Warren, Lisa 3-9-2018 3-49 p.m. - NOP Email Comments TranscribedFrom: santorojj@ [mailto:comcast.neti
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 12:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Growth
We are objecting to the new building height allowance being considered by the Cupertino City
Council. No buildings one 5 story's. Make sure that a schools can handle the influx of new students -
do they have the money or property to add new schools if the impact of these plans add too many
new students. Schools are one of the top attractions when parents are looking for a good education
for their children.
We want Cupertino to maintain its' suburban environment as much as possible.
Please consider our concerns when you vote on issues of growth in the near future.
Jerry and June Santoro
From: Better Cupertino [mailto ]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 12:58 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc:
Subject: Portal Park Will Remain a Neighborhood Park
Dear Mayor and Council members,
The enclosed email has been sent to the CUSD-discuss google group to inform CUSD parents about
the reality of the "new K-5" or K-8 school that Sand Hill is proposing on the tiny 3 -acre lot on Nan
Allan site. We are strongly against that proposal since Collins is already an overcrowded school with
700 students. The listed school lot size of Collins is 11.3 acres. And Collins should be expanded to
include Nan Allan and TRC for the existing 700 students only. No more. If Sand Hill would like to
donate a new school, Sand Hill should donate the entire school include a full-size lot of 13.7 acres
for a school of 700 students.
We strongly oppose adding another school on top of an already overcrowded school.
If your plan includes annexing Portal Park as a part of the "new" school, be sure that you will face
strong opposition from the North Blaney neighborhood. The very tiny Portal Park, already too small
for the population of North Blaney neighborhood, is the only park in that area. The neighborhood
already fought to protect the park when CUSD wanted to annex it into a middle school. The
neighborhood would fight tooth and nails to protect our only park. The 30 -acre sky park, which may
or may not be realized, is no replacement for Portal Park.
And please do remind Sand Hill that Vallco should still provide the required 3 acres parkland per
1,000 residents in true parkland. It cannot be replaced by any area in their sky park.
Do not even allow partial access to Portal Park during the school day. Portal Park belongs to the
neighborhood. Families with young children and seniors need access to the park during the day.
Many members of BetterCupertino are from North Blaney. If any one ever considers to take Portal
Park away, BetterCupertino will fight against the proposal with full force with the North Blaney
neighborhood.
Superintendent Wendy mentioned in McAuliffe PTF meeting that the City Council supports the
"new K-5" school. This issue was never discussed in any council agenda. I assume that it was
determined in closed meeting behind closed doors. And in a meeting without any community
member or representative from the parent community of North Blaney neighborhood, the very
neighborhood that's impacted by your proposal.
Please do involve the "community" in any discussion of "community benefits" or "voluntary
community amenities" as you like to call it now. Any such private deals negotiated between elected
officials and developers should be avoided for potential conflict of interest and violation of the
Brown Act.
Sincerely,
BetterCupertino
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C >
Date: Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:46 AM
Subject: Exciting News about NEW K-5 School is NOT So Exciting
To:
Everyone must have gotten the email from CUSD about the "exciting" new school. However,
the truth is not so exciting. The proposal would essentially add 700 more students to the
current (already crowded) site of Collins Elementary with a separate entrance on N. Portal
and call it a "new school".
Mette asked me to post what I found about this "NEW K-5 School" to be funded by Sand Hill
as a Community Benefits for Vallco redevelopment project.
The exciting news is
Delivery of a newly constructed elementary school (K-5) at the former Nan Allan
Elementary School site (located on N. Portal Avenue) which would accommodate 700
new students,
Here is a map of the Nan Allan Elementary School:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAME9iY2sxWjJwUzQ/view?usp=sharing
Nan Allan (Nan Allen on the map) is the site currently released to Bright Horizon.
Here are some facts:
Nan Allan (Bright Horizon) = 1.5 acre
TRC (Teacher Resource Center) = 1.5 acre
Collins' Size (current in use) = 8 acres (including the green sports field)
Collins' Lot Size listed in Cupertino's General Plan = 11.8 acres
Capacity of Collins - 598 students
Current Enrollment = 700-720 students
Recommended Lot Size for 700-750 students = 13.7 acres. (According to "Guide to
School Site Analysis and Development," published by The School Facilities Planning
Division of the California Department of Education. -- Environment Impact Report of
Cupertino's General Plan)
As you can see, the site for Collins Elementary is supposed to include Nan Allan and TRC to
get to a total close to 11 acres. Yet, that's still below the State Guideline of 13.7 acres.
Now the "exciting" new K-5 school simply adds 700 more students to the 11 acre site, which
is hardly even big enough for the current 700 students.
So, here is Sand Hill's contribution on "Community Benefits". Take a school that's already
one of the most crowded. Double its number of students and then do some facelift. And that
gives them a free pass to add 411 more housing units to the 389 units allocated by
Cupertino Council.
If you haven't already, here is the "exciting" 30 -acre sky -park proposed for Vallco.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/08/26/vaI Ico- plans-revealed -30-acre-sky-
park-over.html
Except the cool green rooftop garden, which might end up to be a pile of yellow dirt either
due to drought or bad maintenance, Sand Hill is still going to build 2 million square feet of
office (add 10,000 to 12,000 people to rush hour traffic), 800 housing units (when Cupertino
Council only approved 389 units) and 625,000 s.f. of retail (50% of the current retail space in
Vallco).
So, the proposal still does not address important issues like traffic congestion and school
overflow at all. The cool looking green rooftop does not make these other issues magically
disappear unless Sand Hill thinks that Cupertino residents are easily fooled by a pretty
"dress."
Liang
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CUPERTINO UNION ELEM SCH DIST <email@blackboard.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Subject: Exciting News re: Cupertino Union School District
To:
A message from CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
August 26, 2015
Dear CUSD Community:
I'm about to step into a meeting where there will be an announcement of exciting
news regarding the redevelopment project at Vallco Mall and the opportunities it
presents for the students of the Cupertino Union School District. Before I step in
I wanted to keep you informed as well.
At the June 16th Board Meeting, the Cupertino Union School District Board of Education
publicly entered into a Letter of Intent (LOI) with Sand Hill Property Company (Sand
Hill) in order to continue exploring ways to enhance the quality of education for
students within our District. Although signed, the LOI is contingent on the City of
Cupertino approving The Hills"at Vallco redevelopment project.
As a school district, we do not govern redevelopment projects as that power falls
under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino. However, as stewards of the District, it
is our obligation to properly plan for redevelopments that may be approved by the
city. The obligation of the developer is to pay only state mandated developer fees.
In wanting to keep the community informed, this letter will provide you with a synopsis
of the LOI and what was approved by our Board of Education to ensure quality
education for our students.
At the core of our negotiating, we, both the District and Sand Hill, were driven by the
idea that the proposed redevelopment should not impact any of our schools. The
developer fees for the future Vallco redevelopment would likely total approximately
$2 million. With that in mind, we began the process of securing commitments from
Sand Hill that, over time, evolved into a package worth a total of $20 million.
In the event the City of Cupertino approves 'The Hills" at Vallco redevelopment, here
are a few highlights of the benefits the District would receive:
• Delivery of a newly constructed elementary school (K-5) at the former Nan
Allan Elementary School site (located on N. Portal Avenue) which would
accommodate 700 new students,
• Replacement of portables with permanent buildings at Collins Elementary
School
• Enhancement of the play fields between Collins Elementary School and Nan
Allan Elementary School.
Additionally, we secured a $1 million donation from Sand Hill to fund an endowment
to help support our annual 8th grade Yosemite experience, a tremendously valuable
educational program and tradition our students look forward to every year.
As Superintendent, you have my commitment that if the LOI becomes effective, the
District will embark on a community engagement process in order to actively seek
public input on the potential new school.
This effort represents unprecedented collaboration between the District and property
owners. The new and improved schools will not only accommodate students from "The
Hills" at Vallco and provide space for hundreds of existing students, but also provide
space for future students and relieve pressure from existing schools. If approved, "The
Hills"at Vallco will not only protect, but improve and strengthen our schools.
Regardless of what direction the City of Cupertino takes with Sand Hill's project, this
agreement is a testimony that we are a District whose sole focus is on creating
opportunities that will enhance every aspect of the student experience. That mission
is what makes me proud to be a part of the Cupertino Union School District family.
I thank you for your time. If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Wendy Gudalewicz
Superintendent
File attachments:
Vallco Mall Redevelopment Project Update 08.26.15.pdf
This e-mail has been sent to you by CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT. To
maximize their communication with you, you may be receiving this e-mail in addition
to a phone call with the same message. If you no longer wish to receive email
notifications from CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, please click here to
unsubscribe.
From: MaryAnn [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:07 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Cupertino Hills and other area developments
As I luckily drive the reverse commute and look at the parking lot on 280 at 3:45 on a Monday I'm
reminded to send in this inquiry.
Although the project of the Hills at Cupertino looks progressive and innovative I have to ask the
Cupertino Planning department as well as other local Planning departments if they have required
funding for VTA line development from these organizations and development companies that will be
making an excessive amount of profit on these projects, while creating a nightmare on our
roadways.
We all know the gridlock that has been created yet all the cities in the region continue to be enticed
by the profits from these developments and organizations. The same funding question should be
asked regarding those businesses being built on 237. The highway infrastructure cannot
accomodate what currently exists let alone the development that is already visible.
An easy way to quickly develop a feasible and efficient VTA infrastructure is to require these
companies to fund a portion of the line for light rail before they can open their doors. This would
enable the local cities to quickly build a practical, connected infrastructure that residents might see
as a faster, convenient mode of transportation. If this funding hasn't been required as of yet,
Council should consider this for any current developments underway, as well as any future
developments planned. If I need to attend a planning session please advise.
I moved here 15 years ago because the area was amazingly beautiful. Unfortunately greed and
capitalism have now made it gridlock quickly approaching that of LA. In time this will likely hurt the
value of homes, certainly the environment, and even the overall culture of the residents, both social
and collaborative which makes Silicon Valley thrive.
Until the highway interchanges are reasonably widened to accommodate the current load (i.e.
280/85; 85/237) and a solid alternative infrastructure is developed, similar to that of the New York
subway station, residents will continue to drive their cars because, although they might live next to a
light rail, they won't work next to one or shop next to one or attend school next to one. It is currently
a failed plan that won't see even a slight impact for at least a decade.
Leveraging quick funding from these organizations would be a great way to advance progress for
the betterment of the communities at large vs only a select corporate few.
I'm happy to speak at a session as needed.
MaryAnn Sullivan
Cupertino Resident
From: paulette altmaier [mailto
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Hills at Vallco - Scott Herhold's column in the Merc on vision vs reality
Dear Cupertino City Council,
I had previously emailed you very enthusiastic about the Hills at Vallco. But after reading Herhold's
column I have serious doubts about how this project might morph.
I am also concerned about the City Council's role in permitting projects to gradually morph into
something very different from what residents were promised.
Before I support this project, I would want to know what guarantees the developer will provide this
time around, in particular that the gardens will actually be built.
And I would also want to understand why the Council approved so many changes to Main St
Cupertino, and why we should trust that this project will not also change gradually but unmistakably
to something much different from what is being marketed to us now.
Paulette Altmaier
Cupertino
From: Better Cupertino [mailto
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 11:32 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk
Subject: The Performance of Shopping Malls are Improving Nationwide
[Please put this on record for community comments for Vallco.]
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Shopping Malls are on the decline? That's a myth spread by peopling looking at only one piece of the
puzzle with a ulterior motive. Some shopping centers are closing due to neglect or a reduction in
population or a change in local economy. Some retailers are not doing well as they restructure and
adjust. But overwhelmingly more retailers are doing better and better.
This CNBC report shows that shopping centers in US are doing even better than before and continue
improving.
---------------------------
Malls outperforming the shopping center industry, March 30, 2015
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/30/malls-outperforming-the-shopping-center-industry.html
Forget all those images of abandoned malls filled with snow. As the shopping center industry
consolidates from weaker properties shuttering their doors, rents, occupancy rates and productivity
are all on the rise.
According to data released Monday by the International Council of Shopping Centers, an industry
trade group, occupancy rates ended 2014 at 92.7 percent, the highest since the throes of the
recession in second-quarter 2008.
For the often -dragged -through -the -mud mall segment, occupancy rates reached a level not seen
since fourth-quarter 1987, of 94.2 percent.
Base rents at shopping centers increased 6.5 percent on the year, their third -straight year of gains.
Base rents at malls grew 17.2 percent, representing the strongest annual gain since ICSC and the
National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries began tracking the data in 2000.
Net operating income at shopping centers and malls also saw the highest annual growth rate since
the organizations began compiling data.
"The 2014 data paints a very strong picture of the shopping center industry for the year ahead, and
is especially promising in the mall segment," ICSC spokesperson Jesse Tron said in a news release.
That's not to say that things are running smoothly throughout the entire sector. Retailers from
RadioShack to Sears are either filing for bankruptcy or closing hundreds of stores to stay relevant in
an era of digital price comparisons and online ordering.
Similarly, malls across the U.S. that were neglected by their owners, located in an area where there's
been a large population shift or exodus, or lost shoppers to a new, better -run property have been
demolished or otherwise forgotten.
A recent study by FBIC analyst Deborah Weinswig, citing data from CoStar, found that among seven
troubled retailers, including J.C. Penney and Kmart, the majority of the endangered locations are in
smaller markets with less population and income density, or in an economically distressed region.
Even healthy retailers such as Macy's have begun pruning their store fleets as more shoppers make
purchases online, causing a steady slide in traffic.
In an interview earlier this month, Tron downplayed the impact of the Internet on store closings.
"Stronger retailers stay, weaker retailers go, and it's been that way forever," he said.
From: ] On Behalf Of
Chris Hastings
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 11:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: The Hills at Vallco
Please allow new housing in Cupertino so that rent prices don't skyrocket. There are many young
professionals like me who are getting started in non-technical careers in the Bay/Silicon Valley area
that can't afford the rent spikes that are likely when Apple's new facilities open.
From: Yan Yu fmailto ]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 9:38 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Concerns about the Vollco project: We would like to help and please let us help!
Dear Cupertino Council member,
I would like to clarify one sentence included in my previous email:
"I am interested to know more details about this project, for example, how many people of various
types would it bring in?" By various types, I meant whether these people will become the new
residents living in Vallco, or work in the new office spaces in Vallco, or transient shoppers. The first
two types would not only add daily commute traffic, but also impose much higher demand on other
city and community services as well.
I apologize for the confusion in my previous email, and thank you for attention!
Best,
ya n
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Yan Yu > wrote:
Dear City council officers, Happy Monday!
I am very concerned about the Vallco project. I would like to ask this correspondence to be
included in the public records
High density living brought by the Vallco project shall have direct and indirect impacts on
health and wellbeing of residents living in and near the Cupertino Area. Direct impacts
include air quality, climate, water quality, noise, insufficient capacity from existing Cupertino
city and community service infrastructure. Indirect impacts affect more distal determinants
of health, such as social connections, access to services and restricted physical activity
imposed by high density living. Among residents of all ages, children and older people are
particularly impacted by and vulnerable to these detrimental effects. For example, seniors
and children are particularly vulnerable to traffic accidents and increased crimes brought by
high density living. I am wondering whether the Cupertino city or Vallcos developers have a
concrete plan to address those issues satisfactorily before any Vallco rebuilt plan can be
approved by the city?
I heard that the vallco project includes 800+ residential units, which would imply a few
thousands (up to five thousand) new residents to Cueprtino, which is up to significant 8%
(5000/60000 based on 2013 data) of existing Cupertino population.
I am interested to know more details about this project. For example, how many people of
various types would it bring in? how much more rush hour traffic and non -rush hour traffic it
would incur? How many more school -aged kids it would incur to increase load on the
already strained school system. How much more demand it would put on the existing
service infrastructure, e.g., fire/police department, library, community service, school
system, transportation system, etc.
If we need to boost up existing city infrastructure to meet greatly increased demand, who is
going to pay for the infrastructure and staff upgrade? Is the developer going to pay for
this? Or it comes from existing property tax and sale tax? Cupertino residents and tax
payers have rights to know all the developmental implications and details to make sure that
Cupertino city is still a desirable livable city. The reason that I bought a house in Cupertino
is because I thought Cupertino is a nice place to live. However, I start to have serious doubts
on this now with many recent high-density developmental plans. The new Apple building
already increased office space and local traffic dramatically, I hope the city could be cautious,
responsible and hold accountable on any new future development plan. At this point, as a
very concerned and responsible Cupertino resident, I object to any vollco rezoning plan that
involves increasing residential or office space.
If the city needs help in understanding and researching the issue, I am very happy to help. I
would love to be present in any such future planning meeting. Please let me know how can I
help.
Best,
yan
PS. I hope city could hold regular town hall meetings at a convenient hour (e.g., evening or
weekends as opposed to midnight) to educate and address the concerns from Cupertino
residents on this issue, and make concerned residents part of the decision process since any
decision would greatly impact their lives in many years to come.
From: stacy wilson [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: please look over these comments from Cupertino residents about rezoning of Vallco
Dear Mayor Sinks and other City Council members, I thought that you should see some of the
discussion that has been going on in our community about the potential rezoning of Vallco to
accommodate a developer's wishes. There are other NextDoor threads discussing this issue. I
appreciate the time you will take to look through this (which was copied from Nextdoor.com), and I
hope some of the sentiment will be presented in a balanced discussion of the issue tomorrow night.
As you read, I believe you will see that many citizens have lost faith in your willingness to represent
us, but you can change that by taking the concerns seriously and making a determined effort to
work with the community you represent.
Please note that this poll collected over 330 votes and the clear majority do not want Vallco
rezoned at all.
Stacy Wilson voter, long-time resident of Rancho Rinconada, Cupertino
Shared with Rancho Rinconada + 14 nearby neighborhoods in General
Thank 34 Reply 432
Vivek, Chris, Carrie, and 31 others thanked Eric
From: Atul Tulshibagwale M
Date: Oct 20, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Subject: Vallco shopping center development suggestion
To: Rod Sinks >
Hello Mayor Sinks,
I'm simultaneously excited and concerned about the new proposed development at Vallco site. Most
of the criticism to the plan seems to be coming from the reputation of the builder and whether the
builder will actually deliver on what they're promising. I have a suggestion about this:
Since the green roof of the proposed construction is so important to the citizens and possibly not so
important to the builder, to avoid the possibility of the builder not delivering on it, is it possible to
ask the builder to submit a bond that will be released only when the green roof is fully constructed?
Thanks,
Atul Tulshibagwale
Seven Springs, Cupertino resident.
From: Rod Sinks >
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Vallco shopping center development suggestion
To: Atul Tulshibagwale >
Cc: "<rsinks@cupertino.org>" <rsinks@cupertino.org>
Hi Atul,
Your idea is certainly worth considering and will pass it in to Staff.
There are various ways we can use to ensure we get project elements that have high value to
the community. For example, at Main Street, our entitlement terms dictate that most of the
retail be built before the office can be occupied, and we limited the period of the entitlement
to a fairly short window to avoid a half -built project.
I have no doubt that if the City of Sunnyvale could wind back the clock on their entitlement
of downtown Sunnyvale, they would have put in some means to prevent or at least
abbreviate the legal lockup that went on for years. The problem started when the financing
dropped out during the 2008 financial crisis, which of course stalled many projects
worldwide, but downtown Sunnyvale could have been resolved much sooner with a better
agreement.
Rod Sinks
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eric Ho [mailto ]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:44 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Please reconsider rezoning Vallco Hills for office
Dear Council members and Staff,
I'm writing to petition to delay the re -zoning of Vallco Hills for office and residence.
I petition on the delay until we have a firmer picture on how additional traffic will impact the city
once Apple Campus 2 and Main Street come on line.
Sand Hill is proposing a big chunk of space to offices. The additional employees will add even more
traffic to our already congested roads.
In addition, the additional office space means that we will be forced to build more high rise housing
in the city in the future, per ABAG rules. This in turn will negatively impact our schools. And a whole
chain reactions will follow from that..
It would be much better to allocate more space for retail, at least as much space, if not more, as
Santana Row / ValleyFair. This is because a thriving retail needs to have a certain size geographically
for it to thrive. Case in point, witness downtown Sunnyvale. It is now pretty dead on a typical Sat
afternoon.
<eric>
From: Victoria fmailto ]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 2:37 PM
To: Karen B. Guerin; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Gilbert Wong; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Rod
Sinks; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council
Subject: Regarding Rezoning of Vallco (November 10th meeting)
Please include my letter among the public records regarding the Vallco development project.
I am NOT in support of rezoning Vallco into a mixed use site. As a resident of the eastern part of
Cupertino, we will be impacted directly from the traffic, overpopulation in schools and parks. I am
frankly disappointed and angry that the city council (or majority of) seem to be only concerned with
benefiting the developers instead of the city's residents. We want a shopping area, not the massive
amount of office space and apartment housing that Sand Hill is trying to hide in its ad slicks.
We want the city council to be realistic and sensitive to the fact that we have no space for so many
additional students in our schools, which is by the way, the reason why we poured our life savings
into buying a home in this city ... for its top notch schools. We also don't want to sit in traffic on city
streets for over 15-20 minutes. Our roads and freeway entrances are not meant for this big of an
influx of residents and workers! A shuttle and a "new school" on an existing campus does NOT help
alleviate all the problems that this push to over build Cupertino will create. Many residents that I
have spoken with are very aware of what is being shoved down our throats and we don't plan on
sitting idly by while our city is destroyed. Please see that what is proposed and what the council is
trying to sneak into our city is not beneficial in the long run.
Victoria Lau
Cupertino Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: judy wang [mailt ]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 3:06 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: One more comment about Vallco
Dear Planning Chairman:
I would like to add to the wonderful design of the new Vallco with so much green space which
also include community garden (vineyards and an horticulture). It is sure to be another award
winning design.
I suppose however people can have more access too. Is it possible to move the street bike lanes
and some of the pedestrian sidewalk to be diverted to a more safe route inside this green walkway?
Buses, cars, and perhaps other transport vehicles (future rails) could have a more "adult",
passenger oriented walkway; not for elder movement, handicapped or children running around. I
suppose it does not look safe to have a mix of bikes, walking pedestrians and cars using the same
road.
Perhaps it is the current partition of the public transportation authority, but schools, parents,
and children might be concerned about quite a few safety issues.
Cordially yours,
Judy.
From: Robbie Mister fmailto ]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 4:57 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on The Hills at Vallco
We strongly object the Hills at Vallco. There's no way Cupertino can accommodate so many more
residents. The traffic is already at its limit on 280 and 85. Schools are full.
From: fan jiao [mailt ]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 7:00 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: env review of Vallco project
Hello,
We visit Vallco almost every weekend. The main concern is still the traffic. The city should take an
overall review with this new traffic pattern together with that of Apple new campus.
Cheers,
Fan
From: Alison Mathias [mailto ]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 8:51 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Cupertino: The Hills at Vallco
You have received this link to the Cupertino from:
Alison Mathias >
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1365
Dear Sirs,
We have been so proud of the Cupertino Culture. A space for two mice and we are going to put 20
mice. Over -development, what do you mean "Environmental Impact"? Please let Cupertino be
Cupertino. Just like Yosemite be Yosemite. There are so many other spaces in a short driving
distance, they can develop and easily keep an environmental balance. And we can go appreciating
the HUGE project at weekends. We do not want to be bought out.
Sincerely,
Alison Mathias
Alison Mathias
From: susan jaybes fmailt ]
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 9:52 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills at Vallco
To the Department of Community Development of Cupertino:
I submit my general concerns regarding the proposed development at The Hills at Vallco. While I
find the proposed area to contain much green space, which will offer a peaceful and serene setting
for work and life from within the development, outside of the development the traffic and
congestion will be just the opposite. Like others living in Cupertino and the Bay Area, the increase
and abundance of economic development in the area has provided opportunities but also poses
great strains on traffic and congestion and therefore quality of life. Within The Hills at Vallco, it
seems all well and good, but there is a responsibility to others in the area shouldering the burden of
the development. The current and future green -lit projects will further stress the area's traffic to
greater degrees than it already is today - I ask that you seriously consider this in your planning
approval process. Many residents feel that the intense development of Silicon Valley must stop at
some point, or at some point, governmental bodies must step forward to provide alternatives to
some of these issues that we face today - namely housing prices as well as traffic. The time is now.
The developers stand to profit handsomely from this endeavor, but it will be the people who already
live and work in Cupertino and surrounding areas who will feel the burden and a decrease in quality
of life. Please urge for an extremely scaled down version of the residential and extensive office
development for The Hills at Vallco or reconsider the project altogether.
Respectfully submitted,
Susanjaynes
From: Prakash Sripathy [mailto
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 8:16 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills @ Vallco...
Mayor. Vice Mayor and Council members,
It has been heartening to see mindless initiatives being pushed forward time and again in our city
with no end to it. I am not sure how many of you live in Cupertino city and have children still
attending Cupertino schools. Perhaps not.
Main Street and Apple campus are not up, but we could already see downsides of all new
apartments and condo developments around valco mall neighborhood. The traffic is a mess and so
is environmental pollution. You could name any street, be it weekend or weekday, it is extremely
scary to walk or bike in the street unless you are living in home confinement. Parents are
increasingly worried with their children biking to school, so am I. Our work and commute time to
home has already gone up by 30%. We as a community are opposed to bringing in any more
housing development in this neighborhood and rezoning. Is the council listening to the community
or business? Our over crowded high schools are becoming sub standard fitting within lower band in
the nation though we claim ours as best in state. Our students are constrained on what classes to
choose because of size of the student population. We hear that the promoter of Hills is naive
enough to propose another elementary school next to Collins. Why are they not proposing a school
in the Hills development if they care for the community? Having a park on the roof top is just a mere
joke to keep the neighborhood green.
I would propose that we take this up in next general election as a measure. This project is not super
critical and it could wait until next year. i am pretty sure this project doesn't have legs to pass.
Please save our community, you could do it. Together, we will rebuild green and great Cupertino
that it used to be.
Thanks,
Prakash
From: Sanjay Gupta K [mailto
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:54 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: STOP Hills at Valco
Importance: High
I OPPOSE the HILLS at Valco. I have spoken to many residents around me and they are all alarmed at
this development.
The traffic situation on 85 and 280 freeways has become really bad. In addition, main Cupertino
streets such as De Anza Blvd & Stevens Creek Blvd is become very bad.
I am getting so many mails about redevelopments in Cupertino. The rampant development in the
city of Cupertino MUST stop. Our quality of life in this city is degrading.
With Apple mega -campus not yet even complete, there is only so much development this city can
take. Please stop this.
Sanjay Gupta
From: Wilson [mailto: ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:14 PM
To: rmoulds@shpco.com; dyoung@irvinecompany.com; cmarsh@irvinecompany.com;
applecampus2@apple.com; David Stillman; SAbbas@sunnyvale.ca.gov;
colin@bikesiliconvalley.org; mark@bikewalk.org; perry.woodward@ci.gilroy.ca.us;
boa rd.secretary@vta.org; paula.bawer@dot.gov
Cc: Tiffany Brown; Piu Ghosh; ken.alex@gov.ca.gov; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.;
Reed Moulds; commute@apple.com; Mark.Rosekind@dot.gov;
Community.Outreach@vta.org; info@walkfriendly.org;
prevent@preventioninstitute.org
Subject: Prioritizing Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Access in Cupertino, CA
Reed Moulds
Managing Director
Sand Hill Property Company, Vallco
Daniel Young
Community Development
Irvine Company, The Hamptons
Chris Marsh
Apartment Development
Irvine Company, The Hamptons
Edith Sandoval
Project Coordinator
Apple Inc., Apple Campus 2
Tiffany Brown
Piu Ghosh
Project Managers
City of Cupertino
David Stillman
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Cupertino
Shahid Abbas,
Traffic and Transportation Manager
City of Sunnyvale
Colin Heyne
Deputy Director
Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
Mark Plotz
Program Manager
The National Center for Bicycling & Walking
Perry Woodward
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Alex Ken
Director
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Paula Bawer
Program Manager
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Dear All,
My family has lived in Cupertino for the past 15 years and we are excited for the billion dollar
developments being planned, particularly the Apple Campus 2, The Hills at Vallco and The Hamptons
apartments. Interestingly, these three projects have in common a close proximity to N Wolfe Road
and the ramp exit to Interstate 280. Hence, a coordinated effort by all involved to minimize traffic
congestion and ensure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists is crucial. [please see "3 projects on
Wolfe.jpg" and "280 entrance.png" below]
http://thehiIIsatvaIIco.com
http://www.hamptonscupertino.com
To that end, it is commendable that both The Hills and The Hamptons will offer additional residential
units, which is critical in establishing a city where people can live in close proximity to their
workplace, thus minimizing vehicle traffic. Integrating housing with business development is smart
design, and it will ensure that Cupertino remains a community rather than a business park filled
with parking lots. More diverse housing options are clearly needed, and home ownership increased,
to create a stable community.
But in order to really integrate large development projects into the neighborhoods nearby,
pedestrian and bicycle paths need to be widely and safely available.
As you may be aware, a large number of people who live and work in Cupertino walk or use bicycles.
Apple's bicycle sharing program alone means that thousands of employees are cycling on the roads,
and with the construction of Apple 2, thousands more will be added. The area around Apple's
campus 1 near N De Anza Blvd is often filled with pedestrian and bicycle traffic, including children on
their way to and from school.
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Facilities_Report_2013.pdf
http://www. b izj ou rna I s. co m/sa nj ose/news/2013/06/05/cost-of-getting-apple-employees-out-of. htm I
Ensuring that sidewalks and bike paths are part of all neighborhoods in Cupertino must, therefore,
be a top priority.
There should be sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of N. Wolfe Road so that employees and
residents from the surrounding neighborhoods can walk or bike to The Hills at Vallco and nearby
businesses for dining, shopping or entertainment. Not including safe pedestrian and bike paths will
necessarily mean more car traffic and will cause a segmentation of Cupertino that is not conducive
to community living. We hope that installing sidewalks and bike lanes on N. Wolfe Road can be done
without building an unsightly and massive highway that would discourage people - be it an elderly
couple, a mother with a stroller, a child with a dog, a person in a wheelchair - from using N Wolfe Rd
without a car. For this reason, keeping N Wolfe Rd close to the existing size would be ideal. Hopefully
the addition of public transportation by VTA in the form of more frequent buses and shuttles will
also aid in keeping N Wolfe Rd close to its existing size and 280 less congested. Perhaps just the
addition of a crosswalk button and lights that allow pedestrians to cross the entrance to 280 safely,
as well as better marked bike lanes, will be enough. [please see "280 cross.jpg' below]
In addition to ensuring that pedestrians and bicyclists can access The Hills at Vallco and beyond via
N. Wolfe Rd, another path should be created for non -car traffic by opening the wall along Perimeter
Rd. and Amherst Dr. to allow people on foot or on bicycles from nearby neighborhoods to safely
reach the Vallco shopping area. [please see "Amherst Dr wall.jpg "Perimeter & Amherst Dr.png' and
"Amherst & Perimeter Rd.png" below]
A great model for this is the discrete opening along the wall at the east end of Greenleaf Dr. that
separates residences from Bandley Dr. and Mariani Avenue, where many businesses, including
Apple offices, schools, bus stops and restaurants are located. Because of this wall opening, many
students and employees can access these areas safely, quickly and without a car, while blocking car
traffic preserves the peace and tranquility of the residential areas. [please see "Greenleaf & Mariani
& Bandley.jpg' and "Greenleaf & Bandley Dr.png below]
Literally connecting all new construction projects to existing neighborhoods via sidewalks and bike
paths will make Cupertino more environmentally friendly, more cohesive and safer. Not only
because the infrastructure will be there to discourage single occupancy car traffic that creates
congestion and isolation, but because a real community will be formed by allowing people to meet
their neighbors on the sidewalk, to do their shopping on foot, to exercise outdoors, to walk to
restaurants or entertainment, to walk or bike to work or bus terminals, and to form a human
presence on the street that discourages burglaries and robberies.
A walkable, bike friendly and interconnected Cupertino will promote a "small town feel" that
increases quality of life and well being for all. Currently many streets do not have sidewalks or
marked bike paths. Please invest in building and maintaining these vital resources, which are made
even more essential by new construction projects.
http://preventioninstitute.org/componenthIibrary/article/id-345/127.htmI
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. and Mrs. Wilson
Cupertino, CA
<3 projects on Wolfe.jpeg>
<280 entrance.png>
<280 cross.jpeg>
<Amherst Dr wall.jpeg>
<Perimeter & Amherst Dr.png>
<Amherst & Perimeter Rd.png>
<Greenleaf & Mariani & Bandley.jpeg>
<Greenleaf & Bandley Dr.png>
<280 entrance.png><3 projects on Wolfe.jpeg><Amherst Dr wall.jpeg><280 cross.jpeg><Amherst &
Perimeter Rd. png><Perimeter & Amherst Dr.png><Greenleaf & Bandley Dr. png><Greenleaf &
Mariani & Band ley.jpeg><Walkability.Final.2.pdf>
On Oct 29, 2015, at 4:32 PM, GEOFFREY PAULSEN > wrote:
Dear Dr. & Mrs. Wilson.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful email regarding bike access to Vallco.
From: Wilson [mailto ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 10:10 PM
To: GEOFFREY PAULSEN
Cc: ; Cupertino Recreation and Community Services;
City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David
Stillman; ; barry@railstotrails.org;-
; Piu Ghosh; Tiffany
Brown; rmoulds@shpco.com; dyoung@irvinecompany.com; commut
e@apple.com; general.manager@CupertinoHilton.com; Melissa.vela
@marriott.com; Customer.care@Marriott.com; Barry Chang; Rod
Sinks; Board.Secretary@vta.org; so.website@sheriff.sccgov.org
Subject: Re: Prioritizing Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Access in
Cupertino, CA
Dear Mr. Paulsen,
Thank you for your very informative reply. We certainly support and thank you for
your efforts to increase bicycle and pedestrian access throughout Cupertino, and are
saddened to learn that there has been opposition to this worthy endeavor. However,
because increasing bikeways and walkways is clearly in the best interest for the
future of Cupertino, the current Bicycle Plan must be amended regardless of the
opposition for the following reasons:
1) Openings around Vallco's perimeter wall would mainly be used by residents of
Cupertino, since "out-of-towners" would most likely drive or use public
transportation from nearby cities. Hence, the wall openings are for the benefit of our
neighbors. They allow all residents the opportunity to reach major shopping and
restaurant areas in three different forms of transportation. But without the openings
around Vallco's perimeter wall, some residents are forced to take much longer and
inconvenient paths, which are deterrents, or use cars, which add pollution and
congestion to our streets. Clearly many more residents lose out without the
perimeter wall openings, which means that the City of Cupertino loses out since
someone in a car may easily travel outside the City to other shopping and dining
destinations.
2) Foot and bicycle pathways allow community members to become the "eyes and
ears" of the City, which helps with crime prevention: "Paths intended for day and
evening use are more secure if located near residences, which provide passive
surveillance" [please see the attached document "nmtguide.doc"]. "People using a
designated space for a legitimate activity (ie: pedestrians in a neighborhood, people
in a park, etc.) These people offer natural surveillance, which increases the
likelihood that criminal activity will be observed. Criminals are more likely to commit
their crimes in an environment where they can get away with it unobserved" [please
see the
website: http://www.muni.org/Departments/police/ComAffairs/Pages/cpted.aspxl. If
residents near the wall are concerned about crime, a security guard that monitors
the wall could be added.
3) Cupertino is on its way to becoming a world-class city and a major tourist
attraction because it is at the heart of Silicon Valley, which serves as a beacon for
people worldwide interested in advanced technology that brings wealth and
prosperity to many. Walking and biking tours can become part of the City's growing
economy if the infrastructure is put in place. Moreover, the "promenade," where
large numbers of people can walk and shop leisurely, is a standard architectural
feature in destination cities like Vienna (http://youtu.be/NsvFtSZTYXI) and Paris
(http://youtu.be/cslupEAl ICI). All roads, from small alleys to major roads, lead to
these large pedestrian zones. The area around Vallco and "Main Street" is capable of
becoming Cupertino's promenade. In fact, the existing perimeter wall likely is a
contributing factor in Vallco's decline, since it boxes out casual shoppers and
impedes the "window shopping" experience that leads to purchases. The wall
effectively makes the mall disappear, which certainly contributes to its inability to
draw in the number of shoppers needed to make it viable for popular retailers like
Apple to open stores there. To ensure a natural flow that can help new ventures
succeed, it is of utmost importance that bikeways and walkways reach major
shopping areas like these, which will also minimize the intrusion of cars and the
dangers that they pose. If residents near the perimeter wall are concerned about
people driving to their neighborhoods to park close to the mall and then use the wall
opening, then the car entrances to Vallco need to be more attractive to drivers than
side streets near the mall by making sure that there are enough parking spaces
easily available at the mall.
4) Having the openings around the perimeter wall allows people on foot or on bikes
to be on quieter, safer, streets, rather than being forced to share one major road
with all vehicles. This will decrease the probability of fatalities due to motor vehicle
collisions. Again, for the physical safety and wellbeing of the majority of the residents
of Cupertino, the perimeter wall should be opened to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
5) The segmentation of Cupertino by blocking residents from reaching central zones
on foot or on bike is an impediment to community development. Encouraging
residents to do their shoppings and dining on foot or on a bike is not only
healthier to their physical wellbeing and that of the environment, but also for the
wellbeing of the community, because it allows neighbors the chance to meet each
other on the street and form a "small town" community within a large, prosperous
and cosmopolitan city. In other words, this type of infrastructure is capable of
promoting better physical, environmental and mental health, which is the
responsibility of government to support. Moreover, all outdoor commercial areas,
particularly those that encompass residences and restaurants, should be smoke free
zones. We also urge you to create an anti-smoking ordinance like California Labor
Code 6404.5 in Cupertino:
http://www.lafd.org/smoking-ordinance
Lastly, regarding pedestrian and bike access on N Wolfe Rd that reaches the Vallco
area and crosses the exit to 280, we would like to advocate for our neighbors at the
Hamptons apartments, the Arioso Apartments, the residential area bounded by
Heron Avenue and Linnet Lane, the residential area along Homestead Rd, as well as
the visitors that stay at the Hilton Garden Inn and the Marriott Courtyard Hotel. All
the people geographically represented here deserve walkways and pathways to
major shopping and dining areas like Vallco and Main Street that are safe and
inviting, which may be easily accomplished by adding a crosswalk button and lights
to the exit to 280 on N Wolfe Rd. Similar crosswalks exist on N De Anza Blvd and 280
near the Apple Campus 1 , which makes walking and biking around this area
possible [please see "crosswalk 280.jpg" and "crosswalk 280 DA.jpg" below].
Currently around N Wolfe Rd and the 280 exit, it is very intimidating and dangerous
to cross traffic. Fixing this for residents as well as visitors and employees working at
or near the Apple Campus 2 will lead to a walkable and bike -able Cupertino that
encourages community and commerce.
In sum, the neighborly thing to do, the safer thing to do, and the best investment in
Cupertino's future is to make pedestrian and bicycle access widely available. To not
do so because a small group of residents oppose change in any form is not
reasonable. Balancing any opposition against the clear benefits of increased walkway
and bikeway connectivity makes it obvious that acquiescing to nondescript fears will
have a negative impact on Cupertino's future and all of its residents. With smart
planning the changes that must come in order to accommodate growth will be
positive for Cupertino. It would be irresponsible to ignore the reality that Cupertino
is at the nexus of a booming global industry. Business grows here and that is why so
many want to live here. The City of Cupertino does not have the option to ignore its
new role on the world stage. However, in order to maintain a high quality of life for
its residents, Cupertino needs to invest in walkways and bikeways urgently.
The research is in and cities like New York, Boulder and Portland that have
incorporated walkable neighborhoods have seen tremendous benefits [please see
the links below]. Simply put, walkable cities increase the well-being of residents.
Cupertino must not delay in implementing the best practices, particularly at
this exciting time when decisions will shape the future of the City.
Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner New York City Department of Transportation:
https://youtu.be/diVUmYc2ZWo
Jeff Speck, City Planner, Walkability:
https://youtu.be/uEkgM9P2C5U
Kent Larson, MIT Media Lab:
https://youtu.be/yKC12gzYEtl
Attractive City:
https://youtu.be/Hy4Q_'mKzFl c
Thank you once again or your time and consideration.
Best wishes,
Dr. and Mrs. Wilson
Cupertino, CA
From: Shaupoh Wang [mailto ]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 3:45 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: No to Hills at Vallco
Hi,
I am strongly against the Vallco project proposed by Sand Hill Property for two reasons:
(1) The area simply does not have the traffic system to handle the traffic of 650,000 square feet of
shops, 800 apartments and 2 million square feet of office, in addition to the new 3.5 million square
feet office of Apple HQ. Running bus is no solution, for few people will take it.
(2) Sand Hill Property does not have the successful track record of managing large and complicated
development project. The company over promised in the main -street project and fell short of
delivering the sport club and senior housing as promised. More significantly, the company defaulted
in a 100 -million loan in 2009.
Regards,
Shaupoh Wang
From: Jing Lin [mailto ]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 9:24 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: comments for Environmental Impact Report for The Hills at Vallco
Hi,
I lived in Cupertino and am very concerned about the future increase of needed school capacity.
Please include this in the impact report.
Thanks
From: The Yuens rmailto ]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 2:48 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco Project
I am concerned about the parking plans for the new Vallco project.
The project will conform to what the city requires. I would like to see parking spaces large enough
for the many minivans in Cupertino. Many of the parking spaces in the city are too small for me to
maneuver out of ... for example, the parking behind Panera and Peet's the lane is so narrow that I
hate to go to these venues. I hope the city will "require" larger parking spaces for my minivan.
There have not been enough spaces for the retail areas - Panera, Marukai, Trader Joe's, all of the
parking areas in Cupertino have been too small. I believe that the proposed project will have 9000
parking spaces. This is the same number as Valley Fair. Valley Fair does not have any office space,
hotel, or residential spaces. The office space will have regular employees. There is not any close
alternatives for any overflow parking. I am concerned about having adequate parking. I understand
that the residential spaces will have their own parking. I understand that in the past the city had
considered only 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This equation would mean that for 6 units, there would
only be 9 parking spaces. This seems woefully inadequate if the residences are designed for
families. You would probably have 12 cars fighting for the 9 spaces ..... or for the 800 units, 1200
spaces for the probably 1600 cars so those extra 400 cars and any guests will be using other parking
spaces.
Thank you for your consideration and your effort to make Cupertino a wonderful livable community.
Warm Regards,
Ione Yuen
From: Kent Vincent [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:57 AM
To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; wong@cupertino.org; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; City
of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: THE NUMBERS: WHY THE COUNCIL MUST VOTE NO ON THE HILLS AT VALLCO
THE NUMBERS: WHY THE COUNCIL MUST VOTE NO ON THE HILLS AT VALLCO
Dear Councilmember,
This letter is to present the Council with compelling traffic and greenhouse gas impact numbers,
CEQAjob-housing imbalance lawsuit exposure and significant revitalization failure risks that
demand the Council disapprove rezoning Vallco for the proposed Hills at Vallco office build; and
place a moratorium on all rezoning within the city that increases office space.
The 2M sf of office build proposed for The Hills at Vallco will increase the total number of employees
who work in Cupertino and commute from other cities to over 47,000, nearly doubling the
population of Cupertino every work day and making Cupertino's growth imbalance one of the
primary causes of traffic congestion, transportation infrastructure cost and air pollution in the Bay
Area. The exhaust from these commuter's vehicles alone will produce 700 tons of CO2 greenhouse
gas daily. 20,000 new commute vehicles will converge on Wolfe Rd. from Apple Campus 2 and the
Hills at Vallco office space, alone. The Hwy 280 interchange at Wolfe even when doubled in ramp
lanes will only be capable of handling 1400 to 3600 of these vehicles per hour during commute
hours, meaning the vast majority of the new commute traffic will be directed into the
neighborhoods of Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The severe nature of this is owing to the unnecessary
office build at the Hills at Vallco. Adjusting the General Plan to accommodate the Hills office build
and its 10,000 new office jobs without a counter -balancing increase in housing exposes Cupertino to
the same court mandated job -housing balance imposed on the City of San Jose's General Plan
Amendment this year, where the court mandated one home for each office space job created. Given
the enormous office build at Apple Campus 2, any mixed use revitalization of Vallco should be retail -
residential only not retail -office and be incented to housing Cupertino -based employees, particularly
at Apple Campus 2, to reduce traffic congestion in the city. I am proposing a method to accomplish
this.
TRAFFIC NUMBERS - IMPACT OF 2M SF OF OFFICE SPACE
The proposed Empire State Building equivalent OFFICE SPACE FOR THE HILLS AT VALLCO WILL
LIKELY ADD 10,000 OR MORE COMMUTE VEHICLES TO WOLFE RD. This is based on the Silicon Valley
standard 200 sf (square feet) and one commute vehicle per employee. The Empire State Building
(2.1 M sf) is the second largest office building in the U.S. following the Pentagon. It houses 1000
businesses collectively employing 23,000 workers'.
To visualize the traffic impact, note that 10,000 commute vehicles parked in two lanes of Hwy 280
with 5 feet gridlock spacing extends 20 miles on its own (one car each lane every 21 feet), the
distance between Wolfe Rd. and Crystal Springs Reservoir. Add another 10,000 commute vehicles
from the adjacent new Apple Campus 2 and the two-lane congestion doubles to 40 miles, the
distance from Wolfe Rd. to San Francisco. THIS 40 MILES IN TWO LANES OF NEW COMMUTER
VEHICLES WILL ENTER AND DEPART THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AT WOLFE RD. DURING COMMUTE
HOURS EVERY WORK DAY, ABHORRENTLY ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT ALREADY
EXISTS.
The Hwy 280 interchange at Wolfe Rd. is woefully incapable of handling the added commuters, even
if onramps are doubled from one to two lanes. The State of California sets its metering lights to
allow 350-900 vehicles per hour to enter a freeway per onramp lane2. The rate depends on freeway
traffic congestion. Assuming the state expands the onramps in each direction to two lanes, the
Wolfe Rd. interchange will only be capable of releasing 1400 to 3600 vehicles per hour onto Hwy 280
when metering lights are on. Apple Campus 2 will need all of this to handle its 10,000 vehicles over
the 4 - 7 pm commute period, excluding all other existing traffic and eventual new traffic from Main
Street and Vallco retail. ADDING 10,000 COMMUTE VEHICLES FROM THE PROPOSED HILLS AT
VALLCO OFFICE SPACE WILL REQUIRE 5.5 - 14 HOURS TO VACATE THE PARKING LOTS OF JUST THE
APPLE CAMPUS 2 AND HILLS AT VALLCO OFFICES ONTO THE FREEWAY ALONE DEPENDING ON
METERING. Obviously, this isn't going to happen. THE BULK OF THE 40 MILES OF TWO-LANE NEW
COMMUTE VEHICLES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE STREETS OF CUPERTINO AND
SUNNYVALE, CONSUMING AND GRIDLOCKING EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHWAY AS
COMMUTERS SEEK FASTEST COMMUTE ROUTES. The increased congestion on Stevens Creek Blvd.,
De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd. in concert with the doubling of traffic flow entering the 280
onramp lanes at Wolfe Rd. will certainly back southbound Hwy 280 traffic from the current backup
point near the Hwy 85 interchange into Los Altos Hills on the southbound home commute. THIS
WILL MAKE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY THE NEW LOGICAL FIRST FREEWAY RELIEF POINT OFF -RAMP FOR
SARATOGA, LOS GATOS AND CAMPBELL COMMUTERS, as the currently free right-hand exit -only lane
leading to De Anza Blvd on 280, will be fully immersed in the extended 280 congestion zone. THIS
WILL CONGEST FOR THE FIRST TIME STEVENS CANYON RD. AND THROUGH STREETS SUCH AS
MCCLELLAN RD, BUBB RD., LINDA VISTA DR., HYANNISPORT DR., SANTA TERESA AVE, WILKENSON
AVE, COLUMBUS AVE, TERRACE DR., REGNART RD., MONROVIA AND BYRNE AVE IN THE WEST OF
BUBB NEIGHBORHOOD.
MASS TRANSIT - NOT A MITIGATING FACTOR
The fully decentralized, fully suburban and vast area in which Silicon Valley homes and workplaces
are located make mass transit a non -factor in fighting traffic congestion. THE SOUTH BAY'S LIGHT
RAIL AND BUS MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS OPERATE VIRTUALLY EMPTY BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE NO
FIRST MILE / LAST MILE COMMUTE SOLUTION FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMMUTERS. It is
inconceivable that such a system could have stops within three blocks of both homes and
workplaces for enough commuters to have a measureable impact on traffic. Such mass transit is
only feasible for highly urbanized cities such as San Francisco. THERE IS NO FEASIBLE MASS TRANSIT
ALTERNATIVE TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION PRODUCED BY THE PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE
BUILD AT THE HILLS AT VALLCO. Sand Hill's mention of shuttles and VTA traffic mitigation is simply
placatory for a problem that has not been addressed and is insolvable through mass transit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CEQA AND ABAG EXPOSURE
BY VIRTUALLY ANY STATE OR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL METRIC, THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
SHOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZING ANY REZONE TO OFFICE SPACE, NOW OR INTO THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE. THE COMPLETION OF APPLE'S CAMPUS 2 WILL PUT CUPERTINO'S JOBS -HOUSING RATIO
COMPLETELY OUT OF BALANCE. Of the 31,800 people employed in Cupertino only 5100 live here3,
meaning 84% OF CUPERTINO'S WORKFORCE, 26,700 EMPLOYEES, COMMUTE HERE EVERY WORK
DAY FROM OTHER CITIES. IN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ABAG TERMS,
CUPERTINO'S GROWTH IMBALANCE IN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE COUNTY'S
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND AIR POLLUTION. With the
projected growth of 14,600 Apple employees AT THE COMPLETION OF CAMPUS 2, CUPERTINO JOBS
GROWTH WILL SOAR TO NEARLY 46% OVER A 2-3 YEAR PERIOD DURING A PROTRACTED PERIOD
WHEN CUPERTINO HOUSING IS GROWING ONLY 1.4%ANNUALLY3. Using the same statistics
Cupertino -based employees commuting from other cities at that time will reach at least 39,000.
THE PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE AT THE HILLS AT VALLCO IS EQUIVALENT TO NEARLY A QUARTER OF
ALL OF THE OFFICE SPACE IN THE ENTIRETY OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE4. If the 2M sf Hills At Vallco
office space is approved and using the 84% statistic, THE NUMBER OF CUPERTINO-BASED
EMPLOYEES FROM EXISTING, APPLE CAMPUS 2 AND HILLS AT VALLCO OFFICES COMMUTING FROM
OTHER CITIES INTO CUPERTINO EACH WORK DAY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO EXCEED 47,000, A
FLAGRANT CEQA AND ABAG IMBALANCE. IF WE PARKED THAT NUMBER OF VEHICLES ON HWY 280
IN TWO LANES, AS IF THOSE COMMUTING FROM OTHER CITIES WERE WAITING AT A GATE TO ENTER
CUPERTINO EACH MORNING, THE VEHICLE BACK-UP WOULD EXTEND 94 MILES, THE DISTANCE
FROM WOLFE RD. TO ROUGHLY SANTA ROSA! Assuming an average roundtrip commute of 25 miles
and a standard 1.22 lbs CO2 emissions per miles, THE TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM THOSE
CUPERTINO-BASED EMPLOYEES COMMUTING FROM OTHER CITIES WILL BE OVER 700 TONS DAILY,
150 TONS DUE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE HILLS OFFICE SPACE ALONE.
CCEC V. CITY OF SAN JOSE AND ITS GENERAL PLAN - JOBS -HOUSING IMBALANCE LAWSUIT
The City of Cupertino cannot afford to ignore the environmental impact and job -housing imbalance
issues incurred in the community and region by its General Plan and its development projects. In
April of this year, a CEQA suit by the California Clean Energy Committee against the City of San Jose
successfully over -turned its General Plan for failing to address the jobs -housing imbalance of its
planned office space development. THE COURT FAULTED SAN JOSE FOR NOT PLANNING ENOUGH
HOUSING TO ACCOMMODATE THE JOBS CREATED BY ITS GENERAL PLAN, PUSHING HOUSING AND
TRAFFIC INTO OTHER COMMUNITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE JOBS. THE COURT ORDERED SAN
JOSE TO INCREASE ITS HOUSING UNIT ALLOCATION BY THE ENTIRE JOBS -HOUSING IMBALANCE
SHORTFALL (109,000 HOMES) AND TO PAY THE ENTIRETY OF THE $300,000 SUIT LEGAL COSTS6,7. The
proposed Hills At Vallco project and accommodating Cupertino General Plan Amendment exposes
Cupertino to the same jeopardy. The city of Cupertino, its schools, infrastructure and lack of
available land cannot accommodate the housing needed for the jobs that will be created by the Hills
at Vallco, let alone Apple Campus 2. Environmental advocacy groups, such as the California Clean
Energy Committee, make it their business to discover and force city jobs -housing balance to
minimize regional traffic and pollution. It is inconceivable that the highly publicized and massive
office build of the Apple Spaceship campus and The Hills At Vallco proposal / General Plan
Amendment are not on the radar screen of these advocacy groups.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT- IS CUPERTINO WORKING ON THE WRONG ISSUES?
THE MOST IMPORTANT TRAFFIC MITIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATISTIC FOR CUPERTINO
IS THE PERCENT OF ITS RESIDENTS WHO WORK IN CUPERTINO. If affordable housing and rents were
the primary determinants then one would expect a reasonable number of highly paid engineering
professionals at Apple to live here, at least rent. The fact is only 10% do, the same as live 40 miles
away in San Francisco$. Obviously, other factors play an important role for where people hired in
Cupertino opt to live.
Cupertino has long been a one -trick pony community that's main attraction is its excellent schools.
Outside of the schools, Cupertino has very few standout features and several significant deficits,
most importantly no downtown and the total lack of a social environment for the singles and
millennials that compose the majority of the Apple and new Silicon Valley workforce. The significant
disconnect between the demographics and lifestyle needs of the workforce of Cupertino, its
residents and city offerings is certainly a major reason why Cupertino -based employees choose not
to live here. VALLCO STANDS AS THE LAST HOPE FOR CUPERTINO TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM.
IDEALLY, THE REVITALIZATION OF VALLCO SHOULD BE CENTERED ON ATTRACTING THE YOUNGER
GENERATION OF SINGLES AND MILLENNIALS WHO WORK HERE WITH THE BEST AND MOST
ABUNDANT IN VALLEY OFFERING OF TRENDY AND FULLY ONLINE RESTAURANTS, COFFEE SHOPS,
NIGHT CLUBS, SOCIAL MEETING POINTS, RETAIL SHOPS AND ENTERTAINMENT WITH COORDINATED
URBAN HOUSING DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR AND EQUALLY ATTRACTIVE TO THE TECHNOLOGY,
ACTIVITIES AND LIFESTYLES OF THIS GENERATION... THE MOST COVETED PLACE TO LIVE (AND WALK
TO WORK) FOR YOUNG APPLE EMPLOYEES. A vibrant retail center such as this would attract a
healthy clientele weeklong and over longer hours, attracting also older generations and families who
prefer "happening places" for entertainment and shopping as well. SAND HILL'S CURRENT PLAN TO
REPLACE THE BULK OF THE RETAIL SPACE AT VALLCO WITH HIGH DENSITY OFFICE SPACE TOTALLY
DEFEATS THIS POSSIBILITY AND CEMENTS, PERHAPS FOREVER, CUPERTINO'S INABILITY TO
REVITALIZE THE CENTER AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ITS RESIDENTS WHO WORK HERE.
RISKS THAT OFFICE BUILD WILL PREVENT REVITALIZATION OF VALLCO
The risk factors against a successful revitalization of Vallco through the proposed Hills at Vallco
development are extensive, obvious and underscore Sand Hill's inexperience in building and
managing such a project. First, there is HIGH RISK THAT BOTH SHOPPERS AND RETAILERS WILL FIND
THE HILLS AT VALLCO UNATTRACTIVE DUE TO VASTLY REDUCED RETAIL EMPHASIS (NO LONGER
"DESTINATION RETAIL CENTER"), INCUMBERED ACCESS DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND
EXCESSIVE MIXED USE COMPETITION FOR PARKING. These risks are underscored in the letter sent
October 9, 2014 to Paul Brophy, Cupertino Planning Commission, by Sears' attorney Ivor Samson in
which Sears analysis of the Hills at Vallco proposal forecast lower Sears revenue due to these
factors'. Indeed, the proposed Hills retail space (discounting that allocated for concert area, public
areas and innovation center) is far less than half of the current Vallco retail, and LESS THAN A
QUARTER OF THE RETAIL SPACE OF ITS REGIONAL COMPETITOR AT WESTFIELD VALLEY FAIR10,11,12
THE HILLS AT VALLCO IS NOT A'REVITALIZATION OF VALLCO' AS A RETAIL CENTER BUT A
TRANSFORMATION TO AN ENORMOUS OFFICE COMPLEX MATCHING IN OFFICE SPACE THE ENTIRE
RETAIL SPACE OF VALLEY FAIR, BOTH 2M SF.
Shared parking is a significant and well documented risk for failure of mixed use developments and
the risk at The Hills is particularly onerous. THE 10,000 HILLS OF VALLCO OFFICE WORKER VEHICLES
REQUIRE MORE PARKING SPACES THAN THE ENTIRETY OF THE WESTFIELD VALLEY FAIR MALL,
INCLUDING THE NEW FIVE STORY PARKING STRUCTURE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE
IS MAJOR RISK THAT COMPETITION FOR CONVENIENT, QUICKLY FOUND PARKING SPACE WILL
DETRIMENTALLY FRUSTRATE THE HILLS AT VALLCO SHOPPERS. Assuredly, many of the retail parking
spaces will be more convenient to office workers than the least convenient multi -story office parking
spaces, assuming they are separated and designated as such. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT RETAIL
SHOPPERS WILL BE GATE -CHECKED OR GIVEN A PASS TO ENTER ANY RETAIL SHOPPING PARKING
AREA TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM OFFICE WORKERS WHO WILL TAKE THE MAJORITY OF HILLS
PARKING SPOTS ON WEEKDAYS PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF MOST RETAIL SHOPS. THERE IS
SIGNIFICANT RISK, THEREFORE, THAT WEEKDAY SHOPPERS WILL SUFFER CHRISTMAS -LIKE PARKING
FRUSTRATION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AT THE HILLS BECAUSE OF THE CO -EXISTENCE WITH 21VISF
OF OFFICE SPACE. THIS ASSUREDLY WILL DECREASE RETAIL TRAFFIC AND POTENTIALLY DOOM THE
RETAIL REVITALIZATION OF THE SITE.
Sand Hill Properties has no experience in building or maintaining the environmentally attractive 30
acre green toupee of The Hills at Vallco. Park maintenance will be a very expensive, budget -draining
proposition. A small army of full-time gardeners, landscapers, arborists and other specialists must
be employed year around to maintain the nearly 23 football fields of meadows, vineyards, orchards,
organic gardens, children's play areas, walking and jogging trails promoted by Sand Hill. There is
foreseeable risk that crew cutbacks during any challenging economic time would convert this
centerpiece of the project to the area's greatest elevated eyesore. There is risk also that office
businesses will find it unattractive or unbearable to have office windows that receive no natural
sunlight due to the covering. Like the senior housing scenario at Main Street, THERE IS REASONABLE
RISK THAT SAND HILL PROPERTIES WILL DISCOVER A NECESSITY TO DROP THE SIGNATURE PARK-
LIKE COVERING OF THE HILLS EXPOSING THE UNATTRACTIVE 2M SF OF HIGH DENSITY OFFICE AND
ITS PARKING STRUCTURES THAT LIE BENEATH.
A final risk is funding. BANKS CONSIDER MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS RISKY for all of the reasons
stated above. And THIS DEVELOPMENT IS MORE COMPLEX AND RISKY THAN MOST MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENTS. When retail, office and residential units go vacant developers have trouble making
loan payments. THERE IS REASONABLE RISK THAT SAND HILL PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
SECURE THE ENORMOUS LOAN REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE HILLS AT VALLCO AS PROPOSED,
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE MAJOR ISSUES INTRODUCED BY THE ENORMOUS OFFICE SPACE
COMPONENT, TRAFFIC, SHARED PARKING AND CONSEQUENT RETAIL SURVIVAL RISKS.
SAND HILL'S DECEPTIVE MARKETING AND POLLING
Sand Hill Properties has undertaken a significant and highly deceptive marketing campaign aimed at
getting the bulk of Cupertino residents to submit written postcard mail -in support for the project.
Undoubtedly, a statistic will be presented to the Council by Sand Hill showing vast resident support
when the critical vote for rezoning is taken. The problem is that Sand Hill has not disclosed in its very
seductive mailers, Hills at Vallco website and town meetings the fact that the bulk of Vallco
revitalization, 2M sf, will be office space filled with 10,000 employees who will commute to Cupertino
every work day. Such disclosure, of course, would kill the project by triggering a whole set of
resident concerns including marginalization of the new shopping center, abhorrent traffic, added
housing requirement and their collective impact on schools. Within my network, residents who've
discovered the omission are furious over the deception, especially after having given their written
support of the project. Any resident approval statistic submitted by Sand Hill Properties should be
dismissed by the Council.
WHY DEVELOPER'S PUSH OFFICE SPACE IN CUPERTINO- CITY OF PALO ALTO MORATORIUM
Why are we seeing so many developer proposals to rezone Cupertino retail to office space (Vallco,
The Oaks)? CUPERTINO IS A MAJOR DEVELOPER TARGET IN SANTA CLARA VALLEY FOR CONVERSION
DUE TO THE WINDFALL ANOMALY THAT OFFICE LEASE RATES HERE ARE NOW OVER 40% HIGHER
THAN RETAIL LEASE RATES AND 40% HIGHER THAN OFFICE, RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL LEASE RATES
IN GENERAL IN SANTA CLARA VALLEY13. The current office lease rate in Cupertino is $42.90 /sf/yr and
skyrocketing at +24.3% annually, while the lease rate for retail is $30.20/sf/yr and growing at less
than half the office rate. The county average lease rate is about $30 /sf/yr for both retail and office
space. The applicable square footage is multiplied through multi -story office construction, making it
far more profitable than single street level retail. THIS BRINGS SAND HILL PROPERTIES' MULTI -STORY
OFFICE CENTRIC'REVITALIZATION' DESIGN FOR VALLCO, ITS UNADDRESSED TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PLANNING, ITS OFFER TO BUILD A FREE -TO -THE -CITY SCHOOL AND
INNOVATION CENTER IN EXCHANGE FOR REZONING, IT'S EXPENSIVE AND DECEPTIVE MARKETING
AND SURVEY CAMPAIGN INTO TOTAL FOCUS. SAND HILL'S REVENUE FROM JUST OFFICE SPACE
LEASING AT THE HILLS ALONE SHOULD EXCEED $100M ANNUALLY, MUCH MORE THAN IF
'REVITALIZED' TO THE INTENDED SHOPPING CENTER. The mission of a company is to be maximally
profitable and THE HILLS AT VALLCO IS EXACTLY WHAT ONE MIGHT EXPECT FROM A DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY DOING THE DESIGN.
Faced with similar growth and traffic issues and loss of retail space, the City of Palo Alto passed an
emergency ordinance in May prohibiting the rezoning of ground -floor retail space into office. The
move was made to preserve the City's "slow -growth residential philosophy" and "protect its
resident's health, safety and welfare" 14. A similar philosophy and action is desperately needed in
Cupertino.
A BETTER APPROACH TO VALLCO REVITALIZATION
In my opinion, the revitalization of Vallco should include two critical elements: First, an innovative,
game change shopping destination sustainably competitive with Valley Fair, other regional
successful shopping centers and downtowns; and second, integrated urban residential units
designed, structured, regulated and incented to house within easy walking distance or inter -city
shuttle the millennial and subsequent generations of Apple and other Cupertino -based employees
who work at Campus 2, other Apple and Cupertino employee campuses. This design approach
provides several most important city benefits. First, it CREATES THE'REVITALIZED' VALLCO THAT
RESIDENTS DESIRE. Second, it REDUCES COMMUTER TRAFFIC AND CARBON FOOTPRINT within
Cupertino and the Bay Area. Third, the residential units and total lack of included office space will
REDUCE ABAG, CEQA AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCY GROUP PRESSURE FOR MORE
HOUSING AND ITS CONSEQENT EFFECT ON SCHOOLS AND TRAFFIC. Fifth, regulated to omit children,
the residential element will have ZERO IMPACT ON SCHOOLS. Sixth, the high density residential
units will provide an ATTRACTIVE PROFIT COMPONENT FOR THE DEVELOPER AND REZONE
LEVERAGE FOR THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THE DESIGN IS DONE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY
AND ITS RESIDENTS.
The retail component should first include favorable numbers, quality and types of shops, including
anchor stores like Macy's, and attractive ambience to create a "shopping destination" sustainably
competitive to its primary competitor at Valley Fair. For the single and millennial generation, the mix
should also include trendy restaurants, best in area sports bars and night clubs with evening bands
and entertainment, theatres, sports stores, coffee shops and mobile centric eateries that provide
nutritional, good value meals that can be ordered and paid ahead via mobile device by the young
"don't -want -to -cook" residents for pick up on the walk home from work. A game change addition
would include complete mobile device connection with every shopper, providing such things a
locations of available parking, directions from current location to specific shops, shop search for
desired retail items, shop information, sales and mobile coupons, mobile food and item ordering,
show times and ticket ordering... all available on a center -specific mobile ap that fully enriches the
shopping experience. The center should contain Apple's flagship store, due to its next door location
to the Apple Spaceship HQ. The mix of extensive retail and urban millennial housing provides a most
attractive business environment with far fewer risk factors for attracting and retaining the best and
most popular retailers.
The design of the residential component needs to be prioritized on two basic elements: first, its
unparalleled appeal to young single and millennial Cupertino -based employees and, second, its full
access integration with the retail center. Features should include built-in and upgradable mobile
device home functionality, built-in secure Wi-Fi, wall -mounted flat panel TV, gas insert fireplace, in -
suite dining and entertainment areas and street level bicycle lockers. Rents for Cupertino -based
employees should be discounted and include perks like free or discount gym membership within the
center. Some units should be furnished to attract new college hires.
In this scenario, the Apple Spaceship HQ and adjacent revitalized Vallco center will highlight the
innovation of Cupertino, both in technology and green growth solutions.
I encourage the City of Cupertino to vote against rezoning Vallco and thereby disapprove of the
proposed mixed retail -office Hills at Vallco design. The enormous office component is unnecessary,
will only benefit the developer, will force enormous detrimental traffic impact on the city and
neighboring communities and expose the City of Cupertino to potential CEQA litigation over gross
jobs -housing imbalance. THE COUNCIL SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT WHILE AN AVERAGE
CUPERTINO RESIDENT MAY BENEFIT FROM THE HILLS AT VALLCO REVITALIZATION TWO OR THREE
TIMES PER MONTH ITS OFFICE SPACE WILL SUBJECT EACH RESIDENT TO DEBILITATING TRAFFIC
EVERY DAY. An alternative retail -residential mixed use approach as outlined above is far better for
Vallco revitalization. It offers far less risky development that lowers traffic congestion and the City's
jobs -housing exposure. In short, the City should send Sand Hill Properties back to the drawing
board. When you complete reading this letter, I would appreciate your replying to the email (e.g.
received, thank you) to let me know that it's been received and read.
Best regards,
Kent Vincent
Cupertino
Wikipedia, Empire State Building
2 Ramp Management and Control Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, US Dept. of
Transportation
3 Cupertino General Plan Amendment Market Report Feb. 2014
4 The Problems with the Hills at Vallco, San Jose Mercury News Oct. 3, 2015
5 Rolling Carbon: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commuting in New York City. Transp. Alternative, Oct.
2008
6 Son Jose's general plan imperiled by greenhouse gas lawsuit. Silicon Valley Business Journal, March 24,
2015
'San Jose's Traffic -Intense General Plan Held Unlawful, California Clean Energy Committee, May 7, 2015
8Jason Lungaard, State and Government Affairs, Apple
9 https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAUVhTQ1 B1 UU9tSVU/view?pli=1
1°The Hills at Vallco, Cupertino.org
"Vallco 1.3M sf. The Registry, Bay Area Real Estate, August 27, 2015
12 Wikipedia, Westfield Valley Fair
13 LoopNet, Sept. 2015
14 Palo Alto passes emergency law to protect ground floor retail, Silicon Valley Business Journal, May 12,
2
From: Mark Satter [mailto
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:42 PM
To: Rod Sinks
Subject: SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
Rod G. Sinks
Tel: 408.777.3194
Email: rsinks@cupertino.org
0
Mr, Rod
I like to bring it to your kind notice that Mr Peter pau the new owner of the mall is creating to many
problem.
They want kick us out for no reason, first they say they will pay for relocation and now they are
forcing us to close our businesses.
We have been there for almost twenty years we build goodwill and invested around 200K.
Please help us small business owners Vallco Mall
Regards
Moe Satter
From: Liang C rmailto ]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 12:34 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt
Subject: City has Policy Power over Properties - Palo Alto fines Sand Hill $1,000 per day for
violation
Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Counncilmembers,
How much right does a city have on private properties?
The city in fact could be quite powerful as long as you are willing to assert your right.
The property owners do not have a right to do whatever they want with their property. That's
the basics of Land Use law. The City Council should know that and practice that. The general plan,
master plans and specific plans in every city can specify the height, setback, density, even
architecture, materials used, what type of retail shops or business in a commercial property, and
even what type of occupants in a residential property. The City has police power on all properties
in the city to ensure health, safety and welfare of the City. For the welfare of the residents,
access to affordable retail shops is essential. Please do not use the property owner's right as an
excuse to benefit Sand Hill or any other developer at the expense of health, safety and
welfare of the residents. Please exercise the City's police power to protect the City and the
residents.
The City should look into ways to require a minimum percentage of operational retail space for the
current or future Vallco or other mixed use projects. Otherwise, a developer who wants to turn any
retail space into office could simply intentionally not find a good tenant to rent the space out.
Palo Alto is able to fine Sand Hill $1000 per dayjust because a store is not occupied by a grocery
store, promised as a public benefit.
"The Land Use 101, a field guide" by cacities.org states
"Virtually every reference guide on Municipal Law begins with the premise that a city has the
police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. See Berman v.
Parker, (1954) 348 U.S. 26, 32 - 33."
"The ability to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety and welfare is important in the land use
context because it confers very broad rights to adopt regulations that implement local land use
vision and values,..."
"Land use an d zoning regulations are derivative of a City's general police power... This power allows
cities to establish land use and zoning laws which govern the development and use of the
community..... The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places.
It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion
and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people."
"One seminal land use and zoning case underscoring a city's police power was Wal - Mart Stores Inc.
v. The City of Turlock, (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4 th 273, 303 where, in response to concerns over the
impacts of big box stores, particularly Wal - Mart, the City o f Turlock adopted an ordinance
prohibiting the development of discount superstores."
"The court found the police power allows cities to "control and organize development within
their boundaries as a means of serving the general welfare."
This article lists the many violations of Sand Hill just at Main Street alone, which the Planning
Department, and thus the City, have chosen to ignore. The city did not exercise your police power.
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/08/many-voilations-at-main-street-sand-hill.html
Below (end of the email) are some references to Sand Hill's violations in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is able
to fine Sand Hill $1000 per day just because a store is not occupied by a grocery store, promised as
a public benefit.
Sand Hill is now forcing Vallco to become vacant before the Vallco redevelopment project is even
approved. This should not be allowed. Vallco mall provides a service to the City, just as the grocery
store in Palo Alto provides the service to their community.
Could the City investigate a way to request Sand Hill to keep Vallco operational? At least Sand Hill
should not intentionally kill it. The mall provides retail services that's essential to the welfare of the
residents. Before the redevelopment project is approved, Sand Hill should be required to keep the
mall operational. Or at least 50% of the mall.
If the City couldn't put enforcement according to the current code, the City should look into ways to
require a minimum percentage of operational retail space for the future Vallco or other mixed use
projects. Otherwise, a developer who wants to turn any retail space into office could simply
intentionally not find a good tenant to rent the space out.
In fact, this is the trick the previous Vallco owner and the owners before that have been playing. As
long as Vallco doesn't do well, the City would turn Vallco into a more profitable office park. What
incentive is there for any mall operator to provide the much needed retail service to Cupertino
residents? None.
The property owner doesn't have a right to do whatever they want with their property. That's
the basics of Land Use law. The City Council should know that and practice that. The general plan,
master plans and specific plans in every city can specify the height, setback, density, even
architecture, materials used, what type of retail shops in a commercial property. The City has police
power on all properties in the city to ensure health, safety and welfare of the city. For the
welfare of the residents, access to affordable retail shops is essential. Please do not use the
property owner's right as an excuse to benefit Sand Hill or any other developer at the
expense of health, safety and welfare of the residents. Please exercise the City's police power to
protect the City and the residents.
Sand Hill's violations in Palo Alto:
2013: knocking down a historic building that they are supposed to preserve:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_24262337/developer-fined-942k-by_palo-alto (2013-
10-08)
o A developer will have to pay $94,200 for knocking down one of two historic buildings
that were supposed to be rehabilitated as part of a project to overhaul Edgewood
Plaza in Palo Alto.
• 2015: violation for empty grocery store
http://www. paloaltoonIine.com/news/2015/10/07/edgewood-plaza-developer-faces-growing_
fine -for -grocery -vacancy
• The developer of Edgewood Plaza is now facing a fine of $1,000 per day for not replacing the
vacant grocery store formerly occupied by Fresh Market, which departed on March 31.
• In August, the City Council added pressure on Sand Hill Property Company to replace Fresh
Market by the end of September by imposing a fine of $500 per day. That fine increased
to $750 on Oct. 1 and $1,000 each day after Oct. 1 until the property is brought into
compliance with an ordinance that requires the continued operation of a grocery store at
the once -dilapidated Edgewood Plaza, located at 2080 Channing Ave.
• The grocery store is a key component of a "planned -community" zone change that the city
granted to Sand Hill in 2012. The zone change allowed the developer to construct a
development that, in addition to the grocery store, includes two commercial buildings and
10 homes.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
From: Liang C rmailto ]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 12:49 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; David Brandt
Subject: Re: City has Policy Power over Properties - Palo Alto fines Sand Hill $1,000 per
day for violation
Here is the video from last night's oral communication. Please watch it again to remind
yourself their testimonies.
https://youtu.be/TF24T7G3ick
These people may not be Cupertino residents, since they cannot afford to buy a house here.
They are long-time small business owners of Cupertino. They have paid their business
license fees and earned sales taxes for Cupertino in the past 20 to 30 years. They have
served Cupertino residents in the past 20 ro 30 years.
Please treat them with the same respect and courtesy that you would for large and wealthy
business owners. These small business owners are also stakeholders of Cupertino. Their
stake is even bigger since their whole life saving is on the line here.
Please do not let an out-of-town developer who have only profited from Cupertino to drive
these people away and walk all over their right and dignity.
Thank you.
Liang
From: Liang C M>>
Date: November 10, 2015 at 11:19:33 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh<PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Fwd: City has Policy Power over Properties - Palo Alto fines Sand Hill
$1,000 per day for violation
Reply -To: M>>
Please forward this email to the Vallco EIR consultant team, Sand Hill people and
anyone involved with Vallco project.
In the EIR scoping session, one of the consultants said "The property owner has a
right to develop their own property." That's wrong. The city has the police power to
decide what and how any property owner can develop their property for the public
health, safety and welfare.
I hope that the EIR consultant does not make such incorrect statement to mislead
the public any more. If the EIR consultant does not know the very basic of land use
law 101, they should consultant their land use attorney and get the basic facts
straight.
If they disagree, I would appreciate if they can point out any law that state otherwise.
Thanks.
Liang
From: Kent Vincent [mailto ]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 6:55 PM
To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; City of Cupertino Planning
Dept.; Gilbert Wong
Subject: San Jose's Traffic -Intense General Plan Held Unlawful
Dear Councilmember,
I have forwarded to you on two occasions without response my letter detailing highly compelling
reasons why the Hills at Vallco rezone request should be rejected by the Council. Here is one of the
reasons: the Cupertino General Plan Amendment is likely unlawful as recently ruled in the case
against the City of San Jose.
Kent Vincent
Cupertino
San Jose's Traffic -Intense General Plan Held Unlawful
Posted on May 07, 2015
The California Clean Energy Committee has successfully over -turned the City of San Jose General
Plan due to the failure to adequately analyze impacts resulting from a lack of housing for people
employed in the city. The City's recent update of its general plan would require 109,000 additional
housing units to be built elsewhere in the region for employees working in San Jose.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) described the effect of that kind of planning in its
2007-2014 Regional Housing Needs Plan—
In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan areas, cities with employment centers have historically
planned for insufficient housing to match job growth. This lack of housing has escalated Bay Area
housing costs. Unmet housing demand has also pushed housing production to the edges of our
region and to outlying areas. San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito counties have produced much
of the housing needed for Bay Area workers. People moving to these outlying areas has led to
longer commutes on increasingly congested freeways and inefficient use of public transportation
infrastructure and land. Negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall
quality of life in the Bay Area also result.
The City conceded that it is "very apparent" in the Bay Area that "it is the physical relationship
between the location of housing and jobs ... that significantly contributes to several of the primary
impacts of concern in the region, particularly air pollution and the excessive consumption of energy
and land resulting from an inefficient sprawling land -use pattern."
In short, the proposed general plan update means more sprawl, more traffic, more costly regional
transportation projects, more noise, more land consumed by transportation structures, greater
contributions to climate disruption, more maintenance obligations for stretched government
budgets, more air pollution, more transportation expense for individuals, more time consumed
sitting in traffic, and less time for family and leisure.
Moreover, the City has no plan in place to pay for the costs of dealing with the traffic its plan would
produce.
The City exhausted an innovative set of planning tools just trying to keep pace with the impacts from
new traffic generated by its general plan update. Despite those efforts, the City still fell considerably
short of even holding off new adverse impacts.
According to the City, "Traffic and the environmental effects of traffic, such as air pollution, noise,
and greenhouse gases resulting from induced population growth in other jurisdictions will result in
significant environmental impacts."
The California Legislature has enacted legislation in an effort to this kind of local planning and to
ensure that communities are designed to reduce the amount of driving that people need to do to
carry on their daily activities. (See Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.)
The California Air Resources Board has set a target, calling for a 4 percent reduction in per capita
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved through improved local planning. The City of San Jose
now proposes to head dramatically in the opposite direction. Its proposed general plan would
increase daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 19.8 million to 34.8 million by 2035. (See Final
Program EIR at 882.)
Even if the effect of population growth is factored out, the City's general plan update still represents
a dramatic 32% increase in per capita VMT.
The City, relying on faulty advice from the Bay Area AQMD, failed to disclose the impact on GHG
emissions resulting from lack of adequate housing and increased traffic.
The California Supreme Court has made it quite clear that ignoring such impacts "results in an
'illusory' comparison that'can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full
consideration of the actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent."
(Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Ca1.4th
310.)
From: Scott Ding [mailto ]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 3:34 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The problem with The Hills at Vallco
Dear members of the city planning committee,
Sand Hill Property has sent us many flyers about the plan called "The Hills at Vallco". The more I look
at them, the more issues I can think of with this project. I don't have to wait any reports come out to
tell, just use my common sense.
It is a very bad idea to replace current 1.2 million square foot Vallco shopping mall with 2 million
square foot office space + 800 residential units. I like the place is still mainly be a shopping,
entertainment, and recreation center. Not a huge office space and housing hub.
Not mentioning current heavy traffic at Wolfe and 280, the new Vallco project and newly built Apple
Campus 2 would create tons of traffic. This is going to be nightmare for the residents around Vallco
area.
I have not received any details of solutions in addressing this huge traffic problem. I don't think
there are any.
This project is not a win-win, it is only one win, which is the developer.
I found this article for your reference. Sometimes, an outsider's view can tell something we don't
know about.
Herhold: The problems with the Hills at Vallco
Scott Ding
Herhold: The problems with the Hills at Va
Ilco
There's much that is seductive about Sand
Hill Property's plan for remaking the Vallc
o shopping center in Cupertino as "The Hil
Is at Vallco," essentially a new urba...
View Preview by
on www.mercurynews.com Yahoo
From:
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 4:32 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco - Request for Comments
I think a refreshed Vallco would be great. I like the idea of new stores, restaurants, and nicely
landscaped walking paths. I do not, however, like anything about the proposed plan for Vallco. I
think it is designed for the ego of the developer, not for the citizens of Cupertino who have worked
hard to live in a very nice community.
I don't care what seismic engineering assurances are in the proposal - would you want your child
inside Vallco under that "hilltop" roof in an earthquake?
Cupertino vehicle traffic is already becoming very difficult. I carefully plan my route and time of day
just to go to Safeway. You are adding cars on the road with the Apple building(s) and Main
Street. just do the math - how many condos and offices at Vallco will create how many more cars on
the road? The developer's promise of a shuttle is laughable. I am not going to take a shuttle to go
from my home to CVS, Home Depot and Sprouts. Improving the Wolfe/280 exit will not fix traffic on
Stevens Creek, De Anza Blvd., Homestead, Stelling, and all the other current traffic jam areas.
Perhaps most important - our schools are the crown jewel of Cupertino. We are proud of our
exceptional students, and many of us are pleased with the associated property
values. Overcrowding our excellent schools so we can have a shopping center like the one being
proposed would be a shame.
It is my hope that the Cupertino decision makers will make thoughtful, moderate choices to
maintain our pleasant environment.
From: Walter Li [mailto ]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 5:20 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Cupertino: The Hills at Vallco
You have received this link to the Cupertino from:
Walter Li
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1365
The following are my comments regarding The Hills at Vallco:
1. With the upcoming release of Apple Campus 2 and The Main Street, plus proposed new Apple
campus near Wofle / Central Expwy, my major concern for The Hills is with traffic mitigation. With
such a large project such as The Hills, I cannot see how Cupertino can approve it unless a very
satisfactory traffic plan is to be in place. Otherwise, The Hills should not be approved in its currently
proposed scale.
2. 1 am also concern about such a large project dragging on with development / construction
delays, or worse, with cost over run / law suits, etc., thus affecting the traffic and normal functioning
of City of Cupertino even more Cupertino must demand a guarantee with penalties from the
developer(s) if the project cannot complete in time.
Thank you.
Walter
Walter Li
From: Joel Adam fmailt
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 8:49 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Joel Adam
Subject: input for Vallco El
Hello,
I will not be able to make the scope meeting for the Vallco IER so I wanted to provide my input in an
email. I would like the EIR to cover the following topics:
- Impact on traffic in the Vallco area. Make sure this takes into account traffic due to the new Apple
campus and expansion plans for the Hamptons
- Impact on schools due to the new residential units planned for Vallco: Eaton, Collins, Lawson,
Cupertino High. Make sure this takes into account that all of the new units are planned to be rentals
which will result in no increase to tax base of city and no additional money for schools from the
special assessments attached to property taxes. Would like to see some portion if not all of the
residential units be converted from rental to ownership to increase tax base and revenues for
schools.
- Air quality impact during to construction
- Odors from restaurants once the new Vallco is built. Make sure the restaurants have filters in place
to make sure the smells from the kitchens do not reach the surrounding neighborhoods. I live
behind the Elephant Bar. For many years, smells from the kitchen of the Elephant bar could be
smelled in the neighborhood surrounding Wilson Park. This was fixed by the addition of filters. Now,
there are smells from the trash from the Marukai supermarket ...
Thanks,
Joel Adam
From: Gary Jones [mailt
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 7:02 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills EIR Comment
Will the EIR take into consideration the fact that the Mall was once a thriving center with substantial
traffic and the area has been without that traffic for decades?
As to traffic, aren't we really talking about a differential traffic impact with the Hills from what the
area was at one time, and what was originally planned for the area?
Gary Jones, Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Gary
From: Barbara Hurd fmailto
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 12:15 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Hills at Valco
Concerned the project is too big for area. Traffic and parking will be a nightmare. Cannot be solved
with shuttles and encouraging bikes/walking.
Barbara Hurd
From: Mona Schorow [mailto
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 2:28 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Joan Lawler
Subject: LIMIT Development: The Hills at Vallco
Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend the upcoming meeting and feel strongly that additional
development in Cupertino must be limited. Completion of the Apple campus and Main Street will
increase the traffic; traffic already gridlocks some parts of the day. I don't live in the immediate area
but the current gridlock makes parts of Cupertino inaccessible to me at commute times. Danger to
pedestrians and cyclists grows. Cupertino doesn't have the infrastructure (subways, trains, buses) to
effectively alleviate the traffic, parking, and density problems.
Smart growth. Not rampant overgrowth.
We need to deal with the current issues before exacerbating them.
Sincerely,
Mona Schorow
From: Michael Gor [mailto
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 1:54 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Regarding Vallco Mall project
With regarding to the proposed Vallco Mall Residential & office project. I am concern about the
number of residential units and its impact on the school, traffic and character of the city. The
number of residential units should be minimized.
michael gor
Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.
From: Sue Coatney fmailto
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 3:19 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comments on Hills at Vallco
Hello -
This email is in response to card received in the mail requesting environmental impact feedback on
the proposed The Hills at Vallco project.
This project will have significant negative impact on the surrounding community and neighborhoods
to Vallco.
There will be significant traffic impact of this project - there are 800+rental units planned for this
project. With 2 cars per unit, that's an additional 1600 cars on the road, which will jam are already
over -crowded streets. In addition, there is significant office space which is planned for this project -
that also translates to even more cars. The traffic will increase the surrounding communities stress
level, but it's also more air pollution, more car exhaust fumes, etc.
Yes, even if there is additional mass transit options, we all know that few people will actually take the
bus.
There is also a huge issue of water. The rental & business units will all need water, not to mention
the huge grass area they are planning. We already do not have enough water - we've all been asked
to let our lawns die, take 5min showers, and to not flush the toilet. The Cupertino area just does
not have the additional water resources to support huge grassy area or the 800+ rental units.
There is also an impact to the Cupertino schools, which in turn impacts the value of the existing
Cupertino home -owners. Due to the units being rental units and thus only 1 land parcel, there will
be no additional revenue from property taxes to support the schools, which will have an influx of
additional students from the rental units. Declining school quality will have a negative impact on the
Cupertino community as a whole.
Please vote against this project and protect both Cupertino and the surrounding neighborhood and
communities.
Thanks,
Sue Coatney
From: Ruby Mitchell [mailto
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:52 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Hill of Vallco Project Proposal
Planning Commission,
As a 43 year resident of Cupertino my concerns re: proposed Hills of Vallco Project are as follows:
Before any project is considered the following impacts should be weighed and put before the profit
of developers at the cost of the quality of life of the residents of Cupertino.
Consider the total impact any project has on our environment including the following:
Availability of Emergency Services such as, Ambulance, Fire, and Law Enforcement Crowding of
Facilities such as Library, Parks, Retail, Restaurants, Schools, Senior Center, and Sports Fields Noise
Pollution Parking Availability Quality of Air Sewage Traffic Congestion and Pollution Transit
Availability Water Availability And more!
I believe absolutely no further building of any housing or office space in Cupertino should be
approved and allowed until the current and any projected problems have been solved and dealt
with successfully. That means such problems as the traffic congestion has been solved and schools
built and ready BEFORE approval of any project and BEFORE any building starts. It doesn't seem
responsible to continue to put the cart before the horse on any further projects such as councils
have allowed in the past. No changes should be allowed to any project, such as the loss of senior
housing and increase in office space in City Center, once that project has been approved.
We also currently need more retail, increased parking facilities, and well planned and executed bike
lanes in Cupertino before any new projects that increases the population of residents and
businesses should be considered.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Please do the right thing for the residents of Cupertino.
Ruby B. Mitchell
From: Urs Mader fmailto ]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 6:01 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Suggestion to improve Traffic for Vallco EIR
I have two Suggestions:
Improve the Wolfe/Steven's Creek Interchange:
Please consider asking the developer to alter the section of Wolfe leading up to Steven's Creek by
widening Wolfe leading into Steven's Creek. The Wolfe/Steven's Creek Interchange needs help
already. Problem is that left turn lane onto Steven's Creek East backs up significantly. West -Bound
Steven's Creek right turn also backs up and currently crowds the bike lane on Steven's Creek heading
north.
• l3.Aedkatedrightlimn lane;alsoimprovesbikelane.Fminrnrdnonainnnfun 'rntproperty-
Z. Changa to Double Left Tum kine
- 1. Use thisIindtowidenWolfeto
m a i ntain w i dt h to Steve n•s Gee k
A. Eminen[dnmain ai 76 Station (ornertn 5mon th tralfidlow
I realize that this is not the primary artery in and out of "The Hills", but this is already a
problem. Perhaps Sand Hill could foot the bill for the land needed at the 76 and the Kaiser building
since there will be some amount of increased traffic due to their development.
Improve the Parking Tunnels under Wolfe to enable Entrv/ Exits for Right Turn Traffic Flow:
I like the fact that "The Hills" has multiple entrance and exits from the garage to smooth traffic in
and out of the property. This traffic will likely still affect through traffic across the property however
and maintaining Wolfe's full width along the entire length hopefully will help with this. In this
regaurd, it may help if Sand Hill's development relies more on "right turn" entrance and exit by
providing a wider connecter underneath Wolfe to facilitate this:
Too meagerand poorly placed.
Should be at parking ramp entrance
locationsto relieve leftturn traffic
disruption on Wolfe.
.U-LL:LL11�.II.iII.JIi L...I..I1.J].111JL-IL• ..-----..------.
Urs Mader
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff IC Design
Office: +1 (408) 601-5878
Maxim Integrated I www.maximintegrated.com
I• '� 'Tr '@ ap �fi � - - -
- j:
01
Better Location w.r.t ramps to enable
rightturn entry and exit to reduce
flow disruption on Wolfe.
Urs Mader
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff IC Design
Office: +1 (408) 601-5878
Maxim Integrated I www.maximintegrated.com
From: Delores [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 8:12 AM
To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan
Subject: Valco
Dear Cupertino Mayor Sinks and City Council Members,
I sincerely hope you are not putting the city of Cupertino at financial risk with this, what could be a
Pie -in -the -Sky plan for San Hill Property Co. to build up Valco. Their litigation issue, their not so good
standing with banks, this unbelievable risk during a drought ... what are you thinking?
I have not attended meetings. I do not plan to attend meetings. My sincere feeling about the
Council is/has been that the Public is listened to but not believed.
I think it would be wonderful if Cupertino has this attraction (Much like the Mall of America which
attracts customers worldwide,) but, this plan appears as a Fantasy.
Cupertino is not Hollywood Land and I see this plan being partially done, as in Sunnyvale, and our
city being left with an expensive eyesore citizens paid for.
I've seen no publication that tells me where the money is to come from. Why? Are you afraid that
would really bring out a storm of protests?
Sincerely, Delores Carson,
From: E Yee
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 8:51 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills at Vallco - EIR Scoping Meeting
Please include traffic, parking, pollution, water, city services (i.e. library, police, fire department)
usage impact in the Hills at Vallco EIR.
Thankyou
From: Better Cupertino fmailt
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 12:18 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council
Subject: Vallco project does not qualify for relaxed CEQA requirement.
Dear experts in the Planning Department,
The PDA (Priority Development Area) identified by VTA (never confirmed by the City Council, by the
way) identifies commercial areas along Stevens Creek and De Anza as PDA, which would allow
development projects to be approved with relaxed CEQA requirement.
The Vallco site is not within PDA. We would like to confirm that the Vallco project would NOT qualify
to use relaxed CEQA requirement, per SB743.
Thanks.
Legislative Changes to CEQA Ease Requirements for Urban Infill Projects
httD://realestatecounsel.net/2013/09/27/legislative-changes-to-ceaa-ease-reauirements-for-urban
infill -projects/
• SB 743 would allow projects to be built even if environmental impacts are significant and
unavoidable. These are highlighted in the article.
• Inadequate parking and aesthetic impacts cannot be used to challenge a project
under CEQA if the project is "on an infill site within a transit priority area.
• New guidelines will be developed to determine the significance of transportation
impacts of projects in transit priority areas.
• Automobile delay, "as described solely by level of service or similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion," shall not be considered a significant impact
on the environment under CEQA.
• The adequacy of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance.
• Residential, employment center, or mixed use development projects in a specific
plan area in which a prior environmental impact report ("EIR") was prepared are
eligible for a new CEQA exemption.
• Review of "environmental leadership projects" returns to the superior court, as well
as appellate court, but both rounds of review must be completed within 270 days.
• Certain streamlining provisions to CEQA were added for the benefit of a planned
entertainment and sports center project in the City of Sacramento.
From: Cailan Shen fmailto
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 12:40 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: City Council; citystaff@cupertino.org
Subject: Concerns Regarding Vallco EIR from a Registered Voter of Cupertino
Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I am writing to you to express my concerns of the proposed Vallco project.
-- I would like the upcoming EIR to study traffic issue if there are 2 million sgft office at Vallco.
-- I would also like the upcoming EIR to study the possibility of keeping Vallco retail only.
Thanks for your consideration and please put this correspondence on public record.
Cailan Shen
From: Steve Kelly fmailto
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 5:36 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Sean Devaney
Subject: Re: The Hills at Vallco
RE: The Hills at Vallco-
Cupertino has a great opportunity to avert a monumental rent increase on tenants near the new
Apple Campus by adding the needed housing in the Vallco Re -development project. Cupertino must
find room for the 14,500 new or relocating Apple employees and all the new Vallco office
employees. To do this it will require a change in the Retail, Office, and housing mix in the Vallco
project.
As a housing expert, I would highly recommend Cupertino require a quadrupling in the housing
from 800 rental units to 3,200 units and a reduction in office jobs from 8,000 to 2,000 jobs. This will
stabilizing local rents and reduce the traffic impact.
Now my plan would also require Cupertino Union re -open 1 or 2 closed school sites and a phasing in
of housing as local school capacity is increased. Parents will like this change as walking distant to
many local schools will be reduced.
If the needed housing is not added expect far worse Traffic and Rental Rates to Soar!! Teachers,
City Workers, The Elderly and young adults will see their rent to rise 35 to 50 %.
Sincerely,
Steve Kelly
Home Owner & Real Estate Broker
From: Sujuan Cai [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 9:49 PM
To: planning@cupertino.orf
Cc: City Council
Subject: regarding Vallco EIR
Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I'm writing to you to express my concerns of the proposed Vallco project.
I would like the EIR to study following issues if there're 2 million sgft office at Vallco,
1. Traffic issues.
2. The possibility of keeping vallco retail on site
3. The possibility of build an on-site middle/high schools at Vallco.
I don't think the idea shuttle buses is realistic if there're 10,000 people working at Vallco. Could EIR
include any further research?
Thanks for your consideration and please put this correspondence on public record.
Best regards,
Sujuan Cai
From: RUI LI
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:07 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Vallco EIRDear Planning Commission and City Councils
Hello,
As a local resident here in Cupertino area with my kids going to CHS, I'm writing to you to express
my concerns of the proposed Vallco project. I would like the upcoming EIR to study the impact of
Vallco development on local school as the schools are already overcrowded. Furthermore, the
impact on the local roads going to be horrendous as both Apple new campus and Vallco will be
adding tremendous burden on our local roads.
I strongly advocate to have Sand Hill Development to build a new high school onsite at Vallco to
compensate and mitigate the negative impact it has on our local community and our children.
Thank you for your consideration and please put this correspondence on public record.
Rui Li
From: Amy Liu rmailto
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:09 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Vallco EIR
Hello,
As a local resident here in Cupertino area with my kids going to CHS, I'm writing to you to express
my concerns of the proposed Vallco project. I would like the upcoming EIR to study the impact of
Vallco development on local school as the schools are already overcrowded. Furthermore, the
impact on the local roads going to be horrendous as both Apple new campus and Vallco will be
adding tremendous burden on our local roads.
I strongly advocate to have Sand Hill Development to build a new high school onsite at Vallco to
compensate and mitigate the negative impact it has on our local community and our children.
Thank you for your consideration and please put this correspondence on public record.
Amy Liu
From: Cathy Helgerson [mailt ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Piu Ghosh; Cathy Helgerson; Liang C; Peggy Griffin; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: EIR Vallco
Hello,
These are my comments Piu Ghosh please e-mail me and let me know if you received them.
Cathy Helgerson
CAP - Citizens Against Pollution
As an attached Word document...
TO: City of Cupertino, Community Development, Attn: Piu Ghosh - Senior Planner
From: Cathy Helgerson
Regarding: Vallco Shopping Center EIR - The Public's right to comment as follows:
The Vallco Shopping Center consists of the District Specific Plan and the Hills at Vallco Project.
I am against the 30 acre green roof as follow:
1) The weight of the water on the building grass, trees and plants when it rains and when it is
watered we are in a drought this water even thou it is recycled can be used someplace else. The
weight of the dirt and what will this all do to the structure of the building can it withstand all of the
weight what about the wear and tear over the years how will all of it hold up?
2) Water that is stationary breed's mosquitos we were just sprayed with poison to kill off the
mosquitos in Cupertino so how will this garden grow?
3) Kids playing in the water and on the wet grass problem with slipping and falling will the Vallo
owners pay for any accidents and incidents this project is a safety hazard in more ways than one.
How about people falling or jumping off the building all kinds of things could happen when people
are up on top of building people jump off bridges and building all the time. Will the owner higher a
guard and will he be able to stop any problems on this roof top?
4) The expense of replacing the trees, plants and grass as time goes on this money can be used for
more important things even if the owner is paying for it. It is ashamed that this use of money to put
this green roof could not be used to feed the hunger and homeless people that live in Cupertino and
the surrounding areas.
5) Where will this recycled water come from and how will it be brought up to the roof water is water
it has to come from some place even recycled water who will monitor that? I suspect that the builder
will use regular water and will not worry about the expense if no one is watching.
6) Drainage who will monitor the amount of water held up on the roof what if we do have rain in
future a great deal of rain will the drainage be sufficient?
List of titles given on EIR and Comments as follows:
Aesthetics: Yes, definitely building mass, and height, lighting, and possible glare to adjacent land use
of course there will be problems of all kinds in these areas I am totally opposed to this project
because of all of these adverse environmental effects. I feel very sorry for the people that will be
living around Vallco because of the problems above and also I am sure more problems that will
come up.
Air Quality: The Silicon Valley has terrible air quality and things for sure are not going to get any
better ever unless we make sure that where there is or could be a problem or problems are looked
at and resolved. The Vallco Projects as a whole will create air, water and soil pollution on land and in
the sewer areas. Water recycled over and over has great problems and how will this water be
treated as so not to cause a health problem. Children will play in water no matter where it is and it
will be a health hazard and problem. The air pollution why would you really want to put people on
top of a building with the poor air quality out there the higher you get the worse it is this will cause
many health problems and even death. Staying inside on especially spare the air days are a must so
why put people outside on top of buildings. The soil is polluted already because of Lehigh Southwest
Cement and Quarry and their operations they do not even close down during spare the air days and
are causing the pollution we have to live with. The BAAQMD does very little to really control the
pollution from Lehigh Cement and Quarry and they will not be able to control the air pollution
coming from the construction of the Vallco projects. The underground garage will also cause air
pollution and there should not be any underground garages because of air pollution and also
because of earth quakes.
Biological Resources - Trees and nesting birds - It is very important that the City keep trees of all
kinds and also we must consider the nesting birds in these trees. We must have the City water the
trees in order to keep them alive. Pollution contaminates not only people but trees Lehigh
Southwest Cement is contaminating the trees and birds as well as humans and animal alike
chopping down trees at a glance is no way to keep the population healthy remember that.
Historical - Not sure how that will be a factor in the EIR but if there is any historical value of any kind
I am for it save it for our future and our children.
Geology and Soils - Seismic (Earth Quakes) yes, I believe that any building or additional weight on
the ground needs to be looked at and considered in regards to Earth Quakes. We live near the San
Andres fault line and other fault lines that any real disturbances including Lehigh Southwest Cement
and Quarry and the Steven Creek Quarry with a new pit and mining could cause the next major
earth quake. More building and higher buildings with more weight on the ground does cause earth
quakes.
Hazardous Soil Conditions - The soil should be tested to make sure that there is no hazards related
to the soil of any kind this should be a given. If there is any contamination and I am pretty sure that
there could be especially with lead on the soil it needs to be taken out and disposed of. The tearing
up and new construction could be a serious hazard if not looked into regarding lead and other
pollutants that could become air born and hurt the public health wise.
Underground Garages - Problem first with air pollution cumulating underground which will hurt
humans and animals alike. The problem with a possible earth quake I do not think we should build
underground garages at all in Cupertino and California.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions - the increase of people businesses and cars will bring more pollution
and with that pollution goes health problems. The contribution of this pollution is helping to cause
the drought here in the valley, the US and the world we need to stop polluting the air, water and soil.
Hydrology and Water quality - Whenever tearing down structures there is concrete to deal with and
other building materials these are hazardous pollutants to the workers and to the neighborhood. It
is well known that air pollution can fly for miles so it is well to say that concrete has Mercury in it and
that this will poison, contaminate and pollute the public. Read the information given on a package of
concrete that you or a contractor my purchase it mentions the hazardous warning on the label
package so this must be considered when any property is under new construction. The rain water or
any other water used to keep down the dust will wash into our groundwater and this will put a great
impact on our water quality.
Land use - Tree conservation is important and Cupertino has already lost way too many trees and
counting and this is due to the drought and also due to the new building and parking lot
construction going on all over the city. It is very important that the City understand that planting new
small tiny trees take time to grow and it will take years in the meantime we have lost the benefits
that the trees bring. More people moving into an area will bring more pollution on all levels noise
pollution, traffic problems and construction problems will cause hazards of all kinds for months and
probably years.
Noise and Vibration - there will be a long period of time that the public will have to endure this
problem traffic will have to be rerouted around the building project on Steven Creek and Wolf Rd.
this will cause problems on other streets as well. The backup of traffic on 280 alone will be and
absolute nightmare how will the City handle this problem only time will tell we need to know what
the City plans.
Transportation - With 280 Wolf Exit and Street improvement this will close down 280 which will put a
terrible impact on De Anza Blvd and the Lawrence Street entrance to the freeway on Steven Creek
again how will the City of Cupertino handle this? The traffic we must remember will always be a
great problem more people means more traffic problems.
Utilities and Service - Sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, and solid waste services will be tested to
their limits and the question still remains is there enough resources provided by the Cupertino
Sanitation Department and the SJ Water Treatment Plant? I for one am not so sure this project
needs to be submitted to the Cupertino Sanitation Department for approval if there is not enough
lines or space they can refuse the project all together I want proof that there is enough space and I
want it in writing submitted with this EIR. This information should be provided by both the Cupertino
Sanitation Department and also the SJ Water Treatment Plant before any building of this project
takes place and it should be available to the public.
Summary - The people of Cupertino want what is best for all parties concerned and we are very
worried that projects of this magnitude can cause undue suffering to the public therefore we would
like a very clear and a justified review of all of the hazards of all kinds that could take place. It is up
to the City of Cupertino to make clear decisions with all of the precautions that must take place to
insure our safety and the safety of our families this should not go unnoticed. Please review my
comments and take them into consideration. Thank You.
From: RD J [mailto J
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:47 AM
To: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul
Cc: Varsha Joshi
Subject: Fw: Hills At Vallco
Resending this to the entire city council as I did not get a reply from Mr. Sinks. In addition, I note that
the 800 or so units would pay a single parcel tax (ie less than most residents in the city). So how is
this development a positive for anyone including schools? Please dig deeper and don't approve the
environmental study tonight! Let's kill this before it becomes a bad idea for the city.
Rajeevjoshi
On Oct 5, 2015, at 1:06 PM, RD J > wrote:
Dear Mr. Sinks:
As a long time Cupertino resident (>20 yrs) living in the Vallco neighborhood, I have seen the
change at the Vallco mall going from bad to worse. The current project - Hills at Cupertino is
an example of the "worse". It is a very poorly conceived idea for a number of reasons.
1. We don't need the extra 800 multi family housing especially when it adds to the
congestion in the Miller - Stevens Creek corridor especially when the Apple Campus ramps
up. Just a few months ago, to cover the distance from Miller to Lawrence took 5 mins, now it
takes 20 mins with traffic lights at every 100 feet or so with the retail space in front of Tantau
has yet to be constructed fully to add to the congestion.
2. That particular developer has a poor history of development projects with similar projects
either unfinished or tied up in litigation - we would not want such a stigma in our city.
3. 1 am very surprised that the city council held meetings beyond midnight to pass these
projects- don't you want to have these forums attended by the residents to voice their
opinions and discuss them live?
4. Please don't show statistics that several people "overwhelmingly" support this project- for
relevance please take a poll of residents within a 5 block radius of the project and see what
their views are- they should have the heaviest of all votes.
5. The idea of having another elementary school near Collins is ludicrous- where will the
children play? In Portal park- which will get annexed by the school (thus depriving the
neighborhood of a park), not to speak of the congestion during school hours.
6. The idea of office space equivalent to the empire state bldg. in New York is absurd - this
was supposed to be a bedroom community, please keep it so.
I clearly see my quality of life rapidly eroding if this project comes to pass.
Finally, I urge you and your leadership team of Cupertino to act responsibly - please stop the
project NOW and not commission any environmental studies as we cannot afford those
frivolous expenses- the residents in the nearby community have and will act again to
overturn any decision you may make to support this project.
Sincerely,
Rajeevjoshi
From:
Abu Wawda [mailto ]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:26 AM
To:
City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc:
City Council; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Darcy Paul; Gilbert Wong; Savita
Vaidhyanathan; Karen B. Guerin
Subject:
Comments about The Hills at Vallco - EIR Scoping
0
As a resident of Cupertino, I would like to comment on the Hills at Vallco rezoning proposal. I have
huge concerns with the project. In particular I do not believe that rezoning Vallco for high-density
housing (--800 apartments) is in the interest of the city and its residents. Here are my specific
concerns:
1. Increased traffic and congestion due to additional residents. The argument that a lot of these
apartments will be resided by Apple employees (and hence can just walk to work) is ridiculous. I
work in the tech industry and most employees at companies like Apple do not want to live in
apartments but rather end up buying houses. Also in the tech industry, there's a lot of turnover.
Engineers frequently move from company to company. Traffic along Steven Creek between
Lawrence and De Anza is already terrible.
2. Impact to local schools. I hear that Sand Hill Properties wants to build a new elementary school
but what about middle school and high school? Cupertino High School is already crowded! There's
no plan to address this.
3. Sand Hill Properties does not have a good reputation. Quite simply, I don't trust them. Look at
their reputation with Sunnyvale. Did you see the article that was posted in the Mercury News
regarding the project? Please see: http://www.mercurynews.com/scott-
herhold/ci_28916780/problems-hills-at-vallco
4. Deceptive marketing. The Hills at Valco has been sending out information to the community
regarding the project but there's no mention about the increase in office space and the new
apartments!
While I do think it would be great if Vallco gets a makeover (it's certainly a sore eye), the answer is
not by rezoning the mall for high-density housing and office space.
Thanks,
Abu Wawda
From: bchalam@yahoo.com [mailt ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:51 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Hills-at-Vallco EIR Scoping Comments
N
I would like to put the following on record in the city of cupertino.
Our concerns are
1. Cupertino Resident quality of life will suffer due to increased noise, traffic and pollution
2. Reduction of Retail income for City of Cupertino.
3. Delay in Reaching emergency services at Kaiser due to increased traffic
4. Lack of transparency to cupertino residents due to intentional early morning or late night
approvals.
5. Sandhill has a bad reputation as he promised senior center in Main street and once the approval
was given he walked all over the council members to do what he wants.
6. Overcrowding in Cupertino.
7. Lack of water supply for the new residents.
8. Traffic congestion at the school time.
Thanks
Balaji Seshachalam
From: Joe Cleaver [mailto
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:42 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco Environmental Impact Study
Dear Planners:
Attached to this message is a letter focused on the planning of the Vallco renovation study.
Hope it is not too late.
Joe and Ann Cleaver
Attached as a Word document...
Joseph Cleaver
November 7, 2015
To: Cupertino City Council Members
Re: Environmental Study of Vallco Property
My wife and I have been residents of the city for over 35 years. We recognize its charm as others
have: "Money" magazine listed it as one it its "Best Places To Live"; Cupertino was listed as one of
'America's Best Small Towns"; It has ranked 7th in the list of the "Happiest" suburbs in the U.S.
These are fine accolades. Nevertheless, we are very aware of the rampant population growth it has
experienced within its narrow 11 '/4 square mile boundaries. From 34,300 in 1980 to 60,700 in 2014.
This growth has put increasing strains on the city's school and street infrastructure. The population
density today is 5,200 per square mile which compares to our neighbor's, Saratoga at 2,400 and Los
Altos at 4,500.
Two factors have led to this growth. First, its excellent schools have attracted national and
international attention, and families seeking the best for their children have come to Cupertino
seeing it as a good stepping stone to higher education. Second, Cupertino has a unique proximity to
the high technologyjob market. Neither of these factors show any signs of slowing down. What
concerns me is that the increasing urban density brings with it pollution, noise, security, crime and
an overall declining lifestyle. In point of fact, after 38 years of zero crimes, our neighborhood street
has had 3 burglaries this past summer.
Now comes the "Hills of Cupertino" with its glamorous promotional literature that portends a
nightmare to the already overcrowded intersections at 280 and Wolfe Rd, De Anza Blvd and
Lawrence. I don't see this as something the public has been asking for. Rather it appears to favor
only the landlords who can profit from the high prices the land can offer and the developers who
can combine office, retail space, multi -storied parking garages and greatly expanded housing. Much
of this is unnecessary. Our city, as originally planned, has many neighborhood parks and has added
the Stevens Creek Trail.
In my opinion, the green, grass covered hillside Sand Hill promises. is nothing more than a
marketing vehicle to make us feel we're getting something we want. I am opposed to the Sand Hill
Property's proposal and see it as an environmental nightmare.
Sincerely,
Joseph Cleaver
From: Peggy Griffin [mailt ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:48 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh
Cc: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Subject: Nov. 10, 2015 The hills at Vallco - EIR Scoping Meeting - PUBLIC MISINFORMED BY
CITY!
Dear City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff,
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD AND AS AN EIR SCOPING COMMENT FOR THE
VALLCO SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE HILLS AT VALLCO PROJECT.
I attended last night's EIR Scoping Meeting at Community Hall on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 from
6:30-7:30 and later pm and I was appalled for these reasons:
1 -MEETING SHOULD BE AT BEGINNING OF PROCESS -This meeting was 3 weeks into the
process! This meeting and a "How to" meeting should have been done at the beginning or just prior
to the beginning of this process!
2 -MEETING FORMAT NOT PUBLICIZED -The format of the meeting was not discussed so expectations
were that people could come and comment orally and also to ask questions and get answers.
3 -CITY REP MISINFORMED THE PUBLIC!!! The people "running the show" should have been experts
or at least qualified to answer questions. Instead, "Rick" (the man who let some people ask
questions) misinformed the public. I was told he was the City Information Officer (not sure). He told
the public that they could submit comments like "I am worried about the 2M sq. ft. of office". This is
not true. Piu and Aarti tried to get him to be quiet!
The public does not trust the process. They left angry, frustrated and misinformed as a result of
this meeting. Misinforming the public is WRONG! It negates this process and should be corrected
immediately!
SUGGESTIONS TO CORRECT AND IMPROVE THE PROCESS:
1. Extend the comment period deadline by 4 weeks to allow
a. An EIR information meeting where you tell people what the EIR will study (very
quickly presented last night). Cover:
i. What part of the project you look at i.e.
finished project, during construction, what about the 2 other parcels owned
by other companies?
ii. What topics you look at
iii. How they should phrase/write their comment
so it will be addressed.
1. Give examples of good comments
2. Give examples of inappropriate comments
iv. What alternatives you look at; how many; how
can someone describe/suggest an alternative.
v. Allow questions and answers -just let people
line up and ask 1-2 questions then go back to the end of the line.
b. Post information online
comment examples (good and bad),
brief list of areas covered
iii. slide presentation
2. (VERY IMPORTANT) POST COMMENTS RECEIVED ONLINE -as you receive them!
a. This will build confidence in the process.
b. People are worried their comments will be "lost". Waiting for the Draft EIR to find
out they never made it in is not acceptable.
3. POST RESPONSES TO EACH COMMENT AS THEY ARRIVE
a. Responses should be to EVERY comment so that the person can find out the
answer.
b. Responses should be posted as they are received.
4. Use someone who is knowledgeable on the EIR details to "handle the crowd".
Peggy Griffin
From: Lisa Warren rmailto
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:00 PM
To: Piu Ghosh; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt
Cc: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council
Subject: Re: The Hills at Vallco - Notice of Preparation and Notice to sign up!!
Piu,
I did not receive an email from you today to let me know that the presentation slides and materials
from last night had been uploaded anywhere on the city's website.
I just looked
here htto://cuoertino.ore/index.asox?oaee=26&recordid=1416&returnURL=%2findex.asox but
nothing has been added. There was nothing here
either: http://cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=26&recordid=1402&returnURL=%2findex.aspx
Would you please tell me if the requested/promised items can be found anywhere on the city's
website?
The request was for all Scoping Meeting's power point slides as well as for contact information for
the gentleman who presented on behalf of David J Powers Associates - I am sorry, I don't have his
name with me.
There are people who would like this information so that the comments that they submit can be
better thought out.
With comments due by end of business day next Monday, November 16, we need access to this
information as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
From: Bryan Lanser [mailt
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:25 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills At Vallco
Unfortunately I am unable to attend the EIR meeting tonight, but I want to make sure that my
concerns have been taken into consideration.
I do not believe that Sand Hill Properties is being forthright with the realities that The Hills will
impose in terms of traffic that that area.
Every night I drive 280 heading West and observe bumper to bumper traffic on 280 heading East
near the Wolfe Road interchange. It is stop and go for the time period fro about 5PM to well after
7PM. And all of this is BEFORE THE NEW APPLE CAMPUS OR MAIN STREET CUPERTINO HAS
OPENED.
I want to see a comprehensive traffic and parking plan that covers the following:
1. Traffic flow on an hour by hour basis along the 280 corridor on a typical weekday for not only the
10,000 workers who could potentially occupy the 2 million square feet of office space at The Hills
along with the parking plan for upwards of 6,000 cars for workers.
2. Overlay on to this the additional 13,000 workers who will be populating the new Apple Campus
once it is opened ( approximately 8000 vehicles).
3. Overlay to this the additional X thousand RESIDENTS who will live at The Hills AND at Main Street
Cupertino. Please show the parking plan for the residents vehicles (average 1.5 vehicles per
residential unit).
4. Overlay to this the hundreds if not thousands of workers and customers who will be patrons of
The Hills retail shops, as well as shopping at Main Street Cupertino both retail shops AND the office
space there.
5. Overlay to this current residents and workers for the Stevens Creek / Wolfe Road gateway area.
I wish to be assured that the anticipated traffic in this area will not cause extended or total gridlock
on 280. 1 don't care how many busses Apple plans to run, I want to see a car -based culture plan that
alleviates this potential quadrupling of current traffic in this area.
I look forward to seeing these comprehensive traffic studies. I also ask that they be published in the
Mercury News as well as the Cupertino Courier as this has the potential to affect the ENTIRE SOUTH
BAY COMMUTE along the 280 corridor.
I highly suggest this project be put up to public vote as the impact will be large, and any negative
impacts will likely be permanent.
Thanks very much for your attention to this matter.
Bryan Lanser (and others)
From: Liang C rmailtc ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 7:03 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: 30 -acre rooftop park is not even big enough for 10,000 workers
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
The Hills at Vallco claims to provide 3.8 miles of trails on the rooftop. (Note that the rest of the 30 -
acre park is not accessible like a regular park. Only designated areas are accessible.)
3.8 miles equals 6.1 km = 61,000 meters.
Line up the 10,000 workers from the 2 million square feet of office. Each person has to be 60 cm
apart to just take a stroll at lunch on the -3.8 mile -long trail. There is little room to just take a
leisurely walk on the rooftop even for the 10,000 employees of The Hills at Vallco. No more room for
the 2,400 residents of Vallco.
Let alone any room for Cupertino residents, even if the rooftop is built as promised.
Will these 10,000 workers and 2,400 residents compete for the limited parkland available in the area
and the limited gym facilities in Cupertino?
Liang
From: Liang C rmailto ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 7:31 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Can Vallco compete with Valley Fair and even surpass it?
[Please include this in Vallco EIR comment.]
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
In order to revitalize Vallco successfully, we need to understand why Vallco has been struggling in
the first place.
This article below compares the history between Vallco and Valley Fair to shed some light on the
difference: Vallco has been operated by a string of inexperienced owners or owners who would
prefer to turn it into something else more profitable to them.
As Greensfelder said in the Retail Strategy Report done in March 2014 for GPA:
"...while its competitors renovated ... Vallco languished with incomplete development, defaults from
prior ownerships, prolonged and unrealized redevelopment plans, management changes and other
setbacks."
Does Sand Hill has the ability to revitalize Vallco? Or would Sand Hill just be another one of those
inexperienced owners who have no idea how to run a successful shopping center?
The following article appears in Oct. 23 Cupertino Courier/Silicon Valley Community Newspaper.
(a scan of the paper)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB7RMc9DXGhUAcUlyUmdGODlvcU9EYkZsMm9MNWE3WTBWLXpR/
view?usp=sharing
Can Vallco compete with Valley Fair and even surpass it?
The location? Similar access to freeways.
The size? Similar. 1.3 million square feet versus Valley Fair's 1.5 million square feet.
Average household income? Vallco sits closer to more affluent communities in the west. The
economy is among the strongest in the nation with a growing population. Shopping malls around
Vallco are booming.
It is impossible to revitalize Vallco without learning the true causes behind Vallco's struggles.
The reason Vallco has floundered is because it had a string of inexperienced owners who do not
know what it takes to operate a successful shopping center. Some are developers more interested in
building housing or more profitable alternatives. Others either suffered financial troubles, unrelated
to Vallco, or simply neglected it.
Can Sand Hill Properties (SHP) break the cycle? Given that SHP defaulted on a loan of merely $108
million dollars in Sunnyvale Town Center. Given that the retail space of most SHP's projects are no
more than 150,000 square feet.
Comparing and contrasting the list of owners of Vallco and Valley Fair, one can easily see that the
two malls have dramatically different fates. One is an abused and neglected orphan and the other is
a well -invested, well-maintained and cherished child.
Valley Fair has had two owners since 1986, The Hahn Company and Westfield Corp, both specialize
in operating shopping centers. Westfield Corp. operates 38 shopping centers in the United States
and abroad. They actively manage the centers by attracting top retailers and eliminating
underperforming ones. They host concerts, fashion shows, festivals, and other events to attract
customers. They continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate the malls they
operate.
Meanwhile, Vallco has bounced from from one inexperienced owner to another. One renovation
attempt in 2005 started out by closing the lower level of the mall and ended with 24 percent
occupancy. Some retailers claimed rent was raised and many shops were driven out.
Around the same time, the 2005 General Plan was amended and residential and hotel uses were
added to the Vallco area, most likely under the influence of developers. Then, a part of Vallco was
rezoned for-- condominiums. In 2006, a citizens' referendum—Measure D—overturned the rezoning.
Soon after, Vallco was sold off in 2007 and the new owner went bankrupt in 2008. In 2009, Son Son
Co., a Vietnamese food processing company, bought Vallco with $64 million cash. No more
investment since 2009, according to Vallco's management.
Vallco is an ill -nourished and even abused child, who has the potential to shine with the care of an
experienced operator of retail centers. SHP has a unique chance to reinvent Vallco as a one -of -a -
kind state-of-the-art successful regional shopping center to surpass Valley Fair and Stanford
Shopping Center. Vallco could not only become one of the best shopping centers in the Bay Area,
but also bring in millions of sales tax dollars to diversify the tax base in Cupertino.
From: Liang C rmailtc ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:15 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Brand New Shopping Center Only Costs $350 Million Dollars to Build
[Please include this in Vallco EIR comment.]
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
I hope to share with you a wonderful brand new shopping center just built in Southern California:
Village at Westfield Topanga.
It costs only $350 million to build and it also provides many community amenities, including a
swimming pool, a gym, basketball court and a community center. And it's anchored by Costco.
We don't need a humongous office park in order to revitalize Vallco. As one friend in commercial
real estate told me, if a shopping center is built as a fringe benefit for a project, it is a guaranteed
failure.
Would Vallco Shopping District live up to its name as a part of The Hills at Vallco?
Does Sand Hill have any strategy or experience operating a shopping mall?
Would Sand Hill be able to attract upscale shops as promised?
Has Sand Hill been able to furnish Main Street with upscale and vibrant shops that they've promised
as the downtown of Cupertino?
What strategies are they using to attract shops to Main Street?
Would the same strategies apply to Vallco?
Would those strategies be able to operate and sustain a shopping center for the long run?
---------------------
If I am allowed to dream, Village at Westfield Topanga, just opened on Sept. 11, 2015 is the kind of
shopping center, I wish for. An Outdoor garden with a creek running through it and anchored by
Costco. It has a swimming pool, a gym with a view, basketball court and a community center.
The best part. Guess how much it costs to build? $350 million dollars.
Nice renderings here:
http://www.malls.com/us/malls/the-village-at-westfield-topanga.html
More detailed description here:
http://www.4-traders.com/COSTCO-WHOLESALE-CORPORAT-4866/news/Costco-Wholesale--Village-
at-Westfield-Topanga-An-economic-driver-and-downtown-for-the-Valley-21031856/
...Just some points that I like:
+ The Village's main anchor tenant is Costco, on the south side of Victory at Owensmouth. The
warehouse retailer that sells everything from fine wine to prescription drugs opened Saturday.
+ The new retail area consists of about 80 stores grouped into 11 categories ranging from
restaurants to health and wellness, plus some service providers.
+ A clinic affiliated with UCLA Medical Center is part of the latter, as is a sprawling 24 Hour Fitness
that anchors the south end of the property.
+ That three-story building has a large swimming pool on the second floor with windows that look
onto a ridge line to the west, and the third -floor weight room offers a panoramic view of the Valley.
There is also a basketball court.
+ The Village also has five health and fitness retailers, eight beauty and wellness retailers, five home
furnishing stores, six jewelry and accessories stores, 11 clothing retailers, three electronics stores
and financial firms and 12 specialty retailers.
+ This is also a bocce ball court, long birthday table that can be used for parties and a book
exchange area.
+ Lighted areas will be available for events and entertainment day or night, including exhibits by
local artists and year-round music performances.
+ Pets are welcome, and bike racks and lockers are available for free. There are also showers
available for people who bike to work and need to freshen up before heading to the office or store.
+ According to another article, it also includes a 8,000 -square -foot community center with catering
facility.
We don't need a humongous office park that doesn't benefit anyone.
With the green toupee peeled off, the Hills at Vallco is simply San Francisco downtown transported
to Cupertino with some ramps to connect to rooftop.
Any glimpse of green is at 8 -story tall (except when viewing from Perimeter Road).
We don't want and we don't need a $3 -billion -dollar project.
I would rather that Sand Hill focus on how to design a shopping mall that people asked for (as their
flyer shows). I would rather that Sand Hill does not spend so much money and time to pretend that
they are building a shopping mall. They are building cell -block after cell -block of something, which
appears to be downtown in a metropolitan area. Certainly not a cute downtown like Saratoga or Los
Gatos.
We don't need a downtown in Cupertino. We need a true shopping center.
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
From: Liang C [mailto ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 9:30 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fwd: Vallco is 9 -story tall. And the "green" rooftop park is mostly at roof of the 8th or
9th floor.
[Please include this in Vallco EIR comment.]
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Did you know that Vallco will be as tall as 9 -story buildings at 114 feet, which is even a bit taller than
Cypress Hotel at the Corner of Stevens Creek and De Anza.
Not only that. Most of the 30 -acre rooftop park will be at the roof of 8th floor of the 9th floor,
according to the Parking Drawing.
From the street level, you can hardly even see a glimpse of the "greenery" at that height.
And the height right next to the single-family homes near Perimeter Road will be 7 stories.
That's how massive The Hills at Vallco is. I hope you comprehend what kind of project you are going
to approve in Cupertino, in place of the only remaining shopping center in Cupertino.
----------------------------
Here is the Parking Drawing. It gives a good overview of the building mass.
There are 11 pages. One for each floor. It goes from B1, B2, 01 (street level), 02... 09 (top floor).
https://s3.amazonaws.com/the-hills-at-vallco/Parking-Drawings.pdf
For orientation. The bottom is the west side near Perimeter road (Joanne Fabric). The left side is near
280. The right side is Stevens Creek.
Go to Page 11 for diagram P-0809 (9th floor).
You see the grey part with trails. That's the rooftop park.
Go to Page 10 for diagram P-0808 (8th floor).
Go to Page 9 for diagram P-0807 (8th floor). _> Most of the grey part is gone, except near Perimeter
Road and over Wolfe.
This shows that most of the "green" roof is on the roof of the 8th floor or 9th floor.
Cypress Hotel at the corner of Stevens Creek & De Anza is a 9 -story building.
So, the entire 53 -acre site of Vallco will be covered with buildings as tall as Cypress Hotel. The
"green" rooftop would be barely visible at that height.
Single family homes adjacent to Vallco will be right next to a 9 -story building with some green
covering starting from 7 -story tall.
There is barely any buffer.
Only the bottom side right next to Perimeter Road has some green at lower elevation.
So, it won't look like a "hill". We won't see much of the "green" rooftop unless you are in a helicopter.
dust imagine you are in San Francisco downtown with tall buildings all around you. Paint the rooftop
of those buildings green. And that's The Hills at Vallco for you.
From: Kent Vincent [mailto ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:03 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco EIR
Re: My letter to the City: "The Numbers: Why the Council Must Vote No on the Hills at Vallco"
November 11, 2015
MIXED USE PARKING AT HILLS AT VALLCO
At last night's EIR public meeting I heard a City perception that mixed parking would not be an issue
at The Hills at Vallco because office parking and retail parking will be on opposite sides of the
complex by design, office parking nearer the centroid of office build, retail parking nearer Stevens
Creek Blvd. I want to dispel that this purposeful design will mitigate the very serious mixed use
parking issue.
As mentioned in my letter, Wolfe Rd., its Hwy 280 interchange and office parking lots at Apple 2 and
the Hills are going to be greatly impacted by the congestion of their collective 20,000 new daily
commute vehicles that enter and depart Wolfe Rd. each work day during the relatively narrow 7-10
am and 4 - 7 pm commute hours. The Hills office commuters will naturally seek parking alternatives
that shorten the commute time between their home and office desk. In many cases, this will involve
taking the longer walk between their desk and intended retail parking spaces which have direct
Stevens Creek Blvd. access. The rear and front parking areas will appear to office workers simply as
alternatives just as rear and front parking areas do at Valley Fair. Keeping in mind that the 10,000
office workers at Vallco will consume more parking spaces than offered at the entirety of Valley Fair,
the enormous parking demand by Vallco office workers will consume a detrimental portion, if not
all, of the parking spaces intended for shoppers before retail stores open, which will make The Hills
at Vallco unattractive as a retail center and risk its failure.
Respectfully,
Kent Vincent
Cupertino
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:12 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco Specific Plan - density, heights, setbacks and building planes
[Please add this to Vallco EIR comment.]
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commissoners:
Since the public was never given a chance to comment on Vallco Specific Plan, I assume that now is
the chance to comment.
Cupertino should consider updating its Municipal Code to govern density, heights, setbacks and
building planes for mixed use projects when it is next to lower density residential homes or
apartments.
This is in fact suggested by the ABAG guidelines. But Cupertino General Plan or Municipal Code did
not follow it.
Please consider adopting an ordinance to govern mixed use zoning, since many sites in Cupertino
are already zoned for mixed use.
All parcels along Stevens Creek and all parcels along De Anza are all zoned for mixed use already.
Therefore, it is important to regulation mixed use zoning since many more future projects will be
mixed use projects.
Other cities use FAR (Floor -area -ratio) to define how dense a mixed use project could be. But
Cupertino has no such standard. The only limit is height, which in some way encourages developers
to fill up a mixed use site with cell block buildings to maximize their usable square footage and
result in unattractive designs.
Nineteen800 is one such cell -block type building and Marina is another. The Hills at Vallco consists of
many blocks of rectangular cell block buildings, which is found only in downtown of big metropolitan
areas. Certainly The Hills at Vallco doesn't fit to be a downtown of a small suburban city like
Cupertino.
I would suggest that
Vallco Specific Plan to set a limit of FAR at 1.0. Such a limit would encourage more open
space as the building height increases and more attractive design with staggered building
heights.
I would suggest that Vallco Specific Plan follows similar guidelines used in Palo Alto Municipal Code
for their mixed use zoning (called Planned Community Zoning or PC Zoning). Specifically,
• the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any R1, R2, or other residential
zoning or P zoning with residential use shall be thirty-five feet. (The same standard as
Palo Alto's)
The minimum setback should be at least 10 feet and a solid wall or fence or
landscaped buffer between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained
along the common site line. (The same standard as Palo Alto's)
Palo Alto Muni Code 18.38 (Planned Community Zoning) contains:
18.38.150 Special requirements.
Sites abutting or having any portion located with one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2,
RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple -family development
shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements:
(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the most
restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM,
or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where the
gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent
residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM -4 or RM -5 district shall be
fifty feet
(c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC
district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence
between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site
line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for
parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard shall be at least as restrictive
as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side
or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-1, R-2,
RM or applicable PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage
facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where a use in a PC
district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at
least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the
yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum
yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to
the site.
(e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential
PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at
a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three
feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit
otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor
area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential,
the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive
residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit
otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is
selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed.
(Ord. 3683 §§ 12, 13, 1986: Ord. 3465 §§ 40, 44,1983: Ord. 3418 §§ 2 and 3, 1983: Ord. 3130 §§ 11,
25(f), 1979: Ord. 3108 § 9,
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
From: Liang C
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:41 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fwd: Vallco Architecture Drawing next to the single family homes by the "wall"
[Please add this to Vallco EIR comment.]
Below is the architecture drawing of The Hills at Vallco. It shows a 7 -story building will be erected
right next to single family homes within about the same distance as the next single-family homes.
The impact on aesthetic view and privacy for homes within 500 feet of the property line, within a
visible range, should be studied.
Whether or not these factors might affect the decisions on project approval, the impact of a 7 -story
or even a 9 -story building on the surrounding neighborhoods should be studied and documented.
Please study:
At what angle these homes can see the moon coming up before The Hills at Vallco is built?
At what angle these homes can see the moon coming up after The Hill is built?
How much of the ridge line would be blocked by The Hills?
• As the Sun comes up each morning, how much shorter the gardens of these single-family
homes would be exposed to morning sunshine?
Since the very tall commercial building will be as close to the single-family homes as the next door
neighbor, the invasion of privacy on these single family homes should be studied.
Please study:
• The range of sight of any visitor on the rooftop park during day time into the direction of
single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any visitor on the rooftop park during night time into the direction of
single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any maintenance worker on the rooftop park during day time into the
direction of single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any maintenance worker on the rooftop park during night time into the
direction of single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any visitor of the 7 -story commercial building during day time into the
direction of single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any visitor of the 7 -story commercial building during night time into the
direction of single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any maintenance worker, such as window cleaner, of the 7 -story
commercial building during day time into the direction of single-family homes.
• The range of sight of any maintenance worker, such as window cleaner, of the 7 -story
commercial building during night time into the direction of single-family homes.
As the commercial building might be lighted at night all night long as many other commercial
buildings do for security reasons, please study:
• the impact of light pollution from the commercial buildings on single-family homes at night.
• the impact of light pollution from the additional street lights installed The Hills.
• the impact of the ability to observe stars from the gardens of single-family homes at night.
Also, during the construction of The Hills at Vallco, the following should be studied:
• the privacy of the single-family homes within visible range by construction workers.
• noise levels of construction equipment or digging equipment for underground garage.
• pollution from dust of digging or construction materials.
Thank you.
---------------------------------------
Page 13 of the Architecture Drawing: https://s3.amazonaws.com/the-hills-at-vallco/Architecture-
Drawings.pdf
Slice view 5: (below section is the leftmost side of Slice view 5)
The Vallco building (Building 6) will be as far as the house of their nextdoor neighbor.
And it will be as tall as 90 feet, gradually increasing from 65 feet.
With 10-12 feet per floor, that's about 5 to 7 stories tall.
GF&ftfMA,MLL
'Lag t is
! rAur�re_ix Ell _EL td0
SEL 9Q
,
113•P ��'
Slice view 5: (Left is North. Stevens Creek is on the right. So, Slice View 5 shows the height next to
single-family homes, next to the wall).
From: Liang C [mailto ]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:13 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Options to Study - sizes of shopping centers, operators, separate or integrated,
housing and office
RE: Comments for Vallco EIR Scope
Please evaluate the option of renovating Vallco as a regional shopping center with 1.2 million square
feet of space for retail, dining and entertainment, like the Village at Westfield Topanga, just opened
in September 2015 and cost only $350 million to build.
And please evaluate the option of Vallco Shopping Center, operated by expert shopping mall
operators, like Westfield, Simon Property, General Growth Properties (GGP), Federal Realty,
Taubman Centers, Rouse Properties, Macerich, DDR Corp., Starwood Retail Partners, Caruso
Affiliated, just to name a few.
Specifically, please study:
• Vallco rebuilt as a regional shopping center (1.2 million square foot) and operated by one of
the expert shopping mall operators. (Assuming that such arrangement is possible. For
example, Simon Property leases the land of Stanford Shopping Center from Stanford
University by paying a leasing fee and 25% of net income.)
• Vallco rebuilt as a regional shopping center (1.2 million square foot) and operated by other
non -expert shopping mall operators, such as Sand Hill or previous Vallco manager.
• Vallco rebuilt as a lifestyle center (625,000 square foot) and operated by
one of the expert shopping mall operators.
• Vallco rebuilt as a lifestyle center (625,000 square foot) and operated by other non -expert
shopping mall operators, such as Sand Hill or previous Vallco manager.
• Vallco renovated, but keeping the existing structure and footage and operated by one of the
expert shopping mall operators.
• Vallco renovated, but keeping the existing structure and footage and operated by other non-
expert shopping mall operators, such as Sand Hill or previous Vallco manager.
Please also evaluate these options on the viability to run a successful shopping center:
• The shopping center part is separate from most of the housing and office park.
• The shopping center part is integrated with the housing and office park.
Please evaluate these options for housing:
No housing.
200 units of housing.
389 units of housing (same as allocated in Housing Element).
Please evaluate these options for office:
No office.
60,000 square feet of commercial office space (same amount as Santana Row) - for smaller
service businesses or afterschool classes.
120,000 square feet of commercial office space (1/10 of retail space, same ratio as Santana
Row) - for smaller service businesses or afterschool classes.
Thanks.
Liang Chao
From: Jenny Chiu [mailt J
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:39 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: City Council; citystaff@cupertino.org
Subject: Regarding Vallco EIR
Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I'm writing to you to express my concerns of the proposed Vallco project. I would like the upcoming
EIR to study:
I would like the EIR to study the possibility of build an on-site school at Vallco, the builder need to
response for the increase of number of students in the near future instead of just moving students
around campus and have the property tax payers pay for the price later on.
If Sand Hill can't bring any benefit to the community, then the proposed project should be
stopped.
Thanks for your consideration and please put this correspondence on public record.
Sincerely,
Jenny Chiu
From:
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:07 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; better-cupertino
Subject: EIR scoping for the Vallco District
To begin with, I have two general comments.
The EIR is either premature or its scope is not fairly defined. Since the major property owner's
proposal is not what the area is zoned for, it should not be the sole, or primary focus of an EIR, with
other options mentioned only in passing. A significant segment of this community wants to see a
successful retail/dining/entertainment center on the premises (and a referendum was won in the
past on this very issue). Therefore, a fair comparison must be drawn between the impact these
options would have on the environment and quality of life of Cupertino (and neighboring cities). The
review should be defined as an EIR of the Vallco District, not the "Hills of Vallco."
Secondly, although the consultants are from a respected agency, it is unseemly to have an
evaluation prepared entirely by consultants working for, and closely with, the city government and,
especially, the applicant. We need independent, outside experts, possibly chosen together with
community representatives, to participate in the review.
Now, as far as the content of the review is concerned, the impact of alternate forms of development
in the Vallco District should be focused, inter alia, on the areas below. Attention should also be
directed to the effects of large-scale development in general on the environment and quality of life
in Cupertino.
A. Traffic, including congestion and resulting air pollution, both on Wolfe Road and on
280. Compare:
Traffic now, at peak hours;
Traffic when Apple and Main Street are operational;
Additional impact on traffic of various uses of the Vallco site.
Bear in mind that traffic peaks at different hours at malls and at office parks. How will any promised
improvements for access to 280 from Wolfe Road affect traffic on 280? And will traffic then back
onto Wolfe Road anyway? (cf. the Lawrence/237 East interchange, where at times traffic cannot
enter 237 and backs onto Lawrence).
B. Availability of water. Right now, there is a drought and residents are being requested by the City
government to restrict water use in various ways. If serious drought conditions persist, how will
there be enough water to support intensive growth? If we return to "normal" NorCal water
conditions, but water is gifted to an office park (and apartments beyond the housing element
requirement) will the residents still have to monitor the length of our showers? What does this mean
for the quality of life of Cupertino residents? Compare recommended water usage for Cupertino
residents under various conditions of drought and levels of development.
C. Other effects on quality of life:
Heights and densities in what is now mostly a pleasant, low-rise suburban atmosphere;
Loss of actual and potential retail. Cupertino now has no major department store or appliance
store, nor some of the better shops that an affluent city would expect. Given the office and
residential development on the east side of Wolfe Road, calculate the size of this large new "captive"
market for a well-run retail -dining -entertainment complex. Analyze and the likely success factors of
a mall operated by professionals (not real estate speculators).
Is it necessary to raze Vallco entirely? What would be the environmental impact of such large-scale
destruction? Valley Fair is very successful as an indoor mall, especially since we do have winter here
and cool evenings. Could part of the property be opened out while some of it remains indoors?
What would be the fiscal value to the city of a shopping center vs. a "mixed use" development which
is largely an office park?
Phyllis Dickstein
From: Michelle Marie [mailto
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:35 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills NOP -comments
Hi,
Regarding The Hills NOP, please find my comments below. Thanks.
Michelle Dunn
Air Quality: will an analysis of operational AQ emissions be presented? Which BAAQMD CEQA
guidelines will be used as thresholds/guidance (May 2011)?
GHG Emissions: are GHG emissions going to be quantified? Will construction GHG emissions be
quantified (since CalEEMod will be run) and will operational emissions be quantified? Will GHG
reduction measures be quantified? What's the approach - consistency with the city's CAP? If so, what
is the approach to determine significant impacts (if the project will be XX% EAU for yr 2035/2050
w/reduction strategies? (how will "consistency with the City's CAP" be determined?) Which thresholds
will be used since BAAQMD guidelines do not have any GHG emissions? (other Air Districts defer to
other GHG thresholds. i.e., MBUAPCD sometimes defers to SLOAPCD GHG thresholds which has
construction and operational thresholds). How will construction -related GHG emissions be analyzed
- which thresholds will be used?
Non-CEQA comment but along the same lines, will there be designated space for a grocery store to
further reduce trips?)
Energy: for this analysis will CEQA Appendix F, Energy Conservation, be used to frame the section
and be used to create significance thresholds?
Transportation: Since the NOP is currently released and under CEQA the existing conditions at the
NOP release is the baseline, how will the EIR address cumulative traffic impacts of the Hills @ Vallco
with relation to Apple's new campus (and the anticipated significant impacts related to traffic)? What
additional mitigation measures (I assume the traffic impacts will not mitigatable to LTS when looking
at Cumulative + project scenario.
Public Services: in regards to the new school upgrades, is this location known? What other
improvements will be done as a result of the development? will additional fire/police services be
necessary to provide for the additional residential uses and/or for school upgrades?
Utilities/Services Systems: Although not a CEQA issue, who will shoulder the cost of potential
additional utilities/service system upgrades to meet the needs of the project?
Cumulative: what level of detail will be provided for the Cumulative analysis regarding regional
impacts (AQ, GHG, Transportation)?
Will a benefit analysis of this development be prepared (re: GHG benefit of the mixed use/green
roof, transportation hub, economic/fiscal, etc.)?
Will there be an Urban Decay section in the EIR pursuant to Section 15131(a) and per Attachment B -
Contract Amendment 1 (David Powers & Assoc. contract)? It's not mentioned in the NOP.
It seems the Applicant is providing most/all of the supporting technical studies. Who is preparing
these studies? Will peer -review comments be incorporated into the Applicant -prepared studies?
What is the QA/QC process to ensure this is completed?
From: sean devaney [mailto ]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:10 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: The Hills at Vallco
RE: The Hills at Vallco
I am really concerned about the current plans to redevelop Vallco along with the building of the new
Apple campus. As the plans for Vallco are currently drawn up it appears that there is not enough
housing to go along with all the new office space. I believe that without more housing pressure will
be put on our already tight housing market driving up rents.
An additional concern is that our already bad traffic will become much worse than it is now. I fear
Homestead, Wolf and Stevens Creek will become gridlocked.
In summery I believe the Hills at Vallco needs twice as much housing than is now planned, less office
space and a plan to ameliorate traffic.
Thank you,
Sean Devaney
Santa Clara,CA
From: Ping Ding [mailt
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:59 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Piu Ghosh
Subject: Vallco Mall
Dear Council Staff,
This letter is regarding the rezoning Vallco for the proposed Hills at Vallco Mall location. Before I
present my concerns on environment, I would like to invite council members to visit either Blanany
Ave, Steven Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd, or Wolfe Rd during traffic hour. Then, I believe council
members can understand our pain.
The 2M sf of office build proposed for The Hills at Vallco will increase the total number of employees
who work in Cupertino and commute from other cities to over 47,000, nearly doubling the
population of Cupertino every work day and making Cupertino's growth imbalance one of the
primary causes of traffic congestion, transportation infrastructure cost and air pollution in the Bay
Area. The exhaust from these commuter's vehicles alone will produce 700 tons of CO2 greenhouse
gas daily. 20,000 new commute vehicles will converge on Wolfe Rd. from Apple Campus 2 and the
Hills at Vallco office space alone. The Hwy 280 interchange at Wolfe even when doubled in ramp
lanes will only be capable of handling 1400 to 3600 of these vehicles per hour during commute
hours, meaning the vast majority of the new commute traffic will be directed into the
neighborhoods of Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The severe nature of this is owing to the unnecessary
office build at the Hills at Vallco. Adjusting the General Plan to accommodate the Hills office build
and its 10,000 new office jobs without a counter -balancing increase in housing exposes Cupertino to
the same court mandated job -housing balance imposed on the City of San Jose's General Plan
Amendment this year, where the court mandated one home for each office space job created. Given
the enormous office build at Apple Campus 2, any mixed use revitalization of Vallco should be retail -
residential only not retail -office and be intented to housing Cupertino -based employees, particularly
at Apple Campus 2, to reduce traffic congestion in the city.
The proposed Empire State Building equivalent OFFICE SPACE FOR THE HILLS AT VALLCO WILL
LIKELY ADD 10,000 OR MORE COMMUTE VEHICLES TO WOLFE RD. This is based on the Silicon Valley
standard 200 sf (square feet) and one commute vehicle per employee. The Empire State Building
(2.1 M sf) is the second largest office building in the U.S. following the Pentagon. It houses 1000
businesses collectively employing 23,000 workers1.
To visualize the traffic impact, note that 10,000 commute vehicles parked in two lanes of Hwy 280
with 5 feet gridlock spacing extends 20 miles on its own (one car each lane every 21 feet), the
distance between Wolfe Rd. and Crystal Springs Reservoir. Add another 10,000 commute vehicles
from the adjacent new Apple Campus 2 and the two-lane congestion doubles to 40 miles, the
distance from Wolfe Rd. to San Francisco. THIS 40 MILES IN TWO LANES OF NEW COMMUTER
VEHICLES WILL ENTER AND DEPART THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AT WOLFE RD. DURING COMMUTE
HOURS EVERY WORK DAY, ABHORRENTLY ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT ALREADY
EXISTS.
The Hwy 280 interchange at Wolfe Rd. is woefully incapable of handling the added commuters, even
if onramps are doubled from one to two lanes. The State of California sets its metering lights to
allow 350-900 vehicles per hour to enter a freeway per onramp lane2. The rate depends on freeway
traffic congestion. Assuming the state expands the onramps in each direction to two lanes, the
Wolfe Rd. interchange will only be capable of releasing 1400 to 3600 vehicles per hour onto Hwy 280
when metering lights are on. Apple Campus 2 will need all of this to handle its 10,000 vehicles over
the 4 - 7 pm commute period, excluding all other existing traffic and eventual new traffic from Main
Street and Vallco retail. ADDING 10,000 COMMUTE VEHICLES FROM THE PROPOSED HILLS AT
VALLCO OFFICE SPACE WILL REQUIRE 5.5 - 14 HOURS TO VACATE THE PARKING LOTS OF JUST THE
APPLE CAMPUS 2 AND HILLS AT VALLCO OFFICES ONTO THE FREEWAY ALONE DEPENDING ON
METERING. Obviously, this isn't going to happen. THE BULK OF THE 40 MILES OF TWO-LANE NEW
COMMUTE VEHICLES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE STREETS OF CUPERTINO AND
SUNNYVALE, CONSUMING AND GRIDLOCKING EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHWAY AS
COMMUTERS SEEK FASTEST COMMUTE ROUTES. The increased congestion on Stevens Creek Blvd.,
De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd. in concert with the doubling of traffic flow entering the 280
onramp lanes at Wolfe Rd. will certainly back southbound Hwy 280 traffic from the current backup
point near the Hwy 85 interchange into Los Altos Hills on the southbound home commute. THIS
WILL MAKE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY THE NEW LOGICAL FIRST FREEWAY RELIEF POINT OFF -RAMP FOR
SARATOGA, LOS GATOS AND CAMPBELL COMMUTERS, as the currently free right-hand exit -only lane
leading to De Anza Blvd on 280, will be fully immersed in the extended 280 congestion zone. THIS
WILL CONGEST FOR THE FIRST TIME STEVENS CANYON RD. AND THROUGH STREETS SUCH AS
MCCLELLAN RD, BUBB RD., LINDA VISTA DR., HYANNISPORT DR., SANTA TERESA AVE, WILKENSON
AVE, COLUMBUS AVE, TERRACE DR., REGNART RD., MONROVIA AND BYRNE AVE IN THE WEST OF
BUBB NEIGHBORHOOD.
BY VIRTUALLY ANY STATE OR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL METRIC, THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
SHOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZING ANY REZONE TO OFFICE SPACE, NOW OR INTO THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE. THE COMPLETION OF APPLE'S CAMPUS 2 WILL PUT CUPERTINO'S JOBS -HOUSING RATIO
COMPLETELY OUT OF BALANCE. Of the 31,800 people employed in Cupertino only 5100 live here3,
meaning 84% OF CUPERTINO'S WORKFORCE, 26,700 EMPLOYEES, COMMUTE HERE EVERY WORK
DAY FROM OTHER CITIES. IN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ABAG TERMS,
CUPERTINO'S GROWTH IMBALANCE IN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE COUNTY'S
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND AIR POLLUTION. With the
projected growth of 14,600 Apple employees AT THE COMPLETION OF CAMPUS 2, CUPERTINO JOBS
GROWTH WILL SOAR TO NEARLY 46% OVER A 2-3 YEAR PERIOD DURING A PROTRACTED PERIOD
WHEN CUPERTINO HOUSING IS GROWING ONLY 1.4%ANNUALLY3. Using the same statistics
Cupertino -based employees commuting from other cities at that time will reach at least 39,000.
THE PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE AT THE HILLS AT VALLCO IS EQUIVALENT TO NEARLY A QUARTER OF
ALL OF THE OFFICE SPACE IN THE ENTIRETY OF DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE4. If the 2M sf Hills At Vallco
office space is approved and using the 84% statistic, THE NUMBER OF CUPERTINO-BASED
EMPLOYEES FROM EXISTING, APPLE CAMPUS 2 AND HILLS AT VALLCO OFFICES COMMUTING FROM
OTHER CITIES INTO CUPERTINO EACH WORK DAY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO EXCEED 47,000, A
FLAGRANT CEQA AND ABAG IMBALANCE. IF WE PARKED THAT NUMBER OF VEHICLES ON HWY 280
IN TWO LANES, AS IF THOSE COMMUTING FROM OTHER CITIES WERE WAITING AT A GATE TO ENTER
CUPERTINO EACH MORNING, THE VEHICLE BACK-UP WOULD EXTEND 94 MILES, THE DISTANCE
FROM WOLFE RD. TO ROUGHLY SANTA ROSA! Assuming an average roundtrip commute of 25 miles
and a standard 1.22 lbs CO2 emissions per mile5, THE TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM THOSE
CUPERTINO-BASED EMPLOYEES COMMUTING FROM OTHER CITIES WILL BE OVER 700 TONS DAILY,
150 TONS DUE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE HILLS OFFICE SPACE ALONE.
The City of Cupertino cannot afford to ignore the environmental impact and job -housing imbalance
issues incurred in the community and region by its General Plan and its development projects. In
April of this year, a CEQA suit by the California Clean Energy Committee against the City of San Jose
successfully over -turned its General Plan for failing to address the jobs -housing imbalance of its
planned office space development. THE COURT FAULTED SAN JOSE FOR NOT PLANNING ENOUGH
HOUSING TO ACCOMMODATE THE JOBS CREATED BY ITS GENERAL PLAN, PUSHING HOUSING AND
TRAFFIC INTO OTHER COMMUNITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE JOBS. THE COURT ORDERED SAN
JOSE TO INCREASE ITS HOUSING UNIT ALLOCATION BY THE ENTIRE JOBS -HOUSING IMBALANCE
SHORTFALL (109,000 HOMES) AND TO PAY THE ENTIRETY OF THE $300,000 SUIT LEGAL COSTS6,7.
The proposed Hills At Vallco project and accommodating Cupertino General Plan Amendment
exposes Cupertino to the same jeopardy. The city of Cupertino, its schools, infrastructure and lack of
available land cannot accommodate the housing needed for the jobs that will be created by the Hills
at Vallco, let alone Apple Campus 2. Environmental advocacy groups, such as the California Clean
Energy Committee, make it their business to discover and force city jobs -housing balance to
minimize regional traffic and pollution. It is inconceivable that the highly publicized and massive
office build of the Apple Spaceship campus and The Hills At Vallco proposal / General Plan
Amendment are not on the radar screen of these advocacy groups.
Please listen to the cupertino neighbor's voice! Please save our home! Please protect our health
from uncontrolled traffic and pollution!
Regards,
Ping Ding
From: Jason Holder [mailt
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:09 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Liang C; Peggy Griffin; Stuart Flashman
Subject: DPEIR for Vallco Specific Plan and The Hills Project: Better Cupertino NOP Comment
Letter
Dear Ms. Ghosh,
Please find the attached comment letter concerning the scope of environmental review for the
above referenced Draft Program EIR, submitted on behalf of Better Cupertino.
Thank you,
Jason W. Holder
Holder Law Group
Attached as a PDF Document...
Holder Law Group holderecolaw.com
339 15th Street, Suite 202
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 338-3759
iason@holderecolaw.com
November 12, 2015
Via U.S. Mail and Email
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Attention: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: planning@cupertino.org
Subject: Notice of Preparation - DER for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan and The Hills at Vallco
Project
Dear Ms. Ghosh:
On behalf of Better Cupertino, an unincorporated association of concerned residents of the City of
Cupertino ("City"), this letter provides preliminary comments on the City's Notice of Preparation
("NOP") of a draft program environmental impact report ("DEIR") for the Vallco Shopping District
Specific Plan and The Hills at Vallco (collectively, the "Project").1
The proposed Project is located the intersections of N. Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard and
North Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway. The Project would encompass approximately 58 -acres. The
Vallco Shopping Mall currently occupies the Project site.
The Project includes two components: the proposed Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan and The
Hills at Vallco project. The NOP indicates that the Specific Plan may include the maximum amount of
development authorized in the current General Plan. This level of development includes "a
maximum of 1.2 million square feet of commercial uses (minimum 600,000 square feet of retail uses
with a maximum of 30% of entertainment uses), 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel
rooms, and 389 residential dwelling units." While the NOP states that The Hills at Vallco project
would implement the Specific Plan, it proposes 800 residential units (i.e., 411 more units than
currently allowed under the General Plan). The Hills at Vallco project, as proposed, also includes "a
30 -acre green roof with public and private open space and recreational areas, two town squares,
ancillary uses/amenities for the proposed residential and office uses, a transit center, a central plant,
and parking facilities (including underground,
These comments are based upon the limited information concerning the proposed Project provided in the NOP. Better
Cupertino representatives may supplement these comments orally at scoping meetings and in follow-up written comments
when additional information concerning the proposed Project becomes available.
structured, and surface parking)." The Hills at Vallco project may also include certain off-site
improvements.
According to the NOP, the Project has the potential to cause a number of significant short-term,
long-term and cumulative environmental impacts. The City has determined that an EIR is required.
1. The DEIR must adequately analyze the Project's potentially significant impacts to City
transportation, recreation, and school facilities, consider secondary impacts, and analyze a
reasonable range of Project alternatives.
The Draft Program EIR must include thorough analysis of the following potentially significant
environmental impacts that could affect the City and its residents:
1) Impacts of conversion of non-residential development intensity to residential uses;'
2) Impacts to water supplies caused by the Project directly, as well as cumulative impacts to
water supplies caused by this Project together with other past, present, and probable future
projects;
3) Weekday and peak traffic impacts on all surrounding roads and intersections;3
4) Weekend and off-peak traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road
and impacts on recreation facilities including City parks as a result of additional residential,
commercial, and retail uses;
5) Secondary impacts caused by increased traffic, including air quality impacts and increased
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
6) Impacts to schools and other public services caused by the influx of new residents, including
but not limited to:
• The direct impacts on school facilities that this Project will cause,'
Z Because the Project proposes more residential units than authorized in the General Plan, the DEIR must analyze the impacts
of this additional intensity. Residential uses have different impacts than nonresidential uses. For example, the traffic intensity
and patterns differ with residential uses and residential uses increase demand for schools and recreational facilities.
3 Please note: because the Governor's Office of Planning and Research has not finalized its updated CEQA Guidelines
implementing SB 743, the weekend and weekday traffic impact analyses must analyze Project -related traffic impacts using
both the standard Level of Service and the modern Vehicle Miles Travelled methodologies.
4 For example, because Collins Elementary School and Cupertino High School are within 1/4 mile of the Project site, CEQA §
21151.4 applies and the DEIR must analyze the effects Project -related air emissions may have on students at those schools.
(See also CEQA Guidelines, § 15186.)
The potential to open the wall separating the Project site from the neighboring
community (at (Merritt Drive, Amhurst Drive, or Wheaton Drive) to provide a
"safe route to school," and
• Cumulative impacts to schools caused by this Project in combination with other
projects in the Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose area, including traffic impacts
caused by assignment to overflow schools;5
7) Construction -period and operational impacts to the large double row of Ash trees along
Stevens Creek Blvd. and along Wolfe Road and any other protected trees;6
8) Public service impacts to neighboring residents, including any reduced police, fire, or
ambulance services or increased response times;'
9) Seismic -related hazards associated with the proposed 30 -acre green roof;
10) Aesthetic and visual impacts to neighboring communities, including but not limited to:
Obstructed views and increased shadows caused by the Project's tall buildings,
and
• Nighttime light pollution;
11) Loss of solar access to areas beneath green roof and the alternative of using Project roofs
for solar energy generation;
12) The Project's direct and indirect secondary effects associated with the increase in traffic and
recreation impacts to the City including but not limited to increased demand for limited
parking, increased demand for police, fire and other City services, and the related strains on
the City's limited facilities and resources;
13) Impacts stemming from additional office development and displaced retail uses, including,
but not limited to:
• Growth -inducing impacts,
5 The City must consult with Cupertino schools (CUSD and FUHSD) when developing the analysis of school impacts. (See PRC,
§§ 21083.9(b), 21153; see also CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR §§ 15041(b), 15082(c), 15086(c) -(d), 15096.)
6 Please include analysis of the disturbance to tree roots during construction, as well as the loss of sunlight and any
reductions in percolating water after the Project is built.
For example, the Project may increase emergency response times by creating a barrier between residents of west Cupertino
and the Kaiser Hospital facility at Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road.
• Displacement of lower income residents (and increased traffic caused by such
displacement and the associated increase in commuting),
• Increased travel to other more distant retail locations,
• Increased traffic to freeways and local streets caused by large buses ferrying
employees to new office developments,
• and potential inconsistencies with the goals of SB 375;
14) Cumulative weekday and weekend traffic impacts and cumulative direct and secondary
impacts to parking, police, fire and other City services as a result of past, proposed, and
approved uses within the City; and
15) Consideration of a reasonable range of Project alternatives, including:
• A revitalized mall that includes minimal or no physical changes to the existing
Vallco Shopping Mall but includes incentives and other strategies to maximize
tenant occupancy,
• a reduced development alternative that includes reduced office and residential
use development,
• a balanced growth alternative that would attempt to match the proposed new
residential development in both amount and housing cost (i.e., market rate,
• moderate income, low income, very low income) to the expected amount and
demographics of the additional employment that would be associated with the
new commercial development, and
• A conventional layout alternative that would comply with existing City standards
for development and open space and would use rooftop areas for solar energy
generation.
Please include all technical support for the above analyses in appendices to the DEIR.
2. Better Cupertino Requests Notice of All Future City Actions Concerning the Proposed Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code, section 21092.2, we also request notice of all stages of
environmental review for the Project and any and all actions that the City proposes to take on this
Project. Please send any and all notices via email to the following persons:
a) The undersigned, at iason@holderecolaw.com;
b) Co -counsel Stu Flashman at stu(@stuflash.com;
c) Client representative Liang-Fang Chao and ; and
d) Client representative Peggy Griffin at
Additionally, please send paper copies of notice documents solely to the undersigned.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, you can reach me at the phone number and
email address provided in the above letterhead.
Sincerely,
Jason W. Holder
cc: (via email only)
Stu Flashman )
Liang-Fang Chao )
Peggy Griffin )
From: David Ranney fmailto ]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:32 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comments on Vallco
Dear Sirs:
It is my understanding that this is the address to send any comments residents may have on the
proposed Vallco development.
My primary concern is the sudden influx of students into Cupertino High School from the planned
800 residential units. Cupertino High is already a crowded school, and I worry that adding many
more students will hurt its effectiveness.
In past projects developers claimed that condos didn't produce as many students per household as
houses. However, Cupertino is a highly sought after school district, so I think that assessment is
inaccurate in this case.
Property values in Cupertino hinge on the quality of the schools. If word gets out that Cupertino
schools are overcrowded I think everyone will suffer for it.
In case you need the information, I have lived in Cupertino for 15 years. My address is 19841 La Mar
Drive. Feel free to respond if you need any further information.
- Dave
From: Louie Alicea [mailt t]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:08 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fw: Better Cupertino WG
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 4:34 PM, Louie Alicea wrote:
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
My family have been long time residents of Cupertino since 1984.
We do not want to add 7 story buildings with family homes at the Vallco site. We want our privacy.
We do not want the wall opened for public access to our neighborhood.
Our schools are maxed out already.
Vehicle traffic has become very congested in Cupertino the past few years, and this is going to
become overwhelming when the new Apple complex is completed.
Public Safety is unable to keep up with controlling frequent speeders and violations throughout the
city. Drivers are constantly running Red Lights/Stop Signs on a regular basis.
Bicycle riders from Apple do not obey the laws and guidelines when riding through the
neighborhoods already.
We don't see a plan for Senior living, which needs to be addressed.
We hope you can come up with a plan that we can all live with. We are tired of hearing the
construction that has been going on in that area for over 10 years.
By the way, We are still waiting for our street on Merritt Drive to be finally repaired and paved.
Regards, Louie Alicea
From: Carl Hampe [mailt ]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 7:44 AM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comments on the Vallco EIR
Dear City Council members,
We live on the second street over from Vallco shopping center on Denison Avenue, and we're very
concerned about the impacts that the proposed Sand Hill development plan might have on our
quality of life here. We have been residents here since 1989, and have seen the negative impact that
recent development projects in Cupertino have had on our local environment. We have lost most of
the confidence that we had in our city government due to it's partiality to supporting greedy
developers over the needs and rights of its citizens.
The recent negative impact consists of slowed traffic on the streets we most frequently use,
strains on our school system's ability to serve our children's needs, increased air pollution from
additional traffic, and increased crime of all kinds in our city. And this has all happened during a time
when economics has made it more difficult for our city and county service providers to deal with the
additional growth.
We haven't yet seen the impact's that Apple's new complex will have to our immediate area, and yet
the city council is trying to push through a perverted Vallco "revitalization" project right next to the
Apple complex without sufficient community input that will entirely change the nature of our
neighborhood.
We are primarily concerned about the following potential impacts of Sand Hill's plan for the
development of the Vallco property:
1. Additional traffic congestion in our area 2. Additional air and noise pollution 3. Additional crime 4.
Loss of privacy due to our proximity to proposed tall buildings 5. Reduced availability of close -by
shopping 6. Reduced effectiveness of our schools
One other particular concern that we have is that with all of the additional people moving through
this part of the city that there will be pressure on the city to open up additional thoroughfares
coming right through our neighborhood to reduce traffic flow on Stevens Creek Blvd.
This would greatly increase our local traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, and crime. We ask
the council to ensure that this will not be done.
We feel less safe and happy than we did when we first moved here. We watch our neighbors move
out of Cupertino because of the expected impacts. We used to think that this was one of the best
communities in the Bay Area, but we now see it becoming more and more like the less desirable
places. We feel that our quality of life in this community is becoming worse by the day.
We hope that you will listen to our plea for a more sane and safe plan for Cupertino city
development.
Sincerely,
Carl and Sharon Hampe
From: Liang C
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:23 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on civic services should be based on real data
RE: Comment for Vallco EIR
Please study the impacts on civic services, such as library, police, fire station, medical emergency
services based on real data.
Please study the impact on medical services, emergency and otherwise. The non-resident
population would increase the demand for medical services since medical offices are open mostly
only during working hours.
Even though the city doesn't provide any service for ambulances, the response time of an
ambulance often means life or death even by just one second. Please study the response time of
emergency vehicles to various points in Cupertino since traffic congestion could delay an emergecy
vehicle to reach a residence on the other side of the town.
Please study not only facility and personnel needs, but also the impact on level of service. Especially,
the response time for medical, police, fire emergencies. And the response time during peak hours in
average and also worse case scenarios. Any delay in response time could mean life or death for both
the resident and non-resident population. Please study the realistic impact supported by real data.
Please please study the impacts of non-resident population on these civic services since the
employees do spend more than 8 hours a way in Cupertino and they need the parks and recreation
services, police, fire and medical services as any other resident.
Please include cummulative impact, including ongoing projects like Apple Campus 2 and Main Street,
and also proposed projects, like Marina, Hamptons, Oaks.
Please provide real data and statistics to support your claim or conclusion, instead of any
undocumented personal communication, as it has been done for the EIR of GPA.
If any personal communication is documented through email, it should be provided in the appendix
for reference.
e.g. Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Derek Wolfgram, Deputy
County Librarian for Community Libraries, April 4, 2014.)
e.g. Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa
Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.
e.g. Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder,
Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014
Please do not make assumption that employees generated do not add any impact without providing
sufficient data to back it up, such as the following:
e.g. EIR of GPA states: "Although the proposed Project would result in an increase in employees
throughout Cupertino as well, only residents within Santa Clara County can apply for a library card;
therefore, the following analysis considers expected population increases, and not employment
generation as a result of implementation of the proposed Project."
Most of the employees in Cupertino are probably Santa Clara County residents also. If the EIR would
claim that most residents are NOT Santa Clara County residents, statistics should be given to
support that claim. In fact, even non-resident of Santa Clara County can hold a library card,
according to an official from Santa Clara County Library:
"All public libraries in Santa Clara County allow free reciprocal borrowing regardless of
address. Currently 45,312 non-resident have a library card from our system. This is 18% of our total
library cards.
In the EIR for GPA, the impact level for fire station and police are also derived without any data. With
30% increase in residence population and 50% increase in non -residence employee population, the
EIR concludes that there will be no additional staffing needs for fire station or police. But the
conclusions were only based on "personal communication" with no document and no data to
support it.
For example, based on personal communications, the EIR concludes that there is no need to
expansion for police for 30% increase in residence population and 50% increase in non -residence
employee population.
e.g. "However, the West Valley Patrol Division has confirmed that future development
under the General Plan would not result in the need for expansion or addition of facilities."
(Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division
Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.)
If there is no need to expand, a written letter should be provided so that whoever makes the
statement would be responsible for the claim. And attempt should be made to estimate the realistic
impact of population increase and to explain using data why there will be no significant impact.
Thank you.
Liang Chao
From: Ruiwei Wang [mailto
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:01 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: the Hills at Vallco mall (Comments from R Wang)
Dear Cupertino city planning,
My name is Ruiwei Wang, I have lived in Cupertino for over five years at following address:
I am concerned according to the initial design of the hill, about the following factors:
1. My house is only 400 feet away from the 'Wall' that separate Vallco mall and my neighborhood.
The impact on aesthetic view and privacy will be damaged by the proposed 'building 6' if the
building it over 35 feet in heights. My house is one level house, We can be seen and lost our privacy.
2. Pollution from commercial building on our single family houses: Not only from the dirt and
chemicals produced during the construction, but also turning on the light all day/night will pollute
the air, and we are only 500 feet from the wall, and about 1000 feet from the construction site. Our
lung will be greatly damaged by the air pollution.
3. Invasion of privacy on the maintenance worker on the rooftop park during the day time into the
direction on our property.
4. Ability to see the moon: before The Hills at Vallco, we can see the moon coming up at 30 degree
angle, but suppose that the building 6 is 6 stories, we can only see the moon coming up at 65 degree
or further.
We have purchased the home based on the fact of a low occupancy, clean air environment, and
have been paying property tax all the years. we can't let the new planning destroy, damage the
environment of the neighborhood.
Please consider our concerns and satisfaction about the new planned The Hill. we wish to see a
reasonable, more environment friendly design.
thanks
Ruiwei Wang
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:58 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on housing demand
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the impact on the demand on housing market and rental price, since this will
determine where the new workers will live and how long they will have to commute in and how
congested the highway will be.
Please study where the new workers will reside in since there is not much available housing units in
Cupertino or surrounding cities.
Please include in your study all ongoing office construction within at least 20 miles radius since all of
workers in these buildings will add to the demand on housing and the demand on transportation for
commuting. And please include all proposed office construction also.
Please study the impact on rental prices from studio to 1 bedroom to two bedrooms. The rental rate
is already more than $4,000 for 2 bedroom apartments. Cupertino has about 32,000 workers. The
addition of 14,000 workers from Apple Campus 2 and 1000 from Main Street plus 10,000 from Vallco
will essentially increase the working population by 50%. Thus, the demand on rental partment might
increase by 50% also. How many of the current residents will be displaced when the rent goes even
higher?
Please use realistic numbers of 2010 or later to estimate the number of employees that can be
accommodated in a given office space. The space per employee maybe 300 square feet 20 years
ago. It has become 200 square feet 10 years ago. And nowadays the space per employee has
become 150 square feet per employee. Please use a realistic standard.
In 2010, ABAG estimates an increase of 4,421 housing units by 2040. ABAG also estimates that the
office space will increase by 43,300 square feet per year.
However, Cupertino will have an addition of 3.5 million square feet of new office space opening in
2017 from Apple Campus 2 alone.
Main Street already added 260,000 square feet of office space, just opened in 2014.
The Hills at Vallco will add another 2 million square feet of new office space.
That's 5.76 million square feet of additional new office space on top of the current housing demand
and commute flow.
(Note: Apple Campus 2 may have only added 750,000 square feet in terms of office allocation in
Cupertino's General Plan. But the fact remains that the 3.5 million square feet of new office will be
added on top of the current housing demand and commute flow.)
3,500,000 s.f./43,300 s.f. per year= 80.8 years
5,760,000s.f./ 43,300 s.f. per year = 133 years
The office space added to Apple Campus 2 is equivalent to 80.8 years of office according to ABAG's
estimation of 43,400 s.f. per year of office growth.
The office space added from Apple Campus 2, Main Street and Vallco will be equivalent to 133 years
of office growth according to ABAG's estimation of 43,400 s.f. per year of office growth.
How many housing units will be required by ABAG to compensate for 133 years of office growth by
the next Housing Element cycle in 2023?
133 years/25 years = 5.32.
Would we be required to build 5.32 times more housing units then?
If that's an over estimate, please provide a more realistic estimate based on real data.
Thanks.
Liang Chao
From: Edward Ford
Date: November 15, 2015 at 4:44:59 PM PST
To: "Pi uG@cupertino.org<maiIto: PiuG@cupertino.org_>"
<PiuG@cupertino.org<maiIto: PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco Eir Public Comment
Reply -To: Edward Ford
Here attached are our comments. Will also do a hand delivery to City Hall.
Ed and Suzanne Ford
Attached as a Word document...
Edward Ford
13 November 2015
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Vallco EIR comments
Attn: Piu Ghosh
1. This proposed development is so massive that it needs much more truthful and accurate
information than has been in the deluge of post cards and ads from Sand Hill Development
(SHD). It needs to be broken down in details at a series of public meetings to truthfully
understand it and how it is within the Cities General Plan plus how it will affect the entire
area. The elephant is too big to swallow and the PR/mail from SHD hides the real
development impact on our city. Schedule open meetings.
2. Cupertino has multiple developments in process, planned and botched. The in process and
planned are Main Street, Apple, The Hills and the Oak's plus what others? Let us see them
all. Infrastructures all need to be deeply examined and clearly defined. Where is the water
and sewage going to come from and go to? Have the agencies that provide water, sewage,
gas and electric, fire, safety, heath care etc. been contacted for impact? Will they need to
upgrade their capacities? Who will pay for those upgrades? If the answer is the taxpayer
then you need to be upfront. These are serious environmental concerns that most of us
never look at because they are not visible or surface as explosions in San Bruno or water
leaks that collapse streets with loss of lives and assets in big $$'s to individuals.
3. SHD was/ is involved with the botched Sunnyvale development - correct? Are they going to
put a really high insurance policy in place to cover this? We in Cupertino do not need an
endless path of Vallco failed developments into taxpayers picking up the bill. If they fail we
will have a bankrupt blight that in the end we taxpayers must fix. The EIR concern is that SHD
does not have a positive track record for success. Who will pay for safety in this area though
out? Are new fire stations and Sheriff offices to be built in near /intimate proximity to all of
the major projects? Called and visited Sheriff and they told me that they would need more
$$ =understaffed. Same story at fire stations. Suggest a more detailed analysis by City of
Cupertino and when you do that please do not say every thing is OK. Document and be able
to substantiate.
4. Traffic analyses: this is beyond belief i.e. where is that analysis???? If we have Apple with
20,000 or more employees who as yet have not developed a "beam me up and down Scotty"
system, 12,000 vehicle trips per day to Main Street, 68,600 vehicle trips per day for The Hills
and whatever for the Oak's. Add in all the apartments from Hampton and those opposite
Penney's and the number is way greater than 100,000. If these calculations are wrong show
what you have in detail. Where are the roads, gas stations, charging stations, buses, and
maintenance (cleaning floors and toilets) going to come from? Buses from Gilroy and
Morgan Hill for all the workers? They cannot afford to live here so they must add more
transit trips in and out. Add these in and you approach 150,000. Provide us with an unbiased
analysis that can stand litmus test of truth and accuracy i.e. no JD Powers reports of what
you want to present.
5. My wife and children plus eleven grandchildren have been in or near Cupertino for almost
50 years. We have had the privilege to travel to many parts of the world. The developed
countries and even undeveloped countries have better transit systems then we. My wife
walked from our home up to Stevens Creek to catch a bus to San Jose State to complete a
degree in Political Science. That is more than 20 years ago. Nothing has really changed.
There is limited public transit that would get us to grocery, clothing, bolts and nut for home
repairs. Is VTA or whomever involved in unplugging the sewer of traffic that all these
projects/$$$ for developers will create? Is Caltrans/State of CA watching and saying they
have stacks of $$'s to fix all road, traffic lights etc.? Is this create a problem and ask for
taxpayer bonds to fix? If so let us see all reports.
6. City of Cupertino has not fixed any traffic/safety issues on our little street so what
confidence do all of us on Wilkinson Ave have that you could fix traffic /safety for these
massive projects? You are the Lead Agency with no check and balance by a non -biased
independent review board that is not cherry picked. Do not do a slick Willey like FUHSD.
Transparency needs to be on the table now.
7. This plan shows a total decline in ability to have access to retail shopping. There will be no
anchor stores. Sears, Macy's and Penny's will be demolished. All the mall shop owners like
Edward's Shoe's, who has supplied our children and grandchildren for many years are now
evicted. Where are we to go for quality products? It is not on line shopping. Driving to
Stanford or Valley Fair is really not pleasant so we do not do that. Kohl's and Target are not
the answer to quality clothing unless you want us to dumb down and buy stuff that does not
fit. Point is that these plans affect our environment with developments poorly planned at the
community's expense. These plans have a negative effect on our lives. We will have more
difficulty to get to heath care. We use Kaiser and they are drowning with traffic. If you
needed an ambulance they could not get here during school arrival departure hours. So
what? Die and be happy that SHD made$$$. Suggest a time out to see a total vision of
community that is balanced and not driven by developer greed. Please tell us how you are
going to address all of these concerns.
Sincerely, Edward and Suzanne Ford
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 5:42 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on civic services - more
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Many resident feel that the increase in burglary rate and even heard about a case with gunshot last
week.
Please study the number of incidents of various types in Cupertino and surrounding cities.
Please study the impact of the added population and especially non-resident population on the
police incident rates.
This project will put Cupertino on a path to urbanization. Please compare the crime rate of
Cupertino with the crime rate of urban cities. Please also compare the investment in police force of
Cupertino against that of other urban cities.
Many resident feel that traffic around schools is getting worse as the number of students attending
each school increases.
Cupertino schools were designed as small neighborhood schools, but they are now double in the
number of enrollment per school.
There is no funding for enough crossing guards to protect the safety of children walking or biking to
school.
There is not enough police around to ensure safety around schools by warning dangerous driving
behavior today.
As the traffic gets more congested, there will be more impatient parents and more accidents might
happen.
Please provide data on traffic accidents in Cupertino citywide and around schools.
Please provide data on bicycles and pedestrian accidents, especially during school peak hours.
Please compare the data with other urban cities to estimate the increase as Cupertino becomes an
urban city by building Vallco.
Please exam routes to school from different parts of the attendance area in CUSD and FUHSD to
study the amount of extra vehicles during peak hour. Please exam traffic safety, air pollution and
noise on these routes to schools.
Many residents already feel that there are not enough books in the library. Whenever one wants to
borrow a book, most likely all volumes in Cupertino Library are all out on loan. One can either make
a request and wait a few days; or one has to drive down to Saratoga Library or Campbell Library
where most books are available on shelves.
Please evaluate the impact on the library usage by the amount of time a library patron has to wait to
get book requests fulfilled. Please evaluate the amount of library books in Cupertino library stay on
shelf to allow direct access by library patrons.
When no such data is available, please indicate that you cannot evaluate this aspect of the impact
because of insufficient data. Please do not simply conclude that there is no significant impact on the
library services when there is a large increase in residence population and worker population.
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 6:16 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on loss of retail
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the impact on the loss of a regional shopping center, which provide a large variety of
stores of various sizes and varying categories in one place. Cupertino hasn't had a good shopping
center for a long time, but it doesn't mean Cupertino doesn't need one.
GPA Retail Strategy Report shows Cupertino residents are shopping outside of Cupertino for
different consumer goods and services.
Not only Cupertino residents have to drive further longer to waste gas and time, Cupertino also
does not capture the sales taxes generated.
Please study the option of having a fully revitalized shopping center that can compete and even
surpass Valley Fair.
Vallco has a great location and affluence demographics and at the heard of a booming Silicon Valley
economy.
The only reason that Vallco hasn't done well is because it is mismanaged. Please study the option of
inviting a professional shopping mall operator to revitalize Vallco.
The Macy's at Valley Fair occupies 396,000 sq ft, and Macy's Mens and Home occupies 316,000 sq ft.
The entire retail space at The Hills at Vallco will be 625,000 sq.ft., which is only 87% of the space of
Macy's in Valley Fair.
When visiting a large department store or a large shopping center, a family can often purchase
multiple items and also dine and entertain within one trip. However, when a shopping center only
has a limited selection of stores or when a department store only has a limited selection of goods,
one family has to make several trips in order to fulfill their shopping needs. Families also tend to
carpool when going to a large shopping center. But families would make separate trips when visiting
smaller shops.
So, The Hills at Vallco only contains a reduced retail space of 625,000 sq. ft. And most of the stores
will be tailored towards the worker population from Apple Campus 2 and its own office park and
residents, according to Sand Hill's description. How many stores will serve the shopping needs of
Cupertino residents and the surrounding cities, who are mostly working families? The loss of retail
options for families' with kids should be studied.
When a regional shopping center is take away from Cupertino, Cupertino residents will have to drive
further to other regional shopping centers to satisfy their needs in order to access a wider variety of
goods. Cupertino residents will also have to make multiple trips to smaller shops to buy less number
of items in each trip. That generates more greenhouse gas emission and more time wasted on the
road and adding to the more congested traffic.
Please study the impact on additional trips generated due to the loss of access to a large regional
shopping center of 1.2 -million -square -foot at Vallco.
Please use realistic figures when estimating retail space available in The Hills at Vallco.
Deduct the space taken for entertainment, such as AMC, Bowling Alley, athletic clubs, and civic uses,
such as innovation center, community center and transit center.
Thus, the true retail space available for shops and restaurants is only 400,000 sq. ft., which is as
large as Macy's in Valley Fair (not even counting the part for Mens and Home).
Thanks.
Liang Chao
From: Peggy Griffin <
Date: November 15, 2015 at 7:16:36 PM PST
00
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impact on Aesthetics
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impact on aesthetics
IMPACT ON AESTHETICS
1. Currently, people can see the hills from many locations throughout the Vallco and surrounding
areas. Due to the height and density of the Hills-at-Vallco project, views of the "real" hills, the sunset,
the sunrise, the moonrise will be blocked. The existing Montebello Condominiums at the corner of
Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. block the views of the hillside of homes as far away as 1/3 of a
mile!
Please study the impact to all homes within at least a 1/3 mile distance surrounding this
project area. This should also include homes in Sunnyvale.
Please study the impact on gardens and landscaping due to the possible loss of early
morning sun or late afternoon sun.
2. Currently, the area is known and loved for the double row of Ash trees that line the sidewalks
along Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Roads.
Please study the impact of the potential loss of these trees. It is not the same to plant a 36" box
tree! These trees are large mature trees that provide shade and a calm, relaxing atmosphere in
which to walk.
3. The project proposes a huge "roof' over a large part of the area. This will prevent views of the
"real" hills, the sunset, the sunrise, the moonrise from most of the locations within the project unless
they climb on the "rooftop".
Please study the impact of this project on new residents, office workers and visitors.
4. There are 2 parcels at the back of the Vallco Specific Planning area, one is the site of a
proposed Hyatt Hotel, the other is in the northwest corner by the Permeter Road wall and 1-280.
These are not owned by Sand Hill Properties but are directly and indirectly impacted by this project.
The enormous height and density of the project will block any views these sites have of the hills, the
sun, etc.
Please study the aesthetic impacts of this SHP project on the other properties within the specific
planning area.
5. There are currently apartments and condominiums in the South Vallco Park area that will end
up being towered by the proposed project. They currently have views of the hills, sunsets, sunrise,
moonrise and of the trees.
Please study the impact on these units.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin <
Date: November 15, 2015 at 7:35:39 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Impacts
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Impacts
Many homes in our area do not have air conditioning. In the hot summer months, they rely on the
wind to cool their homes. On very hot days, the afternoon breeze comes through and blows the hot
air out of our homes. The height and density of this project will prevent the wind from reaching the
homes that rely on it to stay cool.
Please study the impact of this project on the ability of homes to remain cool.
If homes can no longer rely on the wind to cool down their homes then they will be forced to get air
conditioning which will increase energy usage and greenhouse gases.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Xiaowen Wang [mailto
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 7:50 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Vallco EIR comments
Dear Planning Commission and City Councils,
I am writing to you regarding the Vallco project approval process.
First, I really hope that we can compose a comprehensive and accurate EIR. I would like that you
could pay special attention to the following items beyond the regular environmental evaluation.
1. The housing impact of any proposed office project. It is a well known fact now that ABAG
calculates the RHNA based on employment projection which is directly linked to any office
development in the city. It is extremely misleading and irresponsible to overlook the possible
housing impact of office project. Technically it should easy to directly using the RHNA formula from
ABAG to estimate the housing units of office project. I would like that the EIR can include such
numbers in evaluate impact on schools, traffic and any other public services.
2. The traffic impact should be studied of all surrounding areas not just the road directly connected
to the project. It is foreseeable that after the congestion at 280, Wolfe, De Anza and Stevens Creek,
the traffic will be overflowed to the secondary road, such as Homestead, Bollinger, Blaney and
Tantau. It is important to look at the impact to these secondary road and their surrounding
residential neighborhood. Not only the traffic delay should be studied, the noise and air pollution
should be also be considered. Moreover, notably, there are several schools on these secondary
road, Collins, Eaton, Sedgwick, Lawson, Hyde and Cupertino High. The safety around these schools
during rush hour should thoroughly studied.
3. The environmental impact during project phasing should be studied more carefully. The current
proposal include massive destruction and rebuilding. How the project phased would have
tremendous impact on the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the two level parking lot would
unearth huge amount of dirt, which could cause various environmental problems.
4. One unique part of the proposed project is the big green roof. The roof should be carefully
studied regarding its
• water usage
• seismic hazard
• fire hazard
• emergency service
5. The light pollution problem. The proposed project is substantial higher than the surrounding
neighborhood. The reflection during the day and light during the night could be very disturbing to
the residential neighborhood.
Second, other than different environmental impacts, different project scope should be studied. Such
big project could be subject to changes to a lot of factors, it is important to consider different
options for the project. I think that other than the current proposal, we should also consider
1. keep Vallco as a pure retail site
2. rebuild Vallco as a public service site, such as school, park or library
3. retail with 389 housing as allocated per housing element
Finally, please take time and effort to collect the data and make sure the accurate data is put in the
report. As I have reported, the GPA EIR has quite some factual error. I hope such error would not
appear in this report.
Please put these comments in the public record of Vallco EIR.
Sincerely,
Xiaowen Wang
Cupertino resident
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 8:27:24 PM PST
00
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts on Air Quality
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts on AIR QUALITY
When studying all the impacts of air quality, please pay special attention to areas where the young,
the elderly and the sick may be located such as:
Public schools
Private schools
Day cares
Pre-schools
Senior centers
Residential homes used as assisted living
Hospitals (Kaiser Hospital at Homestead and Lawrence Expressway for one)
Urgent care facilities
Parks and open areas where people congregate and exercise
Due to the close proximity of Vallco to Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose, the above sensitive
areas should be considered regardless of the city it resides in but within a specified radius of at least
2 miles if not farther. The material from the cement plant on the far west side of Cupertino finds its
way to the east side of town.
1. Vallco Shopping Mall was constructed in the early 1970's. Asbestos was one of many materials
used during that time in building materials. The demolition of the existing mall will cause many of
these materials to be released into the air.
Please study what materials, in addition to asbestos, will be in the structures to be demolished and
their impacts on our air quality.
Please take into consideration the afternoon winds that often occur and the distance these
materials can be carried throughout our city.
2. During the construction of this project, a lot of dirt and trees are going to be dug up, a lot of
cement and construction materials will be brought in and used.
Please study the possible materials found in the dirt that may be released into the air as a result of
the excavation and removal process.
Please study what materials will be used, how they will be applied and their impacts on our air
quality during the construction process.
3. After construction, the project plans propose a huge "roof' over a large part of the area.
Odors, car exhaust, "breathing fumes" from new construction materials and from decaying materials
can build up under the roof.
Please study the impacts of this roof on the air quality at all levels (floors) of the project from the
deepest underground level to the floor just under the roof.
4. Please study the impacts of items #1-3 on children and people with asthma.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Xiaowen Wang [mailto
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 8:29 PM
To: City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Vallco Economic Impact Report
RE: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments
Dear Planning Commission and City Councils,
I am writing to request a economic impact report on Vallco.
It is undeniable that Vallco redevelopment would have adverse impact on the environment.
However, it is not a complete picture with just environment impact report. We need the following
data points to comprehensively evaluate the project.
1. Tax revenue comparison between different project options. The tax revenue of the Vallco before
redevelopment should serve as the base for this comparison. Also this study should include tax
composition and distribution. What portion is the retail tax or property tax? In what proportion the
tax revenue can be used in the city or flow into the school district?
2. City spending on different project options. What is the cost of public service provided by the city
and school district such as sewer, police and fire, sanitary and school? This study should also use the
current cost as the baseline.
We can only know the financial impact of the redevelopment by looking at both cost and benefit. We
can then evaluate the overall benefit of any project proposal could offset the adverse impact on the
environment.
Please put this request as part of public record of the Vallco EIR scoping comments.
Sincerely,
Xiaowen Wang
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 8:39:13 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Commebnts - impacts on Air Quality (more)
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts on AIR QUALITY (more)
Homes along 1-280 and CA -85 are constantly showered with black particles from the freeway. This
material covers outside furniture, the ground, our gardens. The wind blows it into our homes to
become black dust in our house. We breathe it whether we're inside or outside. As the traffic has
increased over the years, this material has increased. Some say it's particles from the tires. Others
say it's exhaust particles. Whatever it is, we live and breathe it everyday and it is getting worse! It
cannot be healthy to breathe this stuff.
Please study the impacts of the increased traffic as a result of the 2 million square feet of office, 800
housing units, on top of all current and proposed projects in Santa Clara County on our air quality
throughout the city and neighboring cities.
Please study particles from car tires and exhaust as a result of the impact of this increased traffic.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 9:11:39 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts on Biological Resources
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts on Biological Resources
The large trees covering the Vallco Specific Plan area (large Ash, large evergreens) are home to large
birds. Many flocks roost at night in these large trees. There are fewer and fewer large trees in this
area due to the development projects. There are very few places nearby where these birds can go.
When we lose birds, our insect population increases - particularly mosquitos which can lead to
increased exposure to disease.
Please study the impacts of the demolition noise, disturbance of large vehicles and cranes, the
excavation and construction on these birds and other animals.
Please study the impacts of displacing gophers, rats, squirrels, opossums and raccoons on the
animals themselves and on the neighboring homes where they will migrate.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 9:35:42 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: RE: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
When studying all the impacts of hazardous materials, please pay special attention to areas where
the young, the elderly and the sick may be located such as:
Public schools - including the proposed Nan Allan school site
Private schools
Day cares
Pre-schools
Senior centers
Residential homes used as assisted living
Hospitals (Kaiser Hospital at Homestead and Lawrence Expressway for one)
Urgent care facilities
Parks and open areas where people congregate and exercise
Due to the close proximity of Vallco to Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose, the above sensitive
areas should be considered regardless of the city it resides in but within a specified radius of at least
2 miles if not farther. The material from the cement plant on the far west side of Cupertino finds its
way to the east side of town.
1. Vallco Shopping Mall was constructed in the early 1970's. Asbestos was one of many materials
used during that time in building materials. The demolition of the existing mall will cause many of
these materials to be released into the air.
Please study what materials, in addition to asbestos, will be in the structures to be demolished and
their impacts of exposure to them.
Please take into consideration the afternoon winds that often occur and the distance these
materials can be carried throughout our city.
2. During the construction of this project, a lot of dirt and trees are going to be dug up, a lot of
cement and construction materials will be brought in and used.
Please study the possible materials found in the dirt that may be released as a result of the
excavation and removal process.
Please study what materials will be used, how they will be applied and the impacts of exposure to
them during the construction process.
3. After construction, the project plans propose a huge "roof' over a large part of the area. All
the pictures show the edge of the roof without a fence.
Please study the impacts of this roof as a safety hazard for people and materials falling off the roof.
4. Please study the impacts of the hazardous materials on all populations including people with
asthma.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Jenny Zhao [mailt
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:51 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: City Council; citystaff@cupertino.org; Jenny Zhao
Subject: Regarding Vallco EIR
Hi City Planning and City Council members,
I am writing to you with big concerns about the proposed Vallco project. I would like the following to
be included in the upcoming EIR, and EIR must be done by an independent, highly reputable firm.
***Traffic impact, especially the traffic on Wolfe and Stevens Creek during rush hours and school
dismissal hours, with the proposed 2 million sf office space.
***Schools, the cost of adding space for additional kids in our school, not only the classrooms, but
also the staff, facilities, playgrounds, sports fields, etc. These additional costs should be absorbed by
the community members.
***Do a comprehensive survey to see how many people would really use the shuttle bus to
commute.
***Park space. A "green" roof top can't be seen from the ground, therefore it shouldn't even be
considered as green space.
Thanks,
Yong
From: Liang C rmailt
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:05 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on future development in Cupertino
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the impact of The Hills at Vallco on the future development of Cupertino.
Please study the capacity of the sewage and water system to sustain future development in
Cupertino before a major expensive system expansion. Would The Hills at Vallco use up all capacity
in the system so that any future development is not possible without expensive system upgrade?
The massive development of 2 million square feet of office, way beyond the capacity of Cupertino,
could prevent future development in Cupertino for the next 25 years since all the infrastructures are
either saturated or overflowed by this development. Any future development would require
significantly expensive infrastructure expansion; thus, preventing any more development in
Cupertino.
Please study the capacity of more office development in other areas of Cupertino.
Please study the option of spreading office development to other areas of Cupertino, instead of
within one block of Apple Campus 2, one of the largest office park in Silicon Valley.
A major corporation (with sales office in Cupertino to generate sales tax) would prefer a separate
campus for brand recognition and also for security reasons. Please study the possibility of any major
corporation to set up a stand-alone office in the future, once The Hills at Vallco is built.
With 2 million square feet of office from Vallco, the office space in Cupertino will increase by 50%
within 5 years. And together with 3.5 million s.f. from Apple Campus 2 and 260,000 s.f. from Main
Street, that's equivalent to 133 years of office growth from the analysis below:
In 2010, ABAG estimates that the office space in Cupertino will increase by 43,300 square feet per
year.
Cupertino will have an addition of 3.5 million square feet of new office space opening in 2017 from
Apple Campus 2 alone.
Main Street already added 260,000 square feet of office space, just opened in 2014.
The Hills at Vallco will add another 2 million square feet of new office space.
That's 5.76 million square feet of additional new office space on top of the current commute flow.
(Note: Apple Campus 2 may have only added 750,000 square feet in terms of office allocation in
Cupertino's General Plan. But the fact remains that the 3.5 million square feet of new office will be
added on top of the current housing demand and commute flow.)
3,500,000 s.f./43,300 s.f. per year= 80.8 years
5,760,000s.f./ 43,300 s.f. per year = 133 years
The office space added to Apple Campus 2 is equivalent to 80.8 years of office according to ABAG's
estimation of 43,400 s.f. per year of office growth.
The office space added from Apple Campus 2, Main Street and Vallco will be equivalent to 133 years
of office growth according to ABAG's estimation of 43,400 s.f. per year of office growth.
The transportation infrastructure has a limited capacity since the highway is limited by the number
of lanes and even the proposed BRT lines could only transport a few hundred people per day. It is
very costly and time consuming to expand the capacity of transportation infrastructure. Therefore,
allowing 2 million square feet of office in one project practically means taking away the possibility of
future office development in Cupertino by 2 million square feet. Other property owners in Cupertino
with lands already zoned for office or mixed use with office would not be able to build more office.
A major corporation (with sales office in Cupertino to generate sales tax) would prefer a separate
campus for brand recognition and also for security reasons. It is unlikely that a major corporation
would want to rent office space in The Hills at Vallco. Yet, since The Hills at Vallco took away the
capacity of Cupertino to accommodate more office in the next 133 years, would the infrastructure of
Cupertino be able to sustain more office development, especially by a major corporation?
From the EIR for GPA, the capacity for sewage system is already up to the limit, specially in the Wolfe
and Blaney area. Even if Cupertino is able to acquire more capacity at this point. How much more
can the system take?
Liang Chao
From: Peggy Griffin >
Date: November 15, 2015 at 10:05:28 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Groundwater
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Hydrology and Water Quality
Groundwater impacts - Due to the massive digging required by this project, please study
a. the impact on the groundwater table
b. the massive pumping out of the water table as well as resultant contamination
C. the impacts on local wells
2. Water supply -
a. the EIR should analyze increased water demand and whether it will increase stress on the
Santa Clara Valley Water District, the local water wholesaler, or the State Water Project, the eventual
source of SCVWD's water.
b. How will water for the green roof park area be provided? How will it be stored and treated?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Frank Geefay [mailt
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:09 PM
To: Piu Ghosh; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc:
Subject: The Hills at Valco EIR Scoping Public Comment
Smart Growth Considerations
When reviewing to approve any major development for the city, at the very least the City must
consider its impacts upon the community and its sustainable growth impacts. The principles
embodied in "Smart Growth" are an excellent guide that the City should apply. This is a movement
which many cities throughout the nation have adopted. It has its roots in Europe. Car traffic is
universally the most adverse impacting factor upon growth due to its combined physical, financial,
and social impacts: traffic congestion; the space occupied on roadways and parking spaces; its
demand on energy and fossil fuels; its production of greenhouse gases and air pollution; the cost of
infrastructures to support its use; and its toll on human lives, especially the young. Thus in any city
planning involving growth traffic must be the greatest consideration in mitigate its consequences in
order for a development to have growth sustainable impact.
Traffic Mitigation
Not only is its immediate impact important but also its future impact on limiting growth
elsewhere. So even though the development being considered may not in itself saturate traffic flow
the increase in traffic created by it may hinder further effective city developments. Heavily trafficked
roads as a result of a development may also hinder later mitigation measures making such
measures far more costly, time consuming, and compromised. If a development increases traffic to
near saturation levels during peak hours, partial road closures for maintenance, accidents, and road
improvements may cause great hardships to whose whom it serves and provides a living. This may
also be problematic when other developers want to use the same road and freeway infrastructures
making further developments unfeasible. Thus there must always be significant extra road capacity
to mitigate these eventualities. It is simply shortsighted to use the best case scenario to decide
upon the feasibility of a development.
Apple's Impact
Apple's Campus II will house about 14,000 employees resulting in an estimated 8,000 additional cars
to freeways and local streets. The 280 freeway exit onto Wolf Road is being widened to
accommodate Apple's increased traffic burden in addition to their buses and van -pools. This may
provide some marginal amount of overcapacity assuming there is no further growth on that site, an
unrealistic expectation due to Apple's rapid growth. Originally they had estimated 13,000
employees but in the intervening year that number has increased by 1,000 employees.
Sand Hill Proposal and potential Impact
The current plans for Vallco recently submitted to the City by Sand Hill Development for 2,000,000
square feet of office space, 800 units of varied housing, retail, and other amenities will add an
estimated 10,000-12,000 cars on the same freeways, freeway exits, and roadways as Apple Campus
II just one block away. Then Main Street will soon open nearby with more offices, housing and retail
adding more cars. Apple alone requested the freeway exit widening now underway. Did Caltran
anticipate Vallco's 10,000-12,000 additional cars and those from Main Street when planning the
freeway exit widening more than one year earlier? Is there adequate over capacity to handle partial
road closures from accidents, maintenance, and improvements with upwards of 22,000 combined
new and existing cars during peak hours? Is there adequate roadway capacity for additional
businesses in the near future such as at The Oaks, Target, Marina, Cupertino Village, etc.?
The Proposal
It is most prudent to develop Vallco in a growth sustainable manner that does not significantly
impact traffic flow to allows for future growth elsewhere in the city, has a positive impact upon the
quality of life of our residents, and is a profitable and acceptable development option for Sand Hill
Development. I do not view this situation as an all or nothing proposition. I propose an alternative
plan based largely upon sustainable Smart Growth principles for traffic mitigation that also promotes
community development that I believe will benefit all parties. Each component of this proposal
serves to offset the adverse impact of other elements or complement those that don't. If done
optimally to mitigate traffic it might actually reduce overall peak traffic loads below Apple's
projections alone while still accomplishing all the things just mentioned.
The Details
The percentages stated are only suggestions. The proportions of each sub -element should be
adjusted to what is most sustainable and makes greatest sense for this community to thrive within
itself. The overall size of Vallco is also up for discussions and can very from 2,000,000-3,000,000
square feet or so. It is always better to avoid a problem rather than create one then attempt to mitigate
it later. It will cost far less in the long run with more optimal results. I envision Vallco as a self-
contained community within a community:
1. Business (50%):-
1. Retail;
2. Entertainment, gaming and sports recreation centers;
3. Quality Restaurants and lower -end food courts;
4. Hotel;
5. Offices - doctors, lawyers, realtors, tax preparation, escrow, loans, after-school
tutors, etc. (no more than 20% of businesses).
2. Housing (40):-
1. Studio - target single Apple employees;
2. Single Bedroom - target married Apple employees;
3. Multiple Bedrooms - target Apple and other families with children;
4. Senior Housing - far more than the 40 units Sand Hill suggested. If they can build 40
units they can build far more. It would be kept separate form the other housing
within easy walking distance to the green garden roof and could also include assisted
living.
3. Child Care (10%):-
1. On sight School K-9 for onsite residents;
2. High School club/meeting area and media center;
3. Playground for school and children on the green roof,
4. On sight Library (also for adults);
5. Daycare Center for Vallco residents and shoppers.
4. Mobility Alternatives: -
1. Shuttle Bus for Vallco residents to:
1. Public Transportation hubs;
2. Caltrain;
3. To High Schools and DeAnza College for students;
4. To other businesses throughout town for those employed elsewhere in the
city.
2. Bicycle Facilities:
1. Protected Class IV bikeways down the length pf Stevens Creek Blvd. to Vallco
to safely accommodate riders of all ages and abilities;
2. Bicycle lanes and parking throughout Vallco;
3. Bicycle loaners or bicycle shares at the parking lot entrance to Vallco
shopping.
3. Pedestrian Friendly:
1. Nice pleasant easy to walk sidewalks between locations with separate paths
marked for bicycles;
2. Lockers at various locations to temporarily store things;
3. Water fountains spread throughout the walking paths and inside large
retailers;
4. Benches and tables for people to rest, eat, or read between shipping.
4. Long secured bicycle/pedestrian enclosed bridge leading directly from the studio and
single bedroom housing to the Apple Campus II building (joint project between Apple
and Sand Hill Dev.).
Everything will be conveniently withing walking distance for occupants and visitors at Vallco
consistent with the principles of Smart Growth. There is plenty of diversity in land use elements to
complement one another and provide for all the needs of this community within a community and
for the profitability of the developer and the sure success of Vallco with minimal impact upon traffic
loading in combination with Apple Campus II. This could also serve as a sustainable best practice
model that other cities may want to adopt as a major mixed use development that for a change
mitigates traffic.
1. Business is at the heart of this community within our city. Retail, entertainment, sports,
restaurants, and offices would have a captive community of housing occupants to serve as
customers/clients in additional to other residents from Cupertino. The hotel would serve
guest of residents as well as Apple and other businesses in town with convenient shuttles to
other businesses. The emphasis should be to serve the needs of Cupertino
residents. Serving visitors from other communities is secondary as this creates more traffic
especially during holidays. What will attract Apple employees to buy housing here is a broad
base of businesses tailored to the needs of Apple employees and young high tech adults as
well as families and kids. A vibrant retail is what residents want most complemented with a
broad range of quality dining experiences and a mix of entertainment and
sporting/recreational challenges and modest office services.
2. Housing units to address the needs of Apple employees within walking distance of the new
Apple Campus II and other local high tech companies range from studio to single bedroom
housing. It is important that retail, eateries, entertainment, and recreation be attractive to
young Apple and high tech employees. Multiple bedroom family housing would be available
for families with children with child care amenities. There would also be far more senior
housing than suggested by Sand Hill to take care of a growing senior population separated
form the other housing elements for quiet and privacy. Seniors would have easy access to
the green area on the roof to take walks and enjoy the out of doors. This senior housing
may also include assisted living. Sand Hill could partner with a senior housing specialist. All
ages would be accommodated conveniently close to everyone's daily need. It may be
possible for young adults, their parents, and grand parents to live in Vallco within walking
distance of one another so they can all easily visit one another and keep an eye on their
aging seniors while seniors visit or care for grandchildren.
3. Child Care facilities such as a K-9 School, Library, Day Care Center, and a park and play area
on the green roof would provide for a full range of child care needs for residents living in
Vallco. The Library and Day Care Center would also be available for shoppers and Cupertino
residents. The Library would have an added benefit of reducing the load on the Library at
the Civic Center, the busiest in the County, and free up parking there. Everything would be a
short walk from everything else with safety and security for children.
4. Mobility Alternatives to nearby work and public transportation will be readily available
through shuttle buses and protected Class IV bicycle lanes. Shuttle buses could be used for
high school and DeAnza College students as well. An agreement could be made with FUHSD
that a lottery or other process would distribute high school students throughout the district
or something similar. This will avoid overcrowding a single school withing a single school
zone. Bicycles could be made available at the entrance of the shopping area so that they
could be borrowed or rented through Bay Area Bike Share and ridden throughout Vallco or
for simply carrying heavier loads. Of course walking will always be an option to go
everywhere withing Vallco as well as to the shuttle transit center.
A long secured bicycle/pedestrian enclosed bridge leading directly from the studio and single
bedroom housing units to the Apple campus (joint project between Apple and Sand Hill)
serving as a perfect and sustainable path to bridge housing needs directly to Apple
employees. There would be a people mover like in airports also located on this bridge. Exits
leading below to convenient locations such as bus stops, bicycle lanes, and walking paths
would descend through elevators in the support shaft structures of this bridge.
Win -Win Proposition
All of these interrelated elements could actually reduce traffic from the Apple employees living at
Vallco, solve further overcrowding schools, provide residents and Vallco occupants with a vibrant
shopping/dining/entertainment experience with legal, doctor, realtor, and other office services
without overwhelming traffic, provide sufficient housing units to satisfy the city's housing needs as
well as ABAG housing requirements with a captive customers/clients for retail and offices, provide
amenities for families, provide senior housing without impacting traffic our schools, provide family
housing with children and supportive facilities, provide hotel lodgings for Apple visors, Vallco
residents visitors, and other visitors with hotel taxes all going to the city, and providing a very
profitable and successful investment for Sand Hill Development, a sustainable proposition for
all. Everyone gets most of what is most important to them. And it is sustainable allowing for future
growth in the city without overburdening traffic or anyone else, a win-win for all.
Office vs. Housing
As a side note if the city grants Sand Hill all the office space it requests for Vallco, most of it will likely
go to Apple offices, Apple vendors, and Apple contractors due to its proximity to Apple Campus
11. This does nothing to help the city diversify its business revenue stream portfolio as it is still tied to
Apple. Housing however is probably more profitable to Sand Hill than offices and will always be in
great demand with or without Apple and fulfill a critical shortage without negatively affecting ABAG's
future housing allocations as does office space. Perhaps it will bring in a little less tax revenues for
the City but it will otherwise be of greater benefit to the community without overburdening our local
schools or traffic. This proposal will have the greatest overall benefit to the community. I hope this
will have significant overriding consideration from the City even above the City's desire for a more
diversified revenue stream.
Best Regards,
Frank Geefay
Cupertino Resident
From: Liang C
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:29 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR: impact on overbuilding of office space in a very short time
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
The Market Study done in 2014 for the GPA in fact shows only a demand of 805,428 square feet of
office by the year 2035. The estimated demand for office space in Cupertino is 43,300 square feet
per year. The 2,000,000 square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino.
Not only the proposed Hills at Vallco will devastate the traffic condition, it will kill any chance of
another major corporation to settle down in Cupertino. The capacity of our traffic infrastructure
is very limit since there is literally no mass transit.
Please study the impact of the oversupply of office space in the long run on housing, employment,
transportation, quality of life, especially when the infrastructure to support it cannot catch up in the
short term.
The area might be able to handle a reasonable growth of office space over 20 or 30 years. However,
when 2 million square feet of office is built before the other 2.5 million square feet of office has not
even finished construction, the accumulated impact is hard to estimate.
Please study any other area or city that has seen such high growth rate in office space, namely 50%
growth of office space in 5 years, and compare its impacts.
Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco
The Market Study done in 2014 for the GPA in fact shows only a demand of 805,428 square feet of
office by the year 2035. The estimated demand for office space in Cupertino is 43,300 square feet
per year. The 2,000,000 square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino.
Not only the proposed Hills at Vallco will devastate the traffic condition, it will kill any chance of
another major corporation to settle down in Cupertino. The capacity of our traffic infrastructure
is very limit since there is literally no mass transit.
Table 34: Projected Office Demand, Cupertino, 2013-2035
2020 2035
Minimum Demand Estimate
Gross Demand Esq. ft.) (a) 303,061 952,477
Less. Entitled Office Development (sq. it.) 147,M 147,050
Net New Office Dorn and ABAG Projections (sq. ft.) 156,011 905,428
�i�ii+iia•iTi`:iRia��r.�u+awlagu[eca�+nr.�+r t*�+a*a��r+ra�r;rte
During the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Process, the City of Cupertino hired the consulting firm
BAE Urban Economics to conduct a Market Study. Like reading all such consultant reports, ordered
by the City, wise readers look at the data collected in the report and derive informed conclusions on
their own. The conclusion derived by these consultant reports are often quite biased, and one
should read it with caution. The office demand analysis is one such example.
On Page 83 of the Market Study, it shows that the "estimated demand for office space in
Cupertino averaging approximately 43,300 square feet per year. After accounting for projects
currently entitled or under construction, this suggests that minimum net office demand will total
approximately 156,000 square feet by 2020 and 805,400 square feet by 2035, as shown in Table 34."
ABAG projection is regarded as aggressive by many already. However, the Council directed the
staff to add "2-3 million square feet of office" when the GPA process was initiated from Aug. 21,
2012 Council Meeting. Therefore, the consultants have to find a way to deliver the expected "office
demand".
The Market Study argues:
Table 34 factor in the capacity to accommodate the proposed Apple Campus 2 along with
another new corporate campus equivalent in scale to the recent projects shown in Table 33,
in addition to the minimum demand estimates that were developed based on projected
employment. As shown, this results in a net new demand of approximately 2.9 million
square feet by 2020 and 3.6 million square feet by 2035. Given the recent shortage of
office spaces in Cupertino containing more than 10,000 contiguous square feet, a new
recommended office allocation could also allow for multi -tenant office developments, which
could create the space needed for mid-size companies to grow in Cupertino as well as
accommodate a new major technology company or future expansion of an existing firm.
Even if a new corporate campus is expected, Table 33 (below) shows the office square footage is
mostly under 1.5 million. Even though there is only a shortage of 10,000 contiguous square feet of
office, the consultants from BAE Urban Economics concluded that Cupertino has an additional office
demand of 2 million square feet, which is quite a stretch. And Table 34 shows the ballooned total
office demand of 3.5 million. Take away the 2 million for an non-existent corporate office. Take away
the 750,000 square feet already allocated to Apple and under construction. The true office demand
is only 805,428 square feet by 2035.
Besides Cupertino City Council can always initiate a new GPA process to grant an additional 1.5
million or 2 million square feet of office space if ever another company wants to settle down in
Cupertino. There is no need to pre -allocate it in the General Plan.
And there is certainly no way to justify giving this 2,000,000 square feet of office to Vallco at all. A
major corporation headquartered in Cupertino brings in sales tax plus property tax and a brand
name recognition, like Apple brings to Cupertino. Yet, 2,000,000 square feet of office at Vallco merely
brings in property tax.
Two million square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino.
(2,000,000/43,300=46.2) All cramed in one location within one block from the 3.5 million square feet
of office in Apple Campus 2, which include 750,000 extra square feet on top of the original allocation
for HP. That's another 17.3 years of office growth. (750,000/43,300=17.3)
More than 60 years of office growth all squeezed into one block area to be built within the next 5
years. Will Cupertino ever have the capacity for another major corporation in the near future? Not
likely.
The capacity of the traffic infrastructure is limited in Cupertino since there is no true mass transit.
VTA doesn't have any plan in the next 25 years to introduce light rail or any other transit that can
transport tens thousands of people. Therefore, the amount of office space that Cupertino can
accommodate is also limited since Cupertino already has insufficient housing.
Allocating 2,000,000 square feet office to Vallco is essentially grabbing the space from other
property owners in town, whose properties are already zoned for office. These other property
owners won't even be able to build a small amount of office as a result since roads leading into
Cupertino would be extremely congested. It is simply not fair to other property owners.
Table 33: Corporate Campuses Recently Proposed by
Silicon galley Tech Gompanies
---
East Campus
Building
Company
Size {sq. ft,N Location
Apple
3,40U,000 Cupertm
Gaogte
1,100,000 Wunii- iView (O"fromNASA)
Cxtead Sckences
2,5(M.OW Faster City
armung
MOM North San Ime
M
1,000,000 Santa CWa
Vrrware kw- 1,500,000 P31oAlto Stanford Posearch Park
New COxrstrvtt M 450,000
Fenovaton 1,050,000
Faeebook Inc.
1,475,690 Menlo Park
East Campus
1,035,840
West Cwrpus
439,850
SFN Inlernational
1,300,000 Menlo Park
Sources- Sicon Va" Business. Journal, 2013; Bloomberg Bus mss
Week 2013: the Registry. 2013: City of Cupertino. 2013: Fa"took,
2+012; Bid E, 20t 3.
REFERENCE:
1. City of Cupertino GPA Market Study, prepared by BAE Urban Economics, Feb. 13, 2014
2. fob Growth Projection Chart, BetterCupertion Blog We Support Sensible Growth, Planned
Growth
CRSZaction.orZ and BetterCupertino.org
Paid for by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA
95015, FPPC #1376003
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 10:58:10 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<maiIto: cityclerk@cu pertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - Noise, Traffic, Emergency Response impacts
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments -
The traffic on 1-280 and CA -85 has gotten so bad that the following occurs every day:
Noise levels have increased so that insulation does not cut the noise level inside the home
anymore.
Even at night now the noise is high. It doesn't die down anymore.
- Everyday there seems to be an accident on 1-280 between Foothill Expressway and Lawrence
Expressway.
- The large employee buses and cars are ditching the freeways and hauling down side streets in
Cupertino and Sunnyvale to get to the De Anza Blvd and Wolfe areas.
- Apple employees are parking up and down our neighborhood streets to avoid having to get out
on Mariani and De Anza Blvd.
With the addition of 2,000,000 square feet of office that the Hills-at-Vallco is proposing, on top of
existing and upcoming projects in the area (Apple 2, Main Street, Agilent re -development, etc.)
please study the impacts of traffic on
Noise during commute times as well as at off-peak hours in the evening and during the day
Increased accident rates
Response times to those accidents
When looking at traffic, please look at these points as bailing points and the subsequent traffic on
the local streets as a result of cars
- CA -85 and EI Camino
- CA -85 and Fremont Ave.
- CA -85 and Homestead Road
- 1-280 and Foothill Expressway
- Foothill Expressway to Stevens Creek Canyon Road
Please study the impacts of traffic as described above on
1. Noise levels along CA -85,1-280, Foothill Expressway, EI Camino Real, Fremont Ave, Homestead
Road, Mary Ave., Hollenbeck/Stelling, Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/De Anza Blvd, Wolfe/Miller, Tantau
Ave, Lawrence Expressway from EI Camino to Prospect since Prospect goes into the Cupertino hills.
2. Increased accident rates along those roads listed in #1
3. Increased emergency response times along those roads listed in #1.
Please study the impacts of traffic on cell reception. Many people have dropped their land lines and
are only using cell phones. When the traffic increases, more people are using their cell phones and
the capacity of the cellular companies is stressed. It is very common now to not be able to complete
a call while on De Anza Blvd during rush hour. This impacts emergency response and the ability of
residents, workers and commuters to report an emergency. This can effect fire, ambulance, etc.
Please study all cellular carriers.
Please study the impacts of 10,000 additional workers in the Vallco area on cell reception. This can
impact emergency response due to lack of capacity to complete a call.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Yu Ying [mailt
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:01 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR:traffic study
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
As a resident living near Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd, I am very concerned about the traffic
situation if the plan proposed by SHP gets approved with 800 residential and 2 million square feet of
office.
Please study
1. how much time it takes a car to reach Homestead Rd. from Bolinger Rd along the north bound of
Miller/Wolfe Rd between 8-9am week days;
2. how much time it takes a car to reach Homestead Rd from Atherwood Ave. which requires a left
turn on to Miller Rd between 8-9am week days;
3. how much time it takes a car to reach Bolinger Rd from Homestead Rd along the south bound of
Miller/Wolfe Rd between 5-7pm week days.
Note that, when the Vallco project completes, the new Apple II campus will be hosting 14,000
employees every week day. I would like the EIR to study the traffic caused by both of these two huge
projects, which is the actual traffic situation that impacts residents' daily life. A study on the traffic
introduced by the Vallco project alone doesn't reflect how worse the situation can be in reality, and
is not convincing at all.
Please include my request as record for Vallco project.
Best Regards,
Yu (Cupertino Resident)
From: Liang C
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:11 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - No development project without Traffic Mitigation Fee
Program
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
The EIR for GPA specifically requires the City to commit to implement a Traffic Mitigation Fee
Program. The General Plan was also amended to include policies to collect Transportation Impact
Fee.
Due the massive impact of The Hills at Vallco, the project should not be approved before the Traffic
Mitigation Fee program is in place. In fact, no other development project should be approved before
the Transportation Impact Fee is adopted.
EIR for GPA, Sec. 4.13 Page 53:
"Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and
implementing a
Traffic Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure
improvements that
are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City
standards. As part
of the preparation of the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to
preparing a
"nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB
1600
legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support
implementation of the proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require
that a
"reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic improvements and facilities
required to
mitigate the traffic impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project."
"The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in
an existing
building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees
collected shall be
applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be
calculated by
multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate
rate. Traffic
mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the
building permit is
issued. The City shall use the traffic mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees
advanced to
fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things
that at the
time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic impacts."
General Plan Policies on Transportation Impact Fee:
Policy M-10.1: Transportation Improvement Plan
Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to
meet the City's needs.
Policy M-10.2: Transportation Impact Fee
Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation
Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee
for new development.
Each project with EIR only mitigate direct impact of the project on the surrounding areas. However,
there are cumulative impacts of the projects on other parts of the city that cannot be mitigated or
even measured in relation to only one project.
Transportation Impact Fee provides funding to mitigate such cumulative impacts citywide.
If The Hills at Vallco is not required to pay for Transportation Impact Fee at the time of project
approval, the significant impact of the project on the traffic infrastructure will significantly increase
the Transportation Impact Fee needed for future project since a lot more mitigation measures
would be needed to attempt to improve the Level of Service to "less than significant" level from
"significant and unavoidable" if at all possible.
Please study the list of extra mitigation measures and thus the amount of mitigation fees needed
citywide to mitigate the impact of The Hills at Vallco.
Liang Chao
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 11:21:41 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - misc
1) traffic analysis - EIR should analyze using both the current level of service methodology
currently in use and the vehicle miles travelled methodology that has been released in draft form by
the Office of Planning and Research. If either approach indicates significant impacts, the impacts
should be considered significant.
2) What will be the electrical and gas supply for the new project?
a) How much will the project increase greenhouse gas generation?
b) How will greenhouse gas generation be mitigated?
3) What will be the growth -inducing impact of the project?
a) Will the project result in increasing the pressure on the local housing market, resulting in
increased housing sale and rental prices and forcing lower income households out of the area,
increasing their commute distances to reach jobs in the area?
4) What will be the cumulative impact of this project plus other objects in and around Cupertino,
especially the nearby Apple campus expansion?
5) What will the seismic safety impacts of the large green roof park area be?
a) Has such a large green roof project been done previously in a seismically active area like
Cupertino?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: November 15, 2015 at 11:47:33 PM PST
To: Piu Ghosh <PiuG@cupertino.org<mailto:PiuG@cupertino.org>>
Cc: 'Grace Schmidt' <cityclerk@cupertino.org<mailto:cityclerk@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - conflicts with the General Plan
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - conflicts with the General Plan
The proposed project and specifc plan for Vallco conflict with many of the Policies and Strategies of
the Cupertino General Plan as listed below.
1. With 2,000,000 sq. ft. of office, this project will significantly increase the imbalance that already
exists to a point that may put the City at risk for penalties.
[cid:image002.'pg@01 D1 1 FFF.FFB37E90]
PoliLL'-1.X: Jobs/Hou--ing Jobs/Hou--inBalance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and hous-ing units.
2. The immense size and density of the project conflicts with these GP policies.
[cid:image004.jpg@01 D11 FFF.FFB37E90]
[cid:image011.jpg@01 D11 FFF.FFB37E90]
■ Policy LU -12.4: HAside Views, Thr iiontebeUo footlsills at tl.e soisth and west botsndacr of the
x-Zey floor provide a scenic backdrops adding to the QWs scale and Vaciet . Mule it is not possible
to g+uraaitee an miobstsicted view of the 10s from e, -err vantage' t. an attempt shotild be made
to reserve rieTm of the foo .
■ Policy LU -27.;L- &gject.-on Protect resident-.-: reagl:bor::oods frog: noise, traffic, Lgl: '� ,
arid vistu rr intn% iv'e effects from more intense development ural: landscape bliffers, sate and
b,a!4�aLdesign, setbaciss and other appropriate meas, ues.
NOTE: This particular stategy is specific to the Vallco area - note the "human scale". There is
nothing about this project this is of human scale!
[cid:image012.ipg@01 D11 FFF.FFB37E90]
■ Strategy LL 19.1.9: B=zildi 7g Farm. Biuk _ngs shortld have lugh-crm]itr uchiteelhue and an emphasis
on aesrl:e:ics. h=i.:an scale, -u:d create a sense of place. .
i�-li`g+aceL:;;=L . Taller bltil&ngs sho,�d psorsde app=opriate
t;:ulSiLons to -t u:to tb:e area.
3. During demolition, excavation and construction residents will be exposed:
[cid:image013.jpg@01 D11 FFF.FFB37E90]
Policy 145-6.1 Pro=Lmitr of Res:devts to Hazacdoiu VateLWs. Assess f+ibue sessdents' eapos.u* to
l~u=dons materisls when new residential development or sitire poanlations are
proposed :n emstsng aid+:stcol and muv�cvuuag areas. Do aot Z= residential derelopment of
sensstire pao 4aLoas if sncl: 1. =dons co:uLuons c=not be Qaitigated to an
accep- le lev9 of ask
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Liang C
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:50 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - Vehicle Minutes/Hours Traveled
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the amount of extra time residents and workers need to spend on the road due to the
massive office park from Apple Campus 2 and Vallco.
For highway access, please study the Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) to understand the amount of
extra time vehicles spent on the freeway.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is not a true measurement of traffic congestion since it doesn't take
into account of the speed vehicles take to travel at all. The longer a vehicle spent on the road the
more greenhouse gas emission it generates. Whenever a vehicle travels lower than 50 miles per
hour, it emits more greenhouse gas. The more time vehicles spent on the road and increase the
amount of time when accidents might occur. The more time each driver spent on the road, also
increase the stress level and impact the health of drivers.
The EIR for GPA provided the average speed of each segment of the freeway. Please convert that to
the time it takes to go through each segment. Please provide the time it takes to travel from
different points of freeways within 30 mile radius.
The EIR for GPA only studied freeway segments within the City of Cupertino and at most one exit
outside of Cupertino. However, 84% of Cupertino workers do not live in Cupertino. Many travel long
distance from their home to Cupertino. The Hills at Vallco and Apple Campus 2 will double the
number of workers who commute into Cupertino. They won't be living within one exit of Cupertino.
Please extend the study of freeways to a 20 -mile radius to provide the LOS data for those road
segments and also the time it takes to go through the segment. This way, a worker or a resident can
figure out how much longer their commute time will increase.
For local streets, please study the amount of time from different corners of Cupertino to reach
schools, libraries, Quinlan center and other common destinations. The LOS is one possible measure
for one intersection. But one often need to travel through multiple intersections. At some
intersections it takes extremely long to make a left turn and that adds to the local travel time. When
the total amount of time it takes to go through artery streets, such as Stevens Creek or Wolfe, is
longer than expected, people tend to take a short cut and use other streets, such as McClellan and
Blaney. But these secondary streets are not equipped to handle the added traffic and these vehicles
taking short cut tend to have impatient drivers who are driving at a higher speed. And that leads to
more risks on traffic accidents. And there are more bicycles on these secondary streets, which add
to the risks of fatal accidents.
Please study the impact on secondary streets when the artery streets have too many intersections
with low LOS, and especially the impact on traffic accidents.
The more time it takes to travel on freeway or local street also increases the emergency response
time that emergency vehicles need to get to hospitals. Cupertino doesn't have its own major
hospitals. Our patients need to go to EI Camino hospital in Mountain View or Good Samaritan
Hospital in Los Gatos. Residents often need to drive by themselves to send a sick relative to the
hospital. The time it takes to reach hospitals should be studied.
Many services, such as pluming, gardening, cleaning services, etc. for Cupertino residents are
provided by companies in San dose or other areas. The longer time it takes for these service workers
to reach Cupertino, the less likely they want to serve Cupertino residents, or the more they will
charge the residents. And the longer time Cupertino residents have to wait for these services.
Liang Chao
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:15 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on emergency response time should be based on
real data.
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the emergency response time for fire protection, police and especially medical
emergency with real data.
With an increase of 30% residence population and 50% worker population, the EIR of GPA concludes
that
"TRAF-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access."
This conclusion is derived simply by mentioning a bunch of General Plan policies, which are often
not enforced. There is no real data on the current response time and no data on the predicted
response time. No data on the expected expansion needed to provide service to the added
population.
The traffic analysis shows that LOS of local streets and freeways would become much worse to the
worst level of "Significant and Unavoidable" impact. And yet, the data from traffic analysis is not
used at all to evaluate the emergency response time.
Merely reference to a bunch of General Plan policies is not an acceptable way to evaluate the
impact.
For example, the following is EIR for GPA Section 4.13. Page 63.
"Because the proposed Project is a program -level planning effort, it does not directly
address project -level
design features or building specifications; however, the General Plan includes polices that
once adopted
would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access are provided in the city, which would
help facilitate
emergency response. Within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-8, Early Project Review,
would direct
the City to "involve the Fire Department in early design stages of projects requiring public
review.......
"Ongoing implementation of the General Plan policies and the City's engineering standards
would ensure
that adequate emergency access is provided in Cupertino. Therefore, impacts associated
with the
implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant."
This is not good enough. For emergency response time, please study the real impact using real data.
Do not use any personal communication or policies that have not been implemented yet.
Please study the amount of time for residents to reach the nearest hospital in a private vehicle in the
event of non -life threatening emergency.
For example, the amount of extra delay in each intersection is already calculated in the LOS study of
local streets. The average speed of freeways and delay on freeway on-ramp and off -ramp are also
available in the traffic study. Such data could be used to compute the amount of time to reach a
hospital from different areas of Cupertino.
Please study the impact on emergency response time for an ambulance to reach a home and from
the home to the nearest hospital.
Liang Chao
From: Liang C
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:39 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: omment on Vallco impact - bike path and pedestrian safety
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the impact on bike paths on all artery streets that are logical shortcuts of freeway exits
to reach Vallco when freeways or the exits or entrances are congested.
Please study the impact on bike paths on all secondary streets that are logical shortcuts when artery
streets are congested.
Please study the impact on bike accident rates in relation to increased volume of vehicles.
Please study the impact on bike accident rates in relation to increase volume of vehicles at
intersections making left or right turns.
Please study the impact on bike accident rates in relation to increase volume of vehicles when a bike
is making a right turn, left turn or simply straight.
Please study the impact of accident rates involving pedestrians at intersections when the vehicle
volume increases.
Liang Chao
From: Jon . fmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:39 AM
To: ; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.;
Piu Ghosh; City Clerk
Subject: Comments For Vallco EIR
Cupertino Planning Department,
Below are my comments for the Vallco Hills EIR task. Due to the increasing traffic problem in
Cupertino, and we still have yet to see the actual impact of the Apple Starship, Rose Bowl, Main
Street, etc, this EIR is of the upmost importance and must be very comprehensive and
complete. The usual Cupertino EIRs that I have read are not sufficient for a project of this
magnitude. And I believe the Cupertino Planning Department has not historically shown that it truly
understands the current traffic implications nor the future implications on a growing city. A projects
effects today on the "LOS" impacts says nothing about how todays traffic impact will affect the cities
traffic as more development occurs each year through 2040. At some year before 2040, the
absolute maximum capacity could be reached and at that point, the city would have stalled vehicle
movement like San Francisco. The Cupertino Planning Department must make sure that there is
sufficient traffic capacity available for growth through 2040 as a minimum.
Vallco Hills EIR traffic tasks that need to be performed
Being a licensed California engineer, I believe the Traffic LOS is a overly simplistic method of
defining the effects of a development on the local traffic vicinity. In this day with the traffic
problems that we have, the traffic analysis needs to be much more detailed and
complete. Things that need to be done are:
1. The traffic capacity for all roadway segments between all traffic lights on Stevens Creek,
DeAnza Blvd, Wolf Road, Homestead Road, Tantau, and Lawrence Expressway. This means
"the time for each signal cycle duration" (light turns green until the light turns red" how many
vehicles can start from a stopped position and pass through the intersection before the red
light. Then the time for all cars going in the perpendicular direction before the light turns
green again. This information must be specific and include all traffic turn lane lights,
pedestrian crossing, etc.
2. Then this cycle needs to be multiplied to achieve the capacity for a one hour period to
determine the absolute maximum vehicle capacity/hr ... no more vehicle counts could be
added because more vehicles would only add to a growing line that would not pass.
3. But these calculations result in a Absolute Maximum vehicle capacity. This does not allow
for any traffic issues like stalled vehicles, accidents, emergency vehicle passage, etc. And to
be a proper analysis, it must state what is considered an acceptable running condition like
70 percent or 80 percent, virtually no running condition should have standard operation at
100 percent.
4. Then the current vehicle counts for each roadway segment must be measured for a "today
baseline"; how many vehicles are passing on each segment during each hour, between 6am
and 9pm.
5. Then the computed impact on the "today" vehicle counts must be made for the Vallco Hills
project and needs to include all other current projects, proposed projects, expected projects,
and expected growth in a year over year analysis through the year 2040. If Cupertino roads
cannot continue to handle expected growth through the year 2040 without exceeding the
allowable traffic capacity, then the Vallco Hills project is not acceptable in its current form
and size.
6. Another requirement is that the analysis must be complete and cover all developments
within a minimum 5 mile distance to all Cupertino boarders because there are many other
projects outside of Cupertino that are also adding massive amounts of traffic that will travel
across the Cupertino boarders and onto the described Cupertino roads; examples,
Montebellow (825 residences at Lawrence Expressway and Monroe), Unamed Project
submitted request to Santa Clara (725 residences at EI Camino and Lawrence Expressway),
Projects on EI Camino, Projects in Sunnyvale, etc.
This might seem like a lot of work but it must be done so that Cupertino can truly determine the
effect the Vallco Hills project will have on the Cupertino roads over time. To say our current roads
can accommodate the Mega Density Vallco Hills project today and not project out how our city traffic
will fare due to this project through the year 2040 would be grossly inadequate.
As additional information, I have read in the Main Street EIR that that development will produce
12000 vehicle trips per day and have also read in another EIR that the capacity for a two lane
road is 15000 vehicles per day. And although the Main Street EIR does give hourly vehicle trips,
we need a hourly capacity for each road segment for comparison. A daily capacity for a
road comparison does a disservice to the actual problem that needs to be understood.
Feel free to provide comments on my assertions but by all means, a very complete and very
detailed traffic analysis through the year 2040 needs to be done.
From: Liang C rmailto J
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:11 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact on overflow parking to the neighborhood
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Please study the impact of overflow parking demands on neighboring streets, such as Portal and
other side streets, and shopping centers, especially the center with JoAnne Frabric and United
Furniture across the street.
Please study the impact of overflow parking demands on neighboring streets of the new K-5
elementary school at Nan Allen Elementary site.
It is well known that the parking stalls required for office park, residential or mixed use sites in the
zoning code is well below the needed amount, since the zoning code makes an unrealistic
assumption on the number of people who uses alternative methods of transportation. As a result,
the neighborhood streets often become parking lot for the nearby mixed use sites.
One resident just spoke on Nov. 3rd about Apple employees at Infinity Loop taking up street parking
near Lawson. As a result, parents cannot park near school and are forced to double park to pick up
students. The local residents do not want the city to turn the street into a permit parking zone since
it means added cost for the residents and added trouble for their guests.
The neighborhood streets around Biltmore Apartments are always full 24-7 to the point that even a
guest cannot find a parking space.
Apple Campus 2 with expected emplyes of 14,000 and a commitment to provide alternative
transportation for 40% of them, including carpool. So, the expected number of single -driver vehicle
is 8,000. The number of parking stalls provided in Apple Campus 2 is 10,980 parking spaces,
according to its EIR.
The Hills at Vallco provides only 9,175 vehicles, the very minimum required by the Zoning Code.
Let's see how much would actually be needed.
The Hills at Vallco contains
2 million square feet of office, which will house about 10,000 workers. If 20% car pool or use
alternative means (which is already higher than the average from 2010 census), it will need
8,000 parking spaces.
800 housing units, which would require 2 cars per unit or more (if multiple young singles
share one apartment or any family has a teenager of driving age). Thus, it will require 1,600
spaces.
625,000 square feet of retail space. Per 1,000 square feet of retail space is recommended to
have 5-10 parking spaces. Thus, 3,1250 to 6,250 parking space is recommended.
According to "Site Design. Parking and Zoning for Shopping Centers" from Planning.org: "the
recommended standard of 10.0 car spaces per 1,000 square feet of net retail area (or a
parking ratio of 3:1, i.e., three square feet of parking area for every one square foot of retail
sales area)."
Loss in Value due to Inadequate Parking: "The shopping center could accommodate
the peak holiday shopping during Thanksgiving and Christmas when the merchants make
up to 50% of their profit for the year. If a business can not accommodate its customers
during that time, then the property may not have adequate parking and the property may
suffer from obsolescence. Other studies have been done which show a need of 5 parking
spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building area."
The total parking spaces needed is 8000+1600+3125 = 12,725.
The 9,175 parking spaces at Vallco is only 72% of needed space,
When other shopping center needs extra parking, it overflows to the next one or two streets.
When The Hills at Vallco overflows, it will overflow to the next 10 to 20 streets since the project is
more than 10 times bigger than any other shopping mall in Cupertino.
Since there is little mass transit and even less ridership in Cupertino, any assumption of the number
of visitors or workers who take public transit has to be realistic.
Note that even in San Jose where there are lightrail, the ridership is still low since the VTA
transportation network does not cover enough areas so that most people still had to drive.
Any solution to solve the last mile problem is still experimental, such as Uber or Lyft. The EIR impact
analysis should not be based on unproven future trend. It should be based on real data and real
transportation method available today or in any committed plan.
Therefore, the effect of overflow parking from The Hills of Vallco needs to be studied using realistic
data in every day situation and also worst case situation during Christmas shopping season.
The impact of difficulty of parking on the accessibility of retail shops and other amenities at The Hills
at Vallco should be studied.
The impact of difficulty of parking on the willingness of customers to visit shops and other amenities
in The Hills at Vallco should be studied.
The impact of difficulty of parking on the sales volume of the shops during Christmas season when
most retail shops make 50% of their sales should be studied since it affects the sustainability of the
shopping center at Vallco.
The impact of difficulty of parking on community events, like Farmers' Market, hosted at The Hills at
Vallco should be studied.
Where will the Farmers' Market be held? Since most farmers sell their produce right off their truck.
Would there be space for the farmers to drive up their truck into the Farmers' Market?
Liang Chao
From: VERONICA LAM [mailt
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:23 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco project
Dear Cupertino planning committee,
I am writing to you to provide comments on Vallco project. I am the neighbor of Vallco and I have a
concern on this project. The single family homes existed before Vallco was first built When Vallco
was first built, they had put into consideration on the security, the privacy, the noise level, the light
impact, the pollution for their neighbor. Therefore the buildings were set back, the building height
was low, trees were grown, wall was build to ensure the qualify of life for their neighbor. With the
new Vallco project, I do not expect anything less, during and after the completion of the project.
As their neighbor, so far I have not received any detail information from Hills, as to the height, the
set back and the plans to address the concern of the neighbor. All I received from them are fliers
with unrealistic designs, e.g. "a so call roof lawn and trees, leaning against buildings". How big a tree
can they grow on it? With the draught, should they put in any lawn? With a tilted roof garden, will
there be safety issue during bad weather, e.g. landslide, trees slide? Why not just keep or replant
the current trees at Vallco at ground level. Also the double row of ash trees along Stevens Creek
Blvd at Vallco area should stay. They provide shade for the bikers and pedestrians during most of
the years. Please preserve them!!
There are few trees at "Main Street", it is just concrete cement against the side walk, no shade.
I do not want our Mall or so call shopping area (if there are still as many as before), to become Main
Street.
Hills should provide accurate detail information to their neighbors and to the Cupertino residents.
By the way the fliers provided by Hills only has one check box, that is "Yes, I support the Hills at
Vallco", due to this reason I had not provide comments to them. I do not want to be counted as Hills
supporter without detail and accurate information.
Regards,
Veronica Lam
From: Germaine Fu
Date: November 16, 2015 at 8:07:22 AM PST
To: <piug@cupertino.org<mailto:piug@cupertino.org>>
Subject: Vallco: Protest against proposed site of new elementary school on N. Portal Ave
Hello,
I am writing as a resident of the Cupertino neighborhood in which Sand Hill has proposed to
construct a new elementary school as part of "The Hills" redevelopment project for Vallco. I am
writing to protest against the construction of a school at the former Nan Allen Elementary site (on
North Portal Ave) for the following reasons:
1. Traffic congestion: As Collins elementary and Lawson middle schools are already located in this
neighborhood, traffic is already quite congested and cannot accomodate another 700 -student
school. Morning drop-off and afternoon pick up times already result in severe congestion and
difficulty for residents trying to exit the neighborhood for work commutes.
2.Encroachment of the Collins campus: As a parent of 2 students currently enrolled at Collins
Elementary, I attest that space on the Collins campus is already severely limited. The children must
rotate use of the lunch tables and playground during lunch/recess periods, and most of the
classrooms are in portables. The size of the field has been compromised by recent construction of a
Cupertino -owned baseball diamond. It is not possible to accomodate sharing the already limited
space resources with another Elementary school that would be located right behind the Collins
campus.
3. Space limitations: There is not enough space at the former Nan Allen site to accomodate a 700 -
student school. The Nan Allen elementary school was a special needs school with less than half that
number of students. Further, the space is currently occupied by Bright Horizons day care. It is
nonsensical to propose bringing another school campus to this already crowded location.
I urge the EIR team to consider the many detrimental impacts to the students and residents of this
neighborhood, and reject the proposal by Sand Hill to construct an elementary school at the former
Nan Allen Elementary site. Instead, a new elementary school should be built to accmodate the new
residents of The Hills, and be located on The Hills' Vallco property, rather than behind the Collins
campus.
Best,
Germaine Fu, Ph.D.
From: Liang C rmailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:00 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - impact of heavy rain
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
Although it doesn't rain much in Silicon Valley, during rainy season, there might be heavy rain, which
results in flooding in different areas of the City.
The Hills at Vallco will cover the entire 52 -acre of the site with concrete. When it rains heavily, all of
the rainwater from the 52 -acre would accumulate and it may become a torrent.
Please study the rainwater collection system to see if the capacity is sufficient to cover the heavy
rainfall. In case of even heavier rain, please study the impact of an overflow from rain water
collection system.
Since the rooftop has varying height from 114 feet to 65 feet at street level, please study the impact
of heavy rainwater overflow that might cause more slippery road condition on Wolfe Road and other
impacted roads.
On the greenroof slope at west side, which goes from street level to 45 feet and then 65 feet in a
short distance, please study the impact of heavy rainwater overflow onto the Perimeter Road.
Please study the safety of bike paths during heavy rain. Is any bike path in danger of being flooded
with rainwater on its way to drainage system.
Please study the impact of traffic condition during heavy rain when most people won't bike or walk
or even take bus to work, since most bus stops do not have anything to protect waiting passengers
from rain.
From: Liang C
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:25 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan - Underground tunnel is for bicycle and
pedestrians, not for parking
RE: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan
The underground tunnel under Wolfe Road should not be used for parking spaces, as the Parking
Drawing of The Hills at Vallco shows.
The tunnel currently has two car lanes and one more lane used for pedestrians and bicycles.
It is a common path for bicyclists to use to get across Wolfe to avoid traffic and the danger of Wolfe
Road.
Vallco Specific Plan should include a policy to preserve easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists
through the tunnel. It is an important part of a walkable and bikable city.
Below is the diagram from Page 2 of the Parking Drawing.
Not only there is no path way for pedestrian or bicycle to use. And the tunnel is not easily accessible
by any bicyclist or pedestrian who need to cross Wolfe Road.
The underground tunnel has been used for parking spaces. It will have to be widened from its
current width to provide two rows of parking.
The underground space of a public road belongs to the public. It can only be used to provide ease of
access for the public. It should not be used as parking spaces at all, and not parking spaces for a
private project.
Liang Chao
From: Mette Christensen [mailt
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:14 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc:
Subject: Hills-at-Vallco EIR Scoping Comments
hi
Please find below areas of study to be included in the scoping of EIR for the Vallco project.
It is clear that Stevens creek already has more traffic even without Main Street and Apple Campus
open yet.
As Tantau is blocked and the new light has been installed at Stern/stevens creek/new apple
office/lhop, Judy Avenue has seen a tremendous increase in through traffic. Cars that turn onto Judy
Avenue from Stevens Creek to get out of the congested traffic on Stevens Creek. This is particular in
the afternoon commute hours.
Please investigate how to mitigate traffic issues on Judy avenue and other Rancho/Loree streets by
implementing speed reducing slowing measures such as round abouts in intersections as well as
traffic bumps etc to keep the neighborhood free for speeding cars. I am sure we cannot avoid
increased traffic in the Rancho area but we can avoid speeding.
2.
Please include measures to get students and commute traffic from San Jose, Santa Clara and
Sunnyvale into the cusd and fuhsd schools where impact of up 29000 extra trips in and out of vallco
per day is going to have a tremendous impact. Figure out ways to ease congesting from beyond
safeway at the stevens creek/lawrence intersection all the way up to Wolfe on stevens creek. as
students need to get to middle and high school. The impact from increased traffic is not only within
the borders of Cupertino but will extend beyond the city boundaries and should be determined how
this can be enhanced.
3.
Figure out how to add and increase flow through the 280 on/off ramp on stevens creek for both
north and southbound 280 traffic as a lot of traffic from vallco would come down stevens creek to
get onto 280 and lawrence. it is simply not enough to have 2 lanes on the on ramp from stevens
creek to 280 south. Also a dedicated turn lane must be added on stevens creek to ease access to 280
south coming from vallco.
4.
Please examine the infrastructure for sewer, storm drains, electricity, gas etc to allow for continued
service and no break down due to over capacity of exisiting system
5.
Please study the impact on all the trees that are now bordering stevens creek, wolfe, and perimeter
road. As with Main street the amazing beautiful 2 rows of trees are all gone - cut down to expand the
road and small new trees had to be replanted. What is the impact to the existing trees around
vallco?
6.
Please study the impact of traffic increase through cupertino from vallco via vallco parkway, tantau
to sunnyvale's birdland district, kaiser hospital and up homested getting through the wolfe /
homestead intersections. Both on bike, car and pedestrians - with tons of apple busses going in and
out of their transportation center - how are residents using these streets to get to produce markets,
after school activities in cupertino on homestead and in our neighbor city sunnyvale going to get
through this increased traffic?
7.
what is the impact of demolition of the current vallco site? the impact of dust and soil flying right
over the rancho area from the apple construction site it is a known fact that there will be major
impact during this phase. What materials are to be brought out and pollution from this work?
Asbestos? dust? etc? Please study impact on environment, health risks (asthma etc) and make sure
to include schools, neighborhoods in vicinity as well as further away based on direction of wind
spreading the dust/pollution.
8.
Construction traffic and hauling away dirt for the under ground level parking garages - how will that
affect the community and for how long? We have hard facts from apple construction that
construction traffic has brough major impact on surrounding streets and pollution/dust level from
hauling materials and dirt around. Include study of emergency response time getting to freeway
accidents or to accidents on the homestead side of the city as well as impact from traffic congestion
during and after the construction
9.
Please study the impact of retail in the city as to options for residents to be able to stay in cupertino
rather than going out of town for shopping. how will it be possible for mom and pop shops to keep
renting shopping space in the city if the city is promoting chains and stores that can afford higher
rent.
10.
please study tax revenue for missing sales tax as well as missing property tax as units proposed will
be rentals that will not end up paying property tax to schools in cusd and fuhsd
11.
please study impact on day care over crowding, elementary, middle school and high school impacts
of new students. Include in the study impact of adding a middle school, elementary school as well as
day care facilities in the project rather than filling existing schools.
12.
Please study impact of a successful retail center as big as the current venue by having a succesful
record retail management firm run the business and rather than the incompetent people who have
been doing so until now. What would the impact to the city and the residents and the neighboring
shopping malls be if vallco was as promised turned into a successful shopping mall. impact with
respect to city tax, traffic, housing, both now and in the future as not adding office space will not
increase the housing need for that project.
13.
please study the impact of adding 389 housing units with as much retail as possible with no office
element - how would that impact the community with regards to infrastructure, social and economic
welfare. Please compare that in the study to the full scope that the developer wants to put in on that
site.
14.
Please examine the feasibility and economic background of developer and financing of the project
to make sure it can be completed and will not end up as an abandoned project just like the
developers other project in Sunnyvale. please make sure to include subcontractors, architects etc as
well as what changes in the economy could do to the project and it not being left half done as this
happened to the project across the street when it sat empty for years on Vallco parkway. It is very
important that this monster projects economic stability is examined and for that matter all the
involved contractors and consultants
15.
Please include research on the roof and how that is possible to be built in seismic area and get the
water it needs to survive. What are impact of the developer not maintaining the roof and what
would happen if it turns out that the roof cannot be used at all? what is the impact of project
descriptions and promised as the biggest park in the city if it cannot be used at all? and only 10%
ends up being able to be accessible? what is the impact on residents not having park land as is
planned for and desirable according to the city's general plan ?
what about heat under the roof during summer months when there is no upward flow available.
Include studies on electricity usage and sustainability and cot emissions from this construction with
a covered roof for the entire site.
16.
Please look to the future and scope out where all the employees are going to live and how many
housing units the city's will be responsible for providing over the next 50 years following the
addition of 2 mill sq ft of offices.
17.
Please examine the possibilities and resources for public transportation as well as what pressure the
city can put on VTA and caltrain to add rail service to Cupertino and neighboring cities following the
addition of so many new office sq ft.
18.
Please include in the report the impact on or rather not setting up setting up public transportation
to include student transportation to and from CUSD and FUHSD students coming from the
attendance area in Santa Clara and San Jose getting to Hyde and CHS.
19.
Please include studies around walking and biking to / from school and how much more dangerous
this will become with up to 29000 more cars on the street daily in the vicinity of the project.
20
Please examine the traffic flow around the new nan alien site, collins and lawson where there is only
4-5 exits in to and from that part of town. How will traffic flow, parking during drop of and pick up?
access through that area as Blaney will become a new thorough fare as wolfe is going to be backed
up and cannot be used to get from one part of town to the other as both wolfe and tantau is going
to be parking lots crossing 280 as these two streets will be main transportation for project and apple
site.
21.
please examine if it is needed to add a new bridge across 280 to allow for better flow across the city
22.
please examine if an elevated bridge or underground tunnel along Stevens creek will be needed to
get pedestrians and bicycles across 280 and Lawrence express way. In order to eliminate cars
travelling this route from San Jose/Santa Clara with students, better infrastructure must be provided
for pedestrians and bicycles to cross this dangerous intersection which is the reason so many
people are not allowing their kids to get to from school other than in cars. the impact of now
providing this infrastructure with 29000 new cars being added from the project in addition to 9000
cars from apple project as well as 100's of busses will be overwhelming hence, project need to
provide ways to decrease cars travelling on the stevens creek corridor.
23.
Please examine what the acceptance rate is for the residents of Cupertino? Please make sure that
the impact of referendum put on by the citizen can end up taking place. What will the development
look like if delayed by such a measure? how will the residents know about it without the CITY having
public meetings rather than the developer only providing info one way for the project? residents are
very negative as they have no way to ask questions and get answers - this EIR scope is yet again only
one way process. no public forum to discuss issues
24.
Please study and make it clear to residents what the zoning is and why city council even has rezoned
based on what dependencies. A specific plan to be adopted. How and what makes it adopted by the
residents? what is the determining factor for acceptance of the specific plan for zoning to change?
please make sure to have some measurements for acceptance and study how different acceptance
levels will have and could have different influence on the project.
25.
Please study different uses of the project as to what is feasible and doable with regards to public's
access to use the roof for a meeting, the community plaza, community room, innovation center and
other public access areas. it would be very important to study how and determine what these
different usage scenarious should and could look like. who gets to decide who can use? parks and
rec? developer office and decision making - how can you then be assured that it is public?
playground in private park - who is determining access and usage ? please study the impact of the
public areas being administered by different management set up such as public parks and rec,
private developer, public school administration etc.
26.
Please study what the impact would be on moving and construction for the current renters and
entertainment centers. Would they even be in business if their venue has to be closed for years to
be rebuild in a different place? what would the impact be to these businesses and are they at all
interested in relocating. Who would run these businesses and would they be able to granted that
rent for their venue would be much higher with the new development? what would the impact tot
he city and surrounding cities be if there was no bowling, no ice ring? etc
27.
What would the impact be of granting the developer that blackberry golf course to build the project
there and move the golf course and park land to the vallco site? impact to traffic?, growth, housing,
social wellbeing as well as shopping in the west end of the city who severely is missing shopping and
offices in that corner of the city? please examine the scope and impact of providing this as an option
to benefit everybody in the city.
28.
Please study impact of too little parking available within the project and impact on neighborhood
streets when parking is not available for residents, employees and shoppers to park. Where and
what streets will they start using and what is the impact on these neighbors around the site? Please
study the impact of not having easy access under and through the site as it is currently possible.
How will cars, pedestrians, and bikes get through from Vallco parkway to perimeter road next to the
joann's / chuck and cheese shopping site? currently that tunnel under AMC is heavily used as a cut
through as traffic on stevens creek is horrible. What is the impact of not having an easy way to get
through the project?
29.
Please study pedestrian and bike safety travelling through and into and out of the project. How do
they get across / through the project? Please study the impact of circulation above ground (roof),
surface area / streets through the project and under ground in the parking area. Please study why
and how flow of "soft" traffic (bikes, pedestrians, skateboarders etc) will be allowed to pass in the
parking area where streets are used as parking spaces as well. Make sure to include risk analysis of
traffic accidents involving soft traffic users. As Cupertino high School is very close the amount of foot
traffic from this school of students in ages 13-19 will increase hence, make sure to study and include
analysis on impact of increased risk with more traffic and visitors arriving by feet.
Mette Christensen
From: Mona Schorow [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:49 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Question about the Hills-at-Vallco EIR
Traffic affects air quality, commute times, pedestrian safety, cyclist safety at a time. Main Street and
the Apple campus will be coming online. I would like to see an objective traffic analysis of the Wolfe
X 280, Stevens Creek X Lawrence in particular, and all bottlenecks in Cupertino, in general. Can the
traffic densities and the likely wait times be projected?
We seem to be approaching gridlock during commute times but we lack the infrastructure (subways,
buses, taxis) that other urban centers have.
There is probably useful information about this somewhere — do you know where.
Concerned resident,
Mona Schorow
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:27 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - traffic based on realistic data
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
From Parking-Drawing.pdf submitted by The Hills at Vallco, here are the parking spaces available.
Total parking spaces = 9,175.
Office: 5033; Retail: 2,500; Residential: 1,427; On -street parking: 215.
The number of parking spaces for the 10,000 workers is apparently insufficient.
Even using the low estimate of 8,000 workers (250 square feet per worker), 5033 parking spaces only
provides spaces for 62% of 8,000 workers.
5033 parking spaces only provides spaces for 50% of 8,000 workers.
And some more space has to be reserved for outside visitors for the 2 million square feet of office.
So, the actual number of spaces available for employees would be even lower.
If the EIR will assume that some of the workers will use other modes of transportation, such as light
rail, biking, walking or carpool, please use realistic assumption that's reasonable.
The 2 million square feet of office will not have only one or major employers. There could be 10 or
20 or even 200 office tenants. If assumption is going to be made about any shuttle service provided
by the office tenants, it has to be based on actionable plan that's committed in the Development
Agreement. And all office tenants have to be disclosed of the limitation and sign onto any traffic
management plan.
Based Apple EIR, even at Apple Inifinite Loop, where the culture promotes biking and other modes
of transportation, 72% of the employees arrive in single -occupancy vehicle, another 10% arrive in
carpool. So, still the number of parking spaces needed is 82% of the employee population.
With Apple Campus 2, Apple has committed to reduce the number of single -occupancy vehicle trips
to 60% with the best efforts. The Hills at Vallco with simply an office park with any number of
tenants cannot assume to do even better.
If any assumption is made about the number of single -occupancy vehicles or carpools, please
provide realistic data to back it up.
Apple EIR also pointed out the difficulty of using public transit: (Page 38 of Apple EIR Appendix B
Transportation Impact Analysis)
"Although there is a fair amount of transit service within the vicinity of Apple Campus 2,
there are no easy public transfers to existing high capacity transit corridors such as Caltrain
commuter rail and various bus lines along EI Camino Real. Express transit services typically
operate in directions that inhibit travel using solely public transit to Apple Campus 2 from
residential areas along the Peninsula. Furthermore, the poor walkability of the streets
around the project site, due to higher traffic volumes, discourages people from walking
longer distances to transit stops or stations.
To make some of these Caltrain stations more accessible, Apple provides daily shuttle
service to the Lawrence and Sunnyvale Stations. The travel time on Apple shuttles between
these Caltrain stations and Apple Campus 2 is approximately 15 minutes to 20 minutes.
Most commuting cyclists travel at a rate of about nine to 10 miles per hour, meaning the
Lawrence, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara Caltrain stations are located about an 18, 23, and 28 -
minute bicycle ride away from Apple Campus 2, respectively. Only the Lawrence Caltrain
station has continuous bicycle infrastructure that connects it to Apple Campus 2 in the form
of Class II lanes along Wolfe Road, Reed Avenue, and Aster Avenue."
The condition for taking transit and biking or walking hasn't changed, since Apple EIR.
If any assumption is to be made about the percentage of employees who are able to use public
transit or walk or bike, please use realistic data to back it up.
If shuttles are going to be used to transport employees or shoppers to The Hills at Vallco, please
study the impact on the parking facilities at each pick up location. Are there sufficient parking spaces
today? How many more parking spaces will be necessary for the shuttles of The Hills at Vallco?
A large percentage of passengers riding buses in Cupertino are the 30,000 students at De Anza
College. They are provided a free bus pass to encourage bus usage, since it is already charged as a
part of their tuition. They are also single young adults who do not have other family responsibilities
so that they have to be at multiple places in one day at a fixed time.
So, any statistics about bus ridership should only account for non -student population, unless The
Hills at Vallco is going to hire only single young adults and provide them with bus passes for free.
Liang Chao
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:15 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Re: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan - underground and air right over Wolfe Road
I misread the diagram.
The tunnel between the east and west parking garage would in fact be a new tunnel, in addition to
the tunnel along Perimeter Road. The tunnel along Perimeter Road will remain.
Page 6 of Existing Condition shows the existing easement, which was granted to a previous Vallco
owner in exchange for another easement (air and underground right) near 1-280 for a future light
rail station. But Sand Hill does not own that property.
Page 8 of Existing Condition shows the proposed easement: Sand Hill wants to expand the air right
over Wolfe to almost an entire block.
Pink blocks shows easement for both underground tunnel and air rights of unspecified depth and
height.
Then, we would request that any public land for private use should be used only to the benefits of
the public to provide ease of access.
Any air right or underground right should not be granted without a fair exchange or a fair rent,
adjustable to inflation.
If only tunnel is required for The Hills at Vallco, the easement should not grant the air right in the
agreement without justification, such as the two pink boxes in the diagram.
If the air right is granted, the minimum and maximum height should be specified so that only the air
right within a given height is granted.
If the tunnel right is granted, the minimum and maximum depth should be specified so that only the
tunnel right within a specified depth is granted.
No structure from the easement either in the tunnel or the air should be counted towards the
required provision for the projects, such as parking stalls, or retail shops.
Thanks,
Liang
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Liang C wrote:
RE: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan
The underground tunnel under Wolfe Road should not be used for parking spaces, as the
Parking Drawing of The Hills at Vallco shows.
The tunnel currently has two car lanes and one more lane used for pedestrians and bicycles.
It is a common path for bicyclists to use to get across Wolfe to avoid traffic and the danger of
Wolfe Road.
Vallco Specific Plan should include a policy to preserve easy access for pedestrians and
bicyclists through the tunnel. It is an important part of a walkable and bikable city.
Below is the diagram from Page 2 of the Parking Drawing.
Not only there is no path way for pedestrian or bicycle to use. And the tunnel is not easily
accessible by any bicyclist or pedestrian who need to cross Wolfe Road.
The underground tunnel has been used for parking spaces. It will have to be widened from
its current width to provide two rows of parking.
The underground space of a public road belongs to the public. It can only be used to provide
ease of access for the public. It should not be used as parking spaces at all, and not parking
spaces for a private project.
Liang Chao
From: stacy wilson [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:20 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: comments on the scope of the EIR for Sand Hill's The Hills proposed development
I would like to add my voice to the others who have commented on the proposed development of
Vallco by Sand Hill.
My concerns are mostly around traffic congestion and the massive impact on Cupertino schools,
although I also think the impacts on sewage, electrical system usage, public library usage, increased
need for street cleaning (littering will be part of the problem with this development), air quality
(additional local automotive exhaust), and student safety while walking or biking to school, need to
be assessed and quantified as much as possible.
People are very concerned with the future influx of elementary school students. The student
density at the proposed elementary school site is far more than the site should accommodate. I
don't believe the long -ranging impact has been addressed- there are needs for more teachers, more
playground space (particularly with the increase in childhood obesity in the US), more library space,
more books for that library, cafeteria space, and *just as importantly*, the same concerns when
those students leave elementary school and move on to middle and high school. Those concerns
need to be addressed and monetarily quantified. Right now, all I've heard is the proposed mitigation
of adding on to a current elementary school, and nothing about how those students will be dealt
with in the next few years until things reach an equilibrium. That NEEDS to be addressed, and I'm
sure it is quantifiable. It should not result in already impacted public schools being forced to absorb
even more students in portable buildings.
Please also quantify the impact of increased traffic, and how it can be (but preferably WILL BE)
addressed.
The impact on the existing houses nearest Vallco should be quantified. The developer should not
be given gifts by the city at the expense of current residents- who never expected to be in the
shadow of 7 to 9 story buildings replacing the local shopping center.
Thank you,
Stacy Wilson
From: Sanjeev Sahni fmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:37 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Concerns about Vallco Project
Hi Planners,
This is regarding the Vallco Prokect. My concerns are:
1. School being built - Seems small sized campus
2. Maintenance of the overhead park being proposed
Sand Hill has a history of not delivering. How will it be ensured? May be a financial guarantee for a
certain amount (Bank Gaurantee ) will help.
Thanks
Sanjeev Sahni
From: Jon Ramos [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:37 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco Hills (environment information)
November 16, 2015
Good Afternoon,
After shopping at Val lco for years, enough of the cement jungle.
We need an entirely new development, I'm supporting the current plans for a new development.
I like the fact, more greenery will be in the new development.
One other addition I really like, is the addition of at least 350 townhouses/homes.
Jon Ramos
From: Sandra Sotoudeh [mailt
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:39 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Impact on Lynbrook High School
This project is impacting my high school causing redistricting and over flow to Lynbrook. Please
include a new high school instead of pushing this onto the Lynbrook children, school and
neighborhood. The traffic is bad enough ratios too high in classrooms and new students will
potentially change school performance driving down home prices. More study and other ideas need
to be done to consider where new students will be placed. We need a new high school instead of
negatively itmpacting students and residents.
From: vik m [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:53 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Concerns about THE HILLS AT VALLCO
Hi,
Please take into account the following in reference to above project
a) Since our city is expecting big change when Apple 2 campus goes functional, we should wait
to see traffic and other issues before rushing to approve Valco.
Please note only 7% of Apple employee work/rent in Cupertino ( I am one of them)
We are still OK for 2020 GPA so there is no urgency to do this.
b) We can bike to school/work but there are classes for kids at Sunnyvale/Santa Clara etc.
With traffic increase, it will be enormous additional traffic.
c) Since this is very important issue for resident, there should be public vote.
Thanks,
Vikas M
From: Joan Lawler [mailt
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:55 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fwd: Concerns and Suggested Alternatives for the EIR for The Hills at Vallco
Dear Planners,
There are the fundamental concerns for our City in my view.
(1) Water usage (this is notjust a Cupertino concern) but it the most important. Included in this
concern is the water usage during of several years of development, as well as water usage once the
project is complete. A west -facing slope will get a tremendous drying sun, for instance.
• Can we get true independent experts to advise the City on the efficacy of the Sand Hill plan
for the greenery parks and walks and landscaping?
• Can we have a smaller "water footprint" with a different sort of project?
• How can the City make sure the green roof part of The Hills plan doesn't get cancelled down
the line?
(2) Sewer capacity. It will be a disaster if this collection of very tall buildings, with all the people who
will be living and working there does not have the sewage capacity to carry away all the sewage.
• Will there need to be expensive expansion to the sewers and is that capacity possible to
provide given our current system?
• Who pays for that? Taxpayers? All the subscribers to our city's sewage system? The
developers?
(3) Retaining existing Heritage trees. It takes a long time to grow dozens and dozens of gorgeous
trees like surround Vallco now. The trees give us clean air, cooler city temperatures, safer places to
walk in the increasing summer heat. We need more trees and not to lose the ones we have. That has
been the City's view, given the costly permits for residents needing to cut down their trees. Grass,
native plants, and vineyards don't act as a sufficient substitute for the benefits we get from our
mature trees.
• Are we going to let Sand Hill's plan disturb the existing trees?
• Should the City require that any replacement trees are large, shady and plentiful in keeping
with Cupertino's aim to increase our green cover?
(4) Traffic impact from the recent and current developments near Vallco, along with the region's
traffic increase due to strength in the economy has given us city streets that make trips around town
take much longer in recent years. Air pollution is an issue. Wasted time sitting on clogged roads is an
issue. Any plan for Vallco is going to cause an increase in traffic. Any plan. But, the impact of the
current proposal seems way over the top.
This suggests that a very important part of the EIR is to define what amount of traffic is
acceptable. Any traffic predictions above that amount needs to trigger a comprehensive regional
mass transit solution to be provided before a permit for The Hills at Vallco construction can begin.
• Will a mass transit solution be possible to accomplish before construction begins? Apple will
be making a huge impact in about a year, so no action on traffic solutions can come soon
enough.
• What is the Sand Hill's exact plan for a Transit Center? Bus pullouts doesn't seem to offer
anything new or better. Can the EIR spell out something that would be more effective?
• What about the Sand Hill shuttle promise? What would that be? What routes? What
frequency? Will the shuttle plan be coordinated with the mass transit solution? For what
duration will the shuttle be committed?
• How can the City get a firm and sufficient shuttle service that doesn't get cancelled once it
becomes inconvenient to Sand Hill?
(5) Housing growth must benefit the City, not just satisfy the ABAG requirement. At Cupertino
prices, most likely new residents will have children and will desire to send their children to Cupertino
schools. But, we can get parcel taxes from housing that is sold because the homeowners will pay
taxes that help the schools.
I recognise that it is not legal to use school crowding as a reason not to build housing. Still the fact
is the school impact is great and real and mostly unsolvable because of limited funds and school
district lands.
So, traffic, water, and sewer issues, and funding for city services provide reasons enough to be very
careful what type of housing to build and where.
• Will the housing at The Hills be sold as condos or be apartments that don't benefit the City's
tax base and therefore don't contribute to funding the schools?
• Will the housing for seniors that is part of the plan be sufficient to keep the school impact
down? How will the senior housing be kept senior housing over time? Will the senior housing
be guaranteed to be built?
• Will any of the housing be affordable for those who serve the Cupertino community, such as
teachers, firefighters, city employees, restaurant workers, etc.?
• Will the housing benefit the community by housing Apple employees who will not need to
drive to work? If so, how will the Apple residents get to work across the huge and
unwelcoming overpass of Wolfe over 280? Bicycle and pedestrian bridge? Shuttle?
• Is there any way to promote Apple workers move to The Hills to help address our traffic
issues? Is there any reason to believe that The Hills will attract workers who will not need to
commute by car? What will The Hills do to specifically entice young Apple 2 workers who may
not need to drive to work and will not likely need our schools?
(6) Office space in such a huge amount. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that so much office
space is needed at this time at that location. There are/will be thousands of new offices at Main
Street and Apple 2. Some of Apple's current office spaces in Cupertino will become vacant in time,
allowing business to occupy those.
There are serious issues with the City approving any more office development in Cupertino. They
include (a) the traffic increase from additional office workers and (b) the resulting increase of ABAG
requirements for more housing to match the ratio of housing to jobs, which results in a vicious cycle
of increase to housing, causing even more traffic. We need to do what we can to keep our City's
requirement for more housing to a minimum, meaning limit the new offices (job) to avoid making
the traffic and school crowding issues even worse. (Please refer to comments on housing in point
(5)•)
• Has there been any request from Apple for more office in their neighborhood? Apple is
spreading into San Jose and Sunnyvale. They are not waiting for more Cupertino offices it
seems. With many possible locations for office development within Cupertino and in the
surrounding cities, why would the Vallco location be the best choice for the City to approve?
• Where would Cupertino ever be able to provide enough housing to meet the requirements
coming from such another huge increase in jobs?
(7) Tax benefits to the City of Cupertino.
• Can we quantify which are the most beneficial to the funding of our city? More office? More
apartments? More condos? More retail?
• Can we quantify the way each of these adds to requirements and cost for city services?
(8) A healthy city needs a good balance of retail, restaurants, entertainment, cultural
opportunities, parks. A healthy city needs all the possible commute alternatives to cars/roads,
alternatives for walkers, bicyclists, and mass transit. These alternatives need to provide for all age
groups and abilities in our community. These alternatives need to encourage notjust our residents,
but alto all those who come to shop and work in Cupertino.
Balance in the City also includes making a place for various economic levels and all age groups.
Balance includes various professions among working adults. Achieving these balances will make
Cupertino great in a way that means far more than being a place where Apple Computer
decided to put its headquarters or Vallco decided to become The Hills!
• How do we address the need for various commute alternatives to driving?
• How do we provide a healthy balance to our residents and workers to minimize their need to
drive outside the City?
• What amount of retail, office, entertainment, culture and housing do we have now?
• What sort of balance is desirable for the benefit of all age groups in the community?
• How can we encourage a developer to contribute to the city's needs and lackings, rather
than just to fill their own bank accounts?
• How do we attract young professionals to live where they work?
• How do we retain seniors and retired professionals so they may give back to Cupertino after
spending decades benefitting from what the City has to offer them?
Study what Palo Alto and Redwood City have found to be the mistake of allowing too much freedom
for developers to decide what to build. Both cities have difficult problems and are bringing a halt to
the extensive development of too much, too fast. Let's let Cupertino learn their lessons before
making their mistakes.
Alternatives to The Hills at Vallco as proposed
I believe that an honest and impartial enquiry along the lines stated above would lead us to wait for
a better proposal than The Hills at Vallco.
Retaining the retail zoning for Vallco seems wise and allows us to make a better choice down the
road.
It is a shame that the retail that was surviving at Vallco is being run off, as though the community
doesn't care.
The sooner Vallco can pull out Plan B, a retail solution, the better in my mind.
• We want to have a place for young and old, indoors and outdoors, entertainment, food and
drink, and lots of shopping choices.
• Perhaps a medical clinic and a sports and fitness center. Perhaps a pool. Parks. Gathering
places.
• And lots of shopping. Stores that are hip and in current vogue. Shops for all ages. Shops that
can provide for our basic needs at reasonable pricing (we pay so much for our houses, so we
need to shop for value).
• In the interest of keeping Cupertinos shopping in Cupertino and paying tax dollars in
Cupertino, we need to create a local alternative to the shopping found in surrounding
communities.
• People shouldn't need to drive out of town for shopping, contributing to air pollution.
The Sand Hill company ought to decide to partner with one of the great mall developers or get such
consultants and create a retail mall that will appeal to this community full of people from several
cultures.
Sand Hill can become a friend to Cupertino and provide what Cupertino lacks, even though the
profits may be somewhat reduced. That way Vallco becomes what makes Cupertino great.
We just don't need all that office space!
Best Regards and with respect and understanding of the difficulty and importance of your decisions,
Joan Chin
From: Hari Narayanan [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:03 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Feedback about the Hills at Vallco
Dear Cupertino Council
I am a long time resident of Cupertino. I have seen the city slowly change over the
last few years. The last one on the horizon is the Hills at Vallco by Sand Hill property.
This is in development.
I have a few concern about this that might affect the Quality of Life of the residents
and make the project a disaster instead of a boon to the city.
Sand Hill also has a reputation of not finishing their projects or not finishing
according to what they signed up for.
The traffic impact and the pollution due to the Hills at vallco will be disastrous.
Our schools are already over crowded. This is going to put even more stress on
the already "tearing -at -the seams" schools.
There is no thought given to public transportation and also to make Vallco a
center for Public transportation.
With the Apple building and the increased construction along Stevens Creek
and Wolfe this is a just a time bomb waiting to explode.
Please take a serious look at this Project and do what you think is the best for the
City and its residents. Money should not be the only motivation.
If we take a look at our neighbhor, Saratoga, they seem to be doing fine without
any massive construction projects in their city. We can probably learn from them.
Thankyou
Hari Narayanan
From: Laura Chin [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:09 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Kyle Rader
Subject: Hills-at-Vallco EIR Scoping Comments
To whom it may concern,
We were born and raised in Cupertino, attended schools in the district K-12 and attended De Anza
College. We are a young Millennial couple and we strongly object to the "HILL" plans at Vallco. We are
both young professionals working the high tech/clean energy/automotive industries.
Cupertino is a city with a growing number of Millenials and not enough for us in the 15-35 age range,
to do. We want retail:
? Roundl Arcade - family friendly arcade from Japan, features arcade games, karaoke, bowling
? Outlets - high end fashion outlets would be welcome in an affluent community like
Cupertino whose people have quality tastes but love bargains
? Small retail shops for apparel - night market style, Taiwan, Japan strip type malls
? Restaurants - more exotic eateries, more ethnic cuisine
? Restaurant chains - The Kebab Shop, Poke Bowl,
? Cafes - more nooks and creative spots for our growing number of students to study, meet
with friends or business people to hold meetings or for poetry readings/live music/comedy
etc.
Cupertino needs to:
KEEP BUSINESSES OPEN LATE! CUPERTINO NEEDS NIGHT LIFE! Students and professionals
stay up late and by the time work/school is over, most everything is closed in Cupertino so
we have to leave Cupertino to find food/shopping/entertainment
Give us reason not to leave Cupertino! We would rather contribute to our city! We don't want
the "HILL", we want retail and ONLY retail.
Sincerely,
Laura Chin (CHS graduate Class of'09) and Kyle Rader (Lynbrook High/De Anza graduate Class of
'03)
From: dodie [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:49 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Support
I a resident of San dose near cupertino approve of everything that the sand Hill developers and the
city of cupertino is doing for this project... look forward to wonderful development of this area.
a 55 year resident...
Thanks for the development of a very needy area... Dorothy Rheuark
From: Peggy Griffin [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:54 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Cc: City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impacts
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments -impacts to be studied
1. Agricultural Pesticides - The Vallco Specific Plan Area and the Hills-at-Vallco project site
are located on old orchard land.
Please study the content of the soil for pesticides common during that time period.
a. Please test all areas of the project site and at different depths, all the way down to the
depth of the lowest level garage.
b. Please test along Perimeter Road bordering the Superfund site at 19333 Vallco Pky at
different depths and locations.
2. Hazardous Building Materials - State -recognized carcinogens such as lead compounds,
asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used as coolants and lubricants, Fluorescent
lighting, ballasts, mercury thermometers were used during the time period the Vallco Mall
was built. A letter was sent from Sand Hill to the employees at Macy's notifying them of an
asbestos problem found at Macy's.
Please study the impact of demolition and disposal of these building materials found in the
buildings and any other hazardous building materials commonly used during that time
period.
3. Groundwater contamination on Superfund site adjacent to JCP bordering on
Perimeter Road - The building right next to JCP had a wafer fab in it in the 1970s. There was
groundwater contamination from that original 4 -Phase (old company no longer in business)
fabrication. Tandem Computers did some last mask processing in that building
afterwards. Tandem was later required to clean up the site. Since Sand Hill is planning to
dig down into the dirt right next to this former Superfund site for its 2 story underground
parking, the possibility of groundwater contamination and hazardous materials leaking into
the adjacent site must be significant.
Please study this possible groundwater contamination, possible leakage into the
surrounding area and it's possible impact on people parking underground or working above
ground.
Please study the possibility of the contamination spreading to the rest of the area.
Please study the proposed monitoring methods proposed to keep people save from
contamination.
Please study any and all methods proposed to seal off these contaminants from the project
site.
As an ex-Superfund site adjacent to JCP, there are still land use prohibitions on the 19333
Vallco Pky. site. In particular, they are not allowed to build residences or schools for persons
under 21 on that property. The contamination was toward the JCP side of that parcel which
borders Perimeter Road.
Please study the proposed uses related to the prohibited uses if any contaminants are found
to be present along the border and at multiple distances and depths from the border of the
property.
4. Since the project proposes to dig deep into the ground along all areas, the probability of
contaminants from neighboring sites/uses should be studied. For example, there is a Jiffy
Lube and a Union 76 Gas Station located across the street.
Please make a report on all sites (past sites, too) surrounding the Vallco site, especially since
the proposed project plans to dig 2 stories underground.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
REFERENCE MATERIAL:
Here are the Post Closure Site Management Requirements here:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global_id=T10000000740
MAP OF THE SITE RELATIVE TO VALLCO:
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:08 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - cell signal strength and need of new facilities
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
http://www.citylab.com/tech/2011/09/cell-phones-and-density/l 72/
Why Your Cell Phone Drops Calls in
Dense Cities - CityLab
Why Your Cell Phone Drops Calls in
Dense Cities. With each
advancement in network speed
comes the need for more physical
infrastructure. Tim De Chant
Read more...
"We've all experienced the expanding cell phone system's shortcomings, from dropped calls
to no service to a slow Internet connection. When one of those things happens, chances are
it's because too many people are crowded into one area. Poor service due to crowding is
most apparent at concerts or other large events, but it's becoming an everyday occurrence
as more people use more connected devices"
Cupertino has a worker population of 32,000 and only 20,000 households.
Apple Campus 2 will add 14,000 and Vallco will add another 10,000 workers, just from office alone.
This will increase the working population in Cupertino by 50%.
Thus, the demand for cell signals will increase by 50%.
People are already experiencing dropped calls when going to crowded areas in Cupertino.
Please study the impact on existing cell signals in all carriers.
If more cell towers are needed, please install them far away from schools to reduce any potential
health impact on children.
The increase of 3.5 million s.f. of office and 2 million s.f. at Vallco and 260,000 s.f. in Main Street
would total 5.76 million square feet, which is over 50% of total office space in a short time.
Please study the impact on the capacity of high speed internet and cable services from such a large
capacity increase.
Please study the impact on internet speed and reliability of signals for other home users when a
large population nearby might eat up all internet bandwidth.
Note that many companies do have employees who work longer hours until 8, 9 or 10 o'clocks.
Please study the impact from 3pm to 6pm when many school children need to use internet to do
school homework as more and more school homework is now done online.
Please study the impact during early evenings when the residence population and also school -aged
children need access to internet for either entertainment or homework.
Liang Chao
From: Ping Gao [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:09 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: City Council; citystaff@cupertino.org
Subject: Regarding Vallco EIR
Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I'm writing to you to express my concern of the proposed Vallco project. I would like the upcoming
EIR to study:
1) Traffic issue if there are 2 million sq. ft. office at Vallco; please give us an approximation of delay
during traffic hour when Apple new campus and Vallco 2million sqft office is built; please keep in
mind of the current traffic congestion at De Anza blvd around 6:30 pm and De Anza is 4 lanes in
both directions;
2) The possibility of keeping the Vallco as retail only; or
3) the possibility to build a new school at Vallco;
As a Cupertino resident for 8+ years, I think Cupertino needs more schools, retails and all kinds of
public service such as parks or libraries instead of office space or high density residential buildings.
Please keep Cupertino as a safe, quiet and peaceful family -friendly small town.
Thanks,
Ping Gao
From: seema swamy fmailt
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:13 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Vasanth Krishnamurthy
Subject: We do not want the rezoning of Vallco Mall
To the planning board,
We want to keep the character of Cupertino as the small community with good quality of life. We do
not want the Vallco Mall to be rezoned. It will increase traffic and deteriorate the quality of living. It
will overcrowd the classrooms as well. Please help us maintain the character of Cupertino.
Best,
Seema Swamy
From: Brkezzat@aol.com [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:20 PM
To: PiuChosh@cupertino.oirg; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Vallco EIR Request
Dear Commissioners and Council Members:
The proposed Vallco project, aka "The Hills at Vallco" has the potential to impact Cupertino for
generations. Because of the enormity of the impact, it is the imperative that the environmental
impacts of such a commitment be studied in depth as it will impact the nature of the community,
habitat, and the health of its residents. In particular, I am requesting the following issues be
evaluated and studied because of the health impacts on residents because of the addition of 2
million square feet of office space in Cupertino:
• The impact of nitrogen deposits on the native habitat in the area, including, but not
limited to --the vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species listed in the final Santa Clara
Valley Habitant Conservation Plan. The listed species are:
• Invertebrate
Bay Checker spot Butterfly
• Amphibians & Reptiles
California Tiger Salamander
California Red -legged Frog
Foothill Yellow -legged Frog
Western Pond Turtle
• Birds
Western Burrowing Owl
Least Bell's Vireo
Tri colored Blackbird
• Mammals
San Joaquin Kit Fox
• Plants
Tiber Indian Paintbrush
Coyote Acanthus
Mount Hamilton Thistle
Santa Clara Valley Dudleya
Fragrant Fritillary
Loam Prieta Hoita
Smooth Lessingia
Metcalf Canyon Jewelflower
Most Beautiful Jewelflower
The study conducted for Santa Clara County demonstrated that nitrogen deposits from
the emissions additional automobiles in the target area enriched the serpentine soils,
causing invasive species to crowd out native species that are accustomed to poorer soils.
The impact car emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
particulate matter and ozone on pregnant women because of the projected increase of
an additional 79,000 car trips. The prolonged exposure to these compounds during the
first 8 weeks of pregnancy, according to medical studies, is associated with neural tube
defects or malformations of the brain and spine. According to Stanford University School
of Medicine pregnant women who are exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide were
almost twice as likely to give birth to children with spina bifida or anencephaly as
pregnant women with a lower level of exposure.
• The impact car emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
particulate matter and ozone on young children because of the projected increase of an
additional 10,000 + commuters. A UCLA study indicates that children exposed in utero
to pollutants are more likely to die in infancy, have respiratory and digestive problems.
The UCLA study indicated that infants living in areas with higher level air pollution were
at greater risk of death the first year of life from respiratory issues, like Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome or SIDS.
• The health impacts that car emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, particulate matter and ozone have on children with asthma and other
respiratory issues. The UCLA study authored by Drs. Ritz and Williams noted that
children living in areas with high traffic 500-1000 or their homes were more likely to visit
emergency rooms or be hospitalized for respiratory issues than children not living close
to traffic.
• The impact on the health of the community because of toxic releases into the air
resulting from of the destruction of the current Vallco mall, particularly from asbestos, a
known carcinogen. Asbestos has banned from wide scale use in the United States since
the 1970's because it is a carcinogen, causing a cancer of the abdomen and lungs. In
addition, asbestos has been shown to be linked to higher rates of gastrointestinal and
colorectal cancer. There is also an elevated risk of throat, kidney, gallbladder, and
esophageal cancer linked to asbestos.
• The impact of PCBs on health of human life and the lives of other species. PCB's have
been demonstrated to have a significant on human health according to the United States
Environment Protection Agency. People with significant PCB exposure have an increased
risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Epstein-Barr syndrome. Women who
have had significant exposure to PCB's have had difficulty conceiving and give birth to
lower birth weight babies, setting these children up for a lifetime of compromised
health. Exposure to PCB's has been linked to neurological deficits in both humans and
animals.
I would like for these toxic building materials to be examined at multiple depths and locations
throughout the site. I understand that after discussing the site with the EPA, that Perkins and Will
has put together a database listing all toxic building materials used in construction. The city needs
to have its agents examine the site for these substances as well.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: Liana Crabtree [mailt
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:21 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco EIR Comments - mitigation of attractive nuisance presented by the 30 -acre
green roof
Vallco EIR Comments - mitigation of attractive nuisance presented by the 30 -acre green roof
We have been saddened in recent years by the suicides of students from Gunn and Palo Alto High
Schools, several of whom killed themselves by stepping in front of commuter trains that travel at
high speeds through Palo Alto neighborhoods.
In 2009, four (4) Palo Alto teens killed themselves by stepping in front of trains.
In the 2014-2015 academic year, despite the addition of a security patrol whose mission is to
intervene when encountering people loitering by train tracks, possibly contemplating a suicide
attempt, eight (8) people killed themselves by stepping in front of trains on Caltrain tracks. One was
a Gunn student. Another was a recent Gunn graduate.
For the Palo Alto community, commuter train tracks represent a deadly attractive nuisance for their
young people who are vulnerable to fleeting or persistent thoughts of suicide.
When I look at the landscape drawings of the green roof that is part of the current development
proposal for the Vallco Shopping District, I am concerned that we will be introducing a different but
equally deadly attractive nuisance in Cupertino if this project is allowed to proceed as planned. Our
students are under the same academic pressures and high societal expectations as students in Palo
Alto; we must be prepared that some of our students will seek a quick, devastating path away from
their troubles just as some have in Palo Alto. Without proper mitigation, the Hills at Vallco could be
the host of countless suicide tragedies.
The landscaped roof is described as 30 acres total, connecting office and residence towers of heights
ranging from 50' to 80' (approximate). Even a fall from the lowest point of the green roof will
certainly be fatal, if not mitigated by safety barrier, such as a net. I am struck by the miles of roof
edge that will need to be monitored for people contemplating a jump to their death, similar to the
way the Caltrain tracks are monitored for loiterers waiting to step in front of a train. Refer to roof
drawing page 6 for an aerial view of the miles of roof edges and cutouts that will require
monitoring: https://s3.amazonaws.com/the-hills-at-vallco/Landscape-Drawings.pdf
Please study the following environmental concerns related to suicide prevention that would be
introduced in the community if the development proposal for the Vallco Shopping District is allowed
to proceed with the green roof as planned today:
- Who will be responsible for paying for public security on the green roof?
- Who will be responsible for determining how much security is required for maintaining public
safety on the green roof during the day when the park is open and at night when the park is closed?
- At the end of each day, what will be the protocol for ensuring that all visitors have left the park
before closing?
- How many public and private access routes from the ground to the roof will be included in the
project?
- How many security professionals will be responsible for monitoring roof access when the park is
open and at night when the park is closed?
- If an intruder is detected on the roof when the park is closed, who is expected to be the first to
engage with the intruder: on site security professionals or deputies from the Sheriff's Department?
- From the moment an after hours intruder is detected, how much time is expected to elapse before
a first responder will be expected to engage with the intruder face-to-face or within speaking -voice
distance?
- What barriers or mitigation measures, such as nets, will be installed in the project to prevent death
in the event of a suicide attempt or other fall from the roof?
- If barriers or mitigation measures, such as nets, are installed in the project, who is responsible for
rescuing anyone who has fallen from the roof but has been spared death and caught in the safety
barrier?
- Will teams responsible for rescuing people caught in safety barriers require special equipment or
training to support these rescues? If yes, who pays for the equipment and training?
I recognize that my letter and questions are grisly and disturbing. However, we must consider fully
the intended and unintended ways structures that are added to our community will change our
community.
Thank you,
Liana Crabtree
From: Peggy Griffin [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:21 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Cc: City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impact of school changes to future traffic
SUBJECT: Vallco EIR Scoping Comments - impact to schools
Both the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District have signed
Letters of Intent with Sand Hill Properties regarding the Hills-at-Vallco project. These agreements
should be included in the EIR scope of study. All impacts throughout both districts, regardless of city
should be studied.
Traffic - already boundaries are starting to change as a result of this and other proposed
projects. This changes traffic patterns so future change in traffic patterns should also be studied for
both the high school and elementary/middle school districts.
Traffic - CUSD has started changing and offering open enrollment which changes the traffic
pattern. All future boundary and changes in open enrollment/different student programs should be
studied as it impacts future traffic patterns and safe routes to school.
Space at Vallco for FUHSD - all students from all high schools will be able to use this space. Traffic
should be studied based on all locations of high schools throughout the FUHSD.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Bill(Zhibiao) Zhao [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:36 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council; citystaff@cupertino.org
Subject: Regarding Vallco EIR
Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I'm writing to you to express my concern of the proposed Vallco project. I would like the upcoming
EIR to study:
1) Traffic issue if there are 2 million sq. ft. office at Vallco; please give us an approximation of delay
during traffic hour when Apple new campus and Vallco 2million sqft office is built; please keep in
mind of the current traffic congestion at De Anza blvd around 6:30 pm and De Anza is 4 lanes in
both directions;
2) The possibility of keeping the Vallco as retail only; or
3) the possibility to build a new school at Vallco;
As a Cupertino resident for 8+ years, I think Cupertino needs more schools, retails and all kinds of
public service such as parks or libraries instead of office space or high density residential buildings.
Please keep Cupertino as a safe, quiet and peaceful family -friendly small town.
Thanks,
Zhibiao Zhao
From: Govind Tatachari [mailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:53 PM
To: City Clerk; PiuChosh@cupertino.org; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Vallco Project EIR
Dear planning commissioners and council members,
The proposed Vallco project is too humongous and will not only have a huge enviromental impact
but also alter the quality of life of residents of Cupertino as well as those in neighboring areas on a
vast scale. It behoves that all of you who represent the residents of Cupertino City must exercise
caution by making sure that the scope of environmental impact is as comprehensive as possible.
The environmental study should not only include the estimates of the impact but also all the
assumptions made to arrive at the estimates including references to existing authoritative sources
of data and calculations used as part of the assumptions and estimates. In case of all the significant
and unavoidable impacts the estimates should provide specific values and avoid using a grade scale
since it is impossible to discern the real value from grade scale. The estimates should include both
impact from individual classes of allocations and cumulative Impacts
The scope should include a comparative study of environmental impact of existing zoning with
existing retail space allocation vis-a-vis the new zoning and new retail, housing and allocation that
the council approved on Dec 4th, 2014. In case if the developer requests for additional allocation,
the comparative study should also include the environmental impact of the difference requested vis-
a-vis the Dec 4th approved allocation.
The scope of environmental impact study should include at the minimum the following areas (on
local, citywide and neighborhood city basis):
1. Traffic and transportation impact
2. Open space
3. Population and housing pressure due to increased office space
4. Public Services
5. Utilities and Service Systems
6. Energy requirements and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7. Air Quality
8. Hydrology (including water table) and water quality
9. Biological resources in the current and neighbouring areas
10. Waste disposal include sewerage and other wastes
11. Noise
I believe there are set california state standards for what is included in these categories and specific
areas in terms of an environmental impact study.
Thanking you in this regard.
Sincerely,
Govind Tatachari
Cupertino Resident
From: Liang C rmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:57 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR: Ground water issues.
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR.
Here are comments from a concerned citizen:
The building right next to JCP had a semiconductor manufacturing facility in it in the 70s. There was
groundwater contamination from that original Four -Phase facility. Reference the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board File Number 4351129 (RWP). It is known as the 19333 Vallco Parkway
site. APN 316-20-076 is one of the parcel that this site is on. It is immediately to the east of the JCP
site in the Vallco Mall.
Here is the Sate Water Resources Control Board entry for this site:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global id=710000000740
The Apple 2 EIR addressed the problem of ground water contamination, and specifically mentioned
the 19333 Vallco Parkway site along with many other sites in the vicinity of its project.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Apple_Campus_2 Project_ EIR_ Public_ Review_ 5h-
Hazards.pdf
Of particular concern are the restrictions placed on the 19333 Vallco Parkway site by the State Water
Resources Control Board. Schools for persons under 21 are prohibited. Residence use is
prohibited. The list goes on and on.
Sand Hill Property Company intends to place two underground floors of parking right next to the
19333 Vallco Parkway site. The 19333 Vallco Parkway site cannot be used for residential housing or
for schools. If a flume from the 19333 Vallco Parkway site were found in the area planed for
excavation for a parking garage, the site would perhaps not be considered suitable for the proposed
FUHSD technology center.
The EIR should detail how testing for any contamination that may have seeped from nearby
contaminated sites known to the State Water Resources Control Board (and other government
agencies) will be performed. It should also characterize the possible spectrum of mitigation
measures that could be employed if contamination were found at various levels. There should also
be a discussion on which existing land use restrictions that apply to the 19333 Vallco Parkway site
could reasonably be applied to the proposed Vallco development in the event that contamination
were discovered.
From: Liang C
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:01 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - pedestrian safety in the parking garages and overall
security
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR
The Parking Drawing shows very tight parking stalls with zero space for pedestrian walk ways.
Please study the pedestrian safety when walking inside a mega parking lot with 5,000 parking
spaces.
Please study the overall safety of keeping shoppers and workers safe in such a large underground
space.
Are there security measures for people who need emergency medical help or police help?
Are there going to be sufficient security cameras in case of car jacking or even other more scary
crimes?
Liang Chao
From: Uma Gouru fmailto ]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:02 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: concerns about vallco rezoning and environmental impact
Hi,
I, Uma Gouru, and my husband Murty Dasari, would like to express our concerns on impacts on
unplanned growth and its impacts on our neighborhood if Vallco rezoning and any other new
apartments or office space is made possible.
Impact on schools - This is a major concern for us. Any additional rental housing will add to even
more flooding of our schools from elementary to high school. Our children are already suffering
from the portables being setup in the schools which are not a healthy option and overcrowding of
classes due to the Rosebowl residences, new Biltmore apartments etc. Long lines in school
cafeterias and lack of lunch tables caused my kids to skip lunches many times. Addition of portables
result in less play area and space for other activities. Historically rental apartments contribute to
more students to the school system compared to the owned properties. Drop off and pickup of kids
is becoming a great hassle and taking away an extra half hour of our busy schedule due to increased
traffic..
Traffic congestion - Ours roads are already congested and it is not safe for kids anymore to bike or
walk to school. Further expansion would only deteriorate this situation. Even moving around few
miles in the neighborhood in the morning and evening commute times in addition to school
dismissal times is getting very tiring, long delays and long wait times at traffic signals and stop
signs. This is further causing drivers to be less patient resulting in honking and shouting on each
other.
Libraries and Parks: Our community resources like parks, community centers and library are
already operating at exceeded capacity. Further expansion in rental residences would only
exacerbate the situation.
Clearly if further permits to add more office space and rental residences are only causing major
annoyances and inconveniences to the community then why go for that if not to satisfy the greedy
developers who don't live or care about our peaceful and welcoming city?
We request you to carefully analyze the situation and seek active feedback from the community.
Community members are voicing their grievances in Nextdoor.com website. Please seek feedback
from there as well. With this explosive growth, it is impacting not only cupertino residents but also
the neighboring cities. If there is anything we need, it is more schools from elementary to high
school, parks and libraries, courts for volleball, soccer, tennis etc.
sincerely,
Uma Gouru and Murty Dasari.
From: Carrie Oleary fmailt ]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:06 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR
I would like the Vallco EIR to review whether there are an adequate number of medical treatment
facilities to serve the increased amount of people proposed to live, work and shop at The Hills.
On Nov 16, 2015 4:57 PM, "Liang C" wrote:
RE: Comment on Vallco EIR.
Here are comments from a concerned citizen:
The building right next to ]CP had a semiconductor manufacturing facility in it in the 70s. There was
groundwater contamination from that original Four -Phase facility. Reference the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board File Number 4351129 (RWP). It is known as the 19333 Vallco Parkway
site. APN 316-20-076 is one of the parcel that this site is on. It is immediately to the east of the ]CP
site in the Vallco Mall.
Here is the Sate Water Resources Control Board entry for this site:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global id=710000000740
The Apple 2 EIR addressed the problem of ground water contamination, and specifically mentioned
the 19333 Vallco Parkway site along with many other sites in the vicinity of its project.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Public Review 5h-
Hazards.pdf
Of particular concern are the restrictions placed on the 19333 Vallco Parkway site by the State Water
Resources Control Board. Schools for persons under 21 are prohibited. Residence use is
prohibited. The list goes on and on.
Sand Hill Property Company intends to place two underground floors of parking right next to the
19333 Vallco Parkway site. The 19333 Vallco Parkway site cannot be used for residential housing or
for schools. If a flume from the 19333 Vallco Parkway site were found in the area planed for
excavation for a parking garage, the site would perhaps not be considered suitable for the proposed
FUHSD technology center.
The EIR should detail how testing for any contamination that may have seeped from nearby
contaminated sites known to the State Water Resources Control Board (and other government
agencies) will be performed. It should also characterize the possible spectrum of mitigation
measures that could be employed if contamination were found at various levels. There should also
be a discussion on which existing land use restrictions that apply to the 19333 Vallco Parkway site
could reasonably be applied to the proposed Vallco development in the event that contamination
were discovered.
Visit our Home Page http://www.bettercupertino.org/
Visit our Blog http://BetterCupertino.blogspotcom
Visit out facebook page https://www.facebook.com/BetterCupertino
CRSZaction.orZ and BetterCupertino.org
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Better Cupertino
Work Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to better-cupertino-
work-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to.better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/better-cupertino-work-group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/better-cupertino-work-
group/CAN%2Bw9cB9nasLLTrQSxK5VeSdBHITHxq-XOQGP%3De0pUD5WYBSwg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
From: Terry Overby fmailto
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:11 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Larry Wuerz
Subject: WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SHOULD COVER FOR "THE HILLS AT
VALLCO".
The EIR for The Hills at Vallco should include as follows:
A study of all of the emergent construction (the aggregate), (Apple, Cupertino Main Street,
Agilent potential expansion, new 6 -story building to replace IHOP on Stevens Creek, the
Nineteen 800 apartments on Vallco Parkway) should be examined as to collective impact on
any new construction in the area near Vallco. That study should include, but not be limited
to:
a. Capability of all roads within 1 -mile to support the additional traffic load
b. Ability for public transportation to support the addition people
C. Ability to support the additional water and sewer demands of the project
d. Ability of the school system to support the additional students and impact to safety
of bicycles and pedestrians in the area
e. Impact on the existing neighborhoods adjacent to the project
Thank You for reviewing my concerns,
Terry Overby
From: mzhang [mailto
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:52 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: Mzhang
Subject: Comment on EIR for The Hills at Vallco Project
Dear Piu,
For The Hills at Vallco Project, I would like to give the following comments for the EIR.
1, public school impact.
2. freeway in and out traffic impact in addition to the new Apple campus.
3. impact on stevens creek and Wolfe / Miller traffic.
Regards,
Michael
Thanks, Michael