The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Exhibit 06-16-15 Item #10 Approval of consultant services for environmental review for a Specific Plan and project in the Vallco Shopping District Planning Area Cc -rho June 17,2015 To: City of Cupertino Staff and City Council Members From: Cathy Helgerson—CAP—Citizens Against Pollution E X H Subject: EIR Consultant Approval Item 10 Vallco should not have an EIR started by a Consultant until the General Plan issues have been resolved and settled because the General Plan needs to be reviewed and possibly rescinded due to the serious issues that have been overlooked and should be considered. There was not an open bid process for the consultant regarding the forming of an EIR by the owners of Vallco and there should have been. I understand the developer will pay for the consultant it is still very expensive and a bid process could save money which could be better used someplace else. I am very concerned that the very expensive cost for a consultant by the owners could be passed on to the City of Cupertino in some way which is not acceptable especially if they were not included in the bid process. I agree with some of the advocates that there needs to be a community input on the EIR Scope of work invite the public to participate and if some items have been already covered in the past than there is no need to repeat the process and this should lower the costs considerably. I want the Council and the City Staff to understand that the public wants to see the plans for Vallco in the form of maybe small models so we can view the proposed buildings and were they will be and what will be in them. Maybe three types of models which are a possibility,drawings are ok but models I think are better set up these models in the City lobby. So if you decide on drawings computers can do all kinds of things so why can't the City and Council set up a viewing for the public with a comment period so the public can give input on which plan they like best. I also heard and look forward in seeing the new redline copy of the General Plan the Staff is preparing for the citizen advocates to review I would also like it available on the web for everyone to view and I understand the cut off for comments will be July 31,2015.There needs to be a notice on the web for people so they also can comment if they decide to do so. We want honest and informative Government in our city and we ask our representatives to strive for that goal so I ask the people to get involved and make sure your voices are heard this is your city. Ccr� li� � ir SIC EHIX BIT Vallco : U.- :rbanization ...... .... Experiment ? Xbowen Wang Urbanization • The .purpose is not just to, build high • Building high. is a method to reduce footprint of human residence , a method to free uP land for a more well: rounded human habitat , an eco system , a community., ■ .-rv:iew co, ve r� Cup Villageti Pli I , _ y ,chi•Jap union Tapas i71 , >y,, III C If 3 , a - + Cupe;rt,roU,llaa ,455 ,sf Appl.e 1:1. 3.4 million sf. office T; sU&f' 1 LUICril I �� ,14,.200 workers U INQf Duke of Edir,J : erJgc3�I ma ..3: e l-:room eek,T ,I i Hyatt House-Hote �up ,m 4 ton f 148 hotel rooms 94 d_etial units Vallco I&1I: 400,Q00 sf. office y ` H o u s n g, retail and � ll ii � rF 1 670 workers services are needed , , ;;F .1 ? T.G,I,Frids '� - Nineteen 800: around area, . ' U " " a 204 residential u:nits however, school AAhe[st D.� hlacya5 JCPennp 120,000 sf retai l system cannot ,- su ort more ° : T,ra ie`utfa= = -`%M:an Stre. t: 274.;000 sf.. off ice: worker P�� I housing Pa�rta ,Pl.aza: r k7n,ai?C _ 4 120 residential units tiN Fe � z' ' 135 500 retail 180 hotel rooms 60. : 00 sf:.retai I : , E o�t Craf 5f<t rics a Cale L a Tc�a 1 � - ' etropolitan: 157 residential units —_ ;i - - -` Fn E 77, cst au a=ng ~' ~ II andin3yian /-n+ Cupertino Financial' Cenaer• o Mprke I al, Bank of Ame p Designs: i c Ir-,\e. Une Rot :::.: �habu 5habu I :103,000:af. office; 430: workers t . . % 115,856 sf retai l O .q.H wu i Id an u rbar�o tb center � n a suburban cit y • Land use pattern in Cupertino and surrounding cities is a typical suburban setup • Employment center / retail center./ residential. center. • Connected by road that access by car • The housing around the area can only accommodate 1/9 of the workers • Currently 1/5 of workers works in Cupertino lives in Cupertino • Looks. more .like an employment. center than. urban center • More public services such: as school and park are needed to support more housing • Transit system. needed to support the connection betweenurban center .and rest of the region. - • Comprehensive study needed to be done on what; when, and how we should develop UallCo. Amendment VS Update E X H. Icc BI- W/O What may have begun as an amendment exercise, has morphed into an update. This is a more than significant problem because the process is still being followed for an amendment... not an update. Significant, BUT avoidable. An amendment to any document is a minor change or addition. It is undeniable that the document being called Community Vision 2040 is something far more than an amendment. 2000-202.0 General Plan An amendment should not change the title or date—an amendment would be a reasonable amount of focused change to an existing document. It would not be a change to the format, majority of content, duration, or name, of the document. UPDATE is more of the appropriate term for the action that was taken related to Cupertino's General Plan. There was no noticing that used the term 'update'. Based on past procedures, an.Update would be expected to have a task force with several open discussion meetings and brainstorming sessions. This has not happened. Cupertino, as a whole, should insist on proceeding in the appropriate way. This can only be done if the December 4, 2014 vote, and the document that that vote resulted in, are rescinded. The 2000-2020 General Plan should remain the city's guiding document—constitution as it has been referred to - until the proposed update can be presented and discussed in the correct manner. Please do what ever_is procedurally necessary to create an agenda item referring to the rescission of the vote, and/or document (Resolution 14-211) , and place it on the first possible agenda. Thank you. Lisa Warren Amendment n. noun • 1. a minor change in a document • 2. a change or addition to a legal or statutory document Update v. verb • 1. make (something) more modern or up to date Synonym : modernize, upgrade, bring up to date, improve, overhaul n. noun • 1. an act of bringing something or someone up to date, or an updated version of something Rescind v. verb • 1. revoke, cancel, or repeal (a lave, order, or agreement) the government eventually rescinded the directive Synonym : revoke, repeal, cancel, reverse, overturn, overrule, annul, nullify, void, invalidate, quash, abolish, vacate, abrogate MINE JF Dear Mayor and Council Members, - ' Thanks.for give me this opportunities to speak tonight. I would like to share my concerns with o the Vallco Specific Plan EIR. The city just did an EIR for the GPA last year. In this EIR, Vallco is one of the study area and the project scope of the allco study area is almost identical to the current proposed project scope for this Vallco Specific Plan,EIR, i.e., 2 million square feet office, 800 housing units and 600,000 square feet retail. The difference is that the GPA EIR uses around 1000 housing units based on the maximal density. The GPA EIR already concludes that traffic, air pollution and noise are three impacts that are significant and unavoidable. On May 19 hearing, Cupertino Sanitary District also testified that the sewer system at the area is at capacity and cannot support such massive redevelopment. According to the latest enrollment report from FUHSD (http://fuhsd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/l 220712390804/1224957816940/196282179909000827.pdf ), the neighborhoold school of Vallco, Cupertino High will soon reach 2790 students by 20201 which is 1000 over capacity. With all these data in hand, I wonder what is the purpose of this EIR? Just to identify all these problems again? I think that at the moment, it is more important for us to focus on solutions to these problems, not to rush to plan another big project that can only make the situation worse. f r_ �AILU -- -- Apple.. _ i tre t ra : - - EIR. June 2013 EIR: Aug 2012: EIR: I�eve1 er;requested 2,800;000ft2 .. 2 " office 260:000ft office 2;000,000ft office 1.4,200 em to ees p Y 11,428 employees.: 54,.886 new trips..Gy -9356 new 4844 existing 35106 trips/dy 15872 trips/dy No Retail --- I X500ft2 retail: . ft? retail. 60000ft2 retail 0-net no-W:trips/dy No condos 120condos. 389 condos 1500 nem trips/d No.-hotel -_- 18 0 rm hotel 3.8 5 rm hotel -. __.. 3 3 24 ne _tri s/ . 35106 tri :s/da 1 gip- 3' 9000 vehicle x s/ . . 59710ire trips/da... Y ... 108,025 more:cars enteriiiU ��t�nooh j.Apple assumed:28% went Apple Eur :(11satt; 148 °note19 12:09ne0 vv trips/ ) (14200 emp 4 65251: trips) ' .�:. :. �� 1 'E��j:f�� t��L � �° ��r �°. a..� � • add, E -t . , . F OS 40 r .. _ _: .. f Y�1 - .•�' 4��r'E dad.... 4"� .. .. ... ... ... .. .. t ;o- le: .... t :7 Z 61 IT Ar aaa : ti ate' ; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ell > s t # ° "R07811-ND S CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 5 � P u' V. SETTING, IMPAC MITIGATION MEASURES A I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table V.1-8.- Trip Q neration v�3YM :c Daily AIM.Peak Hour PM Peak Dour Land Use Em l� ees Rate' trips Rates In Out 'Total Rate'l Ire Out 'Total - �Proposed Apple A pple 14,200 3.59 50,978 0.32 3,953 591 4,544 0.33 1,031 3,655 4,686 Campus 2 !~_ rr: Existing Uses 4,844 3.28 (15,872)d On-Site 0.26 (1,063) (207) (1,270) 0.38 (235) (1,352) (1,587) z New Vehicle Trips — 35,106 — 2,890 384 3,274 — 796 2,303 3,099 Notes: a Rate per employee b Trip generation estimates for the proposed campus were developed based on trip rates derived from surveys at Infinite Loop campus and the buildings south of Mariani Avenue by Fehr&Peers,May 2011. - Trip generation estimates for the existing site were developed based on project site driveway counts conducted in August 2011 and factored up to estimate May 2011 values. d Daily trips estimated based on AM and PM peak hour trips representing 18 percent of daily trips. Source: Apple Headquarters Campus Transportation Stud Fe exs., 1 20-11. TDM Reductions.The Santa Clara Valley VTA is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County, In VTA's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines(updated March 2009), reductions in the number of trips generated by a project can be applied for projects with qualifying TDM programs,The trip-generation rates used in this transportation analysis account for existing TDM participation and the resuming-"—rslo spli`fof approxsmately 28 percent scuttle use9 carpooling, _and bicyclg. Although Apple is contemplating the expansion of its current TDM Program to reduce the number of single vehicle occupancy trips(beyond the expansion proposed to serve new employees),the specifics of the-added elements are currently udder development.Therefore this analysis does not include additional trip reductions due to the proposed expansion of the TDM Program. Diverted Trips Due to the Closure of Pruneridge Avenue. With the closure,vehicles currently traveling on Pruneridge Avenue between Wolfe road and Tantau Avenue would be required to detour around the project site. The detour path along Wolfe road,Homestead road, and Tantau Avenue is approximately 1-.1 miles in length and represents a 0.6-mile detour(1,1-mile new path minus the 0.5-mile existing path). There are generally three types of trips that would be diverted with the proposed closure: ® Through trips with no destination on Pruneridge Avenue between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue would be diverted around the project site. Trips accessing the project site would be diverted-to proposed new driveways on Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. ® Trips traveling to and from the east to The Hamptons apartment community would be diverted since existing trips from the west would not be affected by the road closure. P'=.COC 1 101 Apple 2 Campm\PRODUCTSIDE1R\Public\5i-Transportation-docx(06103113)P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 388 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PI„F CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 V. SETTING, IMPAC ND MITIGATION MEASURES I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Avenue, and#19 Wolfe Road/Project Access driveway, as well as modifications to the#28 Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue,#29 Tantau Avenue/Project Access, and#30 Tantau Avenue/Tandem intersections, For all other intersections the existing roadway network was used to analyze Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of service were calculated with the net new traffic added by the proposed project to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and to identi otential 'impacts-to the roadway system. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions are graphically shown on Figure V.I-8.The correspond- ing calculation sheets are in Appendix B of Appendix B.Appendix D(Table D-2)of Appendix B contains a detailed LOS summary table, and Appendix C of Appendix B includes-a figure(Figure C- 3)with the intersect-ion lane configurations, signal timings,-and peak-hour turning movement volumes used to calculate the levels of service for the key intersections. 1 k b t c:�"L•� I�Y.:a M ti i`.F I yMEMO M.MUM*1�I �� The results for Existing Conditions are included for comparison purposes, along with the projected increases in critical delay and critical volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratio, Critical delay represents-the delay associated with.the critical movements of the intersect-ion,or the move- ments that require the most"green time"and have the greatest effect on overall intersection opera- tions.The changes in critical delay and critical V/C ratio between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions are used to identify significant impacts.-- The results of-the LOS calculations indicate that all study intersections would operate-at acceptable service levels (generally LOS D or better for City.intersections and LOS E or better for CMP and regional) si c. t intersections)under Existing Plus Project Conditions,with th g Int. 21.- Wolfe Road/I-280 -Northbound Ramp_ (Cupertino the addit' f ro"ect .traffic would d"MMR N e, 4: _ ;er u , lm ,1 • o a all Int. 31. Tantau AvenueVallco Parkway Cu ertino the addition of project traffic would - ,1ra! , : �► trig 1 � F apt 1I=K Int. 36. Stevens Creek Bou eva Calvert Drive/ - Rams(west) (CMP):the addition of project traffic °r ee1�- ' tern " gip w Int. 52. Stevens Creek Boulevard%Sa as swa CMP the addition of o'e traffic would +a► 3r,, t u, .. aesi -L t r e. } k r' P` e. !�, . , is Parentheses indicate the jurisdiction within which the LOS impacts are assessed. P:\COC 1101 Apple 2 CampusTRODUCTSIDEIR`Public\5i•Transportation.docx(.06/03/13)PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 390 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. irk P"L;E AMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 V. SETTING, IMPACT D MITIGATION MEASURES I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Background Pius Project Conditions. The operations of the study intersections under Background Plus Project Conditions are discussed below. Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes. Under Background Plus Project Conditions,the project would generate the same number of trips as under Existing Conditions.As discussed in the Trip Generation Table(Table V.1-8),the project is estimated to generate 35,106 net new daily vehicle trips, 3,274 net new AM peak hour trips, and 3,099 net new PM peak hour trips. The net new trips (Figure C-2 in Appendix B)from the projected 14,200 employees were added to the Background Conditions traffic projections(Figure C-4 of Appendix B)to develop traffic volumes for-Background Plus Project Conditions. The resulting volumes are shown on Figure C'-5 in Appendix B. Background Intersection.Levels of Service. The results of the LOS analysis for Background No Project and Background Plus Project Conditions are graphically shown on Figure V.I-9. Appendix B of Appendix.B contains the corresponding calculation sheets.A detailed LOS summary -table(Table D-3)is in Appendix D.of Appendix B,and a figure(Figure C-5 of Appendix B)detailing the intersection lane configurations,signal timings, and peak-hour turning movement volumes used to calculate the levels of service for the key intersections during each peak hour is in Appendix C of Appendix B. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that all study intersections would operate at acceptable service levels(generally LOS D or better for City intersections and LOS E or better for CMP and regionally significant intersections)under,Background Plus Project Conditions,with the exception of the.following locations as shown in Table V.1-11: Int. 3. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road(Cupertino):the addition of project-traffic would _.,,. a r:;. b�PESSEe a .ins +', g r . .Wmak {o Int. 5. De Anza Boulevard/Homestead.Road(Cupertino):--the addition of project traffic would __;e W . era s : �;r Int. 9. De-Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road(Cupertino):the addition of project traffic would Int. 21. Wolfe Road/I-280 No. bound Rams .Cupertino):.the addition of project traffic c would, f ,,i�:'r', I.�', r". i ,_' E®',' � S E during the AM peals hour. Int.27.. Tantau Agvenupe�/Hoge�yp "stead Load-(Cupeftino):the addition of project traffic would E• E.rib, ,p,�. f �h76+4'P'1YY1:��.a _, ��,. , Irv'' { -_. h 4I l 511 during the AM peak hour. -Int. 31. TantaugAvenue/Vyy allco La;;�1 �Cu erlt?i�no-)�:the addition of project traffic ` ould ;. f V d� during t eAM peak hour. 4 Int. 32. Tantau.Avenue/Stevens Creek Bo¢¢u!['leY�eyyvarwd�(Cupertino):the$emsaddition.off oro'ect trafficul 9 u '.J r`, ,F'.,.- • t `ie Mtgi f 2 ,- l".ti•Jd:Y !1 4FA e a {u+;kT' F I.11'Akf,'ti ". 1 .f?4',L"k'.a" E-during the PM peak hour. Int. 36. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Rimik (S lara :the addition of project traffic !Tae ; the PM peak hour. P:iCOC 110[Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTSOEIR1Public'vi-Transportatioadocx(06103113)PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 399 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. bWWOE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 V. SETTING, IMPACTS AIND MITIGATION MEASURES I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Int. 40. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway (CMP): the addition of two ect r r' _771-±r pis ry' rt a z� v traffic ould� ee1niersec,�oneJ ii �� ep �l'eS wl� 11 - •- �- - Int.41. Lawrence Expresswa /I-280.�Southbound Ramps (CMP): the addition of project traffic v✓ould e,�ra`de ��1v�se�� operations ��o�� ,cce '�a��e,-�,�5-�� to� acc�p��"ol'e `r Int. 52. Stevens Creek Boulevard/San To .as xpressway(CMP):the addition of ro'ect traffic would e1 7,R r- fe. Table V.1-11: Levels of Service for Intersections Operating Unacceptably under Background Plus Project Conditions Background Background Plus Conditions Project Conditions Inter- Change Change Peak section in Crit. in Crit. Intersection Hour' Jurisdiction Control Delay' LoSd Delay' LOSd_ VICe Dela r -Stevens Creek AM 44.3 D 44.4 D +0.002 +0.1 3 Boulevard/Stelling PM CUP Signal 62.2 E 62.7 E +0.005 +0.8 Road De Anza Boulevard/ AM 45.6 D 46.5 D + .002 +0.2 0 Homestead Road PM CUP Signal 61.3 E 64.1 E +0:614 +4.0 9 De Anza Boulevard/ AM CUP Si nal '1.1 C 31.2 C +0.020 +0.3 McClellan Road PM g 58.5 E+ 59.8 E+ +0.012 +2.0 Wolfe Road/1-280 AM 13.2 B 68.9 E +0°389 +81.2 21 Northbound Rams PM CUP Signal 15.3 B 31.1 C +0.093 +19.9 Tantau Avenue/ AM 36.3 D+ 64.7 E +0.350 +37.8 27 Homestead Road PM CUP Signal 36 9 D+ 49.9 D +0.204 +13.9 Tantau Avenue/ AM 28.7 C56.8 E+ +0.453 +49.1 31 Vallco Parkway PM CUP Signal 35.3 D+ 35.3 D+ +0.170 +0.8 Tantau Avenue/ AM 41.4 D 48.1 D +0.135 +10.6 Boulevard 32 Stevens Creek PM CUP Signal 49.0 D 75.6 E- +0.148 +41.9 Stevens Creek 36 Boulevard/Calvert AM CMP Si nal 28.1 C 29.0 C +0.144 +3.1 Drive/1-280 Ramps PM g 92.7 F 148:6 F +0.216 +105.7 (West) Stevens Creek Blvd/ AM 42.2 D 80.5 F +0°188 +51.3 40 Lawrence Ex Ramps PM CMP Signal 32 0 C- 33.9 C- +0.043 +1.2 (East) Lawrence Expressway/ AM 54.1 D- 74.7 E +0.084 +26.4 41 1-280 Southbound PM CMP Signal 73.0 E 138.6 F +6.155 +68.0 Ramps Stevens Creek AM J5.8 E+ 56.5 E+ +0.006 +1.0 52 Boulevard/San Tomas PM CMP Signal lOfl.6 F 102.9 F +0,005 +2.4 Expressway Notes: a AM=morning peak hour;PM=afternoon peak hour b Intersection Jurisdictions:CUP=City of Cupertino Intersection(LOS D threshold);CMP=CMP Intersection(LOS E threshold) Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle d LOS=Level of Service e Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio(V/C)between Background and Background Plus Project Conditions f Change in critical movement delay between Background and Background Plus Project Conditions Bold indicates unacceptable intersection operations.Bold and highlighted indicates significant impacts. Source:Fehr&Peers.May 2013. P!.COCI101 Apple 2 CampuskPRODUCTS\DEIRPublic\5i-Transportatioadocx(06/03/13)PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 400 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 V. SETTING, IMPACTS ANyD MITIGATION MEASURES I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The critical delay is not projected to increase by more than 4 seconds and the critical V/C ratio is not projected to increase by more than 0.01 between the Background and Background Plus Project scenarios at the#3 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road;#9 Ike Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road, and#52 Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway intersections based on Cupertino's and VTA's impact criteria.Therefore the project is considered to have a less-than-significant impact at these intersections. The project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause unacceptable operating conditions at the following intersections,and these changes would be considered a significant impact. Int. 5. Ike Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road(Cupertino) Int. 21. Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps(Cupertino) Int. 27. Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road(Cupertino) Int. 31. Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway(Cupertino) Int. 32. Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard(Cupertino) Int. 36. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps(west) (CMP) Int. 40. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps(east)(CMP) Int. 41. Lawrence Expressway/1-280 Southbound Ramps(CMP) The proposed project would result in significant intersection impacts under Background plus Project Conditions as discussed below. Impact TRANS-4a Under Background Plus Project Conditions,completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection#5 De Anza Boulevard/ Homestead Road during the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS74:At intersection#5 Ise Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road the project sponsor shall construct an exclusive southbound right-turn lane(for a total of two left- turn lanes,three through lanes,and one.rfl ht-turn lane which would improve intersection operations to LOS E+.Although strip S based on Cupertino's standards,this mitigation measur, outimprove operations over ackground No Project Conditions. Wit t e rn�tigatio., measure identified above, s d Ilr _l ees c; I:[ cTrees are protected under the City of Cupertino's Tree Protection Ordinance. Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-3 in Section VD,Biological Resources addresses these potential secondary impacts related to potential tree removal. (LTS) P:\COCl 101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIRTublic\5i-Tramportation.docx(06/03/13)PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 403 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. P'PLki AMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 V. SETTING, IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The results of the LOS calculations indicate that all study intersections would operate at acceptable service levels(generally LOS D or better for City intersections and LOS E or better for CMP and regionally significant intersections)under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions,with the exception of the following locations as shown in Table V.1-12 Int. 3, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road(Cupertino).the addLt�on of project trate wouldkae:��etab� E o.,pera`t��r�s Int. 5. De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road(.Cupertino):the addition of pro ect traffic k a•-.- e- would eKpierb teurack�p 11efiL�J ,� opeatcisd� r�ingt�e I' / e k Int. 8. De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard Cuertino the addition xoje t traffic would-�� r�a , n1tc� e t��o a�era i nts �� i�� x,1 r Vif Int. 9. De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road(Cupertino):the-addition of ro'ect traffic would e ,erb ��uqa'��; t b �E er �1 d r ak 9 = rte. Int. 15.. Wolfe Road/FremontAvenue(Sunny-vale):the addition of project traffic would . - �. Int. 21. Wolfe Road/I-280 rNortb�bound RCan s Cu ertino the addition of ro ect traffip , ,sy R.asai��G..J`Y.5 tics �y a �4M� - -� JAS woul d �a e e,:set .; +�per�atryo sic_» ace A&M 20, t� nae e t ablre�L}OS ;AF1V Int.23. Wolfe Road/Vallco.Parkway; Cup ertino).:the addition of project traffic would ea_catc`yne'�pt' � ;: op�ealc �, r ng o ,elk'hour> Int. 27. Tantau-Avenue/Homestead Road'(Cu ertino);the-addition of ro'ect traffic would a ear �e i.ntear Int. 3 L Tantau Avenue/Vallco I'arkway(�Cize,:` o44addMt ��roettraffic wouldfY n tea: 1 aa. u,.<..:-rr� i. t• �_?s _ •M Int. 32,. Tantau venue/Stevens Creek Boulevard(Cupertino):the addition ofproJect traffic woulde.. a �e. rea # rata�o iia a e ea eME , 11015101S . Int. 36. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ra p e CMP :-the ad 'tio 'e,ct traffic ro ? - r'l ate un ce tt a e o el - �mora' a=;s riFn he Mme' k Int.40. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Ex resswa Rams eastCMP addition of project traffic i `d %n � f =0 4 ee,�tga1 � Int.41. Lawrence Ex�P resswa /I-280 u. bou Naklz- MP :-the addition of project traffic would d ar e ' e,sec_% o s er _fir. Mabe o a p 1 p , Int. 52. Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas E resswa CMP the addition of ro`ect P:\COCl 101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5i-Trawportaiioadoex(06/03/13)PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 409 i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. mWal MPDS 2 PROJECT EIR JUNE 2013 V. SETTING. IMPACTTIGATIONMEASURES I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the three midweek weekdays(Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday)would be averaged.The trip counts for the site driveways would be added together. Counts shall be performed between mid-February and late May(before the end of the school year and not during school holidays such as Spring Break)or between Labor Day and Thanksgiving week. Counts shall avoid days immediately before or after holidays or long weekends, and shall not be performed on days with inclement weather. Figure V.1-11 illustrates the required TDM monitoring process to evaluate the project site's peak trip counts. If the AM and PM peak hour trip generation of Apple Campus 2 is less than 4,270 AM peak-hour vehicle trips and 4,40.0 PM peak-hour vehicle trips,no additional TDM measures would be required. Trip rates expressed as AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips per employee would also be reported to assess the vehicle trip-reducing effect of the measures in the current TDM program.The count results would be divided by the number of employees on site.The results would be compared to-the AM peak hour rate of 0.32 vehicle trips per employee and PM peak hour rate of 0.33 vehicle trips per employee,which represent the-existing 28 percent alternative mode share at the Apple Infinite Loop campus and the buildings south of Mariani Avenue.The target rates are 0.30 AM peak hour vehicle trips per employee and 0.31 PM peak hour.vehicle trips per employee. However,the peak trip counts specified above will be the determining factors as to whether Apple has to implement additional TDM measures. - ` �i I lA ,�r�'I 1'&i,tF i1 'w('6f✓��,�d ��'�� a✓ 311'i � G V Il.'¶� p A'.^i4�&j'1'"�y�"`10.:J[� -e f'�N li[ lQr'�!�+�9 1 1 it�t-�]�.�.'b. - �-�a lean�,_San c�[ a��ea � r, ,��ff::r,i�,� t� , ��++ •;od. - r e r s c�f r eye .. �ta.es :, ��. I tr- � 2-110- " Once Apple and the City agree on-new TDM pleasures,Apple would implement these within 60 days of the notification date. Follow-up counts,surveys,and/or collection of parking utilization data would be conducted by an independent City-approved transportation planning/engineering firm 60 days after the new measures are implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the new TDM plan. If the peak trip counts are still exceeded,Apple would pay a fee of$3 per day per extra vehicle trip shown in the peak trip counts (adjusted annually staring in 2014 per the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area). The funds from these fees would be used to provide for-City-wide implementation of TDM programs and improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Payments of these penalties are due to the City within 30 days of issuance of an invoice with reasonable supporting documentation.After three months,Apple would be required to meet with the City to identify City additional approved new TDM measuresto be added. If Apple still is not meeting the goal during the next annual monitoring period;penalties would be continued to be levied, until the peak trip counts goal is met. P`.COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTSNDEIRIPiublict5i-Transportation.doex(05/03!13)PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 445 ' :s;. �4 i� " . x.. ,�;��..-c•.'x kr sl;a`�",c,., �,. � x9[ �'.�'3`t:[ri�}k � �t13 C ii a�,1*- � ,v , C FE K TIN dor i�`:..�N_�:.V3�1�i.."•'? ;.y_-.i3.._�.4 `:1:_ '„aF'1. 5'ss..i'f_.�•!" t s..._ 7 � X ; Gent_��i s •.=slip,rs#n' ,:.-. .. � „r...r ,--y✓�,�> D"v i 'mma-6,R�..:�4"�'s'`'t ',.ani- ''I3 t; $, <w,jI k, .-6. A,L*1421`i r.-AS�it�E•L�t C'cYQ.3.ttis= L4-5.E3i':�-4 c r. -'`li.�'&�'L S.X.•µr.ly b _ i R f`Ka•S2._ Di at t_G F a. i:PCE� 3 •s4?Tom= .. ... `3 _ ��.. E.CUQ� .='L R i YS 5..:s< 57---OAICF 7f.AND S01 LS J,.--. 66 APFLE _t {__4$"�{s_r os'i dl, _4 rct9_ S-I,Pgle fd{r peshi fitta fF,.F itki. E?JziJREPA2TkCY!w (� .ikj� .�. s�f',Wfit - - t'{odspendhJ.+e- .F"s a-moi f-'.::3�= n;.>�,'d-?i]�_� :tom rf1X.•'+•;:'.4u Eira r;;{�res?ar3tia7l�:.31�'J.'I:r_i_cL'E.ct'S ._._,.. �r-r',.f�x�;`ur�^sa,:rt�.tica�!J��t•>x>siuss ��'� ta'ia�3i� s�uc�t:fix? fir`=�sio.r a•�.�=�i7si:,:�a 1�E� :<._ ... r"mss"-YJtw.=:Cllr'yiLi tiye Psi,, ti A.,;%j f;'3 .•"+:u•_[?di:F;u: �5`:�:;ttat�r.;sv:.f'r '-�5't_FE ,._°r. �1d?,;is�x r,JF;C�f.F_'r��fCc�C.•3dc�7-.,-t,-S.i...3 ;. Kristy Weis,David J.Powers August 6,2012 H PE t Page 3 of 14 A higher intensity of restaurants than a typical shopping center could generate a greater number of trips; therefore,the City placed a 10 percent"cap" on the amount of general retail space that could be occupied by restaurant uses when the project was originally approved in 2008. The applicant and City would like to increase the amount of restaurant space that could be on the site, and the analysis contained in this memorandum includes a separate "restaurant" category, for which trip generation was calculated at the higher restaurant rate. The breakdown of low-turnover and high-turner restaurants included in this category was provided by the City and applicant. Table I includes a column for "Maximum Restaurant" representing the total amount of general commercial space that could accommodate either general retail or food service uses. As shown, the commercial space on the site could contain up to about 40 percent restaurant uses without exceeding the number of trips analyzed previously. a able 1 I iadwn SA -11 Cu es M nd Use Plan Summary _ Mme-^- ft7 77 J A{.F , 1'537'C.?. oje_''_,. 'iI -✓1 "'"F I�� ,3 -ifJ f LI T -moi es TFUP GENERATION Trip generation forecasts for the Revised Proposed Project land uses were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, St" Edition. Where appropriate, trip reductions for the mix of uses on the site and nearby bus service were applied according to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (VTA Guidelines). For this analysis, trip generation rates for shopping center were conservatively applied to the space proposed for shops and "incubator'- type uses. This results in a greater number of-trips, since the incubator-type uses would likely generate trips at a lower rate similar to the office uses on the site. s The Revised Proposed Project would generate slightly fewer than "� a ne u ee, �any ci f6u 'e a m�r�y lips 1nrc�uld' be .ener :t:el Mflm�- ry ' l ak hour comparedpea!< hour(1-;256 �n` 6Srespectively). ��8�-� provides a ®f he total new trips ssa®ciated,:wih Revise Proposed Project. Kristy Weis,David J.Powers FEHRtPEERS August 6,2012 Page 5 of 14 rA Background Conditions comprise existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated from surrounding development projects that have been approved but are not yet constructed or occupied. The 2008 TIA and EIR Background Conditions serve as the basis for identifying project impacts in this memo. Cumulative Conditions used in this analysis were taken from the 2008 studies and represent intersection operations with the addition of traffic from both approved and unoccupied projects and from pending projects in the study area. Cumulative Conditions serve as the basis for.identifying cumulative project impacts. Background, Project and Cumulative Conditions Results Vehicle trips generated by the revised land use assumptions were added to Background Conditions traffic. volumes presented in the 2008 TIA and EIR to represent Project Conditions. The trip distribution to the surrounding roadway network was consistent with the 2008 TIA; however,trip assignment to the project's driveways was adjusted.slightly to account for the revised site plan. Vehicle trips generated by the new land use assumptions were added to Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes presented in the 2008 TIA and EIR to represent Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Table .4 presents the intersection LOS calculation results under Background Conditions, Project Conditions, and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions for the Revised Proposed Project. Under Project Conditions,the Revised Proposed Pro'ect would exacerbate-unacceptable operations at the intersectio of ra ® s � re he intersections.of I« _ � : , t/-it `.r <w.a �P pe ak our) and r-ray,- " pres aa18 �t c� , , ,,_ «_4°th A- an pea ours ..Un er Cumulative Cond.itions,.tlie Revised P duos d M cou Z. e+xr c.e :to a cc t�a'b�E e a'tic: e i ic,n P-M an P :p ho-.rs an would or cue e jnet r,en- s�ect�cn�.. �_ Y :c�aal�la �aP'fV1-peak hour), low (A and P pea ours), 4 (PM peak hour); cf t as =nye -+x esx ?BI in aper [ p-a � Kristy Weis,David J.Powers FE.HRt- PEERS August 6,2012 Page 11 of 14 fA Cumulative Level Mitigation Measures The following improvements were identified at the impacted intersections to mitigate Cumulative Plus Project impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1 e ,Re -�� - a aee a' a► - The addition of a third westbound or a third eastbound through lane would improve Cumulative Plus Project intersection levels of service to acceptable LOS E; however, this improvement would require significant right-of-way acquisition and degrade pedestrian conditions at the intersection. This intersection is .controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara and an improvements need to be- approved and implemented by the County. Therefore, she i pact a els A, redsi �nc�fieant Va(tco Parkway%Wolfe Road—The mitigation measures_ identified under Project Conditions (a westbound right overlap-phase-or a second westbound right-turn lane) also mitigate the potential Cumulative Plus Project impact to less-than-significant. SFe7anl Addition of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase mitigates the impact to a less-than-significant level.-'This intersection is not located within the City.of Cupertino; therefore, the applicant will need to coordinate. with-the lead. agency to- determine the ap ropri to mitigation at this location. Therefore, A " mai ��ul .�e �ns�.� r= sagrtificarzt an n,a�hl'e because the City of Cupertino has no au horny toimp ement a pro erMents at t is Iocation. An additional northbound and southbound through lane would.imrov er he 'n ersection would still operate unacceptabl T ere sire t e s ri s°�.ere sr�gni�fi aT ana�r � h his intersection Js not controlled b .the ity o upertino and the applicant will rieed o'r-nor inate with the lead agency to determine the ap ro riate mitigation at this location. Therefore, �u13 . - a �i =-1 MERREM ni�ficriTt a .cia'dale because the City of Cupertino has no aut ority o imp ement any improvemen s -this I cation. FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Vehicle trips generated by the Revised Proposed Project were added to the existing traffic volumes for each freeway mainline.segment.from the 2008 studies. The volumes were then used to estimate density for each segment under Project Conditions. The resulting freeway segment operations are presented in Table 6.All traffic associated with the scenarios was assumed to use the mixed-flow lanes on the freeway. 2-014 ExiSt ing Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes existing plus project traffic conditions, including the method by which project traffic is estimated. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. It is unlikely that this traffic condition would occur, since other approved projects expected to add traffic to the study area would likely be built and occupied during the time the project is going through the development review process. Transportation Network Under Exisfing Plus Project Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation,network under exisJ. ting plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Project Teip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1)trip generation, (2)trip distribution, and (3)trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours.As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are:assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition publishes trip generation rates based on numerous counts of existing development of the same land use type. The rates published by ITE for Hotel (ITE land use code 310)were used for this project. The Hotel category includes trips generated by typical hotel amenities such as restaurants,-bars,-and meetings paces trip credits were taken because the existing site is currently being-use s par-king ot. Eased on the'ITE1 trip generation rates, the proposed project would generate a total aY ,2� 9 , i� � , with 78 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 89 trips occurring during th 'P"Illi pea our period. Table 6 shows the project trip generation estimates. City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF (408)777-3251 CUPSTINGWFAX (408)777-3333 Community Development Department -MEL & INITIAL-81 -YA,-MY -ATION Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-2004-11 Case File No. U-2004-10, PROJECT DESCRIPTION., ASA-2004-14,Z-2004-010 M-2004-06 - I 11co Fashion.hion.Park: �Attachments - . , Project Title. a 1P Jo Prcject Lccaftn: East of Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway Project Description; Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval fo -38,- 60a V-72 parking structute eas", I _71A eetR of TOW-4 I lacen to Vallcoa'r wayro_i'6�15o_wr site). Impact analysis-is limited to the residential project,,since the retail component is vested as part of a 1991 DevgLq�ment Agreement Environmental Setting: '44 &TP :�r persons, based on e e 2004). It will provide housing as anticipated in the Vallco Development Agreement and the current General Plan. Pio-bilis Servic-o-s Transportation/Traffic A transportation impact analysis was prepared for the project. The report evaluated the impact of the project, which included on-street parking on both sides of Vallcol r P Parkway,eliminating a through lane in each direction. TT-ihRe-fiJi.' , h, TAMK gad -MED ,urarldj0 rapt'-_ d 0 he report concluded there are no significant impacts at the intersections that were studied, and no impacts from the Vallco Parkway proposed modifications. Driveway operation and adequate pedestrian and bicycle access were found to be adequate. The impact analysis included operations of the key intersections under Background conditions, which comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. Background conditions include five study intersections that are projected to operate at LOS E or F during one or both peak hours: 0 Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue (PM peak hour) 0 Wolfe Road and Vallco parkway (PM peak hour) 0 Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road (PM peak hour) Stevens.Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard (PM peak hour) Homestead Road and Lawrence Expressway (AM and PM peak hours). Transit: The Valley Transportation Authority currently provides and maintains transit services and facilities at Vallco Fashion Park, including a bus stop, park and ride lot and a monument sign adjacent to and on the"Rosebowl"site. The Vallco Development Agreement requires that Vallco provide 75 park and ride er-%n#-=c2nnfior,#-e%rnnzznvinn hioQto�rnniotineation. 'The orolectshall orovideabus Vallco Residential TIA August 2004 CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area.This chapter describes the procedure used to estimate background traffic v o-lum-e-s an.d t,hmesults of the intersection LOS analysis for Background Conditions. ,FAR- -Y ' -SPO'Clind Tra"Ic tsxymalas 7 'Y he background traffic volumes were estimated by adding existing traffic volumes and traffic generate by approved but not yet constructed developments in the vicinity of the site. The list of approve. developments and their corresponding traffic projections were obtained from City of Cupertino and San Clara staff. Table 4 presents the list of approved developments and the AM and PM peak-hour trip un generation estimates for each project.Since the analysis is based on the year 2000 traffic co ts,the portion of Vallco Fashion Park that was unoccupied in 2000 is included in the background traffic volumes. In addition, the retail expansion of Vallco that was approved in 1990 including,a 3,500-seat cinema is included under Background Conditions. The traffic projections for approved developments were added to the existing volumes to obtain traffic volumes for Background Conditions.The assignment of approved trips to each intersection is provided on worksheets included in Appendix B.The resulting: -kground traffic volumes are presented on Figure 7. W iiji�ll 11 C 1: R `Table i Signalled Intersection Level of Service Definitions _z Using Average Contfol Vehicular Delay Level of V Average Control Delay J Service Per Vehicle(Seconds) Description Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable A 10.0 progression and/or short cycle lengths. B+ 10.1 to 12.0 Operations with low delay occurring with good progression andVor B 12.1 to 18.0 short cycle lengths. 18.11o20.0 C+ 20.1 to 23.0 Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression C 23.1 to 32.0 and/or longer cycle lengths. 'Individual cycle failures begin to C_ 32.1 to 35.0 appear. + 35.1 to 39.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable - D 39.1 to 51.0 progression,long cycle lengths,and high V/C rabos.Many vehicles JI ®- 51.1 to 55.0 stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E+ 55.11060.0 Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression,long E 60.1 to 75.0 cycle lengths, and high WC ratios. Individual cycle failures are E- 75.1 t®BOL frequent occurrences. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due F >80.0 to over-saturation,poor progression,or very long cycle lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines,June 2003, and Transportation Research Board,Hjqhra Capacity Manual,20DO. The raI ions`yf&signalized intersections in the City Of GLIpertino is LOS D,except at two locations.According to the City's General Plan,the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and the De Anna Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 60 seconds weighted average control delay),. 'VTA and the City recently updated their L®S methodology to the 2000 Highway Capadty Manual,which uses different delay thresholds for each L®6 than the previous 1985 HCM methodology.LOS E+ (60 seconds of weighted delay)is equivalent to She 45 seconds of weighted delay used In previous studlea. Fehr&Peers 14 h CC 6-16-15 Item No.Af Andrea Sanders From: Govind Tatachari <gtc2k7.@.gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2015 4:56 PM To: City Council; City Clerk; David Brandt;Aarti Shrivastava; bc-core@googlegroups.com Subject: Cupertino City Traffic and Transport issues' Dear Council members and Esteemed Mayor, Cupertino has a major over-development-bursting-at-its-seams problem. One clear fallout is the current and future traffic surge which threatens to exceed the capacity of local roads to handle it. The Community Vision 2040 (CV2040)plan has not covered this issue adequately and CV2040 EIR is somewhat misleading because i) it is not comprehensive enough and ii) it does not clearly define and differentiate grades of"significant and unavoidable" rating. Vallco redevelopment plan will totally devastate city's ability to recover from local transport and.traffic nightware. It will also exacerbate and over burden Cupertino's infrastructure such as sewer disposal and crowding in the schools amongst others. With reduction in retail space,-the residents will suffer since they will need to commute long distance to shop and the City will suffer from loss of tax revenue. Many of the residents think that City council's main responsibility is to address intrinsically local issues. Let us first get a City-wide EIR right before City takes on EIR's for specific plans and clears them. While today's meeting is specific to Vallco, I would like to cover efforts being made by the City towards traffic and transport issues. VTA's PDA based approach is inappropriate for certain cities such as Cupertino wherein we have very few local transport arteries which itself have limited capacity. Also many of us disagree with the premise that if Cupertino does not resort to large-scale office and residential development it will anyway suffer from over-development in other parts of the Santa Clara county. On June 2nd, the council was engaged in discussing the regional'transport issues.While regional transport planning is important, it is only going to aggravate land-use issues. Shifting focus to Regional traffic issue will not resolve the Cupertino city specific(local)issue. We request that City council to dedicate a couple of meetings to focus on city specific issues stemming from over-development,namely, local transport and mobility, overcrowding in schools and.local land-use issues which are the real local issues that merit your attention. I will not be able to present this to City council during the meeting today but I would like that this email be made a part of the public record. Thank you.. Govind Tatachari Cupertino ResidentLAHIL3IT 1 V Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin - Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2015 4:43 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: please delay approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan From:Yuan Lin.[mailto:linyuan@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 16, 2015 4:42 PM To: Rod Sinks. Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong;Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul Subject: please delay approve the budget EIR of Vallco-plan Dear City Council members, am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks.to_approve the budget EIR-of Vallco-plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request. 1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to-the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so'that we can have a better plan for Cupertino's future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards; we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead to a more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco. Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city's planning policies and strategies in orderto evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan, it is impossible to have a EIR done correctly. • 2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as 2 million square feet of office • 800 housing units 600,000 square feet of retail Such a vision of Valico is purely based on developer's request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city's own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer's request is necessary to keep,the project financially viable..Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope. , • 3. Furthermore, the above scope is-not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is • 2 million square feet of office • 600 housing units i • 600,000 square feet of retail In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal-capacity around Vallco, it is not possible-to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development-will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR? Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing-EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring? • 4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose. • 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like.to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, xxx(<...your own name) 2 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2015 4:40 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: please delay approval the budget EIR of Vallco plan s From:Yuan Lin[mailto:linyuan@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 16, 2015 4:40 PM To:City Council Subject: please delay approval the budget EIR of Vallco plan Dear City Council members, I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to.approve the.budget EIR.of Vallco plan and-starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request. • 1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is- necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so.that we can have a better plan for Cupertino's future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards, we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead toa more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco. Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city's planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan, itis impossible to have a EIR done correctly.-. • 2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda-item, the scope of EIR is defined as 2 million square feet of office 800 housing units 600,000 square feet of retail Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer's request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community.outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council,Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city's own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer's request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the'EIR process with the above scope. • 3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is 2 million square feet of office • 600 housing units 3 • 600,000 square feet of retail In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR? Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring? 4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who.prepare the EIR for San Jose. 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready.to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, Yuan Lin 4 L Andrea Sanders From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2015 3:01 PM To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Planning Dept.; David Brandt; Carol Korade;Aarti Shrivastava; City Clerk Subject: Amendment vs. Update - in reference to General Plan and similar documents Amendment VS Update What may have begun as an amendment exercise, has morphed into an update. This is a more than significant problem because the process is still being followed for an amendment... not an update. Significant, BUT avoidable. An amendment to any, document is a minor change or addition. It is undeniable that the document being called Community Vision 2040 is something far more than an amendment. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2000-2020 General Plan An amendment should not change the title or date - an amendment would be a reasonable amount of focused change to an existing document. It would not be a change to the format, majority of content, duration, or name, of the document. UPDATE is more of the appropriate term for the action that was taken related to Cupertino's General Plan. There was no noticing that used the term 'update'. Based on past procedures, an Update would be expected to have a task J force with several open discussion meetings and brainstorming sessions. This has not happened. Cupertino, as a whole, should insist on proceeding in the appropriate way. This can only be done if the December 4, 2014 vote, and the document that that vote resulted in, are rescinded. The 2000-2020 General Plan should remain the city's guiding document - constitution as it has been referred to - until the proposed update can be presented and discussed in the correct manner. Please do what ever is procedurally necessary to create an agenda item referring to the rescission of the vote, and/or document (Resolution 14- and place it on the first possible agenda. Thank you. Lisa Warren PS Amendment n. noun © 1. a motor change in a document ® 2. a change or addition to a legal or statutory document U date v. verb 2 ® 1. make (something) more modern or up to date Synonym modernize, upgrade-, bring up to date, improve, overhaul n. noun • 1. an act of bringing something or someone up to date, or an updated version of something 4 Rescind v. verb • 1. revoke, cancel, or repeal (a law►, order, or agreement) a e eventtlally the e {'a i r c r•S a}J. Synonym : revoke, repeal, cancel, reverse, overturn, overrule, annul, nullify, void, invalidate, quash, abolish, vacate, abrogate 3 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2015 2:27 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Objection to Vallco rezone From:Yunhong Liu [mailto:Yunhong.Liu@wdc.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 16, 2015 2:24 PM To:City Council Subject: Objection to Vallco rezone Dear City Council members, I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve the"budget ElR of Vallco plan-and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request. • 1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so that we can have a better plan for Cupertino's future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards, we can have an effective discussion on the- general plan and hopefully it can lead to a more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco. Moreover, a.proper EIR relies on city's planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan, it_is impossible to have a EIR done correctly. • 2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does.not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as • 2 million square feet of office _ • 800 housing units • 600,000 square feet of retail- Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer's request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council.Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city's own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer's request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the,EIR process with the above scope. i • 3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is 2 million square feet of office • 600 housing units 600,000 square feet of retail In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR? Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring? • 4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose. • 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, Yunhong Liu 2 Andrea Sanders Froin: Peggy Griffin <griffin @compuserve.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 6:27 PM To: City,Council; City Clerk Subject: EIR for Specific Plan and Vallco Dear Mayor Sinks,Vice Mayor Chang, City Council Members and City Clerk, I am writing this.to express my deep concern over starting the EIR process for Vallco for several reasons: 1. The issues revolving around the December adoption of Resolution 14-211 need to be resolved first. The residents of Cupertino and the City Council expressed concern over what exactly is our general plan! As far as the residents are concerned, we do not have a valid general plan. The City Council directed the Staff to produce a red-lined version between the 2005 General Plan and the 2040 Community Vision document because the Council wanted to know exactly what they adopted . The documents produced were not red-lined versions. Even so, the comparison tables created by the Staff show clearly that Community Vision 2040 was way more than "clean-up" and changes required by state law a. There are 2 new chapters that have not even been reviewed! b. Another new chapter(Chapter 2 Specific Plan Areas)that was not even mentioned in the staff comparison tables. c. The Introductions in both versions have not been compared. They list the "guiding principles"for the rest of the document. All 12 have been "edited". d. The word "edited" is used throughout the comparison tables to justify changes that were not as a result of state law or"clean-up". e. Massive numbers of new goals, policies, strategies,etc. 2. Oversight and open bidding—This is a huge and very important development project in Cupertino. We all want it to succeed. Selecting the right company is critical. Having the same consultants appear multiple times for various projects in Cupertino leads people to start to question just how open and competitive the bidding process is on this type of contract. How-many bids were there? Are they the best qualified company? a. P. 16,Task 5, says they will bill for meetings starting March 2015. How can they bill for work done before they have been approved by the City Council? b. Transportation Impact Analysis—data collection before May 31, 2015 (p. 30,Task 2-Data Collection)— was this done before the consultant and the scope was approved by the City Council? c. In the rush to get this"done",are steps being skipped? 3. Scope of the EIR: a. Vallco specific plan—Why is the EIR consultant creating this? Shouldn't this be community lead? Shouldn't Cupertino come up with the specific plan, not a consultant or a developer? There's no community input! They're going to create the specific plan then do an EIR on it? When does the community have input-when it's done? Shouldn't the specific plan exist BEFORE an EIR is done? This process is backwards! b. Traffic—school is out! The traffic pattern has significantly changed. People are on vacation. There's no school traffic in the AM or PM. This needs to be done when school is in session. c. Utilities and Service Systems (p10)—sewer capacity assumptions assume everything is adequate from 'Cupertino Square' so no modeling will be done! They are adding housing and office and we know we're at the limit already. Shouldn't there be modeling done? d. Transportation Impact Analysis—data already collected 1 i. When iwas the data collected? During what periods (summer,winter, etc)? ii. Collecting data before May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day)-Was data collected prior to this work being approved by the City Council? e. Parking—p. 35,Task 11-Evaluate Parking Supply-using..."shared parking"...Ina previous City Council meeting, (can't recall specifics) I recall one of the city council members stating that"shared parking" does not work. The Panera area is an example of it's failure. Please do not use shared-parking to analyze the availability of adequate parking. ASKING: I am asking the City Council to instruct the staff to 1. Scope of the EIR—take more time and solicit input from the community on the scope of the EIR. This is a very important project for Cupertino. Let's do it right! 2. Selection of the EIR consultant—solicit bids and vet out the respondents ASKING: I am asking the City Council to: 1. Look at the GPA Comparison Tables to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes that you approved in December. It was not just"clean-up" and due to"state laws". I respect and admire your dedication to our city. It is not easy to do your jobs. These decisions and actions impact our city for years to come. You, our City Council, are our oversight committee. Please make sure the right decisions are being made. Thank you, Peggy G riffi n - griffin@compuserve.com " 2 Andrea Sanders From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail:com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 10:31 AM To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.;City Attorney's Office; David Brandt Subject: Agenda item 10 Vallco EIR Dear Council members, I am writing express my opposition to start EIR on Vallco with the current project scope. First, I would like to thank the staff for preparing the redline copy of the GPA and inviting public comments to have a deep discussion on the future of our city. I would like to remind the council that this comment period only ends at July 31. Only afterward,we can have a clear vision of the GPA. Vallco as the possible largest mixed-use project has great impact on the future Cupertino. Without clear policy, strategist nailed down in the .GP, it is hard to imagine a proper EIR could be done. Furthermore, the scope of the project for the EIR is very different from community's vision. A lot of residents expressed concerns to the current project scope in different venues. Quite some such comments can.even be found in the Staff Report of May 19 City Council Meeting. To start the EIR based on an assumption far away from vision of majority of residents is going to be a waste of money. Moreover, the current scope is almost identical to the scope used in the recent EIR for GPA (only change is the number of housing units increased from 600 to 800). In the EIR for GPA, impacts on traffic, air pollution and noise are identified as significant and unavoidable. It is also identified that the public infrastructure such as sewer system is at the capacity already and cannot sustain more development. The local school, such as the neighborhood school of Vallco area, Cupertino High will reach 2780 students by 2020 which is 1000 students more than its designed capacity according to the latest FUHSD prediction. I wonder with these clear facts already in hand, what-good can this EIR bring? Will this EIR reach a different conclusion? Right now the urgency is to find a solution to these problem,not to spend money to identify these problems again. Therefore, I don't think now is the time to start a process of Vallco plan. An EIR should only start when we have a clear rule defend in the General Plan and define a scope that is align with vision of residents. Please put this correspondence to the public record of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, Xiaowen Wang 1 Andrea Sanders From: Yu Ying <yu.ying06@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 10:57 AM To: City Council; City Clerk Subject: We should not start Vallco EIR Dear Council members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to start EIR on Vallco with the current project scope. Since the council meeting of 12/04,cupertino residents have been confused about what was city's strategy on Vallco development.The "specific plan"is actually a very vague term,and has been used for the past council meetings to bypass any discussions,and community inputs. Around May 19's council meeting,we,the residents,suddenly knew that there are indeed confusions on the GPA guidelines.In other words, current GPA is a re-write of the 2005 GP,and it has no community input at all yet it was PASSED on Dec 04H There is a strong request from our residents that this GPA should be rescinded.And we know Councilman Barry and Councilman Darcy are supporting the rescind from the 05/19 council meeting.We also know the staff is preparing a redline copy that waits for community input by 07/31. Given the above status,our GPA is not yet acceptable by the residents and some council members.Then,Vallco,as covered by current legal 2005 GP,is a land for retail,NOT a land for housing and offices.Vallco,as being planed in the GPA,should not be put onto the agenda before this GPA is acceptable by residents and all council members.Vallco is in no position to be studied whether to be able to have 800 housing+2 million sqft office.We should not start Vallco EIR study. Please put this correspondence to the public record of June 16,2015 City Council Meeting. Thanks, Yu(Cupertino Residents) 1 Andrea Sanders From: Xiaowen Wang <xiaowenw@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 10:51 AM To: City Clerk; City Council; David Brandt; City Attorney's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Vallco EIR process Dear City Council members, I am writing to express my concerns on the Vallco EIR process. The agenda item 10 on 6/16, 2015 council meeting is about start negotiation and budget of an Vallco EIR. From what I read and the city planning process I followed so far, I have the following concerns. 1. The consultant selection process is not open. According to the staff report, SHP submit the request for EIR on June 4. Then within two weeks, a consultant is nailed down. It does not seem to have an open bidding process for this consultant. With the possible largest mixed use development in city's history, how can there is only one consultant firm be considered? Has the city send invite for other companies to bid? I strongly urge the council to direct the staff to have an open bidding process when we are ready to proceed with the Vallco Specific Plan. Cupertino citizens deserve a quality work. 2. The scope of EIR need to be defined carefully with enough community inputs. It seems the scope of this EIR is purely based on developer's request. This is not what community wants. The EIR's scope should be studied and defined more carefully. Most importantly, for a project with this much complexities, more toptions should be included and studied. It will not be a proper study with only one option in the EIR. I would urge councils to direct staff have a study session on the scope of EIR and invite public inputs in this study. Finally thank council members and city staff for your hard work and dedication. Please add this correspondence to the public record of the City Council Meeting on June 16, 2015. Sincerely yours, Xiaowen Wang J 1 Andrea Sanders From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,June 13, 2015 11:36 AM To: City Clerk; City Council Cc: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com; Darrel Lum Subject: Comments for June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting Attachments: June 162015 agenda 10.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Statins: Flagged Dear Council and Clerk, Please include the attached file in the public comments for Item 10 in the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Please remove this item from the consent list too. Thank you, Randy Shingai • 1 June 13, 2015 Public Comments for Agenda Item 10 June 16, 2015 Cupertino Council Meeting Agenda Item 10 is a request for the Council to approve an agreement with David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. for the preparation of an EIR for a "proposed Vallco Specific Plan Redevelopment Project," There are some disconcerting issues with the timeline for this item.. Dates of Estimates and "Approval"by Sand Hill Properties Attachment A of the Staff-Report is a "Scope of Work and Cost Estimate" from David J. Powers is dated June 9, 2015. Attachment B of its Staff Report is a letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated June 5, 2015. The following was taken from this letter: We have received the contract amount and staff reimbursement amount from you and,will be submitting the necessary funds to the City to fully cover the cost of the contract being approved, including commencing this initial administrative and preparatory work. The letter from Sand Hill Property.Company is dated 4 days before the proposal from David J. Powers. It seems unusual that an entity supposedly being overseen was advised of contract particulars in advance of the actual proposal.from the consultant. A reasonable person would infer that Sand Hill Properties had decision making power over the contract with David J. Powers. One could characterize the letter from Sand Hill Property Company as its formal and explicit approval of the consulting contract that the City Council is now being asked to approve: I would like City Staff to explain what the common practice is with respect to the interactions between City Staff, an entity being overseen and the producer,of EIRs and other supposedly impartial reviews. Work Completed Prior to Approval by Council David J. Powers will enlist the services of another consultant, Fehr& Peers, to conduct the traffic evaluation. Appendix B in the David J. Powers proposal was prepared Fehr & Peers, the traffic subcontractor. Under "Task 2 - Data Collection" in the Fehr & Peers report is the following: We have already collected most necessary intersection count data under a separate contract directly with the City, with the exception of the following five locations: 22. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Torre Avenue-Vista Drive 24. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Portal Avenue 25. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Perimeter Road 32. Miller Avenue/Calle De Barcelona 33. Miller Avenue/Phil Lane As part of this task, we will collect existing AM(7:00 to 10:00 AM)and PM(4:00 to 7:00 PM)peak period intersection counts(including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular turning movement volumes)prior to Memorial Day(May 25th, 2015) when many area schools begin to have irregular schedules due to upcoming summer breaks.. Fehr and Peers performed data collection work prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015). I assume there was some sort of agreement, tacit or otherwise, between the.City and David J. Powers/ Fehr & Peers to pay for work performed in advance of an actual agreement between the City and David J. Powers. If it is considered normal and proper practice for a contractor to perform work for the City in advance of approval by the City Council, then the Council City Council should affirm the practice in its deliberation of this consent item. However, I would suggest that any work performed by a contractor prior to the approval of an agreement by the City Council should not be billable nor should the City accept that work. To do otherwise invites abuse by City employees, because as the saying goes, "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission." Work Already Paid for by the City The Fehr & Peers estimate references work that the City has already paid for. Since the City has paid for work that can be reused to complete the Sand Hill Property EIR, shouldn't Sand Hill Property be required to share the cost of that work with the City? Thank you, Randy Shingai Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 9:44 AM To: City,Clerk Subject: FW:ITEM 16 of 6/16 council meeting From: Binbin Tan [mailto:bbtan99@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 9:42 AM To: City Council Subject:ITEM 16 of 6/16 council meeting Dear City Council members, I-am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting, AND HOPE YOU, AS ELECTED OFFICIAL, LISTEN TO THE VOTERS INSTEAD OF SPECIAL INTERESTS. This agenda item asks to approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following,are the reasons of my request. • 1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so that we can have a better plan for Cupertino's future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards, we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead to a more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco. Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city's planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan, it is impossible to have a EIR done correctly. • 2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as • 2 million square feet of office • 800 housing units • 600,000 square feet of retail Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer's request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city's own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer's request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope. � 1 • ;040, 3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision which is • 2 million square feet of office • 600 housing units • 600,000 square feet of retail In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then,what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR? Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring? • 4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant,happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose. • 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on'a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, Binbin 2 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 8:55 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Regarding EIR on Vallco - it is too early to discuss this Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From:Jim Li [mailto:jim_li@ymail.com] Sent:Sunday,June 14,2015 9:42 AM To:City Council Cc: Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong Subject: Regarding EIR on Vallco- it is too early to discuss this Dear Mayor and City Council members, I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the-consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. Our city and the-residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Regards, Jim J ,s Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 8:54 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Stong objection to Vallco rezoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: charles kong [mailto:charles_kong@yahoo.com] Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2015 9:32 AM To:City Council Subject:Stong objection to Vallco rezoning Dear City Council members, I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request. 1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the.council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so that we can have a better plan for Cupertino's future. I'applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards, we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead to a more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco. Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city's planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to-the new General Plan, it is impossible to have a EIR done correctly. • 2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as 2 million square feet of office • 800 housing units 600;000 square feet of retail Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer's request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city's own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer's request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is 'premature to start the EIR process with the above scope. ® 3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is i 2 million square feet of office e 600 housing units 6 600,000 square feet of retail i In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity . around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR? Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring? •" 4. The bidding process-of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose. • 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, Charles z�1 Android Yahoo 2 Andrea Sanders From: C. F <cfu000@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday,June 12, 2015 12:53 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Some questions for the City Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed H i, Please redirect the questions the related parties, many thanks. Q1: This is regarding item 10 on the June 16 council meeting agenda: Approval of consultant services for environmental review for a Specific Plan and project in the Vallco Shopping District Planning Area." From the description of the packet, it seems this item is the result of.the General Plan passed on 12/04/14; yet my impression from the council meeting on 05/19/15 is the General Plan (or at least the Valco-area-related part?) will be under review, so it is not decided yet if the proposed zoning changes will even happen in the end. The question is, should that be the case, what the Environment Impact Report will be based off? With or without the proposed zoning changes? Logically should not this item be held off until the final decision is made on exactly what will happen at Valco?. Q2: This is regarding procedures on how the City approves construction projects (and/or modifications to them) It was quite a while back, yet during one of the council meeting regarding the Town Center (or Heart of Cupertino - whatever it is called) project, only senior-housing was proposed on-site - I remembered distinctively the representative of the developer came on to the podium and specifically announced that they will withdraw all other forms of housing on the spot. Now a few years later, when the project is close to completion, not only there are market-rate high density housing on site,the office buildings go from 3-story to 4-story as well, which are not what originally proposed and agreed upon. The question is how to proceed to put the following on the council agenda that, for future construction projects; should there be materially deviation from what was originally approved, public hearings must be held, with no less than certain number (say 150) of Cupertino residents present and discussed, i before the changes can be put on the council's agenda. Q3: This is regarding the (cafe) tables/chairs that keep changing places outside of the library. They are trip hazards, I was almost tripped over once by a chair hidden behind a column. In the worst case, should someone is hurt because of this, who will be help liable?The coffee shop or the City? First of all, is it permitted to have those things lying around on City(?) property? If it is permitted, and if I really want to challenge it, it is OK to place two-ton rocks anywhere in the plaza and blocking traffic as well? I can.understand the need to have some outdoors eating around the coffee shop, yet they should be limited to be around the coffee shop and out of the way for normal traffic. Yet every time I went to the library, they changed locations, sometimes as far as the fountains which are popular for kids during summer months. f I really believe this need to be addressed before someone gets hurt.. Thank you. Charles Fu 2 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B.Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 11:58 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Delay Vallco EIR From:Yan Dong [mailto:yandongus@gmail.com] Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2015 1:37 PM To:City Council Subject: Delay Vallco EIR Delay Vallco EIR Dear City Council members, I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you-all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request. • 1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general.plan so that we can have a better plan for Cupertino's future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is-open for public comments and public comments period ends on July-31. Only afterwards,we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead to amore clear vision for the future development. Without this-clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco. Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city's planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan,it is impossible to have a EIR done correctly. • 2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item,the scope of EIR is defined as 2 million square feet of office • 800 housing units 600,000 square feet of retail Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer's request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city's own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer's request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope. • 3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is 1 2 million square feet of office • 600 housing units • 600,000 square feet of retail In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR,public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very.obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then,what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR? Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring? _ • 4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor'is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose. ;and 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco,there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco..All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours, Yan Dong Sent from my iPhone 2 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15,2015 11:56 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zon From: ron.skywalker@gmail.com [mailto:ron.skywalker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lai Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2015 8:33 PM To: City Council Subject: Rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zon Cupertino City Council Members, -On Dec. 3, 20-1.4,-alI cou-ncil members a-greed that-only GPA.-items'related--to -Housing Element was going to be discussed. However in the resolution 14-211 passed. after lam on Dec. 4, not only the whole general plan has been totally rewritten but also 2 million office space was temporarily allocated to Vallco site. Both decisions have no direct relationship to the Housing Element. Therefore, I would strongly urge the council to rescind the vote for 14-211: have, more community outreach for changes in GPA, and keep Vallco zoning to retail only. Regards, ron l Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 12:00 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: item 10 of the June 16,2015 City Council Meeting. From: Msgtolinda [mailto:msgtolinda@yahoo.com] Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2015 7:52 AM To:City Council Subject: item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Dear City_Council-members, _ I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to apprDear City Council members, I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve-the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. 5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments_around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate. In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope. Finally, I would like to put this-correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Sincerely yours Linda hu (408) 858 8706 Sent from my iPhone , 1 Andrea Sanders' \ From: Karen B. Guerin Sent:, Monday,June 15, 2015 12:00 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Request to delay Vallco EIR From:Xiangchen Xu [mailto:minnaxc99@gmail.com] Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2015 12:30 AM To:City Council Subject: Request to delay Vallco EIR Dear City Council members, I just heard Vallco EIR will be discussed in 6/16 city council meeting. I simply can't understand why you start to deal with Vallco plan so early. If my understanding is right, city council is going to review GPA after 07/31. Once the GPA was denied, Vallco specific plan shouldn't be passed. So, I don't think it's a good timing to put Vallco EIR on agenda in June. Please delay Vallco EIR discussion and vote. I also hope you can put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Thank you very much! Sincerely yours, Xiangchen Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 2:43 PM ; To: City Clerk Subject: FW:Vallco -----Original Message----- From: Shantanu Patwardhan [mailto:shantanupatwardhan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,June-15, 2015 1:35 PM To:City Council Subject:Vallco Dear Council members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to start EIR on Vallco-with the current project scope. Since the council meeting of 12/04,cupertino residents have been confused about what was city's strategy on Vallco development.The "specific plan" is actually a very vague term, and has been used for the past council meetings to bypass any discussions, and community inputs. Around May 19's council meeting,we,the residents,.suddenly knew that there are indeed confusions on the GPA guidelines. In other words,current GPA is a re-write of the 2005 GP,and it has no community input at all yet it was PASSED on Dec 04!!There is a strong request from our residents that this GPA should be rescinded.And we know Councilman Barry and Councilman Darcy are supporting the rescind from the 05/19 council meeting.We also know the staff is preparing a redline copy that waits for community input by 07/31. Given the above status,our GPA is not yet acceptable by the residents and some council members.Then,Vallco,as covered by current legal 2005 GP, is a land for retail, NOT a land for housing and offices. Vallco, as being planed in the GPA,should not be put onto the agenda before this GPA is acceptable by residents and all council members. Vallco is in no position to be studied whether to be able to have 800 housing+2 million sqft office.We should not start Vallco EIR study. Please put this correspondence to the public record of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. Thanks, Shantanu 1 Andrea Sanders From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 2:43 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Public comment: City Council meeting 6/16/2015:Agenda item #10 "Approval of consultant services for environmental review for...Vallco" From: Eric Schaefer[mailto:eschaefe@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 1:15 PM To:City Council Subject: Public comment: City Council meeting 6/16/2015:Agenda item #10 "Approval of consultant services for environmental review for...Vallco" Council members, Authorizing EIR for Vallco seems premature. -There has been little or no public feedback re: Sand Hill's specific plan. -There is currently confusion among the public(and the City?) regarding GP amendments that were passed in Dec. 2014. -Spending money on a plan that has not been vetted gives the plan unwarranted legitimacy. -Spending money on a plan that has not been vetted is a waste of money if the plan turns out to be a plan that is not to the liking of Cupertino. Thank you for your consideration. Eric Schaefer 1 Andrea Sanders From: Min-yi Li <john_vico.m@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 12:13 PM To: Darcy Paul Subject: Keep Vallco retail only Dear Sir, I strongly urge all city council members to rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zone. Thanks, Min-yi Li 7501 barnhart place - Cupertino, CA 95014 ; r 1 Andrea Sanders From: Min-yi Li <john_vicom@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 12:11 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan Subject: Keep Vallco retail only Hi, I strongly urge all city council members to rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zone. Rescind 14-211 vote---2 million sqft office space sounds too much! Thanks, Min-yi Li 7501 barnhart place Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Andrea Sanders From: Min-yi Li <john_vicom@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 12:10 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Keep Vallco retail only Dera Sir, I strongly urge all city council members to rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zone. Thanks, Min-yi Li 7501 barnhart place Cupertino, CA 95014 i Andrea Sanders From: Min-yi Li <john_vicom@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 12:09 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Keep Vallco retail only Dear Sir I strongly urge all city council members to rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zone. Thanks, Min-yi Li 7501 barnhart place Cupertino, CA 95014 . 1 Andrea Sanders From: Min-yi Li <john_vicom@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:08 PM To: Rod'Sinks Subject: Keep Vallco retail only Dear Sir, I strongly urge all city council members to rescind the vote for 14-211 and keep Vallco as retail only zone. Thanks, Min-yi Li 7501 barnhart place. Cupertino, CA 95014 i