CC 05-13-19 #1-2 Closed Session_Written CommunicationsOral Communication, May 13, 2019
Ignatius Y Ding, 42-resident of Cupertino
cc s1t1i11
ckM feJS)1
fv7
Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Willey:
Please include this communication for the record at today's Council meeting.
As one of thousands of concerned residents against the development project that is
currently on-going at the Vallco site by Sand Hill Property under the provision of the
state law SB35, I want to draw your attention to the legal implications for the city to
continue issuing permits to allow the developer to proceed with the project while it is in
litigation. (Note: while I am a board member of the Friends of Better Cupertino, I
speak for myself only).
Despite of its known billion-dollar war chest and long history of working in the
Silicon valley, San Hill Property Company is NOT a legal business entity
incorporated in California, but a fictitious name of an individual, namely Peter Pau of
Atherton, registered in the County of Santa Clara County ( as shown_ in the county record
dated July 13, 2017).
California State Law stipulates that it's illegal to register a business under a
fictitious name of an individual. All business and contractual agreements with such
an illegal entity might be void and thereby unenforceable. The Council might need to
verify this matter and consider taking certain course of corrective action to protect our
city.
A recent communication to city residents from Sand Hill has cited that the Vallco
site has been thoroughly inspected by a state-licensed contractor. Sand Hill claims the
site to be completely clear of toxic contamination and suitable for development as
proposed.
First of all, the so-called inspection was carried out by a mediocre company from
Sacramento for a meager three hundred and fifty dollars ($350). The contractor did
not even look at the two spots on the site where the underground tanks used by JC
Penney and Sears for decades. Both locations were listed, as active, by the state
environmental agencies as hazardous toxic waste sites imposing serious threats to public
health and nearby water storm drainages.
The contractor has also neglected to examined to severe contamination by heavy
dosage of DDT other harmful pesticide used by farming companies prior to the
forming and incorporation of the Vall co site as a commercial complex. Disregarding this
public health threat and converting the site for residential use without proper clean-up is
morally inexcusable and legally criminal. It is particularly incomprehensible the
Sand Hill plans to build the low-income units over this toxic waste site.
Lastly, the developer is removing hundreds of matured treed from the site without
any replant or reseeding plan. The environmental damage is devastating. The city must
require Sand Hill to file a set of tree removal/replacement plan before proceeding with
the project.
Thank you very much.
SEE BACK SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS
Fictitious Business Name (FBN) .Statement (includes
registration of 1 business name, 1 or 2 registrants
ana 1 certified copy) .................................................. $40.00
Each additional business name and/or registrant (must
~:~~ t~~t~~~~f .~~~~~~-~-·~-~-~-~~~-~--~-~-~--~~~-i-~:~~.n_t_l .. °.~ _th$7 .00 ,.
ON THE FILING LABEL
F ii e d i nc€aumt,y;il5A~RktsA6lffi¢.eE
Regina Alcomendras
Santa Clara Cou nt y -Cl erk-R ecorder
FBN631951
07/13/2017
FBN
Pages : 1
Fee $40 .00
Ex p: 07/13/2022
By tsantos, Deputy
The following person (persons) Is (are) doing business as: (Use the ADDENDUM page to 11st additional fictitious business names.)
<tA"D H;L";,;"□"::~~ COMPAN;) 4 .
at: (DO NOT USE P.O. BOX, PRIVATE MAIL BOX ADDRESSES}
2. STREET ADDRESS OF PR IN CIPAL PLACE OF BUSINE SS CITY STATE ZIP COU NTY
3.
4.
965 PAGE MILL ROAD PALO ALTO CA 94304 SANTA CLARA
If the principal place of business ldenllflod In #2 above Is not In Santa Clara County, a current fictitious business name statement for the fictitious business
name(s) Identified In #1 above shall be on Ille al lhe above-Identified ·county that Is the principal place of business. If applicable, please complete #3 below:
D THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ___________ COUNTY AND A CURRENT FICT IT IOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT IS ON FILE
AT THE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER'S OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY.
This business Is owned by: (An asterisk(') item requires proof of reg istration with the California Secretary of State's Office)
IK] AN INDIVIDUAL A GENERAL PARTNERSH IP O "A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
0 AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OTHER THAN A PARTNERSHIP O 'A CORPORATION
0 MARRIED COUPLE O JOINT VENTURE O STATE OR LOCAL REG ISTERERED DOMESTIC PARTNERS
0 'A LI MITED LIABILITY COMPANY
D A TRUST D COPARTNERS
0 "LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The name and residence address of the reglstrant(s) ls (are): (DO NOT USE P.O. BOX, PRIVATE MAI L BOX ADDRESSES)
NOTE: General Partnerships, Copartnershlp, Joint Venture, Limited Liabil ity Partnership, Unincorpornted Ass ociation, and limited Partnership -Insert name and residence address of each
General Partner, Trusts -Insert the full name and reside nt address of each trustee; Lim ited Liability Company and C~rporati on -Insert full name and address of Limited Liability Company
or Corporation as registered with the California Secretary of State's Office; State or local registered Domestic Partners • Insert full name and residence address of each Domestic Partner.
_USE THE ADDEND.UM PAGE TO LIST ADDITION~L NAl\'IES AND ADDRESSES
C PETERPAU J
ADDRESS
267 ATHERTON AVENUE
CITY
ATHERTON
STATE
CA
ZIP
94027
B.
NAME ADDRESS
Registrant began transoctlng business under tho llcllUous buslnos~ nomc{s) !Isled above on:
CITY STATE ZIP
This filing Is a:
7 . [g) First Filing (Publication Roquired)
D Rellle ol pro vlous lile # _______ (check appropriate box . below)
D Refiled prior to expiration or within 40 days past expiration, with NO CHANGES
0 With changes (Publication Required)
D Aller 40 do.ys of oxpiralion dato (Publi cation Req ui red)
D Due lo publication requirement no t mot on provlous filing (Publication Required)
I hereby cer1lly thol this copy Is o correct copy of the orlglnel
Fictitious Buslnos s Nume o In my olflce.
R_egi na Al ")'m nd Ccu'llY Clerk-Rocorder
Dated:
mo t Is truo and correct. (A roglslrani who doclaros as truo Information which ho or she knows to be false Is guilty of o crtmo.)
SIGNEDX PR INTE D NAME PETER PAU
If e CORPORATION, ED PARTNERSHIP or LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, the foll owing must be completod:
ENTITY NAME __ +---------------TITLE / CAPACITY OF SIGNER ______________ _
ARTICLE/ REG # (lrom CA Sec al State's Offi co ) ABOVE EN TI TY WAS FORMED IN THE STAT E OF
NOTICE -IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION (a) OF SECTION 17920, A FICTITIOUS BUS IN ESS NAME STATEMENT GENERALLY EXPIRES AT THE END OF FIVE YEAHS FROM THE
DATE ON WHICH IT WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLER K, EXCEPT, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (b ) OF SECTION 17920, WHERE IT EXPIRES 40 DAYS AFTER ANY
CHANGE IN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 17913 OT HER THAN A CHANGE IN THE RESIDE NCE ADDRESS OF A REGIS TERED OWNER. A NEW
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NIIME STATEMENT MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION. THE FILING OF THIS STATEMENT DOES NO T OF IT SELF AUTHORIZE TliE USE IN THIS
STATE OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGH TS OF ANOTHER UNDER FEDERAL, STIITE, 011 COMMON LAW (SEE SECTION 14 411 ET SEO .• BUSINESS ANO
PROFE SSIONS CODE ).
Rov. 3-6/17/2015
cc s-/r3J,r
From James Moore cmco777rcuicloucl corn ci.oJQ.ci ,uSS1tn,
Subject· A Whopper of a Lie -the pre-bonus Vallee Town Center
Date: Feb 15, 2019, 3:27:27 PM
To: sscharf@cupertino.org, liangchao@cupertino.org,
dpaul@cupertino.org, jwilley@cupertino.org,
rsinks@cupertino.org, manager@cupertino.org
This past week, being a numbers person and inherently curious, I
decided to quit procrastinating and investigate the Vallco/SHP/Peter
Pau claim that their pre-bonus 1,779 unit Vallee Town Center project
met the 2/3rds residential use eligibility requirement of Senate Bill 35.
They made this claim in their 6/19/2018 letter to the City.
The input numbers and sources, the methodology, assumptions,
calculations, and the results of my analysis are detailed in the
following write-up.
***
***
A Whopper of a Lie -the pre-bonus Vallee Town Center
A Whopper of a Lie: The Vallee Town Center pre-bonus project was
at least 550,000 square feet short of the Senate Bill 35 eligibility
requirement that it be 2/3rds (66.7%) residential. View the following
calculations for Proof. All the numbers used in these calculations are
available in the Links listed below.
In his June 19, 2018, "Vallee Town Center SB35 Application -
Updated Supplemental Information" letter to David Brandt, City
Manager, Reed Moulds, representing developer Peter Pau who does
business as "Sand Hill Property Company (SHP)", writes: "This 11 pre-
bonus11 project included the following program: 1,810,000 square feet
of office, 600,000 square feet of retail, and 1,778 residential units
within 4,820,000 residential square feet (including amenity and
garage space). This program is consistent with the General Plan and
still designates at least two-thirds of the square footage for
residential uses". This quoted text is on page 4 of his unnumbered 6
page letter. He later corrected this number to 1,779 units.
With Vallco's claimed 4,820,000 square feet (SF) of residential uses,
we can calculate the percent of residential uses space as follows:
4,820,000 / (1,810,000 + 600,000 + 4,820,000). We get 0.6666667
(66.6666667%) which conveniently equals exactly 2/3rds to a zillion
decimal places. Absent from his June 19th letter, and in any written
Vallco communications (before or after) to the City or residents, are
any site plans/drawings, number and sizes of each unit type, etc.,
that could shed light on the validity of this 4,820,000 square feet of
11 residential uses space 11 claimed by Peter Pau for this pre-bonus
1,779 units Vallco project. None the less, we can derive the pre-
bonus numbers we need to determine its validity.
On this same page (Paragraph 4), Reed Moulds, representing Peter
Pau, writes: 11
••• we arrived at the final design that was included in the
SB35 application: 1,810,000 square feet of office, 400,000 square
feet of retail, and 4,700,000 square feet of residential uses (including
2,402 units)". This 2,402 unit number is calculated by applying the
35% Bonus Density: 1,779 * 1.35 = 2,402.
Residents who read this June 19th letter will be surprised that the
submitted Vallco Town Center (VTC) design with 2,402 residential
units requires 120,000 square feet (SF) LESS floor space than the
pre-bonus 1,779 residential units project with its 623 fewer units.
An explanation for this perplexing Vallco claim of 11 Less floor space
with More units 11 appears to be given by Reed Moulds' later
statement: 11 and ii) increasing the number of residential units without
meeting the identical design requirements in Cupertino's density
bonus code". As background, a 35% Bonus Density requires three
concessions by the City. One of these concessions allows
Vallco/SHP/Peter Pau to build smaller Below Market Rate (BMR)
studios and 1-BRs than the Market Rate (MR) studios and 1-BR units.
Let's calculate what this concession provided in floor space savings
and see if this amount of "savings" explains our "Less floor space
with More units" perplexity.
We first need some numbers from the Vallco site plans, drawings,
tables, reports, etc. These numbers are only available for the VTC
project with its 2,402 residences. For this project, here is the
breakdown of its 4.7M SF of "residential uses": 550,055 SF for
amenities, 1,435,605 SF for residential parking, and 2,714,340 SF for
the 2,402 units (50% BMR and 50% MR). These numbers are from
the June 19, 2018 Supplement -Exhibit A: Supplemental Area
Calculations, Table I, Floor Area Calculations.
To start, let's give this 1,779 residential unit pre-bonus VTC project a
Huge advantage in reaching its claimed 4.82M SF for "residential
uses" by allowing it to use the same amount of parking space
(1,435,605 SF) and the same amount of amenity space (550,055 SF)
as the larger 2,402 units VTC project with its 623 additional
residences.
We can calculate the amount of residential floor space used by 1,779
units by assuming (realistically) that it will have the same mix of units
(studios, 1-BR, 2-BR, etc.) as the 2,402 units VTC project. Here is
that calculation: 1779/2402 * 2,714,340 SF= 2,010,329 SF. We'll do
the same to determine the number of BMR studios and BMR 1-BR
units prior to the 35% bonus density. Here are these calculations:
1779/2402 * 898 (BMR studios after) = 665 (BMR studios before),
and 1779/2402 * 303 (BMR 1-BRs after)= 225 (BMR 1-Brs before).
The number of BMR studios and BMR 1-BRs after is shown in the
Affordability Summary Table on Site Plans/ Sheet P-0102 in the
March 27, 2018 Application.
Next, we need to add back the floor space for the BMR studios and
1-BR units downsized by the 11 bonus density 11 concession. Following
this concession, per Vallco, BMR studios are 398 SF and BMR 1-BRs
are 542 SF (9/7/18), Market Rate (MR) Studios are 652 SF (7/31/18
derived), and MR 1-BRs are 863 SF (6/1/18). The amount of floor
space we need to add back is the following: 665 (studios before) *
(652 -398) or 168,910 SF, plus 225 (1-BRs before) * (863 -542) or
72,225 SF, which sum to 241,135 SF. When this 241,135 SF is added
back, all pre-bonus Studios will be 652 SF and all pre-bonus 1-BRs
will be 863 SF -that is, these BMR and MR unit sizes will be the
same.
We can now add the parking space (1,435,605 SF) plus the
residential amenities (550,055 SF) plus an equal mix of residential
units for the 1,779 units project (2,010,329 SF) and the BMR floor
space downsized by the concession (241,135 SF). This totals
4,237,124 SF, far short of the Vallco/SHP/Peter Pau claimed
4,820,000 SF for this smaller 1,779 unit project. This shortfall is
582,876 SF, equivalent to over 675 1-BRs, 890 Studios, or 1000 BMR
bonus-density sized residential units. This monstrous shortfall
proves that the pre-bonus VTC takes much Less space with its fewer
units (1779) than its larger 2,401 units follow-on project.
With this realistic, and very conservative number of 4,237,124 SF
(remember we used the same parking and amenity space as the
2,402 units VTC project), we can calculate the pre-bonus Percent of
Residential space (1,779 units including parking and amenities)
compared to the Total Project Space (not including Office and Retail
parking). Here is that calculation:
4,237,124/(4,237,124 + 600,000 Retail+ 1,810,000 Office)= 63.7%
(not 2/3rds which is 66.7%). This pre-bonus Vallee project with
1,779 residential units, which is a required SB35 pre-req to the 2,402
units VTC project, was never eligible for SB35 fast-track ministerial
approval, yet City Managers declared its follow-on 35% bonus
density 2,402 unit VTC project SB35 eligible on June 25, 2018, and
approved it on September 22, 2018.
These calculations show that SHP/Vallco/Peter Pau/Reed Moulds told
a Whopper of a Lie when they provided their 11 made-up 11 number of
4,820,000 SF residential uses purporting to show that their pre-
bonus 1,779 unit project met the 2/3rds (66.7%) residential eligibility
requirement for SB35 ministerial fast-tracking. It missed the 2/3rds
SB35 residential requirement by more than 550,000 SF, equivalent to
more than 1,000 density-bonus sized BMR units.
March 27, 2018 Application, P-0102
httgs:Uwww.cugertino.org/.home/.showdocument?id=19614
June 1, 2018 Supplement, page 2 of 37
httgs:f.f.www.cugertino.org/.home/.showdocument?id=21185
June 19, 2018 Supplement, page 4 of 6
httQ£/./.www.cugertino.org/.home/showdocument?id=21184
July 31, 2018 Updated Site Plans, Part I, P-0102
httQ£/./.www.cugertino.org/.home/.showdocument?id=21836
September 7, 2018 Fiscal Analysis, Table 1 {page 3)
httgs:f.f.www.cugertino.org/.home/.showdocument?id=22554
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liana Crabtree < lianacrabtree@yahoo .com >
Thursday, May 09, 2019 9:48 PM
cc 5/13/19
Closed Session Item #2
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Jon Robert Willey
City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Cupertino City Manager's Office; R Wang; Vikram
Saxena; David Fung; Kitty Moore; Alan Takahashi; lorenzo .perez@sccfd .org;
mickey.pierce@cep.sccgov.org
Agenda Item 2, Pending Litigation : FoBC v the City of Cupertino (Vallee SB 35 Project),
5/13/2019
Resending to correct an address error included in the previous message .
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Willey:
Please include this letter as part of the public record for the City of Cupertino's eligibility determination and
approval of the Vallco Town Center SB 35 application (5/13/2019 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 2, Re:
Pending Litigation; Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v . City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court,
Case No. 18CV330190 [SB 35 Vallco Project]).
Note: See the REFERENCES section below for links and paths to the documents referenced in this letter.
In a newsletter to "Neighbors" dated 4/23/2019 and entitled "Vallco Spring 2019 Construction Update," a
Managing Director for the Property Owner, Peter Pau's real estate business interests (doing business as "Sand
Hill Property Company"), asserts the following statements that warrant review:
(Specifically, will the City of Cupertino hold itself accountable to disclose overarching conditions and
significant impacts to the community as a direct result of the streamlined, ministerial approval of the Vall co
Town Center SB 35 application?)
(1) PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSERTION
"Environmental Clearance
Last week we received an exhaustive, 1,234-page report on the environmental condition of the Vallco site from
WSP USA, a leading environmental construction and engineering management firm . The report gave the Vallco
site a clean bill ofhealth .... " (REFERENCE file name 06_PO_newsletter_20190423 .pdf)
(1) RESPONSE
The text of Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) includes Government Code 65913.4, which states in part:
"65913.4. (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the
streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit
if the development satisfies all of the following objective planning standards :
(6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following:
(E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the
1
Department of Tox ic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the
Depaiiment of Tox ic Substances Control h as cleai·ed the site for residential use or residential mixed uses ."
Per SB 35 and Government Code 65962.5 (Co1iese List), only the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUP A)
and its Partner Agency (PA) can approve the hazardous material closure plan and clear the site for residential
use . The CUP A for the Vallco Shopping District site is the Santa Clara County Fire Department, Hazmat
Division (County Fire) and the PA is the County of Santa Clara, Dept of Environmental Health Hazardous
Material Compliance Division (HMCD). (REFERENCE file name: 07_text_of_SB_35_20170SB35_87.pdf)
On 5/7/2019, HMCD issued a letter to the Property Owner acknowledging its receipt of the Property Owner's
self-directed site characterization report conducted by its prefen-ed environmental construction firm, WSP USA,
Inc (WSP). Following the review of the materials provided by the Property Owner, HMCD has determined it
has sufficient infonnation to close complaint #CO0145652 filed with HMCD . HMCD recognizes the Property
Owner has filed a closure plan with County Fire. County Fire has accepted the closure plan, which is apparently
now in progress as of 2019 . As the site closure plan is active today, the site was apparently not cleared for
residential use at the time of the SB 35 application eligibility determination (June 2018) and approval
(September 2018). If the site is not cleared for residential use, then it is apparently subject to Government Code
65962 .5 (Cortese List) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process and, therefore,
apparently not eligible for streamlined, ministerial project approval in 2018. (REFERENCE file name:
08 scan Pierce Mickey 07 40 08-05-2019.pdf) ------
(1) FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
(a) The Property Owner filed the Vallco Town Center SB 35 application, 90 days later the City determined the
SB 35 application was eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval, and 90 days after that the City approved
the SB 35 application. However, during the filing and application review window and continuing through today,
the site is apparently ineligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval it received from City staff because the
site remains listed as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code 65913.4(a)(6)(E). The closure plan
was opened in 2019 and remains active until County Fire detennines that the closure criteria are resolved to the
applicable standards .
(b) Initiate a public records request with County Fire to receive the closure plans for the Vall co Shopping
District site to identify the scope of investigation and remediation that may be required to clear the site for
residential use.
(c) Conduct a public records request within the City for communication and documentation addressing the
City's use of objective standards to detennine that the site was eligible for streamlined ministerial approval
despite its apparent exempt status pursuant to 659134.4(a)(6)(E).
(2) PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSERTION
"WSP analyzed a total of 87 soil samples, conducted a series of test pits, and even performed a geophysical
ground-penetrating radar survey, all to confirm there is no evidence of contamination above human health and
safety levels or naturally-occurring background levels, nor any evidence of any underground structures, such as
tanks . We're pleased to share that the results are clear, confirm that the site is appropriate for residential use,
and conclude that no further investigation or clean-up is necessary." (REFERENCE file name
06 PO newsletter 20190423.pdf) ---
(2) RESPONSE
In its 5/7/2019 letter to the Property Owner, HMCD states :
2
" ... please recognize that closure of the complaint does not end the responsibilities of Sand Hill Constmction
Management LLC (Sand Hill) or Vallco Prope1iy Owner LLC at the fonner Sears Automotive building. Sand
Hill has submitted a closure plan to Santa Clara County Fire Depaiiment , Hazmat Division (County Fire) which
was approved and which sets forth conditions to be met for adequate closure of the fonner Sears site. Activities
unde1iaken in investigation of the complaint, such as pot-hole excavation and soil sampling, may not confo1m
with the scope of sampling required by the approved closure pla11, a11d may be required to be repeated as
necessary to satisfy County Fire. Additionally, Sand Hill continues to be legally responsible to ensure that the
fonner Sears Automotive site is closed in a manner that is compliant with California Code of Regulations, Title
22, sections 66265.111 and 66265 .114 as referenced in section 66262.34(a)(l )(A)." (REFERENCE file name :
08 scan Pierce Mickey 07 40 08-05-2019) ------
County Fire provided an architectural drawing of the Sears automotive services building showing 7
underground storage tanks (USTs). However, later environmental repmis, including those shared by the
Property Owner in the 2019 WSP repmi record that 6 tanks were removed from the site and the the disposition
of the 1,000 gallon waste oil tank shown in the architectural drawing but omitted from later reports is
unknown . (REFERENCE file names : 09_Sears_Auto_Center_Cupertino, 10_CLOS_L_1999-12-06_pg_3.jpg,
11_0001 _sears_ clos _ site _plan_pg_ 29)
The Property Owner apparently minimizes and misrepresents the unresolved environmental concerns associated
with the site.
(2) FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Initiate a public records request with County Fire to receive the closure plans for the Vallco Shopping District
site to identify the scope of investigation and remediation that may be required--including the final disposition
of the 7th UST located on the former Sears site--in order to dear the site for residential use.
(3) PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSERTION
"We're pleased to share that the results are clear, confirm that the site is appropriate for residential use, and
conclude that no further investigation or clean-up is necessary." (REFERENCE file name
06 PO newsletter 20190423 .pdf) ---
(3) RESPONSE
While the Depaiiment of Environmental has determined as of 5/7/2019 that its investigation of the 1,000 gallon
waste oil UST referenced in an architectural drawing of the Sears automotive services building from 1969 is
now closed, the Property Owner must still comply with investigation and closure requirements for the site as
specified in the active closure plan that is now filed with County Fire.
As the project site for the Vallco Town Center SB 35 application is and has been subject to Government Code
65962.5 (Cortese List) and is, therefore, apparently not eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval under
Government Code 659134.4(a)(6)(E), then the project would seem to be subject to a full CEQA review.
However, Resolution 18-084 which enacted the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) ofrecord for
the site identifies (Exhibit EA-1, PDF p 6):
"Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21093 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, this Final EIR tiers
from the City's certified 2014 General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning
EIR (State Clearinghouse No . 2014032007) ("General Plan EIR"). CEQA Section 21093(b) states that
environmental impact reports shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency. "Tiering"
refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general
plan or policy statement) in subsequent EIRs or Initial Studies/negative declarations on narrower projects; and
3
concentrating the later environmental review on the issues specific to the later project. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15152(a). The General Plan EIR evaluated, at a program-level and limited project-level, the enviromnental
impacts of developing the project."
From the Prope1iy Owner's summary of the project supported by the Vallco Town Center SB 35 application, the
project will include the following office and housing allocations :
1.81 MILLION square feet of office
2,402 housing units
(REFERENCE file name 12 _ProjectOverviewandlmages .pdf)
From the Final EIR ofrecord for the General Plan (approved 12/4/2014, Resolution 14-210) the Vallco
Shopping District site includes the following office and housing allocations:
2 MILLION square feet office
389 housing units
(REFERENCE file name 13_Res_14-210_Final_EIR.pdf)
(3) FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
(a) Is it a ministerial decision to dete1mine that the Final EIR ofrecord that studied the addition of 389 housing
units on a 50 acre site can be "tiered" to apply to a project that would add 2,402 housing units to the same site?
What statutes inform an "administrative" decision that 389 housing units have a substantially equivalent
environmental impact as 2,402 housing units on the same 50 acre site?
(b) As the lead agency for the CEQA EIR process, consider initiating the Environmental Site Assessment, Phase
II that residents called for in the Final EIR ofrecord under consideration in 2018. At the time of the site-specific
environmental review in 2018, the City was told by its enviroiunental consultants and residents ofrecognized
environmental concerns affecting public health and safety but made a discretionary choice not to investigate
further.
( c) Consider the City Council's options to respond to lingering questions regarding the suitability of the Vall co
Shopping District site for massive office complex development and high-density housing, including but not
limited to:
• The status of an unresolved UST at the JC Penney's automotive services site.
From GeoTracker, report for J.C. PENNEY (T0608500770), 10150 N Wolfe Rd, Cupertino, CA,
95014, Compliance Report doc 0003.pdf, PDF pp 1-2, document page numbers 4-5":
"The waste oil tank excavation was deepened to 10-12 feet bgs at the center of the excavation; a total of
225 tons of material was excavated and disposed of at an offsite location. Subsequent sampling and
analysis of soils from the floor and walls of the excavation was performed. With one exception, waste
oil concentrations were below 110 TRPH. The soil sample collected along the south wall of the
excavation at a depth of 8 feet bus contained 3,800 ppm waste oil (as analyzed by SM503e).
EXCAVATION WAS STOPPED IN THIS AREA BECAUSE ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION WAS
JUDGED TO HA VE THE POTENTIAL OF CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING
FOUNDATION [emphasis added]. ... "
Path to the statement above: GeoTracker> "Regulatory Activities" > Response Requested -Other
"[VIEW DOCS]"
4
., Freon 22 is expected at the ice rink location. How much Freon 22? What is the plan to investigate and
mitigate concerns related to Freon 22 detection?
• Given the age of the buildings, lead paint, asbestos, and PCBs are expected to be found in the building
materials for the shopping mall. How will demolition debris be handled to ensure nearby residents will
not be exposed beyond lawful levels of particulate matter that may or may not also contain known
toxins?
• It is expected that excavation required to build the project will result in the removal of 2.2 Million Cubic
Yards of soil that will need to be hauled somewhere. Where will the soil go? What landfill will accept
the soil and what are the environmental factors that will need to be mitigated from excavation, to
loading, to hauling, and to relocation at "willing recipient" site?
Finally, I ask City Council to :
(1) Withdraw its opposition to the residents' lawsuit that challenges the eligibility determination and approval
of the Vallco Town Center SB 35 application on the grounds that the evidence provided by residents does not
suppo1i the application's compliance with the law.
(2) Launch an investigation to understand how an apparently flawed and non-compliant SB 35 application was
determined to be eligible for streamlined approval and ultimately approved despite 1 00s of pages of evidence
provided to the City by residents identifying the many instances where the SB 35 application was apparently not
compliant with State law, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code.
(3) Consider any and all lawful options that are available to the City to suspend its release of demolition and
construction permits to the Property Owner for the Vallco Town Center SB 35 project while the Court
determines if the approved project is compliant with the law.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
REFERENCES
(A) Link to the text of the Property Owner's letter, dated 4/23/2019 and distributed to."neighbors" via email :
http://b it.l y/BCAC W in s20 19a, select file name 06_PO_newsletter_20190423 .pdf.
(B) Link to text of Senate Bill SB 35 :
http://b it.l y/B CAC W in s2 0 19a , select file name 07 _text_of_SB _35 _20170SB35 _87 .pdf.
(C) Link to the 5/7/2019 letter to the Property Owner from the HMCD:
http ://b it.l y/BCAC W in s2 01 9a, select file name 08_scan_Pierce_Mickey_07_ 40_08-05-2019.pdf
(D) Link to the 1969 architectural drawing of the Sears automotive service center with annotations:
http://bit.l y/BCAC Wins2019a, select file name 09 _sears_tanks_annotated.jpg
Note: the waste oil tank that is unaccounted for is the eastern most tank that is circled on the drawing.
(E) Link to the page from the 1999 closure report for the Sears automotive services site that identifies 6 tanks
5
have been remove from the site:
http://bit.ly/BCAC Wins2019a, select file name 10_ CLOS_L_1999-12-06_pg_3.jpg
(F) Link to the page from the 1999 closure rep01i for the Sears automotive services site that identifies the
location where 6 tanks were removed, but omits the status of the 1,000 gallon waste oil tank:
http ://bit.ly/BCAC Wins2019a, select file name 11_ 0001_sears_clos_site_plan_pg_29
(G) Link to the Vallco Town Center SB 25 application item, Project Description Part 1, submitted to the City on
3/27/2019:
http://bit.ly/BCAC Wins2019a, select file name 12 _ProjectOverviewandlmages.pdf
(H) Link to the Final EIR resolution that was approved on 12/4/2014 to support the General Plan amendment
that established the parameters for the Specific Plan for the Vall co Shopping District site:
http://bit.ly/BCAC Wins2019a, select file name 13 _Res_14-210_Final_EIR.pdf
I [!I ~ Sensible_ Growth -Google Drive
Total Control Panel
To: cityclerk@ cupert ino.org
From: lianacrabtree@yahoo.com
Re mo ve this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
6
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com>
Sunday, May 12, 2019 10:27 PM
Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey
City Clerk; Grace Sc hmidt, MMC; City Attorney's Office
Please act against SB 35 Vallco plan on Monday!
Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Willey:
Please include this communication for the record at tomorrow's (March 13) City Council closed session, agenda item No. 2,
regarding the Friends of Better Cupertino lawsuit asking the Court to declare the SB 35 Vallco project incompatible with the
criteria the SB 35 law demands, and therefore illegal. (Note: while I am the secretary for FoBC, I speak for myself only.)
I know the majority of City Council opposes not only the Vallco Special Plan it rescinded last Tuesday, but also the SB 35
Vallco proposal -and that is precisely why I voted for our two new council members .
Unfortunately, even though the Vallco Special Plan has now been defeated, there is nothing stopping th e Vallco property owner
from acting on demolition I construction p ermits currently in process (and soon to be issued) for its SB 35 project, despite the
fact that the project's approval is being contested in court.
I am pleading for City Council to consult with legal counsel to find out what Council can do to delay permits being
issued, so that residents may finally have a chance to have meaningful input on what happens at Vallco with a fair and inclusive
process .
I also ask Council to pass a resolution declaring its lack of willingness to actively defend the decision made by city staff
to approve the SB 35 project proposal. Although symbolic, such a reso lution would let th e Court know where our elected
officials stand.
Clearly, I have a lot of skin and sweat in this game, but so do the thousands who signed referenda petitions and voted for new
leadership in Cupertino . We have worked so hard, and overcome so many hurdles to get where we are. And ifwe don't win this
one, all hope of a reasonable Vallco plan will be lost. We need your help NOW! ·
Thank you,
Caryl Gorska
10103 Senate Way
Tota l C ontrol Panel
To: c ityc le rk @cup e rtino .o rg
From: gorska@gorska.com
Message Score: l
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom
Bl oc k this sender
Bl ock gorska.com
Thi s message was delivered because th e content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
High (60): Pas s
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pa -
Custom (55): Pass
Cyrah Caburian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Danessa Techmanski < danessa@pacbell.net >
Monday, May 13, 2019 3:38 PM
Darcy Paul; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; R Wang; Vikram
Saxena; Alan Takahashi; David Fung
SB 35; Vallco LUSTs; Possible Vanadium Contamination Above Acceptable Levels;
Hlstory of Manufacturing On/Near Vallco Property
A TT0000l.htm
Follow up
Completed
Dear Council and Planning Commission,
If you don't have time to read this before tonight's May 13, 2019 Special Meeting, Item 2: Pending
Litigation: Friends of Better Cupertino v. City of Cupertino, please at least read the parts in bold or red.
Thanks!
I have put a lot of love and energy into the following, and I hope that you find the information herein useful as
well as interesting ....
As a huge proponent of market rate and BMR housing at the Vallco site, it is extremely disappointing to find
that their may be unhealthy contamination within it's boundaries and I wish that we knew more for certain.
This is exactly one of the reasons why the elimination of CEQA in the new housing bills is a horrible idea.
If there is indeed any unhealthy contamination at the Vallco site, SB-35 is not eligible.
I would like to add some background as to why this is so important to me even though I live about as far from
Vallco as you can get within the Cupertino boundaries. The beach below my house where I played as a child
(Palos Verdes Estates , CA) was found to be a dump site for decades by a chemical company almost 20 miles
away (Montrose Chemical Company, Torrance). I have five childhood friends who developed brain cancer as
well as my own only sister who has only months to live. No one every suspected anything or thought to test that
beautiful and pristine beach until fish and birds seemed to be dying in large amounts .
Let's face it, there is always a potential risk of chemical exposure most everywhere in this valley, but what if it
was your family? If I had to chose between a vacant lot and one person losing their loved one because of a
contamination over-site I would take the vacant lot hands down . Not trying to run around like Erin Brochovich
here, but if the levels of vanadium in the soil do impose a health hazard then we need to make sure that
residents and workers won't be exposed to in the tons of dust resulting from demolition, excavation and
construction at Vallco . Sand Hill will have to clean it up and I am sure that will be both time consuming and
expensive . It may be that some parts of the property are more suitable for housing than others, or that
extreme precaution with need to be taken in moving and excavating the soil in particular areas.
Please keep in mind that the most common point of entry for vanadium exposure is through the lungs so just
having it below the soil isn't necessarily a hazard. It is dredging it up and blowing it through the air that makes
it a problem. One exposure here and there might not be problem, but over months to years of
soil disturbance you can have quite a different scenario with erratic and varying amounts of particulate.
1
It is disappointing that Staff and Planning did not pay attention to, or ad v i se Council on vanadium and cobalt
contamination as presented in the 2016 soil report. We still have no d efinitive infonnation about the status of a
missing Sears waste oil UST and it appears from records that there was some sort of drainage and oil/water
separator near the foundation of Penney's Automotive that contained TPH diesel fuel at 14 ppm. Attempts at
removal of that separator and the soil were abandoned because of the danger of damage to the foundation of
Penney 's :
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable documents/8727142155/0003 %2Epdf (see case:
J.C. Penney's, doc 0003. pdf ppl-2, document page numbers 4-5):
Why didn't the City insist on a Phase II ESA when they received the inconclusive results of the Phase I
ESA in 2018?
Vallco is currently listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and has NOT been cleared
by the State even though the tank is considered "closed," therefore I don 't see how it would be eligible for SB
35 so I'm at a loss as to how it was deemed compliant by our fonner Temporary City Attorney, Council and
Staff.
Considering the above, I would like to voice my disappointment with Sand Hill's April 23, 2019 email
from Reed Moulds assuring Cupertino residents that the Valko property has been examined and that it
is completely clear and safe for demolition and construction.
I read the geophysical ground penetrating radar survey in the City records and was surprised to find that SHP
had spent only $350. to a utility locator company with a P .O.Box in Scotts Valley to do the job. The receipt
notes that the sites to be explored were determined by SHP and only done around Sear's Automotive . One
of the actual areas of contamination in question is next to Penney's and it was NOT explored by
California Utility Locators.
It seems quite a stretch for SHP to claim that they had determined the absence of LUSTs on the ENTIRE Vallco
property by only checking one chosen area! (see below).
Ex cerpt from Reed Mould's Letter to Cupertino residents on April 23, 2019:
"Environmental Clearance
Last week we r e ce ived an exhaustive, 1,234 -page report on the environmental condition of the Val/co
site fro m WSP USA, a le ading environmental constru c ti on and engineering management firm . The
report ga ve th e Val/co site a clean bill o f health. The a n alysis assessed site c onditions, historical data ,
and d a ta obta in ed through three p hases of soil inve s tig a tions in 20 18 a nd 20 19. WSP ana lyzed a
tota l o f 87 soil samp les, c onducted a series of test pits, and even performed a geophysical ground-
penetrating radar survey, all to confirm there is no evidence of contamination above human health
and safety levels or naturally-occurring background levels, nor any evidence of any underground
structures, such as tanks . We're pleased to share that th e r es ults are cle ar, confirm that the site is
appropriate for residential use, and conclude that no further inve stigation or c lean-up is necessary.,,
Below From Site Characterization Report filed with the City, Part 2 of 2, Appendix F, GPR Survey Report:
https://www .cupertino.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24170
2
"" -l~r' -' I \_I ~ .. ,\ .._p.A\T1) O\A °'-V.,., h~ LO CfL= l> ~
f>O ~ (o, O(o(o
Sc.o.t+s \I -,CA C\S o<o1
41'!.> -2.°iC\'-C»C-SI
---
SOtO TO
---
. __ . (oS . · __ .... µ1\\ rz.~
Polo Al½o CA -"-
3
• \
' ;
l
~
t I
i
t
i
! e
I
t
,:-
~ I
<.~
~:-
I '°',
l °:,!
::1
w
~
%,
• l
I
f
~·
a• ,
I I I If I ,
j J
n n
•• ,, I I
I I
......_,_ \;,,
I would also like to note that at the April 23, 2019 Cupertino Planning Commission Meeting Sand Hill's
attending geophysical expert claimed that Vallco was not toxic despite reports of known vanadium. She also
claimed that the property had been nothing but farmland before Vallco Shopping Mall was built. That is also
summarized in Part 1 of 2 in the WSP Vallco Site Characterization Report under Background 2 .1 on p.
5. https://www .cupertino.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24169
Excerpt:
"The area surrounding the Site is residential and commercial. Prior to construction of the Mall, the Site
contained orchards since at least 1939. Based on review of historical aerial photographs, the southeastern
portion of the Site included buildings that appear to have been associated with the former agricultural activities
(Figure 1). The Site was used as a retail shopping mall since at least 1979."
But the buildings surrounding the current shopping mall were much more than just "agricultural"
outbuildings, and that is not the full story of Vallco's history.
4
In the 60 's 470 acres of the land that Vallco now sits on was sold off to Varian Associates from local fanners
who also , by the way, used underground storage tanks. In 1963 Vaiian Associates (and others) who's initials
make up the "VA" in "Vallco" began to build Vallco Business park which covered the south-eastern side of
that acreage.
Coincidentally, one of the largest users of the heavy metal vanadium in early Silicon Valley was Varian
Associates. It was, and is used in Klystron technology, the manufacture of clean vacuum tubes, getters, and
super electromagnets used in resonance imaging, linear accelerators, and nuclear reactors. I am not saying that
they used the Valko property as a manufacturing waste dump, but there really is no way to be certain that
nothing was ever "tossed out." It was not at all uncommon back in the 60's and even the 70's to just dump all
kinds of hazardous substances right out the back door, down the drain, or into a nearby field. Keep in mind
though that Russell and Sigurd Varian were remarkable brothers who literally changed the course
of computers , aviation, medical diagnostics and helped us win WWII . They both loved nature, the outdoors, and
were champions of pubic park space. They were the ones who created Castle Rock State Park. They also
invented the fuse for the atomic bomb which they both horribly regretted later.
Vanadium is found in association with fossil fuels which were used and stored on the site . It was also
used in vacuum tubes for early computers (likely used and manufactured in the larger Vallco area), and
in photo processing chemicals (there were two to three such business in the property's history). It was used
extensively in hollow cathode lamps made by both Varian Associates and Agilent Technologies . Adjacent
companies predating the Valko mall included Intersil Inc., General Precision Inc. (also makers of
vacuum tubes), Mark Systems Inc., Multi-Access Systems, a Vallco Park, Ltd. light
industrial building(?), and Varian Associates which was later sold to Hewlett Packard.
Vanadium is a rare heavy metal that binds to soil and is not normally present in the soil in high concentrations
other than near coal, fossil fuel , or volcanic fumeroles . 98% of it is mined and imported from Russia, South
Africa and China It is mostly imported for use in strengthening steel for building materials, cars, planes and
tools, however, none of that type of manufacturing ever took place at Vallco to my knowledge. That is why its
presence at Vallco seems a bit off. I did not see it mentioned in the soil reports for Apple II which might
indicate that vanadium is not indigenous to the soil in the greater area. I will continue to look into any other soil
reports in the adjacent areas that I can find.
I would like to make it clear that the vanadium and cobalt presence at Vallco could be a geologic anomaly
and I'm not looking for someone to blame here. Vanadium pentoxide is the most common
form found naturally in soils, but it has also been classified on the California Government Occupational
and Environmental Health Hazards Prop 65 list to cause cancer:
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/vanadium-pentoxide-orthorhombic-crystalline-form
I researched the possibility of the contamination being from earlier farming fertilizers but read that vanadium
is detrimental to fruit production and tomatoes (also a fruit) so I'm thinking that is not likely since that farm
land was used extensively to grow prunes and apricots for Gerber baby food as well as dried fruit shipped
across the country. Deeper core soil samples show high levels of vanadium and cobalt around Penney's, but it
is possible that It could have been dredged into the soil during construction of the mall, or it might have been
there naturally. Without knowing more details about excavation or dirt that was brought in it would be hard to
say.
5
Anyhow, long story short, I find it disappointing, but not surprising, that SHP omitted this part of Vallco's
history.
It is my understanding that the Vallco soil was considered unsuitable for dumping at Treasure Island, but that
may be because vanadium levels there are already at their EPA threshold. I could not say without more
infonnation.
https://gallery.mailchimp .com/103717661a2bc55a2dlde9d6b/files /84cd 8b57-40d2-44bd-9b2b-
394dcl f98f4c /SiteCharacterizationReportTablesl 9.pdf?mc cid=l2bb78d7cd&mc eid=39abl acc6d
So here is some information about the early days of the original larger Vallco property:
The Early Days of Vallco
A majo r mi les ton e in Cu pe rtin o 's d eve lopme nt came in the early 1960s w ith th e creat io n ofVA LL CO B us in ess an d Ind ustr ia l
Park b y some of th e c ity 's lar ges t la ndow ne rs. Of the 25 property owners impacted, 17 pooled their land to fonn V ALLCO
Park , six so ld to Varian Associates, a thriving electronic finn founded by Russell Varian, and two opted for transplanting to
fanns e lsewhere. T he name VALLCO was derived from the names of the principa l deve lop e rs: Va ri an Associates a nd th e
Leonard , Le s te r , Craft a nd O rl ando fam ili es. Origina ll y a business park, V ALLCO later evolved into a retail shopping center.
Source: https ://www .cupertino .org/our-city/about-cupertino/history
Vallco Business and Industrial Park, Varian Associates, Manufacturing
Facility, Cupertino, CA (1968)
Structure Type: built works -industrial buildings -fact ori es
Designers: Rocktise and Watson, Architects (finn); George Thomas Rocktise (architect); W illi am Joseph Watson (architect)
Dates: constructed 1968
Vallco
Vallco Park, Cupe11ino , CA
Overview
This Varian Associates factory was one of the first bu ilt at the V ALLCO Business and Industrial Park in Cupert ino. "V ALLCO"
was an acronym containing the first letters of the landowners' last names wh o owned the 4 70 -acre property, including Va1ian
Associates and the Leonard, Lester, Craft and Orlando Fami li es. (See City of Cupertino , "History, 11 accessed 06/16/2016.)
Varian announced in 1965 that it would be building manufacturing facilities at this location. (See Glenna Matthews ,Silico n
Vall ey, Wom en, and th e Cal(fornia Dream: Gender , Cla ss, and Opportunity in th e T·we ntieth Centwy , [Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press , 2003], p . 149.)
PCAD id: 20243
http ://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/20243/
Varian was located at the former HP site. In 1966 Varian Associates got a use permit. The Varian bui lding was built in
1968 on the HP site .
PC Minutes March 28, 1966, page 1
6
Corr c on o the M nu e . of a ch 6 h.
Comm. T -
C ct
Mot o cart 1
Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD)
LINK: http://pcad .lib .washington .edu/bu ilding/2024 3/
<E-➔ 0 1'ril 0 pca dJib.was hin gton,edU)bu ilding/20243/
e
0
PCAO P.«>pio ~ Finns Ma r11 .
m, Ho .
6th.
n
e
a
, an
0 .,p-
1't-Va ll co Bus iness and Industria l Pa rk , Va ri an Ass,oc ia tes . Manu fa cturing Facility. Cupertino , CA ooc..s,
SlruC'tllf0 ,~~: wof'Joi • ln"""'1a l hu!ldill<;s • r0-elofkls
Onlg,..r~: ~• and W-At(Jll!Q<U (lrm), Goq,g. 'Th-.i3 !lodJt$a (•r"'1tt<t}. V.'&!,m J~ .. p, Wat,on 1•~1e,;1)
Oi,c.a: oc,t1illlltlCO 1968
lll,lko
ll•b Pa,l-Cup.-rlino , CA
Ovflr.•lavr
This ValanAnodalils f,a<:l<>ry 1·,ns """ ol Iha fil$l bull •l Iha \f;\UCO Eu$lrloss an<l lndlwlol Por1t., Ct1ptr'lino "V,IJ.LCO" vros on naonym =~lna,9 rtio fir.it !Hl•r> o r llt,o lanrJ''7o'fMfl'
la J I IMilTIO'S w'1o own.ed ll>a ~70,a,a,o p<o po-11)', lru:l:idln!J Vo,im Alo1ocloie. and Iha l,.♦oni/lild bsl;,r Croll .a:nd Orlando F.un5tt, (S"" City al Cu~rliroo. ,111,!IH)'," •coa•$1!d C</iflli/2016 )
V.rf.in announca<l ir1 l!W>5 ~1 ft wrould ho bulldlrg rrunrsbcturfng io did11s al lhls r.:ia,Jon (So• Glmn• Mall!w.>1,S.(lcoo Y, ~Y-t,fuon.,,, And .!II~ Cac"1uml.o O,,,.,.m G""""'-°""-wid
~fly " rr,,, T,w,.'ll>Clrh Cor.;wy. [S,onlord. CA $L1n£>rd Untm~ Pv=. 20031. p 14'.l )
l'CAO l;S ; 202•13
P,dfk Coal Afchlloclulc Oatab•~ (PCAfJ ) -Q 200!>-20 18 Alan ~ ·arol5on
History of Businesses on the Larger Valko Property Adjacent to the Current Mall
From archived Cupertino City Council Records:
1. 1965
a. 04-05-65 CC Minutes , p7 , p12
b. 07 -26-65 CC Minutes , p 3-4 , "Vallco Water Distribution"
V aiian needed water.
c. 10-19-65 CC Minutes , pl-2, Water Quality for manufacturing
d. 11-16-65 Use Permit #18 Vallco Park, Mr. Walter Ward
7
e. 12-06-65 CC Minutes , p3 , Vallco Park Admin building at Prnneridge Ave and Wolfe Rd. CuITently,
sun-ounded by orchards.
2. 1966
a. Use Pennit 2-U-66, Vallco Park
b. Use Pennit 7-U-66, Vallco Park
c. Use Pennit 14-U-66, Gen 'l Precision, Inc. (Vallco Park)
d. Tentative Map 3-TM-66, Vallco Park (Walter Ward)
e. Tentative Map 4-TM-66 , Vallco Park
f. Rezoning, 4-Z-66 Vallco Park
3 . 1967
a. Use Pennit 16-U-67 , VALLCO PARK (Intersil Inc. electronics facility)
b. Use Pennit 24-U-67 , VALLCO PARK (Mark Systems, Inc .)
c. Use Pennit 25 -U-67 , V ALLCO PARK (Will W. Lester -re tower and antenna)
4 . 1968
a. 7-TM-68 Vallco Park
b. 26 -TM-68 Varian Associates
c. 18-U-78 VALLCO PARK (ISS, Inc, International Storage Services) (SEE 20-U-69)
d. 22-U-68 VALLCO PARK
5. 1969
a. Use Permit 13-U-69 VALLCO PARK
b. Use Permit 15-U-69 VALLCO PARK -INTERSIL , INC. (expansion)
c. UsePennit 17-U-69VALLCOPARK -MULTI-ACCESS SYSTEMS
d. Use Pennit 20-U-69 VALLCO PARK (Expansion of ISS , Inc .) Trailer Storage, See also 18-U-68
e. Use Permit 23-U-69 V ALLCO PARK (Pet Shop)
f. 22-TM-69 V ALLCO PARK
6. 1970
a. Use Pennit 8-U-70 VALLCO PARK -Mark Systems , Inc. P(Zone)
b. Use Pennit 25-U-70 Fotomat Corporation P(Zone) ... maybe not a t Vallco
c. Rezoning 10-Z-70 V ALLCO PARK
7. 1971
a. Use Pennit 5-U-71 VALLCO PARK LTD , 2-story 58 ,000 sq ft office industrial bldg. and 3-story
50,000 sf office building south side of Prnneridge Avenue between Wolfe and Tantau
b. Use Permit 6-U-71 VALLCO PARK LTD, Hilton Inn Hotel, SE comer of Wolfe Road and Prnneridge
Avenue
8
c. Use Pennit 7-U-71 VALLCO PARK LTD , Two 3-story and tlu·ee 2-story office bldgs .. Northeast comer
of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Blvd.
d . Use Pem1it 38 -U-71 V ALLCO PARK LTD , Light Industrial Bui lding
8. 1972
a. Nothing found
9. 1973
a. Use Pennit 2-U-73 Vallco Park (Four Phase)
b. Use Pennit 6-U-73 Vallco Park, Ltd. (Regional Shopping Center)
c. Use Permit 9-U-73 Union Carbide Company (Vallco Park)
1. Notice of detennination needed
d. Use Pennit 10-U-73 The Westfield Company (was this Vallco?)
1. Notice of detennination needed
e. Use Permit 11-U-73 Hewl ett Packard (Vallco Park)
f. Use Permit 15-U-73 Vallco Park (Internal Parking Lot Addition)
g. Use Permit 17-U-73 Will W. Lester (maybe Vallco?)
h. Use Permit 20-U-73 The Westfield Co. (Pruneridge & Tantau) (25-EA-73) (1-EIR-74)
1. Use Permit 21-U-73 Vallco Park (Wolfe & Pruneridge), 2 Commericial & 3 Recreational)
J. 4-TM-73 V ALLCO PARK (Four Phase)
k. 11-TM-73 HEWLETT-PACKARD
1. 12-TM-73 V ALLCO PARK (HILTON INN)
m. 1-EIR-73 Hewlett-Packard
1. Notice of determination needed
n. 2-EIR-73 City of Cupertino General Plan
o. 3-EIR-73 Vallco Park-Regional Shopping Center
1. Notice of determination needed
p. 4-EA-73 Vallco Park, Ltd . (Regional Shopping Center)(6-U-73)
q. 9-EA-73 The Westfield Company
1. Notice of determination needed
r. 10-EA-73 Royaden E . Stark (Union Carbide Company, Vallco Park)
1. Notice of determination needed
s. 11-EA-73 Hewlet-Packard
t. 25-EA-73 The Westfield Co. (SE comer Pruneridge & Tantau Ave.) Westfield
u. 27-EA-73 Vallco Park
v. See list of items that need "Notice of determination"
10. 1974
9
Additional Research on the Health Effects of Vanadium Exposure in Humans:
Please note that I am absolutely no expert on vanadium exposure. Studies are extremely poor and varied . One
thing is consistent Exposure to high levels of vanadium pentoxide in air can result in lung damage.
"Nausea, mild diarrhea, and stomach cramps have been reported in people some vanadium compounds. A number of effects have been
found in animals ingesting vanadium compounds including decreases in th e number of red blood cells, increased blood pressure, and
mild neurological effects.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (!ARC) has classified vanadium pentoxide as possibly carcinogenic to humans
based on evidence of lung cancer in exposed mice.
Studies in animals exposed during pregnancy have shown that vanadium can cause decreases in growth and increases in the
occurrence of birth defects . These effects are usually observed at levels which cause effects in the mother.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a legal limit of 0. 5 milligrams per cubic meter (0 . 5 mg/m3) for
van adium pentoxide dust as a ce ilin g limit not to be exceeded during th e workday . A ceiling limit of 0.1 mg/m3 for vanadium pentoxide
fumes has also been established. "
I cubic meter of soil= 1602 .8 kg .= 1.6 tons
There are up to 60mg./kg of vanadium in the Vallco soi l tests. That would translate to 96mg.of vanadium per cu bi c meter of so il at
Vallco (60mg/kg. x 1.602). Compare that with the daily airborne acceptable leve l of .5 mg.
From the U .S . DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (A TSDR):
"Workers exposed to a range of vanadium pentoxide dust levels for as little as I day (Levy et al. 1984; Musk and Tees
1982; Thomas and Stiebris 1956; Zenz et al. 1962) or as long as ?.6 years (lrsigler et al. 1999; Lewis 1959; NIOSH 1983;
Sjoberg 1956; Vintinner et al. 1955; Wyers 1946), show mild respiratory distress, such as cough, wheezing, chest pain,
runny nose, or sore throat. One study of chronically-exposed workers showed increased neutrophils in the nasal mucosa
(Kiviluoto 1980; Kiviluoto et al. 19 79b, 1981 a). More severe pathology has not been reported. Symptoms are reversible
within days or weeks after exposure ceases. Data were not located to assess the relationship of exposure level or duration
to severity of response.
The mean urine vanadium level (assessed via spot urine samples) in the hyperresponsive group was 52. 7 pg/g creatinine
compared to 30. 7 pg/g creatinine in 12 matched subjects with persistent respiratory symptoms and without bronchial
hyperreactivity; statistical comparisons of the two groups were not made. Five to 23 months after removal from exposure,
bronchial hyperreactivity was still present in nine of the subjects, although the response was less severe in.five of them
and more severe in one subject. "
Source: https://www .atsdr .cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp5 8.pdf
"Vanadium can enter the body either by inhalation of air containing vanadium, ingestion of food or water containing
vanadium, or by dermal contact with vanadium. Inhalation of air containing vanadium can cause lung irritation, sore
throat, wheezing, chest pain, runny nose, and asthma. Exposure to vanadium may affect the central nervous system
with symptoms including headache and tremors. There is little evidence for the fu/1 effects of ingestion of vanadium on
human health, however some studies indicate that symptoms include abdominal cramps, diarrhoea and a green colour
10
to the tongue . Dermal contact with vanadium compounds can cause skin irritation and dermatitis. The International
Agency for Research on Cancer has not designated vanadium in terms of its carcinogenicity. The International Agency
for Research on Cancer has designated vanadium pentoxide as a possible carcinogen . However, exposure to vanadium
at normal background levels is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human health ."
Source : http://apps.sepa.org . u k/spiipa/Pages/Substancelnfonnation.aspx?pid= 110
Thank you so much for your patience in reading the above.
My ask is that the City do an independent soil test and hire an expert independent consultant to
determine whether the levels of vanadium at Vallco will pose a health risk to workers and the
surrounding community during the prolonged disturbance of tons of soil on the property during
construction.
Please also have an independent geophysical ground radar survey done around the perimeter of Penney 's
site as well as more thorough soil testing for both vanadium and TPH diesel fuel.
I pray that this does not effect the housing at Vallco and I hope that a professional assessment will show that the
property is safe or that something can be done to mitigate the situation and limit exposure if it is indeed a
problem.
Please enter this into the public record.
Thank you,
Danessa Techmanski
Total Control Panel
To : ssc ha1f@cup ert ino.org
From : danessa@ pacbell.net
Remo ve thi s sender from my allow list
You received this message because th e sen der is on yo ur allow list.
11