Loading...
Kitty Moore - 3-11-2018 11-15 a.m. - Comments for VallcoComments for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report NOP File Number EA- 2017-05 Contents Potentialto Cease EIR Mid -Stream: ............................................................................................... 2 Similarity of "Proposed Project" to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should DisqualifyIt.................................................................................................................................... 3 General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: ................................. 3 Insufficient and Conflicting Information Presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible "Proposed Project" due to Inconsistency with General Plan & InitiativeVote Results............................................................................................................. 19 Proposed Project and Project Alternatives:................................................................................... 20 ProposedProject: .......................................................................................................................... 20 Alternativesto Project: ............................................................................................................ 22 Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall is Not "No Project".............................................................. 23 Alternative B is Not Consistent with the General Plan .................................................... 23 Alternative C is Insufficiently Described — May be inconsistent ................................................. 24 Conclusions: .................................................................................................................................. 24 Table of Proposed Project and Alternatives:...................................................................... 25 Comments For Environmental Impact Report Given Proposed Project and Alternatives A -D ... 26 1 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.AppAth , 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. 2 Similarity of "Proposed Project" to Failed Ballot Initiative Measure D, Nov. 8, 2016 Should Disqualify It The Vallco Measure D Initiative is described in the following: CITY ATTORNEY'S BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 and would consist of: • 2,000,000 SF office • 640,000 SF retail • 191 additional hotel rooms, bringing the site total to 339 hotel rooms • 389 residential units with a Conditional Use Permit bringing the total to 800 residential units The November 8, 2016 Election results for Measure D were 55% No. Advertising for the initiative obscured the office and focused on the retail portions. The actual square footage percentages for the Measure D Initiative were: • 56% office • 22% residential • 16% retail • 6% hotel Notice these above percentages result in 84% non -retail uses and would be a majority office park. The "Proposed Project" for the EIR has less retail (600,000 SF) and other uses the same as Measure D. The EIR process is not intended to be a disregard of the city's General Plan to "try out" alternative concepts which have no consistency with the General Plan. This creates a great deal of confusion and distrust. General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan: This section amasses the multiple sections of the General Plan which reference the Vallco Shopping District and describe what it is planned to become. Refer to: Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: In Chapter 2 of the Cupertino General Plan Vision 2040: Planning Areas: Vallco Shopping District is described as: "...Cupertino's most significant commercial center..." and that "...Reinvestment is needed ... so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community." It is referred to as a "shopping district", not an office park, or a residential community. Following is the actual page from the General Plan describing Vallco Shopping District: 3 C51APYER Z' PLANNIN4 AREA5 • - - ' . ' .. - : r ! ... - r .- _ _ VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT CONTEXT The Vallco Shopping District Speciat Area encompasses Cupertino's most significant commercial center, formerly known as the Vallco Fashmn Park. This Speciat Area is located between Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard in the eastern part of the city_ The North Blaney neighborhood, an established single-family area. is adjacent on the west side of the Valk❑ Shopping District. Wolfe Road bisects the area in a north -south direction, and divides Vallco Shopping District into distinct subareas: Vallco Shopping District Gateway West and Vallco Shopping District Gateway East. In recent years there has been some fayade improvement to the Vatteo Fashion lvtall; however, there has been no major reinvestment in the mall for decades. Reinvestment is needed to upgrade or replace older buildings and make other improvements so that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community. Currently, the major tenants of the malt inctude a movie theater, bowling alley and three national retailers. The Vallco Shopping district is identified as a separate Speciat Area given its prominence as a regional commercial destination and its importance to future planning/redevelopment efforts expected over the life of the General Plan. VISION The Vallco Shopping District will continue to function as a major regional and community destination. The City envisions this area as a new mixed-use "town €enter" and gateway for Cupertino. It wilt itictude an interconnected street grid network of bicycle and pedestrian -friendly streets, More pedestrian -oriented buildings witfr active uses lining Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, and publicly -accessible parks and plazas that support the pedestrian• oriented feel of the revitalized area. New development in the Vallco Shopping District should be required to provide buffers between adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the farm of boundary walls, setbacks. landscaping or building transitions. M PA -9 M Figure I VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA DIAGRAM 11 Vallco Shopping District is further described in the General Plan Vision 2040 Land Use Element through goals, policies, and strategies: GOAL LU -19 Create a distinct and memorable mixed-use "town center" that is a regional destination and a focal point for the community VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use "town center" that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley. POLICY LU -19.1: SPECIFIC PLAN Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan prior to any development on the site that lays out the land uses, design standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements required. The Specific Plan will be based on the following strategies: STRATEGIES: LU -19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment will require a master developer in order remove the obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the highest levels of urban design. LU -19.1.2: Parcel Assembly. Parcel assembly and a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required prior to adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future. LU -19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The "town center" plan should be based on complete redevelopment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be planned to carry out the community vision. LU -19.1.4: Land Use. The following uses are allowed on the site (see Figure LU -2 for residential densities and criteria): 1. Retail: High -performing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses. 2. Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference center and active uses including main entrances, lobbies, retail and restaurants on the ground floor. 3. Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail and active uses on the ground floor. Encourage a mix of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active "town center" environment. 4. Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged in a pedestrian - oriented street grid with active uses on the ground floor, publicly -accessible streets and plazas/green space. Table - Development Allocation BetweenI I 1 current buih ION }Si1a builduut available curmni huiLt Ilk, }JO I&F lh WU&d available current built 0.7.M it buildout iWaitahle currant Witt I6e4 UNII1 buildout avaiLable Heart of the City 1,351,130 114,50DD 793,270 2,447,500 $,166,613 17,113 404 526 122 1,336 11605 469 Vallco shopping Diatrid^ 1,207,774 120,773# - - 2,000,6DU 2,0010,00D 118 339 191 - 389 389 Homestead 291,406 291,469 - 69,557 69,550 - 136 126 - doll 758 ISO N- Oe Anza 56,705 56,706 - 2,051 ,021 2,081,DZ1 - 126 126 - 49 1216 97 N.Vallca 133,147 133,147 - 3,069,676 3,069,676 - 123 123 - 554 1154 60D S. De Anxa 352,253 352,253 - 130,765 136,705 - 315 315 - 6 6 - Bubb - - - 444,753 444,153 - - - - - - - Menta Vista 'fllage 94,051 99,695 S,641 4#3,146 4S03S 13,595 - - - 525 578 5D Other 144,964 144964, - 119,696 119,896 - - - - 18,039 18,166 127 Major EmpLoyers - - 1 D9,935 633,853 523.118 - - - - - - Citywide 3,632,065 4,4311,982 796,917 8,916,179 11,470,D(I5 2,553826, 1116 1429 313 21,412 23,294 1,862 ^3udeLusJar 01keand Res,deorlai..M)LAOD wrth P the Vd&0 SbopprDg a. rrrcrarecmi operzrpw..Speck Ran teing adopted for r71rs area by May3r, 2D r&. if a Specific Pap's naradoamobymarease,Cay*;rica,mderrraerL=vara1I"Cfk' andResrdertrararwrarwrrxAaruaruoShoppuigLt'carrel.SertheFkusrngfre,�ien1fthaprer61faraddrrwrrar;rrAarrnatba grad MQrmrmrvvrrs w;thvr rrae Warks Shappuig ❑;srnrr. Figure 2 - "General Plan Table LU -1 " M CHAVY ER 3 - LAW 11 US AN 11 Ci3MMI1 NrTV bE516N ELEMENT Legend Speciat Areas Homestead North VaUcn park Heart of the City © North De Anza South Oe Anza r Monta Vista Village Q Bubb Road VaLlca Shopping District Figure 3 — "General Plan Figure LU -2" Neighborhoods Neighborhoods 1111111 Hillside Transition — — Urban Service Area r..r... Sphere of Influenoe ••.••. Urban Transition -- City Roundary Boulevards Wterlalsj Avenues IMajor CoLlertorsl Avenues IMmor GoLteclorsi Key Intersections Neighborhood Centers Maximum Residenti at nen sity Lip to 35 units per aorre per General Plan Land Use Map 15 units per acre jsouth-east corner of Homestead Road and Blaney Ave n uQ Maximum Haight 30 feet, or 45 feet 1—m eao bQ+ w Anraam 5iaiie.0 North VaLtito Park Spaclai Area Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 ieel Heart of the City Special Area Maximum Residential Omr;ity 25 or 2.5 L—wa,a units per acre Maximum Height 45 feel, ar 301act where designated byhatched line BeNorth Anza Speciat Area Maximum ResMdentlal Density 25 uilits per acre Maximum Haight 65 feet r : , Maximum Residential llangity 251 1•rEO,i- or 5.15mwnor115!ueltsperacre Maximum Height 30 feel Monta Vista V311age Special Area Maximum Residential Density up to 15 units per ac=re per GeneraLplain Land use Map Maximum Haight Up 10 3G feet Bubb Road Special Area Maximum Residential neasity 20 unite per gtre Maximum Height 45 feet Vattro Shopping District Special Area West of 1Nnlfe Rd East of Wolfe Rd Maximum Residential Density Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre 35 units per acre Maximum Height Maxlmtim�Holght Per Specific Plan Per Speclfit Plan Neighborhoods Maximum Residents al Density As 4nd lcated 1n the Genera; Plan Land Ilse Map; 15 units per at re far Heighhorhood Commercial Sitar Maximum Height 30 feel General Plan Housing Element n H-21 "Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE -5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE -5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District site (Site A2). The redevelopment of Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community's needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014-2022 Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of "Scenario B" in Appendix B - Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments; however the Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre." Page B-116 of General Plan Appendix B Housing Element Technical Report: SITE A2 (VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT): "The site is designated Regional Shopping/Office/Residential in the General Plan and zoned Planned Development with Regional Shopping and Commercial (P[Regional Shopping and P[CG]). Strategy HE -1.3.1 provides that the City will adopt a Specific Plan for the Vallco site by May 31, 2018 that would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The zoning for the site would be modified as part of the Specific Plan process to allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development at a maximum density of 35 units per acre. If the Specific Plan is not adopted, the City will schedule hearings consistent with Government Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco Shopping District as a Priority Housing Site and replacing it with the sites shown in Scenario B." 5.5. RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY - SCENARIO B As noted above, one particular site identified in Scenario A will involve substantial coordination for redevelopment (Vallco Shopping District, Site A2). Due to the magnitude of the project, the City has established a contingency plan to meet the RHNA if a Specific Plan is not adopted by May 31, 2018. This contingency plan (referred to here as Scenario B and shown on Figure B-8), involves the City removing Vallco Shopping District, adding more priority sites to the inventory, and also increasing the density/allowable units on other priority sites. Four of the sites discussed in Scenario A above are also included in Scenario B, with some modifications to density and realistic capacity on two of these sites. Two additional sites are added to the inventory, one of which was included in the 2007-2014 Housing Element sites inventory. Priority Housing Element Sites: Scenario Applicable if Vallco Specific Plan is adopted by May 31, 2018 If Vallco Specific Plan is not adopted by May 31, 2018,111he designated Priority Housing Element Sites will be as shown in General Plan Appendix B, Section 5.5: Residential Sites Inventory - Scenario B. C North Vallco Park: \ 600 Units s�a�na� '. Los Altos Tem napping District: a 394 Units 1Jr �a.E w—r samacaa �LJ�l /auHs� ~•` 1 Heart of the S -J.. City: 411 Units tiJ J Legend F--- 7 City Boundary — Ho using Elements Sites ----- Urban Service Area Boundary VTA Priority — — Sphere Dt Influence nevelopment Area --- Boundary Agreement Line IPDA) Site Number: Oninco rpo rated Areas Realistic Ca paci[y. H ® o i000 �oo0 3000 FeeHHin u Special Areas OHeart fthe City O North Vallco Park 0 Vallco Shopping❑istrirt Figure 4 — "General Plan Figure HE -1 " 10 "Figure HE- I indicates the available residential development opportunity sites to meet and exceed the identified regional housing need pursuant to the RHNA. The opportunity sites can accommodate infill development of up to 1,400 residential units on properties zoned for densities of 20 dwelling units to the acre or more. The potential sites inventory is organized by geographic area and in particular, by mixed use corridors. As shown in Table HE -5, sites identified to meet the near-term development potential lie within the North Vallco Park Special Area, the Heart of the City Special Area, and the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. One particular site will involve substantial coordination for redevelopment (Vallco Shopping District, Site A2). Due to the magnitude of the project, the City has established a contingency plan to meet the RHNA if a Specific Plan is not approved within three years of Housing Element adoption. This contingency plan (called Scenario B and discussed further in General Plan Appendix B), would involve the City removing Vallco Shopping District, adding more priority sites to the inventory, and also increasing the density/allowable units on other priority sites." "DETERMINATION OF REALISTIC CAPACITY Sites inventory capacity must account for development standards such as building height restrictions, minimum setbacks, and maximum lot coverage, as well as the potential for non-residential uses in mixed-use areas. A survey of recent developments (Table 5.2) indicates that recent multi -family residential projects have built to between 82 percent and 99.5 percent of the maximum allowable density. To ensure that the sites inventory provides a "realistic capacity" for each site, estimates for maximum developable units on each site are conservatively reduced by 15 percent." 11 Sunnyvale ELLAN RD 105PECT RD North Vallco Pa rk: 600 Units 1 "MESTEAD ROAD f: Hampton 6D0units Vallco Shopping (t 3 x: vainKDistrict: 389 unit;389 Units / I NIP05-�L-- TEVENS CREEK BLVD �. 4- I.4arin anD�nlL: F a r 4OLLINGER San Jose I Santa Clara . __3 A8: V."nl 11 units Ir Q , Heart of the City: 411 Units Legend F—I City Boundary Housing Elements —�— Urban Service Area Boundary VTA Priority Sphere of Influence Development Area Boundary Agreement Line s;te� Site Number: C Unincorporated Areas P units Realistic Capacity. 0 L1.5 1Mite NoEe: Rea Irs[.c ea pace y is genera I Ly 959E ai maximum capacl, a Specla 0 1000 z000 3DOD Feet Heart of the City a 500 s o0o Meters North Vallco Park Vallco Shopping District Figure S — "General Plan Figure HE -1 Zoomed in" 12 Applicable if Vallco Specific Plan is adopted by May 31, 2018 If Vallco Specific Plan is not adopted by May 31, 2018, the designated Priority Housing Element Sites will be as shown in General Plan Appendix B. Section 5.5: Residential Sites Inventory - Scenario B. Horth Vallco Park: 6130 Un Its L S.innrvak L JlVallca Shopping District - 3 '°'re 389 Units ,Y �� ee ,■_S I Sante [len uI 11 WY J Heart of the 5- Jnae CRY_ 611 Units Legend City Boundary Housing Elements Sites ----- Urban Service Area Boundary VTAA Priority - Sphere nt lniluence Development Area -- Boundary Agreement Li ne (PD SiteN Site Number: Ilnincorporaled Areas Reali slit Capacily- ycq��rnrr�M 0 o.s A LW Spe«m...,., cial rea As o loco soon 3WeFW ® o soo A000woarx Heart of the City North Vallco Park Q Vallco Shopping district Figure 6 — "General Plan Figure B-7: Priority Housing Element Sites Scenario A" 13 APPENODI B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT I genet"r.l [:la fl i.cOrl-.nl 1, nil lV •/i siorl [(11!7 2.)4Ii� Applicable if Vallco Specific Plan is not adopted by May 31, 2018. Los Ahos Homestead: North Vallco 132 Units Park: Sunnyvale 750 Units _—.��n ,f 5an[aclara 4 ---- ------ ----- `y Heart of the Sa"J°m laity: 504 Units � I 1 1 1 I � I 1 i Legend City Boundary Housing Elements Sites ----- Urban Service Area Boundary VTA Priori ty Sphere of Influence Development Area [PDA) Bo and ary Ag regiment Li ne Site Number: Unincorporated Areas Realistic Capacity. 0 0.5 lw° Sp ec ial A reasiNi ighborhoods T 0 "co F 'M0 F -t G sou 10W M-- Heart of the City Q North Vallco Park Homestead Figure 7 — "General Plan Figure B-8 Priority Housing Element Sites Scenario B" 14 APPENWX B:HODSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT I _ - Site Al (The Hamptons) High Density 85 12.44 600 P(Res) Site A2 (VaItro Shopping District) Site A31The Oaks Shopping Center) Site A4 (Marina Plaza) Site A5 19arry Swenson) Total RS/01R P(Regional Shoppingh & P(CG) (a1 CIR P(CG. Res) CIDIR P(CG, Res) CIDIR P(CG, Res) 35 58.7 30 7.9 35 6.86 25 0.55 96.51 Very Low/Low 384 Very LnwlLow 200 Very LowlLow 200 Very LowlLow 11 Very LowfLow 1.400 Notes: !a1 Zoning to be determined by Specific Plan to allow residential uses. !b) Real+stic capacily tar Sites A 1. A3. A4 and A 5 reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent. Realistic capacity for Site A2 is the amount allocated m the site in the Housing Element; a specific plan will be required for Site A2 prior to any ne w development. (c) Identified capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 20 units peracre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)f31t81. local governments may utilize "default' density standards to provide evidence that appropriate zoning" is in place to support the de velopment of housing for very -foes and low-income households. The default density standard for Cupertino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara County is 20 dwelling units per acre MA) or more. !d) Residential copadty for Site A I reflecls the net orrease in units. Source City of Cupertino, 2074 Figure 8 — "General Plan Table 5.3: Summary of Priority Housing Sites — Scenario A" Notice that Figures B-7 and HE -1, Table LU -1, Table HE -5 show Vallco Shopping District with 389 units and the Legend of both clearly state that the Site Number is Realistic Capacity with the note: "Realistic capacity is generally 85% of maximum capacity". That would mean that 389 units is 85% of Vallco Shopping District's maximum, which would be 457.6 units. Current zoning does not allow residential uses at Vallco, and as shown above, and would need to be modified: "The zoning for the site would be modified as part of the Specific Plan process to allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development..." p 116 General Plan Appendix B Housing Element Technical Report: http://www.cLjpertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12717 15 flgh density North Valtno 75 ft; or 60 ft in certain locations'; Site A] Iihe HamptonsI Piftes) Park bUU nef RSId+R Valga height Lo be determined inVaLl€o Site A2 IVallc❑ Shopping Distr{ctl PERegaonaL Shopping) & IS�CGI shopQirig 35 Shopping district Specific Plan 389 bistrirt 45 ft Sete A3 lihe Oaks Shopping C+R Heart of the 30 2UO Center) MG, Res) City Sate A4 Warina Plaaal COIR RCG_ Rest Heart of the 35 45 ft City 2UU Sete A5 Marry Swerasonl CICIR 131CG, Resl Heart of the 25 45 ft City IT Total 1,1.00 Notes: Zoning for Site A2 IVaLLco1 will he determined by SPecifu Plan io allow residential uses. Site Al (Hamptonsl heighl limit of 601ee1 is appLicabLe for buildings LOCated within 50 feet of property lines abutting Watle Rd, Pruneridge Ave. B Apple Campus 2 sate. Sete A2 IVaLlcol height will. be delermened by Sp2diic Pian. For more detaiL m height limits, see Land Use and Community design Element, Figure LLP -2. Figure 9 — "General Plan Table HE-%: Summary of Priority Housing Element Sites to Meet the RHNA — Scenartio A" 16 APPENDIX B' HORSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Site B1 (Hamptons} North Valtco Park I High Density 99(a) 12.44 750 Very LowlLow P(Res} Site B2 (The Oaks Shopping Heart of the City CIR 35 {h} 7.9 235 Very LowlLow Center) PICC, Res) Site B3 (Marina Plaza) Heart of the City CIDIR 35 6.86 200 Very LowlLow PI CG, Res) Site B4 (Barry Swenson) Heart of the City C101R 25 0.55 11 Very LowlLow PICC, Res) Site B5 (Glenhrook Heart of the City Medium Density 20 31.3 58 Very LowfLow Apartments) R 3{ 10 -2O} Site B6 (Homestead Lanes Homestead CIR (r) 35 (r) 5.1 132 Very LowILow and Adjacency; P(CG.Res) (ci Total 64.24 1,386 Site Bb (Carl Berg property) North De Anza CfIICfR 25 7.98 169 Very LowlLow MG, ML. Res) -total I 87.31 1318 Notes. WA General Plan Amendcment and zoning change wrlf be ncessary m allow the rmcrease in density from 85 to 99 unrfs per arre on Site 9f. WA General Plan Amendment and zoning change will be necessary to allow the rncrease in density from 3D to 35 units per arre en Site 92. (0A General Plan Amendment and zoning change wilt be necessary to allow residential uses at 35 units per acreon 5ite 86_ Exisfing zoning for Site 96 is P(Rec. Enter). (d) pealrshc capacity reduces the maximum developable units by 15 perrent on Sites Bl, 92, 93, 84, and Ed. Reahstk capacity of Site 951s (d)reduced by 46 percent due to existing site constraints. (e) Identified capacity ofsftes that allow developmen t dmsrtres of o t least 20 unils per acre are credited toward the lower-racome RHNA based am State Iasi Pursuant to Government Code 5ertion 65583.2(c)(3)(6), focal governments may ulilfze 'default"density standards to provide evidence that "appropriate zoning"is in place to support the development of housing for very -low and fow income households. the default density standard for Cupertino and other suburban jurrsdktrons in Santa Clara County is 20 dwetfing unils per acre (QUA) cr mare. (f) Realistic caparity for sites Bt and 95 represent net new units. Saurre; City ofCupertino, 2614 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. 17 Extremely Low and Very Low 1.386 356 LOW -- 2a7 Moderate -- 196 Above Moderate -- 243 Total 1,386 1,11€32 -284 Source, City of Cupertino, 20 f4 As discussed in the Needs Assessment, the 2013 Santa Mara Count} Homeless Survey identified 112 homeless individuals on the streets and in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and domestic violence shelters in the city of Cupertino. The homeless facilities in Cupertino have a capacity to house 20 individuals. As a result, there is a need to accommodate at least 92 more homeless individuals in the City. There are several underutilized parcels within the BQ zone that could accommodate a permanent emergency shelter that serves 92 or more individuals. In particular, a number of churches in BO zones own more land than they currently use. Surplus lands owned by churches include large parking lots and recreational spaces like fields and tennis courts. There are at least five parcels with approximately 154,000 square feet of vacant land in the BO zone that could accommodate a permanent emergency shelter. These sites range from 19,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 31,000 square feet. Parcels of this size would he able to accommodate a permanent emergency shelter that meets the needs of Cupertino. Those parcels with surplus land area in the BO zone are primarily located on or near Cupertino's main arterial corridors, providing for easy access to public transportation and essential services. In total. 12 bus lines and 131 Figure 11— Scenario B, the Alternative Insufficient and Conflicting Information Presented in NOP EIR Scoping Meeting, with Infeasible "Proposed Project" due to Inconsistency with General Plan & Initiative Vote Results Consistency Requirement with the General Plan The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by law. Ca GC 65450-65457: The specific elan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. hqp://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific plans.pdf h!tps:Hle ing fo.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.AppAth 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. 19 Proposed Project and Project Alternatives: A resident of Cupertino spoke to the Fehr + Peers representative during the EIR Scoping Meeting February 22, 2018 regarding the `housing heavy' option and was told that option would have "around 4, 000 units. " During the slide show presentation the following slides were shown for the project and the alternatives: Proposed Project: -'-rProposed Project The current General Plan allows: • 600,000 s.f. of commercial • 2,000,000 s.f. of office • 339 hotel rooms • 800 residential units Figure 12 Figure 2 During the presentation, recorded here: https:Hyoutu.be/kb89OhlWU_O 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 20 The General Plan refers to Vallco Shopping District as: "... a vibrant mixed-use "town center" that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." The Square footage amounts would result in primarily office, then residential, then commercial, then hotel: 2,000,000 SF, approximately 961,622 SF (using the Measure D Initiative Square Footage for then proposed 800 units as listed in the "Vallco Specific Plan Initiative Environmental Assessment," 600,000 SF retail, and approximately 500,000 SF hotel. The hotel total is approximate due to part of the hotel allotment being currently under construction at Hyatt House and 277,332 SF of hotel was mentioned in the Vallco Specific Plan Initiative Environmental Assessment for the remaining 191 hotel rooms available in the allotments. The "Proposed Project" would result in an even smaller percentage of retail than the failed Measure D percentage: 16%. There appears to be no City Council support for 2 million SF of office at Vallco. As stated earlier, the EIR may be stopped, and the reason to stop it would be that it is both inconsistent with the General Plan, and has insufficient support from the city leaders or the community. Retail has definite requiring language regarding Vallco. None of the other parts have more than "encourage". Residential says "allow". The Land use portion language is not solidly stating anything is required except for retail. Following this logic, having the 2 Million SF office allotment is inconsistent with the GP language because building that would cause the site to be an office destination with some retail. The GP EIR studied 600,000 SF retail, 2 Million SF office, 800 residential units, and 339 hotel rooms. The adopted Scenario A in the GP has 389 units. 35 DU/Ac was not an allotment but a density maximum for the 389 units on the site in those parts of the mixed use area which would allow housing. Alternative Scenario B has no housing at Vallco. The Housing Element supports that Vallco could have 389 units, and refers to those unit quantities as "realistic capacity" in Table HE -5 (above). The General Plan adopted "Scenario A" allotments for Vallco and stated that it would fall to Scenario B should a Specific Plan not be adopted by May 31, 2018. As shown in the above section "General Plan Directive to Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan", Vallco was never shown in any portion of the General Plan having more than 339 residential units. A reasonable person ("reasonable person" from: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific plans.pdf) would conclude that Vallco was never intended to be a heavy housing site and the General Plan provided Scenario B with other sites available for housing with zero housing at Vallco. The Vallco site was described in the General Plan as: "... a vibrant mixed-use "town center" that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley." While the Vallco owner may wish for something else, that would have to follow a different process such as a General Plan Amendment. 21 The goals, policies, and strategies to achieve this vision in the General Plan Land Use section support residential as subordinate to other uses. Additionally, the 2 million SF of office completely frustrates the General Plan Housing Element Goal of providing adequate housing by generating an excess of employment. 2 million SF of office space would result in 1 employee per 300 SF or 6,667 new employees which far exceeds the number of residential units being studied. This is a project adjacent to 14,200 employees expected at Apple Park which has no onsite housing and 942 residential units planned in an expanded Hamptons complex, increased that complex by 600 residential units. This explains why there is scant support for 2 million SF of office at Vallco. While Sand Hill requested that a much denser housing option be studied at Vallco, and that a mix between Measure D and a housing heavy option also be studied, neither of these options are consistent with the General Plan nor do they lessen the impacts of the "Proposed Project" which is a CEQA requirement. Attempting to include a reallocation of allotments in and among other sites is beyond the scope of a Vallco Specific Plan and the General Plan. When office or any other allotment is pulled from the General Plan and placed in the city "pool" it results in an alteration of the General Plan. These options were not studied in the General Plan EIR. Alternatives to Project: "The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project or to the location of a Project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." EIR Alternatives • CEQA requires study of alternatives. These may include: • Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall • General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix) • Retail and Residential (No office) Figure 13 22 The EIR Alternatives were listed as: • Occupied Re -Tenanted Mall • General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential Density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix) • Retail and Residential (No office) Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall is Not "No Project" CEQA alternatives require the "no project" alternative: "NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate a "No Project" alternative. The purpose of this alternative is to "allow decision -makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project." This alternative analysis compares the environmental effects of the project site remaining in its existing condition against environmental effects that would occur if the proposed project were approved." The mall has been gradually closed by the owners over the past few years, most recently announcing the departure of AMC theaters. The occupancy rate of the mall in 2014 was 66% according to Appendix 7 Table 2 City of Cupertino 9212 Report for Vallco Specific Plan `Measure D' and had taxable sales of $99,060,000 based on actual performance. AMC will close in March, 2018. (Traffic analysis must occur after their departure.) A "re -tenanted mall" would be an alternative apart from and substantially different to "no project" since the mall has been largely shuttered and the owner has allowed other uses: automobile dealership car storage, Genentech and other shuttle bus commuter parking and transit pickup on the site, with Bay Club gym, Bowlmor lanes, the ice rink, Dynasty restaurant, and new remodeling of the Food Court for Fremont Union High School District classroom use either remaining or upcoming. These conditions are "no project", not a re -tenanted mall. A re - tenanted mall would be a fourth alternative to project. Alternative B is Not Consistent with the General Plan The second alternative on the EIR Alternatives Slide, Figure 2, "Alternative B" was described as "General Plan Buildout with Maximum Residential density (2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix)" At 8:48 in the recording, linked above, it was stated that the residential `may have approximately 2,600 to 2, 640 residential units in addition to office and retail and hotel space'. This alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan. Vallco Shopping District in no part of the General Plan was ever described as a housing complex nor were housing totals ever in any vicinity of these amounts. The General Plan consistently shows 389 residential units as the realistic capacity any only by inference could a higher capacity 23 of 457.6 residential units be determined. When I attended the meeting, I did not hear the residential densities spoken and only learned of them through a news blog. In no mailings were these quantities given, and they are not listed on the city website. This is insufficient information describing the project since the slide shows no proposed sizes or any information as to what the non-residential mix could possibly have in it. Given the abundance of office at Apple Park (3.7 million SF with expected 14,200 employees), the variations in "the mix" can cause huge environmental impacts. A reasonable person would find this proposed alternative `housing heavy' option not consistent with the general plan. Alternative C is Insufficiently Described — May be inconsistent Lastly, the third alternative was listed as "Retail and Residential (No office)." This alternative, "Alternative C," had no quantity either on the slide or spoken about for either retail or residential and omits the hotel room and office allotments from the General Plan. This proposed alternative `retail and residential' is described too insufficiently to determine if it could potentially avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant negative effects of the "Proposed Project", or not. Conclusions: 1. The "Proposed Project" does not appear to be consistent with the General Plan because it is an office park with over 84% non -retail use when the project is detailed as the "Vallco Shopping District." 2. The "Proposed Project" frustrates the General Plan goal to balance employment with housing by providing a gross excess of jobs to housing. 3. Cupertino Ballot Measure D, a similar proposal to "Proposed Project", was placed before voters and was rejected 55%. This project, with the high office square footage has scant support and would likely be rejected by City Council. 4. "No Project" would be a fourth alternative, Occupied/Re-tenanted mall is not the same as "No Project" 5. Alternative B, with conflicting 2,600-4,000 residential units, is inconstant with the General Plan. 6. Alternative C is too insufficiently described to determine if is consistent with the General Plan. Portions of the mixed uses were eliminated, which seems inconsistent. 7. For the above reasons, the EIR process must be halted for a replacement "Proposed Project" which is consistent with the General Plan. 24 Table of Proposed Project and Alternatives: Alternative Retail Office Proposed 600,000 SF 2,000,000 SF Project Alternative A: 1,207,774 SF Occupied/ Re -tenanted mall Alternative B: (2/3 residential, 1/3 non- residential mix) Alternative C: Retail and Residential (no office) Unknown. General Plan states 600,000 SF Min. No amount stated: General Plan states 600,000 SF minimum, 30% maximum may be entertainment. Buildout amount is 1,207,774 SF, (assumed maximum) (25% of total Allowed in retail) Unknown. General Plan states no minimum Residential 800 units 0 units Unclear: 2,600- 4,000 units. General Plan shows realistic capacity: 389 units. Hotel 339 hotel rooms 148 hotel rooms (Hyatt House) 148 min. -339 maximum hotel rooms 0 office No amount 148 min. -339 stated, General maximum hotel Plan realistic rooms capacity: 389 units Alternative D: Approximately 0 office 0 units 148 hotel rooms No Project 400,000 SF (Hyatt House) (CEQA currently Requirement) occupied out of 1,207,774 SF total 25 Comments For Environmental Impact Report Given Proposed Project and Alternatives A -D I. Proposed Project EIR Topics and Problems a. Proposed Project is inconsistent with the General Plan. i. Proposed Project is not a "...destination for shopping, dining, and entertainment..." as described in the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element The site is not described as being for a "Major Employer" under the "Major Employer" definition. ii. Proposed Project frustrates the General Plan Housing Element Goals and policies to provide adequate housing by creating over 6,667 new jobs and providing 800 residential units. iii. EIR Proposed Projects must be consistent with the General Plan. Infeasibility is a measurement of consistency. Measure D, with 640,000 SF retail, 2,000,000 SF office, 800 residential units, and 339 hotel rooms was opposed by 55% in the November 8, 2016 vote. This Proposed Project has inadequate support for the office quantity. The EIR should be stopped for a replacement "Proposed Project" consistent with the General Plan and feasible. b. Proposed Project will cause significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic. See General Plan 2040 EIR, excerpts are included in the Appendix, Traffic Studies section. The impacts are primarily on the east side of Cupertino compounding the effects of Apple Park when it fully occupies with 14,200 employees. i. Multiple projects including 239 acre "City Place" in Santa Clara, Valley Fair Expansion, Google in Mountain View and Diridon Station have added tens of thousands of employees which were not studied nor anticipated in the EIR. The EIR for "City Place" indicates impacts into the Cupertino area and must be reviewed for the current "Proposed Project" EIR ii. San Jose's Envision 2040 EIR showed they would impact 73% of vehicle lane miles in Cupertino. This was not studied in the Cupertino General Plan 2040 EIR and must be included in the "Proposed Project" EIR. iii. Stevens Creek Urban Village has been approved. See Appendix "Stevens Creek Urban Village Overview" for details and overlap of that project and impacts on Cupertino 1. Existing Conditions: 1,624 dwelling units, 1.6 million SF commercial space, the city of San Jose assumed 5,281 current jobs. 2. Proposed increases: 3,860 dwelling units which could end up with an actual wide range of outcomes because NONE of their land use definitions have definite housing requirements and their General Plan had MAXIMUM housing not minimum. Stevens Creek Urban Village ("SCUV") was to be a commercial area primarily, born out of the Great Recession need for jobs. Jobs: 4,500 jobs. 26 3. Stevens Creek Urban Village is approximately 3 miles long and is only the South Side of Stevens Creek Boulevard 4. Students would need to be relocated from Cupertino High School which is at capacity. The bus line currently has a simple east -west route for these students currently in the SCUV area. Traffic impacts due to relocation, air quality impacts from students in routes requiring a bus change or now needing to drive must be studied along with students displaced by the "Proposed Project" iv. Impacts of Apple Park's bus service must be included. The parking shortfall in Apple Park will require an approximate 3,500 employee increase in ridership over the 1,600 employee riders which were last reported using the private shuttle system. 10% of Apple employees live in Cupertino according to their DEIR for Apple Campus 2. v. Various different percentages of uses must be studied separately with a comparison chart of expected traffic daily trips. For instance, expect a maximum amount of restaurants like Main Street Cupertino, which is about 65% restaurants. A gym, movie theater, bowling alley, regulation size hockey rink (tournament potential), wedding banquet hall, all generate different amounts of traffic. The previous Environment Study for Measure D lumped all uses under "retail" which results in a low total. This would be unacceptable. vi. Baseline Counts: baseline counts for the project have definite requirements under CEQA. The previous Environmental Study for Measure D calculated assumed baseline traffic generated using an assumed mall occupancy of 83% which was not true at the time of the study. AMC has a departure date in March 2018. Tube counts for baseline could be needed after they close because that is the new "No Project" condition. Any disallowed uses at the mall should not be included in current traffic counts but removed. vii. Traffic impacts from student generation in "Proposed Project" must be studied. "Butcher's Corner's" project at Wolfe Rd. and El Camino Boulevard in Sunnyvale has units with 5 bedrooms. Main Street Cupertino has one bedroom units over 1,750 SF. Student generation rates from large apartments would be very high and will need to hold up to scrutiny. a. Part H. District Student Yield Factor (To be completed b school districts only.) Report the district's Student Yield Factor as defi ned in Section 1859.2, if diff erent than the statewide average Student Yield Factors. The statewide average Student Yield Factors are as follows: b. Elementary School District .......... 0.5 students per dwelling unit High School District ..................... 0.2 students per dwelling unit Unifi ed School District ................. 0.7 27 students per dwelling unit Should the district wish to use its own Student Yield Factor, a copy of the district's study that justifies the Student Yield Factor must be submitted with this form. Please see the General Information section for additional instructions. c. Cupertino Union School District's report of student generation rates do not hold up to scrutiny because low student apartments, and those near heavy current or future construction were selected: projecting the Hills at Vallco (same 800 units as "Proposed Project"): i. Elementary (K-5): 0.19 ii. Middle (6-8): 0.09 iii. High School (FUHSD): 0.06 iv. New SGRs must be calculated using the Gateway/Archstone Apartments and even apartments along Stevens Creek Boulevard in the SCUV area which better reflect student generation potentials, particularly if low income housing is offered making the apartments very attractive to families. d. SB 50 allows for various impacts to be studied from a development which impacts schools. The application of SB 50 is explained by attorneys retained by the city here: i. https://cupertino.legistar.comNiew.ashx?M=F&ID =3388406&GUID=EC84D 162-9D05-4EF3-8EFC- BDC6CC2B517C ii. "Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction: 1. traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school; 2. dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities; 3. effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on wildlife at the construction site 4. effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality; 5. other "indirect effects" as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2) WV (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. c. Proposed Project has no height limits which can cause multiple effects, 160' is the assumed height. See Appendix, "Letters to and from City and Developer". i. Study shadows in a methodology equally stringent to Berkeley's Shadow study requirements. Times to study are based on sunrise and sunset, not 9am, 4 pm for example. Any rooftop amenities will be shown in the shadows including any rooftop landscaping or air conditioning. Renderings showing the site line blockage from the structures obstructing views from across the I-280 of the surrounding hills must be presented. Shadows cast onto the surrounding neighborhoods, likely shadows during evenings within the project. Temperature drops expected relative to non shaded areas. ii. Hyatt House hotel had a planned in -ground pool which may have months without sunlight due to "Proposed Project" shadows. iii. Apple Park issues in their comment letter to City, regarding the DEIR for the General Plan, in Appendix, must be addressed for the "Proposed Project": 1. Shadow sensitive areas 2. Light intrusion and glare 3. Preserve hillside views 4. Privacy and security needs (due to heights allowing a view in to the buildings) 5. Having suitable setbacks and buffers 6. Protect neighbor's privacy 7. "Placing 85 -foot residential towers immediately adjacent to Apple Campus 2 poses the same security concerns as a trail through the site." (Then surely a 160' Vallco campus would result in the same security concern.) d. Proposed Project will have impacts to air quality i. CEQA Article 9, Section 15125(d) allows us to ask that the EIR cover any inconsistencies between the Vallco Specific Plan and these plans.: 1. htti)s://www.arb.ca.Lov/planning/Dlan01/blanianO2.Ddf 2. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping,�plan_2017.pdf 3. http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/plannin-g and- research/plans/2017-clean-air-Dlan/attachment-a -proposed-final- cap-vol-1-pdf pdVla=en 4. Cover any inconsistencies between these above plans. CEQA Article 9, Section 15125(d): (d) The EIR shall discuss any 29 inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but are not limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan or State Implementation Plan, area -wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans and regional land use plans for the protection of the Coastal Zone, Lake Tahoe Basin, San Francisco Bay, and Santa Monica Mountain The above discrepancies could include, among other things: a. Environmental Justice Principles (placing low income renters or seniors next to a freeway) b. Sound Understanding of Health Effects c. Reduce or Eliminate Disproportionate Pollution Impacts — this project concentrates them, along with Apple Park, Main Street Cupertino, Hyatt House to one part of Cupertino disproportionately. d. Clean Air e. Clean Water f. Communities free from Toxic risk. 6. Impacts to Air Quality were discussed in the General Plan Amendment process: a. Significant unavoidable impacts start on I-13. i. "Impact AQ -1: Implementation of the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Final EIR finds that while the Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the buildout of the Project would conflict with the BAAQMD Bay Area Clean Air Plan goal for community -wide VMT to increase at a slower rate compared to population and employment growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of population and employment growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria air pollutant emissions in Cupertino. There are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Policies and development standards in the Project would lessen the impact, but due to the level of growth forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the Project, the impact would be significant and unavoidable." 30 ii. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID =33 88394&GUID=40D6F528-734D-4726-A2F9- A9lF34952C3E iii. The GHG lawsuit in San Jose should be reviewed for applicability in Cupertino. Air Quality GHG Writ of Mandate must be adhered to regarding San Jose's Envision 2040 EIR: hqps:Hd3n8a8]2ro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cleanenerg /Pages/22/attachments/original/1426349313/Order Re_ Petition_ for Writ_ of Mandate.pdP 142634931 3 "CCEC has argued (and the City did not dispute the calculations) that if present emissions data is compared to that allowed by the proposed General Plan update as required by Guidelines § 15064.4, GHG emissions will increase by 2.7 MNT or 36 percent by 2020 (from the approximate 2008 figure of 7.6 to the estimated 10.3). This is "substantially different information" that was not provided to the public. This failure to provide relevant information was prejudicial as the failure "deprived the public and decision makers of substantial relevant information about the project's likely adverse impacts." Smart Rail, supra, at 463." "That said, given that the failure to state the "present" GHG emissions affects the Project baseline and all comparisons and determinations made using the baseline, and the City's stated intention to tier other projects off this defective EIR, a limited order may not be possible." b. Impacts to air quality due to placement of the project on a major east -west corridor in Silicon Valley: the I-280. Project will significantly slow the freeway increasing air pollution to homes which would have been in areas without stopped traffic. The I-280 pm SB traffic is stopping further and further west. Air pollution generated from slowed and stopped traffic is much higher than that of free flowing traffic. The impacts of the difference in traffic speeds must be analyzed to determine the increases above baseline to be expected. c. Social Justice: The existing location of Vallco adjacent to the I-280 places project occupants within 1000' of a freeway with over 200,000 vehicles per day. If residents with an economic level below that of the average in 31 Cupertino are expected to live at Vallco, that would be a social justice issue. In essence placing poorer residents in harms' way intentionally. The negative effects of air pollution have been long known. It is also known that poorer people tend to have less adequate health care. Asthmatics from lower economic levels tend to end up in the emergency room and have longer hospital stays than those patients with higher levels of care. Santa Clara County has 257,000 asthmatics and asthma costs the state of California $11.3 billion annually. ii. Proposed Project may trap the dispersal of freeway pollution. If the `green roof concept returns, it will exacerbate the dispersion of the freeway line source pollution. This would not make the site acceptable for community use or for placing low income renters which is a social justice issue. iii. The green roof will need approximately 168,000 CY of soil which will need to be hauled up to areas 60'-160' up and soil will get blown to the adjacent residences. iv. Old construction like Vallco will likely have asbestos, lead, vermin, unaccounted for petroleum products leakage. When these are excavated the surrounding areas will have particulate matter blown their way. The interiors should be properly demolished to contain any asbestos or other carcinogens. e. Proposed Project Impacts to Water usage i. The Water Supply Assessment, WSA, report for the Hills at Vallco assumed only 20% restaurant use while the same developer has approximately 65% restaurants at their Main Street Cupertino project. Water use for restaurants is 10 TIMES that of retail. The new WSA report must take into account the likelihood of more than 50% restaurants in their water consumption calculations and base the calculations on predictions which hold up to scrutiny. ii. Existing water usage must be recalculated to account for the current gym, Dynasty restaurant, ice rink, bowling alley, upcoming FUHSD occupancy, departed AMC, and whatever uses are current. The previous WSA report can not be resubmitted without an update. iii. The WSA made the assumption that no toilets or faucets had been updated from old and therefore made no reduction in their flow calculations. Then reduced all proposed amounts by 25%. When the various water using parts of the mall had been remodeled over the years all of the outdated plumbing would have had to be updated to code. 1. Assumptions made in WSA: "For example, old toilets often exceed 2 gallons per flush. Later toilets use 1.6 gallons per flush. The latest water efficient toilets use only 0.6 gallons per flush. Depending on the reference toilet, the latest toilets achieve 62.5% to 70% reduction in 32 water use. In residential dwelling units, new dishwashers will be installed which use less water than older conventional machines, which use between 7 and 14 gallons per wash load. New water efficient dishwaters use between 4.5 and 7 gallons per wash load. Using an average of 10.5 gallons for conventional machines and 5.75 gallons for new water efficient machines results in an average savings of 4.75 gallons per load or a reduction of 45%. Showers with restricted flow heads have an average flow rate of 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm) versus conventional shower head flows of 2.5 gpm or a 20% reduction. Washing machines 18 years or older used 40 gallons per standard load versus new machines using only13 gallons per load or a reduction of 67.5%." 2. "Total Proposed Project estimated average daily potable water use: 597,486 gpd" — See WSD in Appendix: California SB 610 Water Supply Assessment. 3. The WSS for Main Street Cupertino would have been incorrect because the restaurants were underreported. iv. Impacts to air quality from potable water treatment must be calculated for such a substantial water demand. Water treatment generates air pollution. v. Impacts to air quality from recycled water treatment demand must be calculated. Wastewater treatment generates air pollution. vi. Lack of recycled water supply. 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 140-160' in the air. vii. Effects of wind and tilting the green roof towards the sun must be taken into account along with increased water needs establishing the 30 acre garden. f. Noise from project, project demolition, and project construction i. Sound walls must be constructed to reduce noise. Unacceptable noise levels from construction were already determined from the Environmental Study for Measure D. ii. Noise was inadequately studied for the interior of the project. Particularly from a social justice perspective, it is unacceptable to place low income renters in a high noise area. Likewise, seniors, and children, should not be placed in high noise areas. iii. Should the roof park be part of the project, a large scale model should be built to address both noise and odors from multiple restaurants trapped under the roof. Parks are not acceptable land uses next to a freeway. 33 iv. Extreme amounts of soil cut which would take several months of diesel trucks hauling the entire hill behind the JC Penney to more than two stories below the sidewalk grade on Wolfe is not environmentally sound (removing all topsoil). Here is an excerpt from the 9212 Report for Vallco Measure D: I . It is anticipated that approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of soil would be excavated for the proposed below -ground garages and most of the excavated soil would be hauled off-site. The applicant anticipates that the soiled hauled off-site would be used at another construction site within 20 miles of the project site. Some of the soil excavated is proposed to be used on the green roof and at - grade landscaped areas. It is estimated that 168,000 cubic yards of soil would need to be imported to the site. 2. My neighbor broke her hip bicycling on Tantau because all of the spilled clay soil became unpassably slick. Her husband could barely walk on the street to come help her. That was with that project "balancing cut and fill on site" and simply needing to move soil across the street. How much air pollution would 5 months of diesel truck traffic generate? How much soil will be spilled onto the I-280 and other streets? What will the economic cost of shutting down lanes for non-stop street sweeping be? How will the trucks return to the site? g. Green Roof Violates city policies for parkland and may become a city financial burden and a dangerous trap for air pollution. Should the 30 acre green roof return here are some of the issues: i. Common sense tells us that removing 1.2 million SF of Vallco mall and excavating up to 41' of soil across 50 acres is not an environmentally friendly act. Unlike Apple Campus 2's design to increase permeable surfaces, decrease their footprint, and use 100% renewable energy, Vallco plans to excavate and entomb the site in concrete. ii. The 30 acre roof garden is tilted toward the sun for the hottest time of the day (afternoon). That roof soars to 160,' the max parapet on 19,800 Wolfe Road is 61' by comparison. It will be windy. The wind and sun (tilting it towards the sun rather than to the north) will result in higher water consumption which needs to be taken into account along with higher water needs in the first few years of plant establishment. iii. Noise contours and noise compatibility with land use, do not make much of the roof area acceptable for a park (see Appendix, Future Noise Contours). iv. 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. 34 v. The Vallco 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." vi. 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." How much will this cost the public if it is a public park? vii. The proposed fruits which would be grown on the roof may absorb an excess of pollutants from the freeway. Additionally, air pollution can make it harder for plants to grow well in general. h. Inadequate parking/Use of Mall as Park and Ride i. Currently the mall is used a commuter parking lot for Genentech and others, how will the use of the site continue as a known transit center and/or as a "casual" one. There is already a parking issue at 19,800 Wolfe Road. 1. httns://www.mercurvnews.com/2017/12/22/narkinL-restrictions- proposed-for-front-of-cupertino-condo-complex/ 2. Proposed Measure D had inadequate parking and would have required an extensive valet parking system to stack vehicles and would burden the city Public Works department having to review and monitor the TDM program. This is unacceptable. Parking must be adequate for demand without expending future city resources form Code Enforcement or Public Works reviews. What will happen to the commuters using the lots now? 3. The current shuttle service must be studied in the traffic study including the potential for Apple employees. i. Population: All current development and population increases have occurred in Cupertino east of De Anza Boulevard. Main Street Cupertino added 120 units, 19,800 Wolfe Rd. added 204 units, Hamptons Apartments will add 942 units minimum, Metropolitan added 107 units. The Proposed Project would add 800 residential units. That is 2,173 residential units within a very small area. Because there is speculation the Vallco apartments are intended for Apple employees, and there employees are 70-80% male, how will this project effect the balance of male and female residents in Cupertino, which is balanced now. What future effects on the population of children can we expect? If traffic assumptions were made expecting Apple employees at Vallco, what happens when they move? Traffic study assumptions must hold up to scrutiny. j. Soil Contamination: 35 there was a petroleum distillate plume at the intersection of Wolfe and Stevens Creek which extended onto the Vallco site, SE corner. Please research this. ii. 19,333 Vallco Parkway is prohibited from having housing. Verify the soil contamination is not under the parking garage adjacent to this site at Vallco. iii. The following sites have had/may have contamination, and must be remediated: 1. J.C. PENNEY (T0608500770) 2. SEARS AUTOMOTIVE CENTER (T0608552828) 3. FORMER TANDEM /APPLE (T10000000740) 4. TOSCO #11220 (T0608575840) 5. MOBIL (T0608500926) 6. SHELL (T0608501269) iv. The Vallco site was historically an orchard. Area orchards were treated with arsenic and lead arsenate. Orchards typically would have a UST for onsite gas filling of farm equipment. Thoroughly research the potential for soil contamination and report during excavation. Main Street Cupertino had to `haul off contaminated soil' but the only record was verbal. v. Potential for contamination from HVAC systems to soil. k. Groundwater i. Proposed Project covers nearly the entire site in impermeable concrete. If cisterns are built for groundwater recharge, their sizing must hold up to scrutiny which will be very difficult. If the green roof is built, fertilizer contamination may result. 1. Hydrology i. Proposed Project increases impermeable areas which is contrary to best practices. Runoff must account for planters over concrete which would increase runoff. If the green roof structure is built, the slope and soil depth must be taken into consideration when calculating runoff, because both will increase runoff amounts and require larger pipe sizing. in. Storm Drains Determine whether existing storm drains are adequate using the above mentioned hydrology calculations. Show both with and without the green roof scenarios. n. Sewage System i. Current system is likely inadequate. What traffic impacts would be expected from mitigating the sewage system. The Sewage treatment plant capacity must be re -analyzed with all of the earlier mentioned large developments which will impact it. 36 o. Thresholds and standards for the determination of impact significance must be characterized and justified. Individual components must also be aggregated to see if their cumulative effects are significant. Indirect effects that are reasonably foreseen must likewise be addressed. II. Alternative A: Occupied/Re-tenanted Mall a. The current mall would likely require some inspections because is has been closed up. If the WSA report was correct in their assumption that all water usage at the current mall is old style high flow, then all of the fixtures should be replaced as a condition for re -occupancy. Whatever remodeling may take place for the mall would need permits, as part of that permitting process, a traffic study would need to be performed. My assertion is that to study the mall fully occupied or with over 95% occupancy would be a different alternative from the required "no project." III. Alternative B: 2/3 residential, 1/3 non-residential mix. a. This alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan as stated earlier. It should not be studied because it is an infeasible alternative. b. All of the above mentioned comments for "Proposed Project" apply to Alternative B. c. Social Justice Issues are magnified under Alternative B: i. Social Justice: The existing location of Vallco adjacent to the I-280 places project occupants within 1000' of a freeway with over 200,000 vehicles per day. If residents with an economic level below that of the average in Cupertino are expected to live at Vallco, that would be a social justice issue. In essence placing poorer residents in harms' way intentionally. The negative effects of air pollution have been long known. It is also known that poorer people tend to have less adequate health care. Asthmatics from lower economic levels tend to end up in the emergency room and have longer hospital stays than those patients with higher levels of care. Santa Clara County has 257,000 asthmatics and asthma costs the state of California $11.3 billion annually. ii. Proposed Project may trap the dispersal of freeway pollution. If the `green roof concept returns, it will exacerbate the dispersion of the freeway line source pollution. This would not make the site acceptable for community use or for placing low income renters which is a social justice issue. iii. This many units adjacent to the freeway would inevitably place vulnerable populations in harm's way due to poor air quality. This Alternative will likewise require similar building masses as "Proposed Project". These large building masses may block air flow. Combined with urban street traffic within the street grid, and proposed underground parking in two levels, the air quality will be unacceptable. Ventilation will be problematic. Should the green roof be placed over these residents this 37 could be disastrous. HEPA filtration, should it be used, does not block VOC's. d. Alternative B, imbalances to population. Apple has a 70-80% male workforce. If the intention is to populate the residential units with Apple employees we can expect a similar gender ratio. This may result in an 11 % increase in the male population of Cupertino. This is a significant impact which could alter whatever other uses are proposed. Should the employees leave Apple, traffic would be worsened. Traffic analysis should study a wide range of residency outcomes. The Alternative gave no estimates as to residential unit size. Consider any options such as family size apartments or micro -apartments. Employment centers both near and far. School impacts, as listed above for Proposed Project, for the potential of a massive amount of students, must be studied. Results and SGR's must stand up to scrutiny. IV. Alternative C: Retail and Residential (no office) a. This alternative ignores the hotel. b. There is not enough information to speculate how much retail or residential they are attempting. The realistic capacity is 389 residential units and retail maximum is 1.2 million SF. This project would result in tearing down the mall structure to create the grid layout for the Specific Plan. (see Proposed Project for all comments and apply here). c. This could result in residents who would have been shopping in an enclosed mall now in a street grid. Because the structures would potentially be lower, the air pollution could dissipate more rapidly. There are too many missing variables to speculate. d. Placement of the residential units would need to be away from the freeway and other major streets (Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard are over 30,000 vehicles per day). e. While not having office helps meet the housing goals better, the types of retail would need to be addressed. This matters for traffic (retail generating 1/4 the traffic of a restaurant, and retail generates 1/101h the traffic of a fast food restaurant). Should the proposed regulation sized ice rink be built, that could have pre -dawn skaters, so the placement of that and parking would best be away from residents. f. If, referring back to CEQA and the need to present alternatives to 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." i. this option would need to have less impacts than Proposed Project, and still be compliant. That would be 1.2 million SF retail maximum and 389 units residential. 30% of retail could be entertainment: 360,000 SF. It is possible it will have less impacts and could be compliant with the General Plan. However, since the Proposed Project is infeasible and inconsistent. This exercise has been moot.