Danessa Techmanski_RedactedFrom: Danessa Techmanski ]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 201811:24 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office
<CityAttorney@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Comments For Vallco NOP
Dear Cupertino Planning Department,
I have several comments regarding the NOP for the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan,
File Number EQ -2017-05
1) A detailed water supply study should be done to assess any associated
environmental impacts for the life -time of the project with special attention given to
likely future drought situations. Also, I do not believe that the Donald Sommer's Plant
will be enough to supply the project as other developments tap into the purple pipe
earlier up the road. If the green roof is built it is going to need its own water supply.
2) There is currently a 12" sanitary sewer line servicing Vallco. Will that be enough to
handle such an increase in density to the site when combined with storm water and
surrounding developments?
3) How will groundwater filtration be affected by all of the cement, building and paved
areas at Vallco.
4) Environmental impacts from the Apple 2 Campus and the Steven's Creek Urban
Village (approved) must also be taken into account (at full planned capacity).
5) Careful consideration should be taken in removing soil where the old Sears
Automotive or any other potentially contaminated sites are located.
6) I was quite surprised to find a completely different description of the Vallco Plan in
alternative number two at the scoping session as was printed in Cupertino Today:
"According to Cupertino Senior Planner Piu Ghosh, "the General Plan currently allows
residential development at the site of up to 35 dwelling units per acre." According to
City calculations revealed at the scoping session, the "General Plan build -out"
(alternative 2) will have approximately 2,600 or 2,640 housing units. However, using the
formulas that include the state density bonus, the City's ballpark estimate of residential
will likely increase to upwards of 2,800 residential units."
https://cupertinotoday.com/2018/03/01/vallco-2640-homes-5-million-sq-ft-development/
Where on earth did that come from? As far as residents knew we were looking at
roughly 380-800 housing units.This sounds like an entirely different project altogether!
7) The proposed project seems totally inconsistent with the General Plan:
a) The Proposed project is not a "destination for shopping, dining, and
entertainment at only 16% retail.
b) The Proposed project does not match the Housing Element in our General
Plan. It would create almost 7,000 new jobs, but only 800 residential units digging us
much deeper into the housing deficit hole.
8) There should be a fair and realistic assessment of how the residential will impact the
local schools, especially in light of the new Steven' Creek Urban Villages.
9) Traffic numbers or VMT's should include everything related to Vallco, including
customers, combined with the potential impacts of the Steven's Creek Urban Villages
since those are already approved, plus impacts from Apple 2 at full occupancy. Special
consideration should be taken near 280 and at clogged off and onramps where idling
cars will produce high rates of prolonged exhaust.
10) Parking is already a serious problem in the area according to this article:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/22/parking-restrictions-proposed-for-front-of-
cupertino-condo-complex/
11)The Steven's Creek Urban Villages again must be taken into consideration because I
believe they are planning on only .63 parking spaces per unit. Inadequate parking at
Vallco will kill any businesses that locate there or those existing at Main Street and
people WILL park in the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses if parking space is
insufficient.
12) Careful precautions must be taken to protect the surrounding neighborhoods during
demolition and construction from traveling debris in the wind that could contain
harmful chemicals and substances.
13) Building housing next to the freeway should consider the potential detrimental
impacts of being located adjacent to a traffic clogged freeway. This are should not be
used for low income housing as those people are much less likely to have good access to
healthcare or legal representation. Please take the following from USC (one of many
similar studies) into consideration. People suffering from exhaust related illnesses are a
growing astronomical cost to insurance and therefore to the general public.
http://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/infog_raphics/infog_raphic-living-near-busv-roads-or-
traffic-pollution/references-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic-pollution
14) As for the green roof, I would like to see an entire special task force to determine it's
impacts and possible negative consequences. We are potentially talking about people's
lives here if it were to collapse. Also, any green roof should not be considered to suffice
as a public green space or park space from my understanding of city documents.
Thank you sincerely for your time and attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski