Exhibit CC 07-05-2016 Item No. 11 Elections Code 9212 Report on Proposed Vallco Initiative - Oral Communications7/5/20 16 Print
Subject: Vallco Initiative Ballot Question Importance -this email to be included in public comments/public records July 5 ,
:::
6
warren () {:~ ! A f tJda_ /cj{ !(} J J
cityclerk@cupertino.org; dpaul@cupertino.org ; savitav@cupertino.org; gwong@cupertino.org ; e { V<'.?'v-e.!)
rsinks@cupertino.org;
From:
To:
Cc: Juel; 6 1 20/,h
I C!h CJa!Jri/;U Date: Tuesday, July 5 , 2016 12 :09 AM
City Council members,
cc 7 /~/lb
-#( Please read prior to July 5, 2016 CC meeting.
this email to be included in public comments/public records July 5, 2 1Q.+~-------
a bo ut:b lank
Well informed residents have been discussing what is
appropriate for the Vallco initiative ballot question/language.
There is a consensus that the ballot question should absolutely
include the maximum possible height of the project referred to
as "The Hills at Vallco" and "VaHco Town Center Specific Plan"
and the related initiative.
Regardless of the location and number of buildings/structures
that would rise to the maximum height, the maximum height
must be included in the question to voters. The initiative is
vague and a clearly defined 'total' height must be identified.
There are actually two interpretations of what this total height
could be. That needs to be clarified and the actual height in
feet needs to be included in the ballot question.
Referring to the 9212 report of this initiative, footnote #105
on page 64 of the report states the following:
"The Specific Plan identifies a maximum building height of 95
feet (four to six stories tall) on the east side of North Wolfe
Road. The maximum building height on the west side of North
Wolfe would be 80 feet with a maximum building height of 65
feet for buildings along the western edge of the site. The top of
the roofs, which would include mechanical equipment, would
be up to 25 feet above the maximum building height. Rooftop
pavilions would be no greater than 24 feet in height."
Some read this and conclude that the maximum height of the
project would be 120 feet. Another, perhaps more accurate,
calculation is that the maximum height would be 144 feet.
PLEASE request clarification from the authors of 9212 report
and the city attorney. And please also try to find the answer
from the documents on your own. This is ob v iously very
1/3
7/5/2016 Print
important.
The 'green roof' is elevated from the actual buildings so
maximum building height is NOT the answer. The actual height
of the GRADE of an elevated green roof AND then anything
built upon that grade MUST be part of the total calculation .
Footnote #105 indicates these numbers : 95 ft max building height, then the
25 ft max above that for roofs and mechanical equipment. AND the
Rooftop pavilions no greater than 24 ft in height. I have obvious concerns when a
descriptive footnote shows that what is referred to as a 'building' does
not include a 'roof'
So is the actual maximum project height 95 + 25 +24 =
144 feet ?!?!?
Meaning that building alone with it's actual self contained
attached building roof would be max 95.... THEN the 'gap'
between the building roofs and the elevated Green Roof
(including the top layer, I guess) could be up to 25 ft
above that AND THEN the rooftop pavilions could be as high
as 24 ft.
In the ballot question, the "total building height" could be
used instead of "building height" as defined in the Vallco
Initiative, since the voters will interpret "total building
height" as the common sense meaning of including both
elevated roof and all stacked buildings.
The ballot question should NOT mention "the number of
stories" since the Vallco Initiative said "typically 4 to 6
stories", but it varies and does not at all define actual
height. The total building height would give voters
"true and impartial" description of the project.
You have probably received other communications regarding the
need to add maximum (total) building height to the VSPI ballot
question. I believe that the portion of the ballot question as it
relates to actual maximum allowable project height should be as
follows -
"Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco Town
Center Specific Plan for the 58 -acre Vallco Shopping
District Special Area
a bout: blank 213
7/5/2016 Print
............................................. establishing the
maximum total building height of 144 feet and
?"
• • I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •
----OR---
"sha11 an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan for the 58-
acre Vallco Shopping District Special Area
............................................. establishing the maximum project height of 144
feet and ................................................. ?"
--unless proven without a doubt (prior to adoption of the VSPI ballot question language)
that the total maximum is 120 feet in which case that number should substitute the 144
figure .
Again, I request that this email message and all that it contains, be made part of the
packet for the July 5, 2016 Cupertino City Council meeting and a permanent part of
public record on the subject of Vallco Specific Plan Initiative and Hills at Vallco.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
Cupertino Resident
about: blank 313
~ Missing from the EC9212 report -"Council must demand an EIR from
developer due to the magnitude of project size" (Presented by Phyllis Dickstein)
My first thought about this report is that a lot of it is a travesty, prepared by the
Council's :friendly consultants. Although there is some attempt to point out problems,
such as how the Initiative ties the Council's hands in significant respects, most of it is a
whitewash, with constant references to "mitigation measures" to end discussion of every
issue. Actually, the problem starts at the very beginning, with tables purporting to show
how the allocations requested in the Initiative conform to the General Plan. How could
they not, when the Plan allocations themselves were adopted during the infamous
middle-of-the-night coup of December 4 2014, precisely in order to accommodate Sand
Hill's earlier expressed demands? This is clearly disingenuous.
But, the main issue here is, how can such a massive project possibly be allowed to
proceed without a full-scale environmental review? There are a number of areas where
mitigation is questionable, sometimes dependent on what is done by entities beyond our
control. How can you mitigate traffic on 280 without building additional lanes, and
where is the land for that? How can you ensure a stable water supply in the future when
we are told to watch how we brush our teeth now? How safe is a green roof built on an
incline, with trees, in an earthquake zone?
In view of the magnitude of this mega-project, the Council must seek every legal means,
including a court order if necessary, to obtain a full-scale EIR, prepared by a reputable,
impartial firm that has not previously done business with the City or with Sand Hill.
Perhaps in the interests of time and budget, the paleontological resources, etc. can be
given short shrift, but there needs to be a thorough review of traffic, air quality, water
supply and seismological impacts.
~ Enforceability of the community benefits (Presented by Brooke Ezzat)
(Read only the parts in black and red , skip the lines in grey )
Page 44 of the Valko 9212 Report discusses the enforceability of the community
benefits , even the donation agreements with the school districts: A -9212 Rep01i,
Take away from this section: The 50,000 sf space for civic services is merely a goal ,
n ot a r equirement of Vallco Initiative.
Even one of the requirements, like the donation agreement for $40 million for school
districts, it could be challenged in court.
"A court would likely find this requirement legally invalid ... despite the
existence of separate, voluntary donation agreements."
The Initiative does not require a development agreement for Vallco. But even with a
development agreement it is only enforceable if the City is willing to sue the developer
for non-compliance.
"As discussed in more detail above in Section III.A , most of these community benefits.
including the green roof, education, and transportation benefits , are required by th e
Initiative . (footnote 75) As a result , the City could not approve an application for
MDSP or ASR if the proposed project did not provide these benefits."
Footnote 75: The main exceptions we re for th e community b en efi ts tha t are specifically
framed as "goals'· (s uch as the LEED certificati on) or as so mething that cou ld be provided as
an op tio n if the d eve lop er and the City ag re ed (s uch a s the option for up to an additional 50.000
square feet ci vic bui lding). See Chapter III.A.2(c) of this Report.
=>So , the 50,000 squ are feet for civ ic se rvices is m ere l y an optional "goal ," not a req uirem ent
of Vallco Initiative. No te that th.is is in ad dition to the 5,000 SF space for non-profits , which is
a 34-year charitable lease.
"The Init iative provides that t h ese benefits can be required either as co ndi tio ns of approva l or by
en ter in g a "deve lop me nt agree m ent."
'·Hov,;ever, the Initiative does not require a developer of th e Valko area to enter into such a
development agreement, and ne ith e r do es Stat e law. If for a ny reaso n, th e C ity and the
deve loper(s) of the Valko area do not e nter in to such a d eve lopment agr eem e nt, th e C it y ma y need
or w ish to require th e de ve lo per(s) to provide at least some of the com munity ben e fit s spec ifi ed in
the Initiative through '"lhat are co1ru1101ily referred to as "conditions of appro val. "77
"Und er these standard s, there i s a question as to whe ther the C ity could legall y compel th e
developer to provide at least one of th e Initi at ive's primary c01ru11w1.ity b enefits, if impo se d as a
condi tion of approval. Specifically, the Initiative states the community benefits for local schoo ls
"shall be va lued in the aggregate at no less than 10 times the lega ll y required amount , which would
represent a total financia l contribution of approx ima te ly $40 million. "'78
The report says: "In short, the Initiative's requirement for the owner/developer of the
Vallco area to provide '10 times the legally required amount' of funding for education
benefits raises serious and potentially complex legal issues. As a practical matter, those
legal issues ultimately may not affect the City's ability to enforce these provisions."
However, if a legal challenge was brought to these provisions, and a court
determined that the challenger had standing to raise the issue (despite the existence
of separate, voluntary donation agreements). A court would likely find this
requirement legally invalid.
~ Insufficient Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure, compared with typical
requirements during standard project approval
The issue was unfortunately buried in an appendix: A-5 -Appendix 5 (9212
Environmental Analysis). The 9212 report itself lists every provisions of the initiative
as "benefits." The truth is hidden in the appendix. The Environmental Analysis in
Appendix 5 compares each with what a project of this side would typically be required
to provide and conclude whether it simply meets the normal standard or exceeds it.
For a project boasting about walk-ability and bike-ability, it doesn't even provide
sufficient biking infrastructure to be normally required by the standard project approval
process. The 9212 report itself minimizes such insufficiencies. Fortunately, one of the
consultants who prepared the "Environmental Analysis" did his homework.
For bike and pedestrian infrastructure, only 50% of the require bicycle parking spaces
are provided. During the standard project approval, the City would typically require
much more than the provisions offered by the Valko Initiative: the potential donation
of $6 million for the construction of I-280 trail and other improvements. Furthermore,
the impact analysis and require improvements typically done during standard project
approval are likely skipped since the Vallco Initiative waives such requirements during
project approval and delays them to "the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy."
As a result, a project in the Valko Specific Plan area would likely start construction
without any analysis of bike and pedestrian infrastructure or any plan for improvement.
);;;> Under-reporting the proposed Initiative barely meeting typical mitigation
required during standard approval process (Presented by Sashi Begur)
Table 4 in Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis) lists whether Valko Initiative
provides mitigation measures (so-called benefits) beyond typically required mitigation
measures during standard approval process.
Table 4: Suunnary of VTCSP EDF Consistency ·with City's Typical Mitigation or
Conditions of Approval
Compared to the City's ty pical mitigation or conditions
Environmental Resource of approval, the VTCSP EDF(s) are:
In Excess Consistent Inconsistent
Infrastructure
• Transportation
-Intersection Level of Service x
-Freeway Level of Service x
-Transit Facilities x
-Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities x
-Parking* x
-Neighborhood Intrnsion x
-Safety Hazards and Access ibility x
-Construction-Related x
• School Services x
• Parks/Open Space x
Other Public Senices
• Police Se rvi ce s x
• Fire Services x
• Library Services x
Utilities and Serrice Systems
• Wastewater Treatment/ Sanitaiy Se\ver x
System
• Water x
• Energy x
Other Environmental Issues
• Aesthetics/Conunuuity Fom1 x
• Air Quality x
• Biolo gical Resources
-Birds and Trees x
-Nitrogen Deposition x
• Cultural Resources x
• Geology and Soils x
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions x
• Hazai·ds atld Hazardous Materials x
• Noise x
No tes: * The consistency of the parking for the Specific Plan is ba sed on th e nlllllber of parking spaces identified in the
Specific Plan, rather than an EDF. No EDF was identified for parking.
Refer to the body of the report for the complete discussion of the VTCSP EDFs consistency with the City 's typical mitigation
or conditions of approval.
"In Excess" for School Services is due to $40 million donation to school districts.
"In Excess" for Police, Fire, Library services is due to that they might share a portion of
the 5,000 sf civic space, already shared with non-profits, like Cupertino Historic Society.
Most items are under "Consistent," which means Valko Initiative just provided bare
minimum mitigation measures. So, any contribution, like fair share contribution of $30
million, is not "benefit" since it is simply a requirement for project approval.
Notice that Intersections Level of Service and Parking are listed as "Inconsistent,"
which means the mitigation measures identified are far from the typical requirements
during standard approval process.
Even when the table says "Consistent" with typically required of standard approval
process , often the provisions in Vallco Initiative is far from sufficient.
Freeway Level of Service is one example. $30 million fair share contribution includes
$26 million that covers 25% fair share of the construction cost of expanding I-
280/Wolfe exit. Only $4 million covers the expansion of other segments ofl-280. With
so many freeway segments affected, include highways 85 and 101 , $4 million is token
change. So, the mitigation for Freeway Level of Service should be "insufficient". It is
just ridiculous that Sand Hill is now claiming $30 million donation for freeway
expansion as a "benefit."
Neighborhood Intrusion is one example. It 's used to mitigation potential traffic impact
for smTounding neighborhoods. The report quotes:
"There is a potential for vehicles traveling to and from the VTCSP to divert to
Blaney A venue, Portal A ven ue , Finch A venue , and Ta ntau A venue to avoid
potential congestio n on Stevens Creek Boul evard , De A nza Boulevard , and Wolfe
Road . The VTCSP includes the following EDF to reduce neighborhood intrusion:"
"the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for
future development shall provide up to $300,000 for the City of Cupe1iino for
potential neighborhood traffic improvements."
There -$300,000 sounds good? But Apple Campus 2 provided $7 5 0,000 for
neighborhood intrusion. So, $300,000 is not even 50°/o of what A pple has provid e d .
Totally inadequate!
);;;> NO CHECK for infrastructure capacity prior to project approval
(Presented by Y anping Zhao)
(R ead o nl y the parts in bl ack a nd re d , sk ip th e lines in g rey)
Valko Town Center Specific Plan Initiative is NOT a project proposal. The Specific
Plan is a part of the General Plan that provides guidelines for future development in a
specific area. Any project proposed for the Valko Specific Plan area still has to follow
Municipal Code and other ordinances unless WAIVED or CHANGED by Vallco
Initiative.
Valko Initiative waives the standard requirements for project approval in two ways :
• Dec lare the area as a special zoning "Valko Town Center Zone ." Then, any
existing municipal code for mixed use zoning doesn't apply to Valko site . All
projects in Vallco site only need to comply with Valko Specific Plan.
• D ela y req ui re d checks for infrastructure capacity "prior to issuance of
occupancy permit" (or other permit), instead of "prior to development
approval", as typically required for standard project approval. App end ix 5 of
V allc o 9212 R eport has details on these exceptions:
• evaluate queue lengths at intersections and id entify improvements (page 14)
• determine sewer system capacity and identify necessary improvements prior (page 26) -
Si nce the sewer capac ity is already exceeded und e r wet weather condition, there is a need to
"requ ire the construction of a parallel pipe to the ex isting 15-inch sewer main in Nort h
Wo lfe Road," but this is not addressed in the initiative .
• determine water supply availabi lity and identify necessary improvements (page 29)
• require e nviro nm enta l analysis of uti lit y improv e m e nt s (such as the extension of th e
recycled water line) proposed to serve a developmen t (page 29)
More items are delayed to "prior to issuance of permits (or certificate of
occupancy)" instead of "during standard project approval process."
• review a project's impact on bicycle and pedestrian quality of service during the standard
approval process and id entify additional impro vements. (page 18 of Append ix 5)
• analyze impacts on intersections level of service and id entify mitigation measures. (page 14
of Appendix 5)
• analyze impacts on freeway level of service and identify mitigation measures. (page 16 of
Appendix 5)
>-Extremely Insufficient Mitigation for Intersections Level of Service
The Executive Summary, written by Seifel Consulting, Inc .. tries to cover up the
woefully insufficient provisions by Vallco Initiative.
Under Benefits and Design Features:
Transpmiation-Provide $6 million to the City for a bike/pedestrian trail along I-
280; construct or fund additional improvements to pedestrian and bike trails
throughout the Plan Area; and make a fair-share financial contribution of $30
million for freeway infrastructure, along with other significant transit and
circulation improvements.
Potential effects and impacts:
Potentially create some significant environmental impacts (such as traffic impacts),
although the City would likely be able to address these impacts when processing
subsequent approvals through required mitigation, application of a Transportation
Mitigation Fee Program (TMFP), or conditions of approvals.
However , the EIR consultants and traffic consultants do include details and it shows
insufficient mitigation for traffic and inconsistent with the City's code. And usually the
mitigations of impacts should be identified and improvements determined prior to
project approval. Vallco Initiative would only require these mitigation measures done
prior to issuance of occupancy permit. In most intersections with significant impact, NO
mitigation measures are identified. It is "likely" that the City might require mitigation
when processing project approval; however, it is also "likely" that the city couldn't
require these mitigations that are typically identified and implemented during standard
approval process.
Table 111.2 (Page 59 and 60 in 9212 report) be low shows that for almost every item,
Valko Initiative either d idn't provide an y mi t igat ion or the m iti gation prov ided
insufficient or inconsistent w ith what t he C ity typ ically requir es during standard
approval process.
Tab le 111.2
Summary of Inte rsection Impa cts and Imp rov ements Identified by the Ci ty and in the EA
Compared to th e Ctt y's mitigation or con ditions of
Identifi ed by approv al unde r the sta nd ard approval process ,
Sig nificantly App lic able the Specific Plan EDF(s) are:'
Impacted Spec~lc Plan Partially Co mments'
Intersecti on EDFs' Consistenl Consistent Con sistenl Inconsistent City EA and but but or Insufficient Su~icienl Insufficient Ins ufficient
Stevens Creek
9 Boulevardllawrence
Expressway Ra mps • •
(we sl)
Lawrence Expresswa y/
10 ~280 South boun d • •
Ramos lnterseClions 9-13: No EDFs addressing these inte raections were included beca use no inpac ts
11 Lawrence • • were identified in the EA . The City "1>Uld req u•e paymenl of fair -share co ntribution s to plan ned
Exoresswav/Mrttv Wav imp rovements at these intersections. Reier to Appen di x 5 for additional discussi on _
Lawrence
t2 Expressway/Bollin ger • • Road
Lawrence
t3 Exp ressway/Doyle • •
Road
Lmvrence Intersections M and t5· VTCSP EDF 56 is con sistent ~i th ~!lat the City wou ld typica ny require
t4 Expressway/P rospect • 56 • as a result of the sl andard approval process . but insufficient because fair share conlribuOOns
Road wou ld be based on a tr ip genera tion esti mate approved by the Crty and for an signifrcanUy
unoac ted intersecti ons identified bv lhe Otv on Lawrencs Ex oresswa y
Lawrence EDF 55 is consistent with wha l the City 11<>uld typicaG y requ ire. Refer to AppendU 5 for ad di ti:>nal 15 Expressway/S aratoga • 55 • Avenue discussion .
SR 85 (northV Intersection 16 · No EO Fs addre ssing these intersections were ind uded beca use no impacts
t6 Sarat oga Avenue • • were identifred in the EA. The City would require a fair-share CO<l lnoution taNerds an
improve ment at th is intersection_ Refer to Appendix 5 for additional discussion.
a_ Spe ci fi c Plan EDF 52, the preparat ion and implemen tation of a Transpo.-lation Demand Management Plan that would reduce pea k-ho ur office lrip s, rs applica ble to all of the above inl ersections
and is oonstslenl Ynth what the City wo uld typically req ui re to reduce rn lersectioo and freeway rmpacls under the standard appiwal process . Specifi c Plan EDF 52 alone would not full y mitrgale
impa cts al any of lhe above intersecltons , however_
b. As discussed in Section Ill.A 4.d, the City would likely have the ability and authority lo undertake envi ronment al review with respec l to the req uired subsequent approva ls and requ ire mitigal ion as
appropr iate. In addition, subsequent approvals wou ld be subject to the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program discussed in Section 111.E.1 when adopted .
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis) also identified potential problem w ith the
Transpmiation Demand Management Plan used in Vallco Initiative since there is not
way to monitor whether the TDM reached the "target" of 30 percent reduction in
vehicle trips. There is no penalty at all if the target is not achieved . All that Valko
Initiative requires is one TDM manager is hired. No supervision nor performance
requirement for the TDM.
Overall, Sand Hill's Valko project will create huge negative impact in many
intersections and the initiative didn't provide any or sufficient mitigation and the
initiative removed the requirement to identify mitigation measures prior to project
approval.
~ Sand Hill's Water Supply Plan is in direct conflict with the conservation
program in the City and state (Presented by Cathy Yue Wang)
The only amenity that's required in the Valko Initiative is the 30-acre rooftop park, but
there is no requirement to keep it "green" or living. Y es , w e oft en fac e wa t er short a ge !
The gigantic hole in its plan is where Sand Hill would get the 83,000 gallons per day to
water the much hyped "Green Roof' in this drought-prone region. It is stated that
they'd use recycled water, but the only recycled water system is owned and operated by
the City of Sunnyvale, with only lines on the north side ofl-280. There is a huge
disconnect in this plan.
All that's promised is that Sand Hill will "partner" with other agencies to initiate the
effort. But they didn't even promise funding for that one.
Furthermore, the report failed to mention the alarming arborist report in the
Environmental Study, apparently the high ion content in recycled water is not so great
for plants , so the arborist suggests two water systems on the roof, one for recycled and
one with potable.
The 9212 report quotes something from its appendix about recycled water:
61. Recycled Water Line Extension: Prior to the issuance of final occupancy permit s
ror 500,000 square feet of office space. the Town Center/ Community Park applicant
and other project applicants for future development shall provide to the
Director or Public Works a status update ol'the Santa Clara Valley Water
District's Wolfe Road Recycled Water Facilities Project. Once the Wolfe Road
Recycled Water Facilities Project is complete north to 1-280 , the applicant shall
initiate the design, permitting and construction of the recy cled line extension
across 1-280 to Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
"Hills at Vallco" would have to use potable water or fresh water for years before
supply lines could be built and connected to Valko, provided a multi-agency
consortium, including the City of Cupertino, could reach such an agreement. Currently,
there is no plan, design or needed funding for it.
Sand Hill's backup watering strategy to use rainwater is even more amusing and absurd.
It appears to be a cut-and-paste "Swiss cheese" copied from a proposal originally
written for a city in the Midwest or East Coast. lt talks about storing rain water for
usmg 111 summer. \.Vhere would Sand Hill build a large reservoir for that? A Sand Hill
manager stated that it would be between floors under the roof. That is not documented
as a real plan, is it?
C-164 from initiative: ''Drought resistant trees and large shrubs will be irrigated
with a drip system using a combination of potable and recycled water, and meadows
will be spray irrigated during active growth periods between November and March
when normal rains are insufficient. Additionally, meadows will be occasionally
irrigated dming the summer months to create a defensive zone against wi ldfire."
>-The myth of Ample water supply in Cupertino
The most glaring part of EC-9212, other than the faulty analyses of worsening traffic
problems, is its water supply analysis in Appendix A-5, Section 2.2.3.2 Water (p.24)
Evidently, the authors are convinced by the developer that there is ample water not only
for the proposed Vallco office park, but also for everyone, citing "all needs of all
existing customers and other anticipated future customers for a normal, single dry
year and multiple dry year conditions will be able to be met."
Just a while ago, Item#8 was "2016/2017 regulations restricting water use" -
hmmm --it is kind of ironic, isn't it?
It appears that Governor Brown and the rest of us didn 't get that memo. The mandatory
water cut-back during the recent drought was totally unnecessary!
Description from RcvitalizeVallco.com site below:
During the CEQA process for The Hills at Valko. which preceded the Initiative, the
City of Cupertino prepared a detailed Water Supply Assessment pursuant to California
Senate 8ill 610. This report is provided to supplement the ana lysis contained in the E/\.
Conducted by the Clllifornia \Yater Service, this \Yater Supply Assessment concluded
that throughout the 20-year period studied (2015 -2035 ), there will be
adequate water supplies to meet projected demands of the redevelopment as proposed.
Additionally. all needs of all existing customers and other anticipated future customers
for a normal. single dry year and multiple dry year conditions will be able to be met.
Pause here and show the picture
Bottom line, this 9212 report is a poorly constructed patch work that is no way to justify
paying a staggering $180,000 for. We recommend that the City demands a full refund
from the non-performing consultants. Thank you.
~ Suggested ballQtlabdJab.9 knowp as the "ballot question") from the City
Attorney: (Presented by Minna Xu)
Do not Read the foil owing ballot question at the council meeting
Only refer to it for the record
"S hall an initiative be adopted enacting the Valko Town Center Specific Plan
for the 58-acre Valko Shopping District Special Area requiring r es idential
(approximately 3 89 -800 units , including approximately 20% senior housing),
office (2,000,000 sf), commercial (640,000 sf), hotel, park, civic/educational
uses; requiring fundin g/c ommunity benefits for transportation (approximate ly
$30,000,000), school s (approximate ly $40,000,000), green roof (approximately
30 acres), recycled water; granting initial entitlements; establishing
development standards and limited future approval pro cess; and making related
Cupertino General P lan and Municipal Code amendments?''
*The total number of words in the ballot question (80) is greater the 75-
word limit specified in Elections Code 905l(b)
./ 9051 (b) The ballot label shall not contain more than 75 word s and shall be
a condensed version of the ballot title and summary including the financial
impact summary prepared pursuant to Section 9087 of this code and Section
88003 of the Government Code.
~ Suggested revision to the "baJh>t q11estioJI~~:
• Remove all references to "community benefits"
../ The only reason for the use of the term "community benefits" would be a
way to identify that these project attributes represented as "benefits" are
actually token or trivial contributions to much larger costs that the
community will bear later.
./In May 2015, the City abandoned the Community Benefits Program. The
20 October 2015 GPA (Community Vision 2015 -2040) removes
strategies that were associated with the Community Benefits Program and
the agenda packet for the 20 October 2015 City Council meeting includes
guidance items to clean up General Plan language associated with the
Community Benefits Program.
"Under 'C orrections ' ...
e. Policy LU-1.3 (Commun ity Benefits Program) and associated Strategies
LU-1.3 .1 through LU-1.3 .3 wh ich were removed since the Counc il decided
on May 19, 2 015 not to adopt the program;" (PDF p 235)
"5. Internal consistency
These changes relate to the following:
a. Changes that resu lt in the removal of lan guage due to th e de letion of
Po li cy LU-1.3 (Commun it y Benefits Program) and its associated strategi es
in th e Land Use Element. These changes app ear thsoughout the Land Use
Element and include policies LU-15 .1.3 , LU-16 .1.3, LU-19.1.9 , LU-3.2
(Building Heights and Setback Ratios), LU-23.4, LU-2 0.3; "(PDF p 236)
~ Suggested revision to the ballotq uefiliru!_:
• Add "creating Valko Specific Plan Zoning"
../ Since it is unique and relevant to the voter decision to approve or reject
the ballot measure
~ Features that should N O T appear in the ballot question:
(Presented by Joan Chin)
• Do not include "shuttles" or "free shuttles".
,/ The initiative specifies that the project applicant would "spearhead" an
effort among agencies and the City to bring shuttles to the community.
The project applicant makes no commitment to fund shuttles , so there is no
justification to include references to shuttles in the ballot question.
~ Suggestion for the ballot question of Valko Initiative:
• Add "es ta blish in g the maximum total building height of 120 feet"
./ The maximum total building height of 120 feet the sum of 95 feet for
the building below the roof canopy and 25 feet for the distance from the
top of the building below the roof to the top of the tallest structures
located on the roof canopy.
In the ballot question, the "total building height" should be used instead of
"building height" as defined in the Vallco Initiative, because the voters
will interpret "total building height" as the common sense meaning
including the buildings and the roof canopy that covers the buildings.
Furthermore, the ballot question should not mention "the number of
stories" because the Vallco Initiative says "typically 4 to 6 stories," but
typical is not actual and not a commitment. Providing the total building
height gives voters a "true and impartial" description of the project.
Do not read the following text in grey (for reference and record only)
The total building height, including both roof and building heights, are
derived from the following footnote in Page 67 of Vall co 9212 repo rt:
"'The Spec [flc Plan ident[fies a maximum building h e ight of 95.feet (four
to six stories tall) on the east side o..f North Wolfe R oad. Th e maximum
building height on the west side of North Wolfe ·would be 80 feet with a
maximum. building height of 65 feet for buildings along the western edge
of th e s ite. Th e top o..f the roofs, which ·w ould include l'n echanical
equipment, HJould be up to 25feet above the maximum building heig ht.
Roof op pavilions would be no greater than 24 feet in he ight."
~ B3~Questi9n Recommended:
Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Valko Town Center Specific Plan
for the 58-acre Valko Shopping District Special Area requiring residential
(389 -800 units; 10°/o senior housing), office (2,000,000 sf), commercial
(640,000 sf), hotel; requiring partial school funding ($40,000,000); green
roof (approximately 30 acres), creating Valko Specific Plan Zoning;
establishing the maximum total building height of 120 feet; and making
related General Plan and Municipal Code amendments? (69 words)
FD r pu /?le. f' @rd lfk_ Cc 7/[.p//~
-# / l
Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative
proposed Ballot Question is deficient!
K.IJlldy ~
Jalu 5 20/l. ,
C!,/4'1 Co"11el/ Mf9
VTCSP In iti ative
Proposed Ba llot Question
Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco
Town Center Specific P lan for the 58-acre V allco
Shoppii"lg District Special Area requiring residential YES (approximately 389 -800 tmits, ii"lcludhlg
approximately 20 % senior housing ), office (2,000,000
sf), commercial (640,000 sf), hotel, park,
civic/educational uses; requiring
funding/community benefits for transportation
(approximatel y $30,000,000), schools (approximatel y
$40,000,000 ), green roof (approximately 30 acres),
recycled water; granting ii1itial entitlements;
est ablishing development standards and limited
NO future approval process; and making related
Cupertino General Plan and Municipal Code
amendments?
No mention of Municipal Code
exemptions!
VTCSP Initiative
excerpt (page C-20)
Cupe rt ino Municipal Code
Th e Cupedino Municipa l Code (CMC) is t he pri mary document tho1
implemen ts the Genera l Plan . The CMC's zoning provisions provide
regu lot ions reg 1ording permitted l and uses, d evelopment r·egulations, and
d eve l opment-en tit ~ement p r ocess for parce ls of l an d in the City of
Cupertino.
The Pi a 11 Area was re -desi1gnafied from P (Reg ~ona l Shopping} -Planned
Devel o pme nt Regi o na l Shopping no rth of Vo l lco Parkway, and P (CG) -
Planned Deve l opmenf G .e neml Commerci a l south of Va l lee Par kway
(west of North WoHe Rood} to VTCSP (Vo1llco Town Center Specific Plan)
by the Va 1lk o Town Cen ter Specific Plan l nitiotive.
As described i n this Specific Plan, if th ere a re any inconsistencies or 11
conflicts between the requirements of t he Specific Plan and th e :1
requirements of th e CMC or other appl i cable, adopted rule , regulation, I
or offici al po li cy of the City, as they current ly exis t or may be amended, l
t he provisions of the Specific Plan take precede nce, control, a nd govern !
in the Pla n Area. t
J I --~ ~ ~~ -·--~ 'Iii -·-·Mii!!" il!il!oii . ~ ,I ~ .. --
Plan Area will be exempt from
Municipal Code!
... if there are any inconsistencies or conflicts
between the requirements of the Specific Plan
and the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code or other applicable, adopted rule,
regulation, or official policy of the City, as they
currently exist or may be amended, the
provisions of the Specific Plan take precedence,
control, and govern in the Plan Area
VTCSP Initiative
Ballot Title and Summary
excerpt
~-................. ~.U:.J--~-·-""--....... -...::..-~~~~~·......i..1. ......... .....,,,,,,.=,-..:....;~~--·~• ~-.......... ~·---~-~-=~..,.,...~·--.=...-;:;..-u..--~--~,.......:.,a ............... • 0 • ,o·~-~ .... ~~-·......,__~~-~.,.,_.._C-:..r::...:...~~--.....,~~.
The Initiative:
(I) States that it would entitle the property owners to develop the Area in accordance
with the Specific Plan, exempt the Area from provisions of the Municip al Code not provided in
the Specific Plan, and establish process for future approvals;
(2) Adopts a Specific Plan establishing development features for the Area including:
...,...,,,.~~-~'lt!"-1f!!P"~..E.i'5.±$L! -fY •• £ ~·!~'LIGi~'!2'r'~~~~~~~ ..... ~-s£?--...,.:s&U2¥.~--2ii!.iilH'i'¥#~'""*'"'~-"2f'lll't!Ji+i--::XSZ----€2 • ¥
The City Attorney~s Ballot Title and Summary mentions
the Municipal Code exemption!
i
f
F
~
·' j
~ ~
~:
1
1!
I
i ;
l
-1'
""""""
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
excerpt (page 5)
Provide that the standards governing the development of the • • • • • •
Specific Plan shall generally be governed by those set forth in the
Specific Plan proposed by the Initiative , rather than by the
Municipal Code.
-·--. ------ -·--....... -·
''Provide that the standards governing the
development of the Specific Plan shall generally be
governed by those set forth in the Specific Plan
proposed by the Initiative, rather than the municipal
Code."
El e ctions Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis)
excerpt (page 15 and 16)
1.----------------------------------------------------------------------=i"I· fe...... Parking -Based on the City 's Municipal Code , the Specific Plan would be required t~ ·
.I
.!. provide 10 ,413 vehicle parking spaces . The VTCSP proposes 9 ,060 vehicl e parking
1 I~ . . . . -. . . . . . , .c ~----, . • .,. • ., ---~·. . • -~ :~ .. ~ , -. .. ~ . . . n . -~' -1: .r==" spaces. 14 The proposed parking for the VT CSP , therefore, '¥ould not 1neet the City's parking I, ,I !1
'I
I: standards. ~
11 JI I
L==-·----"""'-' w=---~ -~--:2d;-~---;c ·--::::..1 aid---,,.----_. !tll!''llil:il-'!:::i!:i!-----·~il!I =111::;;--_-i!!:--~.-··"-kOll -"t Di' ~ ~.,. · · "'~ a..,.,,.. "" · '° .w ... ~ ;. . ~ ~ -· -~ -' I
Municipal Code requires 1.1353 more parking spaces than the
Val/co Specific Plan proposes!
..
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
excerpt (page 1)
r· .,...,... .,,.......-.,,. -· .. . . .. . " -. .. ..... . . .. . .~ . .. £ -. . --.. 9 ~ .... ---.. -" .. ii
1: ~· 389 residential units , including a senior housing component that is a minimum of 80 units or 20 percent of 1r
I total units. As under the existing General Plan , this number of units could be increased up to the maximum 'i i!
Ii ,,
resident ial units available under the General Plan (estimated to be approximately 800 units) with the ri
f I!
J ·:
~ issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP). If the Initiative were adopted, the City would have much less i
:I ab ili ty to deny such a CUP than under the ex1stmg Mumc1pa/ Code . f
I .,
I - - - -
""';!"-_~o:;:= ~ -... -__ ,0,§=i~ _!!";;! "_;o:_l'I' --~ -;:;i~ ii"-l!i . .. _r;i;ff!
If the Initiative were adopted~ the City . would have much Jess
ability to deny such a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) under the
existing Municipal Code.
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis)
excerpt (page 16)
I Pursuant to the City 's Municipal Code , and based on the vehicle parking supply, the VTCSP
·would be required to provide 1,022 Class I bicycle parking spaces and 128 Class II bicycle
parking spaces.15 , 16 The EA identified a bicycle parking supply of 487 Class I facilities and
81 Class II facilities. The bicycle parking supply presented in the EA for the VTCSP is
deficient by 535 Class I bicycle parking spaces and 4 7 Class II bicycle parking spaces
compared to what the City would require under the standard approval process.
Municipal Code requires more than twice as many Class 1 and
Class II bicycle parking spaces than the Val/co Specific Plan
provides for.
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis)
excerpt (page 41)
The noise and land use con1patibility of the proposed uses in the VTCSP with the existing
ainbient noise environ1nent could also be an issue. Exterior and interior noise levels at future
uses at Vall co under the VT CSP would exceed the City 's noise standards in the General Plan
and Municipal Code.
Noise levels under the Val/co Specific Plan would exceed noise
standards in the Municipal Code.
QJ -0 0 -· u -0
QJ -c ro
E ·--· a. c
~ ·--0 0 u QJ 0 ·-·-+-' ~ c c
c 0 Vl
::J QJ ·-·-
QJ ~ +-' ::J c C1 ..c E QJ
+-' E +-'
Vl 0 0
::J ~ -QJ -
E ~ ro ..c Vl co
Vl c +-'
~ 0 Vl QJ
QJ ::J ..c ·-+-' +-' E +-'
0 a.
> E
QJ x
UJ
Revised Ballot Question
{same word count)
I Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco
Town Center Specific Plan for the 58-acre Vallco
I Shopping District Special Area be adopt ed requiring residential
(approximately 389' -800 units, including
approximately 20°k senior housing), office (2,000,000
sf), commercial (640,000 sf), hotel, park,
civic/educational uses; requiri.ng
funding/com :munity benefits for transportation
(approximately $30,000,000), schools (approximately
$40,000,000), green roof (approximately 30 acres),
recycled water; granting initial entitle'ments;
establishing development standards and limited
future approval process; and making rel .ated
Cupertino General Plan A 1mendlments and Municipal Code
Amendments and exemptiions ?
VTCSP Initiative
Proposed Ballot Question
Shall an :initiative be adopted enacting the V allco
To·wn Center Specific Plan for the 58-acre V allco
Shopping District Special Area :requiring residential YES (approxim.,'ltely 389 -800 units, including
approximately :;,o~'o senior housing), office (2.,000,000
sf), commercial (640,000 sf), hotel, park,
civic/educational uses; requiring
funding/community benefits for transportation
(approximately $30,000,000)1 schools (approximately
$40,000,000), green :roof (approximately 30 acres),
recycled 1,vater; grantin.g initial entitlements;
estahlishlng development standards and limited
NO .future approval process; and making related
Cupei-tino General Plan and Municipal Code
amendments?
No mention of Municipal Code
exemptions!
~c:. 7 ( b /f {p
#ll
VTCSP l1n itiative
excerpt (page C-20,):
Cupertino Municipal Code
The Cuperlirm Municipal Cade {CMC) is the primary document that
implements the General Pion. The CMC's zoning provisions provide
regulations regarding permitted kmd uses, development regulations, and
development-entitlement process for parcels of land in the City of
Cupertino.
The Pkm Area was re-designated from P (Reg~onal Shopping) -Planned
Development Regional Shopping north of Vallco Parkway, and P {CG) -
Pkmned Development General Commercial south of Vatlco Parkway
(west of North Wolfe Rood! to VTCSP {Vollco Town Center Spedfic Plan)
by the VoHco Town Center Soecific Plan
.As described in this Specific Plan, if there ore any inconsistencies or
conflicts between the requirements of fhe Specific Plan ond the
requirements of the CMC or other applicable, adopted rule, regulation,
or official policy of the City 1 as they currently exist or may be amended~
the provisions of the Specific Plan take precedence, control, and govern · ..
in the Plan Area.
Plan Area will be exempt from
Municipal Code!
... if there are any inconsistencies or conflicts
between the requirements of the Specific Plan
and the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code or other applicable, adopted rule,
regulation, or official policy of the City, as they
currently exist or may be amended, the
provisions of th~ Specific Plan take precedence,
control, and govern in th~ Plan Area
The Initiative:
VTCSP lnitiativ1e
Ballot Titll;e and Summary
e~cerpt
(I) States that it would entitle the property owners to develop the Area in accordance
with the Specific Plan, exempt the Area from prov~sions of the MuniciimI Code not provided in
the Specific Plan, and establish process for future approvals;
(2) Adopts a Specific Plan establishing development features for the Area including:
The City Attorney"s Ballot Title and SL1mmary mentions
the Municipal Code exemption!
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
excerpt (page 5)
Provide that the standards governing the development of the • • • • • • Specific Plan shall generally be governed by those set forth in the
Specific Plan proposed by the Initiative, rather than by the
Municipal Code. -.. -. . -.. -. . -,.._ -..
""Provide that the standards governing the
development of the Specific Plan shall generally be
governed by those set forth in the Specific Plan
proposed by the lnitiative1 rather than the municipal
Code."
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis)
excerpt (page 15 and 16)
Municipal Code requires 1,353 more parking spaces than the
Val/co Specific Plan proposes!
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
,excerpt (page 1)
389 residential units, induding a senior housing component that is a minimum of 80 units or 20 percent of
total units. As under the existing General Plan; this number of units could be increased up to ,the maximum
residential units available under the General Plan (estimated to be approximately 800 units) with the
issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP). If the Initiative were ado ted, the Ci would have much less
ability to deny such a CUP than under the ex1stmg un1c1pa o e.
If the Initiative were adopted, the City would have much less
ability to deny such a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) under the
existing Municipal Code.
-
Elect1ions Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis)
excerpt (page 16)
Pursuant to the City's ?vlunicipal Code, and based on the vehicle parking supply. the VTCSP
·would be required to provide 1~022 Class I bicycle parking spaces and 128 Class II bicycle
parking spaces. 15 • 16 The EA identified a bicycle parking supply of 487 Class I facilities and
81 Class II facilities. The bicycle parking supply presented in the EA for the VTCSP is
deficient by 535 Class I bicycle parking spaces and 47 Class II bicycle parking spaces
co1npared to vvhat the City would require under the standai-d approval process.
Municipal Code requires more than twice as many Class 1 and
Class II bicycle parking spaces than the Val/co Specific Plan
provides for.
Elections Code 9212 Report on VTCSP
Appendix 5 (Environmental Analiysis)
excerpt (page 41)
The noise and land use co111patibility of the proposed uses in the v!CSP \Vith the existing
ambient noise envirom11ent could also be an issue. Exterior and interior noise levels at fhture
uses at \Talko under the \tTCSP would exceed the City's noise standards in the General Plan
and l\.1unicipal Code.
Noise levels under the Val/co Specific Plan would exceed noise
standards in the Municipal Code.
Revised B1allot Question
(same 'Word cou:nt)
! Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco
Town Center Specific Plan for the 58-acre VaHco
I Shopping District Special Area be adopted requiring residential
(approximately 389 -800 units, including
approximately 20% senior housing), office (2,000,000
sf), commercial (640,000 sf), hotel, park,
civic/educational uses; requiring
funding/community benefits 'for transportation
(approximately $30,000,000), schools (approximately
$40,000,000), green roof (approximately 30 acres),
recycled water; granting initiaf entitlem.ents;
establishing development standards and Hmiited
future approval process; and making related
Cupertino General Plan Amendments and Municipal Code
Amendments and exe1mptions?