plan strives to maintain these LOS standards, it also includes
several policies that support alternative modes of transportation, including policies
that limit street widening, limit the number and width of driveway openings, and
promote local/regional transit coordination.
Comment H.2: 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.
Response H.2: Future development under the Specific Plan will be required to
implement Mitigation Measure MM TRN-1.1 (EIR Amendment, page 178, as revised
in Section 6.0 of the Final EIR), which requires implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program to promote alternatives to single-occupancy
vehicle trips and reduce VMT. Also, as discussed in Section 5.2 Response I.A.2,
applicants for development implementing the Specific Plan will be required to pay
the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The City’s TIF Program includes bicycle
improvements throughout the City totaling about $87.2 million, including the I-280
Channel Trail (Junipero Serra Trail). The City has the discretion to prioritize
implementation of TIF projects, including bicycle improvement projects, as funding
become available.
Several measures including:
• Adding a second southbound left-turn lane on Wolfe Road and a third
through lane on both the eastbound and westbound approaches on Stevens
Creek Boulevard at Intersection 32, Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue/Stevens
Creek Boulevard – Draft EIR page 331; and
• Widening the eastbound and westbound approaches on Stevens Creek
Boulevard to provide for three through lanes at Intersection 11, De Anza
Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard – Draft EIR page 362
were identified to improve the project’s level of service impacts at intersections but
were determined to be infeasible by the City because the measures would conflict
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 131 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
with General Plan Policy M-3.4 (which strives to preserve and enhance citywide
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity by limiting street widening purely for
automobiles to improve traffic flow) and negatively affect bike lanes and/or
pedestrian travel.
Comment H.3: 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 VTA's High-Capacity Transit Study
and the Stevens Creek High Capacity Transit Line that is cunently in discussions.
In addition, 38 regional freeway segments were impacts by various project scenarios. As with most
freeway impacts, mitigation for the freeway impacts is payment towards VTA's Voluntary
Contributions Program. The improvements in the VTP 2040 include installation of express lanes and
existing freeway ramps improvements designed to improve traffic operations of the impacted
freeway segments. Alternatively, reducing freeway traffic and greenhouse gases through VMT
reductions would be environmentally superior to the proposed roadway expansions.
The VMT analysis included in the report does indicate the VMT per service population to be below
the General Plan Buildout with Residential Allocation. If the project analysis was focused on VMT
as the CEQA metric, the transportation improvements would be integrated into the land use plan
rather than along affected roadway corridors and freeway segments and would result in a more
complete, environmentally forward project.
Response H.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses I.H.1 and I.H.2 above.
Comment H.4: As the City of Cupertino implements this plan, reducing VMT is still possible. As
the plan is implemented over the next 10 years, it is important that development projects in our
region take every opportunity to reduce VMT.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Amendment to
the Draft EIR. We are anxious to see the outcome of this exciting land use plan. The City of San
Jose looks forward to continued collaboration, communication, and implementation of the project. If
you have questions, please contact Karen Mack at karen.mack@sanioseca.gov or (408) 535-6816, or
Ramses Madou at ramses.madou@san joseca.gov or (408) 975-3283.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 132 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response H.4: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 133 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
II. ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUALS
A. Randy Shingai (dated June 5, 2018, 12:03PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
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.
Response A.1: Refer to Master Response 3.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 134 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
original
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
Response A.2: Refer to Master Response 3.
ATTACHMENTS TO COMMENT LETTER
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 135 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 136 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 137 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 138 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 139 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response A.3: The above excerpts from other comment letters were attached to this
comment as reference to Comment II.A.1 above. Refer to Section 5.2 Response
II.A.1.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 140 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
B. Kitty Moore (dated May 25, 2018, 2:50PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
The Vallco DEIR came out today.
The economist shared these options this week (Charrette #2)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 141 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response B.1: The Draft EIR provides environmental review for a previous Specific
Plan that is consistent with the development assumptions listed in Section 2.0 of the
Draft EIR. Refer to Master Response 2. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR
for a description of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the
environment.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 142 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
C. Kitty Moore (dated May 25, 2018, 5:32PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
I do not believe we have a stable Vallco plan to comment on and possibly
alternatives to project are infeasible.
Response C.1: Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR provides an accurate, stable, and finite
description of the project analyzed in the Draft EIR. Also refer to Section 5.2
Response II.E.11.
The feasibility of alternatives, including alternatives considered but rejected for
further analysis, is discussed on pages 409-411 in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.2.1 of the
Draft EIR. The EIR Amendment evaluates another project alternative, the Housing
Rich Alternative. The City Council will ultimately decide the feasibility of project
alternatives based on substantial evidence in the record including the analysis in the
EIR and economic studies.
There are some inconsistencies showing up in the water study DEIR regarding what
the amount of park land is, which effects irrigation needed.
Response C.2: The project is described in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR and includes
the development of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of
office uses, 339 hotel rooms, 800 residential units, 65,000 square feet of civic uses,
and a 30-acre green roof. As stated on page 29 of the Draft EIR, “the 30-acre green
roof…and between 2.8 acres and 5.6 acres of the open space and landscaped areas
would be irrigated.” A total of 32.8-35.6 acres of the project site, therefore, are
anticipated to be irrigated.
The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the project included in Appendix I of the
Draft EIR assumed the same land uses and amount of development as the project and
36.06 acres of irrigated landscaping (0.46 acres more than the previous project’s 35.6
acres). The amount of irrigated landscaping assumed in the WSA is, therefore,
conservative. The results of the WSA show that there would be sufficient water
supply to serve the project and an additional 0.46 acres of landscaping.
https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/category/alternatives/
/ Excepts:
“Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 143 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s
(“Department”) approval of the Upper Trnckee River Restoration and Golf Comse Reconfiguration
Project (“Project”), finding that the failure 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 Truckee River. The parcel was later divided into two units: the Washoe Meadows State Park
(“State Park”) created to protect a wetland meadow and the Lake Valley State Recreation Area
(“Recreation Area”) created to allow the continuing operation of an existing golf course.
Since the 1990s, erosion of the river bed of the Upper Truckee 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 reconfiguration of the golf course – as the preferred alternative.
In August 2010, the Department circulated a draft EIR (“DEIR”) for the project.
Although the DEIR analyzed five very different alternative projects, including the four alternative
projects identified in the scoping notice, it did not identify a preferred alternative. The DEIR stated
that the lead agency would determine which alternative or combinations of features from multiple
alternatives was the preferred alternative in the final EIR (“FEIR”).
In September 2011, the Department issued the FEIR, identifying a version of the project as the
preferred alternative. After the Department approved the preferred alternative project in January
2012, the plaintiff sued. The trial court held in favor of the plaintiff.
On appeal, the court held that the DETR’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.
L.A. Conservancy v. City of W. Hollywood, 2017 Cal.App.LEXIS
1151
The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trail court’s decision upholding the adequacy of
the environmental 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 144 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 rejected the preservation alternative,
but required that portions of the historic building facade 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 respond to
comments concerning preservation of the historic 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 court affirmed.
First, the court held that the EIR’s analysis of the conse1vation alternative was detailed enough to
permit informed decision making and public participation. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that
the City was required to prepare a "conceptual design for the alternative. The court noted that no
legal authority required a conceptual design to be prepared for an alternative included in an EIR.
Second, the court found that comments on the draft EIR cited by the plaintiff did not raise new issues
or disclose any analytical gap in the EIR’s analysis. The court noted that to respond to comments
that merely expressed general Project objections and support for the preservation 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 court stated that a court must uphold the lead agency’s findings concluding an alternative
is infeasible if supported by substantial evidence. In undertaking this inquiry, "[a]n agency's finding
of infeasibility . .. is 'entitled to great deference' and 'presumed correct."' While the court noted that
the plaintiff may have demonstrated that the City could have concluded the preservation alternative
was not infeasible, other evidence in the record supported the City's determination that the alternative
was impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint. Thus, substantial evidence supported the
City’s infeasibility findings.”
Response C.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.C.1.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 145 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
D. Audubon Society (dated June 1, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response D.1: Responses to the specific comments in the letter attachment are
provided below.
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
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 collision hazards can be
greatly reduced.
Please support the integration of bird-safe design policies and guidelines 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.
Response D.2: As described in the Draft EIR (pages 32 and 90) the Specific Plan
includes design policies that require incorporation of bird safe building design
measures such as the following:
- Avoiding large, uninterrupted expanses of glass near open areas,
- Prohibiting glass skyways and freestanding glass walls,
- Avoiding transparent glass walls coming together at building corners,
- Prohibiting up-lighting or spotlights,
- Shielding outdoor lights,
- Utilizing fritted, glazed, and/or low reflective glass.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 146 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Through incorporation of these measures, development under the Specific Plan would
not pose a hazard for migrating birds.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 147 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
E. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 9:35AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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
Response E.1: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response E.2: Refer to Master Response 3.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 148 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.3: Refer to Master Response 2. The Draft EIR and EIR Amendment
describe the need for General Plan amendments for the previous project and project
alternatives (i.e., the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative,
Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative) (Draft EIR page 16
and EIR Amendment page 14) at the time of adoption of the Specific Plan so that
both documents are consistent as of the date of adoption. A discussion of the
project’s consistency with applicable General Plan policies is provided in Table 3.11-
1 in the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 3.11-1, the project is consistent with General
Plan policies.
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
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
Response E.4: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response E.5: Refer to Master Responses 2 and 3.
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 65450-64557:
(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 County v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 149 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(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.
Response E.6: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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.
Response E.7: Refer to Master Responses 2, 3, and 4. The comment does not raise
any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 150 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.8: Refer to Master Responses 4 and 5.
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:
“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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 151 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.9: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 152 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
Response E.10: As described on page 10 and throughout the Draft EIR, the
previous project includes up to 800 residential units. As discussed in Section 4.0 of
the Draft EIR (and as revised by the text amendments in Section 2.0 of the EIR
Amendment), there are sufficient residential units from the citywide allocation
available for the development of the previous project. The General Plan Buildout
with Maximum Residential Development, Retail and Residential Alternative, and
Housing Rich Alternative propose more residential units than the amount of
residential allocations currently available citywide.
Both the Draft EIR and the EIR Amendment discuss the need for General Plan
amendments in the project description for the previous project and project
alternatives (i.e., the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative,
Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative) (Draft EIR page 16
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 153 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
and EIR Amendment page 14) and describe the General Plan amendments that will
be needed so that the Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan when the
Specific Plan is adopted. If the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing Rich Alternative is
adopted by the City, an amendment to the General Plan would be made to increase
the amount of residential allocation available citywide. See Master Response 4.
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)
Here is the Opticos slide presented the week of Charrette #2, May 23, 2018, informing us of what the
project could be:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 154 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 155 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.11: The Draft EIR provides environmental review for a previous
Specific Plan that is described in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Master
Response 2.
Based on input from City Council at its June 4, 2018 Study Session on the Vallco
Specific Plan, the City has identified another alternative to the project that would
achieve all the goals expressed by the different councilmembers at that meeting. This
alternative is the “revised project,” which consists of revisions to the project analyzed
in the Draft EIR. The revised project includes 460,000 square feet of commercial
uses (including a 60,000 square foot performing arts theater), 1,750,000 square feet of
office uses, 339 hotel rooms, 2,923 residential units, 35,000 square feet of civic uses
(including 10,000 square foot of governmental use and 35,000 square feet of
education space), and a 30-acre green roof.
Compared to the previous project, the revised project proposes the same land uses
and revises the amounts of commercial, office, residential, and civic space
development proposed. All other aspects of the revised project (including on-site
amenities, maximum building height, setbacks, General Plan and zoning
amendments, and other programming elements) are the same as the previous project
described in the Draft EIR (and as amended in the EIR Amendment and Sections 5.0
and 6.0 of this Final EIR).
The environmental impacts of the revised project are discussed in Section 2.0 of this
Final EIR. The analysis shows that the revised project would result in the same or
similar impacts as the previous project and project alternatives studied in the Draft
EIR and EIR Amendment, and the revised project not result in new or more severe
environmental impacts than identified in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 156 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4: DEIR Heights
Response E.12: Refer to Master Responses 2 and 3. The above figure
submitted by the commenter is not the height diagram included in the Draft EIR. The
maximum building heights for the previous project are described on page 11 in
Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR and shown on Figure 2.4-3 of the Draft EIR. Under
the previous project, and as discussed in the Draft EIR, the maximum height of
structures on the west side of North Wolfe Road would range between 45 and 120
feet, and the maximum height of structures on the east side of North Wolfe Road
would range between 90 and 145 feet.
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’.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 157 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 158 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.13: The Draft EIR does not evaluate maximum building height of
294 feet. The maximum building heights for the previous project are described on
page 11 in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR and shown on Figure 2.4-3 of the Draft
EIR. Under the previous project, and as discussed in the Draft EIR, the maximum
height of structures on the west side of North Wolfe Road would range between 45
and 120 feet, and the maximum height of structures on the east side of North Wolfe
Road would range between 90 and 145 feet. Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.12
and II.E.13 above and Master Response 2.
5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May
31, 2018 with no Specific 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
Response E.14: There is no height limitation in the General Plan for the
Vallco Shopping District, as it defers to an applicable Specific Plan. The Specific
Plan does include height limits, described in Section 5.2 Responses II.E.12 and
II.E.13. The Draft EIR also identifies height limits for each of the project
alternatives. The maximum building heights for the previous project are described on
page 11 in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR and shown on Figure 2.4-3 of the Draft
EIR.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 159 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 5: Opticos Specific Plan Process: Performing Arts Theater
Response E.15: As discussed on page 10 of the Draft EIR, up to 30 percent of
the commercial space could be occupied by entertainment uses such as an ice skating
rink, indoor sports facility, movie theater, performing arts center, and bowling alley.
A performing arts center is one of the commercial entertainment uses considered in
the Draft EIR for the previous project.
7.
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”
Response E.16: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11. The previous project
is described in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR which contains an accurate, stable, and
finite description of the previous project that is analyzed in the Draft EIR.
The alternatives to the project are described in Section 2.4.2 of the Draft EIR and in
the EIR Amendment. The project alternatives consist of the same types of land uses
as the previous project, but in different amounts.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 160 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.17: As discussed in Section 5.2 Response II.E.3, both the Draft
EIR and the EIR Amendment discuss the need for General Plan amendments in the
project description for the previous project and project alternatives (i.e., the General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential
Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative) (Draft EIR page 16 and EIR Amendment
page 14) and describe the General Plan amendments that will be needed so that the
Specific Plan will be consistent with the General Plan when the Specific Plan is
adopted.
As discussed in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, sufficient residential units in the
citywide allocation available for the development of 800 residential units on the
project site. A discussion of the project’s impact to park facilities is discussed in
Section 3.15 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 251 of the Draft EIR (and as revised
in Section 5.0), as a standard permit condition the project shall dedicate land through
compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the
provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, if the project does not provide sufficient
parkland on-site, pursuant to the Municipal Code, the project is required to dedicate
land elsewhere in the City.
As shown in General Plan Figure LU-2 Community Form Diagram, the maximum
building height for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area (the project site) is “Per
Specific Plan.” A Specific Plan is the project analyzed in this EIR. There are no
policies that allow a height bonus as a result of providing community benefits in the
current General Plan. However, should the Specific Plan include a height bonus, the
bonus would be limited to be under the maximum height studied in the EIR. The
conceptual maximum building heights for the previous project are described on page
11 in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR and shown on Figure 2.4-3 of the Draft EIR.
Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.13.
Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and
there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 161 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 6: From DEIR
Figure 7: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives
Response E.18: The Specific Plan shown in the comment above is the
previous project evaluated in the Draft EIR. Refer to Master Response 2 and Section
5.2 Response II.E.11.
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=
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 162 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 163 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 164 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.19: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
The project and project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR are not represented in
Figures 7 and 8 submitted by the commenter. For this reason, no response regarding
the accuracy of the figures is provided.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The findings and mitigations are adequate.
Response E.20: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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
Response E.21: Draft EIR Section 2.2 identifies the current General Plan land
use designation and zoning designations on the project site. Specifically, Section 2.2
on page 7 of the Draft EIR states: “The Vallco Special Area is designated
Commercial/Office Residential, with a maximum residential density of 35 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac) in the City’s General Plan Land Use Map.” Section 2.2 on page
8 of the Draft EIR states: “The Specific Plan 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).”
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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 165 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
“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?
Response E.22: The excerpts from the Draft EIR about the development
allocation for the project site in the above comment are correct, and do not conflict.
The 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning Final EIR (General Plan EIR) evaluated the development of up to 800
residential dwelling units on the project site. This is stated on page 3-69 in Table 3-
21 Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards, and on
page 3-92 in Section 3.7.4.11 under Project, and other pages in the General Plan EIR.
Although the General Plan EIR evaluated up to 800 residential units on the project
site, the City Council adopted a General Plan that allocates 389 residential units to the
project site.
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 166 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.23: Text was added to Section 2.3 of the Draft EIR to clarify that
the project site is envisioned in the General Plan to become a destination for
shopping, dining, and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley. Refer to Section 5.0
of this Final EIR.
2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document.
Response E.24: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.11 through II.E.19.
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.
Response E.25: Pursuant to Section 13.08.050.A of the City’s Municipal
Code, park land dedication is calculated using the following formula:
Park land dedication/DU = (Average number of persons/DU) x (Park Acreage
Standard)/1000 persons.
As stated in Section 13.08.050.B, the park acreage standard is three acres of property
for each one thousand persons.
Section 13.08.050.C states that park land dedication is based on development density.
Table 13.08.050, shown below, lists the average park land dedication required per
dwelling unit based on development density based on the formula above.
Based on the Municipal Code sections and Table 13.08.050, above, and the project
and project alternative residential density of 35 dwelling units per acre, the estimated
required parkland was calculated and shown in Table 3.15-4 of the Draft EIR and
Table 4.15-3 of the EIR Amendment. As stated in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment, the project would be required to provide 4.3 acres of parkland, the
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Development Alternative would
be required to provide 14.3 acres, the Retail and Residential Alternative would be
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 167 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
required to provide 21.6 acres of parkland, and the Housing Rich Alternative is
estimated to be required to provide 17.6 acres of parkland.
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:
Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application
Response E.26: No specific programing or plan of the green roof is proposed
at this time. Refer to Master Response 1. As a standard permit condition, the project
shall dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title
18, which help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City
standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents (see Draft EIR page 251 as
revised in Section 5.0). Therefore, if the project does not provide sufficient parkland
on-site, pursuant to the Municipal Code, the project is required to dedicate land, pay
the fee in-lieu thereof, or both.
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.”
Response E.27: The comment reflects the opinion of the commenter. The
General Plan Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element includes several
goals met by the proposed open space and green roof, including Goal RPC-1, “Create
a full range of park and recreational resources and preserve natural resources,”, Goal
RPC-2, “Distribute parks and open space throughout the community and provide
services, and safe and easy access, to all residents and workers,” and Goal RPC-4,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 168 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“Integrate parks and neighborhood facilities within neighborhoods and areas.” Refer
also to Section 5.2 Response II.E.26 above.
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.
Response E.28: As stated on page 30 of the Draft EIR under Section 2.4.4.5:
“Two to three levels of below-ground parking over 51 acres would require a
maximum excavation depth of 20 to 30 feet and result in approximately two million
cubic yards of soil being excavated and hauled off-site.” Based on other projects
with below ground parking, it is estimated that one below ground parking space
requires approximately 165 cubic yards of excavation. The total amount of
excavation required to place approximately 11,562 vehicle parking spaces (which is
the greatest amount of parking estimated for the project and project alternatives in the
Draft EIR) below ground (regardless of whether it would be two or three stories
below ground), therefore, totals approximately two million cubic yards. For this
reason, the Draft EIR evaluated a conservative amount of soil to be excavated and
hauled off-site for an up to three level below-grade parking structure.
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 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.
Response E.29: Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, effects on parking for the project
is not a CEQA impact (see pages 39, 265, and 325 of the Draft EIR); therefore,
analysis of parking supply and demand is not included in the EIR.
The parking requirements and standards for the proposed land uses would be
determined during the Specific Plan process. See also Master Response 2.
2.4.4.4 UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND RECYCLED WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 169 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.30: The project, which is the subject of this EIR, is not the same
as the SB 35 application or Measure D. Refer to Master Responses 1 and 5.
Section 3.18 Public Services in the Draft EIR and Section 4.18 Public Services in the
EIR Amendment discuss the impacts of the project (and project alternatives) related
to recycled water infrastructure and supply. As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment, when improvements to the City of Sunnyvale’s Water Pollution Control
Plan (WPCP) are completed in 2019, there would be sufficient supply to meet the
project’s total recycled water demand.
The environmental impacts associated with expanding and improving the WPCP
were evaluated in the 2016 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the
Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan (SCH# 2015062037).
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 170 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.31: The Specific Plan is a City-initiated project. The Draft EIR
does not evaluate a specific development proposal by a developer. Refer to Master
Response 1.
Based on buildout of projects of similar scale in the region, it is anticipated the
buildout of the Specific Plan will take 10 years to complete. For this reason, a 10
year timeframe was assumed for buildout of the project. The Draft EIR analysis is
based upon an overall 10 year construction schedule. The construction GHG analysis
would not change depending upon whether the east side or west side of the project
site is developed first.
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.
Response E.32: While no specific development is proposed at this time (see
Master Response 1) when a development application is submitted, the City shall
evaluate the proposal’s consistency with the Specific Plan.
Until a specific development is proposed, it cannot be determined which locations
within the proposed development would be feasible for solar photovoltaic power. For
example, if a building is proposed with rooftop amenities such as a swimming pool
etc., it would likely be infeasible to install solar photovoltaic power on that building.
At the time a specific development is proposed, the City will determine if there are
feasible locations for solar photovoltaic power. The inclusion (or exclusion) of solar
photovoltaic power on-site would not change the impact conclusions in the EIR.
Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas.
Response E.33: As discussed in the Draft EIR (pages 219 and 220), loading
zones within 50 feet of a shared property line with a residential use could result in
noise levels exceeding the City’s noise thresholds. Implementation of mitigation
measures MM NOI-1.4 and -1.5 in the Draft EIR would reduce the project noise
impacts from truck loading and unloading to a less than significant level by
restricting delivery times, conducting noise studies when use locations are known,
and implementing noise reduction measures (such as enclosing loading zones,
prohibiting idling, or locating truck docks underground or within parking structures)
to meet the City’s noise limits. Therefore, the suggested setback of 200 feet for
residences and sensitive receptors from truck loading areas in the above comment
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 171 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
may not be required in order to reduce truck loading and unloading noise impacts to
meet the City’s noise standards.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 172 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings:
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 173 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 174 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 175 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 17: Vallco 1939
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 176 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 18: Vallco 1965
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 177 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 19: Vallco 1974
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 178 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.34: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter
about scenic vistas and aesthetic impacts of the project. As discussed in Section 3.1
Aesthetics of the Draft EIR (pages 39 and 47), pursuant to SB 743, aesthetic impacts
of the project are not considered significant impacts on the environment.
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.
Response E.35: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.34. Pursuant to SB 743,
the project’s aesthetic effects, including light and glare, are not considered significant
impacts.
On page 31 of the Draft EIR under Section 2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions, the
Specific Plan would include design policies that require the following to reduce light
and visual intrusion:
• Future development shall be visually compatible (including minimizing noise,
traffic, light, and visual intrusive effects) with adjacent residences by
including appropriate buffers such as landscaping, screening, building
transitions, and other privacy measures between the project site and adjacent
residential land uses.
Future development under the Specific Plan (if adopted), therefore, could have
landscaping buffers and screens, as suggested in the above comment.
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.
Response E.36: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter
that part of the project site should be used for orchard space. The project, as currently
proposed, does not include an orchard or other agricultural uses. The comment does
not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further
response is required.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 179 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.37: The Fehr & Peers trip generation included in Appendix H of
the Draft EIR and the air quality land usage in Appendix B of the Draft EIR are based
on the same Specific Plan land uses, with slight variations in the nomenclature of the
land use used in the respective models.
The traffic report in Appendix H of the Draft EIR evaluates, in addition to the
residential, office and commercial (including a performing arts theater) uses, 65,000
square feet of civic center use, consisting of 45,000 square feet of government office,
a 10,000 square foot STEM lab, and a 10,000 square feet of recreation/community
center. The total gross project trips would be 45,819 daily trips.
The air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) modeling completed for the Draft EIR and
included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR was based on the trip rates and vehicle
miles travelled provided by Fehr & Peers. The air quality and GHG analysis defined
the civic center use as 45,000 square feet of government use (civic center), 10,000
square feet of Junior College (representing the STEM lab) use, and 10,000 square feet
of racquet club use (which would be the recreation/ community center). The Air
Quality/GHG analysis was based upon an average total daily trips of approximately
45,825 trips. The difference between the Air Quality/GHG model (45,825 trips)
compared to Fehr & Peers (45,819) is negligible or 0.01 percent.
The primary difference between the air quality and GHG trip summary table
excerpted from Appendix B of the Draft EIR and labeled as Figure 21 in this
comment letter and the traffic trip generation table from the Draft EIR excerpted and
labeled as Figure 22 in this comment letter is that the trips generated by the existing
uses on-site were subtracted from the project’s gross trip estimate to show a net trip
generation of 37,006 in Figure 22. While the net trip generation is not shown in
Figure 21 in this comment letter, the existing operational air pollutant emissions from
the project site were subtracted from the project gross operational air pollutant
emissions, as shown in Table 3.3-5 and Table 3.3-6 of the Draft EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 180 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 181 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Fehr + Peers ADT chart:
Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match
Response E.38: The traffic analysis in the EIR applied the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Shopping Center rate (ITE 820) to estimate the
vehicle trips from the Specific Plan commercial uses. As described on page 67 of the
Transportation Impact Report (TIA) for the project in Appendix H of the Draft EIR:
“In ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Shopping Center (ITE 820) is described as an
integrated group of commercial units in one building, such as a mall, and shops in
peripheral buildings on the site. Surveyed sites ranged from neighborhood centers to
regional shopping malls and included uses such as movie theaters, restaurants, banks,
health clubs, and recreational facilities. This description fits the Specific Plan
commercial uses.” For this reason, the estimated commercial trip generation for the
project accounts for uses such as a movie theater and restaurants.
In addition, performing arts centers typically do not have programming on a daily
basis and thus do not add a substantial amount of traffic to the “typical” weekday.
Any incidental activities would be captured in the Shopping Center trip generation
rate. Also, performing art centers tend to have programming and generate more
traffic on Fridays and weekends when the trip generation from the office and
residential uses are lower.
The ITE rate for Hotel (310) applied to the Specific Plan hotel rooms accounts for
supporting hotel facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 182 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities (pool, fitness room),
and/or other retail and service shops.
As described on page 10 of the Draft EIR under Section 2.4.1, the project proposes
up to 65,000 square feet of civic uses in the form of governmental office space,
meeting rooms and community rooms, and a Science Technology Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) lab. In order to provide for flexibility in the implementation of
the civic uses, ITE’s rates for Government Office Building (ITE 730) was applied to
45,000 of the 65,000 square feet of civic uses, High School (ITE 540) was applied to
the 10,000 square feet STEM lab, and Recreational Community Center (ITE 495)
was applied to the remaining 10,000 square feet of civic uses.
The above comment suggests applying the “ITE Government Building 710” trip
generation rate to estimate trips from the Specific Plan civic uses. In the ITE Trip
Generation Manual (10th Edition), ITE trip generation rate 710 is for General Office
Building. As discussed above, the EIR applied ITE’s rate for Government Office
Building (ITE 730).
No specific commercial trip generation rates for particular uses were applied because
no specific development project is proposed at this time; therefore, the square footage
and specific type of commercial uses are unknown at this time. Refer to Master
Response 1 regarding future development projects implementing the Specific Plan.
As excerpted from the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for the Draft EIR in the
commenter’s Figure 21, the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for the project
assumed 45,824.86 average daily trips (refer to Appendix B of the Draft EIR). The
traffic analysis for the project estimated 45,819 average daily trips (see Table 3.17-7
on page 303 of the Draft EIR). The difference (5.86 daily trips) between the two is
negligible and would not change the impact conclusion for the air quality, greenhouse
gas, or traffic analyses. Also refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.37.
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.
Response E.39: Impact AQ-1 on page 57 of the Draft EIR (as well as the first
impact discussed in the technical air quality and greenhouse gas assessment included
in Appendix B of the Draft EIR) is regarding the project’s consistency with the
applicable air quality plan. As discussed in the Draft EIR and Appendix B of the
Draft EIR, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan. No mitigation is required. The analysis of a project’s
consistency with the applicable air quality plan is not a pollutant-specific analysis.
Impact AQ-2 and Impact AQ-3 in the Draft EIR address PM10 impacts from
construction and operation of the project.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition, Volume 2: Data, Part 1. September
2017. Lodging, Hotel (310), page 1.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 183 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
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.
Response E.40: The Draft EIR relies upon guidance from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with respect to recommended measures
for mitigating significant construction period emissions. A project-specific
construction management plan to minimize construction emissions will be required of
future development as a standard condition of approval. The text of the EIR has been
revised to include this measure; refer to Section 5.0. For these reasons, the suggested
mitigation measures above are not proposed.
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.
Response E.41: Mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 on page 62 of the Draft EIR
includes the following: “All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose
material off-site shall be covered.” For this reason, street sweeping of I-280 or the
other streets used by haul trucks will not be necessary. In certain instances where
large volumes of dirt are being hauled from/to a site, the City will require that the
haul route be indicated on the construction management plan for review and
approval. It is typically the shortest route from the site to a major collector/arterial,
then to an approved highway entrance. Haul routes are generally not published, but
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 184 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
may be made available upon request. Also refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.28
regarding the estimated amount of soil excavation for the project.
It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting
landfills which are not near the site.
Response E.42: The air quality modeling for pollutant emissions assumes that
the soil that is excavated on-site would be hauled 20 miles from the site. Based upon
the history of the site, it is unlikely highly hazardous waste would need to be
removed and local landfills in Santa Clara County are available to accept soil,
demolition and construction debris. Nearby landfills include Newby Island Sanitary
Landfill located at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in San José (16 miles from the site) and
Guadalupe Landfill located at 15999 Guadalupe Mines Road (14 miles from 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?
Response E.43: The text of the EIR has been revised to identify a maximum
of two minutes for idling. Refer to Section 5.0. A disturbance coordinator for future
development shall be responsible for enforcing these measures.
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.
Response E.44: The newest diesel engines available meet U.S. EPA Tier 4
engine standards that were fully implemented in 2015 and applied to equipment
manufactured but not necessarily sold. These engines will not be fully available until
they have had several years to be widely available and enter the construction
equipment market. Therefore, the mitigation measure takes into consideration the
feasibility of obtaining this newest type of equipment for all aspects of the project.
Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2.1 is based on the recommended measures in the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The text of mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1, #17 has
been revised to recognize that some specialized diesel-powered equipment may not
meet the Tier 4 equipment requirements. Refer to Section 5.0.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 185 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.45: Future development, as part of a construction management
plan, will indicate the type and number of construction equipment using alternative
fuel. The on-site construction manager will be responsible for ensuring and
documenting compliance. The documentation shall be submitted regularly to the
City for review and compliance. Text has been added to clarify this in the Draft EIR
(see Section 5.0).
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.
Response E.46: A model year of later than 2010 was chosen because this truck
model year meets the latest emission standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks. This is a
feasible measure. The feasibility of requiring new models is unknown at this time.
• 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
Response E.47: The above text is excerpted from mitigation measure MM
AQ-2.1 on page 63 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.44.
Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced:
Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks
Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 186 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Source, BAAQMD:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf
Response E.48: Mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 in the Draft EIR (and as
revised in Section 5.0) addresses requirements for off-road equipment to reduce air
pollutant emissions and are similar to the above suggested measures. Also refer to
Section 5.2 Response II.E.43.
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
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 187 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response E.49: Mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1 on page 67 of the Draft EIR
is based on the general design of the buildings and the potential to reduce on-site
ROG emissions. The project would include many other features to reduce emissions
that would be built into the design of future development projects (e.g., adherence to
new building code standards that increase energy efficiency and reduce VOC
emissions). For example, new building code requirements likely to be adopted and in
2019 and go into effect January 1, 2020 will require substantial energy efficiency,
according to the California Energy Commission Draft Compliance Manual for
Residential and Non-Residential use. These standards are updated on an
approximate three-year cycle. The comments above regarding ROG emissions from
the project are addressed below. Italicized text indicates text taken directly from the
above comment.
1. additional recycled water production: likely unavoidable – The use of recycled
water would have very little ROG emissions.
2. any electrostatic ozone producing equipment: consider limiting ozone producing
equipment or seek alternatives – Ozone producing equipment is not proposed.
3. cooling towers: require high efficiency cooling towers – Cooling towers are not
currently proposed; however, high-efficiency cooling towers are typically the
feasible choice for development projects.
4. operation of the transit hub: require zero emission transit vehicles, especially
since there will likely be sensitive receptors living on site – Programing of the
transit hub, including the types of transit vehicles using the hub, would be subject
to review and approval by the City.
5. additional electricity generation to operate the project: require solar onsite to
provide a minimum 50% of required electricity, including the electricity needed
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/post_adoption/2019_Draft_Compliance_Manuals/Residential_Man
ual_PDF/ and
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/post_adoption/2019_Draft_Compliance_Manuals/Nonresidential_
Manual_PDF/
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 188 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
to treat the water and recycled water. Any exposed roofing to be white roof –
Solar power generation would be included in the project where feasible (see
Section 2.4.4.6 of the Draft EIR) and required by as part of building code
requirements.
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.p
df – Electric charging stations would be required of future development (see
Section 2.4.4.6 of the Draft EIR) and in conformance with City requirements.
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
– Development projects under the Specific Plan must meet the City’s Green
Building ordinance, so to the extent these items are covered by the ordinance,
they would be required.
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 – Cooking exhausts ventilations systems are determined during final design
of a specific development project, and would be addressed by building code
requirements and BAAQMD permit and regulatory requirements regarding odors
and nuisances.
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 – The exposure of future residences to traffic
emission of TACs and PM2.5 is discussed on pages 72-80 of the Draft EIR. As
identified on pages 31-32 under Section 2.4.4.6 of the Draft EIR and on pages 74-
75 of the Draft EIR, future development under the Specific Plan would include
design policies to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure to future sensitive receptors
on-site.
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 – The primary source of TAC emissions
from traffic affecting the project site are the diesel particulate matter emissions
that would be effectively minimized using the measures identified on page 74 and
75 of the DEIR.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 189 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
to pack 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. – When a specific development is proposed, the air quality
within proposed parking garages would be controlled through proper design that
includes ventilation systems and sensors, in compliance with the State Building
Code.
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.
Response E.50: The above excerpt from the Draft EIR, which is the impact
statement for Impact AQ-3, omits the explanatory text between the impact statement
and the mitigation measure. As stated on page 68 of the Draft EIR after Impact AQ-
4: “The discussion under Impact AQ-3 addresses cumulatively considerable net
increases of criteria pollutants or precursors. The project (and General Plan Buildout
with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and
Housing Rich Alternative) would have a cumulatively considerable net increase in
criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, and PM10) and those emissions are considered
significant and unavoidable (refer to Impact AQ-3 and mitigation measure AQ-3.1).”
In other words, the analysis and discussion under Impact AQ-3 (which addresses the
second threshold of significance of whether the project would violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation)
also addresses Impact AQ-4 (which addressees the third threshold of significance of
whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard). For this reason, the discussion is brief
under Impact AQ-4 and the reader is referred to the discussion for Impact AQ-3.
Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.49 regarding the analysis of impacts to persons
working in parking structures as part of the proposed TDM program.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 190 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.51: The comment does not identify any errors in the calculations
associated with analyzing Impact AQ-6. The project’s greenhouse gas emissions are
analyzed in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 191 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response E.52: It is not clear from the comment what demolition is being
referred to and it is not relevant to the analysis in the EIR. Mitigation measures MM
HAZ-1.1, -1.2, -1.3, and -1.4 (Draft EIR pages 140-142) contain sufficient and
comparable management practices for demolition and redevelopment of the Vallco
Mall property to protect construction workers, neighboring properties, and the
environment. It is unlikely that any future development under the previous project or
project alternatives would store, handle, or use regulated substances at quantities
requiring a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Nevertheless, one would be required
by the state Health and Safety Code and applicable regulations, if necessary.
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).
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 192 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD
Response E.53: The impact assessment addressed under Impact AQ-7 on
pages 70-80 (see also Table 3.3-7) of the Draft EIR pertains to localized emissions of
toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fugitive dust that would lead to increased lifetime
cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations. The sources of these TACS due to the
Specific Plan project are construction equipment and heavy duty truck traffic that
generates diesel exhaust. Construction activity affects air quality in two primary
ways:
1. Construction activity emits air pollutants and/or their precursors that leads to
regional air quality impacts. These emissions are evaluated by comparing
average daily emissions to emission-based thresholds recommended in the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Those thresholds recognize that
there is poor air quality in parts of the Bay Area and that emissions from
anywhere in the air basin can cumulatively affect regional ozone and
particulate matter ambient air quality. This impact is also addressed under
Impact AQ-2 on pages 60-65 of the Draft EIR, which includes an analysis of
ozone, ozone precursors, PM2.5 and PM10. The construction emissions are
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 193 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
analyzed and mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 was identified to reduce this
impact.
2. Localized emissions of TACs and particulate matter adversely affect nearby
sensitive receptors that include infants, children and seniors. This impact was
addressed under Impact AQ-7 on pages 70-80 of the Draft EIR based on
emissions and dispersion modeling to predict the incremental impacts of the
project using methods recommended by BAAQMD and the community risk
thresholds identified for sensitive receptors that are included in the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which are identified in Table 3.3-2
on page 56 of the Draft EIR. A community risk assessment was completed.
The analysis predicted almost continuous exposure of sensitive receptors to
cancer causing TACs. The analysis of PM2.5 annual concentrations was based
on dispersion modeling of all hours and days (i.e., total exposure).
The modeling of TAC and PM2.5 sources affecting the project used the same exposure
assumptions as the construction health risk assessment.
It should also be noted that the threshold for PM2.5 is an incremental amount of 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter based on an annual average. The thresholds used in the
analysis of construction impacts address both effects from the project and sources
near the project. The thresholds used in the Draft EIR that are recommended in the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are based on the assumption that the area
has PM2.5 concentrations that exceed ambient air quality standards.
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.
Response E.54: The Draft EIR uses the latest ambient air quality data reported
by BAAQMD for the project area. These data are considered appropriate to describe
ambient air quality in the area. The analysis for the Draft EIR modeled the effects of
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 194 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
TACs and PM2.5 from nearby sources, including Interstate 280 (I-280), upon the
project, see the discussion on pages 70-80 of the Draft EIR.
Ventilation systems would be designed at the time that future buildings are designed.
Future project design and layout in terms of localized air quality and required
ventilation systems are not unique to urban environments. Most roadway (i.e.,
mobile source) TACs are associated with diesel trucks and buses. The project and
EIR analysis does not assume future parking garages would accommodate these types
of vehicles; therefore, parking garages were not identified as a source of TAC
emissions. Future structures on-site would have appropriate ventilation, both
mechanical and natural, in accordance with current building codes, to ensure
acceptable air quality.
The Specific Plan requirements for setbacks for sensitive uses, and indoor air
filtration are described on pages 31-32 of the Draft EIR under Section 2.4.4.6
Specific Plan Assumptions and on pages 74 and 75 of the Draft EIR. The identified
measures are consistent with BAAQMD’s Planning Healthy Places guidance.
No information was provided to support the comment that the roof park would cause
hazardous air quality.
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.
Response E.55: The Draft EIR (pages 72-80) included a risk assessment,
consistent with the requirements of the Office of Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), BAAQMD and CARB to identify potential cancer risk to future on-site
receptors from I-280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, North Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway,
and the combined effects of I-280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and North Wolfe Road.
The modeling included reduced (25 and 30 mph) I-280 vehicle speeds for a two-hour
peak hour period in the AM and PM to account for slower traffic during these time
periods. The Specific Plan includes additional site-specific analysis and mitigation
measures for any sensitive uses proposed in areas exposed to significant health risk
(see pages 31-32 under Section 2.4.4.6 in the Draft EIR). Also refer to Section 5.2
Response II.E.56.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places - A Guidebook for Addressing Local
Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 195 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 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
Response E.56: The EIR evaluates the impacts of the development parameters
for the Specific Plan and project alternatives. Specific locations of buildings and
building designs are not proposed or known at this time. For this reason, it is
speculative to assume the proposed buildings’ geometry would trap air pollution.
The cumulative effects of the project and other nearby projects on operational criteria
air pollutants (significant and unavoidable cumulative impact with mitigation
incorporated), construction emissions (less than significant cumulative impact), and
odors (less than significant cumulative impact) are evaluated and discussed in the
Draft EIR (pages 81-83, Impact AQ-9).
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 196 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.57: The above comment compares the results of construction
health risk assessments for two different projects. There are considerable differences
expected given the complexities of such an analysis. Key factors are the magnitude
and type of emissions, location of the emissions, proximity of sensitive receptors with
respect to prevailing wind flow, and type of exposure (i.e., infant, child or adult).
Construction risk assessments assume that infants are present nearly continuously at
all residential receptors.
As described in Master Response 5, this EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of
the previous project. The purpose of the EIR is not to verify, validate, or compare
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 197 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
previous analyses completed for the project site. In addition, the project analyzed in
the Measure D Environmental Site Assessment is similar to but different from the
Specific Plan project.
The development assumptions regarding build-out duration, excavation required for
the below-grade parking, and construction vehicle trips that were the basis of the
Draft EIR analysis are described in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. MM AQ-2.1
describes numerous measures and requirements for project construction and
operation, including requirements for construction equipment selection and use, and
use of low-VOC architectural coatings. All mitigation measures adopted by the City
would be subject to monitoring and enforcement by the City. The Specific Plan
includes a requirement for project site electricity to be provided by Silicon Valley
Clean Energy (SVCE) or another provider that sources electricity from 100 percent
carbon free sources (Draft EIR page 33). The site’s proximity to I-280 and freeway
speeds does not affect the construction emission analysis for the project.
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.
Response E.58: As described in the Draft EIR (page 81), in developing
thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considers the emissions levels
at which a project’s individual emissions would be considered cumulatively
considerable. Therefore, a project that has a project-level significant impact would
also contribute considerably to a cumulative air pollutant impact. Details about the
project and project alternative’s impact are described in Impact AQ-3. The
mitigation discussion for Impact AQ-3.1 also includes the proposed TDM program.
Implementation of the proposed TDM program and MM AQ-3.1 would reduce the
project and cumulative operational criteria air pollutant impact, but not to a less than
significant level. The Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative would not result in a
significant operational criteria pollutant emissions impact. As described in the Draft
EIR, the discussion of the re-tenanted mall alternative is for information purposes
only; it is a permitted land use and can be implemented without further discretionary
approvals from the City or environmental review under CEQA.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 198 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.59: Thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources
are defined in the Draft EIR (page 87-88) and are related to impacts on special status
species, sensitive habitats, native wildlife corridors and nursery sites, conflicts with
local policies or ordinances such as tree preservation policy, and conflicts with
adopted Habitat Plans. While the closure of most mall activities may have resulted in
an increase in urban wildlife on the site, the project site is still a fully developed site
with no sensitive habitats present. The project and project alternatives include
standard permit conditions (Draft EIR pages 88-89) to comply with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code related to impacts to nesting
birds and raptors in the trees on-site. The Cupertino Municipal Code defines
“protected tree,” encourages their protection, and requires a permit prior to their
removal. As described in the Draft EIR (pages 91-92), consistent with General Plan
Strategy LU-19.1.13, future development under the proposed Specific Plan would
retain all of the trees along I-280, Wolfe Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the
extent feasible. Those trees that are required to be removed would be replaced in
accordance with the tree replacement ratios of the City Municipal Code Chapter
14.18.190. The comment does not provide information regarding what impact to
biological resources would be significant and not mitigated.
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.
Response E.60: The Specific Plan includes bird safe building design features,
described in the Draft EIR (pages 32 and 90) to reduce potential for harm to birds.
Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the Specific Plan
development parameters evaluated in the Draft EIR and the SB 35 project. The Draft
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 199 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
EIR does not include renderings; therefore, the remainder of the comment does not
relate to the analysis in the Draft EIR.
The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP:
“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”
Response E.61: As described in the Draft EIR (page 93), the project site is not
located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with any such plan and no mitigation is required or proposed.
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.
Response E.62: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 200 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.63: The CEQA thresholds of significance for energy impacts are
described in the Draft EIR (page 110) and are related to whether the project would
consume energy in a wasteful manner during construction or operation, or if the
project would conflict with a state of local plan for energy efficiency. The Draft EIR
describes how the Specific Plan project would not use energy in a wasteful manner
through proposing a high-density mix of uses at an infill site, as well as implementing
a TDM program and constructing buildings in conformance with Title 24 and
CALGreen building code. The City, through its Building Permit process, will ensure
compliance with the building code and will also monitor implementation of the Draft
EIR mitigation measures throughout project construction and operation. While the
project would consume more energy than the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative, it would use the energy more efficiently on a per capita (resident and
employee) basis.
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.
Response E.64: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 201 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 202 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors
Response E.65: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not concern the
project baseline. Rather, it is related to determining the significance of impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 describes the need for
an EIR to include a description of the environmental setting. The Draft EIR describes
the ambient air quality in the project area over a several year period with the best
available information. This environmental setting “will normally constitute the
baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is
significant.”
In the case of air quality significance thresholds, BAAQMD does not add a project’s
emissions to the immediate area’s environmental baseline. Instead, the thresholds
represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants
or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s (SFBAAB’s) existing air quality conditions.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 203 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.54. The Draft EIR used the most current and
representative data available for the description of the baseline conditions, and this is
the same data BAAQMD uses to describe existing conditions. BAAQMD has 30
monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area. The San José station is most
representative of air quality at the project site. Air quality monitoring data collected
by BAAQMD is carefully reviewed prior to publication. The ambient air quality
data, which is excerpted and shown in Figure 29 in the above comment, was the most
current data available at the time the Notice of Preparation was published for the
project and the air quality analysis for the project was completed. The commenter is
referred to BAAQMD’s website for more information regarding the methods used to
monitor ambient air quality conditions in sufficient detail for the Bay Area (see
http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-measurement). Monitoring
ambient air quality at the site would not provide additional information that would be
useful in analyzing air quality impacts.
Existing concentrations of ozone precursors and particulate matter in the background
are considered to be unhealthy in the Bay Area. The thresholds used in the Draft
EIR, which were recommended by BAAQMD, recognize these conditions. Areas of
the state and country where ambient air quality conditions are considered healthy
have much higher thresholds of significance. Modeling is used to predict the
incremental effects and to evaluate whether or not they are significant impacts,
assuming that background conditions are unhealthy.
The meteorological data used in the modeling is the latest available data that were
obtained from BAAQMD. A five-year data set was used to consider annual
fluctuations in meteorological conditions. The use of these data are appropriate for
dispersion modeling of air pollutants and contaminants, as described by BAAQMD in
its modeling guidance (see Air Quality Analysis, page 54 - [Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May]). The modeling guidance is
available on BAAQMD’s website (http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-
climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools).
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.
Response E.66: It is unclear whether the commenter is referring to effect of
GHG emissions or air pollutant or TAC emissions. There are no project-caused
hazards created by the project’s GHG emissions. Further, GHG emissions in the
background are assumed to affect populations globally.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (page 2-1) considers whether a
project’s individual emissions to contribute to existing cumulatively significant
adverse air quality impacts that result in health effects described in the Draft EIR.
Similar to criteria air pollutants, GHG emissions and global climate change also
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 204 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
contribute to cumulative impacts. GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis,
to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. Climate
change impacts may include an increase in extreme heat days, higher concentrations
of air pollutants, sea level rise, impacts to water supply and water quality, public
health impacts, impacts to ecosystems, impacts to agriculture, and other
environmental impacts. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to
noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG
emissions from past, present, and future projects contribute substantially to the
phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts.
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.
Response E.67: Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with operation of
the previous project, specifically ROG, NOX, and PM10, were calculated and found to
be significant (see discussion under Impact AQ-3 on pages 65-67 of the Draft EIR).
The effect of traffic speed on vehicle emissions is complex, depending on the vehicle
type and range of speeds. Freeway travel at higher speeds can have higher emissions
rates just as lower speeds can also increase emission rates. The health risk for on-site
receptors from I-280 vehicle traffic and other TAC sources is evaluated in the Draft
EIR (pages 72-80). Proposed Specific Plan design guidelines (Draft EIR pages 31-
32) would require future development to complete site-specific analysis to analyze
health risk if sensitive receptors are located within the setbacks identified in Draft
EIR Figures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3.
The Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the previous project, not the Measure D or
Vallco SB 35 projects (refer to Master Responses 1 and 5). Refer to Section 5.2
Response II.E.54, which explains that no information is provided to support the
above comment that the proposed green roof would create hazardous air quality.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 205 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
reduction rates) people are expected to live and work on site and have retail needs met as well,
potentially not leaving the area.
Response E.68: The dispersion modeling completed in the air quality analysis
for the Draft EIR and included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR used a five-year
meteorological data set that includes hourly wind conditions. These are the most
representative modeling conditions for the site. The term “variable” meant that the
wind speeds vary depending on the hour. Screening assessments used fixed wind
conditions; however, this was a refined dispersion modeling assessment.
Carbon monoxide (CO) conditions do not require project-specific modeling because
the traffic conditions are well below the screening level of 44,000 vehicles per hour.
Note that CO levels have been declining for years due to reduced emission rates
produced by newer model year vehicle. CO standards have been attained throughout
the Bay Area for over 25 years. The project would not cause or contribute to a CO
ambient air quality violation, as described under Impact AQ-5 on page 69 of the Draft
EIR.
GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of
16.9’ which is innacurate.
Response E.69: The above comment mistakenly assumes the construction
exhaust stacks are 16.9 feet tall. As stated on page 54 of the air quality analysis in
Appendix B of the Draft EIR: “To represent the construction equipment exhaust
emissions, an emission release height of 6 meters (19.7 feet) was used for the area
source. The elevated source height reflects the height of the equipment exhaust pipes
plus an additional distance for the height of the exhaust plume above the exhaust
pipes to account for plume rise of the exhaust gases.”
2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan
process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean.
Response E.70: The proposed Specific Plan includes below grade parking
across the entire 51-acre site with 20-30 feet of excavation for two levels, totaling
approximately two million cubic yards of excavated soil (Draft EIR page 30).
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.
Response E.71: The Specific Plan includes a requirement to use electricity
from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) or other provider that sources 100 percent
carbon free electricity sources (Draft EIR page 33). As stated on page 108 of the
Draft EIR, SVCE is the electricity provider for the City of Cupertino (including the
project site). SVCE is a community-owned electricity provider for the majority of
Silicon Valley communities, including Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 206 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Saratoga, Sunnyvale and unincorporated Santa Clara County. SCVE provides
residential and commercial electricity customers with clean, carbon free electricity
options at competitive prices, from sources like solar, wind and hydropower. They
source the electricity, and PG&E delivers it over existing utility lines, and continues
to do maintenance, billing and customer service. California’s CCA law (AB 117,
2002) requires SVCE to become the default provider of electric generation for
customers within SVCE’s service area (such as the project site), and operate an opt
out program for customers that do not want to use it.
The GHG analysis completed for the project and included in Appendix B of the Draft
EIR assumes Silicon Valley Clean Energy, which is 100 percent carbon-free
electricity, provides electricity to the site under existing, project, and project
alternative conditions. SVCE is not a Utility Company selection available in
CalEEMod model uses to estimate air quality and GHG emissions, so PG&E was
selected and the emission rate within the model was modified to represent SVCE
service to the site.
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.
Response E.72: As described in the Draft EIR (page 60) fugitive dust from
demolition, grading, and construction is the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5
emissions and was included in the modeling. The term “exhaust” is used to cover all
emissions of these particulates.
Construction emissions were computed based on use of the CalEEMod model using
default conditions for the project. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
recommend use of CalEEMod to quantify construction exhaust emissions only. The
guidelines do not recommend quantification of construction particulate emissions; the
application of construction mitigation measures is considered sufficient to control
dust on all projects. The construction health risk assessment predicted fugitive PM2.5
dust and included that in the risk assessment (see discussion under Impact AQ-7 on
pages 70-80 in the Draft EIR and on pages 53-57 of the air quality and GHG
assessment in Appendix B of the Draft EIR).
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 207 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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).”
Response E.73: Refer to Master Response 1. The Draft EIR evaluates the
development parameters of the previous Specific Plan. The Specific Plan does not
include a central plant.
Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application:
Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 208 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.74: Refer to Master Responses 1 and 5, and Section 5.2 Response
II.E.31.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 209 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.75: The air quality and GHG emissions modeling included
construction and operation of 348 new hotel rooms, which slightly overpredicts the
impacts given that 148 of the 348 hotel rooms are currently under construction. This
approach to the analysis, while conservative, has a small effect on the overall
emissions and does not change the conclusions with respect to impact findings and
mitigation measures.
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 Wolfe 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 210 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast
was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 211 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast
Source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pd
f
Response E.76: The correct Caltrans data were used and the different trucks
by axle that are anticipated to be used on the site were used to develop the vehicle
fleet mix per the EMFAC2017 model. The model predicts annual conditions. For
this reason, average annual traffic conditions are used, not peak month traffic as
suggested in the above comment.
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:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 212 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response E.77: The above italicized text is excerpted from the air quality and
greenhouse gas assessment completed for the project and included in Appendix B of
the Draft EIR. The text describes the traffic speeds and assumptions for I-280 in
context of the analysis of health risk to sensitive receptors at the project site from
sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) including diesel particulate matter (DPM)
and PM2.5. The health risk assessment is not sensitive to changes in speed during the
peak hour and this is a period when dispersion conditions are favorable, i.e., higher
wind speeds (greater horizontal dispersion) and neutral to unstable conditions
contribute to more vertical dispersion. Tire, brake and re-entrained roadway dust are
not speed dependent emissions, and they are the primary factors in determining PM2.5
impacts.
A supplemental air quality memo was completed and added to Appendix B of the
Draft EIR (refer to Section 5.0). This supplemental memo includes a revised health
risk assessment that assumes an average travel speed of 30 mph for two hours during
the PM peak period for eastbound traffic on I-280. The revised analysis and results
show there is no change to the severity of impacts or the impact conclusions in the
Draft EIR.
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 office
generated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.”
Response E.78: As described in the Draft EIR (page 30), the proposed
Specific Plan includes a TDM program. A TDM program is also identified as
mitigation (see MM TRN-1.1 on page 310 of the Draft EIR). Refinements to the
proposed TDM program and mitigation measure have been made and are shown as
text revisions to pages 33 and 310 of the Draft EIR in Section 5.0 of this Final EIR.
As updated, the TDM program would require proposed office uses to achieve a a
minimum of 34 percent non-single-occupant vehicle (non-SOV) mode share, which
would be enforced via trip cap monitoring and penalties for non-compliance.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 213 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H of the Draft EIR, as well as the text revisions to page 33 of the Draft
EIR, describe the potential TDM measures to be included in the program.
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:
Response E.79: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.74.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 214 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 215 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 216 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.80: The Draft EIR does not verify, validate, or compare previous
analyses completed for the project site or for any project other than the previous
project. Refer to Master Response 5. CalEEMod predicts that if the project were
built in one phase, there would be 130 days of architectural coatings. The BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, however, identify an average daily threshold of
significance. Therefore, construction emissions were averaged over the duration of
project construction and compared to the average daily threshold.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 217 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 218 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886
Response E.81: The BAAQMD thresholds for operational emissions and
construction emissions are similar. Operational emission thresholds are described as
maximum annual emissions (tons) and also as average daily emissions (pounds) over
the same maximum year. The operational thresholds of significance are for the
emissions generated by the project, including emissions from project vehicle trips and
all emissions components of PM10 and PM2.5. Construction emissions, by contrast,
only include the exhaust components.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 219 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
When the project is operational, the existing uses generating emissions will no longer
be present on the site; therefore, the existing emissions are subtracted to calculate the
net project emissions. As stated on page 4-2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:
“If a proposed project involves the removal of existing emission sources, BAAQMD
recommends subtracting the existing emissions levels from the emissions levels
estimated for the new proposed land use.” As shown on page 66 of the Draft EIR in
Tables 3.3-5 and 3.3-6, the net operational emissions from the project would exceed
the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10.
BL2: DECARBONIZED 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”
Response E.82: The air quality modeling did not use data from the air quality
monitoring station set up to study Lehigh Cement. Refer to Section 5.2 Response
II.E.54 regarding the characterization of ambient air quality and Response II.E.71
regarding the project’s use of SVCE electricity. The Specific Plan requires the
project to utilize SVCE or an alternative 100 percent carbon-free power source (Draft
EIR page 33). SVCE is the default energy provider in the City of Cupertino, so users
would have to “opt out” to avoid using it, and SVCE does not cost more than
alternative providers. Methods to ensure tenant and owner use of SVCE power could
include noting it in the CC&Rs and/or disclosure papers tenants and owners must
sign in leases and sales agreements. Given the ease and affordability of SVCE use, it
is speculative to assume residential, office, and commercial tenants and owners
would choose not to use SVCE. For these reasons, no further analysis is required or
provided.
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 220 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
There is no approved Specific Plan to make this determination. Any GHG reductions based on this
assumption, must be removed.
Response E.83: The comment cites design policies proposed by the Specific
Plan (Draft EIR page 31), which would be applied to future development under the
Specific Plan.
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?
Response E.84: As described in the Draft EIR (page 92), tree preservation
where feasible, and planting of replacement trees where trees are removed is a
standard permit condition for future development under the proposed Specific Plan.
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 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 221 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions
“…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?
Response E.85: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.31. Duration periods were
calculated for the various construction elements, as shown in Draft EIR Appendix B,
Air Quality and GHG Assessment, Attachment 2, CalEEMod Input and Output
Worksheets, Table 3 Construction Phase, Construction Detail (page 262); all
construction elements were not distributed over a 10 year period. Compared to a
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 222 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
shorter construction schedule, a 10-year construction schedule results in greater total
construction emissions. Mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 on pages 62-64 of the Draft
EIR contains feasible measures to reduce construction period emissions.
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)?
Response E.86: The 20-mile (one-way) haul trip length is the default
CalEEMod haul trip length. Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, located at 1601 Dixon
Landing Road in San José, (approximately 16 miles from the project site) and
Guadalupe Landfill, located at 15999 Guadalupe Mines Road (approximately 15
miles from the project site,) both accept contaminated soils and hazardous materials
including asbestos. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.42.
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.
Response E.87: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.71. Since the energy
provider is SVCE, which is 100 percent carbon-free electricity, the selection of an
enclosed or an unenclosed parking structure would not affect the GHG emissions
computed by CalEEMod. The difference between the two uses is the slight increase
in electricity consumption that would result in a proportionate increase in GHG
emissions. Because SVCE would deliver carbon-free electricity, that difference
would not equate to a difference in GHG emissions.
The energy use (including gasoline demand) for the project is discussed in Section
3.6 Energy of the Draft EIR (and as revised in Section 5.0 of this Final EIR).
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.
Response E.88: Refer to Section 5.2 Response A.86.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 223 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.89: The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) was
consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR regarding the previous project and
project alternatives. The previous project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative would include a 30-acre green
roof. As stated on page 245 of the Draft EIR under Impact PS-1, “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.” The
SCCFD did not identify any additional fire protection facilities or equipment required
to provide service for the project and project alternatives. As described in the Draft
EIR (page 245), future development under the previous Specific Plan and project
alternatives would be subject to current Building and Fire Code standards, would
undergo plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and would comply
with General Plan policies HS-3.2 and HS-3.7 that call for involving the Fire
Department in the early design stage to assure Fire Department input, that adequate
fire protection is built into the design of multi-story buildings, and on-site fire
suppression material equipment.
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 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.
Response E.90: As described in the Draft EIR (pages 153-155) the previous
project (and General Plan Building with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail
and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative) would result in a decrease
in the total amount of impervious surfaces on-site, resulting in a corresponding
decrease in surface runoff. The Draft EIR does not compare the absorption ability of
the proposed green roof with a flat grass park; it is compared to the existing
condition. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan and project
alternatives would be subject to Standard Permit Conditions requiring compliance
with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit and Provision
C.3 of the NPDES permit for post-construction management of storm water quantity
and quality.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 224 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.91: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.90. Future development
under the proposed Specific Plan and project alternatives would be subject to
Standard Permit Conditions requiring Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect
groundwater from pollutant loading. The depth to groundwater is 68 feet or greater,
so it is not anticipated that groundwater would be encountered during project
construction. The project site is already fully developed and not conducive to
groundwater recharge; therefore, redevelopment of the site through implementation
of the Specific Plan would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge
(Draft EIR page 156). Green roofs are no longer considered an experiment; there are
currently several green roofs on buildings in San Francisco.
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”.
Response E.92: As described in the Draft EIR (page 16), the previous project,
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential, Retail and Residential
Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative would require General Plan amendments
at the time of adoption of the Specific Plan, including amending Table LU-1.
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.
Response E.93: For the purposes of the Draft EIR analysis, it is assumed that
minor modifications to the interior and/or exterior of the existing buildings would
occur under the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative. It is unlikely the Mall
would be re-occupied in exactly its current state without any upgrades.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 225 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.94: The statement in the Draft EIR that the project and project
development alternatives would result in a reduction of on-site impervious surfaces is
not dependent upon whether there is a ground level park. The Draft EIR does not
assume construction of above grade parking structures for the Occupied/Re-tenanted
Mall Alternative.
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. 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.
Response E.95: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.90 and II.E.91. Policy
ES-7.3 states: “Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are reduced
through development review and volunteer efforts.” The reference to volunteer
efforts in this policy relates to voluntary versus required measures to reduce water
quality impacts, not the classification of a person monitoring water quality.
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.
Response E.96: The Draft EIR (pages 31, and 110-114) describes how the
project and development alternatives will encourage energy and water conservation.
Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency access
and fire prevention.
Response E.97: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
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.
Response E.98: The Draft EIR (Section 3.13) includes standard permit
conditions and mitigation measures that future Specific Plan development would
implement to reduce construction and operational noise and vibration, in accordance
with Policy HS-8.3.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 226 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.99: As described in the Draft EIR (page 31), the previous Specific
Plan includes design policies to require future development to be visually compatible
with adjacent residences through the use of buffers, landscaping, screening, building
transitions, and other privacy measures. Future Specific Plan development would be
subject to City Architectural and Design Review to maximum compatibility of the
project and surrounding development.
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.
Response E.100: The Draft EIR evaluates the development parameters of the
previous Specific Plan and project alternatives. Refer to Master Response 2. Also,
refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3 regarding the need for amendments to the
General Plan for the project and project alternatives.
Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively.
Response E.101: The Draft EIR (Section 3.17) evaluates the traffic impacts of
the previous project and project alternatives and identifies mitigation measures,
where feasible.
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.
Response E.102: As stated in the Draft EIR (page 195), the project and project
alternatives would not divide an established community and are consistent with
applicable General Plan policies for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
environmental effects. For this reason, the Draft EIR concludes the project (and
project alternatives) would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative land use impact.
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Agree with DEIR.
Response E.103: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 227 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.104: Long or repeated exposure to sounds above 85 dBA can cause
hearing loss. The Draft EIR (page 215) conservatively assumed that construction
activities on the site would exceed 80 dBA at the property lines of nearby existing
residences. Typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels typically
range from 78 to 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site, and
noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of distance between the
source and the receiver. Implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions of
approval described in the Draft EIR (page 215-217) would reduce construction noise
to the extent feasible. Even with the measures, construction noise of individual
projects may not be feasibly mitigated; therefore, impacts from construction noise
were found to be significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated. No
outdoor concert venue is proposed as part of the project or alternatives studied in the
Draft EIR or EIR Amendment.
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
“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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 228 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2
Response E.105: Future development is required to meet City Municipal Code
noise standards. As stated on page 32 of the Draft EIR under Section 2.4.4.6 Specific
Plan Assumptions (as revised in Section 5.0) and on page 222 of the Draft EIR in
Section 3.13 Noise and Vibration (as revised in Section 5.0:
• Outdoor dining areas and playground shall demonstrate that appropriate
design and noise attenuation measures including, but not limited to, setbacks
and/or noise barriers have been incorporated to meet the daytime threshold of
65 dBA and the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA in the City’s Municipal Code
at the existing, adjacent residences.
Refer to Master Response 2. The Draft EIR provides environmental review for a
previous Specific Plan that is described in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 229 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 230 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040
Response E.106: The excerpted Figure 3.13-2 from the Draft EIR shows noise
level contours at the height of five feet above the ground only. This figure was
provided to illustrate the noise from roadways and provide a guideline for future
development under the Specific Plan. The level of detail and information provided in
Figure 3.13-2 is appropriate for a specific plan-level analysis.
As explained above, the noise contours in Figure 3.13-2 of the Draft EIR reflect only
traffic noise, and are to be used to guide future development with regards to noise and
land use compatibility. The maximum permissible sound levels in the City’s
Municipal Code (and shown in Figure 43 in the above comment) have a different use,
which is to control noise sources on one property that affect another property (not
traffic noise levels). For this reason, the City’s maximum permissible sound levels
referenced in the above comment do not apply to the noise contours shown in Figure
3.13-2 in the Draft EIR.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included.
Response E.107: Construction-related noise impacts are discussed on pages
214-217 of the Draft EIR in Section 3.13 Noise and Vibration. The analysis in the
Draft EIR concludes that the project’s construction-related noise would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation incorporated.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 231 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 232 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 233 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.108: The scope of this EIR is not to verify or validate previous
analyses completed for the project site. Refer to Master Response 5. The noise
assessment by Ramboll Environ referenced in the above comment is for a specific
development project, which is different than the project analyzed in the Draft EIR.
For example, the above comment states that the Ramboll Environ analysis assumes a
6-8 year construction timeframe. For the Specific Plan, a 10-year timeframe was
used.
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.
Response E.109: As discussed on pages 214-217 of the Draft EIR in Section
3.13 Noise and Vibration, it is expected that construction-related noise, with the
implementation of the identified mitigation measures, would reduce construction
noise levels and reduce disruption and annoyance. Even with these measures,
however, it may not be feasible in all cases to mitigate construction noise from future
individual development projects to a less than significant level. For this reason, it
was concluded that the implementation of the previous project would result in a
significant and unavoidable construction noise impact with mitigation incorporated.
As described in the Draft EIR (page 214), the previous project and project
alternatives would limit construction activity to daytime hours, Monday through
Friday, consistent with Section 10.48.053 of the Municipal Code.
Mitigation measures MM NOI-1.1 (Draft EIR page 217) includes designating a
“disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any
complaints about construction noise, determine the cause of the noise complaint, and
require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. With the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 234 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
proposed measures and provision of the disturbance coordinator, 24-hour noise
monitoring is not considered necessary.
• 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.
Response E.110: The suggested measures above are similar to the control
measures already identified in mitigation measure MM NOI-1.2 on page 216 of the
Draft EIR, which include the following:
• Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-
generating equipment. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a five
dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between
the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that
eliminates any cracks or gaps.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or
portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as
feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with
enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise
levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting
shall face away from sensitive receptors.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would create
the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 235 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and
parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not
audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise control blanket barriers
shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the adjacent land
uses.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile holes shall be pre-drilled to
minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-drilling
foundation pile holes is a standard construction noise control technique. Pre-
drilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the pile. Notify all
adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major noise-
generating construction activities and provide it to adjacent land uses. The
construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent
residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to
minimize noise disturbance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad
muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator
shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and included in the
notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
The difference between the suggested measures and the current control measures
identified MM NOI-1.2 in the Draft EIR are minor and would not substantially
change the EIR analysis or conclusion.
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.
Response E.111: No specific development is proposed at this time; therefore, it
is unclear if requiring a specific timeframe for demolition activities is feasible or
enforceable by the City. For this reason, a mitigation measure with the intent of the
above suggested measure is not identified in the EIR.
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 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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 236 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.112: The above suggested measure would not reduce noise
associated with haul trucks. When trucks are traveling at low speeds, the noise from
the trucks is dominated by engine noise and correlates to engine revolutions per
minute (rpm), not speed. For this reason, trucks traveling at lower speeds would
result in exposure of receptors to truck noise for a greater period of time and result in
greater haul truck noise impacts.
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.
Response E.113: The permanent increase in ambient noise levels from project-
generated traffic is discussed on pages 226-227 under Impact NOI-3 in the Draft EIR
in Section 3.13 Noise and Vibration. As stated on page 226 of the Draft EIR: “Based
upon the data from the traffic analysis (see Appendix H), receptors along Vallco
Parkway and all other roadway segments in the project vicinity would experience
noise level increases of two dBA CNEL or less with traffic from the project (or
project alternatives), with the exception of Perimeter Road. Perimeter Road receptors
would experience a seven to eight dBA increase in noise levels above existing
conditions with the addition of traffic from the project (or project alternatives).”
Implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-3.1 on page 227 of the Draft EIR
would reduce project-generated traffic noise on Perimeter Road, but not to a less than
significant level. Refer to pages 226 and 227 of the Draft EIR for a full discussion.
In addition, cumulative permanent noise level impacts are discussed under Impact
NOI-6 on pages 230-232 of the Draft EIR.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 237 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
Response E.114: The above measures are similar to the following standard
permit conditions identified for the project on pages 213 and 214 of the Draft EIR:
• An acoustical study shall be completed during the application process when
project-specific information, such as building elevations, layouts, floor plans,
and position of buildings on the site, is known. The study shall determine
compliance with the noise and land use compatibility standards, identify
potential noise impacts, and propose site-specific measures to reduce
exposure to exterior and interior noise levels that exceed maximum
permissible levels.
• To reduce exterior noise levels to meet the normally acceptable thresholds of
65 dBA CNEL at multi-family residences or 70 dBA CNEL at commercial
uses, locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from major roadways or
other significant sources of noise when developing site plans. Shield noise-
sensitive spaces with buildings or noise barriers to reduce exterior noise
levels. The final detailed design of the heights and limits of proposed noise
barriers shall be completed at the time that the final site and grading plans are
submitted.
• The following shall be implemented to reduce interior noise levels to meet the
normally acceptable thresholds of 45 dBA CNEL at multi-family residences
or 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) at commercial uses during hours of operations:
− If future exterior noise levels at residential building facades are
between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL, incorporate adequate forced-air
mechanical ventilation to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable
levels by closing the windows to control noise.
− If future exterior noise levels at residential building facades exceed 65
dBA CNEL, forced-air mechanical ventilation systems and sound-
rated construction methods are normally required. Such methods or
materials may include a combination of smaller window and door
sizes as a percentage of the total building façade facing the noise
source, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated exterior wall
assemblies, and mechanical ventilation so windows may be kept
closed at the occupant’s discretion.
− If the 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) threshold would not be met, other site-specific
measures, such as increasing setbacks of the buildings from the
adjacent roadways, using shielding by other buildings or noise
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 238 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
barriers to reduce noise levels, implementing additional sound
treatments to the building design, etc. shall be considered to reduce
interior noise levels to meet the Cal Green Code threshold.
The difference between the suggested measures and the current control
measures identified as Standard Permit Conditions in the Draft EIR are minor
and would not substantially change the EIR analysis or conclusion.
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:
Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue
Response E.115: No outdoor performance venue is proposed as part of the
project (or project alternatives) analyzed in the Draft EIR.
VIBRATION
It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 239 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.116: Vibration impacts from project construction are discussed on
pages 223-225 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 225 of the Draft EIR,
“Critical factors affecting the impact of construction vibration on sensitive receptors
include the proximity of the existing structures to the project site, the soundness of
the structures, and the methods of construction used.” The implementation of
mitigation measure MM NOI-2.1 in the Draft EIR would reduce the impact to a less
than significant level by restricting construction noise/vibration exposure,
implementing measure to minimize vibration, monitoring effects (if necessary), and
notifying receptors.
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.
Response E.117: The California Department of Finance released updated
January 2017 and 2018 population estimates in May 2018. It is acknowledged that
the updated, recently released population estimate for the City of Cupertino is 60,091
in January 2018 as stated in the above comment. However, this data was released
subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR and, therefore, was not reflected in the
Draft EIR.
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.
Response E.118: The estimated number of residents from the project and
project alternatives in the above comment are incorrect.
The entirety of the note excerpted above from Table 4.0-1 on page 402 of the Draft
EIR was not included in the above comment. The entire note from Table 4.0-1 is as
follows:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 240 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.). The estimated
population and jobs/employees for the project and project alternatives are based on a
project-specific study of the specific uses proposed by the project completed by
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. The estimated residential and jobs/employees
for the project and project alternatives are based on the following project-specific
rates: 2.0 residents per unit, 1 employee/250 square feet of office, 1 employee/400
square feet of retail/restaurant, 1 employee/1,000 square of entertainment retail, and 1
employee/2 hotel rooms (Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. “Population
and Employment Projections.” April 26, 2018.).”
As stated in the note for Draft EIR Table 4.0-1, the estimated population for the
buildout of the General Plan is based on a general, programmatic rate of 2.94
residents per unit. The estimated population for the project is based on a project-
specific study which identified a rate of 2.0 residents per unit. The difference
between the two rates is due to the fact that the project consists solely of multi-family
housing (therefore, the rate of 2.0 residents per unit reflects multi-family housing
only) while the City has a range of housing types and includes over 75 percent single-
family housing (therefore, the citywide rate of 2.94 residents per unit reflects a range
of housing that is weighted more towards the rate for single-family housing). A
smaller, average household size is expected with multi-family housing than with
single-family housing. The estimated number of residents for the project and project
alternatives are shown in Table 4.0-1 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response E.119: As discussed under Impact POP-1 in Section 3.14.2
Population and Housing Impacts, the General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich
Alternative propose more residential units than the number of citywide available
residential unit allocations. The increase in residential units from these alternatives is
a less-than-10 percent increase over what is assumed from the buildout of the existing
General Plan. As explained in the Draft EIR, “this increase would not induce
substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, because it
would occur on an infill site, would be consistent with the General Plan goals for
focused and sustainable growth, and would support the intensification of
development in an urbanized area currently served by existing roads, transit, utilities,
and public services.” For these reasons, the General Plan with Maximum Residential
Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative would
not contribute to substantial growth inducement in Cupertino or in the region.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 241 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.120: The potential for the project and project alternatives to
contribute to cumulative impacts on population and housing is discussed on page 238
of the Draft EIR under Impact POP-3 in Section 3.14.2. As discussed in the Draft
EIR, the previous project and project alternatives would not have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impact
because the amount of housing proposed by the previous project is accounted for in
the City’s General Plan and the additional units proposed by the General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative,
and Housing Rich Alternative that are above the available citywide residential
allocation are within the Plan Bay Area projection for the City and/or County. See
also the discussion of Impact POP-3 on page 155 of the Draft EIR Amendment.
Emotional effects of cramped housing on children:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Response E.121: CEQA requires the analysis of the environmental impacts of a
project. CEQA does not require the analysis of other effects, such social,
psychological, or economic effects of a project. For this reason, no further response
is required.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof.
Response E.122: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
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?
Response E.123: The estimated number of residents from the previous project
and project alternatives is shown in Table 4.0-1 on page 402 of the Draft EIR. As
shown in Table 4.0-1, the previous project and project alternatives are estimated to
generate up to 8,000 new residents (not 11,320 residents as stated in the above
comment).
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office was consulted during the preparation of the
Draft EIR regarding the previous project (which includes 2.0 million square feet of
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 242 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
office space) and project alternatives. As stated on page 246 under Impact PS-2,
“The Sheriff’s Office does not anticipate the need for new or expanded police
facilities in order to serve the project or project alternatives, however.”
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
Response E.124: The purpose and scope of the EIR is to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the previous project and project alternatives. The purposes
of the EIR is not to evaluate the sewer impacts of the above referenced VTCSP
project. Refer to Master Response 5. The comment does not raise any issues about
the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 243 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.125: The school impact discussion in the Draft EIR is based on a
school impact analysis by Schoolhouse Services included in Appendix G of the Draft
EIR. A full discussion regarding the determination of the student generation rates
(SGRs) for the project and project alternatives is included in Appendix G of the Draft
EIR. The SGRs for the project and project alternatives were determined based on a
number of factors including the SGRs for recent residential development in the City.
The only multi-family residential developments completed in the recent years in
Cupertino are Nineteen800/Rose Bowl and Biltmore Addition.
A primary consideration for determining SGRs is the market for apartments. As
discussed in Appendix G, rents have escalated tremendously and it has become very
difficult for young families to compete for units (page 7 of Appendix G). Other
factors used to determine the appropriate SGRs for the project and project alternatives
include the size of units, provided parking, access to yards, lifestyle marketing, and
on-site amenities. The SGRs for the project and project alternatives are not identical
to the SGRs for the Nineteen800/Rose Bowl or Biltmore Addition. The project and
project alternative SGRs were calculated for the project and project alternatives based
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 244 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
on the factors summarized above and discussed in detail in Appendix G of the Draft
EIR.
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.
Response E.126: The project analyzed in this EIR is not The Hills at Vallco;
Refer to Master Response 5. The scope of this EIR is not to verify, validate, or
compare previous analyses completed for the project site. For this reason, no further
response is required.
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.
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.
Response E.127: Because no specific development project is proposed at this
time, assumptions were made about unit size and affordability based on the City’s
affordable housing requirement and the overall amount and density of development
proposed under the project and project alternatives. Refer to Appendix G for a
detailed discussion of how the SGRs were developed and Section 5.2 Response
II.E.125.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 245 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Figure 48: DEIR SGR
Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives
FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE
Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 246 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs
Response E.128: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.125 through II.E.127.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 247 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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.”
Response E.129: As discussed on page 300 under Section 3.17.2.2 Traffic
Estimates in the Draft EIR, project vehicle trips are estimated based on trip
generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. As stated on page 304 of the Draft
EIR, the vehicle trip distribution for the project “is based on general paths of trip
origin to destinations (e.g., from home to work in the morning and return in the
evening), which include school drop offs and pick-ups but do not include distinct
trips attributed as home to (a specific) school.”
The project does not include the expansion or construction of off-site school
facilities. For this reason, the above comments about impacts from an off-site school
expansion or construction are not applicable to the project. No further response is
required.
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.
Response E.130: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.25 and II.E.26.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 248 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response E.131: As discussed on pages 261-263 under Impact REC-1 in
Section 3.16 Recreation of the Draft EIR, the implementation of the project and
project alternatives would result in an incremental increase in demand on recreational
facilities, including parks.
The open space included on-site in the previous project (and General Plan Buildout
with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and
Housing Rich Alternative) would help offset some of the project’s recreational
demand. The previous project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich
Alternative) is also required to dedicate land through compliance with Municipal
Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18 to reduce impacts to recreational facilities to a less
than significant level. In addition, as stated on page 261 of the Draft EIR, impacts to
County and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities (such as Rancho
San Antonio) would be mitigated through the property taxes levied on the property.
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.
Response E.132: The traffic counts taken did include traffic from the AMC
Theaters. As discussed on page 9 of the Draft EIR under Section 2.3 Background
Information, AMC Theaters closed its location on-site in March 2018, subsequent to
the publication of the Notice of Preparation. As explained on page 34 of the Draft
EIR under environmental setting, the environmental baseline for the EIR analysis
consists of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they
existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published (which was February 9,
2018). In addition, a future environmental baseline based on approximately year
2028 was used to evaluate background traffic impacts, and the year 2040 was used to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 249 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
evaluate cumulative traffic impacts. Background conditions are considered
conditions present prior to project completion and occupancy. Given the estimated
10 year project construction period, approximately year 2028 was selected as the year
representing background conditions.
The purpose of the traffic counts taken at the project site was to determine the total
existing trips from the project site. For this reason, trips by generated by separate on-
site uses were not differentiated.
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.
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.
Response E.133: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.38.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 250 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response E.134: As discussed in Section 5.2 Response II.E.132, the
environmental baseline for the traffic analysis in the EIR consists of the existing
conditions at the time the NOP was published, and future baseline conditions based
on approximately year 2028 (referred to as “background conditions” in the EIR) and
year 2040 (referred to as “cumulative conditions” in the EIR).
As discussed on page 327 under Impact TRN-2, the traffic volumes for background
conditions are based on existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not
yet constructed and/or occupied developments in the area, including Apple Park and
Main Street Cupertino. Driveway counts were collected at Apple Park driveways the
same day as the intersection counts were collected. The peak hour driveway trips
were subtracted from the total trip estimates from the Apple Park traffic study. The
net difference between the driveway counts and total Apple Park trip estimates were
added to the Background volumes to account for the full-buildout of Apple Park.
While the driveway counts represent trips from both employees and construction
workers at the time of the counts, the existing uses at the site accounted for only 20
percent of the trips and the remaining 80 percent was added to the Background
volumes to reflect future employee trips, based on the assumptions from the Apple
Park traffic study.
The Calvert/I-280 improvement project was largely completed when the counts were
taken. During construction activities at the Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek
Boulevard intersection to add the third northbound left-turn lane onto westbound
Stevens Creek Boulevard, the existing travel lanes were fully functional and available
for use while the intersections counts were conducted. Therefore the construction
activities would not substantially affect travel patterns in the area. In general, unless
there are lane closures on major roadways for long periods of time, roadway
construction projects only have short-term localized effects on travel patterns.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 251 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response E.135: Without additional context, it is unclear of the data sources,
purpose, and meaning of the numbers in the excerpted advertisement labeled Figure
52 in the above comment. The trip generation for the office use in the Draft EIR
assumes approximately 3.7 employees per 1,000 square feet. In addition, the project
will be subject to a TDM Program and associated trip cap to ensure that the project
does not generate more trips that evaluated as part of the EIR. Thus, regardless of
what the ultimate employee density would be, the transportation impact analysis in
EIR has fully captured the project’s projected trip generation.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 252 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response E.136: There are differences between the trip generation for the
previous project evaluated in the Draft EIR and the trip generation shown in the
above Figure 54 from the comment, including the land uses proposed, ITE Trip
Generation Manual edition referenced, and existing mall occupancy assumed. The
EIR does not evaluate the environmental impacts of The Hills at Vallco. Refer to
Master Response 5.
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.
Response E.137: The source of the recycled water is wastewater; therefore, the
project use of recycled water would not adversely affect groundwater recharge or
potable water. As discussed on page 387 in Section 3.18.1.2 of the Draft EIR,
Sunnyvale’s Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) currently treats wastewater to
recycled water standards in batches, rather than continuously, due to plant
configuration limitations. As a result, potable water has historically been blended
with recycled water to meet peak demands in the recycled water system. In 2014, the
City of Sunnyvale received grant funding to make improvements to the WPCP to
provide recycled water continuously and so that potable water would not need to be
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 253 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
blended with recycled water to meet demand. These improvements are expected to
be complete in Summer of 2019.
As discussed on pages 395-396 under Impact UTL-5 of Section 3.18 of the Draft
EIR, with the completion of the improvements to the WPCP in 2019, there would be
sufficient recycled water supply to serve the project. It is possible that there may not
be sufficient supply from the WPCP to serve future recycled water demand from the
project and other potential recycled water customer, however. As stated on page 396
of the Draft EIR, any potential service constraints would be discussed with the City
of Sunnyvale as the recycled water supplier and Santa Clara Valley Water District as
the wholesaler.
The environmental impacts associated with expanding and improving the WPCP
were evaluated in the 2016 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the
Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan (SCH# 2015062037). If any
future expansion or improvements are proposed to the WPCP, they would require
subsequent environmental review.
In addition, as discussed in the Draft EIR, insufficient recycled water supply would
not result in a significant water supply impact because there is sufficient potable
water supply to meet the project’s water demand (pages 393-396).
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.).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 254 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees
Response E.138: It is acknowledged in the EIR that the project and project
alternatives would result in direct economic growth and population growth (page
401). As discussed on page 401-403 in Section 4.0 Growth-Inducting Impacts of the
Draft EIR (as well as pages 266-268 of the EIR Amendment), the project and project
alternatives would not result in a significant growth-inducing impact because:
• It would occur on an infill site,
• Is consistent with General Plan goals for focused and sustainable growth,
• Supports the intensification of development in an urbanized area currently
serviced by existing roads, transit, utilities, and public services,
• The growth is included in the City’s General Plan and/or Plan Bay Area
projections
• Includes mitigation to reduce the project’s impacts on community facilities,
• Proposed utility improvements would be sized to serve the proposed
development and not include excess capacity; and
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 255 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• The project would pay all applicable fees and taxes to offset impacts to public
facilities and services (including police and fire, schools, and parks).
Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.118 and II.E.120.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 256 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
F. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 12:19PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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!
Response F.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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.
Response F.2: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response F.3: Refer to Master Response 3.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 257 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Response F.4: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
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.
Response F.5: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response F.6: Refer to Master Response 3.
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 65450-64557:
(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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 258 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response F.7: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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.
Response F.8: No specific questions are raised in the above comment regarding the
NOP. The comment cites the CEQA Guidelines section regarding an EIR Notice of
Preparation. A NOP was prepared and circulated for the project, consistent with
CEQA Section 15082.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 259 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response F.9: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.7.
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.”
Response F.10: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 260 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.11: Refer to Master Responses 5 and 4.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 261 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.12: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.9.
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
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 262 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
Response F.13: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.10.
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)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 263 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 264 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options
Response F.14: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 265 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4: DEIR Heights
Response F.15: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.12.
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’.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 266 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 267 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.16: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.13.
5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May
31, 2018 with no Specific 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
Response F.17: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.14.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 268 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.15.
7.
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”
Response F.19: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.16.
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.
Response F.20: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.17.
Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and
there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 269 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives
Response F.21: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.18.
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=
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 compatible with and will not
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 270 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to
mitigate the adverse effect or effects.” Id.
Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 271 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 8: Vallco Project Changes (self)
Response F.22: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.19.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 272 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The findings and mitigations are adequate.
Response F.23: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.20.
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
Response F.24: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.21.
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?
“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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 273 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response F.25: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.22.
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.”
Response F.26: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.23.
2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document.
Response F.27: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.11 through II.E.19.
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.
Response F.28: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.23.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 274 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application
Response F.29: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.26.
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.”
Response F.30: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.27.
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.
Response F.31: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.28.
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 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 275 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in
the project.
Response F.32: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.29.
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.
Response F.33: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.30.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 276 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.34: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.31.
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.
Response F.35: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.32.
Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas.
Response F.36: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.33.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 277 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings:
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 278 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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).”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 279 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 280 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 17: Vallco 1939
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 281 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 18: Vallco 1965
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 282 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 19: Vallco 1974
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 283 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.37: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.34.
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.
Response F.38: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.35.
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.
Response F.39: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.36.
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.
Response F.40: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.37.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 284 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation
Fehr + Peers ADT chart:
Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match
Response F.41: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.38.
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.
Response F.42: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.39.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 285 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
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.
Response F.43: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.40.
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.
Response F.44: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.41.
It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting
landfills which are not near the site.
Response F.45: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.42.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 286 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response F.46: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.43.
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.
Response F.47: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.44.
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.
Response F.48: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.45.
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.
Response F.49: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.46.
• 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
Response F.50: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.47.
Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced:
Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 287 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles
Source, BAAQMD:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf
Response F.51: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.48.
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
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 288 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response F.52: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.49.
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.
Response F.53: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.50.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 289 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.54: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.51.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 290 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Refer to Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 4. Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and
Gases: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1529.html
Response F.55: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.52.
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).
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 291 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD
Response F.56: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.53.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 292 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.57: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.54.
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.
Response F.58: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.55.
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
Response F.59: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.56.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 293 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 294 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response F.60: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.57.
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.
Response F.61: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.58.
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.
Response F.62: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.59.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 295 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.63: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.60.
The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP:
“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”
Response F.64: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.61.
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.
Response F.65: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.62.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 296 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.66: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.63.
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.
Response F.67: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.64.
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 297 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase,
and excavation.
Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors
Response F.68: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.65.
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.
Response F.69: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.66.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 298 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.70: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.67.
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.
Response F.71: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.68.
GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of
16.9’ which is innacurate.
Response F.72: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.69.
2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan
process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean.
Response F.73: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.70.
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.
Response F.74: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.71.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 299 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.75: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.72.
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 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).”
Response F.76: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.73.
Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 300 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 301 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.77: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.74.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 302 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.78: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.75.
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 Wolfe 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 303 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast
was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 304 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast
Source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pd
f
Response F.79: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.76.
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:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-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-
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 305 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
bound traffic. The free-flow travel speed was used for the other directions during the peak
periods.” -GHG Assessment p. 39-40
Response F.80: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.77.
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 office
generated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.”
Response F.81: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.78.
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:
Response F.82: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.79.
Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 306 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 307 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 308 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.83: Refer to Section Response II.E.80.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 309 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 310 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886
Response F.84: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.81.
BL2: DECARBONIZED 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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 311 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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”
Response F.85: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.82.
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.
Response F.86: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.83.
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?
Response F.87: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.84.
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 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 312 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions
“…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?
Response F.88: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.85.
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)?
Response F.89: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.86.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 313 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.90: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.87.
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.
Response F.91: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.88.
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.
Response F.92: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
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 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.
Response F.93: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.90.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 314 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.94: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.91.
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”.
Response F.95: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.92.
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.
Response F.96: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.93.
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.
Response F.97: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.94.
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. 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.
Response F.98: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.95.
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.
Response F.99: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.96.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 315 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency
access and fire prevention.
Response F.100: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.97.
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.
Response F.101: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.98.
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.
Response F.102: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.99.
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.
Response F.103: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.100.
Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively.
Response F.104: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.101.
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.
Response F.105: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.102.
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Agree with DEIR.
Response F.106: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.103.
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.
Response F.107: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.104.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 316 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
“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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 317 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2
Response F.108: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.105.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 318 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040
Response F.109: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.106.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included.
Response F.110: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.107.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 319 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 320 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors
Response F.111: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.108.
Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 321 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response F.112: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.109.
• 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.
Response F.113: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.110.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 322 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.114: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.111.
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 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.”
Response F.115: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.112.
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.
Response F.116: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.113.
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 323 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.117: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.114.
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:
Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue
Response F.118: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.115.
VIBRATION
It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property.
Response F.119: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.116.
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.
Response F.120: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.117.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 324 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.121: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.118.
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.
Response F.122: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.119.
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.
Response F.123: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.120.
Emotional effects of cramped housing on children:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Response F.124: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.121.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof.
Response F.125: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.122.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 325 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response F.126: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.123.
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
Response F.127: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.124.
SCHOOL IMPACTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 326 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.128: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.125.
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.
Response F.129: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.126.
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.
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.
Response F.130: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.127.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 327 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Figure 48: DEIR SGR
Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 328 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE
Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables
Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs
Response F.131: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.128.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 329 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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.”
Response F.132: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.129.
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.
Response F.133: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.130.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 330 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.134: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.131.
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.
Response F.135: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.132.
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.
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.
Response F.136: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.133.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 331 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response F.137: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.134.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 332 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response F.138: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.135.
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
Response F.139: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.136.
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.
Response F.140: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.137.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 333 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.).
Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees
Response F.141: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.138.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 334 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
G. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 5:02PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response G.1: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response G.2: Refer to Master Response 3.
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.
Response G.3: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 335 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
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.
Response G.4: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response G.5: Refer to Master Responses 2 and 3.
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 65450-64557:
(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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 336 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.6: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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.
Response G.7: No specific questions are raised in the above comment regarding the
adequacy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The comment cites the CEQA
Guidelines section regarding an EIR NOP. A NOP was prepared and circulated for
the project, consistent with CEQA Section 15082.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 337 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.8: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.7.
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.”
Response G.9: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 338 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.10: Refer to Master Responses 4 and 5.
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
Response G.11: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.9.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 339 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 340 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
Response G.12: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.10.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 341 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 342 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options
Response G.13: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 343 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4: DEIR Heights
Response G.14: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.12.
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’.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 344 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 345 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.15: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.13.
5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May
31, 2018 with no Specific 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
Response G.16: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.14.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 346 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.17: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.15.
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”
Response G.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.16.
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.
Response G.19: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.17.
Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and
there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 347 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives
Response G.20: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.18.
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=
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 compatible with and will not
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 348 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to
mitigate the adverse effect or effects.” Id.
Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 349 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 350 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.21: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.19.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The findings and mitigations are adequate.
Response G.22: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.20.
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
Response G.23: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.21.
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?
“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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 351 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response G.24: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.22.
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.”
Response G.25: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.23.
2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document.
Response G.26: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.24.
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.
Response G.27: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.25.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 352 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application
Response G.28: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.26.
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.”
Response G.29: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.27.
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.
Response G.30: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.28.
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 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 353 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in
the project.
Response G.31: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.29.
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.
Response G.32: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.30.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 354 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.33: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.31.
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.
Response G.34: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.32.
Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas.
Response G.35: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.33.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 355 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings:
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 356 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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).”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 357 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 358 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 17: Vallco 1939
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 359 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 18: Vallco 1965
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 360 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 19: Vallco 1974
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 361 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.36: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.34.
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.
Response G.37: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.35.
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.
Response G.38: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.36.
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.
Response G.39: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.37.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 362 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation
Fehr + Peers ADT chart:
Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match
Response G.40: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.38.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 363 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.41: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.39.
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.”
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.
Response G.42: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.40.
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.
Response G.43: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.41.
It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting
landfills which are not near the site.
Response G.44: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.42.
The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2:
“Impact AQ-2:
MM AQ-2.1:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 364 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response G.45: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.43.
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.
Response G.46: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.44.
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.
Response G.47: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.45.
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.
Response G.48: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.46.
• 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
Response G.49: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.47.
Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be enforced:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 365 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks
Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles
Source, BAAQMD:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf
Response G.50: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.48.
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
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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 366 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response G.51: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.49.
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.
Response G.52: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.50.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 367 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.53: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.51.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 368 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response G.54: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.52.
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).
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 369 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD
Response G.55: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.53.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 370 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.56: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.54.
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.
Response G.57: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.55.
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
Response G.58: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.56.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 371 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High
And with EDF’s here:
Figure 27: VTS Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment with EDFs
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 372 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.59: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.57.
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.
Response G.60: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.58.
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.
Response G.61: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.59.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 373 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.62: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.60.
The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP:
“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”
Response G.63: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.61.
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.
Response G.64: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.62.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 374 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.65: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.63.
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.
Response G.66: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.64.
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 375 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase,
and excavation.
Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors
Response G.67: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.65.
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.
Response G.68: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.66.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 376 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.69: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.67.
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.
Response G.70: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.68.
GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of
16.9’ which is innacurate.
Response G.71: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.69.
2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan
process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean.
Response G.72: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.70.
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.
Response G.73: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.71.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 377 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.74: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.72.
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 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).”
Response G.75: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.73.
Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 378 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 379 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.76: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.74.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 380 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.77: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.75.
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 Wolfe 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 381 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast
was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 382 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast
Source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pd
f
Response G.78: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.76.
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:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-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-
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 383 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
bound traffic. The free-flow travel speed was used for the other directions during the peak
periods.” -GHG Assessment p. 39-40
Response G.79: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.77.
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 office
generated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.”
Response G.80: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.78.
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:
Response G.81: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.79.
Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 384 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 385 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
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!
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 386 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.82: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.80.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 387 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 388 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886
Response G.83: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.81.
BL2: DECARBONIZED 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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 389 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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”
Response G.84: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.82.
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.
Response G.85: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.83.
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?
Response G.86: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.84.
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 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 390 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions
“…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?
Response G.87: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.85.
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)?
Response G.88: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.86.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 391 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.89: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.87.
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.
Response G.90: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.88.
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.
Response G.91: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
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 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.
Response G.92: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.90.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 392 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.93: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.91.
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”.
Response G.94: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.92.
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.
Response G.95: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.93.
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.
Response G.96: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.94.
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. 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.
Response G.97: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.95.
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.
Response G.98: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.96.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 393 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency access
and fire prevention.
Response G.99: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.97.
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.
Response G.100: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.98.
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.
Response G.101: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.99.
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.
Response G.102: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.100.
Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively.
Response G.103: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.101.
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.
Response G.104: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.102.
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Agree with DEIR.
Response G.105: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.103.
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.
Response G.106: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.104.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 394 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
“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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 395 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2
Response G.107: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.105.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 396 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040
Response G.108: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.106.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included.
Response G.109: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.107.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 397 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 398 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors
Response G.110: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.108.
Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 399 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response G.111: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.109.
• 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.
Response G.112: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.110.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 400 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.113: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.111.
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 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.”
Response G.114: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.112.
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.
Response G.115: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.113.
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 401 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response G.116: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.114.
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:
Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue
Response G.117: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.115.
VIBRATION
It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property.
Response G.118: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.116.
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.
Response G.119: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.117.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 402 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.120: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.118.
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.
Response G.121: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.119.
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.
Response G.122: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.120.
Emotional effects of cramped housing on children:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Response G.123: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.121.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof.
Response G.124: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.122.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 403 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response G.125: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.123.
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
Response G.126: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.124.
SCHOOL IMPACTS
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 404 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.127: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.125.
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.
Response G.128: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.126.
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.
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.
Response G.129: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.127.
DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 405 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 48: DEIR SGR
Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives
FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE
Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 406 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs
Response G.130: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.128.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 407 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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.”
Response G.131: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.129.
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.
Response G.132: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.130.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 408 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.133: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.131.
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.
Response G.134: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.132.
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.
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.
Response G.135: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.133.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 409 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response G.136: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.134.
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
Response G.137: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.135.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 410 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response G.138: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.136.
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.
Response G.139: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.137.
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.).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 411 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees
Response G.140: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.138.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 412 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
H. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 5:33PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO COMMENT LETTER
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:
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.”
Response H.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
2. The “Proposed Project” frustrates the General Plan goal to balance employment with housing
by providing a gross excess of jobs to housing.
Response H.2: As discussed on page 10 of the Draft EIR, the amount of development
proposed by the project is consistent with the development assumptions for the
buildout of the City’s adopted General Plan. The project’s impact on population and
housing is discussed in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR and the project’s growth-
inducing impacts are discussed in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response H.3: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required. Refer also to Master Response 5.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 413 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
4. “No Project” would be a fourth alternative, Occupied/Re-tenanted mall is not the same as
“No Project”
Response H.4: The above comment is correct. As discussed on page xiii of the Draft
EIR, the City identified three project alternatives: (1) General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential, (2) Retail and Residential, and (3) Occupied/Re-Tenanted
Mall) for review in the EIR in addition to the No Project alternative required by
CEQA. The No Project alternative is analyzed in Section 7.2.3.2 in the Draft EIR.
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.
Response H.5: A summary of the project and project alternatives studied in the Draft
EIR is provided in Table 2.4-1 on page 15 of the Draft EIR. The project and project
alternatives would require amendments to the General Plan, as described in Draft EIR
Section 2.4.3 (page 16)and Draft EIR Amendment Section 3.1.1 (page 14). Refer
also to Response II.E.3.
7. For the above reasons, the EIR process must be halted for a replacement “Proposed Project”
which is consistent with the General Plan.
Response H.6: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
ATTACHMENT 2 TO COMMENT LETTER
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 414 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response H.7: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3 and Master Response 5. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 415 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response H.8: Refer to Master Responses 4 and 5.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 416 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 1
Vallco Shopping District is further described in the General Plan Vision 2040 Land Use Element
through goals, policies, and strategies:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 417 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 418 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 2 - “General Plan Table LU-1”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 419 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 3 – “General Plan Figure LU-2”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 420 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 421 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 422 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4 – “General Plan Figure HE-1”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 423 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 424 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 5 – “General Plan Figure HE-1 Zoomed in”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 425 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 6 – “General Plan Figure B-7: Priority Housing Element Sites Scenario A”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 426 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 7 – “General Plan Figure B-8 Priority Housing Element Sites Scenario B”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 427 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 Technic Technical Report:
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12717
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 428 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 9 – “General Plan Table HE-%: Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites to Meet the
RHNA – Scenartio A”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 429 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 430 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 11 – Scenario B, the Alternative
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 431 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response H.9: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3. The comment does not raise
any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Insufficient and Conflicting Information Presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting,
with Infeasible “Proposed Project” due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results
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.
Response H.10: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 432 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response H.11: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.5. The comment does not
raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response
is required.
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%.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 433 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response H.12: The scope of the Draft EIR is not to verify, validate, or
compare previous analyses completed for the project site (such as the above
referenced Vallco Specific Plan Initiative Environmental Assessment). The comment
does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further
response is required.
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.
Response H.13: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter.
Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3. The comment does not raise any issues about
the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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.
Response H.14: The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan
policies is discussed in Table 3.11-1 starting on page 165 of the Draft EIR. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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).
Response H.15: The comment refers to the General Plan EIR, which was
certified in 2014, and does not raise any issues about the adequacy of this EIR. For
this reason, no further response is required.
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.
Response H.16: The footnote in Table LU-1 of the adopted General Plan,
which is excerpted in Comment II.G.9, states: “Buildout totals for Office and
Residential allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a
Specific Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific Plan is not
adopted by that date, City will consider the removal of the Office and Residential
allocations for Vallco Shopping District. See the Housing Element (Chapter 4) for
additional information and requirements within the Vallco Shopping District.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 434 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
It is correct that a Specific Plan was not adopted for the Vallco Shopping District by
May 31, 2018; however, the City is currently considering the development allocations
for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area in the context of a Specific Plan, which
is the subject of this EIR.
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.
Response H.17: As shown in General Plan Table LU-1 and discussed in
Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR, the project site is allocated 389 residential units.
Pursuant to General Plan Strategy LU-1.2.1, development allocations are assigned for
various Planning Areas. As stated in Strategy LU-1.2.6, “[s]ome flexibility may be
allowed for transferring allocations among Planning Areas provided no significant
environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the [General
Plan EIR].”
The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the impacts of the previous project and project
alternatives. The previous project was a Specific Plan that includes development of
800 residential units on the project site and the Draft EIR Amendment evaluated a
Housing Rich Alternative that includes 3,250 residential units on the site. The
revised project is a Specific Plan that includes development of 2,923 residential units
on the project site. Also refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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.
Response H.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.17 above. The comment is
incorrect in stating that Housing Element Scenario B does not allow housing at the
Vallco site. Rather, it simply removes Vallco as a Housing Element Priority Housing
Site. The land uses for the project site would continue to be governed by the General
Plan designation which would allow Commercial, Office and Residential uses at a
density of 35 du/acre.
The goals, policies, and strategies to achieve this vision in the General Plan Land
Use section support residential as subordinate to other uses.
Response H.19: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter.
The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this
reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 435 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response H.20: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.2.
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.
Response H.21: The population and employment for the previous project was
projected by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., the City’s economic consultant.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. estimates that the proposed office uses at the
project site would generate approximately one employee per 250 square feet of office
space (see footnote in Table 4.0-1 on page 402 of the Draft EIR). As a result, 2.0
million square feet of office development evaluated in the Draft EIR would generate
approximately 8,000 employees. The number of employees generated by past
projects do not have a bearing on this EIR. The comment also includes the
commenter’s personal opinions. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.2.
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.
Response H.22: The Draft EIR and EIR Amendment evaluate the
environmental impacts of the previous project and project alternatives. The General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential
Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative include more residential units and a
different intensity of land uses than included in the previous project. Table 7.2-1,
starting on page 414 of the Draft EIR and Draft EIR Amendment Table 8.1-1, starting
on page 274, summarize the environmental impacts of the project and project
alternatives. As shown in Table 7.2-1, the Retail and Residential Alternative results
in lesser air quality (Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-6), energy (Impacts EN-1 and EN-3),
greenhouse gas (Impact GHG-1), transportation (Impacts TRN-1, TRN-2, TRN-6,
and TRN-7), and utilities and service systems (Impact UTL-6) impacts than the
previous project. As shown in Table 7.2-1 and Table 8.1-1, all of the project
alternatives would reduce an impact of the previous project. Refer also to Master
Response 4.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 436 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response H.23: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.17. The environmental
impacts of the previous project and project alternatives are studied in the Draft EIR
and EIR Amendment.
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)
Response H.24: The excerpted slide (Figure 13 in the above comment) states:
“CEQA requires study of alternatives. These may [emphasis added] include….” In
addition, the EIR studies the no project alternative and the EIR Amendment studies
the Housing Rich Alternative. The comment does not raise any issues about the
adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 437 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response H.25: The above comment is correct; the Occupied/Re-Tenanted
Mall is not the No Project alternative. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.4.
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.
Response H.26: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.5.
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.
Response H.27: The previous project, which includes 600,000 square feet of
commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800
residential units, was clearly stated in the Notice of Preparation for the project and in
the presentation at the EIR scoping meeting held on February 22, 2018. CEQA does
not require that the project alternatives be identified in the NOP or EIR Scoping
Meeting.
The project alternatives and their impacts are identified and disclosed in the Draft
EIR and EIR Amendment. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.22.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 438 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
A reasonable person would find this proposed alternative ‘housing heavy’ option
not consistent with the general plan.
Response H.28: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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.
Response H.29: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.22.
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
Response H.30: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.H.1 through II.H.29.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 439 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 440 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response H.31: No comment was provided with the above excerpt and the
text in the excerpt does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this
reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 441 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
I. Kitty Moore (dated June 6, 2018, 5:43PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
The following forwarded message is a request to halt the EIR process due to the
invocation of SB 35, dated March 27, 2018.
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
Response I.1: Refer to Master Response 1. The comment does not raise any issues
about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 442 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
J. Kitty Moore (dated June 7, 2018, 2:33PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response J.1: If requested as a Public Records Act Request, please contact the City
Clerk’s office for a status update on this request. The comment does not raise any
issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
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?
Response J.2: Footnote 6 on page 7 of the Draft EIR, which is partially excerpted
above, is correct. Also refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.22. The General Plan was
adopted based on the analysis completed in the 2014 General Plan EIR and the 2015
EIR Addendum. This is a comment on the General Plan EIR, and not a comment on
this EIR, which analyzes a Specific Plan for the Vallco site, and states the
commenter’s opinion.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 443 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response J.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.J.2.
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
Vallco – General Plan EIR Inconsistencies
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?
Response J.4: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.J.2. The Vallco Special Area
Specific Plan Draft EIR is a site-specific analysis for the development of the previous
project. Also refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11.
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?
Response J.5: CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 states: “The degree of specificity
required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the
underlying activity which is described in the EIR.” CEQA does not prohibit project-
level analysis in a program-level document.
The following is SOME of the information to support my statements:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 444 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 445 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 446 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 447 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 448 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 449 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 450 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 451 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Public Request Emails Request RE: Allocations to Vallco:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 452 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 453 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
In the following exchange it appears that Peter Pau of SHPCO believes that 2 Million SF of office is
being studied at Vallco:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 454 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Here the developer is requesting a specific allocation to Vallco which, they believe was studied in the
EIR for that site:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 455 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 456 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response J.6: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.J.2 and II.J.4. The Vallco Special
Area Specific Plan Draft EIR is a site-specific analysis for the development of the
previous project. Also refer to Section 5.2 II.E.11.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 457 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”:
Response J.7: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.J.2 and II.J.4, and Master Response
5.
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?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 458 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Please make findings public.
Response J.8: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.J.2 through II.J.7.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 459 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
K. Urs Mader (dated June 7, 2018, 7:12PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response K.1: As discussed in Sections 3.17 and 6.0 of the Draft EIR, the previous
project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts
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.
Response K.2: The City considered a Substantially Reduced Development
Alternative that would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable level of service
impacts, but this alternative was rejected for further analysis, given the lack of
development density, because it did not meet the project’s basic objectives of creating
a regional mixed-use Town Center, providing adequate housing capacity, and
creating sustainable development. This alternative is discussed on pages 410-411
under Section 7.2.1.2 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response K.3: The project and project alternative impacts on population and housing
are discussed in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR and the project and project alternative
growth-inducing impacts are discussed in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR. The office,
commercial, and residential uses in the previous project are included in the buildout
of the City’s adopted General Plan. The proposed office and commercial uses in the
project alternatives are also included in the City’s adopted General Plan. The number
of residences proposed in the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative, the Retail and Residential Alternative, and the Housing Rich Alternative
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 460 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
evaluated in the EIR Amendment would exceed what is planned in the City’s General
Plan, as discussed in Sections 3.14 and 4.0 of the Draft EIR (and as amended in the
EIR Amendment) and Sections 4.14 and 5.0 of the EIR Amendment.
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.
Response K.4: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 461 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
L. Kitty Moore (dated June 14, 2018, 10:57AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 462 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response L.1: The graphic included in the above comment showing the finished
floor elevation is not for the previous project or project alternatives. As stated on
page 30 under Section 2.4.4.5 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that future
development under the Specific Plan would require a maximum excavation depth of
20 to 30 feet. Refer also to Section 5.2 Response II.E.28.
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.
Response L.2: Refer to Master Response 1 and Section 5.2 Response II.L.1.
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 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 463 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 Eligibility 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 included on
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.
Response L.2: Refer to Master Response 1. As explained on page 143 of the Draft
EIR under Impact HAZ-2, there are two closed underground storage tank (UST)
cases on the project site listed on the Cortese list. As further explained on page 143
of the Draft EIR, “the existence of a Cortese list site in the Specific Plan area would
not result in any hazardous material impacts different from the impacts discussed in
Impact HAZ-1.” Impact HAZ-1 and the associated mitigation measures are identified
in the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures table. That is because, as
clarified on page 80 of the EIR Amendment in the discussion of Impact HAZ-2, the
site does not contain any open cases listed on the Cortese list databases. As stated on
page 143 of the Draft EIR and on page 80 of the EIR Amendment under Impact
HAZ-2: “Therefore, the existence of a Cortese list site in the Specific Plan area
would not result in any hazardous material impacts different from the impacts
discussed in Impact HAZ-1.” As discussed on page 142-143 under Impact HAZ-1 of
the Draft EIR, the project, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM
HAZ-1.1 through -1.4 “would reduce on-site hazardous materials impacts from
demolition, excavation, and construction to a less than significant level by creating
and implementing an SMP and HSP to establish practices for properly handing
contaminated materials, implementing measures during demolition activities to
identify, remove, and clean up hazardous materials on-site, properly closing
groundwater monitoring wells, and obtaining site closure from regulatory agencies.”
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.
Response L.3: Refer to Master Responses 1 and 5, and Section 5.2 Response II.L.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 464 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response L.4: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.L.2.
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.
Response L.5: The site referred to in the comment, 19333 Vallco Parkway is located
off-site and to the northeast of the project site. As described in the Draft EIR, the
groundwater flow is to the northeast; therefore, it is unlikely that any contamination
at that site would have spread to the project site. The hazards and hazardous
materials impacts discussed in the Draft EIR are based on a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (“Phase 1 ESA”) completed for the project site and included in
Appendix E of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 138 of the Draft EIR, federal,
state, and local regulatory agency databases were reviewed to evaluate the likelihood
of contaminated incidents at and near the project site. The property at 19333 Vallco
Parkway was identified in the database search (see Appendix A of the Phase I ESA),
however, as stated on page 138 of the Draft EIR, no off-site spill incidents were
reported that appear likely to significantly impact soil, soil vapor, or groundwater
beneath the site based on the types of incidents, the locations of the reported incidents
in relation to the site, and the assumed groundwater flow direction.
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'.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 465 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 466 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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...
Response L.6: The above conceptual figures of development do not represent the
previous project or project alternatives. Refer to Master Response 1, and Section 5.2
Responses II.L.1 and II.E.28.
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.
Response L.7: Refer to Master Response 1 and Section 5.2 Response II.L.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 467 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Please read pages 140-143 of the Vallco DEIR:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 468 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 469 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 470 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response L.8: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 471 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
M. Liang Chao (dated June 19, 2018, 8:12AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response M.1: While not required by CEQA, a public meeting was held on
June 19, 2018 at Community Hall from 5:00pm to 6:15pm to receive comments from
the public on the content of the Draft EIR. This meeting was separate from the City
Council meeting, which began at 6:45 pm, and was separately noticed by email
notification to interested persons and on the project website.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 472 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
N. Randy Shingai (dated June 19, 2018, 9:49AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Since a Draft EIR Meeting will be held this afternoon, can I have access to the
public comments received thus far?
Response N.1: Public EIR Meeting comments were not separately published. Written
and oral comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to the comments are
provided in this Final EIR. Public comments were not made available prior to
circulation of the Final EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 473 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
O. Kitty Moore (dated June 19, 2018, 11:12AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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?
Response O.1: While not required by CEQA, a public meeting was held on June 19,
2018 at Community Hall from 5:00pm to 6:15pm to receive comments from the
public on the content of the Draft EIR. This meeting was separate from the City
Council meeting, which began at 6:45 p.m., and was separately noticed by email
notification to interested persons and on the project website.
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.
Response O.2: Responses to the commenter’s attachment are provided below. The
45-day circulation period for the Draft EIR was from May 24, 2018 through July 9,
2018. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.M.1 regarding the EIR comment meeting.
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 has the intellectual curiosity to determine if
the plan is SB 35 compliant.
Response O.3: Refer to Master Response 1.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 474 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Please inform the public regarding the status of the 5 pm Vallco DEIR Study Session Today.
Response O.4: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.M.1.
• Please inform the public whether the Vallco SB 35 project is not compliant with supporting
documents just like the City of Berkeley did.
Response O.5: Refer to Master Response 1.
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
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.
Response O.6: Refer to Master Response 4.
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.
Response O.7: Refer to Master Response 3.
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 65450-64557:
(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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 475 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response O.8: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
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.
Response O.9: The comment cites the CEQA Guidelines section regarding an EIR
Notice of Preparation. A NOP was prepared and circulated for the project, consistent
with CEQA Section 15082. No specific questions are raised in the above comment
regarding the NOP.
Potential to Cease EIR Mid-Stream:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 476 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response O.10: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.7.
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.”
Response O.11: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 477 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.12: Refer to Master Responses 4 and 5.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 478 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.13: This comment cites different sections from the General Plan.
No comments have been made regarding the adequacy of the EIR, therefore no
further response is necessary.
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
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 479 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
Response O.14: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.10.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 480 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 481 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options
Response O.15: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 482 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4: DEIR Heights
Response O.16: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.12 and II.E.13.
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’.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 483 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 484 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.17: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.13.
5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of May
31, 2018 with no Specific 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
Response O.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.12 and II.E.13.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 485 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.19: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.15.
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”
Response O.20: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.16.
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.
Response O.21: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.17.
Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project, and
there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 486 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives
Response O.22: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.18.
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=
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 compatible with and will not
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 487 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to
mitigate the adverse effect or effects.” Id.
Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 488 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 489 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.23: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.19.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The findings and mitigations are adequate.
Response O.24: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.20.
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
Response O.25: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.21.
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?
“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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 490 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response O.26: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.22.
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.”
Response O.27: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.23.
2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document.
Response O.28: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.24.
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.
Response O.29: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.25.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 491 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application
Response O.30: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.26.
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.”
Response O.31: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.27.
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.
Response O.32: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.28.
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 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 492 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in
the project.
Response O.33: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.29.
2.4.4.4 UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND RECYCLED WATER
INFR ASTRUCTURE 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.
Response O.34: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.30.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 493 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.35: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.31.
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.
Response O.36: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.32.
Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas.
Response O.37: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.33.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 494 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings:
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 495 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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).”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 496 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 497 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 17: Vallco 1939
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 498 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 18: Vallco 1965
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 499 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 19: Vallco 1974
Response O.38: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.34.
LIGHT AND GLARE
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 500 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.39: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.35.
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.
Response O.40: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.36.
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.
Response O.41: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.37.
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 501 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 502 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Fehr + Peers ADT chart:
Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match
Response O.42: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.38.
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.
Response O.43: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.39.
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.”
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 503 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.44: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.40.
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.
Response O.45: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.41.
It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting
landfills which are not near the site.
Response O.46: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.42.
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?
Response O.47: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.43.
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.
Response O.48: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.44.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 504 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
lead agency to ensure the equipment operated by the project actually uses alternative fuel. City must
present their enforcement process.
Response O.49: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.45.
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.
Response O.50: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.46.
• 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
Response O.51: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.47.
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
Response O.52: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.48.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 505 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 506 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.53: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.49
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.
Response O.54: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.50.
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.
Response O.55: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.51.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 507 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response O.56: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.52.
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).
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 508 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response O.57: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.53.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 509 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.58: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.54.
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.
Response O.59: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.55.
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
Response O.60: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.56.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 510 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 511 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response O.61: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.57.
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.
Response O.62: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.58.
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.
Response O.63: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.59.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 512 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.64: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.60.
The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP:
“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”
Response O.65: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.61.
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.
Response O.66: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.62.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 513 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.67: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.63.
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.
Response O.68: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.64.
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 514 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase,
and excavation.
Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors
Response O.69: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.65.
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.
Response O.70: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.66.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 515 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.71: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.67.
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.
Response O.72: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.68.
GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction equipment of
16.9’ which is innacurate.
Response O.73: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.69.
2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific Plan
process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean.
Response O.74: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.70.
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.
Response O.75: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.71.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 516 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.76: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.72.
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 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).”
Response O.77: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.73.
Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 517 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 518 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.78: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.74.
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:
Response O.79: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.75.
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 Wolfe 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:
Figure 32: DEIR GHG Section, Acreage
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 519 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast
was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 520 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast
Source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pd
f
Response O.80: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.76.
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:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 521 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response O.81: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.77.
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 office
generated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.”
Response O.82: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.78.
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:
Response O.83: Refer to Master Response 1 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.79.
Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 522 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 523 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 524 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.84: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.80.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 525 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 526 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886
Response O.85: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.81.
BL2: DECARBONIZED 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 527 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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”
Response O.86: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.82.
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.
Response O.87: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.83.
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?
Response O.88: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.84.
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 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 528 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 41: DEIR, GHG, Construction Period Emissions
“…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?
Response O.89: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.85.
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)?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 529 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.90: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.86.
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.
Response O.91: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.87.
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.
Response O.92: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.88.
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.
Response O.93: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
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 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.
Response O.94: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.90.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 530 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.95: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.91.
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”.
Response O.96: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.92.
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.
Response O.97: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.93.
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.
Response O.98: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.94.
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. 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.
Response O.99: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.95.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 531 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.100: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.96.
Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency
access and fire prevention.
Response O.101: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.97.
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.
Response O.102: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.98.
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.
Response O.103: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.99.
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.
Response O.104: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.100.
Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively.
Response O.105: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.101.
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.
Response O.106: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.102.
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Agree with DEIR.
Response O.107: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.103.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 532 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.108: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.104.
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
“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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 533 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2
Response O.109: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.105.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 534 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040
Response O.110: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.106.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included.
Response O.111: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.107.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 535 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 536 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors
Response O.112: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.108.
Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 537 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response O.113: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.109.
• 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.
Response O.114: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.110.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 538 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.115: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.111.
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 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.”
Response O.116: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.112.
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.
Response O.117: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.113.
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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 539 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.118: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.114.
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:
Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue
Response O.119: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.115.
VIBRATION
It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property.
Response O.120: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.116.
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.
Response O.121: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.117.
The city states the population of residents per residential unit is 2.94, per the
DEIR:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 540 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.122: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.118.
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.
Response O.123: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.119.
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.
Response O.124: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.120.
Emotional effects of cramped housing on children:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Response O.125: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.121.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof.
Response O.126: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.122.
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?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 541 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response O.127: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.123.
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
Response O.128: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.124.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 542 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.129: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.125.
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.
Response O.130: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.126.
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.
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.
Response O.131: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.127.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 543 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Figure 48: DEIR SGR
Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives
FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE
Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 544 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs
Response O.132: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.128.
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 545 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following
impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction:
• traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school;
• dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities;
• effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on
wildlife at the construction site;
• effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality;
• other “indirect effects” as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2)
(growth-inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density, related
effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Chawanakee Unified School District,
196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school
facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially
ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of
considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities.
However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from
conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental
impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has
agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50.”
Response O.133: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.129.
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.
Response O.134: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.130.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 546 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.135: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.131.
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.
Response O.136: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.132.
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.
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.
Response O.137: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.133.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 547 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response O.138: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.134.
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
Response O.139: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.135.
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).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 548 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 54: VTC Hills at Vallco Trip Generation Planner
Response O.140: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.136.
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.
Response O.141: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.137.
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.).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 549 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees
Response O.142: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.138.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 550 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
P. Kitty Moore (dated June 19, 2018, 11:18AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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:
✓ Signing up for e-notification regarding Vallco here:
http://www.cupertino.org/visitors/enotification-signup
✓ Follow City of Cupertino on our social media channels
Facebook | Twitter | Nextdoor
✓ View project updates on http://envisionvallco.org.
Response P.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 551 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Q. Kitty Moore (dated June 21, 2018, 5:27PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response Q.1: Refer to Master Response 1.
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 presumably
of the tank, and did not lift the lid! The tank apparently shows up on building plans from 1969.
Response Q.2: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
The discussion in the Draft EIR is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, which is included in
Appendix E of the Draft EIR. The ESA was prepared in compliance with standard
practice for environmental site assessments (ASTM E 1527-13, as explained on page
1 of the ESA). The scope of work performed for the ESA included site
reconnaissance, drive-by observation of adjoining properties, acquisition and review
of regulatory database reports of public records for the site, information on files at
government agencies, and review of maps and aerial photographs, as summarized on
ESA, pages 3 and discussed on page 26. As stated on page 26 of the ESA: “Sand Hill
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 552 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Property Company did not complete the provided questionnaire; however, they
referred Cornerstone to the previously completed reports listed in Table 4 and
provided copies of each. They also provided access to the Site and contact
information for Mr. Mike Rohde, General Manager of Vallco Shopping Mall, “who
was briefly interviewed during our Site visit.” After this scope of work was
performed, Cornerstone concluded that “[n]o significant data failures were identified
during this Phase 1 ESA” (ESA, p. 31).
The ESA discusses the possible presence of a 1,000 gallon waste oil underground
storage tank (UST) on-site and that there were no records found pertaining to its
removal (page 137 of the Draft EIR). As stated on page 20 of the ESA: “A square
access cover constructed of concrete was observed at the building exterior, in the
general vicinity of the depicted waste oil UST. The access cover could not be
removed with the tools available at the time of our visit.” Mitigation measure MM
HAZ-1.2 on page 141 of the Draft EIR specifically addresses and mitigates the
impact from the potential waste oil UST on-site: “The potential presence of a waste
oil UST shall be further investigated by removing the access cover and, if uncertainty
remains, the subsequent performance of a geophysical survey. If a UST is identified,
it shall be removed in coordination with SCCFD and SCCDEH, and underlying soil
quality shall be evaluated. If no UST is identified, soil quality at the location of the
waste oil UST, as depicted in the 1969 building plan, shall be evaluated via the
collection of soil samples from borings for laboratory analysis.” The project, with the
implementation of the identified mitigation measures in the Draft EIR, would not
result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts.
Refer to Master Response 5. The comment on the General Plan EIR is not a
comment on the adequacy of this EIR.
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?
Response Q.3: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12. The Draft EIR (page 140)
discloses that historic agricultural use may have resulted in potential on-site sources
of soil and/or groundwater contamination. Most of the project site is developed and
covered with pavement and buildings. The project site is also partially occupied. For
these reasons, soil testing was not completed; rather, a comprehensive Site
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan, as well as other measures to remove
residual hazardous materials on-site, shall be completed during demolition activities
to manage any impacted soil prior to disposal and/or reuse on the site. As stated on
pages 140-142 of the Draft EIR, when future development implementing the Specific
Plan is proposed, it would be required to implement mitigation measures MM HAZ-
1.1 through MM HAZ-1.4 to reduce on-site hazardous materials impacts from
demolition, excavation, and construction by creating and implementing a Site
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan to establish practices for properly
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 553 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
handling contaminated materials, implementing measures during demolition activities
to identify, remove, and clean up hazardous materials (such as contaminated soil) on-
site, properly closing groundwater monitoring wells, and obtaining site closure from
regulatory agencies.
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?
Response Q.4: The scope of this EIR does not include the Main Street Cupertino site
or its soil off-haul. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.L.5.
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.
Response Q.5: Comment noted. No specific questions were raised in the above
comment on the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further
response is required.
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
Survey of Environmental Reporting Pertaining to Vallco Site USTs and Hazardous
Materials
Vallco SB 35 and Vallco Specific Plan Site Usage
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.
Response Q.6: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.Q.2.
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.
Response Q.7: Refer to Master Response 5 and Section 5.2 Response II.Q.2 and
Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
The whereabouts of a 500 gallon UST is unknown:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 554 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Cornerstone Earth Group, Appendix E Part 1, p. 28)
Response Q.8: As discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 140-142, the project will
implement mitigation measures MM HAZ-1.1 through MM HAZ-1.4, which include
preparing and implementing a Site Management Plan (SMP) that shall document
former and suspect UST locations, evaluate soil quality, and obtain facility closures
to reduce on-site hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to
Section 5.2 Response II.Q.2 and Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
Readings exceeding allowable for residential:
(Cornerstone Earth Group, Appendix E, Part 1, p. 11)
Response Q.9: The excerpt above is from page 11 of the ESA included in Appendix
E of the Draft EIR. The discussion regarding the soil samples referenced above on
the following page states: “In November 1994, approximately 4.5 cubic yards of soil
reportedly was removed from the location of sample (2AST) in which the greatest
concentrations of TPHg, benzene and ethylbenzene were previously reported.
Analyses of a second samples collected following the soil removal work did not
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 555 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
detect TPHg or BTEX compounds.” The elevated levels of TPHg and BTEX
(including benzene), therefore, were removed from the project site.
There is an existing on site battery acid neutralization chamber, not removed.
Response Q.10: Mitigation measure MM HAZ-1.2 on page 141 of the Draft
EIR includes a measure requiring that the acid neutralization chamber be cleaned and
removed in coordination with the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Santa
Clara County Department of Environmental Health. The measure also requires soil
quality below the chamber be evaluated. Implementation of this measure would
reduce impacts from the acid neutralization chamber to a less than significant level.
Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
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.
Response Q.11: No information was identified during the ESA indicating that
USTs were associated with the former orchard or associated structures. Refer to
Section 5.2 Responses II.Q.2 and II.Q.8, and Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
The ice rink had allegedly required some environmental cleanup which is
undocumented.
Response Q.12: The oil staining and spilled oil at the Cupertino Ice Center
was identified in the ESA and Draft EIR. Mitigation measure MM HAZ-1.2 on page
142 of the Draft EIR includes the following measure: “Existing staining and spilled
oil on-site, including at the Sears Automotive Center and Cupertino Ice Center, shall
be properly cleaned. When these facilities are demolished, an Environmental
Professional shall be present to observe underlying soil for evidence of potential
impacts and, if observed, collect soil samples for laboratory analysis.” MM HAZ-1.1
requires preparation and implementation of a Soil Management Plan and Health and
Safety Plan to properly manage any impacted soil, soil vapor, or groundwater
identified on the site. Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts from
the oil staining and spilled oil to a less than significant level. Refer to Section 5.3
Response AAA.12.
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)
Response Q.13: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.Q.3.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 556 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response Q.14: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.42.
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.
Response Q.15: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.Q.3.
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.
Response Q.16: There are no restrictions on use of the project site and the
results of the hazardous materials investigations completed to date and summarized in
the Draft EIR do not identify any issues limiting residential use on the site. As
concluded in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR and
supporting ESA in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, the project (which includes
residential development), with the implementation of the identified mitigation
measures, would not result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts.
Refer to pages 134-146 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response Q.17: Refer to Master Response 5. No specific questions were
raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For this
reason, no further response is required.
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.
Response Q.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.Q.3 and II.Q.16.
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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 557 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response Q.19: Refer to Master Response 1.
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.
Response Q.20: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.Q.2, II.Q.3 and Section 5.3
Response AAA.12.
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
Response Q.21: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.Q.3 and Section 5.3
Response AAA.12. Facility closures (including removal of USTs) shall be
coordinated with the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental Health.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 558 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response Q.22: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.L.5. No specific questions
were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For
this reason, no further response is required.
TEXT OF SB 35 GOV. CODE 69513.4(A)(6)(E).
Gov. Code § 69513.4(a)(6)(E):
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 559 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(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.
Response Q.23: Refer to Master Response 1. No specific questions were
raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For this
reason, no further response is required.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 560 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 561 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(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.)
Response Q.24: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 562 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR
Figure 1: p. 140 Vallco DEIR Circulated May 24, 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 563 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 2: p. 141 Vallco DEIR Circulated May 24, 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 564 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 3: p. 142 Vallco DEIR Circulated May 24, 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 565 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4: p. 143 Vallco DEIR Circulated March 24, 2018.
Response Q.25: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 566 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 567 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Historically, there was no mound indicated to the north of the JC Penney building:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 568 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 569 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
This photograph from 1950 shows the continued use as an orchard:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 570 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The property is still in use as an orchard in 1963:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 571 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Still an orchard in 1968 (minimum 30 years of orchard use):
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 572 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 573 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
EDR
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 574 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 575 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 576 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
= 500'
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 577 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
EDR
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 578 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response Q.26: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 579 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 580 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT BY CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 581 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 582 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 583 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 584 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 585 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 586 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 587 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SUMMARY TABLE FROM ESA
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 588 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 589 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 590 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Cornerstone Earth Group, pp. 8-15, PDF 12-19)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 591 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SITE PHOTOS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 592 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 593 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 594 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response Q.27: Refer to Master Response 5. The above excerpts from
Appendix E of the Draft EIR do not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR.
For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 595 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
WHERE ARE FORMS PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE §65962.5?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 596 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response Q.28: No forms pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 are
required under CEQA. A discussion of the project site being included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 is
discussed in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR. The above excerpt from Appendix E of the
Draft EIR does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason,
no further response is required.
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:
Response Q.29: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.Q.2 and II.Q.7.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 597 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 598 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 599 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 600 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 601 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 602 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 603 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Cornerstone Earth Group, PDF 46)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 604 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Cornerstone Earth Group, PDF 47)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 605 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Cornerstone Earth Group, PDF 48)
2013 ESA
Previous ownership of the mall:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 606 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix E, Part 2, PDF 119
Response Q.30: The above excerpts are from the ESA, which is Appendix E
of the Draft EIR. The findings of the ESA are summarized in Section 3.9 of the Draft
EIR. Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12. No specific questions were raised in
the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no
further response is required.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 607 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 608 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 609 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
2003 ESA
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 610 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 611 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Only 6 USTs mentioned being removed in 1985, no mention of the 1,000 gallon waste oil UST:
Response Q.31: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 612 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 613 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
j ulie.osborn@water boa rds.ca .gov
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 614 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
This is a sampling page of the entire document.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/tech_notices/docs/ca_fed_regs.pdf
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 615 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response Q.32: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12. Comment noted.
The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this
reason, no further response is required.
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
Response Q.33: Comment noted. The comment does not raise any issues
about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUIREMENTS PER VALLCO SB 35
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.
Response Q.34: Refer to Master Response 1. The comment does not raise any
issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 616 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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)
Response Q.35: Refer to Master Response 1. The comment does not raise any
issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
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
Response Q.36: Refer to Master Responses 1 and 5. The comment does not
raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response
is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 617 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 618 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 2: Comparison of SB 35 Plan to Projects studied in various EIRs
Response Q.37: The rationale for the project alternatives is described on pages
15-16 of the Draft EIR. The EIR project alternatives are not based on the Vallco
Town Center SB 35 project. Refer to Master Response 1. The scope of the EIR does
not include evaluating the environmental impacts of the SB 35 project.
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:
• 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)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 619 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 620 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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)
Response Q.38: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
The following tables from the Vallco Specific Plan DEIR describe the sources and
health effects which arise from the air pollutants mentioned in the Air Quality portion of the DEIR:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 621 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 3: DEIR Health Effects of Air Pollutants
(Vallco DEIR, p. 52 PDF 88)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 622 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response Q.39: Refer to Master Response 1. The comment does not raise any
issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
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 Special Area Specific Plan 623 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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>.
Response Q.40: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 624 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
R. Kitty Moore (dated June 22, 2018, 1:45PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response R.1: Refer to Master Response 5. Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this
reason, no further response is required.
The hazardous materials apparently onsite should be registered where? Aren’t
there some state and federal laws which must be complied with?
Response R.2: Section 3.9 in the Draft EIR provides an overview of the regulatory
framework for hazards and hazardous materials. Locally, the Santa Clara County
Fire Department (SCCFD) administers Hazardous Materials Business Plans,
Underground Storage Tanks, California Fire Code, Hazardous Materials Storage
Ordinance, and Toxic Gas Ordinance. The Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (SCCDEH) administers the Hazardous Waste Generator
Program, Hazardous Waste Tiered Permitting, Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act,
and California Accidental Release Prevention Program. The SCCFD and SCCDEH
have records of hazardous material use and storage on-site. Also refer to Section 5.3
Response AAA.12.
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.
Response R.3: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
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.
Response R.4: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 625 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
ATTACHMENT TO COMMENT LETTER
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SUMMARY TABLE FROM ESA
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 626 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 627 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 628 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Cornerstone Earth Group, pp. 8-15, PDF 12-19)
Response R.5: The above excerpts from the ESA in Appendix E of the Draft EIR do
not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further
response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 629 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SITE PHOTOS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 630 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 631 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 632 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response R.6: The above excerpts from the ESA in Appendix E of the Draft EIR do
not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further
response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 633 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
WHERE ARE FORMS PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE 65962.5
Response R.7: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.Q.28.
Where Did Each ESA Collect Their Info From?
WSP 2014 ESA:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 634 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 635 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 636 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CERES 2003
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 637 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 638 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CERES 2006
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 639 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response R.8: Refer to Master Response 5. The references for the ESA in Appendix
E of the Draft EIR are attached as appendices to the report, files at the City of
Cupertino Building Department, SCCFD, and SCCDEH, and reports available on the
State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website
(http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0608552828
and
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0608500770).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 640 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
S. Kitty Moore (dated June 25, 2018, 8:01PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response S.1: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 641 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 642 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 643 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 644 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 will be your legacy.
Response S.2: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.Q.2 and II.Q.3 and Section 5.3
Response AAA.12.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 645 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
T. Kitty Moore (dated July 5, 2018, 10:23PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response T.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.Q.3 and Section 5.3 Response
AAA.12.
I do not want the same firm to conduct the Phase II and III studies as performed the
Phase I study.
Response T.2: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.12. The above comment
expresses the opinion of the commenter. The comment does not raise any issues
about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
It is imperative that further study be completed in a timely manner.
Response T.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.Q.3 and Section 5.3 Response
AAA.12.
Vallco Specific Plan DEIR is missing most of the following items from the
General Plan, emphasis has 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
Response T.4: Table 3.11-1 starting on page 165 of the Draft EIR is a summary of
the project and project alternatives consistency with applicable General Plan policies
and strategies that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
As explained in the General Plan (page I-10), General Plan goals are broad statement
of values or aspirations needed to achieve the City’s vision. General Plan policies are
more precise statements that guide the actions of City staff, developers, and policy
makers necessary to achieve the goals. General Plan strategies are specific tasks that
the City will undertake to implement the policies and work toward achieving the
goals. The EIR, accordingly, focuses on the project’s consistency with General Plan
policies and strategies (which achieve the General Plan goals). The project’s
consistency with Goal LU-1 is, therefore, addressed through the analysis of the
project’s consistency with the implementing policies and strategies to achieve Goal
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 646 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
LU-1, including policies LU-1.1, and -1.4, are discussed in Table 3.11-1 of the Draft
EIR.
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.
Response T.5: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.21. The development allocations
in the above comment match what is identified on page LU-13 of the General Plan in
Table LU-1 for the project site. As described in the Draft EIR (page 7), 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, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 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 on the site. Maintaining a minimum of 600,000
square feet of retail on the project site is identified as part of General Plan Strategy
LU-19.1.4.
The General Plan development allocations are discussed in Section 3.14 of the Draft
EIR.
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).
Response T.6: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.T.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.
Response T.7: CEQA does not require consistency with a general plan policy to be
analyzed unless the policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section X.b). For this
reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not discussed in the Draft
EIR. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.T.4.
Policy LU-1.X: Jobs/Housing Balance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and
housing units. (No calculations provided)
Response T.8: CEQA does not require the analysis of a jobs/housing balance, nor is
there an identified threshold of significance. For this reason, the above General Plan
policy is not specifically addressed. The residential population and number of
jobs/employees were estimated for each of the project and project alternative, as
discussed on pages 401-403 in Section 4.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Draft
EIR. In addition, the EIR Amendment includes a brief discussion of the jobs/housing
ratio on pages 1-2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 647 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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).
Response T.9: Refer to page 16 under Section 2.4.3 of the Draft EIR, which
describes that the previous project and project alternatives would amend the General
Plan to reflect the maximum residential density allowed on the site.
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.
(This was not included)
Response T.10: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. For this reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not
discussed in the Draft EIR.
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.
Response T.11: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.T.7. The above strategy was
not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Nonetheless, the project and project alternative consistency with the strategy is
discussed in Table 3.11-1 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response T.12: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and T.II.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. For this reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not
discussed in the Draft EIR.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 648 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response T.13: The consistency of the project and project alternatives with
the above strategy is discussed in Table 3.11-1 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response T.14: The consistency of the project and project alternatives with
the above strategy is discussed in Table 3.11-1 of the Draft EIR.
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 Interstate
280 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)
Response T.15: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. For this reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not
discussed in the Draft EIR.
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).
Response T.16: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. For this reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not
discussed in the Draft EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 649 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The noise and air quality impacts of the project and project alternatives are discussed
in Sections 3.13 and 3.3 in the Draft EIR.
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.
Response T.17: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. Nonetheless, the project and project alternative consistency with the strategy
is discussed in Table 3.11-1 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response T.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategies were not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Nonetheless, the project and project alternative consistency
with these strategies is discussed in Table 3.11-1 of the Draft EIR.
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.
Response T.19: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. For this reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not
discussed in the Draft EIR.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 650 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.)
Response T.20: The consistency of the project and project alternatives with
the above strategies is discussed in Table 3.11-1. Refer to Section 5.2 Responses
II.T.4 and II.T.7.
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).
Response T.21: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.T.4 and II.T.7. The above
strategy was not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. For this reason, the project’s consistency with the above policy is not
discussed in the Draft EIR.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 651 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
U. Jon Willey (dated July 6, 2018, 4:30PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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
Response U.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. The following response to the planning-related questions were provided from
City staff via email on July 10, 2018 to the commenter:
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:
A. Specific Plan development - the GP does not solely require that the specific plan
be developed by a developer for the Council’s consideration.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 652 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
B. The City Council can adopt, either a developer prepared, or city prepared specific
plan.
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.
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.)
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 653 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
V. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:02AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response V.1: The reconfiguration of Stevens Creek Boulevard is not proposed as
part of this project.
• 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.
Response V.2: Comment noted. The comment does not raise any issues about the
adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
• Pedestrian and bicycle access through the perimeter wall is vehemently opposed by some
neighbors, but such access would serve the greater good.
Response V.3: Comment noted. No changes are proposed to the perimeter wall as
part of the project.
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.
Response V.4: Comment noted. As discussed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources of
the Draft EIR, trees that would be removed as part of the project shall be replaced
pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code.
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.
Response V.5: Comment noted. As described on page 29 of the Draft EIR under
Section 2.4.4.1, the project (and the General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 654 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Alternative) would have approximately 15 to 20 percent of the gross site area (which
is approximately 10.5 to 14 acres) would be developed with open space, landscaping,
and central town squares.
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!
Response V.6: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
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.
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.
Response V.7: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 655 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
W. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:04AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response W.1: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter.
Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.V.1 and II.V.2. The comment does not raise any
issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
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.
Response W.2: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.U.6. The above comment
expresses the opinion of the commenter. The comment does not raise any issues
about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 656 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
X. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:06AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response X.1: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
2. Parks. The 30-acre living roof is okay, but smaller ground level parks are also important.
Response X.2: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.V.5.
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.
Response X.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.V.3.
4. 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.
5. 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 serve to help unite what has recently become a somewhat divided city.
Response X.4: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 657 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Y. Geoffrey Paulsen (dated July 8, 2018, 9:08AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response Y.1: The air quality impacts of the project and project alternatives are
discussed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. The above comment expresses the opinion
of the commenter. The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
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.
Response Y.2: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 658 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Z. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 1:59PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response Z.1: The comments received related to green roofs, adult education and
civic spaces are available on the project website at www.envisionvallco.org. The
comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no
further response is required.
AA. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 2:19PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response AA.1: The existing citywide parkland ratio of approximately 2.64
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents is stated on page 244 of the Draft EIR. As
described in the Draft EIR (page 250-251) the estimated required parkland, pursuant
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 659 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
to Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, for the previous Specific Plan would be 4.3 acres,
and for the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential, Retail and Residential,
and Housing Rich Alternatives the required parkland would be 14.3 acres, 21.6 acres,
and 17.6 acres, respectively. The previous project includes 10.5 to 14 acres of
common open space, landscaping, and town squares, as well as a 30-acre green roof
that would include outdoor use areas such as outdoor dining, playgrounds, walking
paths, and picnic areas. The previous project (and alternatives including the green
roof) would provide 40.5 to 44 acres of on-site open space, landscaping, town squares
and/or green roof. The proposed on-site open space (whether public, private or a
combination of the two) would offset the project’s demand on local parkland, and
provide public parkland for neighboring residents on the east side of Cupertino in the
North Blaney and Vallco areas.
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code (Chapter 13.04.020) defines park as the
following: “Park” means a park, reservation, playground, swimming pool, recreation
center or any other area in the City, owned or used by the City or county and devoted
to active or passive recreations. Based upon this definition, the open space, town
square and green roof would count as parkland. Additionally, if the topography of
the park land is not acceptable, the project (and project alternatives) shall dedicate
land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.05 and Title 18, which
helps ensure the provision of parklands meeting the City standard of a minimum of
three acres per 1,000 residents (Draft EIR page 251, and as revised in Section 5.0).
See Section 5.2 Response II.E.26.
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.
Response AA.2: Refer to Master Response 3 regarding the project description
in the NOP. The potential for earthquakes to affect the proposed green roof is the
same risk as is present for all structures proposed by the project. The proposed
structures, including any green roof, would be subject to the California Building
Code Section 183, which calls for a site-specific geotechnical investigation and
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 660 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
implementation of necessary design and construction techniques to minimize seismic,
seismic-related, and soil hazards to acceptable levels.
The amount of required park land for the project and project alternatives is described
on pages 250-252 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.AA.1.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 661 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
BB. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 2:28PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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, including 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.
Response BB.1: The maximum building heights described in the Draft EIR for
the project and project alternatives (refer to Section 2.4, Project Description) are the
total height of structures; therefore, any rooftop structures would be included within
that maximum structure height.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 662 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CC. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:03PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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 equipment 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.
Response CC.1: The comment reflects the opinion of the commenter. The
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) was contacted by phone by the City’s
EIR consultant to discuss the details of the previous project and project alternatives
and their abilities to provide adequate fire protection services. Input from SCCFD is
reflected in the EIR discussion. As discussed in the Draft EIR (page 245), the
SCCFD confirmed that the project (and project alternatives) would be adequately
served by existing fire protection facilities. The SCCFD also participates in
discussions with City staff on an on-going basis regarding development in its service
area. The SCCFD also received a copy of the Draft EIR for purposes of review and
comment.
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?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 663 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
"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
Cupertino 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.
Response CC.2: According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the
CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact related to fire
protection and emergency services if it would result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection
facilities, need for 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 for fire
protection services.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 664 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The SCCFD was contacted by phone by the City’s EIR consultant to discuss the
details of the previous project and project alternatives and their abilities to provide
adequate fire protection services. As discussed in the Draft EIR (page 245), the
SCCFD confirmed that the project (and project alternatives) would be adequately
served by existing fire protection facilities. The SCCFD takes into account its entire
existing service area when it considers additional requests for service. The
cumulative impacts to fire protection services is discussed under Impact PS-6 on page
253 of the Draft EIR. The cumulative analysis evaluates the impacts of the buildout
of the General Plan and cumulative projects (including the previous project). Once
the SCCFD has identified a site for a new fire station, the future fire station would be
subject to site-specific CEQA environmental review and is anticipated to result in
less than significant impacts. For this reason, as concluded in the Draft EIR, the
previous project and project alternatives would not result in significant project-level
or cumulative environmental impacts related to the provision of fire protection
services.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 665 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
DD. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:20PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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 within 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".
Response DD.1: According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the
CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact related to police
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 666 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
protection services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities,
need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection
services.
Similar to fire protection services, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department takes
into account its entire existing service area when it considers additional requests for
service. The Draft EIR (pages 253-254) describes the effect of the project and project
alternatives on police protection services. As described in the Draft EIR, the previous
project and project alternatives would not result in significant project-level or
cumulative environmental impacts related to the provision of police protection
services. As development occurs, the contract between the City and the Santa Clara
County Sherriff will be modified, as necessary, to maintain acceptable response times
for police protection services.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 667 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
EE. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:37PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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 mitigation
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".
Response EE.1: The Draft EIR did not only evaluate the alternative for 800
housing units or 2,400 units. The Draft EIR evaluated the previous Specific Plan
(800 residential units), as well as the project alternatives including the General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative (2,640 residential units) and the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 668 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Retail and Residential Alternative (4,000 residential units). The Draft EIR
Amendment included the Housing Rich Alternative (3,250 residential units). The
Draft EIR describes the current enrollment and current and projected capacity
information for local schools in the Cupertino Union School District and Fremont
Union High School District. As described in the Draft EIR (pages 246-249)
enrollment is projected to decline over the next five years, so that both the elementary
and high school district would have capacity districtwide to accommodate students
generated by the previous project or project alternatives. As described in the Draft
EIR, school impact fees are the required method for projects to offset the demands on
school facilities. Through payment of appropriate school impact fees to CUSD and
FUHSD, in conformance with state law (Government Code Section 65996), the
project and project alternatives would not result in significant impacts to local
schools. The traffic analysis includes home to school trips as part of the distribution
of residential project trips. The traffic analysis also evaluates impacts to pedestrian
and bicycle facilities (Draft EIR 357-359).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 669 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
FF. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 3:48PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response FF.1: Public services, like library services, are provided to a
community as a whole and are financed on a community-wide basis. New
development may create an incremental increase in the demand to the services. The
amount of the demand will vary widely, depending upon the nature of development
(residential vs. industrial, for example) and the specific characteristics of the
development. The impact of a particular project will generally be a fiscal impact; i.e.,
by increasing the demand for a service, a project could cause an eventual increase in
the cost of providing the service. With sufficient increased demand, a project may
trigger the need for a new facility, the development of which could potentially have
environmental impacts. According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the
CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact related to library
services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered library facilities, need for new or physically
altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives for library services.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 670 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
As described in the Draft EIR (page 244, 250, and 255) the Santa Clara County
Library District (SCCLD) identified an existing need for more programmed space at
the Cupertino Library and in 2015, and the City adopted the Cupertino Civic Center
Master Plan project that included expansion of the library by 2,000 square feet. An
Initial Study for the project found that the library expansion would not result in
significant environmental impacts. The programming expansion identified in the
Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan is considered sufficient to meet the needs of
buildout of the General Plan and cumulative projects (including the project and
project alternatives), and is expected to be implemented within the timeframe of
buildout of the cumulative projects. For this reason, the Draft EIR found the
project’s impact on library services to be less than significant.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 671 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
GG. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:05PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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& Valco neighborhoods 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& Valco end 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.
ATTACHMENT
Quimby Act
Compliance Analysis
Speaker: Chris Bencher
Contact: 408-573-7122
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 672 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 673 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 674 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 675 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 676 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Back-Up Material
18.24.60 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.
Source:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/cupertino/cityofcupertinocaliforniamunicipalcod
e?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:cupertino_ca
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 677 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Source: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/cupertino/
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 678 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response GG.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.AA.1
.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 679 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
HH. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:06PM-fire)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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
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.
Response HH.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.CC.1.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 680 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response HH.2: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.CC.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 681 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
II. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:06PM-police)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
(Monday July 9, 3:19PM) 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 within 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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 682 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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".
Response II.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.DD.1.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 683 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
JJ. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:32PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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 between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is amended to recognize and
authorize this increased flow.
Response JJ.1: The General Plan includes strategies requiring developers to
expand or upgrade existing infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share,
as appropriate, to ensure service levels are met (Strategy INF-1.4.1, INF-5.1.2). The
mitigation identified above is identified in the Draft EIR (page 390) and EIR
Amendment (page 255), as amended by the text revision in Section 5.0 and Section
6.0, respectively, for the previous project and project alternatives.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 684 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
KK. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 4:41PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response KK.1: The Draft EIR includes a table detailing the elementary,
middle, and high school students that would be generated by the project and project
alternatives (Draft EIR page 247, Table 3.15-3). Refer to Section 5.2 Response
II.EE.1 regarding the mitigation measure for project and project alternatives’ impacts
to school facilities.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 685 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
LL. Liang Chao (dated July 9, 2018, 5:26PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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 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"?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 686 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response LL.1: The Draft EIR (pages 15-16) explains the reasons for
including each of the project alternatives analyzed in Draft EIR. The EIR
Amendment (pages 1-2) describe the methodology utilized to calculate the residential
units for the project and project alternatives. Table 7.2-1 is a summary comparison of
the project’s impacts and each of the project alternatives’ impacts. As shown in
Table 7.2-1, the Retail and Residential Alternative results in lesser air quality
(Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-6), energy (Impacts EN-1 and EN-3), greenhouse gas (Impact
GHG-1), transportation (Impacts TRN-1, TRN-2, TRN-6, and TRN-7), and utilities
and service systems (Impact UTL-6) impacts than the previous project. As shown in
Table 7.2-1, the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative result
in lesser energy (Impact EN-1 and EN-3), greenhouse gas (Impact GHG-1) and
transportation (Impacts TRN-1, TRN-2, TRN-6, and TRN-7).
Draft EIR Section 7.0 describes all of the alternatives to the project that were
considered, including alternatives that were rejected for further consideration such as
a Substantially Reduced Development Alternative that would avoid the project’s
significant traffic impacts, and an Alternative Location. The EIR also analyzed the
No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). As also
required by CEQA, the Draft EIR also identifies an Environmentally Superior
Alternative, other than the No Project Alternative, that would achieve most of the
basic objectives of the project. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). The
Retail and Residential Alternative was identified as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative, because it would avoid or result in lesser significant impacts than the
previous project with regards to construction air quality impacts, GHG emissions, and
traffic.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 687 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM. Jon Willey (dated July 11, 2018, 8:56AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response MM.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. No further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 688 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
NN. Janet Laurain (dated July 11, 2018, 3:25PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Can you please tell me if there is a projected timeline for release of and hearing on
the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Project?
Response NN.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. The following response to the planning-related questions were provided
from City staff via email on July 11, 2018 to the commenter:
These are expected in September and October. Please sign up on our city’s website at
www.cupertino.org/vallco for updates.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 689 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
OO. Lozeau Drury (dated July 12, 2018)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 690 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
o Notices of approval or certification of any 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
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Response OO.1: The comment does not raise any specific issues about the
adequacy of the EIR. The commenters request to receive future notices regarding the
project is acknowledged, all persons requesting notification about the project have
been added to the City’s distribution list. No further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 691 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
PP. Jon Willey (dated July 18, 2018, 1:25PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response PP.1: The comments do not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. The below responses (Responses E.2 through E.6) to the planning-related
questions were provided from City staff via email to the commenter. Since this
document is not printed in color, the City’s first response is shown in italics and the
second question is underlined.
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
A. Specific Plan development - the GP does not solely require that the specific plan be developed
by a developer for the Council’s consideration.
A. Can the City Council reject the Sand Hill Specific Plan that is submitted for Vallco?
Response PP.2: 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
B. The City Council can adopt, either a developer prepared, or city prepared specific plan.
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?
Response PP.3: There is no Sand Hill Specific Plan submitted with the
City. See response to #A, above.
• For there to be Residential and Office at Vallco, the site must be rezoned which is to be
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 692 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
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.
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?
Response PP.4: 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.
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?
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.)
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?
Response PP.5: 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.
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.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 693 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Housing Element site; however currently ~56 acres is developable. The other +/-2 acres is under
construction with the Hyatt Hotel.
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?
Response PP.6: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 694 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
QQ. Kitty Moore (dated August 17, 2018, 9:27 PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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
Response QQ.1: Refer to Master Response 5, Section 5.2 Response II.Q.3, and
Section 5.3 Response AAA.12.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 695 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
RR. Kitty Moore (dated August 20, 2018, 7:40AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response RR.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.D.3.
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:
Response RR.2: An alternative location to the project was considered and
discussed on page 411 under Section 7.2.1.3 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page
411 of the Draft EIR, no alternative location was considered because it would not
achieve the basic project objectives.
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.
Response RR.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.54 and II.E.56.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 696 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response RR.4: The project does not include capping or covering and
irrigating the Interstate 280 (I-280)/Wolfe Road interchange. Refer to Master
Response 2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 697 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SS. Kitty Moore (dated August 20, 2018, 12:11PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Response SS.1: No specific commercial uses or tenants (such as Costco) are
proposed at this time. Refer to Master Response 1.
The following response was provided from the City via email on August 22, 2018 to
the commenter:
Thanks for your suggestion about having a Costco in the Vallco project. I have also
heard the same suggestion from several people and have already related that
suggestion to Sandhill and also strongly suggested to them to consider reaching out to
Costco and to look for opportunity to have an innovative Costco designed model in
Cupertino.
At this time, when the Specific Plan goes to the Planning Commission on 9/4 or to
the Council on 9/18 for consideration of the Specific Plan adoption, the Specific Plan
will not have the types of retailers the developer needs to identify. The SP will only
identify retail areas that can fit large retailers on the site. At this juncture, the SP
would only specify design requirements to create an attractive and community
oriented environment.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 698 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
It will be up to the developer at the next phase of the project, if SP and DA are
approved by the Council, to decide on the tenant mix. Again, thanks for your
continued engagement in this important project.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 699 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
TT. Venkat Ranganathan (dated August 20, 2018, 4:02PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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?
Response TT.1: As described in the Draft EIR (page 11), the project proposes
a 30-acre green roof. Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.25 and II.E.26. regarding
park land. The City’s objectives for the project are identified in Section 2.5 of the
Draft EIR (page 33). The project meets all of the City’s objectives identified in
Section 2.5.
• Residents within 1,000' of the I-280 freeway breathing air pollution
Response TT.2: The exposure of future residents to air pollutants is discussed
in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR (specifically pages 72-80). As identified on page 31-
32 and 74-75 of the Draft EIR, the Specific Plan includes design policies to reduce air
pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors on-site.
• 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).
Response TT.3: As described in the Draft EIR, the project includes a
minimum of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses. No specific types of
commercial uses are proposed at this time. Refer to Master Response 1.
• 960+ more kids in crowded schools.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 700 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response TT.4: Impacts to school facilities are discussed in Section 3.15 of
the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 3.15-3 on page 247 of the Draft EIR, the estimated
number of students generated from the project analyzed in the Draft EIR is 168. The
estimated number of students from the project alternatives is also identified in Table
3.15-3. The General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative is
estimated to generate the greatest number of students with 844 students.
• 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.
Response TT.5: The project analyzed in the Draft EIR includes 800 residential
units. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 10): “The locations of the proposed land uses
have not been finalized; therefore, for the purposes of this EIR it is assumed the uses
could be placed anywhere within the site.” Refer to Master Responses 1 and 2.
• 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.
Response TT.6: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter.
The previous project analyzed in the Draft EIR would generate approximately 1,600
new residents (see Table 4.0-1 on page 402 of the Draft EIR). Refer to Section 5.4
Response II.TT.5 above.
• 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.
Response TT.7: The estimated water use for the project is discussed in Section
3.18 of the Draft EIR. The EIR does not evaluate the economic impacts of the
project, refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.121. The remainder of the comment
expresses the opinion of the commenter. The comment does not raise any issues
about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 701 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
UU. SV@Home (dated August 20, 2018, 4:14PM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and 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 lowerwage workers and technology
workers alike.
Response UU.1: As stated in the EIR Amendment (pages 6 and 18), future
development implementing the Specific Plan would meet state Density Bonus Law
criteria to be granted a residential density bonus of 35 percent. The 35 percent
density bonus can be granted by providing percentages of affordable units at different
income levels. No specific development is proposed at this time; therefore, it is not
known what percentage of low- and very-low income and moderate-income units
would be provided. Refer to Master Response 1. The comment does not raise any
issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 702 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
VV. Daniel Chow (dated August 21, 2018, 3:46AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
I believe the following e-mail is a fake e-mail sent to some residents of Cupertino
to solicit support of the current Vallco re-development plan. Please confirm with Costco the
following e-mail is not from Costco. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Business Process Management team (BPMS) bpms@costco.com
To:
Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 10:00 am
Subject: Costco Research Survey - We want your opinion
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 703 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response VV.1: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Dear Costco Member,
At Costco, we are constantly trying to improve service to our members. With this in
mind, we are hoping to be included in the redevelopment plans for the Vallco
Fashion Mall at the corner of V allco Parkway and North Wolfe Road. Our new
building would help revitalize the space where the mall currently exists, and would
be the first Costco location to open in Cupertino.
The City of Cupertino is currently developing a plan for the Vallco site. This is where
we need your help. It is a fact that individuals who oppose projects tend to make
their objections known, while those in favor do not express their views. As we aim to
be included in the Vallco redevelopment plan, we need your input.
Please demonstrate your support by completing our short online survey (less than
three minutes). Your answers will help us gauge interest of having Costco in
Cupertino, as well as a Costco Gas Station. They will also give us a tangible show
of support that we will be able to provide to the city.
If you would like more information about our proposed warehouse and gas station,
please contact your Costco representative, Mike Dobrota, at (714) 978-5030 with
your questions and concerns.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance, and most importantly, thank you for
being a Costco member. Sincerely,
Jack S. Frank
Vice President Real Estate
Costco Wholesale
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 704 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
WW. Kitty Moore (dated August 23, 2018, 2:42AM)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 705 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 706 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response WW.1: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter.
The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this
reason, no further response is required.
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.
Response WW.2: No specific commercial uses or tenants are proposed at this
time. The transportation analysis in the EIR used standard, applicable trip generation
rates for the proposed land uses when analyzing the traffic impacts of the project.
Refer to Master Response 1 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.38.
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.
Response WW.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.WW.1 above.
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
Response WW.4: Refer to Master Response 2.
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 707 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response WW.5: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 708 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED
A. Jennifer Griffin (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment A.1:
• Cupertino Resident
• Says Cupertino is a home town and should not be treated like commodity
• “City cannot be sold”
• Concern about how no one cares where her shopping dollars are going
• Shops mostly outside of Cupertino because more convenient and more variety (Oakridge,
Capitola Mall)
• Wants more retail in Cupertino
Response A.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
B. Deborah Jamison (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment B.1:
• Cupertino Resident and Member of Audubon Society, and environmental action committee
• Interested in bird safety
• Says greenspace of Vallco will determine if environment is haven or deathtrap for birds
• Concern about wanting bird safe glass
• Says need bird safe design and policies
• Says Mountain View North Bay Shore plan is a good example of bird safe design to draw
from
Response B.1: The Draft EIR (page 32) describes how the Specific Plan will
include design policies requiring bird safe building design measures. The evaluation
of biological impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan is based upon the
inclusion of bird safe design measures (Draft EIR, page 90)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 709 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
C. Ed Hirshfield (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment C.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Proponent of original Sandhill plan as modified by SB35.
• Does not want Vallco to be organized by public members with little professional knowledge
about design
• Thinks City should work with state to improve 280 to make it double decker through town
and have direct access to freeway and city
Response C.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No specific
questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the
project. For this reason, no further response is required.
D. Phyllis Dickstein (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment D.1:
• All Sandhill and Opticos proposals are too high in density
• Thinks community process and input undervalued
• Community doesn’t want office park and not thousands of housing
• Does not believe Vallco will only be profitable if scaled up
• Cites the Oaks as example of better density/profitable project
• Concern about Environment Impact of high density alternatives
• Thinks a Cupertino residents only poll should be conducted for amenity alternative option vs
retail based option
Response D.1: The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the densities
included in the previous project and project alternatives. No specific questions were
raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For this
reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 710 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
E. Michael Newman (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment E.1:
• Sunnyvale resident
• Thinks project should have more low income housing, especially because so many schools
exists in the City
• Thinks existing senior center should be enlarged
• City doesn’t need more hotel or retail or theater or parking space
Response E.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
F. Janet Van Zoeren (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment F.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Parent of adult with disability
• Believes Vallco site should have more extremely low income housing for people like adults
with disability
• Applauds draft specific plan of housing, but should be more specific about housing needs for
adults with disability with supported services from San Andreas service center.
Response F.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 711 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
G. Jan Stokley (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment G.1:
• Executive Director of Housing Choices Cupertino Task Force
• Vallco should provide 40 units for extremely low income housing specifically for adults with
disabilities
• Housing units between low income and extremely low income too big, difference should be
made up
• Look at example like Estancia Apartments in Santa Clara for market rate housing
Response G.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
H. Geoff Paulsen (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment H.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Excited for Vallco revitalization
• Appreciates CC and staff and consultants and developer and members of public
• Thinks Vallco should be bold, beautiful (maybe more trees), and consider needs of young
people
• Thinks young people have many needs that Vallco could address (housing and good
socialization space)
Response H.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 712 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
I. Jason Uhlenkott (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment I.1:
• Sunnyvale resident
• Thanks everyone for collaboration
• Excited about 3200 housing units on table
• BMR % is just one level of affordability problem
• Market rate units matter too, for people who don’t qualify for BMR
• Supports projects
Response I.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
J. John Stubblebine (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment J.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Vallco should have drawing power
• Vallco should have impact like Santana row, economically and with foot traffic
Response J.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 713 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
K. Randy Shingai (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment K.1:
• San Jose resident
• If you go specific plan route City has more responsibility than if using SB35
• Talk to people with the “cattle”
Response K.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No specific
questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the
project. For this reason, no further response is required.
L. Liang Chao (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment L.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Thinks every concession city makes with developer should be converted into dollar amount
• Cites parkland as example because it comes out of resident benefit
• Vallco is much bigger than Oaks and should be scaled proportionately
• Should have less office in pipeline, should be justified
• Public did not get chance to talk about things outside of notice parameters (800 housing)
• Thinks EIR should be done over, because lack of good faith
Response L.1: The EIR provides an objective evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the project and project alternatives, identifies mitigation as necessary, and
alternatives to the project to reduce impacts. The other comments do not raise specific
questions on the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further
response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 714 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
M. Lisa Warren (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment M.1:
• Cupertino resident
• No interest of city hall being involved in plans
• Land is too precious, thinks office type A space is not needed
• Suspects Apple will occupy most of the office space, and thinks city should encourage more
economic diversity
Response M.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
N. Kitty Moore (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment N.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Says project alternatives don’t match draft EIR. Thinks EIR should be recirculated
• Wants office concessions need to be met, wonders if Apple met any for shuttle bus system?
• Concern about Vallco Mall comparison of square footage, too much parking
• Concern about noise contour and land use compatibility
Response N.1: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11. The EIR evaluates the noise
impacts of the project and the compatibility of the proposed land uses with the
ambient noise environment (Draft EIR pages 206-232). The other comments do not
raise specific questions on the environmental review for the project. For this reason,
no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 715 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
O. Nathan Ho (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment O.1:
• San Jose resident
• Senior Director of Housing policy for silicon valley leadership group
• Wants project to provide bold housing with open streets and hospitality space
• All income levels should be considered
Response O.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
P. Pilar Lorenzana (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment P.1:
• SV@ Home
• Supports SB35 but open to ideas
• Should have more housing and at least 20% should be affordable
• Should satisfy all parties involved, and feasible
• Concern about litigation and delay of plans
Response P.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No specific
questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the
project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 716 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Q. Tracey Edwards (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment Q.1:
• Cupertino resident
• League of Women Voters
• No stance on plans just wants more housing for people of all incomes and abilities
Response Q.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
R. Max Kapcynski (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment R.1:
• Palo Alto resident
• Believes Cities must become dense
• Vallco must build up because resisting change will prevent sustainability
Response R.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
S. Reed Moulds (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment S.1:
• Sand Hill Property representative
• Says SB35 project had to be economically viable, doesn’t result in delay
• Information from charrettes and staff reports are new to them (design team)
• Asks for flexibility in specific plan to adjust for concerns
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 717 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response S.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No specific
questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the
project. For this reason, no further response is required.
T. Jennifer Griffin (June 4, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment T.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Says senior housing should be represented in Cupertino
Response T.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
U. Ignatius Ding (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment U.1:
• Vallco project is not transparent
• Not clear of Cupertino resident participation in process vs outsiders
• Not happy with meeting times
• Should not have office space
• Concern about CC and PC talking to YIMBYS
Response U.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on the
environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 718 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
V. Liang Chao (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment V.1:
• Concern about housing bills
• Says CC should try and fight back because it cannot meet many of the Housing Bill Goals
• Should reconsider housing mitigation fees – says Cupertino doesn’t have funding or approval
• Says developer doesn’t need to pay much for their office space, Cupertino residents have to
subsidize, not fair
• Says parkland dedication should be ground level only
• With future SB35, how can developer guarantee BMR units and not sell land, and follow
construction timeline
Response V.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No specific
questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the
project. For this reason, no further response is required.
W. Alan Takahashi (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment W.1:
• Mentions 2,000,000 SF of office space is too much for Vallco
Response W.1: The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the project
and project alternatives. No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 719 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
X. Lisa Warren (June 5, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment X.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Public doesn’t know if SB35 compliant or not
Response X.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No specific
questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the
project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Y. Randy Shingai (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment Y.1:
• NOP states residential development would be 800 dwelling units, which does not match the
alternatives analyzed in the EIR
• Draft EIR covered 2,640 and 4,000 dwelling units
• Purpose of NOP does not meet government code 15082
• How can the public/governmental agencies comment/investigate if you don’t tell them in the
NOP what it is that you are going to do
• NOP comment letters from DOT, San José, and Sunnyvale all mention 800 dwelling units
• NOP is not sufficient because it is different than what the draft EIR is stating
• Recirculating a new NOP is necessary
• San José project increased the square footages and recirculated NOP, Vallco should do the
same
Response Y.1: Refer to Master Response 3.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 720 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Z. Rick Haffner (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment Z.1:
• Lives next to Vallco and has been impacted by the construction going on in the area for many
years
• The Vallco Bridge is an empty eye-sore, and a reminder of failure yet Sandhill refuses to do
anything about it, should be redone to be a signature building
• It is key in any kind of development/future to get more public input, interest and enthusiasm
about what is going to happen
Response Z.1: The comments are noted. The Draft EIR evaluates the construction
impacts of the project and includes mitigation to reduce the impacts, to the extent
feasible. The remaining comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the
EIR. For this reason, no further response is required.
Comment Z.2:
• The roof is great, but there is feedback that it is too sloped/steep to be useable
• It should be useable, or else there is no point to it
• Biggest concern: originally was going to be a suburbia/shopping mall but instead it is
proposed to be 6 apartment complexes that look like cubes
• Loves the rooftop park and thinks it looks beautiful, but why the cubes?
• Cubes are not world class
• Vallco, as Cupertino’s center, should be developed into a world-class project, similar to how
Apple Park is viewed
• Existing renderings of buildings are plain and lackluster and the proposed five to six 10-20
story apartment buildings will be visible for miles around
• Cupertino would be better served to have a 40 story beautiful building like something to be
proud of, which is more interesting than a couple of average buildings
• Buildings should be located next to freeway for greater height and should be a capturing sight
off the freeway
• Perimeter Drive and redwood trees should be preserved
• Redwoods would buffer the building for the nearby neighbors if it were to be a tall building
• Mountain views from Vallco should be preserved and are rare to find in the City
Response Z.2: The Draft EIR does not include renderings of the Specific
Development buildings; rather, it evaluates the impacts of the overall development
parameters allowed by the previous Specific Plan and project alternatives. The Draft
EIR (page 251 and as revised in Section 5.0) states if the topography of (rooftop)
park land is not acceptable, the project (and project alternatives) shall dedicate land
through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18. As described
in the Draft EIR (page 47), as a mixed-use project on an infill site within a transit
priority area, pursuant to SB 743, aesthetic impacts of the project and project
alternatives shall not be considered significant impacts.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 721 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
AA. Liang Chao (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment AA.1:
• NOP from 2014 GPA says it is going to consider a focus on the general plan amendment and
there is a map of the sites they are considering, although it turns out it is not the focus the GP,
it is a rewrite of the GPA
Response AA.1: Refer to Master Response 5. No specific questions were
raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For this
reason, no further response is required.
Comment AA.2:
• The NOP for Vallco EIR said it is only for Vallco Specific Plan consistent with the adopted
general plan
• NOP did not mention 30-acre green roof, concerned about cost, earthquake safety, and
feasibility
Response AA.2: The NOP states: “Consistent with the adopted General Plan,
the Specific Plan would facilitate the development of 600,000 square feet of
commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800
residential dwelling units onsite.” Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3 and Master
Response 3. The seismic and seismic-related impacts of the project are discussed in
Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.
Comment AA.3:
• Vallco should meet minimum parkland requirements per new resident
Response AA.3: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.25 and II.E.26.
Comment AA.4:
• Consultants do not have a right to change the General Plan without City Council approval
• Need to restart the process and send out another NOP
• EIR is illegal because City Council did not pass GPA for Vallco Specific Plan and
alternatives were not discussed by City Council
• City Council did not approve adding additional housing to Vallco
• Objection is not necessarily to the housing, it is to the process
• If an EIR is considering any number of housing units above what is written in the General
Plan amendment, then City Council must agree, which they have not
• City Council should give staff direction about additional housing before the EIR process
starts
• The people who wrote the comments for the NOP didn’t know that 2,640 housing units are
being considered, that is not consistent with the General Plan, which has a maximum unit
allocation
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 722 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• The NOP sent to public agencies does not have the alternatives or green roof in it
Response AA.4: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.3, and Master Responses 3
and 4. The rationale for the project alternatives analyzed in the EIR is described on
pages 15-16 of the Draft EIR.
BB. Connie Cunningham (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment BB.1:
• The development table with the proposed project and alternatives was helpful
• Understands that the GPA will be approved by City Council at the same time as the Vallco
Specific Plan
• Appreciates the biological resources section and the mitigation measures included regarding
birds within the site, emphasizes how important it is to uphold this
• Supports affordable housing at the Vallco site
• Recalls 30% below market rate housing and up to 2,600+ units from previous proposals
• Affordable housing at Vallco can be why it is a signature project
• The region needs housing for above and below market rate
• City Council had a study on Vallco Plan on June 4th
• Pleased to see the city councils commitment to 30 percent to be below market rate housing
and up to 2,650 or 3,200 homes, depending on what other types of things are being built
• Understands people are looking for a wow factor, the wow factor is that in such a wealthy
city, they take the opportunity to house people of all incomes and all abilities
Response BB.1: The above comment expresses the opinion of the commenter.
The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this
reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 723 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CC. David Fung (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment CC.1:
• This EIR is a component of the totality of planning that is considered the general plan, a
tiered EIR
• Hopes the staff report comes forward that it talks about that process and what it means
• It is important for people to understand that this is not completely out of the blue, that many
of the issues that are raised and the mitigation in the General Plan are the same in the EIR,
such as for traffic
• The EIR will tier from the General Plan and a future staff report will explain it further, both
will have similar impacts.
• The large development numbers in the Vallco Specific Plan are small compared to the entire
buildout (high impact scenario) of the General Plan
Response CC.1: Text to the Draft EIR has been added to clarify that this EIR
tiers from the certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and
Associated Rezoning Draft EIR (General Plan EIR). Refer to Section 5.0. This
comment also expresses the opinion of the commenter. The comment does not raise
any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. For this reason, no further response is
required.
DD. Kitty Moore (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 724 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.1:
• Former gas station on the site not talked about in EIR
• LUST cases not identified
• Depth of cut stated in EIR was incorrect, it stated 20-30, when it is actually 38-58
• There are height limits mentioned in the EIR
• Project site is listed on hazmat database and is therefore not compliant with SB 35
Response DD.1: The former gasoline station on-site is disclosed on page 135
in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR. The underground storage tanks and residual
contamination are discussed on pages 136-137 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 5.2
Response II.L.1 and Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the
Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. The text on
page 162 of the Draft EIR has been revised to clarify the existing, maximum height
allowed at the site, refer to Section 5.0
Comment DD.2: Complaints against the City of Cupertino planning process and Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Vallco Special Area Specific Plan:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 725 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
1. Studying EIR Alternatives which are Inconsistent with the General Plan and do not lessen the
impacts of Proposed Project.
Response DD.2: Refer to Master Response 4.
Comment DD.3:
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.
Response DD.3: Refer to Master Response 3.
Comment DD.4:
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 65450-64557:
(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 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.
Response DD.4: Refer to Master Response 2 and Section 5.2 Response II.E.3.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 726 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.5: 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.
Response DD.5: The comment cites the CEQA Guidelines section regarding
an EIR Notice of Preparation. A NOP was prepared and circulated for the project,
consistent with CEQA Section 15082. No specific questions are raised in the above
comment regarding the NOP.
Comment DD.6: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 727 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.6: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.H.7.
Comment DD.7: 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.”
Response DD.7: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Comment DD.8: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 728 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.8: Refer to Master Responses 4 and 5.
Comment DD.9: 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
Response DD.9: This comment cites different sections from the General Plan.
No comments have been made regarding the adequacy of the EIR, therefore no
further response is necessary.
Comment DD.10: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 729 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 730 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.”
Response DD.10: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.10.
Comment DD.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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 731 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 732 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 3: Opticos Specific Plan Options
Response DD.11: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.11.
Comment DD.12: 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 733 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 4: DEIR Heights
Response DD.12: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.12.
Comment DD.13: 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’.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 734 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The following graphic was presented by Opticos for Vallco Specific Plan:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 735 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.13: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.13.
Comment DD.14: 5. Has the height at Vallco reverted to 85’ and 3 stories due to the passing of
May 31, 2018 with no Specific 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
Response DD.14: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.14.
Comment DD.15: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 736 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.15: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.15.
Comment DD.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”
Response DD.16: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.16.
Comment DD.17: 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.
Response DD.17: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.17.
Comment DD.18: Project alternatives are too varied from the Proposed Specific Plan project,
and there is no “Proposed Specific Plan” as of May 24, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 737 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 6: DEIR Summary of Project and Alternatives
Response DD.18: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.18.
Comment DD.19: 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=
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 compatible with and will not
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 738 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies ... without definite affirmative commitments to
mitigate the adverse effect or effects.” Id.
Figure 7: Vallco Project Alternatives after Charrette #1 (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 739 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 8: Vallco Specific Plan Process Alternatives to Date (self)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 740 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.19: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.19.
Comment DD.20: CULTURAL RESOURCES
The findings and mitigations are adequate.
Response DD.20: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.20.
Comment DD.21: 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
Response DD.21: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.21.
Comment DD.22: 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?
“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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 741 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response DD.22: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.22.
Comment DD.23: 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.”
Response DD.23: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.23.
Comment DD.24: 2.4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
See Comments on DEIR Summary p 3 of this document.
Response DD.24: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.24.
Comment DD.25: 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.
Response DD.25: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.25.
Comment DD.26: 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 742 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 10: Section from SB 35 Vallco Application
Response DD.26: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.26.
Comment DD.27: 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.”
Response DD.27: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.27.
Comment DD.28: 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.
Response DD.28: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.28.
Comment DD.29: 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 much larger than Apple Park’s transit system. There would need to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 743 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
be a tremendous amount of park and ride spaces available for the tech company buses which is not in
the project.
Response DD.29: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.29.
Comment DD.30: 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.
Response DD.30: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.30.
Comment DD.31: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 744 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.31: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.31.
Comment DD.32: 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.
Response DD.32: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.32.
Comment DD.33: Residences and sensitive receptors need to be 200’ from truck loading areas.
Response DD.33: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.33.
Comment DD.34: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 745 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Southbound on Wolfe Rd. looking west, notice the wide expanse and no buildings:
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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 746 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
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).”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 747 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 748 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 17: Vallco 1939
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 749 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 18: Vallco 1965
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 750 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 19: Vallco 1974
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 751 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.34: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.34.
Comment DD.35: 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.
Response DD.35: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.35.
Comment DD.36: 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.
Response DD.36: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.36.
Comment DD.37: 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.
Response DD.37: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.37.
Comment DD.38: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 752 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Figure 21: From DEIR: GHG Trip Generation
Fehr + Peers ADT chart:
Figure 22: From DEIR: Fehr + Peers Trip Generation does not match
Response DD.38: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.38.
Comment DD.39: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 753 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.39: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.39.
Comment DD.40: 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.”
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.
Response DD.40: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.40.
Comment DD.41: 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.
Response DD.41: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.41.
Comment DD.42: It is expected that there will be hazardous materials needing special accepting
landfills which are not near the site.
Response DD.42: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.42.
Comment DD.43: The following is quoted from DEIR AQ-2:
“Impact AQ-2:
MM AQ-2.1:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 754 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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?
Response DD.43: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.43.
Comment DD.44: 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.
Response DD.44: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.44.
Comment DD.45: 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.
Response DD.45: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.45.
Comment DD.46: 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.
Response DD.46: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.46.
Comment DD.47:
• 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
Response DD.47: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.47.
Comment DD.48: Consider adding the following mitigations text and explain how it will be
enforced:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 755 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 23: Mitigations for trucks
Figure 24: Mitigations for Construction Vehicles
Source, BAAQMD:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak049141.pdf
Response DD.48: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.48.
Comment DD.49: 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
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,
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 756 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 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.
Response DD.49: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.49
Comment DD.50: 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.
Response DD.50: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.50.
Comment DD.51: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 757 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.51: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.51.
Comment DD.52: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 758 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response DD.52: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.52.
Comment DD.53: 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).
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 759 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 25: AQI from BAAQMD
Response DD.53: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.53.
Comment DD.54: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 760 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.54: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.54.
Comment DD.55: 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.
Response DD.55: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.55.
Comment DD.56: 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
Response DD.56: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.56.
Comment DD.57: 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 761 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 26: VTC Hills at Vallco Cancer Risk Assessment - High
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 762 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response DD.57: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.57.
Comment DD.58: 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.
Response DD.58: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.58.
Comment DD.59: 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.
Response DD.59: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.59.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 763 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.60: 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.
Response DD.60: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.60.
Comment DD.61:
The following mitigation should be added, from Measure D VTCSP:
“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”
Response DD.61: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.61.
Comment DD.62: 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.
Response DD.62: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.62.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 764 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.63:
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.
Response DD.63: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.63.
Comment DD.64: 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.
Response DD.64: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.64.
Comment DD.65: 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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 765 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
increased cancer risk, in particular during the 130 day architectural coating period, demolition phase,
and excavation.
Figure 29: DEIR Air Quality Monitors
Response DD.65: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.65.
Comment DD.66: 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.
Response DD.66: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.66.
Comment DD.67: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 766 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.67: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.67.
Comment DD.68: 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.
Response DD.68: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.68.
Comment DD.69: GHG calculations assume an exhaust pipe height for all construction
equipment of 16.9’ which is innacurate.
Response DD.69: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.69.
Comment DD.70: 2 Million CY of soil export assumption may be increased due to the Specific
Plan process currently stating 85% of parking will be subterranean.
Response DD.70: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.70.
Comment DD.71: 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.
Response DD.71: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.71.
Comment DD.72: 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.
Response DD.72: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.72.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 767 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.73: 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 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).”
Response DD.73: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.73.
Comment DD.74: Here is the subterranean parking plan from the SB 35 application:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 768 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 30: SB 35 Vallco Subterranean Parking Plan
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 769 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.74: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.74.
Comment DD.75: 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 770 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.75: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.75.
Comment DD.76: 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 Wolfe 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 771 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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 should be a 2040 AADT prediction available as well. The 2035 forecast
was for a total of 284,492 ADT for 2035.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 772 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 36: VTA 2035 Forecast
Source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/tcr/I280draft_final_tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pd
f
Response DD.76: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.76.
Comment DD.77: 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:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 773 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
Response DD.77: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.77.
Comment DD.78: 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 office
generated weekday peak hour trips by 30 percent below applicable Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip generation rates…” – source VTCSP 9212 report, JD Powers.”
Response DD.78: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.78.
Comment DD.79: 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:
Response DD.79: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.79.
Comment DD.80: Figure 37: DEIR, GHG, Construction Emissions
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 774 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 775 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
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!
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 776 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 777 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.80: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.80.
Comment DD.81: 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.
Figure 40: DEIR, GHG, Mitigated Emissions
http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20886
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 778 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.81: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.81.
Comment DD.82: BL2: DECARBONIZED 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”
Response DD.82: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.82.
Comment DD.83: 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.
Response DD.83: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.83.
Comment DD.84: 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?
Response DD.84: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.84.
Comment DD.85: 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 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 779 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
“…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?
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 780 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.85: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.85.
Comment DD.86: 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)?
Response DD.86: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.86.
Comment DD.87: 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.
Response DD.87: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.87.
Comment DD.88: 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.
Response DD.88: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.88.
Comment DD.89: 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.
Response DD.89: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
Comment DD.90: 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 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 781 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.90: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.90.
Comment DD.91: 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.
Response DD.91: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.91.
Comment DD.92: 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”.
Response DD.92: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.92.
Comment DD.93: 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.
Response DD.93: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.93.
Comment DD.94: 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.
Response DD.94: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.94.
Comment DD.95: 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. 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 782 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.95: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.95.
Comment DD.96: 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.
Response DD.96: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.96.
Comment DD.97: Policy HS-3.2: Fire Department must study the green roof for emergency
access and fire prevention.
Response DD.97: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.89.
Comment DD.98: 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.
Response DD.98: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.98.
Comment DD.99: 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.
Response DD.99: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.99.
Comment DD.100: 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.
Response DD.100: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.100.
Comment DD.101: Policy M-1.2: Proposed project degrades traffic LOS excessively.
Response DD.101: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.101.
Comment DD.102: 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.
Response DD.102: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.102.
Comment DD.103: 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Agree with DEIR.
Response DD.103: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.103.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 783 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.104: 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.
Response DD.104: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.104.
Comment DD.105: 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
“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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 784 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 42: Opticos Charrette #2
Response DD.105: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.105.
Comment DD.106: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 785 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Figure 43: from VTC Hills at Vallco EA, CMC 10.48.040
Response DD.106: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.106.
Comment DD.107: CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The DEIR did not show Construction Noise Emissions, this needs to be included.
Response DD.107: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.107.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 786 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.108: 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:
Figure 44: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Construction Noise
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 787 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 45: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise Receptors
Response DD.108: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.108.
Comment DD.109: Suggest requiring the following from the VTCSP 9212 report:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 788 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“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.
Response DD.109: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.109.
Comment DD.110:
• 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.
Response DD.110: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.110.
Comment DD.111: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 789 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.111: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.111.
Comment DD.112: 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 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.”
Response DD.112: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.112.
Comment DD.113: 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.
Response DD.113: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.113.
Comment DD.114: 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.”
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 790 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response DD.114: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.114.
Comment DD.115: 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:
Figure 46: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, Noise for Outdoor Performance Venue
Response DD.115: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.115.
Comment DD.116: VIBRATION
It is unlikely vibration could be mitigated particularly for the residences on the west property.
Response DD.116: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.116.
Comment DD.117: 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.
Response DD.117: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.117.
Comment DD.118: The city states the population of residents per residential unit is 2.94, per the
DEIR:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 791 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.118: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.118.
Comment DD.119: 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.
Response DD.119: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.119.
Comment DD.120: 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.
Response DD.120: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.120.
Comment DD.121: Emotional effects of cramped housing on children:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.734.6008&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Response DD.121: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.121.
Comment DD.122: 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact PS-1: It is unclear what special Fire Department services are required for the green roof.
Response DD.122: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.122.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 792 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.123: 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?
Response DD.123: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.123.
Comment DD.124: 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
Response DD.124: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.124.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 793 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.125: 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.
Response DD.125: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.125.
Comment DD.126: 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.
Response DD.126: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.126.
Comment DD.127: 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.
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.
Response DD.127: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.127.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 794 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.128: DEIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Figure 48: DEIR SGR
Figure 49: DEIR: SGRs of Alternatives
FAILED MEASURE D HILLS AT VALLCO STUDENT GENERATION RATES TO COMPARE
Figure 50: VTC Hills at Vallco EA, SGRs Comparables
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 795 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 51: VTC Hills at Vallco SGRs
Response DD.128: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.128.
Comment DD.129: 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:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 796 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
“Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following
impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction:
• traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school;
• dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities;
• effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on
wildlife at the construction site;
• effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality;
• other “indirect effects” as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2)
(growth-inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density, related
effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Chawanakee Unified School District,
196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school
facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially
ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of
considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities.
However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from
conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental
impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has
agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50.”
Response DD.129: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.129.
Comment DD.130: 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.
Response DD.130: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses II.E.130.
Comment DD.131: 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.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 797 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.131: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.131.
Comment DD.132: 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.
Response DD.132: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.132.
Comment DD.133: 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.
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.
Response DD.133: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.133.
Comment DD.134: 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
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 798 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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.
Response DD.134: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.134.
Comment DD.135: 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
Response DD.135: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.135.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 799 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Comment DD.136: 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
Response DD.136: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.136.
Comment DD.137: 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.
Response DD.137: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.137.
Comment DD.138: 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.).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 800 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Figure 55: DEIR Population and Employees
Response DD.138: Refer to Section 5.2 Response II.E.138.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 801 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
EE. Eileen McLaughlin (July 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment EE.1:
• Believes there should be a public meeting discussing what the project is and the development
parameters
• Clarification on where standards are coming from would be helpful
• Knows that this Specific Plan process is about development density, not aesthetics and final
design
• Concerned about including affordable housing in the project
• Would appreciate additional visuals/renderings on the proposed project
Response EE.1: Refer to Master Responses 1 and 2. No specific questions
were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for the project. For
this reason, no further response is required.
FF. Ed Hirshfield (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment FF.1:
• Does not approve of Hills project at Vallco
• Traffic concerns: access to 280 needs to be improved, City should work with Caltrans to
improve flow of traffic on 280, construct flyovers directly to Vallco and Apple Campus from
280
Response FF.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application.
regarding the relationship between the project and the Hills project at Vallco. The
project’s impact to Interstate 280 (I-280) is discussed in Section 3.17 of the Draft
EIR. The construction of “flyovers” or ramps directly from I-280 to the project site is
not proposed as part of this project. This comment also expresses the opinion of the
commenter. The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR.
For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 802 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
GG. Lisa Warren (June 19, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment GG.1:
• Former orchard and gas station on the project site not mentioned in EIR, possible
contaminants in soil not mentioned, such as lead, arsenic and DDT
• Project site is listed on hazmat database and is therefore not compliant with SB 35
Response GG.1: The project’s historic uses (including orchards, row crops, and
a gasoline station) are described on page 135-136 of the Draft EIR and in the Phase 1
ESA, which is Appendix E to the Draft EIR. The potential for on-site sources of
contamination related to historic and/or existing uses are discussed under Impact
HAZ-1 starting on page 140 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Master Response 1 regarding
the relationship between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35
application.
HH. Janet Van Zoeren (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment HH.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Housing Choices Cupertino Task Force
• Wants 40 units to be set aside for adults with developmental disability in Vallco development
agreement
Response HH.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 803 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
II. Randy Shingai (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment II.1:
• San Jose resident
• Concern about the consistency between Vallco notice of preparation for draft EIR and actual
content of draft EIR. Says NOP is null operation
• Says doesn’t conform to Government Code 15.0.82
Response II.1: Refer to Master Response 3 regarding the NOP.
JJ. Peggy Griffin (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment JJ.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Wants city to set strict precedence for Vallco and future SB35 reviews
• Says there are many noncompliant issues with the SB35 application and City must act on
these
Response JJ.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 804 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
KK. Jennifer Griffin (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment KK.1:
• Says Cupertino is a retail desert, many retail stores use to be offered at Vallco
• Vallco should have more retail
Response KK.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
LL. Danessa Techmanski (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment LL.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Concern about compliancy of trading parkland for green roof in SB35
• Says sets wrong precedence, not great as community amenity
• Wants parkland vs rooftop pool for Cupertino residents
• Says maintenance and cost would be issue
Response LL.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 805 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
MM. Res Dent (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment MM.1:
• Cupertino resident
• SB35 takes control from community
• Wants City to determine if SB35 is compliant, because if not, City must take control of plans
and give power back to community
Response MM.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
NN. Jon Willey (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment NN.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Not pleased with difference between Vallco in General Plan and SB35
• Compares density to Main St
• Says density is 204%
• Compares Vallco to Sunnyvale Towncenter
• Says Sunnyvale Towncenter is at 100% and lacks open space and urban greenery
• Says Vallco must follow sensible growth
Response NN.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 806 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
OO. Liang Chao (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment OO.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Says City of Berkeley has rejected their SB35 application and found many issues with that
app
• Why is it that Cupertino’s SB35 application is not met with the same scrutiny, despite
communal concerns
• Argues Vallco SB35 doesn’t qualify because 2/3 of SF should be residential use, but
application counts swimming pools, rooftop gardens, and parking lot as residential while
excluding office space
• BMR should not be in segregated area
• Wants rejection of SB35 and fixing of general plan to address max height and density
Response OO.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
PP. Kitty Moore (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment PP.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Argues SB35 application violates many laws as listed by Better Cupertino
• Why has City not taken action on this yet?
• Offers Friends of Better Cupertino resources to help reject application
Response PP.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 807 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
QQ. Hannah Follweiler (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, Oral Communications)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment QQ.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Concern about Vallco specific plan process. Argues it is too influenced by small group of
community members
• Believes only way forward is using SB35 plan
• Supports Vallco redevelopment
Response QQ.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
RR. Lisa Warren (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment RR.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Feels like there has been lack of response from city on acting on SB35
Response RR.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 808 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SS. Kitty Moore (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment SS.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Oppose head tax
• Vallco is a transit hub and apple would be losing it with SB35
• Says Office allocation has expired
• Says if you take money from apple, you are helping Vallco have more office space by having
electric shuttle
• Don’t think city should take apple money to help Vallco issues
• Thinks we should go from 65% tax discount to 100%
Response SS.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
TT. Randy Shingai (June 19, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment TT.1:
• San Jose resident
• Concern about May 11th and June 5th minutes. In a letter written, he reads “that the current
SB35 application, Randolph Homs approach will result in lawsuit in much larger scale than
measure C by Better Cupertino and Steven Scharf. Please disqualify Steven Scharf’s vote
since he is an active party of litigation where city attorney is legal representative of city.“
• Shinghai says City Attorney issue must be addressed and info should be made available to
clarify SB35 concerns
• Rod Sinks says this is out of order and not related to Subject 7
Response TT.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 809 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
UU. Jennifer Griffin (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment UU.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Wants more retail in Cupertino, like Olive Garden, Kohls, Urban Outfitters, Forever 21
Response UU.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
VV. Ignatius Ding (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment VV.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Has a survey polling people’s input on Vallco and Oak site
• Key poll concerns from Cupertino registered voters include water, traffic, school, and retail.
Says no one wants office
• Says alternative plans are poorly planned because meetings were set at inconvenient times.
Says voters rejected Measure D with 7 stories, why would they like alternative with 22 story
• Says Friends of Better Cupertino has filed a lawsuit against City of Cupertino with Superior
Court of Santa Clara County
Response VV.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 810 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
WW. Jennifer Griffin (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment WW.1:
• Cupertino resident
• Believes public should be more involved on Business tax restructuring because neighboring
city businesses have impacted Cupertino
• Similarly, Vallco will also have the same impact on S De Anza and neighboring cities
Response WW.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
XX. Connie Cunningham (July 3, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment XX.1:
• In regards to June 19th which references June 4th meeting, she believes key words,
“developmentally disabled” should be added for legal reasons
• Wants this type of housing represented in ELI Housing
Response XX.1: No specific questions were raised in the above comment on
the environmental review for the project. For this reason, no further response is
required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 811 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
YY. Kitty Moore (July 31, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment YY.1:
• Concern about her 27 emails to City Attorney Hom about SB35 non compliance
• Concern about where City Attorney Hom has left the SB35 response and where he is
• Thinks transparency should be made on this point
Response YY.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
ZZ. Liang Chao (July 31, 2018 City Council meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment ZZ.1:
• Concern about SB35. Believes there is noncompliance with the application
• Says CC should have fixed the general plan, especially in regards to office entitlement
• Says there should be a survey for residents around Vallco site
Response ZZ.1: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the Specific Plan, a development application, and the SB 35 application. No
specific questions were raised in the above comment on the environmental review for
the project. For this reason, no further response is required.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 812 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
AAA. Kitty Moore (August 7, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment AAA.1:
• The density bonus law in the Draft EIR was not included in the first Draft EIR.
• Project says that they need to use density bonus law in order to get to their totals and are
claiming 35 percent.
• At 35 percent density bonus they get a minimum of two concessions.
• If they increase their affordable housing slightly they get to three concessions… which
sounds a lot like SB35.
• Draft EIR Amendment makes the assumption of meeting the state density bonus law by
providing 35 percent affordable housing, qualifying them for the maximum density bonus
units. This results in concessions that negate the form based code Specific Plan process.
Response AAA.1: The EIR Amendment (pages 2 and 6) clarifies the use of the
state Density Bonus Law as a possible mechanism of achieving the residential units
of the previous Specific Plan and project alternatives. The Draft EIR and EIR
Amendment evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed number of
residential units of the previous project and project alternatives.
Comment AAA.2:
• With SB35, setback and height requirements may not be followed because they may be taken
as concessions. This process will not inform neighbors/Apple of what heights the project will
choose.
• Vallco SB35 used their concessions to reduce retail from 600,000 to 400,000 square feet and
does not provide the same number of bedrooms in the below market rate units as the market
rate units. They would provide studio and one bedroom below market rate units but then
provide one to five bedroom market rate units using concessions.
Response AAA.2: The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of
the EIR. Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship between the previous
Specific Plan and the SB35 application. No further response is required.
Comment AAA.3:
• Is it legal to have the density bonus units and the assumption of density bonus law in the
EIR?
• Looked at the fact that they were using the density bonus law in SB35 project and then saw
that the concessions allow for increased heights and setbacks and make changes on the
regulations to make project more financially feasible.
• Project is a moving target so how could the city in good faith say “here is your cross section,
this is what you can expect at Vallco for height”. Therefore, the project isn’t viable.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 813 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Response AAA.3: Refer to Section 5.3 Responses AAA.1 and AAA.2 above.
Comment AAA.4:
• The alternatives are supposed to obtain similar objectives as the original proposed project,
but with less impacts… does not seem like this happened.
Response AAA.4: Alternatives to the previous project are described in Draft EIR
Section 8.0, including how they meet project objectives and how their impacts
compare to those of the project. Refer to Master Response 4.
Comment AAA.5:
• There is a problem with the noise vs traffic section of the Draft EIR because they do not have
the same allocations that they are studying.
Response AAA.5: It is not clear from the comment what allocations are not
similar. The noise impact discussion was based upon the same project description as
the traffic report and the discussion of traffic-generated noise was based upon the trip
generation estimates provided in the Draft EIR traffic report.
Comment AAA.6:
• Traffic study used shopping center as the retail portion yet we will actually have 95 percent
restaurants, so the study using the shopping center yields much lower amounts of traffic than
what we are realistically going to end up with.
• Calculation of traffic due to green roof… if it is going to be a regional draw/ tourist attraction
than you could end up with triple the amount of traffic there.
• Transit hub numbers were about 808 daily trips (in and out), which sounds low out of the
total.
Response AAA.6: The proposed commercial uses include retail shops,
restaurants, and other similar uses. The trip generation estimates were based upon
standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for shopping
centers, which includes a typical amount of restaurant use. Refer to Section 5.2
Response II.E.38.
Trips attributed to the green roof were included in the traffic analysis. As described
in the Draft EIR (page 30), as part of the project, the existing transit hub on-site
would be upgraded to include additional features such as an information center, drop-
off point, and a bike sharing distribution point. It is anticipated that the upgraded
transit hub would function similarly as the existing transit hub; therefore, proposed
transit hub is assumed to generate the existing amount of shuttle and shuttle related
vehicle trips to the site. The existing shuttle related vehicle trips were estimated from
driveway counts and field observations of shuttles and employee vehicle trips to the
site and park-and-ride locations collected in January 2018.
Comment AAA.7:
• The project that being looked at does not match up with the two projects from the charrettes...
another amendment may be necessary.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 814 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Pushed the two project alternatives together into one and then studied that... which is not how
it works.
Response AAA.7: Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the relationship
between the EIR and the Specific Plan process.
Comment AAA.8:
• 95 percent of retail is restaurants.
• Restaurants generate 4-10 times the amount of traffic as regular retail. We do not know what
percent of restaurants they anticipate to have.
• In SB35 it looked like they had 120,000 square feet of entertainment, 147,000 square feet of
restaurants and 133,000 square feet of street retail. Yet here the new commercial is coming
in at 95 percent from economic development manager Angela.
• Can expect a higher amount of traffic.
Response AAA.8: Refer to Section 5.3 Response AAA.6 regarding the trip
generation estimates used in the traffic report. Refer to Master Response 1 regarding
the relationship between the previous project and the SB 35 application.
Comment AAA.9:
• Restaurants have a higher carbon footprint than other retail.
• Process of a cow in a pasture becoming a meal in a restaurant produces a high carbon
footprint.
Response AAA.9: The GHG analysis for the project included standard
parameters and methodology commonly utilized for such analyses. The specific type
of restaurants that may occupy the project site is unknown at this time.
Comment AAA.10:
• The project would have three times the amount of water usage as Apple Park even though
Apple Park is significantly larger.
Response AAA.10: The water demand of the project and project alternatives
described in the Draft EIR is based upon the land use mix included in the previous
project and alternatives and the water demand rates used by Cal Water, the water
supplier to the site. Residential uses generate a higher demand for water than office.
The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the EIR. No further
response is required.
Comment AAA.11: New amendment is larger than the SB35 plan.
Response AAA.11: Refer to Master Response 1 regarding the relationship
between the previous Specific Plan and the SB35 application.
Comment AAA.12:
• Phase One Environmental Site Assessment is missing information that is available from the
Santa Clara County Fire Department records.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 815 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• WSP contacted the Fire Department for information on any above/underground storage tanks,
hazardous waste storage, inspections and plans associated with the mall property and no
records were found, according to Fire Department.
• However, the commenter was able to find a vast amount of records.
• Current Cornerstone Earth Group did not provide all the records that are available.
• Cornerstone showed pictures of various issues but did not go into detail about them.
• Project did not complete a Phase Two ESA.
• Cornerstone only went up to 2010 with their records and they are missing some curious
things.
• Cornerstone showed a picture of a concrete access cover near a stormdrain to the suspected
waste oil underground storage tank location at Sears Automotive. The steel cover of the acid
neutralization cover adjacent to the battery room had tetrachloroethylene (dry cleaner fluid)
on site, which is hard to get out of the soil. There was no indication of this in Cornerstone’s
ESA.
• Sandhill Property Company did not complete the questionnaire provided by Cornerstone,
which was intended to obtain information on the history of hazards on the site. They referred
Cornerstone to the previously completed reports listed in Table 3, the reports mentioned
earlier that did not use data from the Fire Department, as well as provided copies of each,
access to the site, contact information and interviews with previous owners and occupants.
However, contact information of previous owners was not provided to them, therefore
interviews with previous site owners could not be performed.
• In 1969 building plans for Sears Automotive depict several features associated with the auto
center, including two adjacent 500 gallon oil USTs and underground storage tank, a nearby
100 gallon waste oil ground storage tank located west of the building, a sump pump in the
southwest corner of the building’s basement, multiple hydraulic vehicle lifts, a battery
storage room with drains leading to a below ground neutralization chamber located east of
the building, which is likely to have lead (a photo of the floor shows white markings which
look like lead residue), a below ground sand and grease interceptor located east of the
building, grease oil and transmission fluid distribution piping throughout the interior of the
building, and an elevator in the southeast portion.
• Contract said that they removed two USTs in 1986, yet no details regarding the content nor
locations of the UST was described in the contract.
• Dates of various hazardous material inventories indicated that various automotive related
hazardous materials were stored on site, including oils, transmission fluid, brake fluid,
antifreeze, lead, acid batteries, refrigerants, and others. These materials were noted to be
contained in drums and ASTs.
• In the report they show historic photographs that indicate there were several buildings on the
southeast corner of the Sears lot. Suspects there might be underground storage tanks in there.
They were torn down in 1968 when there was a gas station at Sears. Because there was an
orchard from at least the 1930’s, suspects they have some lead arsenate residue and lead
mixed with arsenic and water. There hasn’t been any testing of this.
• Between 1991 and 2010 inspection reports from the Department of Environmental Health
Records noted multiple violations, including unlabeled waste containers, open containers,
improper record keeping, improper management of lead wheel weights, lack of proper
training and lack of secondary containment and the presence of an oil water separator that
was reportedly connected to four floor drains within the auto service shop.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 816 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• People say that JCPenny is a closed case, but it is not because they had to leave an
underground storage tank, as well as contaminated material.
• In the Cornerstone report they indicate that there is material that was still dripping during
their study. Sears has been closed for three years. Underground storage tanks should be
cataloged, according to the health and safety code. There are very high daily fees to keep an
underground storage tank.
Response AAA.12: The Draft EIR discussion of hazards and hazardous materials
issues and impacts on the project site in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR and Section 4.9
of the EIR Amendment is thorough and appropriate, as is the Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) upon which the Draft EIR was prepared. Responses are
provided below to comments generally in the order they were made. The WSP report
has been superseded by the more recent Cornerstone Phase I ESA, which included a
review of Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) records. The Cornerstone
Earth Group Phase I referenced in the Draft EIR (Appendix E) was prepared in
accordance with ASTM E 1527-13 titled, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.”
The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to strive to identify, to the extent feasible,
Recognized Environmental Conditions at the property. As defined by ASTM E
1527-13, the term Recognized Environmental Condition means the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property:
(1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release
to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future
release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not Recognized
Environmental Conditions. The Cornerstone records review did not go only up to
2010; nor is any pertinent information missing. Providing “all the records that are
available” is not within the scope of a Phase I ESA; pertinent records were reviewed
and summarized.
The Cornerstone Phase I ESA provides recommendations for Phase II sampling
activities, which shall be conducted prior to redevelopment of the site (Draft EIR MM
HAZ-1.2, page 142). Sections 9.4 and 9.5 of the Cornerstone Phase I ESA provide
recommendations for further evaluation of the suspected waste oil UST and the acid
neutralization chamber associated with the battery room (Draft EIR MM HAZ-1.2,
page 142). Removal of these features and soil sampling was recommended, and shall
be completed prior to redevelopment of the site.
With regard to the site owner questionnaire, ASTM Standard Designation E 1527-13
requires the Environmental Professional to comment on significant data gaps that
affect the ability of the expert (Cornerstone) to identify Recognized Environmental
Conditions. A data gap is a lack of or inability to obtain information required by
ASTM Standard Designation E 1527-13 despite good faith efforts by the
Environmental Professional to gather such information. A data gap by itself is not
inherently significant; it only becomes significant if it raises reasonable concerns.
The general environmental setting of the project site has been established based on
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 817 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
the information reviewed from other data sources. Cornerstone did not consider this
data gap to be significant.
SCCFD records contained a contract dated June 12, 1986 between Sears, Roebuck
and Company, and K.E. Curtis Construction Company for the removal of a 500
gallon UST. No details regarding the contents or location of the UST were described
in the contract, and no other records pertaining to a UST removal at Sears in 1986, or
later, were identified during this study.
Based upon the Phase I and the expert’s past experience with similar site conditions,
Cornerstone identified a potential for on-site soil, soil vapor, and groundwater
contamination due to historic and existing hazardous material use, generation and
storage. Mitigation measures are identified to avoid or reduce impacts related to
hazardous material contamination to a less than significant level, including
preparation of a Site Management Plan (SMP), Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for the
proposed demolition and redevelopment activities, and specific measures for the
demolition of the former Sears and JC Penny automotive centers, with oversight by
the City, SCCFD, and Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
(SCCDEH) (Draft EIR MM HAZ-1.1, page 140-141). The purpose of these
documents is to establish appropriate management practices for handling impacted
soil, soil vapor and ground water or other materials that may potentially be
encountered during construction activities. The SMP and HSP will establish
practices for properly handling contaminated materials, implementing measures
during demolition activities to identify, remove and clean up hazardous materials on-
site, properly closing groundwater monitoring wells, and obtaining site closure from
regulatory agencies.
No information was identified during Cornerstone’s Phase I ESA indicating that
USTs were associated with the former orchard or associated structures. If USTs are
encountered during construction, they will be handled in accordance with protocols to
be established within the recommended SMP.
Section 9.3 of the Cornerstone Phase I ESA provides recommendations for soil
sampling to evaluate if agricultural chemicals are present (Draft EIR MM HAZ-1.2,
page 142). If elevated concentrations are identified, appropriate soil handling and
mitigation measures would be required to implemented under the oversight of an
appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., the Water Board, DTSC or County DEH).
Section 9.5 of the Cornerstone Phase I ESA provides recommendations for further
evaluation and removal of the oil-water separator, which would be required to be
completed prior to redevelopment of the site (Draft EIR MM HAZ-1.2, page 141).
The JC Penny LUST case was closed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (the
overseeing regulatory agency) in 1994. The 750 gallon oil-water separator at the JC
Penny Automotive Center was steam cleaned and closed in place in 1994 by filling it
with cement grout under SCCFD oversight. Based on reported soil sampling data,
this separator does not appear to have significantly impacted underlying soil quality.
No underground storage tank was left in place at JC Penny.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 818 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The Cornerstone Phase I ESA provides recommendations for the removal of remnant
piping from the Sears facility, cleaning of residual oil/stains from interior building
surfaces, and the removal of any remaining USTs (Draft EIR MM HAZ-1.2, page
141). This work would be required to be completed prior to redevelopment of the
Site.
There is nothing presented in this comment that change the conclusions in the EIR
about potential hazardous materials impacts, or that requires mitigation measures in
addition to mitigation measures MM HAZ-1.1 through MM HAZ-1.4 identified in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
BBB. Steven Scharf (August 7, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment BBB.1:
• On page 174-175 of Table 4.1.7-3 it shows the existing traffic with project ratings of the
intersection. How was this done?
• For Wolfe and I-280 North/South intersections, it shows no change in the level of service
(LOS) for the on and off ramps of I-280 for when this project is built. How is this possible?
How are they measuring this?
Response BBB.1: As described in the Draft EIR (pages 269-271), the level of
service (LOS) for signalized study intersections was calculated based on
methodology of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which was adopted by
the City of Cupertino (General Plan Policy M-7.1) and adjacent local agencies, and
analyzes operations based on average control delay per vehicle. Existing conditions
traffic counts were taken in January 2018, and the project estimated trips (and project
alternative trips) were added to the existing intersection turning movement volumes
to estimate existing plus project conditions. As shown in Table 4.17-3, the
intersections of Wolfe/I-280 (north) and Wolfe/I-280 (south) ramps were determined
to operate at LOS B under both existing and existing plus project conditions.
Comment BBB.2:
• How can they say “existing” when the major Apple campus “spaceship” is only 2/3 occupied
now? Once is it fully occupied (4,000 – 5,000 more employees) would that change the LOS
at these intersections?
Response BBB.2: The existing conditions scenario reflects the roadway volumes
present on the streets on the day the counts were taken; in this case, in January 2018.
To reflect the increase in traffic volumes that will result from approved, but not built
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 819 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
or occupied developments in the area (e.g., Apple campus), the EIR traffic analysis
includes “background conditions.” Background conditions traffic volumes were
estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the traffic from approved but not built
or occupied development and associated changes in the roadway network. The
results of the intersection LOS under background and background plus project (and
project alternatives) conditions are included in the Draft EIR, Table 3.17-15, and
Draft EIR Amendment, Table 4.17-9.
CCC. Lisa Warren (August 7, 2018 public meeting)
The following responses pertain to the previous project and project alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIR and EIR Amendment. Please refer to Section 2.0 of this Final EIR for a description
of the revised project and a discussion of its impacts on the environment. As discussed in
Section 2.0, the revised project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant
impact than disclosed previously in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment.
Comment CCC.1:
• In the graph shown in the PowerPoint presentation, the amendment is called the “housing
rich alternative”, yet the offices have increased by 50 percent as well. Could argue this
amendment is also office rich.
• This could possibly be because the proposed Specific Plan, which is incorrect according to
our General Plan, mentions 2 million offices while the housing rich amendment only
mentions 1.5 million offices?
• Proposed Specific Plan variety shows 800 dwelling units when the General Plan only allowed
for 839 based on the housing numbers that were chosen by City Council.
Response CCC.1: Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the relationship
between the EIR and the Specific Plan process.
Comment CCC.2:
• Biggest issue is that no one really knows what is being studied/ how it is being studied.
• With so many studies all over the place, it is hard to look at the study and pinpoint what it is
missing/which parts are poor.
• Unsure of if the wide range of project alternatives really achieve the same objectives and
lessen the impacts (which is what is required).
Response CCC.2: Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the relationship
between the EIR and Specific Plan processes, and Master Response 4 regarding the
evaluation of alternatives.
Comment CCC.3: 95 percent of Cupertino retail is restaurants, which is a huge amount of
restaurants and restaurants emit large amounts of GHGs. Was GHG emissions studied properly?
Response CCC.3: The GHG emissions of the project, including proposed
commercial and restaurant space, was evaluated properly using methodology
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 820 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
commonly utilized for such analyses. Refer also to Section 5.3 Response AAA.9
regarding the GHG analysis of the commercial and restaurant space.
Comment CCC.4:
• The Proposed Specific Plan and the Housing Rich Amendment had 30 acres of parks. This
park land is needed, but not on the roof.
• The roof park would be slanted and a large amount of the park would not be accessible to the
public because it would be private amenities.
• There is no breakdown showing the amount of park available to the general public. The
amount of park land is expected to be much smaller than the 30 acres discussed.
• What they do provide as park land likely would not be usable for sports because it would be
sloped. Even if this is fixed/flattened, the roof is still not a good place to be play sports, as it
is next to a freeway.
• East side of city is park-starved and density challenged, so they need more parks.
• Project should look more into park research. There are studies (such as by the California
Department of Education) showing statistics of physical fitness levels of school aged children
based on park demographics.
• General Plan might need to amend their description of a park, as two narrow strips of grass
on either side of a road should possibly not qualify as a real park.
Response CCC.4: Refer to Section 5.2 Responses, II.E.25, II.E.26, and II.AA.1
regarding the proposed green roof and the previous project’s parkland requirements.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 821 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 6.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the text of the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Draft EIR dated
May 2018. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the
text.
Pages ix-xxi Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures: REPLACE the Summary of Impact
and Mitigation Measures table with the following:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 822 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
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: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall implement the following
BAAQMD-recommended measures to control dust, particulate matter, and diesel emissions during
construction:
Basic Measures
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.
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.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to twofive minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR])unless subject to state
law exemption (e.g., safety issues). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 823 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Applicable Enhanced Control Measures
9. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture
of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
10. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries.
11. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed
areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50
percent air porosity.
12. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed
areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
13. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction
activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce
the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
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.
15. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes unless
subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
Exhaust Control Measures
17. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 25
horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 25 percent NOx reduction and 65 percent
PM (particulate matter) exhaust reduction compared to the CalEEMod modeled average used in
this report. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines,
low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become
available. The following are feasible methods:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 824 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
• 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.
• If Tier 4 equipment is not feasible, Aall 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 and include particulate matter emissions control
equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether
achieve an 85 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust.
• Use of alternatively-fueled equipment with lower NOx emissions that meet the NOx and PM
reduction requirements above.
• Diesel engines, whether for off-road equipment or on-road vehicles, shall not be left idling
for more than two minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state
regulations (e.g., traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction sites shall
have posted legible and visible signs in designated queuing areas and at the construction site
to clearly notify operators of idling limit.
• All on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 33,000 pounds or
greater (EMFAC Category HDDT) used at the project site (such as haul trucks, water
trucks, dump trucks, and concrete trucks) shall be model year 2010 or newer.
• Develop a Transportation Demand Management program for construction worker travel that
includes transit and carpool subsides in order to reduce worker trips by 10 percent.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of
diesel powered stationary equipment, such as generators.
• Enforce idling limit of two minutes unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety
issues).
18. A project-specific construction management plan describing the measures to minimize
construction emissions shall be required of future development. As part of the construction
management plan, the on-site Construction Manager shall ensure and regularly document
that equipment, trucks, and architectural coatings meet the above mitigation requirements.
The documentation shall be submitted regularly to the City for review and compliance.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 825 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
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
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.
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
MM AQ-4.1: Implement MM AQ-3.1.
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.
MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 826 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Significant and Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
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).
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.
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-2: The project (and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) would not significantly impact
archaeological resources, human remains,
or tribal cultural resources.
MM CR-2.1: A qualified archaeological monitor shall be retained by the project proponent for future
development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) to inspect the ground surface at the completion of
demolition activities as they occur to search for archaeological site indicators.
In the event that any indicators are discovered, work shall be halted within a sensitivity zone to be
determined by the archaeologist. The archaeologist shall prepare a plan for the evaluation of the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 827 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
resource to the CRHP and submit the plan to the Cupertino Planning Department for review and
approval prior to any construction related earthmoving within the identified zone of archaeological
sensitivity. The plan shall also include appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the
find and the appropriate mitigation. The identified mitigation shall be implemented and can take the
form of limited data retrieval through hand excavation coupled with continued archaeological
monitoring inside of the archaeologically sensitive zone to ensure that significant data and materials are
recorded and/or removed for analysis. Monitoring also serves to identify and thus limit damage to
human remains and associated grave goods.
MM CR-2.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human remains during
construction of the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative
or Retail and Residential Alternative), there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site
within a 100-foot radius of the remains or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to
whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to
his authority, he shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC shall attempt to identify
descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the
disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human
remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance.
MM CR-2.3: If archaeological resources are identified during construction of the proposed project (or
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative), a
final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City’s Project
Planner prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation
program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing
program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the
resources.
MM CR-2.4: The City of Cupertino shall coordinate with the applicable Native American tribal
representatives following approval of a development on-site under the proposed project (or General Plan
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 828 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative). Cultural
sensitivity training shall be provided to all contractors prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities.
Impact CR-4: The project (and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) would not result in a
considerable contribution to a significant
cumulative cultural resources impact.
Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
MM CR-4.1: Implement mitigation measures MM CR-2.1 through -2.4.
Greenhouse Gas
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
MM GHG-1.1: Under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative), the project proponent shall prepare and implement a
GHG Reduction Plan to offset the project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative)-related incremental increase of greenhouse gas emissions resulting in the exceedance of the
significance threshold of 2.6 MTCO2e/year/service population. Refinement of the estimated GHG
emissions from the project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) shall be
completed as part of the GHG Reduction Plan in order to reflect the most current and accurate data
available regarding the project’s estimated emissions (including emission rates). The GHG Reduction
Plan shall include the implementation of a qualifying TDM program reduce mobile GHG emissions.
Additional offsets may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Construct on-site or fund off-site carbon sequestration projects (such as a forestry or wetlands
projects for which inventory and reporting protocols have been adopted). If the project (or General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) develops an off-site project, it must be
registered with the Climate Action Reserve or otherwise approved by BAAQMD in order to be used
to offset project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) emissions;
and/or
• Purchase of carbon credits to offset project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative) annual emissions. Carbon offset credits shall be verified and registered with The
Climate Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, or another source approved by CARB or
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 829 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
BAAQMD. The preference for offset carbon credit purchases include those that can be achieved as
follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of
California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Provisions of evidence of payments, and funding
of an escrow-type account or endowment fund would be overseen by the City.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The project (and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through routine transport, use, disposal, or
foreseeable upset of hazardous materials; or
emit hazardous emissions or hazardous
materials within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM HAZ-1.1: A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared
and implemented for demolition and redevelopment activities under the proposed project (and the
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative).
The purpose of the SMP and HSP is to establish appropriate management practices for handling
impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater or other materials that may potentially be encountered during
construction activities, especially in areas of former hazardous materials storage and use, and the
profiling of soil planned for off-site disposal and/or reuse on-site. The SMP shall document former and
suspect UST locations, hazardous materials transfer lines, oil-water separators, neutralization chambers,
and hydraulic lifts, etc. The SMP shall also identify the protocols for accepting imported fill materials,
if needed. The SMP and HSP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval and the
approved SMP and HSP shall be submitted to the City Building Division prior to commencement of
construction (including demolition) activities.
MM HAZ-1.2: The site contains equipment and facilities associated with past activities that are known
to or may contain residual hazardous materials. The following measures shall be implemented under the
proposed project (and the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and
Residential Alternative) during building demolition and shall be indicated on demolition plans:
• Sears and JC Penney Automotive Centers:
− Sears: Remnant piping that appears to have formerly distributed grease, oil and transmission
fluid from storage locations to the service bays located along interior building walls, ceilings
and within the basement shall be properly removed and disposed, and stains and residual oil
shall be cleaned from the interior building surfaces. This work shall be coordinated with the
SCCFD.
− Sears: The below ground oil-water separator (connected to floor drains within the building)
and an acid neutralization chamber (connected to drains within a former battery storage
room) shall be cleaned and removed. This work shall be coordinated with the SCCFD and
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 830 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
SCCDEH. Soil quality below each of the structures shall be evaluated via sampling and
laboratory analyses.
− Sears: The potential presence of a waste oil UST shall be further investigation by removing
the access cover and, if uncertainty remains, the subsequent performance of a geophysical
survey. If a UST is identified, it shall be removed in coordination with the SCCFD and
SCCDEH, and underlying soil quality shall be evaluated. If no UST is identified, soil quality
at the location of the waste oil UST, as depicted on the 1969 building plan, shall be evaluated
via the collection of soil samples from borings for laboratory analyses.
− Sears and JC Penney: Each of the below-ground lift casings and any associated hydraulic
fluid piping and reservoirs from hydraulic lifts shall be removed and properly disposed. An
Environmental Professional shall be retained to observe the removal activities and, if
evidence of leakage is identified, soil sampling and laboratory analyses shall be conducted.
− JC Penney: The 750 gallon oil-water separator shall be properly removed and appropriately
disposed during redevelopment activities.
• Existing staining and spilled oil on-site, including at the Sears Automotive Center and Cupertino
Ice Center, shall be properly cleaned. When these facilities are demolished, an Environmental
Professional shall be present to observe underlying soil for evidence of potential impacts and, if
observed, collect soil samples for laboratory analyses.
• If the lead-based paint on-site is flaking, peeling, or blistering, it shall be removed prior to
demolition. Applicable OSHA regulations shall be followed; these include requirements for
worker training and air monitoring and dust control. Any debris containing lead shall be
disposed appropriately.
• An asbestos survey shall be completed of the buildings prior to their demolition in accordance
with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines.
NESHAP guidelines require the removal of potentially friable ACMs prior to building
demolition or renovation that may disturb the ACM.
• Once existing buildings and improvements are removed, soil sampling shall be completed to
evaluate if agricultural chemicals and lead are present. The agricultural pesticide sampling shall
focus on former orchard and row crop areas, as well as in the vicinity of outbuilding (barns and
sheds) that were formerly located of the southeast portion of the site. Testing for lead
contamination shall be completed at the former structure locations. The sampling, which shall
follow commonly accepted environmental protocols, shall be performed prior to soil excavation
activities in order to appropriately profile the soil for off-haul to a disposal facility. The
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 831 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
analytical data shall be compared to either residential screening levels and/or the specific
acceptance criteria of the accepting facility. If this soil is planned to be reused on-site, it shall be
compared to residential screening levels and/or natural background levels of metals.
MM HAZ-1.3: Prior to issuance of demolition and/or grading permits, groundwater monitoring wells
shall be properly destroyed in accordance with the SCVWD Ordinance 90-1.
MM HAZ-1.4: As part of the facility closure process for occupants that use and/or store hazardous
materials, the SCCFD and SCCDEH typically require that a closure plan be submitted by the occupant
that describes required closure activities, such as removal of remaining hazardous materials, cleaning of
hazardous material handling equipment, decontamination of building surfaces, and waste disposal
practices, among others. Facility closures shall be coordinated with the Fire Department and SCCDEH
to ensure that required closure activities are completed prior to issuance of demolition and/or grading
permits.
Impact HAZ-6: The project (and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) would not have a considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative
hazardous materials impact.
Less than Significant Cumulative Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
MM HAZ-6.1: Implement MM HAZ-1.1 through -1.4.
Noise and Vibration
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
Construction Noise
MM NOI-1.1: Construction activities under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall be conducted in
accordance with provisions of the City’s Municipal Code which limit temporary construction work to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 832 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Municipal Code, or applicable standard of
other agencies.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
daytime hours,20 Monday through Friday. Construction is prohibited on weekends and all holidays
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(B)(C)(D). Further, the City requires that all equipment
have high-quality noise mufflers and abatement devices installed and are in good condition.
Additionally, the construction crew shall adhere to the following construction best management
practices listed in MM NOI-1.2 below to reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site and
minimize disruption and annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
MM NOI-1.2: Future development shall prepare and submit a construction noise control plan to the
City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval. The on-site Construction
Manager shall implement athe construction noise control plan, which would includeing, but is not
limited to, the following available controls:
• Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-generating equipment.
Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier
interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in
a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in
good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• EnforceUnnecessary idling limit of two minutes of internal combustion engines unless subject to
state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues)shall be strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators,
as far as possible from sensitive receptors as feasible. If they must be located near receptors,
adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise
levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from
sensitive receptors.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
Per Municipal Code Section 10.48.010, daytime is defined as the period from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekdays.
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(B): Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or
underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section
10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(C): Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030.
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(D): Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section
10.48.040.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 833 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would create the greatest distance
between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during all project construction.
• Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas, as far as
feasible from residential receptors.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing
residences bordering the project site.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise control blanket barriers shall shroud pile drivers
or be erected in a manner to shield the adjacent land uses.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile holes shall be pre-drilled to minimize the number
of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-drilling foundation pile holes is a standard construction
noise control technique. Pre-drilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the pile. Notify all
adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities and provide it to adjacent land uses. The construction plan shall identify a
procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be
scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints
about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously
posted at the construction site and included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction
schedule.
Mechanical Equipment Noise
MM NOI-1.3: A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained for development under the proposed
project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) to review mechanical noise, as these systems are selected, to determine specific noise
reduction measures necessary to ensure noise complies with the City’s noise level requirements.
Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the
City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
• Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 834 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
• Installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight
between the noise source and the nearest receptors;
• Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
Truck Loading and Unloading
MM NOI-1.4: Section 10.48.062 prohibits deliveries between 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM on weekdays and
between 6:00 PM and 9:00 AM on weekends and holidays, which shall be enforced as part of the
proposed project and all project alternatives. Additionally, the effect of loading zone activities would be
evaluated for noise impacts and help determine design decisions once project-specific information for
the project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential
Alternative), such as type and size of the commercial uses, hours of operation, frequency of deliveries,
and location of loading zones, is available. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Move loading zones inside (e.g., within parking structures), where possible, and as far from adjacent
residential uses as possible.
• Implement a no idling policy at all locations that requires engines to be turned off after five two
minutes.
• Recess truck docks into the ground or locate them within parking structures.
• Equip loading bay doors with rubberized gasket type seals to allow little loading noise to escape.
MM NOI-1.5: Prior to issuance of building permits, a noise study shall be completed to determine
noise levels due to truck deliveries at the proposed buildings, and the specific noise control that shall be
implemented to reduce noise levels below the City’s thresholds at adjacent residential property lines
shall be identified.
Impact NOI-2: The project (and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) would not expose persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration.
MM NOI-2.1: Where vibration levels due to construction activities under the proposed project (or
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative)
would exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at nearby sensitive uses, development shall:
• Comply with the construction noise ordinance to limit hours of exposure. The City’s Municipal
Code allows construction noise to exceed limits discussed in Section 10.48.040 during daytime
hours. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 835 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
• In the event pile driving would be required, all receptors within 300 feet of the project site shall be
notified of the schedule a minimum of one week prior to its commencement. The contractor shall
implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one
pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of portable acoustical barriers), in
consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions.
• To the extent feasible, the project contractor shall phase high-vibration generating construction
activities, such as pile driving/ground-impacting operations, so they do not occur at the same time
with demolition and excavation activities in locations where the combined vibrations would
potentially impact sensitive areas.
• The project contractor shall select demolition methods not involving impact tools, where possible
(for example, milling generates lower vibration levels than excavation using clam shell or chisel
drops).
• The project contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.
• Impact pile driving shall be prohibited within 90 feet of an existing structure surrounding the project
site. Vibratory pile driving shall be prohibited within 60 feet of an existing structure surrounding
the project site.
• Prohibit the use of heavy vibration-generating construction equipment, such as vibratory rollers or
clam shovel, within 20 feet of any adjacent sensitive land use.
• If pile driving is required in the vicinity of vibration-sensitive structures adjacent to the project site,
survey conditions of existing structures and, when necessary, perform site-specific vibration studies
to direct construction activities. Contractors shall continue to monitor effects of construction
activities on surveyed sensitive structures and offer repair or compensation for damage.
• Construction management plans for substantial construction projects, particularly those involving
pile driving, shall include predefined vibration reduction measures, notification requirements for
properties within 200 feet of scheduled construction activities, and contact information for on-site
coordination and complaints.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 836 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
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
MM NOI-3.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) shall implement available
measures to reduce project-generated noise level increases from project traffic on Perimeter Road. The
noise attenuation measures shall be studied on a case-by-case basis at receptors that would be
significantly impacted. Noise reduction methods could include the following:
• New or larger noise barriers or other noise reduction techniques constructed to protect existing
residential land uses. Final design of such barriers shall be completed during project level review.
• Alternative noise reduction techniques, such as re-paving Perimeter Road with “quieter” pavement
types including Open-Grade Rubberized Asphaltic Concrete. The use of “quiet” pavement can
reduce noise levels by two to five dBA, depending on the existing pavement type, traffic speed,
traffic volumes, and other factors.
• Traffic calming measures to slow traffic, such as speed bumps.
• Building sound insulation for affected residences, such as sound-rated windows and doors, on a
case-by-case basis as a method of reducing noise levels in interior spaces.
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
MM NOI-4: Implement MM NOI-1.1 and -1.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 837 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
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
MM NOI-6.1: Implement MM NOI-3.1 to reduce project-generated noise level increases on Perimeter
Road north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway east of North Wolfe Road.
Transportation/Traffic
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
MM TRN-1.1: Develop and implement a TDM Program for office uses that achieves a 25 to 35 percent
reduction in office vehicle trips. The required TDM reduction would vary depending on the amount of
office development constructed and whether the office development has a single tenant or multiple
tenants. Generally, the larger the office development, the greater the TDM reduction that can be
achieved. Similarly, single-tenants office buildings can generally implement more effective TDM
programs than multiple-tenant office buildings. The percentage reduction required shall be based on the
characteristics of the office development (size, number of tenants, etc.) and shall be calculated based on
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Office (ITE Land Use 710) average trip generation rates.
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to implement the Specific Plan’s
TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM reduction goals are achieved. If future development
is not able to meet the identified TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties, as specified the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Develop and implement a TDM Program which includes a
trip cap that is based on a 34 percent non-SOV rate for the office uses. The TDM Program includes the
creation of a Transportation Management Association that would:
• Provide concierge services to residents and retail owners (for their employees);
• Coordinate with the office component; and
• Oversee the overall TDM program among property owners and tenants to achieve the office trip
caps
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 838 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to implement the Specific Plan’s
TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM reduction goals are achieved. The TDM Monitoring
Program shall require a robust Monitoring Program to ensure that this TDM program mitigation
measure is implemented and that the required trip caps are achieved. The Monitoring Program shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of Cupertino and would include driveway monitoring for all
office uses during the AM and PM peak hours. The TDM Monitoring Program would occur in the fall
(mid-September through mid-November) after six months occupancy of 50 percent of the total approved
buildout. The TDM Monitoring Program shall be conducted annually for the first 10 years. If the
monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded in the last three years of the first 10
years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be reduced to once every two years (i.e.. year 10,
12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial report reveals that the peak trip counts have been exceeded, the
monitoring shall revert to annual monitoring until such time that the peak trip counts have not been
exceeded for three consecutive annual reports. If future development is not able to meet the identified
TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties (assigned proportionately between the uses that do not
meet the trip cap), as specified in the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Penalties collected
from the TDM Monitoring Program will be used to improve multimodal access around the site and
throughout the City of Cupertino.
MM TRN-1.2: Intersection 12, De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road, convert the shared left-
turn/through lane on the eastbound approach of McClellan Road to a dedicated through lane (for a total
of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane). This would allow converting the
phasing on the east-west approaches from split phasing to protected left-turn phasing. This
improvement is included in the City’s TIF Program and would improve intersection operations to an
acceptable LOS D. Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall pay transportation
mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
MM TRN-1.3: A fair-share payment contribution to improvements identified in VTA’s VTP 2040 for
freeway segments on SR 85, I-280, and I-880 that the project (or project alternative) significantly
impacts shall be paid by future development associated with the project (or General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 839 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
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
MM TRN-2.1: Implement MM TRN-1.1.
MM TRN-2.2: Intersection 12, De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road: Implement MM TRN-1.1.
Implementation of MM TRN-1.2 would improve intersection the average intersection delay to better
than background (without project or project alternative) conditions.
MM TRN-2.3: Intersection 31, Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway: Provide an overlap phase for the
westbound right-turn movement, which would provide for a green right-turn arrow while the
southbound left-turn movement has its green phase. Southbound U-turns shall also be prohibited.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve intersection level of service to an acceptable
LOS D.
MM TRN-2.4: Intersection 42, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue: Provide a northbound left-
turn lane (for a total of one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane). This would allow
converting the phasing on the east-west approaches from split phasing to protected left-turn phasing.
This improvement is included in the City’s TIF Program and would improve intersection operations to
an acceptable LOS D. Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall pay transportation
mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
MM TRN-2.5: Intersections 43-45, Contribute a fair-share to a traffic signal timing study and
implementation of the revised timings on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stern Avenue, Calvert Drive, and
Agilent Driveway.
MM TRN-2.6: Intersection 48, Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road: Pay a fair-share contribution
to the near-term improvement identified in the Santa Clara County’s Expressway Plan 2040 Study for
this intersection. The Expressway Plan 2040 Study identifies a near-term improvement of an additional
eastbound through lane on Homestead Road. With this improvement, intersection operations would
improve, but the intersection would continue to operate at LOS F with delays greater than under
background conditions.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 840 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
MM TRN-2.7: Intersection 51, Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive-I-280 Southbound Ramp:
Improvements to mitigate the impact would include providing a fourth northbound through lane (for a
total of four through lanes and one right-turn lane). This would require four receiving lanes north of
Calvert Drive-I-280 Southbound Ramps. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at
acceptable LOS E or better. The widening of Lawrence Expressway from three to four lanes in each
direction between Moorpark Avenue to south of Calvert Drive is included in the VTP 2040 as a
constrained project (VTP 2040 Project# X10). The VTP 2040 does not include widening of Lawrence
Expressway at or north of Calvert Drive, however. The fourth northbound through lane on Lawrence
Expressway could potentially be provided with an added receiving lane that would connect directly to
the off-ramp to Lawrence Expressway (also known as “trap” lane) just north of the I-280 overcrossing.
The City shall coordinate with the County of Santa Clara to and Caltrans to determine if a fourth
through lane could be provided. Future development under the proposed project shall be required to pay
a fair-share contribution if the improvement is feasible.
MM TRN-2.8: Intersection 53, Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road: Improvements to mitigate the
project’s (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) impact would include
providing a fourth northbound through lane (for the PM peak hour impact) and fourth southbound
through lane (for the AM peak hour impact). The widening of Lawrence Expressway from three to four
lanes in each direction between Moorpark Avenue to south of Calvert Drive is included in the VTP 2040
as a constrained project (VTP 2040 Project# X10). This VTA project also includes the provision of an
additional westbound through lane on Moorpark Avenue.
Assuming that both the northbound and southbound approaches would be modified to accommodate
four through lanes, the intersection would operate at or better than acceptable LOS E under the project
and all project alternatives during the AM and PM peak hours. Future development under the proposed
project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative) shall be required to pay a
fair-share to VTP Project# X10.
MM TRN-2.9: Implement MM TRN-1.2.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 841 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
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
MM TRN-7.1: Implement MM TRN-1.1.
MM TRN-7.2: Intersection 2, Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 northbound ramps: The City’s TIF
Program identifies the addition of an exclusive northbound left-turn lane from the SR 85 off-ramp onto
westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. This improvement would mitigate the project’s (and General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) to a less than
significant level. Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall pay transportation
mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
MM TRN-7.3: Intersection 8, De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road: The City’s TIF Program
identifies the widening of De Anza Boulevard to four through lanes between the I-280 interchange and
Homestead Road. This improvement would mitigate the project’s (and General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) to a less than significant level.
Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall pay transportation mitigation fees as calculated
pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
MM TRN-7.4: Intersection 12, De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road: Implement MM TRN-1.2.
Implementation of MM TRN-1.2 would improve intersection operations to better than cumulative
(without) project (or project alternative) conditions.
MM TRN-7.5: Intersection 23, Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue: Provide a dedicated southbound right-
turn lane from Wolfe Road onto westbound Fremont Avenue. This would improve operations to LOS D
and reduce the project impact to a less than significant level under the proposed project and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative. The intersection would continue to operate at
unacceptable LOS E under the proposed project, General Plan Building with Maximum Residential
Alternative, and Retail and Residential Alternative, but the delay would be reduced to a level lower than
cumulative conditions. Thus, the impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 842 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
The City of Sunnyvale recently approved improvements to the “Triangle” area of Wolfe Road/El
Camino Real, Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue, and El Camino Real/Fremont Avenue. The “Triangle”
improvements include the provision of a southbound right-turn lane from Wolfe Road to Fremont
Avenue. Thus, future development under the project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) would be required to contribute their fair-
share to the “Triangle” improvement project.
MM TRN-7.6: Intersection 26, Wolfe Road/Homestead Road: Provide a dedicated southbound right-
turn lane from Wolfe Road onto westbound Homestead Road. To minimize secondary impacts to
pedestrian travel, the right-turn lanes would need to be signal controlled, right-turns on red would be
prohibited, and pedestrians should have a leading pedestrian phase (i.e., a pedestrian walk indication is
provided several seconds before the right-turning vehicle traffic). This mitigation measures would
improve intersection operations but not to a less than significant level.
The City’s TIF Program includes the provision of the dedicated southbound right-turn lane. Future
development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall pay transportation mitigation fees as calculated
pursuant to the TIF program to mitigate this impact.
MM TRN-7.7: Intersection 31, Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway: Implement MM TRN-2.3.
MM TRN-7.8: Intersection 42, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue: Implement MM TRN-2.4.
MM TRN-7.9: Intersection 43-45: Implement MM TRN-2.5.
MM TRN-7.10: Intersection 48, Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road: Implement MM TRN-2.6.
As discussed under MM TRN-2.6, the project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) shall pay a fair-share contribution to the long-term
improvement identified in the Santa Clara County’s Expressway Plan 2040 Study for this intersection.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 843 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
MM TRN-7.11: Intersection 51, Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive-I-280 Southbound Ramp:
Implement MM TRN-2.7.
MM TRN-7.12: Intersection 53, Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road: Implement MM TRN-2.8.
MM TRN-7.13: Intersection 60, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Cabot Avenue: Contribute a fair-share to a
traffic signal timing study and implementation of the revised timings on Stevens Creek Boulevard at
Cabot Avenue. The project (and General Plan with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and
Residential Alternative) impacts would likely improve with modifications to the signal timings as traffic
volumes change.
MM TRN-7.14: Retail and Residential Alternative Only – Intersection 38, Tantau Avenue/Homestead
Road: Restripe the southbound approach to provide a separate left-turn lane and shared through/right-
turn lane (including removal of on-street parking). This improvement is included in the City’s TIF
Program and would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. Future development under
the Retail and Residential Alternative shall pay transportation mitigation fees as calculated pursuant to
the TIF program to mitigate this impact. However, because the TIF improvements are not fully funded
and the timing of implementation is not known at this time, the impact is considered significant and
unavoidable.
(Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
MM TRN-7.15: Implement MM TRN-1.3.
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-2: The project (and General
Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) would require improvements to
the existing sewer system, however, the
construction of the improvements would not
cause significant environmental effects.
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
12- and 15-inch sewer mains in Wolfe Road with new mains of an adequate size as determined by
CuSD, andor shall install an 18- to 21-inch parallel pipe to the existing 12- and 15-inch mains to
accommodate existing and project flows.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 844 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
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
determined by the CuSD, or install a parallel pipe of an adequate size to the existing 27-inch sewer
main 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 between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is amended to recognize and authorize this
increased flow. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the City for structures or units that
would result in the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara
sanitary sewer system being exceeded. The estimated sewage generation by the project shall be
calculated using the sewer generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and from the City of Santa Clara
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007, unless alternative (i.e., lower) sewer generation
rates achieved by future development are substantiated by the developer based on evidence to the
satisfaction of the CuSD.
The average dry weather sewerage generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and the City
of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007, for the different uses within the project are as follows: High Density Residential = 121 gpd/unit;
Commercial/Retail = 0.076 gpd/SF; Commercial/Restaurant = 1.04 gpd/SF; Office = 0.1 gpd/SF; Hotel = 100 gpd/Room; Civic Space (office) = 0.21 gpd/SF; Adult Education =
15 gpd/Person; and Civic Space (Auditorium) = 0.11 gpd/SF.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 845 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 9 Section 2.3 Background Information; ADD the following text to the third paragraph
as follows:
Sand Hill Property Company acquired approximately 51 acres within the Vallco Shopping District
Special Area, in late 2014, while the City was in the process of planning for the revitalization of the
mall area. In December 2014, after a two-year community outreach process, the City Council
adopted new General Plan goals, policies, and strategies specifically relating to the newly created
Vallco Shopping District Special Area, within which Vallco Shopping Mall is located. The General
Plan envisions a complete redevelopment of Vallco Shopping Mall site into a “vibrant mixed-use
town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community.7 As further stated on page
LU-50 of the General Plan, it is envisioned the project site “will become a destination for shopping,
dining, and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley (General Plan, page LU-50). To realize this
community vision, the General Plan “requires a master developer in order to remove the obstacles to
the development of a cohesive district” (Strategy LU-19.1.1).8
Page 30 Section 2.4.4.3: REVISE the subheading title and discussion in this section as
follows:
2.4.4.3 Transit Center and Transportation Demand Management Program
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. The TDM program could include on-site
transportation coordinator, ride-share marketing and promotion, unbundling parking, a transit
incentive program, safe routes to school support programs, transit subsidy for employees, 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. 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 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.
Page 30 Section 2.4.4.4: REVISE the paragraph in this section as follows:
The Specific Plan would require connections to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm drain,
communications, gas and electricity utility lines in the area. The Specific Plan may includes the
extension of existing Wolfe Road recycled water pipeline serving the Apple Park office campus
(formerly called Apple Campus 2) approximately one mile from Homestead Road, under I-280, to
the project site and possibly to Stevens Creek Boulevard. An additional pump to the existing booster
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 846 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
pump station for the Wolfe Road recycled water pipeline may be required. Recycled water
maywould be used on-site for landscape irrigation.
Page 31 Section 2.4.4.6: ADD the following text after the subheading as follows:
2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions
The EIR is based on the assumption that the below measures are proposed as part of, or conditions of
approval for, future development implementing the Specific Plan.
Page 32 Section 2.4.4.6: REPLACE the last two bullets on the page with the following:
• Outdoor dining areas located on the green roof with direct line-of-sight to the existing
residences to the west of the site, opposite Perimeter Road, and to the southeast of the site,
opposite Vallco Parkway and North Wolfe road, shall be setback a minimum distance of 310
feet from the nearest residential property line to meet the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA.
Alternately, outdoor dining areas shall be acoustically shielded by noise barriers or buildings.
• Playgrounds proposed on the green roof shall be setback a minimum distance of 60 feet from
the nearest residential property line or acoustically shielded by noise barriers.
• Outdoor dining areas and playgrounds shall demonstrate that appropriate design and noise
attenuation measures including, but not limited to, setbacks and/or noise barriers have been
incorporated to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA and the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA
in the City’s Municipal Code at the existing, adjacent residences.
• Future development shall pay its fair-share contribution towards the City’s share for the cost
of constructing the I-280/Wolfe Interchange project.
Page 33 Section 2.4.4.6: ADD the following before the first bullet point on the page as
follows:
In addition, the EIR analysis includes the following Specific Plan elements:
• The Specific Plan would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program,
which shall provide sitewide TDM support services to coordinate TDM efforts for all users
and includes an office-specific trip cap to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel.
The non-office portion of the project is not subject to a trip cap. The office trips cap related
to the TDM program of the project shall be measured at the peak commute hours, when
roadways are most congested.
OFFICE TRIP CAP
Trip caps for the office uses were developed assuming full buildout of the office uses for the
revised project. The office trip cap is designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips from
office uses. Specifically, the office trips caps assume that at a minimum 34 percent of office
trips would be by non-single-occupancy vehicle (non-SOV) modes (i.e., the percentage of
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 847 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
employees traveling to the site via walking, bicycling, riding in private shuttle or public
transit vehicles, or ridesharing).
A target of 34 percent non-SOV has been identified as a reasonable target because it is
considered aggressive but achievable for office developments in suburban locations greater
than one-half (½) mile from a rail station. While higher alternative mode share rates have
been established for a few corporate campuses in the Bay Area, such rates have generally
been in areas more urban than Cupertino with proximity to mass transit facilities.
As the Specific Plan develops, annual trip caps for the office uses will be established based
building square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak hour.
Peak hours are defined as the time periods on the adjacent streets with the highest hourly
volumes occurring during the morning and evening commute periods. At full buildout, the
office uses in the revised project shall be required to meet the trip caps presented in the
following table:
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Office Trip Caps 1,830 vehicle trips 1,820 vehicle trips
FORMATION OF TMA
The purpose of the Transportation Management Association (TMA) is to coordinate sitewide
TDM measures, collect fees from members to finance site-wide measures and monitoring
activities, conduct TMA administration activities, and coordinate with members to add
measures as needed to meet the office trip caps.
The TMA for the Specific Plan Area shall be established using a legal arrangement approved
by the City. The TMA shall hire a qualified Transportation Coordinator. The fees paid by
each member shall be determined as part of TMA formation documentation. All commercial
property owners and tenants, apartment management companies, hotel operators, and home
owners associations shall be required to be members, unless an enhanced TDM program
covers all office uses in the Plan Area, in which case there may be a separate TMA for
offices uses. However, the office TMA is still required to be a member of the sitewide TMA
and coordinate activities and monitoring with the sitewide TMA.
TDM PROGRAM STRUCTURE
The TDM program would include the formation of a TMA to help implement TDM strategies
sitewide and coordinate the office trip cap requirements. The TMA shall include an on-site
transportation coordinator that would help implement TDM strategies. TDM strategies that
are highly encouraged include, but are not limited to:
− Maximum parking requirements per the Specific Plan
− Concierge services for all employees, residents, guests, and patrons, to provide
information on transit connections, opportunities for alternative modes of transit and
transportation services.
− Free transit passes for residents and retail employees
− Ride-share marketing and promotion
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 848 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
− Evaluation, identification, and implementation of bikeshare program for travel within,
to, and from the site
− On-site availability of carshare
− Guaranteed ride home programs
Other TDM strategies that could be considered include:
− Unbundling parking,
− Other a transit incentive programs
− Safe routes to school support programs,
− Transit subsidy for employees,
− Vanpool subsidy for employees,
− Workplace parking pricing,
− Employee parking cash-out,
− Alternative work schedules and telecommute programs, and.
− Shuttle services for employees
Additional details about possible TDM measures are included in Table 28 in Appendix H.
The Final TDM program for future development shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
City’s Director of Public Works prior to approval of any occupancy permits.
The TMA would submit an annual report to the City to report on TDM measures
implemented and assess effectiveness of TDM program in terms of non-SOV mode split for
the office uses. Additional TDM measures may be required by the City if the TDM measures
are not effective as determined by a regular monitoring program. The following lays out the
TDM Program and Monitoring Plan in more detail.
MONITORING PLAN
Annual TDM program monitoring consists of two main elements: (1) Summary of
Implemented TDM Measures to be provided by the Vallco Specific Plan Area TMA, and (2)
office driveway counts and TDM Monitoring Report for office uses to be prepared by an
independent city-approved transportation planning/engineering firm. Each of these
components is described below.
Summary of Implemented TDM Measures
The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall submit a report to the City by December
31st each year describing the specific TDM measures that are being implemented by the TMA
and by their members (including the office TMA, if any) and the amount of occupied space
for each land use (i.e., office/commercial/hotel rooms/dwelling units).
To assess the effectiveness of the TDM program in increasing non-SOV trips, the TMA
(including the office TMA, if any) may also be required to collect the following data and
provide it in a report to the City:
− Private Shuttle Ridership - Counted electronically on vehicles and visually verified at
the transit hub
− Public Transit Ridership - Counted at area VTA stops
− Cycling/Walking Volumes - Counted via bike/pedestrian entrances to office facilities
− Office Carpool Volumes - Counted at entrances to office parking facilities
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 849 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Driveway Counts and TDM Monitoring Report
An independent city-approved transportation planning/engineering firm shall be retained by
the City to collect vehicle counts and present the results in a written report. Vehicle counts
shall be conducted at all entrances/exits to parking facilities for the office space. The
numbers of vehicles entering and exiting each location shall be counted in 15-minute
increments from 7:00AM to 10:00AM and from 3:00PM to 7:00PM on a Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday over a two-week period. Counts shall be performed between mid-
September and mid-November. Counts shall avoid school holidays, as well as days
immediately before or after holidays or long weekends, and shall not be performed on days
with inclement weather.
The count data for the driveways to the office parking facilities shall be analyzed using
standard traffic engineering practice to derive office-generated AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes. The results shall be compared to the office trip caps.
The data collection methodology, raw data, data analysis procedures, and resulting AM and
PM peak hour vehicle trips for the office uses shall be written up in a report and submitted to
the City of Cupertino Department of Public Works.
TDM Program Compliance
If the AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation of the office uses is less than the office
trip caps (1,830 AM peak hour trips and 1,820 PM peak hour trips at full buildout of revised
project), the TDM program is in compliance and no additional TDM measures shall be
required. As the Specific Plan develops, annual trip caps for the office uses will be
established based building square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the
PM peak hour.
Actions if TDM Program Compliance is Not Achieved
The City would notify the Vallco Specific Plan Area TMA (including the office TMA, if any)
if the trip caps are exceeded. The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall be required
to meet with the City to identify new TDM measures to be implemented to achieve the trip
caps.
Once the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) and the City agree on new TDM measures,
the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall implement them within 60 days of the
notification date, unless new TDM measures cannot reasonably be implemented within 60
days, then within a later date that can reasonably be achieved, acceptable to the City.
Follow-up counts shall be conducted by an independent City-approved transportation
planning/engineering firm 60 days after the new measures are implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the new TDM program. If the peak hour trip caps are still exceeded, the
TMA (including the office TMA, if any) would pay a fee of $3 per day per extra vehicle trip
(adjusted annually starting in 2018 per the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in
the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area) for ninety days. The funds from these fees shall
be used to provide for City-wide implementation of TDM measures and improvement of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Payments of these penalties are due to the City within 30
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 850 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
days of issuance of an invoice with reasonable supporting documentation. After ninety days,
the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall be required to meet with the City to
identify additional City-approved TDM measures to be added. If the Plan is still unable to
meet the trip caps during the next annual monitoring period, penalties would continue to be
levied, until the peak trip caps are met.
If the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) does not agree to implement the City
approved new TDM measures after the initial meeting, then the TMA shall be assessed a $5
per day per extra vehicle trip penalty (adjusted annually starting in 2018 per the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area) through
the end of the calendar year. Payments of these penalties are due to the City within 30 days
of issuance of an invoice with reasonable supporting documentation. The funds from these
penalties shall be used at the City’s discretion.
Monitoring Program Funding
The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall pay the City for the annual monitoring
costs including City staff time to review the annual monitoring reports.
Monitoring Program Duration
Annual monitoring shall be conducted starting the fall (mid-September through mid-
November) after six months of 50 percent occupancy of total approved buildout and
continuing annually for 10 years. The annual trip caps for the office uses will be established
based building square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak
hour. The trip cap will be proportionally adjusted based on the occupancy of the sitewide
office use to determine the trip cap applicable to that monitoring cycle up to full occupancy.
In no event shall the trip cap exceed 1,830 AM peak hour trips and 1,820 PM peak hour trips.
If the monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded in the last three
years of the first 10 years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be reduced to
once every two years (i.e., year 12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial report reveals that the
peak trip counts have been exceeded, the monitoring shall revert to annual monitoring until
such time that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded for three consecutive annual
reports.
• Electricity for future development would be provided by Silicon Valley Clean Energy
(SVCE) or another provider that sources electricity from 100 percent carbon free sources.
• Future development would meet the state Density Bonus Law criteria to be granted a
residential density bonus of 35 percent.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 851 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 33 Section 2.6; City of Cupertino: ADD the following text to the Development
Agreement bullet:
City of Cupertino
• General Plan Amendments
• Rezoning
• Adoption of a Specific Plan
• Tentative Map
• Development Permits
• Architectural and Site Approvals
• Tree Removal Permits
• Development Agreement (DA-2015-02, which was applied for in 2015 and reactivated in
2017 by Sand Hill Property Company)
• Encroachment permits
Page 34 Section 3.0; ADD the following text after the Section 3.0 Environmental Setting,
Impacts, and Mitigation heading:
In 2014, the City of Cupertino certified the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and
Associated Rezoning Draft EIR (General Plan EIR).23 The General Plan EIR evaluated land use
alternatives for citywide development allocations (as well as building heights and densities for
Special Areas along major transportation corridors, where Gateway/Nodes have been identified,
seven Study Areas, and other Special Areas), an updated Housing Element, and changes to the
General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning map. The General Plan EIR analyzed
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 dwelling units within the Vallco Special Area.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21093 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, this EIR tiers from the
City’s certified 2014 General Plan EIR. CEQA Section 21093(b) states that environmental impact
reports shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency. “Tiering” refers to using
the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or
policy statement) in subsequent EIRs or Initial Studies/negative declarations on narrower projects;
and concentrating the later environmental review on the issues specific to the later project (CEQA
Guidelines 15152[a]).
The certified General Plan EIR evaluated, at a program-level and limited project-level, the
environmental impacts of developing the proposed project.
City of Cupertino. General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR.
SCH# 2014032007. June 18, 2014.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 852 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 61 Impact AQ-2; Project: DELETE text in second sentence of the second paragraph as
follows:
Construction exhaust emissions were modeled assuming the project (and project alternatives) would
be built out over 10 years and would include excavation of approximately 2.0 million cubic yards of
soil. Refer to Appendix B for modeling details, data inputs, and assumptions. Table 3.3-4
summarizes the average daily construction emissions (both with and without MM AQ-2.1 and MM
AQ-2.2) of ROG, NOx, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project (and
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative) as compared to BAAQMD thresholds.
Pages 62-64 MM AQ-2.1: REVISE mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 as follows:
MM AQ-2.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall
implement the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control dust,
particulate matter, and diesel exhaust emissions during construction:
Basic Measures
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.
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.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five two minutes (as
required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR])unless subject to
state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 853 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Applicable Enhanced Control Measures
9. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain
minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified
by lab samples or moisture probe.
10. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended
when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends
beyond site boundaries.
11. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward
side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive
receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
12. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be
planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately
until vegetation is established.
13. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-
disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall
be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed
surfaces at any one time.
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.
15. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one
percent.
16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to
two minutes unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
Exhaust Control Measures
17. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 25 horsepower) to be used in the construction
project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a
minimum project wide fleet-average 25 percent NOx reduction and 65
percent PM (particulate matter) exhaust reduction compared to the
CalEEMod modeled average used in this report. Acceptable options for
reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission
diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-
treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other
options as such become available. The following are feasible methods:
• 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.
• If Tier 4 equipment is not feasible, Aall construction equipment
larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 854 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA emission
standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter
emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve an 85 percent
reduction in particulate matter exhaust.
• Use of alternatively-fueled equipment with lower NOx emissions
that meet the NOx and PM reduction requirements above.
• Diesel engines, whether for off-road equipment or on-road
vehicles, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, except
as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations (e.g.,
traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction
sites shall have posted legible and visible signs in designated
queuing areas and at the construction site to clearly notify
operators of idling limit.
• All on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 33,000 pounds or greater (EMFAC Category HDDT)
used at the project site (such as haul trucks, water trucks, dump
trucks, and concrete trucks) shall be model year 2010 or newer.
• Develop a Transportation Demand Management program for
construction worker travel that includes transit and carpool
subsides in order to reduce worker trips by 10 percent.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of
construction to minimize the use of diesel powered stationary
equipment, such as generators.
• Enforce idling limit of two minutes unless subject to state law
exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
18. A project-specific construction management plan describing the
measures to minimize construction emissions shall be required of future
development. As part of the construction management plan, the on-site
Construction Manager shall ensure and regularly document that
equipment, trucks, and architectural coatings meet the above mitigation
requirements. The documentation shall be submitted regularly to the City
for review and compliance.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 855 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 70 Impact AQ-6: REVISE the text under Project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative as follows:
Project
The exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to construction-related dust and diesel exhaust emissions
is discussed under Impact AQ-2 and would be reduced (but not to a less than significant level) with
the implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2.
Mitigation Measure:
MM AQ-6.1: Implement MM AQ-2.1. and -2.2
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative
The exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to construction-related dust and diesel exhaust emissions
is discussed under Impact AQ-2 and would be reduced (but not to a less than significant level) with
the implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2. As shown in Table 3.3-4, the
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative would result in slightly greater NOx
emissions than the proposed project. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Retail and Residential Alternative
The exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to construction-related dust and diesel exhaust emissions
is discussed under Impact AQ-2 and would be reduced (but not to a less than significant level) with
the implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and -2.2. As shown in Table 3.3-4, the
Retail Residential Alternative would result in fewer NOx emissions than the proposed project.
(Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Page 72 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors from Project Construction Activity; REVISE the
first paragraph after MM AQ-7.1 as follows:
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the maximum cancer risk from the project
construction (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, and Retail and
Residential Alternative) would be 3.14.4 in one million or less, which is below the BAAQMD
threshold of greater than 10 per one million for cancer risk. (Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 856 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 73 Exposure of On-Site Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants – Planning
Consideration: REVISE the first bulleted paragraph as follows:
• Interstate 280 – The predicted maximum increased cancer risk at the project site from traffic
on I-280 was calculated to be 4.0 in one million, which is below than the BAAQMD
threshold of significance of 10 in one million. Impacts from PM2.5 emissions from I-280
would occur at the project site along portions of the site closest to the freeway. BAAQMD
adopted a significance threshold of an annual average PM2.5 concentration greater than 0.3
µg/m3. Figure 3.3-3Appendix B shows contour lines on the site where PM2.5 concentrations
would occur at or above the BAAQMD threshold of significance of 0.3 µg/m3. For distances
within about 530 feet from I-280 on the project site west of North Wolfe Road and within
about 620 feet from I-280 on the project site east of North Wolfe Road, PM2.5 concentrations
would be significant. The Hazard Index (HI) is estimated to be 0.0006, which is below the
BAAQMD threshold of significance of 1.0.
Page 80 Impact AQ-8; Project and All Project Alternatives: ADD the following text to the
last paragraph on the page:
The proposed project (and all project alternatives) could allow the development of uses that have the
potential to produce odorous emissions during operation; however, significant sources of odors (e.g.,
wastewater treatment, food processing facilities, and chemical plants) are not proposed as part of the
project or any of the alternatives. Other sources, such as restaurants, that could be associated with
future development typically result in only localized sources of odors that would not impact a large
number of people. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. In addition, it is the City’s
standard practice to require restaurants to install carbon air filtration systems which help minimize
odors. (Less than Significant Impact)
Pages 81-82 Impact AQ-9; Cumulative Air Pollutant Emissions: DELETE the following text
under General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and
Residential Alternative:
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative
The General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative would result in similar cumulative
criteria air pollutant emissions as described above for the proposed project. The General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative would result in lesser (though still significant)
cumulative criteria air pollutant emissions impacts than the proposed project because this alternative
would not result in significant emissions of PM2.5 (which the project did) (refer to Table 3.3-5 and
Table 3.3-6). See Impact AQ-3 and AQ-9. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
Retail and Residential Alternative
The Retail and Residential Alternative would result in similar cumulative criteria air pollutant
emissions as described above for the proposed project. The Retail and Residential Alternative would
result in lesser (though still significant) cumulative criteria air pollutant emissions impacts than the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 857 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
proposed project because this alternative would not result in significant emissions of PM2.5 (which
the project did) (refer to Table 3.3-5 and Table 3.3-6). See Impact AQ-3 and AQ-9. (Significant
and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Page 104 Impacts to Archaeological Resources, Human Remains, and Tribal Cultural
Resources: ADD the following text to MM CR-4 as follows:
MM CR-4.1: Implement mitigation measures MM CR-2.1 through -2.4.
Page 109 Gasoline for Motor Vehicles: REVISE the last sentence on the page as follows:
Assuming an average fuel economy of 35 mpg, existing uses require approximately two million
1,260 gallons of gasoline per year.
Page 110 Table 3.6-1: REVISE the estimated gasoline demand column as follows:
Table 3.6-1: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Energy Demand
Estimated
Electricity
Demand*
(GWh per year)
Estimated Natural
Gas Demand*
(Btu per year)
Estimated Gasoline
Demand†
(million gallons per
year)
Existing 7 703 million 21,260
Proposed Project 70 64 billion 129,435
General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative 60 63 billion 108,411
Retail and Residential Alternative 45 57 billion 64,460
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative 19 12 billion 43,270
Notes: * The net energy demand is identified for the proposed project and project alternatives.
† The estimated gasoline demand was based on the estimated vehicle miles traveled discussed in Section 3.17
Transportation/Traffic and the average fuel economy of 35 mpg.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment. May 2018. Attachment 2.
Page 111 Project; Operation: REVISE the first sentence in the second paragraph under the
operation subheading as follows:
As shown in Table 3.6-1, operation of the project is estimated to result in an annual net energy
demand of approximately 70 GWh of electricity, 64 billion Btu of natural gas, and 12 million9,435
gallons of gasoline compared to existing conditions.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 858 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 112 General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative; Operation: REVISE
the first sentence in the first paragraph under the operation subheading as follows:
As shown in Table 3.6-1, operation of the General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative is estimated to result in an annual net energy demand of approximately 60 GWh of
electricity, 63 billion Btu of natural gas, and 10 million8,411 gallons of gasoline compared to
existing conditions.
Page 112 Retail and Residential Alternative; Operation: REVISE the second sentence in the
first paragraph under the operation subheading as follows:
It is estimated that the operation of the Retail and Residential Alternative would result in a net
increase in demand of approximately 45 GWh of electricity and 57 billion Btu of natural gas per year
compared to existing conditions. Given this alternative’s estimated vehicle miles traveled (refer to
Section 3.17 Transportation/Traffic), it is estimated that vehicle trips associated with this alternative
would use approximately six million4,460 gallons of gasoline per year (assuming an average fuel
economy of 35 mpg).
Page 113 Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative; Operation: REVISE the last sentence in
the first paragraph under the operation subheading as follows:
Under this alternative, the mall is assumed to be occupied and re-tenanted. Compared to existing
conditions where the mall is approximately 24 percent (or 284,059 square feet) occupied, the
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative assumes all 1,207,774 square feet of the mall is occupied.
As shown in Table 3.6-1, operation of the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative is estimated to
result in an annual net energy demand of approximately 19 GWh of electricity, 12 billion Btu of
natural gas, and four million3,270 gallons of gasoline compared to existing conditions.
Page 126 MM GHG-1.1: DELETE the following text from the first sentence of mitigation
measure MM GHG-1.1:
MM GHG-1.1: Under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative), the project
proponent shall prepare and implement a GHG Reduction Plan to offset the
project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative)-related
incremental increase of greenhouse gas emissions resulting in the exceedance of
the significance threshold of 2.6 MTCO2e/year/service population.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 859 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 141 MM HAZ-1.1: ADD the following text to the last sentence of mitigation measure
MM HAZ-1.1:
MM HAZ-1.1: A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be
prepared and implemented for demolition and redevelopment activities under the
revised project. The purpose of the SMP and HSP is to establish appropriate
management practices for handling impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater or
other materials that may potentially be encountered during construction activities,
especially in areas of former hazardous materials storage and use, and the
profiling of soil planned for off-site disposal and/or reuse on-site. The SMP shall
document former and suspect UST locations, hazardous materials transfer lines,
oil-water separators, neutralization chambers, and hydraulic lifts, etc. The SMP
shall also identify the protocols for accepting imported fill materials, if needed.
The SMP and HSP shall be submitted to SCCDEH for approval and the approved
SMP and HSP shall be submitted to the City Building Division prior to
commencement of construction (including demolition) activities.
Page 145 Impact HAZ-6: ADD the following text to the impact statement:
Impact HAZ-6: The project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative and Retail and Residential Alternative) would not have a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative
hazardous materials impact. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Page 195 Impact LU-4: ADD the following word to the impact statement:
Impact LU-4: The project (and project alternatives) would not have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact.
(Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Page 207 Impact NOI-1: DELETE the following word in the impact statement:
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)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 860 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Pages 215-217 Mitigation Measure: REVISE mitigation measures MM NOI-1.1 and -1.2 as
follows:
MM NOI-1.1: Construction activities under the revised project shall be conducted in accordance
with provisions of the City’s Municipal Code which limit temporary construction
work to daytime hours,24 Monday through Friday. Construction is prohibited on
weekends and all holidays pursuant to Municipal Code Section
10.48.053(B)(C)(D).25 Further, the City requires that all equipment have high-
quality noise mufflers and abatement devices installed and are in good condition.
Additionally, the construction crew shall adhere to the following construction
best management practices listed in MM NOI-1.2 below to reduce construction
noise levels emanating from the site and minimize disruption and annoyance at
existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
MM NOI-1.2: Future development shall prepare and submit a construction noise control plan to
the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval.
The on-site Construction Manager shall implement thea construction noise
control plan, which would includeing, but is not limited to, the following
available controls:
• Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary
noise-generating equipment. Temporary noise barrier fences would
provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-
of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is
constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
• Enforce Unnecessaryidling limit of two minutes of internal combustion
engines unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues)shall be
strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or
portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as
feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with
enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise
levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or
venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
Per Municipal Code Section 10.48.010, daytime is defined as the period from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekdays.
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(B): Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to
engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of
a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in
Section 10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(C): Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited
on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(D):
Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime
standards of Section 10.48.040.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 861 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would
create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
• Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and
parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are
not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise control blanket
barriers shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the
adjacent land uses.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile holes shall be pre-
drilled to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-
drilling foundation pile holes is a standard construction noise control
technique. Pre-drilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the
pile. Notify all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major
noise-generating construction activities and provide it to adjacent land
uses. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination
with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be
scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad
muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures be implemented
to correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and
included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction
schedule.
Page 219 Mitigation Measure: REVISE the second bullet in mitigation measure MM NOI-1.4
as follows:
• Implement a no idling policy at all locations that requires engines to be
turned off after twofive minutes.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 862 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 222 Outdoor Activity Areas: REPLACE the two bullets on the page with the following:
• Outdoor dining areas located on the green roof with direct line-of-sight to the existing
residences to the west of the site, opposite Perimeter Road, and to the southeast of the site,
opposite Vallco Parkway and North Wolfe road, shall be setback a minimum distance of 310
feet from the nearest residential property line to meet the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA.
Alternately, outdoor dining areas shall be acoustically shielded by noise barriers or buildings.
• Playgrounds proposed on the green roof shall be setback a minimum distance of 60 feet from
the nearest residential property line or acoustically shielded by noise barriers.
• Outdoor dining areas and playgrounds shall demonstrate that appropriate design and noise
attenuation measures including, but not limited to, setbacks and/or noise barriers have been
incorporated to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA and the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA
in the City’s Municipal Code at the existing, adjacent residences.
Page 232 Impact NOI-6; Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative: DELETE the following text
in the first paragraph:
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative
The Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative would General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative would result in the same significant cumulative traffic noise impact as
described above for the proposed project. See Impact NOI-6.
Page 251 Project: REVISE the two paragraphs under Table 3.15-4 as follows:
Additionally, if the topography of park land is not acceptable, the project (and project alternatives)
shall fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter
14.0513.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City
standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents. In addition, impacts to County and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities would be mitigated through the property taxes
levied on the property.
Standard Permit Condition: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall fund
park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.0513.08
and Title 18, which help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a
minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 863 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 255 Park Facilities; Project: REVISE the third sentence of the paragraph under the
project subheading as follows:
The geographic area for cumulative park facility impacts is the City boundaries. The buildout of the
General Plan and cumulative projects (including the proposed project and project alternatives) would
incrementally increase the demand for park facilities but would also create new public open space.
The cumulative projects within the City of Cupertino would be required to fund park improvements
and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.0513.08 and Title 18, which
help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residents.
Page 261 Project: REVISE the second and third paragraph under the project subheading as
follows:
Standard Permit Condition: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall dedicate
land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18 to ensure the provision of
parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.pay
the applicable park maintenance fees, as stated in Chapter 14.05 of the City Municipal Code.
The proposed project would be required to fund park improvements and dedicate land through
compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.05 and Title 18, which help ensure that City
recreational facilities are maintained. Therefore, fFuture development under the proposed project
(and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative), with the implementation of the above standard permit condition, would not result in
significant impacts to recreational facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Page 263 Project: REVISE the third sentence under the project subheading as follows:
The geographic area for cumulative recreational impacts is the City boundaries. Buildout of the
General Plan and cumulative projects (including the proposed project and project alternatives) would
incrementally increase the demand for recreational facilities. The cumulative projects within the City
of Cupertino would be required to fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance
with Municipal Code Chapter 14.0513.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the provision of parklands
in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.
Page 273 Study Intersections: REVISE the text of intersection 46 and 50 as follows:
46. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps (west)* – City of Santa Clara County
47. Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real* – Santa Clara County
48. Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road* – Santa Clara County
49. Lawrence Expressway/Pruneridge Avenue* – Santa Clara County
50. Stevens Creek Boulevard/ Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east)* – City of Santa Clara County
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 864 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 279 Existing Transit Network and Service; Existing VTA Bus Service: REVISE the
second paragraph on the page as follows:
In 2017, VTA finalized a redesign of its transit network, referred to as the Next Network, which
strives for a better balance between service frequency and coverage in VTA’s service area.
Currently, VTA’s Next Network Transit Plan is scheduled to be implemented in mid- to late -
20182019 when BART is extended to the Berryessa Station in San José.
Page 282 Table 3.17-4: REVISE the text of the table as follows:
Table 3.17-4: Summary of Bus Routes that Serve the Project Site
Bus
Route Brief Description
23 Bus Route 23 will operates on Stevens Creek Boulevard and provides service between De
Anza College and the Alum Rock Transit Center. Route 23 will serve bus stops at Stevens
Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue intersectionA bus stop for Route 23 is located at
the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue intersection with connections to
Routes 53, 56, 101, and 523. Route 23 will beis augmented by limited stop service (Route
3523) between Lockheed Martin Transit Center and the Berryessa BART Station.
53 Bus Route 53 will provides service between the Santa Clara Transit Center and the Sunnyvale
Transit Center. Near the project site, Route 53 will operates on Homestead Road, Wolfe
Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Tantau Avenue. The closest bus stops this route will
serve will be located at is located at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue
intersection, which will provides connections to Route 23, 56, 101 and 3523.
56 Bus Route 56 will provides service between the Lockheed Martin Transit Center and Tamien
Station and will operateing on Wolfe Road near the project site. This route will serve stops
along Wolfe Road near the project siteThe closest bus stops are located on Wolfe Road.
101 Bus Route 101 is an existing express bus route that operates on I-280 and Stevens Creek
Boulevard and will remain unchanged in the Next Network; it connects the Park & Ride lot at
the Camden Avenue/SR 85 interchange to Palo Alto. This route has a bus stop at the Stevens
Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue intersection, which will provides connections to
Routes 23, 53, 56, and 323.
182 Bus Route 182 is an existing express bus route that operates on I-280, Wolfe Road, Vallco
Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard and will remain unchanged in the Next Network; it
connects the Park & Ride lot at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto with the
IBM Santa Teresa Facility at Bailey Avenue. This route has a bus stop at the project site at
Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway.
323 Bus Route 523 will replace the existing Limited Bus Route 323 and will travel along 323 is a
limited stop bus route on Stevens Creek Boulevard serving Lockheed Martin Transit Center,
Downtown Sunnyvale, De Anza College, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Downtown San José,
Mexican Heritage Plaza, and the Berryessa BART Station. The closest bus stops this route
will serve are located at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue, which will
have with connections to Routes 23, 53, 56, and 101.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 865 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 289 Table 3.17-5: REVISE the text of intersections 46 and 50 as follows:
46. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (west)* – City of Santa Clara County E AM
PM
28.9
25.4
C
C
47. Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real* – Santa
Clara County E AM
PM
34.6
27.1
C-
C
48. Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road* – Santa
Clara County E AM
PM
71.5
66.3
E
E
49. Lawrence Expressway/Pruneridge Avenue* – Santa
Clara County E AM
PM
44.0
44.5
D
D
50. Stevens Creek Boulevard/ Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (east)* – City of Santa Clara County E AM
PM
31.6
28.0
C
C
Page 308 Table 3.17-9: REVISE the first column of the table for intersections 46 and 50 as
follows:
46. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (west)* – City of Santa Clara County
47. Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real* – Santa Clara
County
48. Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road* – Santa
Clara County
49. Lawrence Expressway/Pruneridge Avenue* – Santa
Clara County
50. Stevens Creek Boulevard/ Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (east)* – City of Santa Clara County
Page 354 Table 3.17-19: REVISE the first two columns as follows:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 866 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 5.3-1: Existing, Background, and Cumulative with Project and Project Alternative Added Transit Delay
VTA Transit Route
Study
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Peak
Hour
Project
General Plan
Buildout with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall
Alternative
(seconds)
NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB
Existing with Project and Project Alternative Added Transit Delay
Route 23 De Anza College to Alum Rock
Transit Center 3.9 AM
PM
NC
96
76
13
NC
63
44
11
NC
36
15
10
NC
56
8
13
Route 53 West Valley College to Sunnyvale
Transit Center 0.02 AM
PM
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Express
101 Lockheed Martin Transit Center to
Winchester LRT Station 1.6 AM
PM
55
NS
NS
104
33
NS
NS
66
17
NS
NS
38
9
NS
NS
55
Express
182 Camden & Highway 85 to Palo
Alto 1.5 AM
PM
NS
20
12
NS
NS
15
13
NS
NS
12
9
NS
NS
9
NC
NS
Rapid
323/523
Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey
AveDowntown San José to De
Anza College
3.6 AM
PM
NC
99
77
15
NC
65
45
12
7
37
15
10
NC
57
8
13
Background with Project and Project Alternative Added Transit Delay
Route 23 De Anza College to Alum Rock
Transit Center 3.9 AM
PM
NC
226
222
35
NC
161
147
31
NC
105
61
28
NC
140
20
31
Route 53 West Valley College to Sunnyvale
Transit Center 2.9 AM
PM
43
64
68
57
46
52
59
42
12
48
35
33
NC
62
6
33
Route 56 Lockheed Martin Transit Center to
Winchester LRT Station 3.6 AM
PM
26
48
NC
28
28
28
NC
23
23
16
NC
25
NC
16
NC
32
Express
101
Camden & Highway 85 to Palo
Alto 1.6 AM
PM
219
NS
NS
223
160
NS
NS
147
61
NS
NS
84
17
NS
NS
124
Express
182 Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey Ave 1.5 AM
PM
NS
52
16
NS
NS
37
17
NS
NS
28
14
NS
NS
26
NC
NS
Rapid
323/523 Downtown San Jose to De Anza
College 3.6 AM
PM
NC
237
223
39
NC
169
150
34
9
110
65
29
NC
145
20
36
Cumulative with Project and Project Alternative Added Transit Delay
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 867 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 5.3-1: Existing, Background, and Cumulative with Project and Project Alternative Added Transit Delay
VTA Transit Route
Study
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Peak
Hour
Project
General Plan
Buildout with
Maximum
Residential
Alternative
Retail and
Residential
Alternative
Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall
Alternative
(seconds)
NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB
Route 23 De Anza College to Alum Rock
Transit Center 3.9 AM
PM
NC
263
281
58
10
193
208
49
10
130
79
42
NC
170
23
46
Route 53 West Valley College to Sunnyvale
Transit Center 2.9 AM
PM
56
90
89
69
63
61
65
52
20
48
28
42
NC
70
8
46
Route 56 Lockheed Martin Transit Center to
Winchester LRT Station 3.6 AM
PM
42
71
8
54
38
45
NC
40
22
31
NC
38
6
37
NC
52
Express
101 Camden & Highway 85 to Palo
Alto 1.6 AM
PM
241
NS
NS
243
166
NS
NS
155
51
NS
NS
88
19
NS
NS
135
Express
182 Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey Ave 1.5 AM
PM
NS
51
19
NS
NS
34
18
NS
NS
24
15
NS
NS
24
NC
NS
Rapid
323/523 Downtown San Jose to De Anza
College 3.6 AM
PM
8
278
282
58
17
202
212
49
18
134
83
41
NC
174
25
48
Notes: NS = service only provided in the peak direction of travel. NC = The project was considered to have no change if the increase in travel time was less than five
seconds or the travel time improved slightly (due to changes in signal timing, critical movement changes, etc.). The impacts of the Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative is described in this EIR for informational purposes only.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 868 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 310 MM TRN-1.1: REPLACE the first two paragraph of mitigation measure MM TRN-
1.1 with the following:
MM TRN-1.1: Develop and implement a TDM Program for office uses that achieves a 25 to 35
percent reduction in office vehicle trips. The required TDM reduction would
vary depending on the amount of office development constructed and whether the
office development has a single tenant or multiple tenants. Generally, the larger
the office development, the greater the TDM reduction that can be achieved.
Similarly, single-tenants office buildings can generally implement more effective
TDM programs than multiple-tenant office buildings. The percentage reduction
required shall be based on the characteristics of the office development (size,
number of tenants, etc.) and shall be calculated based on Institute of
Transportation Engineer’s Office (ITE Land Use 710) average trip generation
rates.
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to
implement the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM
reduction goals are achieved. If future development is not able to meet the
identified TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties, as specified the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Develop and implement a TDM
Program which includes a trip cap that is based on a 34 percent non-SOV rate for
the office uses. The TDM Program includes the creation of a Transportation
Management Association that would:
• Provide concierge services to residents and retail owners (for their
employees);
• Coordinate with the office component; and
• Oversee the overall TDM program among property owners and tenants to
achieve the office trip caps
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to implement
the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM reduction
goals are achieved. The TDM Monitoring Program shall require a robust Monitoring
Program to ensure that this TDM program mitigation measure is implemented and
that the required trip caps are achieved. The Monitoring Program shall be subject to
review and approval by the City of Cupertino and would include driveway
monitoring for all office uses during the AM and PM peak hours. The TDM
Monitoring Program would occur in the fall (mid-September through mid-November)
after six months occupancy of 50 percent of the total approved buildout. The TDM
Monitoring Program shall be conducted annually for the first 10 years. If the
monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded in the last three
years of the first 10 years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be
reduced to once every two years (i.e.. year 10, 12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial
report reveals that the peak trip counts have been exceeded, the monitoring shall
revert to annual monitoring until such time that the peak trip counts have not been
exceeded for three consecutive annual reports. If future development is not able to
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 869 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
meet the identified TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties (assigned
proportionately between the uses that do not meet the trip cap), as specified in the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Penalties collected from the TDM
Monitoring Program will be used to improve multimodal access around the site and
throughout the City of Cupertino.
The TDM program is expected to reduce the severity of intersection and freeway
impacts, although not necessarily to a less than significant level. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Page 323 Vehicle Miles Travelled: ADD the following text at the top of the page, before the
Vehicle Miles Travelled subheading:
Left-Turn Queuing Analysis
Project
The addition of project (or project alternative) traffic along the roadway network could add vehicles
to left-turn movements and has the potential to cause left-turn queues to exceed the turn pocket
storage lengths. Queues that exceed the turn pocket storage length have the potential to impede
adjacent through traffic movements. Based on the analysis completed in Appendix H, several turn
pocket lengths are anticipated to be exceeded under existing and background conditions with project
traffic. The left-turn deficiencies would not result in significant level of service impacts, however.
The City shall require future development under the project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, and Retail and Residential Alternative implement the below conditions of
approval to address left-turn storage deficiencies. (Less than Significant Impact)
Conditions of Approval:
• For left-turn storage deficiencies at Intersections #11 (De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard), #31 (Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway), #41 (Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway), #42
(Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue), contribute one payment of $100,000 to citywide
ITS improvements (such as adoptive signal control, advanced signal loop detectors or video
image detectors) to improve signal operations and queuing.
• Intersection #21 – Stevens Creek Boulevard / Perimeter Road: Reconfigure the median on
Stevens Creek Boulevard to reduce the westbound left-turn lane to Portal Avenue to
accommodate an additional 80 feet of capacity for the eastbound left turn from Stevens Creek
Boulevard to Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #31 – Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway: Reconfigure the median on Vallco
Parkway between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road to provide a continuous median with a
325-foot westbound left-turn lane at Wolfe Road and a 220-foot eastbound left-turn lane at
Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #32 – Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard: Extend the inner
eastbound left-turn lane from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Wolfe Road to the same length as
the outer left-turn lane to provide approximately 260 feet of additional capacity.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 870 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Intersection #53 – Lawrence Expressway / Bollinger Road: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share to reduce the median width on the northbound approach of
Lawrence Expressway to provide for approximately 325 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #56 – Lawrence Expressway / Saratoga Avenue: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share of additional funding needed to reduce the median width on
the eastbound approach of Saratoga Avenue to maximize the left-turn queuing capacity.
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative
The General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative woud result in similar left-turn
storage deficiencies as determined in Appendix H for the proposed project. Implementation of the
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, with the implementation of the above
conditions of approval, would not result in left-turn queuing deficiencies. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Retail and Residential Alternative
The Retail and Residential Alternative woud result in similar left-turn storage deficiencies as
determined in Appendix H for the proposed project. The left-turn storage deficiencies would not
result in significant level of service impacts. Implementation of the Retail and Residential
Alternative, with the implementation of the above conditions of approval, would not result in left-
turn queuing deficiencies. (Less than Significant Impact)
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative
The Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative would result in similar left-turn storage deficiencies as
determined in Appendix H for the proposed project. This alternative is a permitted land use, can be
implemented without further approvals from the City, and is not subject to further CEQA. No
mitigation measures or conditions of approval can be required. (Less than Significant Impact: Not
a CEQA Impact)
Page 324 Vehicle Miles Travelled; Project and All Project Alternatives: REVISE the first
paragraph on the page as follows:
The regional average VMT per service population from the MTC and ABAG regional model for the
Year 2020 and 2040 are 21.8 and 20.3, respectively. The MTC/ABAG regional mode is an activity-
based/tour-based model rather than a trip-based model as utilized by some other jurisdictions.
Current draft guidance for SB 743 recommends a VMT threshold of 15 percent below the regional
average as a threshold of significance for CEQA purposes. This translates to thresholds of 185.5
(21.8 x 85%) and 17.3 (20.3 x 85%) for the years 2020 and 2040, respectively. The City of
Cupertino has not adopted these regional thresholds, and may adopt different thresholds that would
yield different results regarding VMT assessment.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 871 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 326 Traffic and Parking Intrusion; Project; Condition of Approval; REVISE the text to
the second to last paragraph on the page as follows:
Condition of Approval: To ensure neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking intrusion are
minimized, future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, or Retail and Residential Alternative) shall fund neighborhood cut-through
traffic monitoring studies and provide fees in the amount of $500,000 to the City of Cupertino,
$150,000 to the City of Santa Clara, and $1250,000 to the City of Sunnyvale to monitor and
implement traffic calming improvements and a residential parking permit program to minimize
neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking intrusion, if determined to be needed by the respective
City’s Public Works Department. The details of the neighborhood parking and traffic intrusion
monitoring program shall be determined when the conditions of approval for project development are
established. The monitoring program shall include the following components: (1) identifying the
monitoring areas (roadways where the monitoring would occur), (2) setting baseline conditions
(number of parked vehicles and traffic volumes on the roadways), (3) determining thresholds for
parking and traffic volume increases requiring action, (4) establishing the monitoring schedule, and
(5) creating reporting protocols. The baseline conditions shall be established prior to but within one
year of initial occupancy. Monitoring shall then occur annually for five years.
Page 329 Transit Network and Service: REVISE the first bullet as follows:
• VTA will replace the Limited 323 with Rapid 523 bus service on the Stevens Creek corridor
in mid-20198 to improve travel time, enhance passenger waiting areas, and to accommodate
projected increases in ridership demand along the corridor. The service will connect the new
Berryessa BART Station with the Lockheed Martin Transit Center.
Pages 339-340 Table 3.17-15: REVISE the first column of the table for intersections 46 and 50 as
follows:
46. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (west)* – City of Santa Clara County
47. Lawrence Expressway/El Camino Real* – Santa Clara
County
48. Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road* – Santa
Clara County
49. Lawrence Expressway/Pruneridge Avenue* – Santa
Clara County
50. Stevens Creek Boulevard/ Lawrence Expressway
Ramps (east)* – City of Santa Clara County
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 872 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 361 Impact TRN-7; Cumulative and Cumulative with Project and Project Alternative
Intersection Levels of Service: REVISE the second and third paragraphs as follows:
Based on applicable municipal and CMP significance criteria, 186 intersections would be
significantly impact by the project and/or project alternatives under cumulative with project
conditions. These significant cumulative project and project alternative impacts are summarized in
Table 3.17-21.
Project
As summarized in Table 3.17-21, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant
intersection level of service impacts under cumulative with project conditions at the following 187
intersections:
Page 363 MM TRN-7.5: REVISE the first paragraph of mitigation measure MM TRN-7.5 as
follows:
MM TRN-7.5: Intersection 23, Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue: Provide a dedicated southbound
right-turn lane from Wolfe Road onto westbound Fremont Avenue. This would
improve operations to LOS D and reduce the project impact to a less than
significant level under the proposed project and General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative. The intersection would continue to operate at
unacceptable LOS E under the proposed project, General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative, and Retail and Residential Alternative, but the
delay would be reduced to a level lower than cumulative conditions. Thus, the
impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Page 386 Section 3.18.1.2 Existing Conditions; Wastewater Treatment/Sanitary Sewer System:
REVISE the last sentence in the third paragraph as follows:
The project site has an existing estimated average daily sewage generation rate of approximately
0.280.12 mgd (Source: City of Cupertino. Sewer Capacity Calculation (Vallco Specific Plan).
August 13, 2018.).127
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 873 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 389 Impact UTL-2; Project: REVISE the first paragraph and Table 3.18-1 as follows:
The existing sewer system has capacity allocated to accommodate flows from the existing mall at full
occupancy. The net increase in sewage generated from the project and project alternatives compared
to the sewage generation of the fully occupied mall is shown in Table 3.18-1. The project and
project alternatives are estimated to generate a net increase of 0.720.26 to 1.040.58 mgd of sewage.26
The General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail and Residential
Alternative are estimated to generate more sewage than the proposed project. The Occupied/Re-
Tenanted Mall Alternative would not result in an increase in sewage generation since it is the fully
occupancy of the mall.
Table 3.18-1: Estimated Net Sewage Generation
Estimated Net Average Sewage Generation
(mgd)
Project 0.720.40
General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative 0.940.53
Retail and Residential Alternative 1.040.58
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Alternative 00.26
Note: The sewage generation identified is the net increase in sewage generation anticipated under the proposed
project and project alternatives compared to existing conditions.
Source: City of Cupertino. Sewer Capacity Calculation (Vallco Specific Plan). August 13, 2018.
Page 389 Impact UTL-2; Project: ADD the following text after the last paragraph on the page:
The contractual agreement between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is 13.8 mgd during peak wet
weather flows. The existing CuSD peak wet weather flow into the Santa Clara system is modeled at
10.7 mgd. Therefore, there is an available capacity of approximately 3.1 mgd during peak wet
weather flows for the CuSD service area (including the project). A peak wet weather flow multiplier
of four (4) times the average dry weather flow was used to establish the available sewer generation
capacity for average sewer flows for the project. A four (4) times multiplier is generally considered a
conservative figure. Therefore, 3.1 mgd of capacity during peak wet weather flows equates to
approximately 0.775 mgd of available capacity for average dry weather sewer flow. Incorporating
estimated sewer generation rates from the project and from other potential projects as established by
This estimated amount does not include flows from future underground parking garages. Drainage for
underground parking garages are required to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Because underground parking
areas are not typically exposed to a significant amount of rain, this flow would be relatively minor and would be
confirmed at the final design stage. During the design phase of the project, the City would work to limit the amount
of exposed areas that would drain towards the underground parking areas.
Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 874 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
the General Plan, the total capacity needed to serve these projects is approximately 0.749 mgd.
Because the needed capacity is less than the total available capacity, there is adequate sewer capacity
in the contractual agreement between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara to serve the project and the
General Plan Buildout.
If additional hydraulic modeling is performed on the CuSD system and the model indicates that the
13.8 mgd contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara would be surpassed by the project, the
future developer(s) would not be permitted to occupy any structures or units that result in the
contractual limit being exceeded until additional capacity is available through the City of Santa
Clara’s sewer system; improvements are made to the CuSD sewer system that reduce the peak wet
weather flows that enter the City of Santa Clara system; improvements are made on the project site
that ensure the contractual limit is not exceed; or the completion of any combination of these
approaches that adequately addresses potential capacity issues.
Page 390 Mitigation Measures: REVISE the text of mitigation measures MM UTIL-2.1
through -2.3 and the subsequent paragraph as follows:
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 12- and 15-inch sewer mains in Wolfe Road with new mains
of an adequate size as determined by CuSD, andor shall install an 18- to 21-inch
parallel pipe to the existing 12- and 15-inch 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 determined by the CuSD, or install a parallel
pipe of an adequate size to the existing 27-inch sewer main 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
between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is amended to recognize and authorize
this increased flow. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the City for
structures or units that would result in the permitted peak wet weather flow
capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system being
exceeded. The estimated sewage generation by the project shall be calculated
using the sewer generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water
Sewage coefficients use to calculate the sewer generation rates for the various uses in the project and the General
Plan buildout were taken from the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer
Coefficient table and from the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 875 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and from
the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007, unless
alternative (i.e., lower) sewer generation rates achieved by future development
are substantiated by the developer based on evidence to the satisfaction of the
CuSD.
Implementation of mitigation measures MM UTIL-2.1 through -2.3 would mitigate the project (or
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential or Retail and Residential Alternative) impact to
the sewer system by making improvements to the sewer system in order to adequately convey flows
from future development. The above sewer improvements would occur within existing right-of-way
and the construction impacts related to installing new sewer lines are discussed in the EIR sections
dealing with construction impacts including Sections 3.3 Air Quality, 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.5
Cultural Resources, 3.13 Noise and Vibration, and 3.17 Transportation/Traffic. If future on-site
sewage treatment is proposed, subsequent environmental review would be required at the time when
the specifications of the on-site treatment facility (e.g., size, operation, and location) are known.
(Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Page 391 UTL-3; Project and All Project Alternatives: REVISE the first paragraph as follows:
Given the CuSD’s treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd of sewage at the RWF, CuSD’s current
generation rate of 4.25 mgd of sewage, the remaining available treatment allocation of 3.5 mgd, and
the net increase sewage from the project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Alternative, and Retail and Residential Alternative (0.72-1.040.26-0.58 mgd), it is anticipated there is
sufficient treatment capacity at the RWF to serve the project or project alternatives. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Page 395 Recycled Water Infrastructure and Supply; Project; Infrastructure: REVISE the first
paragraph as follows:
The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and Retail
and Residential Alternative) may includes the extension of recycled water infrastructure to the
project site. Recycled water wcould be used on-site for landscape irrigation.
The average dry weather sewerage generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity
Assessment, May 2007, for the different uses within the project are as follows: High Density Residential = 121
gpd/unit; Commercial/Retail = 0.076 gpd/SF; Commercial/Restaurant = 1.04 gpd/SF; Office = 0.1 gpd/SF; Hotel =
100 gpd/Room; Civic Space (office) = 0.21 gpd/SF; Adult Education = 15 gpd/Person; and Civic Space
(Auditorium) = 0.11 gpd/SF.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 876 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 396 Impact UTL-5; Recycled Water Infrastructure and Supply: DELETE the following
text under General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative and
Occupied Re-Tenanted Mall Alternative as follows:
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative
The General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative would result in the same recycled
water impact as described above for the proposed project. Extension of the recycled water
infrastructure would require independent environmental review when the design of the extension is
finalized. (Less than Significant Impact)
Retail and Residential Alternative
The Retail and Residential Alternative would result in a similar recycled water impact as described
above for the proposed project. The Retail and Residential Alternative would have a lesser impact on
recycled water supply than the proposed project as it does not include a 30-acre green roof that would
be irrigated with recycled water. Extension of the recycled water infrastructure would require
independent environmental review when the design of the extension is finalized. (Less than
Significant Impact)
Page 406 Section 6.0 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: DELETE the following word from
Impact NOI-1:
• 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)
Appendix B Add the following pages to the end of Appendix B.
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, California 94954
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com
M E M O
Date: July 23, 2018
To: Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
From: James A. Reyff
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, CA 94954
RE: Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment - Cupertino, CA
SUBJECT: I-280 Freeway Modeling Correction Job#18-004
The May 21, 2018 air quality analysis incorrectly used 60 mph as the Eastbound traffic speed on
I-280 for the peak-hour periods, while using 25 mph for the westbound period. The PM peak
speed from the VTA data is 32 mph but the 60-mph value for the HOV lane was used in error.
The emissions for the 2-hour peak PM period eastbound traffic should have been based on EMFAC
30 mph emissions data (since EMFAC only has 5 mph speed bins, 30 mph would be the speed to
use to represent 32 mph) instead of 60 mph.
The effect of using 60 mph instead of 30 mph for the peak PM period was evaluated. In terms of
emissions, the PM2.5 exhaust emission rate would go from 0.01941 g/VMT at 60 mph to 0.01992
g/VMT at 30 mph, or a 2.6% increase for exhaust. This directly effects cancer risk calculations.
The tire & brake wear and fugitive dust emissions would not change because they are not speed
dependent emission factors. This increase in emissions would only affect the emissions during
hours 17 and 18 (begin hours) for the eastbound traffic. From a modeling perspective the
emissions change only affects 2 out of 48 hours of emissions data since the 24 hours of hourly
emissions data for the westbound traffic would remain unchanged and only 2 hours of the
eastbound hourly emissions would increase.
To see how the change might affect the dispersion modeling, impacts at the maximum exposed
individual (MEI) receptor at the location adjacent to I-280 were considered. For cancer risk, the
Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
July 23, 2018 - Page 2
risk would increase from 3.97 to 4.03 in one million, or from 4.0 to 4.0 in one million. For PM2.5
at the MEI location, the vehicle PM2.5 (exhaust + tire & brake wear) concentration would increase
from 0.69212 ug/m3 at 60 mph to 0.69335 ug/m3 at 30 mph. The fugitive PM2.5 remains the same.
So, the total PM2.5 goes from 1.04477 ug/m3 when using 60 mph to 1.0460 ug/m3, or from 1.0 to
1.0 ug/m3.
The effect on concentrations at other locations would be proportional to these effects at the MEI.
So, there would be negligible effects for other areas and there would be no significant changes to
the reported impacts.
Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
July 23, 2018 - Page 3
Attachment: Updated I-280 Emissions Calculations
Vallco Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA
I-280
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions
Year =2029
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)
Diesel
ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
EB I-280 Eastbound I-280 E 4 1138 68 20.6 3.4 2,390 variable
WB I-280 Westbound I-280 W 4 1137 68 20.6 3.4 2,390 variable
2029 Hourly Diesel Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - EB I-280
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 2.52%60 0.0041 9 6.37%152 0.0032 17 5.87%140 0.0046
2 1.56%37 0.0046 10 7.01%168 0.0032 18 4.19%100 0.0043
3 1.64%39 0.0050 11 6.34%151 0.0032 19 3.61%86 0.0028
4 2.13%51 0.0038 12 6.75%161 0.0032 20 2.79%67 0.0023
5 1.30%31 0.0041 13 6.35%152 0.0031 21 4.19%100 0.0028
6 2.20%53 0.0037 14 6.25%149 0.0031 22 5.00%119 0.0029
7 6.28%150 0.0030 15 5.59%134 0.0030 23 1.63%39 0.0041
8 5.15%123 0.0029 16 4.75%114 0.0029 24 0.52%12 0.0042
Total 2,390
2029 Hourly Diesel Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - WB I-280
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 2.52%60 0.0041 9 6.37%152 0.0055 17 5.87%140 0.0031
2 1.56%37 0.0046 10 7.01%168 0.0032 18 4.19%100 0.0030
3 1.64%39 0.0050 11 6.34%151 0.0032 19 3.61%86 0.0028
4 2.13%51 0.0038 12 6.75%161 0.0032 20 2.79%67 0.0023
5 1.30%31 0.0041 13 6.35%152 0.0031 21 4.19%100 0.0028
6 2.20%53 0.0037 14 6.25%149 0.0031 22 5.00%119 0.0029
7 6.28%150 0.0030 15 5.59%134 0.0030 23 1.63%39 0.0041
8 5.15%123 0.0049 16 4.75%114 0.0029 24 0.52%12 0.0042
Total 2,390
Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
July 23, 2018 - Page 4
Vallco Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA
I-280
PM2.5 & TOG Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2029
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Hour
EB I-280 Eastbound I-280 E 4 1138 68 20.6 1.3 91,530 variable 3,814
WB I-280 Westbound I-280 W 4 1137 68 20.6 1.3 91,530 variable 3,814
2029 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - EB I-280
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%1006 0.0206 9 7.08%6481 0.0196 17 7.38%6757 0.0198
2 0.37%335 0.0214 10 4.29%3924 0.0201 18 8.27%7573 0.0196
3 0.30%272 0.0218 11 4.61%4216 0.0198 19 5.79%5296 0.0192
4 0.20%184 0.0274 12 5.85%5357 0.0197 20 4.35%3986 0.0192
5 0.46%418 0.0210 13 6.17%5650 0.0195 21 3.28%3004 0.0194
6 0.83%764 0.0216 14 6.03%5522 0.0196 22 3.31%3033 0.0196
7 3.78%3460 0.0199 15 7.08%6477 0.0194 23 2.47%2263 0.0195
8 7.89%7224 0.0193 16 7.21%6602 0.0193 24 1.89%1727 0.0192
Total 91,530
2029 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - WB I-280
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%1006 0.0206 9 7.08%6481 0.0205 17 7.38%6757 0.0194
2 0.37%335 0.0214 10 4.29%3924 0.0201 18 8.27%7573 0.0192
3 0.30%272 0.0218 11 4.61%4216 0.0198 19 5.79%5296 0.0192
4 0.20%184 0.0274 12 5.85%5357 0.0197 20 4.35%3986 0.0192
5 0.46%418 0.0210 13 6.17%5650 0.0195 21 3.28%3004 0.0194
6 0.83%764 0.0216 14 6.03%5522 0.0196 22 3.31%3033 0.0196
7 3.78%3460 0.0199 15 7.08%6477 0.0194 23 2.47%2263 0.0195
8 7.89%7224 0.0201 16 7.21%6602 0.0193 24 1.89%1727 0.0192
Total 91,530
Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
July 23, 2018 - Page 5
Vallco Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA
I-280
Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions
Year =2029
Group Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
(m)
Link
Width
(ft)
Link
Width
(m)
Release
Height
( m)ADT
Average
Speed
(mph)
EB I-280 Eastbound I-280 E 4 1138 68 20.6 1.3 91,530 variable
WB I-280 Westbound I-280 W 4 1137 68 20.6 1.3 91,530 variable
2029 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Road Dust PM2.5 Emissions - EB I-280
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%1006 0.0100 9 7.08%6481 0.0100 17 7.38%6757 0.0100
2 0.37%335 0.0100 10 4.29%3924 0.0100 18 8.27%7573 0.0100
3 0.30%272 0.0100 11 4.61%4216 0.0100 19 5.79%5296 0.0100
4 0.20%184 0.0100 12 5.85%5357 0.0100 20 4.35%3986 0.0100
5 0.46%418 0.0100 13 6.17%5650 0.0100 21 3.28%3004 0.0100
6 0.83%764 0.0100 14 6.03%5522 0.0100 22 3.31%3033 0.0100
7 3.78%3460 0.0100 15 7.08%6477 0.0100 23 2.47%2263 0.0100
8 7.89%7224 0.0100 16 7.21%6602 0.0100 24 1.89%1727 0.0100
Total 91,530
2029 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Road Dust PM2.5 Emissions - WB I-280
Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
% Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.10%1006 0.0100 9 7.08%6481 0.0100 17 7.38%6757 0.0100
2 0.37%335 0.0100 10 4.29%3924 0.0100 18 8.27%7573 0.0100
3 0.30%272 0.0100 11 4.61%4216 0.0100 19 5.79%5296 0.0100
4 0.20%184 0.0100 12 5.85%5357 0.0100 20 4.35%3986 0.0100
5 0.46%418 0.0100 13 6.17%5650 0.0100 21 3.28%3004 0.0100
6 0.83%764 0.0100 14 6.03%5522 0.0100 22 3.31%3033 0.0100
7 3.78%3460 0.0100 15 7.08%6477 0.0100 23 2.47%2263 0.0100
8 7.89%7224 0.0100 16 7.21%6602 0.0100 24 1.89%1727 0.0100
Total 91,530
Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
July 23, 2018 - Page 6
Vallco Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA
I-280 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 63 mph
Analysis Year = 2029
Emission Factors
2016 Caltrans 2029 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
Number Number 2029 Diesel Vehicle Vehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle Vehicles Vehicles Percent Vehicles Speed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOG TOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 112,843 127,512 1.30%1,658 65 0.0018 0.0189 0.0012 0.0078 0.037
LDT 44,038 49,763 0.19%96 65 0.0037 0.0190 0.0012 0.0111 0.066
MDT 2,466 2,786 11.24%313 60 0.0064 0.0220 0.0015 0.0165 0.156
HDT 2,654 2,999 90.45%2,713 60 0.0037 0.0527 0.0033 0.0264 0.070
Total 162,001 183,061 -4,780 62.5 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.00318 0.01955 0.00123 0.00883 0.04671
1.13
Vehicles/Direction 91,530 2,390
Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 3,814 100
Traffic Data Year = 2016
Caltrans Truck AADT Total Truck by Axle
Total Truck 2 3 4 5
I-280 B Saratoga,Sunnyvale/De Anza B 162,000 5,119 2,466 505 138 2,011
48.17%9.86%2.70%39.28%
Percent of Total Vehicles 3.16%1.52%0.31%0.09%1.24%
1.00%
Increase From 2016
Traffic Increase per Year (%) =
Vallco Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA
I-280 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 30 mph
Analysis Year = 2029
Emission Factors
2016 Caltrans 2029 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
Number Number 2029 Diesel Vehicle Vehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle Vehicles Vehicles Percent Vehicles Speed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOG TOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 112,843 127,512 1.30%1,658 30 0.0024 0.0193 0.0015 0.0100 0.037
LDT 44,038 49,763 0.19%96 30 0.0052 0.0193 0.0016 0.0144 0.066
MDT 2,466 2,786 11.24%313 30 0.0088 0.0226 0.0020 0.0244 0.156
HDT 2,654 2,999 90.45%2,713 30 0.0057 0.0546 0.0053 0.0639 0.070
Total 162,001 183,061 -4,780 30 ----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.00479 0.01992 0.00161 0.01155 0.04671
1.13
Vehicles/Direction 91,530 2,390
Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 3,814 100
Traffic Data Year = 2016
Caltrans Truck AADT Total*Truck by Axle
Total Truck 2 3 4 5
I-280 B Saratoga,Sunnyvale/De Anza B 162,000 5,119 2,466 505 138 2,011
48.17%9.86%2.70%39.28%
Percent of Total Vehicles 3.16%1.52%0.31%0.09%1.24%
Increase From 2016
Kristy Weis
David J. Powers and Associates
July 23, 2018 - Page 7
I-280 Traffic Data and PM2.5 & TOG Emission Factors - 25 mph
Analysis Year = 2029
Emission Factors
2016 Caltrans 2029 Number Diesel All Vehicles Gas Vehicles
Number Number 2029 Diesel Vehicle Vehicles Total Exhaust Exhaust Running
Vehicle Vehicles Vehicles Percent Vehicles Speed DPM PM2.5 PM2.5 TOG TOG
Type (veh/day)(veh/day)Diesel (veh/day)(mph)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)(g/VMT)
LDA 112,843 127,512 1.30%1,658 25 0.0028 0.0197 0.0020 0.0129 0.037
LDT 44,038 49,763 0.19%96 25 0.0059 0.0197 0.0020 0.0184 0.066
MDT 2,466 2,786 11.24%313 25 0.0137 0.0257 0.0052 0.0315 0.156
HDT 2,654 2,999 90.45%2,713 25 0.0061 0.0549 0.0055 0.0663 0.070
Total 162,001 183,061 -4,780 25 -----
Mix Avg Emission Factor 0.00546 0.02038 0.00207 0.01475 0.04671
1.13
Vehicles/Direction 91,530 2,390
Avg Vehicles/Hour/Direction 3,814 100
Traffic Data Year = 2016
Caltrans Truck AADT Total Truck by Axle
Total Truck 2 3 4 5
I-280 B Saratoga,Sunnyvale/De Anza B 162,000 5,119 2,466 505 138 2,011
48.17%9.86%2.70%39.28%
Percent of Total Vehicles 3.16%1.52%0.31%0.09%1.24%
1.00%
Increase From 2016
Traffic Increase per Year (%) =
Vallco Specific Plan, Cupertino, CA
I-280 Traffic Data and Entrained PM2.5 Road Dust Emission Factors
E2.5 = [k(sL)^0.91 x (W)^1.02 x (1-P/4N) x 453.59
where:
E2.5 = PM2.5 emission factor (g/VMT)
k = particle size multiplier (g/VMT) [kPM2.5 = kPM10 x (0.0686/0.4572) = 1.0 x 0.15 = 0.15 g/VMT]a
sL = roadway specific silt loading (g/m2)
W = average weight of vehicles on road (Bay Area default = 2.4 tons)a
P = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation in the annual averaging period
N = number of days in the annual averaging period (default = 365)
Notes: a CARB 2014, Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9, Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust (Revised and updated, April 2014)
PM2.5
Silt Average Emission
Loading Weight No. Days Factor
Road Type (g/m2)(tons)County ppt > 0.01"(g/VMT)
Freeway 0.02 2.4 Santa Clara 64 0.00996
SFBAABa SFBAABa
Road Type
Silt
Loading
(g/m2)County
>0.01 inch
precipitation
Collector 0.032 Alameda 61
Freeway 0.02 Contra Costa 60
Local 0.32 Marin 66
Major 0.032 Napa 68
San Francisco 67
San Mateo 60
Santa Clara 64
Solano 54
Sonoma 69
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 884 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix E: ADD the following pages at the end of Appendix E:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 904 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H
Page iv Table ES-3: REPLACE the following text for Intersection 51 Lawrence Exwy /
Calvert Drive-I-280 SB Ramp:
Appendix H
Page 12 Chapter 2. Introduction, Relevant Regional Studies within Cupertino, I-280/Wolfe
Road Interchange Study: ADD the following text to the paragraph as follows:
The widening of the I-280 Wolfe Road interchange would be funded through VTA Measure B
funds 30 and is included in the analysis of the Cumulative scenarios. However, the City is required to
fund 10% of the cost of the construction of the interchange. The Project Applicant will be required to
pay a fair share contribution toward the City’s share for the cost of the construction of the
interchange.
Appendix H
Page 19 Chapter 3. Analysis Methods and Thresholds of Significance; Level of Service and
Senate Bill (SB) 743: REVISE the following text to the third paragraph as follows:
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) instead of LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Since the adoption of SB 743, the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has been working on guidelines and regulations to
implement SB 743. In November 2017, OPR released proposed new regulations (amendments to the
State CEQA Guidelines ). In January 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency released the
proposed CEQA Guidelines rulemaking materials for section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance
of Transportation Impacts). Pending expected adoption in mid-2018, the The proposed new CEQA
Guidelines are currently scheduled to apply statewide on July 1, 2019 2020.
A lawsuit challenging the validity of 2016 Measure B was filed in early 2017. The judge ruled in favor of VTA in
the trial court, and, the plaintiff filed an appeal at the end of August 2017. As the appeal works its way through the
appeal process, funds continue to be collected and held in escrow until the lawsuit is resolved and 2016 Measure B
funds can be distributed.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 905 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H
Page 25 Chapter 3. Analysis Methods and Thresholds of Significance; Intersection Impact
Criteria Section: REVISE the following text to the third paragraph as follows:
The City of Sunnyvale has established a minimum acceptable operation level of LOS D for local
streets and LOS E for regionally significant roadways, including Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road within
the study area (City of Sunnyvale General Plan, 2011). The City of Sunnyvale defers to VTA and
applies LOS E threshold to CMP intersections. Significant impacts at signalized City of Santa
ClaraSunnyvale intersections would occur when the addition of project traffic causes one of the
following:
Appendix H
Page 52 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions; VTA Next Network Section: REVISE the following
text to the second paragraph as follows:
In 2017 VTA finalized its redesign of its transit network, referred to as the Next Network, which
strives for a better balance between service frequency and coverage in VTA’s service area. Currently,
VTA’s Next Network Transit Plan is scheduled to be implemented in mid- to late -20182019 when
BART is extended to the Berryessa Station in San José.
Appendix H
Page 53 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions; VTA Next Network Section: ADD the following
text in title of Table 9 as follows:
Table 9: Existing Next Network Transit Service Summary
Appendix H
Page 56 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions; Stevens Creek Corridor Upgrade Section: REVISE
the following text to the first sentence of the last paragraph as follows:
Stevens Creek Corridor Upgrade
VTA will replace the Limited 323 with Rapid 523 bus service on the Stevens Creek corridor in 2019
mid-2018 to improve travel time, enhance passenger waiting areas, and to accommodate projected
increases in ridership demand along the corridor.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 906 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H
Pages 56-57 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions; Next Network VTA Local Bus Service and Next
Network VTA Express Bus Service and Limited Stop Bus Service Sections: REVISE
the following text as follows:
Next Network VTA Local Bus Service
Bus Route 23 will operateoperates on Stevens Creek Boulevard and provideprovides service between
De Anza College and the Alum Rock Transit Center. Route 23 will serve bus stops at Stevens Creek
Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue intersectionA bus stop for Route 23 is provided at the Stevens
Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue intersection with connections to Routes 53, 56, 101,
and 523. Route 23 is will be augmented by limited stop service (Route 5323) between Lockheed
Martin Transit Center and the Berryessa BART Station. This route is described in the next section.
Bus Route 53 will provide provides service between the Santa Clara Transit Center and the
Sunnyvale Transit Center. Near the project site, Route 53 will operateoperates on Homestead Road,
Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Tantau Avenue. The closest bus stops this route will
serve will be located at the is located at theStevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue
intersection, which will provideprovides connections to Route 23, 56, 101 and 323523.
Bus Route 56 will provideprovides service between the Lockheed Martin Transit Center and Tamien
Station and will operateoperating on Wolfe Road near the project site. This route will serve stops
along Wolfe Road near the project siteThe closest bus stops are located on Wolfe Road.
Next Network VTA Express Bus Service and Limited Stop Bus Service
As part of the Next Network,The VTA will also runs several express bus routes and limited stop bus
routes in the project area.
Bus Route 101 is an existing express bus route that operates on I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard
and will remain unchanged in the Next Network; it connects the Park & Ride lot at the Camden
Avenue/SR 85 interchange to Palo Alto. This route has a bus stop at the Stevens Creek
Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue intersection, which will provideprovides connections to
Routes 23, 53, 56, and 323.
Bus Route 182 is an existing express bus route that operates on I-280, Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway,
and Stevens Creek Boulevard and will remain unchanged in the Next Network; it connects the Park
& Ride lot at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto with the IBM Santa Teresa Facility at
Bailey Avenue. This route has a bus stop at the project site at Wolfe Road/ Vallco Parkway.
Bus Route 323523 will replace the existing Limited Bus Route 323 as described in the next section
and will travel alongis a limited stop bus route on Stevens Creek Boulevard serving Lockheed Martin
Transit Center, Downtown Sunnyvale, De Anza College, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Downtown San
José, Mexican Heritage Plaza, and the Berryessa BART Station. The closest bus stops this route will
serve are located at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue, which will havewith
connections to Routes 23, 53, 56, and 101.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 907 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Next Network Stevens Creek Corridor Upgrade
VTA will replace the Limited 323 with Rapid 523 bus service on the Stevens Creek corridor in 2019
to improve travel time, enhance passenger waiting areas, and to accommodate projected increases in
ridership demand along the corridor. The service will connect the new Berryessa BART Station with
the Lockheed Martin Transit Center. This upgrade lays a foundation for VTA and partnership
agencies’ plan to transform the Stevens Creek corridor into a multi-modal corridor with enhanced
safety, improved transit experience and high-quality walking and biking environment.
Appendix H
Page 67 Chapter 5. Project Traffic Estimates; Section Vehicle Trips for Proposed Uses: ADD
the following text to the first sentence of the second paragraph as follows:
Trip generation rates can be obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (10th Edition), a compendium of trip generation surveys conducted for numerous
land use types and varying site contexts throughout the United States or from local trip generation
surveys.
Appendix H
Pages 71-72 Chapter 5. Project Traffic Estimates; Table 11: REVISE the following text to the
table as follows:
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 908 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 5.3-2: Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units¹ Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
General Plan Buildout with Residential Allocation (Proposed Project)
Office SV 2,000 ksf 24,700 2,580 2,400
Shopping Center 820 600 ksf 20,331 452 2,046
Hotel2 310 339 Rooms 2,834 159 204
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 800 Units 4,352 288 352
Green Roof 411 30 acres 567 135 105
Civic Uses 730 and
495 55 ksf 1,305 168 100
STEM Lab 540 10 ksf 140 34 22
Subtotal (A): 54,229 3,816 5,229
MXD Reduction % 17% 23% 24%
MXD Trip Reduction (B): 9218 876 1255
Transit Hub34 (C) 808 175 193
External Vehicle Trips (D=A-B+C): 45,819 3,113 4,167
Existing to be Removed
Existing Vallco Mall Uses (E)42 -8,813 -485 -949
Proposed Project Net New Project Trips
(F=D-E): 37,006 2,628 3,218
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential
Office SV 1,000 ksf 12,350 1,290 1,200
Shopping Center 820 600 ksf 20,331 452 2,046
Hotel2 310 339 Rooms 2,834 159 204
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 2,640 Units 14,362 950 1,162
Green Roof 411 30 acres 567 135 105
Civic Uses 730 and
495 55 ksf 1,305 168 100
STEM Lab 540 10 ksf 140 34 22
Subtotal (A): 51,889 3,188 4,840
MXD Reduction (%) 20% 25% 30%
MXD Trip Reduction (B): 10,377 797 1452
Transit Hub34 (C) 808 175 193
External Vehicle Trips (D=A-B+C): 42,320 2,566 3,581
Existing to be Removed
Credit for Existing Vallco Mall Uses (E) 42 8,813 485 949
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Net New Project Trips
(F=D-E): 33,507 2,082 2,632
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 909 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Table 5.3-2: Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units¹ Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Retail and Residential
Shopping Center 820 600 ksf 20,331 452 2,046
Hotel2 310 339 Rooms 2,834 159 204
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 4000 Units 21,760 1,440 1,760
Subtotal (A): 44,925 2,051 4,010
MXD Reduction (%) 20% 20% 25%
MXD Trip Reduction (B): 8,985 411 1,003
Transit Hub34 (C) 808 175 193
External Vehicle Trips (D=A-B+C): 36,748 1,815 3,200
Existing to be Removed
Credit for Existing Vallco Mall Uses (E) 42 8,813 485 949
Retail and Residential Net New Project Trips
(F=D-E): 27,935 1,330 2,251
Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall
Shopping Center 820 1,208 ksf 32,717 756 3,434
Hotel2 310 148 rooms 1,209 78 89
Subtotal (A): 33,926 834 3,523
Transit Reduction (5%) (B) 1,696 42 176
External Vehicle Trips (C=A-B): 32,230 792 3,347
Existing to be Removed
Credit for Existing Vallco Mall Uses (D) 42 8,813 485 949
Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall Net New Project Trips
(E=C-D): 23,417 307 2,398
Notes:
1. ksf = 1,000 square feet, DU = dwelling units
24. The Hyatt Place Hotel, that includes 148 rooms, is currently under construction and will be accounted for under the “Without
Project” scenarios for Background and Cumulative conditions for the Proposed Project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential, Retail and Residential, and Occupied/Re-tenanted Mal Alternatives.
3. Transit hub vehicle trips are based on driveway counts and observations collected in January 2018.
42. Existing Vallco Mall Uses are based on existing driveway counts collected in January 2018. The existing uses account for the two
restaurants, theater, ice skating rink, bowling alley, fitness center, auto dealership storage, and park and ride use of the site.
Source: Hyatt House Hotel TIA, August 2014; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition, 2017; Fehr & Peers, January 2018.
Appendix H
Page 165 Chapter 9. Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program: REPLACE the following text to the first paragraph as
follows:
TDM Plans typically focus on reducing the number of commute trips generated by employees at
employment locations. TDM strategies targeted at employees have been shown to be very effective in
reducing peak period vehicle traffic, because commute trips are generally made during these time
periods and follow a regular pattern of travel. Both the Proposed Project and General Plan Buildout
with Maximum Residential Alternative include office uses; therefore, they have the greatest potential
for additional vehicle trip reductions beyond those already included in the trip generation estimates
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 910 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
(Table 11). Also, office developments with a single tenant generally have been shown to have greater
TDM reductions than developments with multiple tenants. The Specific Plan does not include a
specific development application, however, and it is not known at this time whether the office buildings
would be occupied by single or multiple tenants. For the Proposed Project and the General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, the Specific Plan will require a TDM reduction
requirement between 25 and 35 percent for the office land uses. The reduction will be based on ITE’s
Office (ITE Land Use 710) average trip generation rates. The TDM reductions are taken from ITE
rates rather than the Silicon Valley specific rates applied to the trip generation estimates in Table 11
because, as discussed in Chapter 5, the Silicon Valley rates already have a basic level of TDM
participation included in their rates.
Trip caps for the office uses were developed assuming full buildout of the office uses for the revised
project. The office trip cap is designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips from office uses.
Specifically, the office trips caps assume that at a minimum 34 percent of office trips would be by non-
single-occupancy vehicle (non-SOV) modes (i.e., the percentage of employees traveling to the site via
walking, bicycling, riding in private shuttle or public transit vehicles, or ridesharing).
A target of 34 percent non-SOV has been identified as a reasonable target because it is considered
aggressive but achievable for office developments in suburban locations greater than one-half (½) mile
from a rail station. While higher alternative mode share rates have been established for a few corporate
campuses in the Bay Area, such rates have generally been in areas more urban than Cupertino with
proximity to mass transit facilities.
As the Specific Plan develops, annual trip caps for the office uses will be established based building
square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak hour. Peak hours are defined
as the time periods on the adjacent streets with the highest hourly volumes occurring during the
morning and evening commute periods. At full buildout, the office uses in the revised project shall be
required to meet the AM peak hour trip cap of 1,830 vehicle trips and the PM peak hour trip cap of
1820 vehicle trips.
Appendix H
Page 195 Chapter 9. Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program: ADD the following text after Table 28 as follows:
Formation of TMA
The purpose of the TMA is to coordinate sitewide TDM measures, collect fees from members to
finance site-wide measures and monitoring activities, conduct TMA administration activities, and
coordinate with members to add measures as needed to meet the office trip caps.
The TMA for the Plan Area shall be established using a legal arrangement approved by the City. The
TMA shall hire a qualified Transportation Coordinator. The fees paid by each member shall be
determined as part of TMA formation documentation. All commercial property owners and tenants,
apartment management companies, hotel operators, and home owners associations shall be required
to be members, unless an enhanced TDM program covers all office uses in the Plan Area, in which
case there may be a separate TMA for offices uses. However, the office TMA is still required to be a
member of the sitewide TMA and coordinate activities and monitoring with the sitewide TMA.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 911 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
TDM Program Structure
The TDM program would include the formation of a Transportation Management Association
(TMA) to help implement TDM strategies sitewide and coordinate the office trip cap requirements.
The TMA shall include an on-site transportation coordinator that would help implement TDM
strategies. TDM strategies that are highly encouraged include, but are not limited to:
• Maximum parking requirements per the Specific Plan
• Concierge services for all employees, residents, guests, and patrons, to provide information
on transit connections, opportunities for alternative modes of transit and transportation
services.
• Free transit passes for residents and retail employees
• Ride-share marketing and promotion
• Evaluation, identification, and implementation of bikeshare program for travel within, to, and
from the site
• On-site availability of carshare
• Guaranteed ride home programs
Other TDM strategies that could be considered include:
• Unbundling parking,
• Other a transit incentive programs
• Safe routes to school support programs,
• Transit subsidy for employees,
• Vanpool subsidy for employees,
• Workplace parking pricing,
• Employee parking cash-out,
• Alternative work schedules and telecommute programs, and.
• Shuttle services for employees
Additional details about possible TDM measures are included in Table 28 in Appendix H. The Final
TDM program for future development shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Public Works prior to approval of any occupancy permits.
The TMA would submit an annual report to the City to report on TDM measures implemented and
assess effectiveness of TDM program in terms of non-SOV mode split for the office uses. Additional
TDM measures may be required by the City if the TDM measures are not effective as determined by
a regular monitoring program. The following lays out the TDM Program and Monitoring Plan in
more detail.
Monitoring Plan
Annual TDM program monitoring consists of two main elements: (1) Summary of Implemented
TDM Measures to be provided by the Vallco Specific Plan Area TMA, and (2) office driveway
counts and TDM Monitoring Report for office uses to be prepared by an independent city-approved
transportation planning/engineering firm. Each of these components is described below.
Summary of Implemented TDM Measures
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 912 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall submit a report to the City by December 31sr each
year describing the specific TDM measures that are being implemented by the TMA and by their
members (including the office TMA, if any) and the amount of occupied space for each land use (i.e.,
office/commercial/hotel rooms/dwelling units).
To assess the effectiveness of the TDM program in increasing non-SOV trips, the TMA (including
the office TMA, if any) may also be required to collect the following data and provide it in a report to
the City:
• Private Shuttle Ridership - Counted electronically on vehicles and visually verified at the
transit hub
• Public Transit Ridership - Counted at area VTA stops
• Cycling/Walking Volumes - Counted via bike/pedestrian entrances to office facilities
• Office Carpool Volumes - Counted at entrances to office parking facilities
Driveway Counts and TDM Monitoring Report
An independent city-approved transportation planning/engineering firm shall be retained by the City
to collect vehicle counts and present the results in a written report. Vehicle counts shall be conducted
at all entrances/exits to parking facilities for the office space. The numbers of vehicles entering and
exiting each location shall be counted in 15-minute increments from 7:00 am to 10:00 am and from
3:00 pm to 7:00 pm on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday over a 2-week period. Counts shall be
performed between mid-September and mid-November. Counts shall avoid school holidays, as well
as days immediately before or after holidays or long weekends, and shall not be performed on days
with inclement weather.
The count data for the driveways to the office parking facilities shall be analyzed using standard
traffic engineering practice to derive office-generated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. The
results shall be compared to the office trip caps.
The data collection methodology, raw data, data analysis procedures, and resulting AM and PM peak
hour vehicle trips for the office uses shall be written up in a report and submitted to the City of
Cupertino Department of Public Works.
TDM Program Compliance
If the AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation of the office uses is less than the office trip caps
(1,830 AM peak hour trips and 1,820 PM peak hour trips at full buildout of revised project), the
TDM program is in compliance and no additional TDM measures shall be required. As the Specific
Plan develops, annual trip caps for the office uses will be established based building square footage
rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak hour.
Actions if TDM Program Compliance is Not Achieved
The City would notify the Vallco Specific Plan Area TMA (including the office TMA, if any) if the
trip caps are exceeded. The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall be required to meet with
the City to identify new TDM measures to be implemented to achieve the trip caps.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 913 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Once the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) and the City agree on new TDM measures, the
TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall implement them within 60 days of the notification
date, unless new TDM measures cannot reasonably be implemented within 60 days, then within a
later date that can reasonably be achieved, acceptable to the City. Follow-up counts shall be
conducted by an independent City-approved transportation planning/engineering firm 60 days after
the new measures are implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the new TDM program. If the
peak hour trip caps are still exceeded, the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) would pay a fee
of $3 per day per extra vehicle trip (adjusted annually starting in 2018 per the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area) for ninety days. The funds
from these fees shall be used to provide for City-wide implementation of TDM measures and
improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Payments of these penalties are due to the City
within 30 days of issuance of an invoice with reasonable supporting documentation. After ninety
days, the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall be required to meet with the City to identify
additional City-approved TDM measures to be added. If the Plan is still unable to meet the trip caps
during the next annual monitoring period, penalties would continue to be levied, until the peak trip
caps are met.
If the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) does not agree to implement the City approved new
TDM measures after the initial meeting, then the TMA shall be assessed a $5 per day per extra
vehicle trip penalty (adjusted annually starting in 2018 per the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area) through the end of the calendar year.
Payments of these penalties are due to the City within 30 days of issuance of an invoice with
reasonable supporting documentation. The funds from these penalties shall be used at the City’s
discretion.
Monitoring Program Funding
The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall pay the City for the annual monitoring costs
including City staff time to review the annual monitoring reports.
Monitoring Program Duration
Annual monitoring shall be conducted starting in the fall (mid-September through mid-November)
after six months of 50% occupancy of total approved buildout and continuing annually for ten years.
The annual trip caps for the office uses will be established based building square footage rate of 1.05
for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak hour. The trip cap will be proportionally adjusted
based on the occupancy of the sitewide office use to determine the trip cap applicable to that
monitoring cycle up to full occupancy. In no event shall the trip cap exceed 1,830 AM peak hour
trips and 1,820 PM peak hour trips. If the monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts have not been
exceeded in the last three years of the first ten years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall
be reduced to once every two years (i.e. year 12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial report reveals
that the peak trip counts have been exceeded, the monitoring shall revert to annual monitoring until
such time that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded for three consecutive annual reports.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 914 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H
Pages 171-172 Chapter 9. Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program, Existing with Project Conditions, Mitigation Measure
Discussion: REVISE the following text to the two paragraph as follows:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Monitoring Program. The Proposed Project and
General Plan with Maximum Residential Alternative have several intersection and freeway impacts
that cannot be reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of physical roadway
improvements. (S: Proposed Project and General Plan with Maximum Residential Alternative)
As a mitigation measure and condition of approval, To reduce the severity of impacts, the Proposed
Project and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative will be required to have a
TDM program to reduce the severity of impacts. for office uses, by including a trip cap that is based
on a 34% non-SOV rate for the office uses. The TDM Program includes the creation of a Transportation
Management Association that would:
• Provide concierge services to residents and retail owners (for their employees);
• Coordinate with the office component; and
• Oversee the overall TDM program among property owners and tenants to achieve the
office trip caps
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to implement the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM reduction goals are
achieved. The TDM Monitoring Program shall require a robust Monitoring Program to ensure
that this TDM program mitigation measure is implemented and that the required trip caps are
achieved. The Monitoring Program shall be subject to review and approval by the City of
Cupertino and would include driveway monitoring for all office uses during the AM and PM
peak hours. The TDM Monitoring Program would occur in the fall (mid-September through
mid-November) after six months occupancy of 50% of the total approved buildout. The TDM
Monitoring Program shall be conducted annually for the first ten years. If the monitoring
reveals that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded in the last three years of the first ten
years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be reduced to once every two years (i.e.
year 10, 12, 14, etc). However, if any biennial report reveals that the peak trip counts have been
exceeded, the monitoring shall revert to annual monitoring until such time that the peak trip
counts have not been exceeded for three consecutive annual reports. If future development is
not able to meet the identified TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties (assigned
proportionately between the uses that do not meet the trip cap), as specified in the Specific
Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Penalties collected from the TDM Monitoring Program will
be used to improve multimodal access around the site and throughout the City of Cupertino
that achieves a 25 to 35 percent reduction in office vehicle trips. The required TDM reduction
will vary depending on the amount of office development constructed and whether the office
development has a single tenant or multiple tenants. Generally, the larger the office
development, the greater the TDM reduction that can be achieved. Similarly, single-tenants
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 915 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
office buildings can generally implement more effective TDM programs than multiple-tenant
office buildings. The percentage reduction required will be based on the characteristics of the
office development (size, number of tenants, etc.) and will be calculated based on ITE’s Office
(ITE Land Use 710) average trip generation rates.
As part of the TDM Program, the City will require future development to implement the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM reduction goals are
achieved. If future development is not able to meet the identified TDM goal, then the City
would collect penalties, as specified the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program.
The TDM program is expected to reduce the severity of impacts, although not necessarily to a
less-than-significant level; therefore, the identified significant and unavoidable intersection
and freeway impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. SU With Mitigation:
Proposed Project and General Plan with Maximum Residential Alternative)
Appendix H
Page 214 Chapter 10. Freeway Segment Impacts and Mitigation Measures: ADD the following
text to the last paragraph as follows:
For these reasons, the Proposed Project and Project Alternative’s freeway impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, future development in the Specific Plan shall be required
to pay its fair-share to VTP ID H1, H11, H13, H15, H35, and H45. In addition, implementation of the
VTP projects is outside of the City of Cupertino’s jurisdiction and the City cannot guarantee that it
would be constructed. (SU: The Proposed Project and the General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential and Retail and Residential alternatives).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 916 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H
Page 218 Table 49; REVISE the following text in the first two columns of Table 49 as follows:
VTA Transit Route
Route 23
De Anza College
to Alum Rock
Transit Center
Route 53
West Valley
College to
Sunnyvale Transit
Center
Express
101
Camden &
Highway 85 to
Palo
AltoLockheed
Martin to
Winchester LRT
Station
Express
182
Palo Alto to
IBM/Bailey
AveCamden &
Highway 85 to
Palo Alto
Rapid
323/523
Downtown San
Jose to De Anza
CollegePalo Alto
to IBM/Bailey Ave
Appendix H
Page 219 Table 50: REVISE the following text in the first two columns of Table 50 as
follows:
VTA Transit Route
Route 23
De Anza
College to
Alum Rock
Transit Center
Route 53
West Valley
College to
Sunnyvale
Transit Center
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 917 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
VTA Transit Route
Route 56
Lockheed
Martin to
Winchester LRT
Station
Express
101
Camden &
Highway 85 to
Palo Alto
Express
182
Palo Alto to
IBM/Bailey Ave
Rapid
523/323
Lockheed
Martin Transit
Center to
Berryessa BART
StationDownto
wn San Jose to
De Anza
College
Appendix H
Page 220 Table 51: REVISE the following text in the first two columns of Table 51 as
follows:
VTA Transit Route
Route 23
De Anza
College to
Alum Rock
Transit Center
Route 53
West Valley
College to
Sunnyvale
Transit Center
Route 56
Lockheed
Martin to
Winchester LRT
Station
Express
101
Camden &
Highway 85 to
Palo Alto
Express
182
Palo Alto to
IBM/Bailey Ave
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 918 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
VTA Transit Route
Rapid
523/323
Lockheed
Martin Transit
Center to
Berryessa BART
StationDownto
wn San Jose to
De Anza
College
Appendix H
Page 221 Chapter 5. Project Traffic Estimates; Transit Capacity Analysis Section: REVISE
the following text to the third sentence of the last paragraph as follows:
Transit capacity is evaluated for the PM peak hour trips for Project alternatives since PM peak hour
trip generation is higher than in AM peak hour. The PM peak hour public transit trips were estimated
based on MXD+ transit trip mode share and assigned to the bus routes serving the Specific Plan area.
The transit trips for the Proposed Project and Project Alternative were added to each route’s
existingexiting peak hour load to produce the peak load with Project. The peak load factor was
compared to the peak vehicle load factor standards provided by VTA. The results are shown in Table
52. All bus routes meet the peak load factor standard established by VTA. Thus, the Project would
have less-than-significant impacts on the transit vehicle capacity of the routes that serve the Specific
Plan area.
Appendix H
Page 225 Chapter 12. Other Transportation Evaluations, Left-Turn Queuing Analysis; ADD the
following text to the last paragraph as follows:
As part of the Conditions of Approval the City will require the following to address identified left-
turn storage deficiencies:
• For left-turn storage deficiencies at Intersections #11 (De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard), #31 (Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway), #41 (Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway), #42
(Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue), contribute one payment of $100,000 to citywide
ITS improvements (such as adoptive signal control, advanced signal loop detectors or video
image detectors) to improve signal operations and queuing.
• Intersection #21 – Stevens Creek Boulevard / Perimeter Road: Reconfigure the median on
Stevens Creek Boulevard to reduce the westbound left-turn lane to Portal Avenue to
accommodate an additional 80 feet of capacity for the eastbound left turn from Stevens Creek
Boulevard to Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #31 – Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway: Reconfigure the median on Vallco
Parkway between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road to provide a continuous median with a
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 919 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
325-foot westbound left-turn lane at Wolfe Road and a 220-foot eastbound left-turn lane at
Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #32 – Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard: Extend the inner
eastbound left-turn lane from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Wolfe Road to the same length as
the outer left-turn lane to provide approximately 260 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #53 – Lawrence Expressway / Bollinger Road: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share to reduce the median width on the northbound approach of
Lawrence Expressway to provide for approximately 325 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #56 – Lawrence Expressway / Saratoga Avenue: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share of additional funding needed to reduce the median width on
the eastbound approach of Saratoga Avenue to maximize the left-turn queuing capacity.
Appendix H
Page 234 Chapter 12. Other Transportation Evaluations, Evaluation of Potential Neighborhood
Intrusion, Conclusion; REPLACE the following text to the first paragraph as
follows:
While not required as mitigation for the Project, the City will require the following should consider
adopting the following Conditions of Approval to ensure that neighborhood cut-through traffic and
parking intrusion are minimized:
• Future development in the Specific Plan shall fund neighborhood traffic and parking
monitoring studies and provide fees in the amount $500,000 350,000 to the City of Cupertino
and $150,000, $250,000 to the City of Sunnyvale, and $150,000 to the City of Santa Clara to
monitor and implement traffic calming improvements and a residential parking permit
program, if needed.
• The details of the neighborhood parking and traffic intrusion monitoring program will be
determined when the Conditions of Approval are established. The monitoring program shall
include the following items: (1) identifying the monitoring areas (roadways where the
monitoring will occur), (2) setting baseline conditions (number of parked vehicles and traffic
volumes on the roadways), (3) determining thresholds for parking and traffic volume
increases requiring action, (4) establishing the monitoring schedule, and (5) creating
reporting protocols. The baseline conditions shall be established prior to but within a year of
initial occupancy. Monitoring will then occur annually for five years.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 920 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Appendix H
Page 234 Chapter 12. Other Transportation Evaluations; Senate Bill (SB) 743 Assessment
Section: REVISE the following text to the third paragraph as follows:
The regional average VMT per service population from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regional model for the Year 2020
and 2040 are 21.8 and 20.3 , respectively. The MTC/ABAG regional model is an activity-
based/tour-based model rather than a trip- based model used by other jurisdictions, including VTA.
Current draft guidance for SB 743 recommends a VMT threshold of 15 percent below the regional
average as a threshold of significance for CEQA purposes. This translates to thresholds of 15.518.5
(21.8 x 85%) and 17.3 (20.3 x 85%) for the years 2020 and 2040, respectively. The City of Cupertino
has not adopted these regional thresholds and may adopt different thresholds that would yield
different results regarding VMT assessment.
MTC Model results at analytics.mtc.ca.gov/foswiki/Main/PlanBayAreaVmtPerWorker and accessed in April
2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 921 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
SECTION 7.0 DRAFT EIR AMENDMENT REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the text of the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Draft EIR
Amendment dated July 2018. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with
a line through the text.
Page 1 Section 1.2 Housing Rich Alternative: ADD the following text to the second
paragraph as follows:
Since the beginning of the public comment period for the Draft EIR described above in Section 1.1, a
fifth, “Housing Rich,” alternative was identified in response to community and City interest in
having a greater number of housing units with a greater than 15 percent below-market-rate housing
component and the inclusion of substantial community amenities such as a performing arts center,
civic space, educational space, etc., and enough office development on the site to support the
additional community amenities and the higher blow-market rate component. Compared to the
proposed project, the Housing Rich Alternative would result in a better citywide jobs/housing
balance.
Page 15 Section 3.1.2.3: REVISE the subheading title and discussion in this section as
follows:
2.4.4.3 Transit Center and Transportation Demand Management Program
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. The TDM program could include on-site
transportation coordinator, ride-share marketing and promotion, unbundling parking, a transit
incentive program, safe routes to school support programs, transit subsidy for employees, 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. 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 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.
Page 15 Section 3.1.2.4: REVISE the last paragraph on the page as follows:
The Specific Plan would require connections to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm drain,
communications, gas and electricity utility lines in the area. The Specific Plan may includes the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 922 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
extension of existing Wolfe Road recycled water pipeline serving the Apple Park office campus
(formerly called Apple Campus 2) approximately one mile from Homestead Road, under I-280, to
the project site and possibly to Stevens Creek Boulevard. An additional pump to the existing booster
pump station for the Wolfe Road recycled water pipeline may be required. Recycled water
maywould be used on-site for landscape irrigation.
Page 16 Section 3.1.2.6: ADD the following text after the subheading as follows:
2.4.4.6 Specific Plan Assumptions
The EIR is based on the assumption that the below measures are proposed as part of, or conditions of
approval for, future development implementing the Specific Plan.
Page 18 Section 3.1.2.6: REPLACE the second and third bullets on the page with the
following:
• Outdoor dining areas located on the green roof with direct line-of-sight to the existing
residences to the west of the site, opposite Perimeter Road, and to the southeast of the site,
opposite Vallco Parkway and North Wolfe road, shall be setback a minimum distance of 310
feet from the nearest residential property line to meet the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA.
Alternately, outdoor dining areas shall be acoustically shielded by noise barriers or buildings.
• Playgrounds proposed on the green roof shall be setback a minimum distance of 60 feet from
the nearest residential property line or acoustically shielded by noise barriers.
• Outdoor dining areas and playgrounds shall demonstrate that appropriate design and noise
attenuation measures including, but not limited to, setbacks and/or noise barriers have been
incorporated to meet the daytime threshold of 65 dBA and the nighttime threshold of 55 dBA
in the City’s Municipal Code at the existing, adjacent residences.
• Future development shall pay its fair-share contribution towards the City’s share for the cost
of constructing the I-280/Wolfe Interchange project.
Page 18 Section 3.1.2.6: ADD the following text before the last two bullets on the page as
follows:
In addition, the EIR analysis includes the following Specific Plan elements:
• The Specific Plan would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program,
which shall provide sitewide TDM support services to coordinate TDM efforts for all users
and includes an office-specific trip cap to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel.
The non-office portion of the project is not subject to a trip cap. The office trips cap related
to the TDM program of the project shall be measured at the peak commute hours, when
roadways are most congested.
OFFICE TRIP CAP
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 923 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Trip caps for the office uses were developed assuming full buildout of the office uses for the
revised project. The office trip cap is designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips from
office uses. Specifically, the office trips caps assume that at a minimum 34 percent of office
trips would be by non-single-occupancy vehicle (non-SOV) modes (i.e., the percentage of
employees traveling to the site via walking, bicycling, riding in private shuttle or public
transit vehicles, or ridesharing).
A target of 34 percent non-SOV has been identified as a reasonable target because it is
considered aggressive but achievable for office developments in suburban locations greater
than one-half (½) mile from a rail station. While higher alternative mode share rates have
been established for a few corporate campuses in the Bay Area, such rates have generally
been in areas more urban than Cupertino with proximity to mass transit facilities.
As the Specific Plan develops, annual trip caps for the office uses will be established based
building square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak hour.
Peak hours are defined as the time periods on the adjacent streets with the highest hourly
volumes occurring during the morning and evening commute periods. At full buildout, the
office uses in the revised project shall be required to meet the trip caps presented in the
following table:
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Office Trip Caps 1,830 vehicle trips 1,820 vehicle trips
FORMATION OF TMA
The purpose of the Transportation Management Association (TMA) is to coordinate sitewide
TDM measures, collect fees from members to finance site-wide measures and monitoring
activities, conduct TMA administration activities, and coordinate with members to add
measures as needed to meet the office trip caps.
The TMA for the Specific Plan Area shall be established using a legal arrangement approved
by the City. The TMA shall hire a qualified Transportation Coordinator. The fees paid by
each member shall be determined as part of TMA formation documentation. All commercial
property owners and tenants, apartment management companies, hotel operators, and home
owners associations shall be required to be members, unless an enhanced TDM program
covers all office uses in the Plan Area, in which case there may be a separate TMA for
offices uses. However, the office TMA is still required to be a member of the sitewide TMA
and coordinate activities and monitoring with the sitewide TMA.
TDM PROGRAM STRUCTURE
The TDM program would include the formation of a TMA to help implement TDM strategies
sitewide and coordinate the office trip cap requirements. The TMA shall include an on-site
transportation coordinator that would help implement TDM strategies. TDM strategies that
are highly encouraged include, but are not limited to:
− Maximum parking requirements per the Specific Plan
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 924 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
− Concierge services for all employees, residents, guests, and patrons, to provide
information on transit connections, opportunities for alternative modes of transit and
transportation services.
− Free transit passes for residents and retail employees
− Ride-share marketing and promotion
− Evaluation, identification, and implementation of bikeshare program for travel within,
to, and from the site
− On-site availability of carshare
− Guaranteed ride home programs
Other TDM strategies that could be considered include:
− Unbundling parking,
− Other a transit incentive programs
− Safe routes to school support programs,
− Transit subsidy for employees,
− Vanpool subsidy for employees,
− Workplace parking pricing,
− Employee parking cash-out,
− Alternative work schedules and telecommute programs, and.
− Shuttle services for employees
Additional details about possible TDM measures are included in Table 28 in Appendix H of
the Draft EIR. The Final TDM program for future development shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Public Works prior to approval of any occupancy
permits.
The TMA would submit an annual report to the City to report on TDM measures
implemented and assess effectiveness of TDM program in terms of non-SOV mode split for
the office uses. Additional TDM measures may be required by the City if the TDM measures
are not effective as determined by a regular monitoring program. The following lays out the
TDM Program and Monitoring Plan in more detail.
MONITORING PLAN
Annual TDM program monitoring consists of two main elements: (1) Summary of
Implemented TDM Measures to be provided by the Vallco Specific Plan Area TMA, and (2)
office driveway counts and TDM Monitoring Report for office uses to be prepared by an
independent city-approved transportation planning/engineering firm. Each of these
components is described below.
Summary of Implemented TDM Measures
The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall submit a report to the City by December
31st each year describing the specific TDM measures that are being implemented by the TMA
and by their members (including the office TMA, if any) and the amount of occupied space
for each land use (i.e., office/commercial/hotel rooms/dwelling units).
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 925 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
To assess the effectiveness of the TDM program in increasing non-SOV trips, the TMA
(including the office TMA, if any) may also be required to collect the following data and
provide it in a report to the City:
− Private Shuttle Ridership - Counted electronically on vehicles and visually verified at
the transit hub
− Public Transit Ridership - Counted at area VTA stops
− Cycling/Walking Volumes - Counted via bike/pedestrian entrances to office facilities
− Office Carpool Volumes - Counted at entrances to office parking facilities
Driveway Counts and TDM Monitoring Report
An independent city-approved transportation planning/engineering firm shall be retained by
the City to collect vehicle counts and present the results in a written report. Vehicle counts
shall be conducted at all entrances/exits to parking facilities for the office space. The
numbers of vehicles entering and exiting each location shall be counted in 15-minute
increments from 7:00AM to 10:00AM and from 3:00PM to 7:00PM on a Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday over a two-week period. Counts shall be performed between mid-
September and mid-November. Counts shall avoid school holidays, as well as days
immediately before or after holidays or long weekends, and shall not be performed on days
with inclement weather.
The count data for the driveways to the office parking facilities shall be analyzed using
standard traffic engineering practice to derive office-generated AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes. The results shall be compared to the office trip caps.
The data collection methodology, raw data, data analysis procedures, and resulting AM and
PM peak hour vehicle trips for the office uses shall be written up in a report and submitted to
the City of Cupertino Department of Public Works.
TDM Program Compliance
If the AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation of the office uses is less than the office
trip caps (1,830 AM peak hour trips and 1,820 PM peak hour trips at full buildout of revised
project), the TDM program is in compliance and no additional TDM measures shall be
required. As the Specific Plan develops, annual trip caps for the office uses will be
established based building square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the
PM peak hour.
Actions if TDM Program Compliance is Not Achieved
The City would notify the Vallco Specific Plan Area TMA (including the office TMA, if any)
if the trip caps are exceeded. The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall be required
to meet with the City to identify new TDM measures to be implemented to achieve the trip
caps.
Once the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) and the City agree on new TDM measures,
the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall implement them within 60 days of the
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 926 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
notification date, unless new TDM measures cannot reasonably be implemented within 60
days, then within a later date that can reasonably be achieved, acceptable to the City.
Follow-up counts shall be conducted by an independent City-approved transportation
planning/engineering firm 60 days after the new measures are implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the new TDM program. If the peak hour trip caps are still exceeded, the
TMA (including the office TMA, if any) would pay a fee of $3 per day per extra vehicle trip
(adjusted annually starting in 2018 per the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in
the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area) for ninety days. The funds from these fees shall
be used to provide for City-wide implementation of TDM measures and improvement of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Payments of these penalties are due to the City within 30
days of issuance of an invoice with reasonable supporting documentation. After ninety days,
the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall be required to meet with the City to
identify additional City-approved TDM measures to be added. If the Plan is still unable to
meet the trip caps during the next annual monitoring period, penalties would continue to be
levied, until the peak trip caps are met.
If the TMA (including the office TMA, if any) does not agree to implement the City
approved new TDM measures after the initial meeting, then the TMA shall be assessed a $5
per day per extra vehicle trip penalty (adjusted annually starting in 2018 per the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area) through
the end of the calendar year. Payments of these penalties are due to the City within 30 days
of issuance of an invoice with reasonable supporting documentation. The funds from these
penalties shall be used at the City’s discretion.
Monitoring Program Funding
The TMA (including the office TMA, if any) shall pay the City for the annual monitoring
costs including City staff time to review the annual monitoring reports.
Monitoring Program Duration
Annual monitoring shall be conducted starting the fall (mid-September through mid-
November) after six months of 50 percent occupancy of total approved buildout and
continuing annually for 10 years. The annual trip caps for the office uses will be established
based building square footage rate of 1.05 for the AM peak hour and 1.04 for the PM peak
hour. The trip cap will be proportionally adjusted based on the occupancy of the sitewide
office use to determine the trip cap applicable to that monitoring cycle up to full occupancy.
In no event shall the trip cap exceed 1,830 AM peak hour trips and 1,820 PM peak hour trips.
If the monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded in the last three
years of the first 10 years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be reduced to
once every two years (i.e., year 12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial report reveals that the
peak trip counts have been exceeded, the monitoring shall revert to annual monitoring until
such time that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded for three consecutive annual
reports.
• Electricity for future development would be provided by Silicon Valley Clean Energy
(SVCE) or another provider that sources electricity from 100 percent carbon free sources.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 927 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Future development would meet the state Density Bonus Law criteria to be granted a
residential density bonus of 35 percent.
Page 31-34 MM AQ-2.1: REVISE mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 as follows:
MM AQ-2.1: Future development under the proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing
Rich Alternative) shall implement the following BAAQMD-recommended
measures to control dust, particulate matter, and diesel exhaust emissions during
construction:
Basic Measures
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.
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.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five two minutes (as
required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR])unless subject to
state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Applicable Enhanced Control Measures
9. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain
minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified
by lab samples or moisture probe.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 928 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
10. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended
when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends
beyond site boundaries.
11. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward
side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive
receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
12. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be
planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately
until vegetation is established.
13. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-
disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall
be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed
surfaces at any one time.
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.
15. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one
percent.
16. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to
two minutes unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
Exhaust Control Measures
17. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 25 horsepower) to be used in the construction
project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a
minimum project wide fleet-average 25 percent NOx reduction and 65
percent PM (particulate matter) exhaust reduction compared to the
CalEEMod modeled average used in this report. Acceptable options for
reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission
diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-
treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other
options as such become available. The following are feasible methods:
• 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.
• If Tier 4 equipment is not feasible, Aall 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 and include particulate matter
emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve an 85 percent
reduction in particulate matter exhaust.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 929 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Use of alternatively-fueled equipment with lower NOx emissions
that meet the NOx and PM reduction requirements above.
• Diesel engines, whether for off-road equipment or on-road
vehicles, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, except
as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations (e.g.,
traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction
sites shall have posted legible and visible signs in designated
queuing areas and at the construction site to clearly notify
operators of idling limit.
• All on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 33,000 pounds or greater (EMFAC Category HDDT)
used at the project site (such as haul trucks, water trucks, dump
trucks, and concrete trucks) shall be model year 2010 or newer.
• Develop a Transportation Demand Management program for
construction worker travel that includes transit and carpool
subsides in order to reduce worker trips by 10 percent.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of
construction to minimize the use of diesel powered stationary
equipment, such as generators.
• Enforce idling limit of two minutes unless subject to state law
exemptions (e.g., safety issues).
18. A project-specific construction management plan describing the
measures to minimize construction emissions shall be required of future
development. As part of the construction management plan, the on-site
Construction Manager shall ensure and regularly document that
equipment, trucks, and architectural coatings meet the above mitigation
requirements. The documentation shall be submitted regularly to the City
for review and compliance.
Page 47 Impact AQ-8; Project: ADD the following text to the second paragraph under Impact
AQ-8:
The proposed project (and all project alternatives) could allow the development of uses that have the
potential to produce odorous emissions during operation; however, significant sources of odors (e.g.,
wastewater treatment, food processing facilities, and chemical plants) are not proposed as part of the
project or any of the alternatives. Other sources, such as restaurants, that could be associated with
future development typically result in only localized sources of odors that would not impact a large
number of people. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. In addition, it is the City’s
standard practice to require restaurants to install carbon air filtration systems which help minimize
odors. (Less than Significant Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 930 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 62 Table 4.6-1: REVISE the estimated gasoline demand column as follows:
Table 5.3-1: Summary of Project and Project Alternative Energy Demand
Estimated
Electricity
Demand*
(GWh per year)
Estimated Natural
Gas Demand*
(Btu per year)
Estimated Gasoline
Demand†
(million gallons per
year)
Existing 7 703 million 21,260
Proposed Project 70 64 billion 129,435
General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative 60 63 billion 108,411
Retail and Residential Alternative 45 57 billion 64,460
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Mall
Alternative 19 12 billion 43,270
Housing Rich Alternative 71 76 billion 1411,466
Notes: * The net energy demand is identified for the proposed project and project alternatives.
† The estimated gasoline demand was based on the estimated vehicle miles traveled discussed in Section 3.17
Transportation/Traffic and the average fuel economy of 35 mpg.
Sources: 1. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment. May 2018. Attachment 2. And 2. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Housing Rich Alternative
Air Quality Modeling. June 2018. Attachment 1.
Page 63 Project; Operation: REVISE the first sentence in the second paragraph under the
operation subheading as follows:
As shown in Table 4.6-1, operation of the project is estimated to result in an annual net energy
demand of approximately 70 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity, 64 billion British thermal units
(Btu) of natural gas, and 12 million9,435 gallons of gasoline compared to existing conditions.
Page 63 Housing Rich Alternative; Operation: REVISE the first sentence under the operation
subheading as follows:
As shown in Table 4.6-1, operation of the Housing Rich Alternative is estimated to result in an
annual net energy demand of approximately 71 GWh of electricity, 76 billion Btu of natural gas, and
14 million11,466 gallons of gasoline compared to existing conditions.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 931 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 78 MM HAZ-1.1: ADD the following text to the last sentence of mitigation measure
MM HAZ-1.1:
MM HAZ-1.1: A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be
prepared and implemented for demolition and redevelopment activities under the
revised project. The purpose of the SMP and HSP is to establish appropriate
management practices for handling impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater or
other materials that may potentially be encountered during construction activities,
especially in areas of former hazardous materials storage and use, and the
profiling of soil planned for off-site disposal and/or reuse on-site. The SMP shall
document former and suspect UST locations, hazardous materials transfer lines,
oil-water separators, neutralization chambers, and hydraulic lifts, etc. The SMP
shall also identify the protocols for accepting imported fill materials, if needed.
The SMP and HSP shall be submitted to SCCDEH for approval and the approved
SMP and HSP shall be submitted to the City Building Division prior to
commencement of construction (including demolition) activities.
Pages 137-138 Mitigation Measure: REVISE mitigation measures MM NOI-1.1 and -1.2 as
follows:
MM NOI-1.1: Construction activities under the revised project shall be conducted in accordance
with provisions of the City’s Municipal Code which limit temporary construction
work to daytime hours,32 Monday through Friday. Construction is prohibited on
weekends and all holidays pursuant to Municipal Code Section
10.48.053(B)(C)(D).33 Further, the City requires that all equipment have high-
quality noise mufflers and abatement devices installed and are in good condition.
Additionally, the construction crew shall adhere to the following construction
best management practices listed in MM NOI-1.2 below to reduce construction
noise levels emanating from the site and minimize disruption and annoyance at
existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
MM NOI-1.2: Future development shall prepare and submit a construction noise control plan to
the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval.
The on-site Construction Manager shall implement thea construction noise
control plan, which would includeing, but is not limited to, the following
available controls:
Per Municipal Code Section 10.48.010, daytime is defined as the period from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekdays.
Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(B): Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to
engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of
a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in
Section 10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(C): Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited
on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. Municipal Code Section 10.48.053(D):
Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime
standards of Section 10.48.040.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 932 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
• Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary
noise-generating equipment. Temporary noise barrier fences would
provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-
of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is
constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
• Enforce Unnecessaryidling limit of two minutes of internal combustion
engines unless subject to state law exemptions (e.g., safety issues)shall be
strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or
portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as
feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with
enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise
levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or
venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that would
create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
• Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and
parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are
not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, temporary noise control blanket
barriers shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the
adjacent land uses.
• If impact pile driving is proposed, foundation pile holes shall be pre-
drilled to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-
drilling foundation pile holes is a standard construction noise control
technique. Pre-drilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the
pile. Notify all adjacent land uses of the construction schedule in writing.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction schedule for major
noise-generating construction activities and provide it to adjacent land
uses. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination
with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be
scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for
responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad
muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures be implemented
to correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 933 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and
included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction
schedule.
Page 140 Mitigation Measure: REVISE the second bullet in mitigation measure MM NOI-1.4
as follows:
• Implement a no idling policy at all locations that requires engines to be
turned off after twofive minutes.
Page 163 Project: REVISE the two paragraphs under Table 4.15-3 as follows:
Additionally, if the topography of park land is not acceptable, the project (and project alternatives)
shall fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter
14.0513.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City
standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents. In addition, impacts to County and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District facilities would be mitigated through the property taxes
levied on the property.
Standard Permit Condition: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing Rich
Alternative) shall fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal
Code Chapter 14.0513.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance
with the City standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.
Page 167 Park Facilities; Project: REVISE the third sentence under the project subheading as
follows:
The geographic area for cumulative park facility impacts is the City boundaries. The buildout of the
General Plan and cumulative projects (including the proposed project and project alternatives) would
incrementally increase the demand for park facilities but would also create new public open space.
The cumulative projects within the City of Cupertino would be required to fund park improvements
and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.0513.08 and Title 18, which
help ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residents.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 934 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 168 Project: REVISE the last two paragraphs on the page as follows:
Standard Permit Condition: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan
Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing Rich
Alternative) shall dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Title 18
to ensure the provision of parklands in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residentspay the applicable park maintenance fees, as stated in Chapter 14.05 of the
City Municipal Code.
The proposed project would be required to fund park improvements and dedicate land through
compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.05 and Title 18, which help ensure that City
recreational facilities are maintained. Therefore, future development under the proposed project (and
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative,
and Housing Rich Alternative), with the implementation of the above standard permit condition,
would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Page 170 Project: REVISE the third sentence of in the first paragraph as follows:
The geographic area for cumulative recreational impacts is the City boundaries. Buildout of the
General Plan and cumulative projects (including the proposed project and project alternatives) would
incrementally increase the demand for recreational facilities. The cumulative projects within the City
of Cupertino would be required to fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance
with Municipal Code Chapter 14.0513.08 and Title 18, which help ensure the provision of parklands
in compliance with the City standard of a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.
Page 178 MM TRN-1.1: REPLACE the first paragraph of mitigation measure MM TRN-1.1
as follows:
MM TRN-1.1: Develop and implement a TDM Program which includes a trip cap that is based on
the goal of achieving a districtwide mode split target of not more than 45 percent of
employees driving alone. As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future
development to implement the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure
that the TDM reduction goal is achieved. If future development is not able to meet
the identified TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties, as specified the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Develop and implement a TDM Program
which includes a trip cap that is based on a 34 percent non-SOV rate for the office
uses. The TDM Program includes the creation of a Transportation Management
Association that would:
• Provide concierge services to residents and retail owners (for their
employees);
• Coordinate with the office component; and
• Oversee the overall TDM program among property owners and tenants to
achieve the office trip caps
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 935 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
As part of the TDM Program, the City shall require future development to implement
the Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program to ensure that the TDM reduction
goals are achieved. The TDM Monitoring Program shall require a robust Monitoring
Program to ensure that this TDM program mitigation measure is implemented and
that the required trip caps are achieved. The Monitoring Program shall be subject to
review and approval by the City of Cupertino and would include driveway
monitoring for all office uses during the AM and PM peak hours. The TDM
Monitoring Program would occur in the fall (mid-September through mid-November)
after six months occupancy of 50 percent of the total approved buildout. The TDM
Monitoring Program shall be conducted annually for the first 10 years. If the
monitoring reveals that the peak trip counts have not been exceeded in the last three
years of the first 10 years of annual monitoring, the TDM monitoring shall be
reduced to once every two years (i.e.. year 10, 12, 14, etc.). However, if any biennial
report reveals that the peak trip counts have been exceeded, the monitoring shall
revert to annual monitoring until such time that the peak trip counts have not been
exceeded for three consecutive annual reports. If future development is not able to
meet the identified TDM goal, then the City would collect penalties (assigned
proportionately between the uses that do not meet the trip cap), as specified in the
Specific Plan’s TDM Monitoring Program. Penalties collected from the TDM
Monitoring Program will be used to improve multimodal access around the site and
throughout the City of Cupertino.
The TDM program is expected to reduce the severity of intersection and freeway
impacts, although not necessarily to a less than significant level. (Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Page 192 Vehicle Miles Travelled: ADD the following text before the Vehicle Miles Travelled
subheading:
Left-Turn Queuing Analysis
Project
The addition of project (or project alternative) traffic along the roadway network could add vehicles
to left-turn movements and has the potential to cause left-turn queues to exceed the turn pocket
storage lengths. Queues that exceed the turn pocket storage length have the potential to impede
adjacent through traffic movements. Based on the analysis completed in Appendix C, several turn
pocket lengths are anticipated to be exceeded under existing and background conditions with project
traffic. The left-turn deficiencies would not result in significant level of service impacts, however.
The City shall require future development under the project, General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative implement
the below conditions of approval to address left-turn storage deficiencies. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 936 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Conditions of Approval:
• For left-turn storage deficiencies at Intersections #11 (De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard), #31 (Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway), #41 (Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway), #42
(Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue), contribute one payment of $100,000 to citywide
ITS improvements (such as adoptive signal control, advanced signal loop detectors or video
image detectors) to improve signal operations and queuing.
• Intersection #21 – Stevens Creek Boulevard / Perimeter Road: Reconfigure the median on
Stevens Creek Boulevard to reduce the westbound left-turn lane to Portal Avenue to
accommodate an additional 80 feet of capacity for the eastbound left turn from Stevens Creek
Boulevard to Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #31 – Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway: Reconfigure the median on Vallco
Parkway between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road to provide a continuous median with a
325-foot westbound left-turn lane at Wolfe Road and a 220-foot eastbound left-turn lane at
Perimeter Road.
• Intersection #32 – Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard: Extend the inner
eastbound left-turn lane from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Wolfe Road to the same length as
the outer left-turn lane to provide approximately 260 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #53 – Lawrence Expressway / Bollinger Road: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share to reduce the median width on the northbound approach of
Lawrence Expressway to provide for approximately 325 feet of additional capacity.
• Intersection #56 – Lawrence Expressway / Saratoga Avenue: Coordinate with the County of
Santa Clara and pay fair share of additional funding needed to reduce the median width on
the eastbound approach of Saratoga Avenue to maximize the left-turn queuing capacity.
Housing Rich Alternative
The Housing Rich Alternative woud result in similar left-turn storage deficiencies as determined in
Draft EIR for the proposed project (refer to Appendix C). Implementation of the Housing Rich
Alternative, with the implementation of the above conditions of approval, would not result in left-
turn queuing deficiencies. (Less than Significant Impact)
Page 196 Traffic and Parking Intrusion; Project; Condition of Approval: REVISE the text of
the first paragraph of the condition of approval as follows:
Condition of Approval: To ensure neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking intrusion are
minimized, future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing Rich Alternative) shall fund
neighborhood cut-through traffic monitoring studies and provide fees in the amount of $500,000 to
the City of Cupertino, $150,000 to the City of Santa Clara, and $1250,000 to the City of Sunnyvale
to monitor and implement traffic calming improvements and a residential parking permit program to
minimize neighborhood cut-through traffic and parking intrusion, if determined to be needed by the
respective City’s Public Works Department. The details of the neighborhood parking and traffic
intrusion monitoring program shall be determined when the conditions of approval for project
development are established. The monitoring program shall include the following components: (1)
identifying the monitoring areas (roadways where the monitoring would occur), (2) setting baseline
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 937 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
conditions (number of parked vehicles and traffic volumes on the roadways), (3) determining
thresholds for parking and traffic volume increases requiring action, (4) establishing the monitoring
schedule, and (5) creating reporting protocols. The baseline conditions shall be established prior to
but within one year of initial occupancy. Monitoring shall then occur annually for five years.
Page 226 MM TRN-7.17: REVISE the number of the mitigation measure as follows:
MM TRN-7.176.1: The VTA’s VTP 2040 identifies the Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit project
(VTP ID T4) as an improvement near the project site. Ultimately, the VTP ID T4
would enhance travel choice for the revised project and make more efficient use
of the transportation network. Thus, future development under the revised project
would be required to contribute its fair-share to VTP ID T4. However, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable because the implementation of the
VTP projects are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency and
the City cannot guarantee the improvement would be implemented concurrent
with the revised project. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
Page 254 Impact UTL-2; Project: REVISE the last sentence of the last paragraph on this page
as follows:
The project and project alternatives are estimated to generate a net increase of 0.720.26 to 1.150.58
mgd of sewage.
Page 254 Table 4.18-1: REVISE Table 4.18-1 as follows:
Table 4.18-1: Estimated Net Sewage Generation
Estimated Net Average Sewage Generation
(mgd)
Project 0.720.40
General Plan Buildout with Maximum
Residential Alternative 0.940.53
Retail and Residential Alternative 1.040.58
Occupied/Re-Tenanted Alternative 00.26
Housing Rich Alternative 1.150.65
Note: The sewage generation identified is the net increase in sewage generation anticipated under the proposed
project and project alternatives compared to existing conditions. Source: City of Cupertino. Sewer Capacity
Calculation (Vallco Specific Plan). August 13, 2018. for Housing Rich Alternative sewage generation: Tanaka,
Richard. District Manager-Engineer, Cupertino Sanitary District. Personal Communications. June 19, 2018.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 938 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
Page 255 Impact UTL-2; Project: ADD the following text before the mitigation measures:
The contractual agreement between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is 13.8 mgd during peak wet
weather flows. The existing CuSD peak wet weather flow into the Santa Clara system is modeled at
10.7 mgd. Therefore, there is an available capacity of approximately 3.1 mgd during peak wet
weather flows for the CuSD service area (including the project). A peak wet weather flow multiplier
of four (4) times the average dry weather flow was used to establish the available sewer generation
capacity for average sewer flows for the project. A four (4) times multiplier is generally considered a
conservative figure. Therefore, 3.1 mgd of capacity during peak wet weather flows equates to
approximately 0.775 mgd of available capacity for average dry weather sewer flow. Incorporating
estimated sewer generation rates from the project and from other potential projects as established by
the General Plan, the total capacity needed to serve these projects is approximately 0.749 mgd.
Because the needed capacity is less than the total available capacity, there is adequate sewer capacity
in the contractual agreement between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara to serve the project and the
General Plan Buildout.
If additional hydraulic modeling is performed on the CuSD system and the model indicates that the
13.8 mgd contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara would be surpassed by the project, the
future developer(s) would not be permitted to occupy any structures or units that result in the
contractual limit being exceeded until additional capacity is available through the City of Santa
Clara’s sewer system; improvements are made to the CuSD sewer system that reduce the peak wet
weather flows that enter the City of Santa Clara system; improvements are made on the project site
that ensure the contractual limit is not exceed; or the completion of any combination of these
approaches that adequately addresses potential capacity issues.
Page 255 Mitigation Measures: REVISE the text of mitigation measures MM UTIL-2.1
through -2.3 and the subsequent paragraph as follows:
MM UTIL-2.1: Future development under the proposed project (or General Plan Buildout with
Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing
Rich Alternative) shall replace the existing 12- and 15-inch sewer mains in Wolfe
Road with new mains of an adequate size as determined by CuSD, andor shall
install an 18- to 21-inch parallel pipe to the existing 12- and 15-inch 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, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing
Rich Alternative) shall replace the existing 27-inch sewer main in Wolfe Road
and Homestead Road with new mains of an adequate size determined by the
CuSD, or install a parallel pipe of an adequate size to the existing 27-inch sewer
main as determined by CuSD.
Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018.
Sewage coefficients use to calculate the sewer generation rates for the various uses in the project and the General
Plan buildout were taken from the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer
Coefficient table and from the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007.
Vallco Special Area Specific Plan 939 Final EIR
City of Cupertino August 2018
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
between CuSD and the City of Santa Clara is amended to recognize and authorize
this increased flow. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued by the City for
structures or units that would result in the permitted peak wet weather flow
capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system being
exceeded. The estimated sewage generation by the project shall be calculated
using the sewer generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and from
the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007, unless
alternative (i.e., lower) sewer generation rates achieved by future development
are substantiated by the developer based on evidence to the satisfaction of the
CuSD.
Implementation of mitigation measures MM UTIL-2.1 through -2.3 would mitigate the project (or
General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential, Retail and Residential Alternative, or Housing
Rich Alternative) impact to the sewer system by making improvements to the sewer system in order
to adequately convey flows from future development. The above sewer improvements would occur
within existing right-of-way and the construction impacts related to installing new sewer lines are
discussed in the EIR sections dealing with construction impacts including Sections 3.3 Air Quality,
3.4 Biological Resources, 3.5 Cultural Resources, 3.13 Noise and Vibration, and 3.17
Transportation/Traffic. If future on-site sewage treatment is proposed, subsequent environmental
review would be required at the time when the specifications of the on-site treatment facility (e.g.,
size, operation, and location) are known. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
Page 259 Recycled Water Infrastructure and Supply; Project; Infrastructure: REVISE the first
paragraph as follows:
The proposed project (and General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Alternative, Retail and
Residential Alternative, and Housing Rich Alternative) may includes the extension of recycled water
infrastructure to the project site. Recycled water wcould be used on-site for landscape irrigation.
The average dry weather sewerage generation rates used by the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table, and the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity
Assessment, May 2007, for the different uses within the project are as follows: High Density Residential = 121
gpd/unit; Commercial/Retail = 0.076 gpd/SF; Commercial/Restaurant = 1.04 gpd/SF; Office = 0.1 gpd/SF; Hotel =
100 gpd/Room; Civic Space (office) = 0.21 gpd/SF; Adult Education = 15 gpd/Person; and Civic Space
(Auditorium) = 0.11 gpd/SF.
