CC 09-07-2021 Item No. 12 Vallco -Supplemental Staff Report Response to Council Inquiries_Desk Item
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
September 7, 2021
Subject
Status Report on the Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Project
RESPONSE TO COUNCIL INQUIRIES
Recommended Action
No City Council action required, although the Council may “accept,” “acknowledge,” or
“receive” the report.
Discussion
This is a supplemental report provided in response to Council inquiries. Much of this
information will also be included in this evening’s presentation. Inquiries have been
consolidated and simplified for clarity.
1. Why is this update being provided at this time?
City Councilmembers requested a sharing of public information regarding the
Vallco project given the well‐known upcoming September 21, 2021 extension
deadline. City staff tried to find an alternative special meeting date prior to
September 21, but none were available, so the Mayor approved the City
Manager’s recommendation to place this item on the September 7, 2021 agenda
and to delay as many of the other scheduled agenda items as possible.
2. Who reviewed and drafted the staff report?
A draft of the attachment was requested by the City Manager from outside
consultants and counsel, which was prepared with assistance from City staff. The
attachment was subsequently edited by City staff from Community
Development and Public Works as well as the City Attorney and City Manager;
while factual information was corrected and grammatical changes made, there
were no substantive modifications to the attachment through the review and
approval process.
The summary staff report was then drafted by the City Manager and reviewed
and edited by staff from Community Development, Public Works and the City
Attorney. The City Manager assumes full responsibility for the content of both
the staff report and the attachment.
Any legal opinions expressed in the report or attachment were provided or
approved by the City Attorney.
3. Why was information on the September 21, 2021 extension included?
While the extension request from the Vallco developer has not yet been received,
it is anticipated by September 14. In the interest of full public disclosure, since
there was no other Council meeting date available prior to September 21, the
report and attachment include information on what is expected to result from
that anticipated extension request.
4. When will more information on any extension request be provided?
The City will post any extension request on its website within one business day,
as well as any determination on that extension request by the City Manager.
5. Can the City Council direct the City Manager to approve or not approve an
extension of the project approval?
It would be premature to do so, as the applicant has not yet submitted their
request for an extension and the basis for their request. Further, legal counsel
has determined that under State law, the approval rests at the City Manager
level. However, as indicated in the staff report and attachment, City staff and the
City Attorney believe that the project developer will likely be able to submit
documentation indicating “substantial progress” on the project in keeping with
the language and intent of SB 35.
6. What is the status of environmental investigation and remediation on the site?
The environmental investigation and remediation onsite is now the critical path
item for continuation of the Vallco project. If Vallco had begun full investigation
and remediation of the site earlier, that would not be the case. However, the site
investigation is now being overseen by the Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (SCCDEH), which has assumed regulatory authority over
any investigation and remediation required for development of the project.
The contamination issues related to this development have grown significantly
over the years as evidenced by the most recent information posted on the State’s
GeoTracker website, which shows more areas and substances of concern. One
page of results is attached and the full site can be reached at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T1000001716
7. A link to the Geptracker site is also available on the City’s website at
Cupertino.org/vallcosb35.
7. Do the ongoing toxics investigations and remediation requirements allow the
City to rescind the prior approval or to reject the extension of the project?
No, based on the advice of both the City Attorney and outside legal counsel.
8. Why is outdated or incorrect information included on the City’s website for
this project?
Staff has been reluctant to remove prior documentation for the project, even if it
was outdated or later determined to be incorrect. However, with Council
direction and foreknowledge, staff would be willing to undertake that cleanup of
the website at this time.
9. The County Assessor’s website includes maps which are incorrect and do not
show existing public easements.
It is correct that these easements are not shown on the County Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN) Maps. The APN maps are solely used for taxation purposes and
do not include easements recorded on a property. Easements are typically
disclosed through the title report process. No existing public easements have
been vacated on the Vallco properties at this time.
10. Can the City Council reverse the prior approval of the Vallco SB 35 Project for
any reason, including inaccurate or incomplete project information at that time
or inadequate or inaccurate staff reviews and approval then?
No, based on the advice of both the City Attorney and outside legal counsel.
11. Why is there a recommendation to “accept the report?”
No Council action is required at this time. “Accept the report seemed to be more
neutral than “approve the report,” although both “acknowledge the report” and
“receive the report” would be fine as well, as would a recommendation of “no
action required”.
12. What if permit requests show that the Vallco project is not complying or
fulfilling the prior project approval, such as not meeting the 2/3rds residential
property requirement?
City staff, as well as the City Manager and the City Attorney, will review every
permit to ensure conformance with the approved SB 35 Project. While minor
modifications occur in almost every project, the City Manager and City Attorney
have informed the Vallco project representatives that any major or substantive
modifications will need to be approved through a process as specified by State
law.
Recommended Action
No City Council action required, although the Council may “accept,” “acknowledge,” or
“receive” the report.
Sustainability Impact
The acceptance of this report will have no sustainability impact. The City is actively
seeking measures such as transit improvements that will improve the sustainability of
the Vallco Project, but as previously indicated, the City was prohibited from conducting
a full environmental review of that project under SB 35.
Fiscal Impact
Direct City costs for plan review and inspections will be covered by fees collected from
the Project. City required impact fees will be collected related to parkland, traffic, and
housing, although the developer contends that it should not pay those impact fees.
General municipal revenues and expenditures likely to result from the Project are
unknown given the limited scope of the City’s review of the Project under SB 35, but
there is a significant risk of a negative fiscal impact of the Project because no
environmental review or mitigation was permitted under State law.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Greg Larson, Interim City Manager
Reviewed by: Staff from Community Development and Public works
City Attorney Christopher Jensen
Approved by: Greg Larson, Interim City Manager
Attachment