09-18-18 Item #17 Late Comments Memo Dated 09-18-18MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1 8, 201 8
TO : Piu Ghosh, City of Cupertino
FROM: Judy Shanley and Kristy Weis
SUBJECT: Vallco Special Area Specific P lan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) -Late
Comments Received between September 12, 2018 and September 17, 2018 .
A number of late comments on the Vallco Special Area (subsequently named the Vallco Town
Center) Specific Pl an EIR have been received by the City since the 45-day public comment period of
the Draft EIR Amendment ended on August 20 , 2018 . A first memo covers cornrnents received
between August 20, 2018 and September 3, 2018. A second memo covers comments received
between September 4, 2018 and September 11 , 2018 .
This third memo covers late written comments on the EIR received by the City between September
12 , 2018 and September 17 , 2018 from the following individuals:
• Max K. Agoston, 9.12 .18 • Liana Crabtree, 9 .1 7 .18
• Jerry Xu, 9.12.18 • Wynne Dobyns, 9.17 .18 (10:03PM ,
• Mark Ownbey, 9.13 .18 10:08PM)
• Gail C leveland, 9 .13 .18 • Sabrina Rizk, 9 .1 7 .18
• Liang-Fang Chao , 9.13.18 , 9.14.18 • Divya Parmar, 9 .17 .18
• David Grady, 9.14.18 • Elizabeth Mulford, 9 .17.18
• NaderVahdat, 9.14 .18 • Yin Zhang, 9.17.18
• Rosalind Acolatse, 9 .14 .18 • George Lin, 9 .17.18
• Stuart Chessen, 9 .14.18 • Harris Au , 9 .1 7 .18
• Helen Wiant , 9 .14.1 8 • Albert Liu, 9 .17.18
• Kitty Moore, 9.13.18, 9 .14.18 • Howard Huang, 9 .17 .18
(7:10AM , 7:40AM), 9.17.18
The written comments from the above individuals pe1taining to the adequacy of the EIR. are
summarized by topic below with responses. Copies of the comment letters are included in
Attachment A. The comments did not raise any new significant information related to new or
substantiall y more severe significant environmental impacts than previous ly identified in the Final
EIR.. Comments regarding the merits of the project are not included in the summary below and do not
warrant responses under CEQA.
SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Process and Documentation Comments
• Format and length of the Final EIR
• Noticing for the project
Response: The Final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, including CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.
Noticing for the EIR, including the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion,
Notice of Availability, was completed in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines . A list of agencies that received a copy of the Draft EIR is listed on page
82 of the Final EIR. Properties within 300 feet of the site were notified, as well as all
individuals and organizations who requested notification.
The City Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School
District (FUHSD) were contacted and consulted with during the EIR process . The
local schools do not need to be notified due to hazardous materials sites for this
project because, the project does not involve hazardous air emissions or facilities that
would handle extremely hazardous substances (PRC 21151.4 and 21151.4). In
addition , as stated in the EIR and in responses to comments, there are no open,
regulated hazardous materials sites within the Specific Plan area.
Project Description and Alternatives Comments
• Accurate and consistent project description
• General Plan amendments needed
• Square footage of residential units
• Alternative location
• No Project Alterative
• Alternatives studied
• Transit improvements proposed
Response: As discussed in the Draft EIR (page 10), the City was concurrently
undertaking a community-based planning process to develop a Specific Plan for the
Vallco Special Area. At the time the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment were published
(May 2018 and July 2018, respectively), the proposed project was the project
described in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR. As explained in the Final EIR (published
August 2018), based on input from City Council at its June 4, 2018 Study Session,
the City identified another alternative to the proposed project that would achieve all
the goals expressed by the different councilmembers. This alternative is the "revised
project," which consists of revisions to the project analyzed in the Draft EIR. While
the project description has changed over time due to public review and comment, as
CEQA anticipates will happen , the project description contains all reasonably
foreseeable parts of the project, has not failed to disclose any aspect of the proposed
project, and contain all of the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section
15124.
2
The fact that the project includes General Plan amendments is discussed in Section
2.4.3 (page 16) of the Draft EIR.
No specific development implementing the revised project is cun-ently proposed. For
this reason, the size of future residential units is not known at this time . Refer to
Master Response 1 .
The consideration of an Alternative Location to the project is discussed in Section
7.2.1.3 of the Draft EIR (page 411 ). There are no feasible alternative locations for
the project, which consists of a specific plan for the Vallco Fashion Mall site. No
alternative location was considered becaus e it would not achieve the basic project
objectives .
The CEQA Guidelines require consideration of a No Project Alternativ e. The No
Project Alternative is described in Section 7 .2.3.2 of the Draft EIR. A summary of
the impacts of the No Project Alternative is provided in Table 7 .2-1 in the Draft EIR
(pages 414-431).
The EIR is only required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126 .6). Not every alternative suggested is required to be
studied.
As described on page 30 of the Draft EIR, the project proposes to upgrade the
existing transit hub on-site to include additional features such as an information
center, drop-off point, and a bike sharing distribution point.
Air Quality Comments
• Air quality impacts , including impacts from the green roof
Response: The air quality impacts of the revised project are discussed in Section
2.3 .3 of the Final EIR (pages 5-12). Also refer to Final EIR Section 5 .2 Respons e s
II.E .54 and II.E.56 .
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Comments
• On-site contamination and future users
• Site listed as a hazardous waste site
Response: The existing hazardous materials conditions are described in Section 3.9
of the Draft EIR (pages 134-139). As stated on page 143 of the Draft EIR, the project
site does not contain any open hazardous materials cases listed on the Cortese list
databases. As discussed on pages 140-146 , implementation of the identified
mitigation measures (which include soil sampling during demolition, having an
Environmental Professional on-site, and mitigating any contamination discovered
during demolition activities) would reduce hazardous materials impacts to a less than
significant level. Soil testing is not required at this time, but will be performed as
part of the Site Management Plan activities during demo lition and redevelopment
activities . Also refer to Final EIR Section 5 .3 Response AAA.I 2 .
3
Land Use Comments
• Land use pattern
Response: The land use impacts of the revised project are discussed in Section
2.3.11 in the Final BIR (page 30). The conceptual land use diagram for the revised
project is the same as the previous project and is shown in Figure 2.4-2 of the Draft
BIR (page 13).
Noise Comments
• Impacts from a perfonning arts center and outdoor concerts
Response: The City anticipates that the performing arts center would operate similar
to a movie theater. The performing arts center is considered a type of commercial
use, and is analyzed as such in the EIR. No outdoor concert areas or other outdoor
entertairunent uses are proposed as part of the project.
Population and Housing Comments
• Population density
Response: As shown in Table 2.1-11 of the Final BIR (page 59), the revised project
is estimated to generate 5,846 residents and 8,178 jobs/employees.
Public Services Comments
• School impacts including moving school bounda1ies , traffic , dust and noise from construction
• Impacts from relocating students to other schools
• Student generation rates
Response: According to Appendix G , Bnviroru11ental Checklist, of the CEQA
Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact related to schools if it would
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envirorunental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other perfonnance objectives for school
services. As described in the Draft EIR, EIR Amendment, and Final BIR, the
Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District do not
anticipate building new or expanding existing school facilities to increase net
enrollment capacity in the next five years, whether or not the revised project,
previous project, or project alternatives are approved .
The traffic analysis completed for the revised project (Appendix B in the Final EIR)
includes home to school trips as part of the distribution ofresidential project trips.
No school facilities would be constructed as a result of the revised project, therefore,
no construction-related impacts from constructing school facilities is discussed in the
EIR.
The project does not propose to relocate students to other schools, nor is it a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project.
4
Table 3 .15-2 on page 24 7 of the Draft EIR shows the student generation rates used in
the EIR analysis. Refer to Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Final EIR Section 5.2
Response II.E.125 for additional details regarding the student generation rates.
Transportation
• Traffic from employees (including cafeteria workers)
• Freeway cap at Wolfe Road and I-280.
Response: The EIR evaluates the traffic impacts of the project, which includes
vehicle trips from project employees (including cafeteria workers). Trips from
cafeteria workers generally occur outside the peak hours .
Refer to Final EIR Section 5.2 Response II.RR.4 . A cap over the Wolfe Road/I-280
interchange is not proposed as part of the project.
Utilities and Service Systems Comments
• Sewer system and recycled water capacity and impacts
• Water impacts
Response: The impacts of the revised project on utilities and service systems
(including the sewer system, recycled water system, and water supply) are discussed
in Section 2.3.18 of the Final EIR (pages 54-57). Also refer to Section 5.2 Response
II.E.30 in the Final EIR . As discussed in the Draft EIR and EIR Amendment, when
improvements to the City of Sunnyvale's Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) are
completed in 2019, there would be sufficient supply to meet the project's total
recycled water demand. The enviromnental impacts associated with expanding and
improving the WPCP were evaluated in the 2016 Final Program Enviromnental
Impact Report for the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan (SCH#
2015062037).
Growth-Inducing Comments
• Growth-inducing impacts
Response: The growth-inducing impacts of the revised project are discussed in
Section 2.3.19 of the Final EIR (page 58).
Cumulative Impact Comments
• Cumulative in1pacts of the project and the SB 35 project
Miscellaneous
Response: The revised project and SB 35 project would not both be implemented,
therefore, there would be no cumulative effect from these two projects. Refer to
Master Response 1 .
• Impacts to non-school-facility settings or sites
Response: The environmental impacts from the implementation of the revised
project are discussed in the Final EIR. It is unclear what "non-school-facilities" the
comment is referring to that would be impacted by the revised project.
5
,,.
Attachment: Copies of Late Comment Letters
6
From: Ownbey, Mark
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:57 AM
Subject: Vallco: Do not approve Tier 2 on Sept 18
This will wreck Cupertino in many ways .
Keep Sand Hill developers out of our town!
http://bettercu perti no. blogspot . com/2018/09/ Cou nci I-to-a pp rove-Va I lco-Denser-tha n-measu re-0. htm I
Mark Ownbey
From: Max K. Agoston
Sent : Wednesday, September 12, 2018 8:44 PM
To: City Council <CityCounc il @cupertino.org <mailto:CityCouncil@cupertino.org»
Subject : Vallco plans
Dear Cupertino Council Members:
Last year Cupertino voted down 2 proposals for the development of Vallco . Now the developer wants to
ram a much worse proposal down our throats. You are supposed to represent the residents of
Cupertino. Where are you?
Is there no development that is too much for you? You should all be out there to fight this travesty
tooth-and-nail.
I know that the city is divided on this, but you cannot possibly claim to be backing a majority of
residents .
Do you consider it right to support one minority (which will get a little pleasure) while telling the other
minority (who view this as another big loss to their way of life with the increase in population, traffic,
etc.) to go shove it?
Are there incentives that you have to back a developer who is only out to make a lot of money?
If you go ahead with this plan I will support a lawsuit against the city and a referendum on the issue .
What happened to our city attorney, Randolph Hom?
Max K. Agoston
Long time resident who bought a home here in 1981
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:36 AM
To: City Council <C ityCouncil@cupertino .org>
Subject: Vallco
Just a note to let you know Cupe11ino does not need more housing or traffic. WE need new
people on the council that will look after our city and the people .
Thanks ,
Gail Cleveland
From: Jerry Xu
Sent: Wednesday, September 12 , 2018 6 :26 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org >
Subject: Vallco Development Plan
To Whom It May Concern:
From the voting result of Measure -D, the city council should clearly see what people in Cupertino
wants . The city council should reject developer's request to build an even bigger plan at the Vallco
site . That's not what majority of people in Cupertino want! We voted for you to represent people in the
city. Don't let us down on that. I truly hope the current city council can make the right decision.
Thanks,
Jerry
From: Liang-Fang Chao
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 201811:10 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
<planning@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fix the Oversight in the Dec. 2014 General Plan: Any office or residential allocation should come
with agreed upon "community benefits"
Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,
The City Council approved the Dec. 2014 General Plan with the provisional allocation of 2
million sqft office space and 389 residential units, pending on the approval of the Specific Plan.
The unspoken understanding is that the Vallco Specific Plan will come with sufficient
community benefits to justify the office and residential allocation.
And of course, there will likely be a Development Agreement to specify the terms of the benefits
provided.
The video of the Dec. 2014 City Council did show that Rod Sinks, the Mayor at the time, said
"This is not an entitlement." And Gilbert said Yes . The other three Councilmembers were
silently in agreement.
Unfmiunately, the Dec. 2014 General Plan did not clearly state the 'community benefits"
condition of the allocation. In fact, the provisional allocation pending Specific Plan is similar to
the "Tier 2" allocation with agreed upon community benefits .
Is it not your intention at the time of approval?
The Dec. 2014 General Plan DID SAY the provisional allocation is pending on the Specific Plan.
It just did not clearly state the portion about the "community benefits".
The SB 35 application with huge office and residential allocation is even possible only because
the General Plan failed to clearly state that the office and residential allocation at Valko is
only allowed with "community benefits" progeam. You had a chance in Nov. 2017 to fix the
General Plan. You refused to do anything. You refused to even consult with any attorney to
discuss how to fix the General Plan.
I urge you to step up to follow through with your promise at the time .
Take the oppmtunity next Tuesday to fix the General Plan so that any office allocation or
residential allocation at Valko should come with "community benefits", which justify the
entitlement.
Tier 1 plan should not be a free giveaway of entitlement as a result of the poorly written Dec .
2014 General Plan, which failed to clearly state the provisional nature of the allocation.
The amount of community benefits for Tier 1 plan should at least be comparable to the
entitlement you are granting . Othe1wise, you are giving away development rights without any
benefits for the residents ..
Sincerely,
Liang Chao
Cupertino Resident
From: Kitty Moore >
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:02 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Subject : Vallco VTC Specific Plan FEIR Insufficiencies= Do Not Certify
Dear City Council,
The FEIR for Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan has insufficiencies and must not be certified.
> Here's an EIR primer out of San Jose State I referenced :
>
> http://www.s jsu.edu/urbanplanning/docs/URBP229Materials/CEQAbriefing 229 .pdf
>
> Other than errors and omissions in their science, I think these are solid insufficiencies with the EIR and
process:
>
> l. The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR . PDF 11. We did not
have this. They even changed what the proposed project is in the FEIR with another alternative and call
it the Revised Project. Previous Project is the original Proposed Project:
>
> DEIR, original:
>
>
> Amended DEIR:
>
>
>
> FEIR, bait and switch proposed project:
>
>
>
> 2 . Segmentation due to sewage system and recycled water issues.PDF 12. Having insufficient capacity
for recycled water or sewage treatment requiring construction of new facilities.
>
> 3. A fundamental requirement of CEQA is that an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a proposed
activity together with other past and reasonably foreseeable activities be included in an environmental
assessment.PDF 14. Must study the 7 SB35 towers for example. Vallee SB35 is a foreseeable project.
>
> 4. The FEIR is too long and includes public comments in line and the changes to the DEIR and Amended
EIR are included as lines out edits making it a mess to read.
>
> FEIR part 1
> https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=22378
> FEIR part 2
> https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=22380
>
> 5. The addition of the necessity to Amend the General Plan was briefly mentioned at the June 4 CC
Study Session, 4 months after the Specific Plan process began. This means the project clearly isn't
consistent with the General Plan . Does anything say they can't slam a GPA Amendment concurrent with
a project EIR? What if the amount of housing in the entire GP is less than what is studied? Does an entire
GPA city-wide need to be redone?
> 6. The effects of moving school boundaries requires EIR study and mitigations. That is allowed even
with SB 50 . Refer to the SB 50 memo to city: https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a081262d -8ab9-4d6e-
b427-4fdf8b10bd20
Excerpt:
"Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potentially
caused by school expansion or construction:
· traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school;
· dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities;
· effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on wildlife at the
construction site;
· effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality;
· other "indirect effects" as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2) (growth -inducing effects, changes
in pattern of land use and population density, related effects on air and water and other natural
systems). See Chawanakee Unified School District, 196 Cal. App . 4th at 1029.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school facilities
and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially ministerial. Agencies
must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of considering and mitigating the
impacts ofthe proposed development on school facilities . However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or
current case law prohibits an agency from conducting environmental review of an application that
creates significant environmental impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether
the applicant has agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50. 11
Due to the above insufficiencies of the Valko Project it must not be certified .
Sincerely ,
Kitty Moore
From: Liang -Fang Chao
Sent : Friday, September ,14, 2018 8:23 AM
To: City Council <CityCounci l@c u pert i no .org<ma i lto:C ityCounc i l@cupertino.org»; City of Cupertino
Planning Dept. <p lanning@cupert ino .org <mai lto :planning@cupert i no .org»
Subject : Own your mistakes. Take responsibility.
Dear Mayor Paul, Councilmembers Rod, Savita and Barry,
The four of you were on the City Councul when the December 2014 General Plan was approved with
provisional allocation of 2 million sqft office allocation and 389 housing units, pending on a Specific Plan
"with Council-approved community benefits" to justify the office and residential allocation .
That was the intent for these allocations . That 's why the General Plan includes Scenario B in the Housing
Element with O housing units at Vallco . You know it.
Yet , you have allowed all documents on Vallco this year to act like Scenario B doesn't even exist .
Through your ove rsight, you approved a General Plan without the qualifier "with Council-approved
community benefits" in the General Plan . In a well-written General Plan, the office and residential
allocation doesn't apply unless a list of agreed upon community benefits that the Council approves and
the community supports.
It's your mistake that puts Cupertino under threat by an oversized SB 35 project . The office and
residential allocation should have come w ith agreed upon benefits. But you, the Council , did not clearly
identify this important condition "with Council-approved community benefits" in the text of the General
Plan because you rushed to insert such allocation on Vallco after midnight on December 3, 2014 .
You had a chance to fix your mistake in November 2017 after Darcy alerted the Council about SB 35 . Yet,
you decided to not clarify the poorly written text in the General Plan w ithout even consulting with any
attorney at all. And for several months after November, you still took no action to even attempt to fi x
the General Plan.
And projects submitted under SB 35 have to comply with the General Plan and Municipal Code .
Before you take any action on Vallco, please first admit your mistake. Don't blame it all on SB 35 . No text
in SB 35 would turn an allocation contingent upon Council-approved community benefits into
entitlement. None. Poorly written General Plan is to blame . Poorly written General Plan adopted by you
and your refusal to fix this poorly written General Plan are what brought us SB 35 .
Please be honest with Cupertino residents before you take any further action next Tuesday on Vallco.
Own your mistake. Take responsibility .
Your action on Dec. 4 2014 to adopt a poorly written Gene r al Plan and your inaction after Nov. 2017 to
not quickly fi x the General Plan are what allowed Developer to threaten the city with SB 35 .
And your action to remove the City Attorney from duty, while continuing to pay his salary , and your
inaction to even get another competent attorney to replace him put the City of Cupertino at risk while
we are facing the biggest development project in Cupertino history . You still owe us an explanation .
How much your action and inaction are costing the City and taxpayers?
How much your action has impede the City's ability to adequately process the SB 35 application to
strictly adhere to the state law and city code?
Because of your mistake and your inaction to your own mistake, we will face Tier 1, with free giveaway
to Developer, and Tier 2, which is even taller and denser than the voter-rejected Mea sure D.
Own your mistake . Take responsibility.
Please carefully examine every aspect of the Vallco Specific Plan (VSP) and the Development Agreement.
Please make sure that there is no unwritten assumption . Please do not rush through your decision, as
you've done in December 2014 .
For example, there is no limit at all on the unit size of the total square footage for residential living space
at all in the VSP . And there is no limit on the square footage of the residential amenity . If the EIR wants
to claim there will be mostly small units in VSP , the VSP should quantify it .
If the average unit size is 1250 sqft, as stated in the Develooment Agreement, that would fit 2 bedrooms
to 3 bedrooms. Then , be honest on what the units will accommidate.
Please don't quantify everything possible so that there is no room for alternative explanation if possible .
Regards ,
Liang Chao
Cupertino Resident
From: Grady, Davi
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; City Council
Cc: Jan Stokley >)
Subject: Support for Vallco Development Plan with inclusionary language for I/DD
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Along with the Cupertino residents with developmental disability and their families, the State Council on
Developmental Disabilities, Central Coast Region supports the housing plan in the Developer Agreement
with Sand Hill for redevelopment of the Vallco site, provided it specifically includes 40 units of Extremely
Low-income Housing with a preference fo r people with developmental disabilities .
The city council with the planning commission has shown great leaderships in responding to the housing
needs of people with developmental disability, and Sand Hill Development with its forward thinking
understanding of this complicated issue are to be commended for this inclusive Specific Plan Process .
We need housing for all incomes and all abilities in Cupertino, and with this Developer Agreement the
vision will be achieved . Our community has worked hard on the Specific Plan and now it is time to bring
the process successfully to a close.
Thank you,
David Grady, MA
Regional Manager
State Council on Developmental Disability, Central Coast
From : Nader Vahdat >)
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 2:25 PM
To : Savita Vaidhyanathan
Subject : Vallco Apartments
Dear Council member
I suppo rt the housing plan in the Developer Agreement with Sand Hill for redevelopment of the Vallco
site, provided it specifically includes 40 units of Extremely Low-income Housing with a preference for
people with developmental disabilities . We need housing for all incomes and all abilities in Cupertino,
and this is the last remaining housing opportunity site where we can achieve this vision . Our community
has worked hard on the Specific Plan and now it is time to bring the process to a close.
From : Rosalind Acolatse
Sent : Friday, September 14, 2018 2:18 PM
To : City Council
Cc: >
Subject : Low income housing for people with developmental disabilities in Cupertino
Hello,
My name is Rosalind Acolatse and I am the parent of 23 year old Edem Kpatakpa .
>]
I am writing to you because I support the housing plan in the Developer Agreement with Sand Hill for
redevelopment of the Vallco site, provided it specifically includes 40 units of Extremely Low -income
Housing with a preference for people with developmental disabilities .
We need housing for all incomes and all abilities in Cupertino, and this is the last remaining housing
opportunity site where we can achieve this vision.
Our community has worked hard on the Specific Plan and now it is time to bring the process to a close .
Thank you
Rosalind Acolatse
Sent from my iPad
From: Stuart Chessen
Sent: Friday , September 14, 2018 8:12 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Vallco Project needs to be scaled down
The Vallco project doesn't need to have the tallest building on the West Side of the valley. Please
remove or reduce offices. More offices, more homes we need, more traffic. This developer is going to
request changes throughout this project as demonstrated in Main Street and other projects that he has
built throughout Santa Clara County. Parks have gotten smaller, senior housing disappeared and I am
sure we are going to see this on the Vallco project. As you seen the green roof is gone and no bridge
across Wolfe . The city will be strapped with more cost on this project to keep infrastructure updated.
This project should have the same environmental impact as the apple AC2 project. Solar panels ,
Charging Stations, recycled water, green areas and latest on helping people get out of their car.
I don't think we need the events center, but a cove red amphitheater. We need to develop better
relations with DeAnza to use their t heaters.
Stu a rt Chessen
From: Kitty Moore
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:10 AM
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Subject: Re: Vallco VTC Specific Plan Draft FEIR Insufficiencies= Do Not Certify All,
The document being called a Final EIR is actually a Draft Final EIR . It should have the word "Draft" on it
and so should the website .
That is why it is so unreadable .
The Draft Final EIR does not contain the Draft EIR and Amended Draft EIR which it shall contain, seep 82
of Draft Final El R:
"15132. Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report
The Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft El Reither verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process .
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21100, Public
Resources Code.
Discussion : This section is necessary in order to explain the difference between a draft EIR and the final
EIR which is ultimately considered by the decision -makers in each agency prior to granting an approval
for the project. The final EIR is a necessary document because it brings together a number of subjects
such as comments and responses to comments which would not be available in the draft EIR that is sent
out for public review. The list of contents is also necessary in order to show that the findings on the
feasibility of avoiding or reducing significant effects and the statement of overriding considerations are
not part of the final EIR. The findings and the statement of overriding considerations are made after the
decision-makers have considered the final EIR. The findings and statement are included in the public
record but not in the final EIR ."
"CONTENTS OF THE FINAL EIR INCLUDING RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENT
(§15132)
In order to change a Draft Final EIR into a Final EIR, the EIR consultant must revise and reprint the Draft
Final EIR to include the following:
1. A COMPLETE COPY OF THE FINAL EIR, amended/revised as necessary based on public comment and
recommendations . (§15088(c).) • The cover shall be printed on blue colored cardstock or paper.
• This document shall be in clean format with all strikeout/underline removed.
• The term "Draft" EIR should be changed to "Final" EIR on the Cover Page and throughout the
document.
• The Table of Contents shall be updated to include all additions and changes.
• A certification statement shall be added ... "
Please add the following insufficiency with regards to ignoring the Alternative to project which is clearly
written as Scenario B in the General Plan which offers explicitly alternative locations for the Proposed
Project:
"Alternative Location Alternative
• A "rule of reason" should be followed in determining whether to include analysis of alternative
locations . (§15126.6(f)(2).) The key question is whether any of the significance effects would be avoided
or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location . If no feasible alternative locations
exist, the EIR must disclose the reasons for this conclusion. (§15126.6(f)(2).) Further, if a previous
document has previously considered a range of reasonable alternative locations, that document should
be referenced and made available. (§15126 .6(f)(3).) An Alternative Location analysis may not be omitted
solely on the basis that the project proponent does not own other land for the project. However,
whether a property is owned or can reason~bly be acquired by the project proponent has a strong
bearing on the feasibility of that site as a project alternative. Whether the project is proposed by a
public agency with the power to acquire an alternative site, and whether a private proponent has rights
because of existing legal relationships to acquire alternative sites , are factors to take into consideration.
If alternative locations are rejected as infeasible, the reasons must be given . (§15126.6(f)(2)(b).)"
Best regards,
Kitty Moore
From: Kitty Moor
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:40 AM
To : City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office
Subject: Re: Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan Draft FEIR Insufficiencies= Do Not Certify All,
The summary page 81 of Draft Final EIR does not indicate the addition of a new Revised Proposed
Project, the bait and switch portion of the Lead Agency's method of misleading the public.
ulku Spccml ,\n:a Spt:ci[k Plil.!1
1tyo f Cupc rl inu
SEC TIO N 3.0
i cupertino.org
SU
SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR AN D EIR AMEN DMENT
PUBLIC RE VIEW PRO CESS
Th e Oran ElR for the Va lko Specia l i\rca Spec ific Pl an project , d ated May 201 8, was c irc ul ate d 10
affe cte d pub lic age ncies ,rn d inter este d parti es fo r a 45 -d ay review peri od fr om Ma y 24, 201 8
throu gh .Jul y 9, 20 18. The City und c1,oo k th e foll ow in g ac ti ons to in fo rm th e publ ic of th e
ava ilab ility 0 1·1h c Drall EIR:
• i\ No ti ce ofi\vai la bi li ty (NO A) fo r th e Draft EIR wa s pub li shed on the C it y's we bsit e
(\,ww.cupcrtinu .orwvallco ). Sanla Clara Co unt y, and in 1hc Cup ert ino Co uri er;
Final [
August 2(
• Th e Draft Ell{ was deli ve red to th e State Clea ringho use on May 24, 20 18, as we ll as sc nl to
vari ous gove rnm enta l age ncies. organiza tio ns. bu sinesses, and in d ivid uals (see Sec 1i on 3.0
for a list of age nci es, orga niz ati ons, bu sin ess es, and in dividu als tha t rec ei ve d th e Drall EIR );
Co pi es o f the Dra ft EIR we re made avail ab le on th e C ity"s webs ite
(www .cuperlino .orl!. valkn ). a nd severa l libra ries inc ludin g : Cup crlin u Libra ry , Los Altns
Library, Sara toga Library, San Jose Public Lib rary -Ca labaza~ and Kin g Bra nche s,
Sunn yvale Li bra ry.
• Th e ElR Amendm ent fo r th e proj ec t, dated Jul y 20 18, was circulaled to affec ted publ ic
age nc ies and int eres ted pai,i es for a 45 -day rev iew p eriod fro m Jul y 6, 20 18 thro ugh August
20, 2018 . T he City und cn ook th e fo ll owi ng ac tio ns to in fo rm the pub li c of th e ava ilabi lity of
the F.IR Amc ndmenl:
• An NOA fo r th e EfR Amen dment was pub lished on the City's website
(www .wpcrtino .urg/va ll co ), Santa Clara Co unty, and in the Cup e11i11 0 Co urie r;
• No tifi cat ion of th e ava il ability of th e F.IR Am endm e nt was mail ed 10 projec t-a rea resi de nts
and oth er memb ers of the pu b li c who had indi ca ted in1 cres t in th e proj ec t;
• Th e ElR i\mcndm ent was d<.:l ivcrc d 10 th e Stale Clea rin gho use on Jul y 6 , 201 8, as well as
sen t to vario us gove nm1e nt al age nc ies , orga n.iza ti ons. bus inesses, and ind iv idu als (sec
Sec ti on 3.0 fo r a lis t of agenc ies, o rga n int ions , hu , in esses , and in dividu als th at received the
Draft EfR J;
• Copi es of the El R Amendm e nt we re mad e avai lab le on th e Cit y's webs it e
(www.c upcrlin o.or~·val lrn ), a nd seve ra l lib ra ries in c lu din g: Cup ertino Library, Los Ailos
Libra ry, Saratoga Library. Sa n Jo se Pu bli c Li brary -Ca labazas and Kin g bran ches ,
Sunnyva le Li brary.
Original Proposed Project:
Summary of Project and Project Alternallve Development
Land Uses
Commercial Office Hotel Resldenlial Civic Green
(sq uare (s quare (rooms) (dwell ing Space Roof
foo tage) foo tage) uni ts) (squa re (acr es )
fee t)
Proposed Specific Plan 600,000 2 ,000,000 339 I 800 65 ,0 00 I 30
Project Alternatives
Ge nera l Pla n Bu ild out
with Maximu m 600,000 1,00 0,000 339 2,64 0 65 ,0 00 30
Reside nt ial Alt e rn ativ e
Reta il and Res ide nt ial 600,00 0 0 339 4,00 0 0 0 Alt ernative
Occ upied/Re-T e nanted 1,20 7,77 4 0 14 8 I 0 0 0 Mall Al tern ati ve
Am e nded DEIR :
Table 3.1-1: Summary of Project and Project AJternative Development
Land Uses
Commercial Office Hotel Residential Civic Green
(square (squar e (rooms) (dwelling Space Roof
footage) footage) units) (square (acre s)
feet)
Proposed Specific Plan 600 ,000 2 ,000,000 339 800 65 ,000 30
Project Alternatives
Gen eral Plan Buildout
with Maximum 600 ,000 1,000 ,000 339 2 ,6 40 65 ,000 30
Residentia l A l1emative
Retai I and Res id e ntial 600 ,000 0 339 4 ,000 0 0 Alternative
Occup iecl/Re-Tenant ed 1,207,774 0 148 0 0 0 MalI Alternati ve
Housing Rich 600 ,000 1,500 ,000 339 3,2 50 65 ,000 30 Alternative
Draft Fi nal EIR w ith t he bait a nd sw itch Revi sed Propo sed Pr o j ect:
Table 2.1-1 : Revi se d Project, Previous Proj ect, a nd Project A lt ernati ves Development
Summa ry
Co mm e rcial Office
(squ are (square
lc.1otagc:) foo tage)
Re vi sed Proj e ct 460,000 1,750 ,0 00
Previo us Project * 600 ,000 2,000,000
P roject A He rnativcs
Genera l Plan Bui ldoul
wi th Maximum 600 ,000 1,000,000
Res id entia l Al ternative *
Retai l and Res id en tial 600,000 0 Al ternative*
Occupied /Re -Tenanted 1,207,774 0 Mall Alternative *
Hou sing Rich 600 ,000 1,500,000 Alternat ivet
otes:
* Project an d project a lternatives anal yz ed in the Draft E IR .
t Project a lte rnative analyzed in the E IR Amendment.
Vallco Special Arca Spec ific Plan
C it y ofCupenino
Additionally, the EIRs show obvious bias .
2
La nd ses
Hotel Residenti a l
(rooms) (dwe llin g
units)
339 2,923
339 800
339 2,640
339 4,000
148 0
339 3,250
C i vic
Sp ace
(s quar e
feet)
35,0 00
65,000
65 ,000
0
0
65 ,000
Green
Roof
(acre s)
30
30
30
0
0
30
Fina l EIR
August 2018
"As discussed in the Draft EIR , the City is undertaking a community-based planning process to develop a
Specific Plan for the project site, the Vallco Special Area. Based on input from City Council at its June 4,
2018 Study Session on the Vallco Specific Plan, the City has identified another alternative to the
proposed project that would achieve all the goals expressed by the different councilmembers at that
meeting, including the desire to have a more balanced jobs and housing community. This alternative is
the "revised project," which consists of revisions to the project analyzed in the Draft EIR (referred to,
below, as the "previous project ")."
The above is an example of the creative writing added to bias the public.
The Draft Final EIR and previous editions do not clearly indicate that No Project meets the requirements
of the General Plan for "Vallco Shopping District". In fact the EIRs and Specific Plan process obfuscate
that the project is even called "Vallco Shopping District" by relabeling it "Vallco Special Area". The
General Plan requires a minimum 600,000 SF of retail. The General Plan has no 30 acre green roof
component. The General Plan Housing Element has 1,882 Residential Units total available for the city .
The insertion of a General Plan Amendment in the Amended DEIR does not look lawful under CEQA.
Who provided the legal advice to add a General Plan Amendment in a CEQA EIR process? I am not
seeing this done anywhere.
"The CEQA Guidelines section 15088.S(a) provides the following guidance regarding what constitutes
"significant new information":
"Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously
analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents
decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded ."!!!
Best regards,
Kitty Moore
From : helen wiant
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:15 PM
To: Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; Cupertino City Manager's
Office
Subject: Please support the Vallco Specific Plan Dear Councilmembers,
I have lived in Cupertino for 41 years and I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to please
approve the Vallco Specific Plan so that we can finally move forward towards a more vibrant and
inclusive community.
Due dilligence on large projects is important, but we've debated Vallco for too long. The point is that we
urgently need more housing and we need affordable housing so that our community can again attract
middle income residents and young families. That should be our top priority. We have feedback from
our school districts that the addition of residential units at Vallco will not degrade our fine schools , in
fact it should increase the funding and make up for the projected decrease in attendance.
I'm personally tired of the repeated demands that Vallco should be primarily a shopping center. That
makes no sense at all! Vallco *was* a shopping center. It didn't survive because people started shopping
at Valley Fair and Standford, as those centers added more attractive stores . What makes these people
think that a new Vallco mall would fair any better when we are only 8 miles and 10 minutes away from a
major regional shopping center? Of course it is nice to have more retail here, but we should look for
small independent businesses that are nice to walk to, as well as movie theaters and performing arts
venues, and certainly not big boxes like Costco which are antithetical to walking and bringing people
together.
Finally I want to say that now that we have done a lot of study and analysis , we shouldn't be afraid to
move forward . The naysayers are trying to scare our residents about negative impact on schools, traffic,
air quality, etc, because they don't want more housing and they are counting on winning over those who
don't know the facts or think for themselves. No project will be perfect, whether it's a new kitchen,
software release or a town center. Of course there will be unexpected issues to tackle, but with good
leadership, we should be able to solve the problems as they arise and find ways forward . I'm confident
that the Vallco Specific Plan will serve Cupertino well. Please support it, it's time to move forward.
Thank you,
Helen Wiant
Cupertino
From: Kitty Moore
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 4:01 PM
To: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org<mai lto :CityAttorney@cupertino.org»; City
Council <CityCounc i l @cupertino.org<ma ilto:C ityCou nc il @cuperti no.org»; City Clerk
<CityClerk@cu pe rti no.org<m a i Ito :C ityClerk@cu perti no . org »
Subject: For Vallco EIR record
Dear City Council,
I implore upon you to not certify the Vallco Final EIR for the following reasons:
EIR is Inadequate because:
-failure to have a community based project, the "revised project" is a concoction of and
recommendation of a portion of City Council:
{{As discussed in the Draft EIR, the City is undertaking a community-based planning process to develop a
Specific Plan for the project site, the Vallco Special Area. Based on input from City Council at its June 4,
2018 Study Session on the Vallco Specific Pian, the City has identified another alternative to the
proposed project that would achieve all the goals expressed by the different councilmembers at that
meeting, ... "
-the FEIR is biased and clearly states that while it's a "community-based" Plan what we ended up with
came out of some people on city council.
-failure to provide a stable project, creating a movi ng target EIR, bait and switch Proposed Project with
completely different objective Revised Project
-fa i lure to properly notice schools within 1/4 mile of the project
-City of Cupertino undermines and disregards FUHSD as Lead Agency to determine efficacy of the
project site, which is contaminated , for students' use
-failure to study General Plan Recognized Scenario B as an Alternative to Project
-failure to study Performing Arts Center and Outdoor Concerts for noise impacts
-failure to study impacts from expanded Recycled Water production construction and Sewage
Treatment
-failure to study impacts from relocating students to other schools
-failure to study cafeteria workers' traffic and hou sing demand in office amenity space
-failure to study air quality modeling under the green roof for safety of stagnant air impacted by
freeway exhaust
-failure to study city anticipated freeway cap at Wolfe Road and 1-280 .
-failure to fully indicate direct and indirect growth inducing impacts
-failure to write an unbiased EIR, statements include that Measure C was to increase house allowable
height to 45'. Or that City Council recommended the Rev ised Project are biased and not allowed in an
EIR.
-failure to notice FUHSD and CUSD 30 days prior to ce rtification which are within 1/4 mile of Vallco
-failure to clearly state that the site is listed as a hazardou s waste site multiple times pursuant to
65962 .5 and subject to corrective action
-failure to inform the public by having soils testing of a contaminated site before certification
For the above reasons, and the others I have previously sent, I respectfully request that you deny
certification of the Vallco FEIR .
Best regards,
Kitty Moore
From : Liana Crabtree
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:04 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org<ma il to:CityC lerk@cupertino .org»
Cc: City Attorne;y's Office <CitvAttorney@cupertino.org<mailto:CityAttorney@cupertino.org»
Subject: request for immediate notification of certification of Vallco Specific Plan resolutions
Dear Office of the City Clerk:
I request immediate notification of the City Clerk's signature and certification of the following City
Council resolutions and ordinances:
18-084 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, Final EIR)
18-085 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment)
18-086 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan)
18-2177 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, Municipal Code Amendment)
18-2178 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, Rezoning)
18-2179 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, Development Agreement)*
I request printed photocopies or PDF files of the signature pages ONLY as signed and dated by the City
Clerk and City Council representative. I will provide payment, as required, for photocopies.
*Note: If ordinance 18-2179 requires additional text, signatures, and/or dates before the City Clerk's
signature and certification can be applied, I request printed photocopies or PDF files of all changed
pages included in the ordinance at the time of signature and certification.
If photocopies, please contact me via email
(lianacrabtree@yahoo.com <ma i lto:lianacrabtree @ya hoo.com >) for pick up and payment .
If PDF files, please send directly to liana crabtree@yahoo.com<ma ilto :lianacrabtree@ya hoo.com >.
Thank you,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
From: Wynne Dobyns
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:03 PM
To: City Council <CityCounc il @cupert ino .org>
Subject: Approval of Vallco Town Center Development
Dear Mayor Paul and City Council members,
I urge you to approve item# 17 on the agenda for the City Council meetings on September 18
and 19 , 2018, regarding the Vallco Town Center Development.
My husband and I have been residents of Cupe1tino for 35 years . When we moved to Cupe1tino,
there was a vital retail environment at both what was Vallco Village at Homestead and Wolfe
Roads and then Vallco Shopping Center. There were nice gift stores, a good delicatessen, major
depaitment stores , dry cleaners , shoe repair, jewelry stores , shoe stores, and bakeries and small
cafes and restaurants between the two centers. Sadly, over the intervening years, all of those have
disappeared along with the AMC theaters at Vallco . Instead of being able to shop in Cupe1tino
and go to movies here, we now shop and go to movies in sunounding cities.
We need viable retail in Cupe1tino. We also need more housing so that people who work in
Cupertino can afford to live here. The proposed Vallco development plans will be built along
two major traffic aiteries which should be able to or made able to accommodate the additional
traffic. They are not in neighborhoods which will be severely impacted by the increase in traffic.
I voted for Sand Hill's Vallco development project in November 2016, and was disappointed
when it was defeated. I quite liked the park that was planned for the section over Wolfe Road. It
is impractical to think that the large shopping mall Vallco once was can be successful once again
in these different times . I actively participated in the Opticos process ; but frankly, I'm not sure
which of the three plans I prefer; although I le an toward the Tier 2 plan because it includes a
larger number of housing units and more retail space, with a lower amount of office
development. I question how much more office space we really need in Cupe1tino, especially
without additional housing . I really want to be able to shop in the city where I live and to sit in a
community space with a cup of coffee or tea. The Main Street and 19800 Stevens Creek
developments provide a lot of dining oppo1tunities but no retail or open community space. I
would love an environment like downtown Los Altos in Cupertino! I ask you to approve one of
the three proposals for redeveloping the Vallco space.
Sincerely,
Wynne Dobyns
From: Wynne Dobyns
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:08 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupert i no.org>
Subject: Approval of Vall co Town Center Development
Dear Ms . Schmidt,
I have w1itt en to the City Council asking them to approve item #17 on the agenda for the City
Council meetings on September 18 and 19 , 2018, regarding the Vallco Town Center
Development. I have also written to the interim City Manager, Amy Chan.
My husband and I have been re sidents of Cupe1iino for 35 years. When we moved to Cupe1tino ,
there was a vital retail environment at both what was Vallco Village at Homestead and Wolfe
Roads and then Vallco Shopping Center. There were nice gift stores , a good delicatessen, major
depmtment stores, dry cleaners, shoe repair, jewelry stores, shoe stores, and bakeries and small
cafes and restaurants between the two centers . Sadly, over the intervening years , all of those have
disappeared along with the AMC theaters at Valko . Instead of being able to shop in Cupe1tino
and go to movies here, we now shop and go to movies in surrounding cities .
W e need viable retail in Cupertino . We also need more housing so that people who work in
Cupe1tino can afford to liv e here . The proposed Vallco development plans will b e built along
two major traffic arte1ies which should be able to or made able to accommodate the additional
traffic . They are not in neighborhoods which will be severely impacted by the increase in traffic.
I voted for Sand Hill 's Vallco development project in November 2016 , and was disappointed
when it was defeated . I quite li ked the park that was planned for the section over Wolfe Road. It
is impractical to think that the large shopping mall Vallco once was can be successful once again
in these different times . I actively pmticipated in the Opticos process ; but frankly , I'm not sure
which of the three plans I prefer; although I lean toward the Tier 2 plan because it includes a
larger number of housing units and more retail space, with a lower amount of office
development. I question how much more office space we really need in Cupe1tino, especially
without additional housing. I really want to be able to shop in the city where I live and to sit in a
community space with a cup of coffee or tea. The Main Street and 19800 Stevens Creek
developments provide a lot of dining oppmiunities but no retail or open community space. I
would love an enviromnent like downtown Los Altos in Cupe1iino ! I ask the City Council to
approve one of the three proposals for redeveloping the Vall c o space .
Sincerely,
Wynne Dobyns
From: Sabrina Rizk
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:59 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino .org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Approval of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and Development Agreement, Sept. 18, 2018
Mayor Paul and City Council Members,
I urge you to approve a Vallco Town Center Specific Plan at the City Council meeting on
September 18 /19 . I prefer a community-driven process over a state-legislated one; however, if
the Council fails to act in a time of an acute housing crisis , then I would support the SB35
process.
The community has had ample oppo1iunity to provide it's input and now it's time to make a
decision. My preference is for the mixed-use option that is the most economically feasible with
the least chance of being stalled, in the hopes that we can actually see this project to frnition .
Sincerely,
Sabrina Rizk
Cupe1tino Resident
From: Divya Parmar
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:40 PM
To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>
Subject: Please Support the Vallco Development Program
Hi Darcy,
I am emailing as someone who grew up in Cupe1tino and still lives in the Bay Area, and whose
parents still live in the Cupe1tino.
The Bay Area housing crisis is a regional one, and all cities must act together to make housing
affordable for people across the income distribution. Please suppo1i either of the two plans, as
this means that thousands of people will have shorter commutes and more affordable housing.
I urge you to act to ensure future generations can still find the American dream in an amazing
city like Cupertino.
Best,
Divya Parmar
From: Elizabeth Mulford
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:25 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks
<RSinks@cupertino .org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang
<BChang@cupertino .org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>
Subject: The Vallco Project .....
I have been a Cupe11ino residence for the past 37 years, and urge you to suppm1 this project.
Respectfully,
Liz Mulford,
Cupe11ino
From: Yin Zhang
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:08 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino .org>
Subject: Vallco proposal
Cupe1tino councilmen/councilwoman,
I am strongly against the cmrent Vallco proposal , it is way too dense than the Measure D that our
residents opposed in 2016 . As our representatives , pl ease vote No on this proposal.
Thanks .
Yin Zhang
Cupertino resident
From: G lin
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:26 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino .org>
Subject: cupertino valleco project
Cupe11ino councilmen/councilwoman,
I am strongly against the cmTent Vallco proposal, it is way too dense than the Measure D that
our residents opposed in 2016. As our representatives, please vote No on this proposal.
Thanks .
George Lin
Cupe11ino resident
From: Harris Au
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:45 PM
To: City Council <CityCounci l @c upertino.org >
Subject: NO to current Vallco proposal
Dear City Council,
The original Vallco proposal has way too many housing units; and the current proposal is even
more ridiculous. There is no way to contain the increase in traffic and population. The
implementation of such a project will ruin a nice Cupertino which takes years to build . As least
we should put the proposal for public vote to decide .
Thank you for your attention.
Harris Au
Cupertino, CA 95014
From: albert liu
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:52 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino .org>
Subject: Vallco Tier 1 Plan
I fully support Tier 1 Plan . It makes the most sense. It is what we , residents of Cupertino, need. Tier 2 (or
even Tier 1.5) is nothing but a strong arm tactic for some people to stall the development ... the more they
can hurt the developer (costs and time) the better for them (can't figure what benefit them, except
perversion, or jealousy). Tier 2 is black mailing the developer.
If Tier 1.5 is a compromise, then it would be a better (and more meaningful one) if it will only stick to the
benefits to the school districts, the teachers and the students. The rest in terms of community benefits are
gravy to the greedy, esp. in building a new city hall. What kind of community benefits can a new city hall
provide, except to the people who work there ? If the city hall needs to be moved because of space and
the parking problem, there are ready to use empty office spaces all over Cupertino . Wouldn't that be a
more cost effective solution ? Going that way is the real benefit to the community, saving money.
May I remind you to treat the money entrusted to you (the Cupertino budget) as if it is your own money to
spend . I am sure if money has to come out of your own pockets, you would be more careful and
considerate . We elected you to do just that.
Also, a side note, please make an open statement on what the city is going to do about the
embezzlement of Jennifer Chang. Will it start an internal investigation ? Who did not do their jobs to let
her able to embezzle for over 14 years? Who were lax in not taking their jobs seriously? Laziness?
Naivety (if so, these people are not suitable for their jobs)? Conspiracy? Cover up? We need
transparencies . Incompetent people in the city administration need to be exposed and expelled .
And how will the city ensure this will not happen again ? You guys have been silent. I hope you do not try
to sweep this under the rug . If you remain silent and no action is taken, you won't pass November election
... not by me anyway.
Please don't let Cupertino, world famous as home to high tech, become another "hick town" run by
unsophisticated leaders . I put a lot of hope in you folks .
Albert Liu
From: Howard Huang, Resident
Sent: Monday, September 17, 201810:47 PM
To: City Council <CityCounci l@cupertino.org>
Subject: Vallco Town Center Spec i al Area: Specific Plan and associated amendments to the General Plan,
Sept 18 2018, City Council Agenda Item 17
City Council Agenda Item 1 7
Vallco Town Center Special Area: Specific Plan and associated amendments to the General Plan,
Sept 18 2018
Dear Cupertino City Council ,
I am a local resident. I did not even hear about the many very dense Vallco proposals until last
week. Please postpone any decision until you have given time for the residents to chime in.
Voters voted No on Measure D. These plans are significantly denser. Based on recent history, the
residents have indicated they do not suppo1t denser plans .
Our schools are already overcrowded since we see it daily in the number of pmtables. Adding
thousands more units at Valko won't be good for schools no matter how much in "benefits" the
developer offers; CUSD has stated upwards of 1000 students will be added, and the cost to build
additional infrastmcture or student transpmtation options hasn 't been defined yet. We will pay
more in the future in school bonds to build more classrooms , like Fremont Union and Santa
Clara Unified School District are doing now .
Fmthe1more, the developer is inserting a clause into the benefits offer that allows the benefits to
be rescinded if anyone objects to the development, even if the objections are valid. You should
decline to accept any offer that a llows the developer to renege on their conunitments.
Traffic is already teITible around Cupe1tino. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 will add 8,000 to 10,000
more workers to commute in for jobs, and another 8000 residents who may commute out. There
is no significant fixed mass transit planned, proposed or linked to this development.
A year ago, Councilmembers Rod Sinks and Savi ta Vaidhyanathan co-authored an opinion letter
with Santa Clara Mayor Gillmor in the Mercury News stating that the Stevens Creek Blvd
"coJTidor needs significant transit improvements that are lacking" and "The Stevens Creek traffic
problems are a result of decades of inact ion that preceded all of us. But we, as responsible
leaders , should feel compelled t o act before entitling more growth . We owe that to our cmTent
and future residents as we seek to improve the economic vitality of our cities and our quality of
life. We simply cannot wait any longer." Fmthetmore, "We'd like to see a new transit study done
of the Stevens Creek/280 conidor; we suggest including Interstate 280 because it doesn 't have
the cross traffic that impedes the speed of much of VT As light rail system."
https://www.mercurynews .com/2 01 7 /08 /06 / opinion-san-jose-neecls-transit-in-u rban-village-
plans/
That idea made a lot of sense. You need to work with smrounding cities to complete these
studies that you suggested prior to approving these plans . Please postpone any decision until you
have given time for the residents to digest , provide input, and fiuther revise the plan.
Regards ,
Howard Huang