CC Exhibit 08-02-2016 Oral CommunicationsTo: Cupertino Council , Mayor Barry Chang, and Manager David Brandt I'll
Date: August 2, 2016 L.A-
From : Gary Latshaw
Subject: Recommendation to create an Addendum to the 9212 Report on the "The Town
Center Specific Initiative"
In November the public will vote on the Initiative. It is important that in so far as
possible , the public is well informed on the consequences if the initiative passes. The
9212 Report I believe is adequate for "normal" circumstances. However, due to the large
size of the project and the consequences of the City losing most of its jurisdiction over
the project if the initiative passes , I believe the City should produce an Addendum to the
9212 Report and provide an in-depth analysis of a few issues.
In particular:
1. What are the Traffic Consequences to Wolf Road between Stevens Creek to
Homestead? The external traffic impact of the Vallco project is approximately
the size of the Apple Campus 2 project. According to the Apple EIR the Apple
Campus 2 facility increases traffic by 200% over current traffic 1• To
accommodate this there are 35 transportation mitigation measures to be put in
place. Those mitigation measures include adding an exit lane to each of the
northbound and southbound I-280 off-ramps at Wolf. The addition of the Vallco
project adds another 200% increase to the traffic. Such a large increase deserves a
comprehensive analysis for a judicious decision to be made.
2 . What are the penalties for violating the 50% TDM from driving alone?
Under current conditions in the valley this does not seem feasible. The
commitment to only a four-second average delay citywide is a misleading
statement since there are only a couple of dozen intersections affected . Here is at
Image capture from revitalizevallco.com (taken today).
• The Vallco Town Center Spec1tic Plan implements a Transportation Demand Managemen Plan
that would mandate trip reductions trom the project. such as the requ irement that nearly 50
percent of all office employees will be prohibited from driving alone to or from work, and
establish severe financial penalties tor failure to comply.
• Traffic will be m1t1gated so that any increase in delay of the affected intersections city-wide 1s
less than tour seconds per vehicle on average.
3. How effective will the 35 transportation 1 mitigation measures be if the Vallco
project is built per the initiative? In the Apple analysis multiple impacts were
established and 3 5 distinct transportation mitigation measures were identified to
either remove or mitigate the Apple-traffic impact. I question whether these
measures would be effective in the presence of the Vallco traffic?
4. What is the Financial Viability of the Vallco Project? My motivation for
making this request stems from a recent visit to the downtown Sunnyvale area.
The partially built structure by Sand Hill Properties is still standing after over a
decade . I am offered varied explanations as to why this has happen . However, I
believe this is a warning that future projects, particularly one that is larger than
any Sand Hill Properties has done before, should be thoroughly vetted for
economic viability .
1 See Table V.1-8 on page 388 of the Apple_Campus2_Project_EIR_Public_Review_Si-
Transportation. pdf
Memo by Kristy Weis
Fehr & Peers, June 28, 2016 (p.10)
TABLE 3: SPKtFIC PLAN NET NEW TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
AMPNlt Hour 'PM Pak.Hour
Report """ Toto! In ·Oot Tobi .. Out
PrefiminaN TechniGll As~-smtont PT"·' 2.620 2.()66 554 2.435 532 1,903
E.nvirolvnem-•I Assessment (EA) 16.162 2.BOS 2.269 537 1.583 m 1.452
OtfftrHICe (EA m inus PTA) ~14201 \BS 203 -17 -852 --451
30,000 (original)+ 20,000 (Apple)+ 12,000 (Main Street) +30,363 (New)
Total Traffic Load (Tripled) = > 90,000
EC9212 Executive Summary
Vallco Office Park Initiative
Fehr & Peers, June 29, 2016 (p.4)
fllliI!l~~ijle:jjjji]iWJ!ij;ijj~JWJjjjjjjWJlij[jjjjgj;i[!~fi]j[lijj~iDJli~. although lhe Cilywould
i kely be able lo ad<lress lhese impacts when processing subsequenl approvals lhrough required mitigation,
applicalion of a Transportation Mitigation Fee Prog ram (TMF P). or condfons of approvals.
Require vnler approva l for changes lo lhe Specific Plan , modifications lo developmenl Iha! are significantly
differenl from lhe standards in lhe Specific Plan , or olher changes lo provisions of lhe Initiative , prior lo
January 1, 2027.
Facifilale increased job and business opportunities from new relail, office and holel developmenl in the
Vatlco area. althoug h lhe Initiative wo'*I nol inaease what is aready pennrtled in lhe General Plan.
f!a~ jiijljj(I 9Viilli!J on iiilraS!ruaUre fu~------aM me proVlsion of inrraslruclure fOilrarlSl!O~
schools and pa<ks in lhe Cily, as well as lhe developmenl of seoo r and attordable housing .
Allow for the increase in polenHaf revenues from the City's major source of Genera l Fu nd revenues-
business-to-business sales tax, property lax revenues and transient occupancy tax revenues.
~ Members of thl'City Council
AYES : Paul, Vaidhyanathan, Wong (ltt!ms 1-3)
in 01ang.. Paul. Vaid hyanathan,. Wong (Items 4-5)
NOES: C hang (lloms 1-3)
AB.SENT: NOO<'
ARSTA IN: Nont>
ATTEST:
fu, ,SJ,M,ll
Grae~ Schmidt, Cil y Clerk
APPROVED:
Maym~
Ci ty of Cupt?rli no
Memo by Kristy Weis
Fehr & Peers, June 28, 2016 (Page 29)
-
,,..~D-
.,.._..... .... ~ ..... VT A.
~·C--D~ •,...........i.•....--vu.
-
s.c..a---..... -.. ~~ ZID!ird.,._ t__,1)-~..,,._ _,.
Yldit ........ a.t~--
~...._ ...... ._.,__....,,,..
no~ .. ..., "--ll...ct i.a.......,_... ... ,.~_,.... __
GPA (#15-1012) Staff Report, p.7
October 20, 2015
1. Clarificat ion/Correcti ons:
a. ~ -Community Form D iagra m: A few darifi cdtion/corrections wen:-made
to the Community Fonn Dingram in duding, bu t not li mited to:
i. Bou ndary co~tion for th e Monta Vista Special Area;
ii. Clarifying the densil y fo r Stel ling Ga teway East;
i ii. oortmoas s
iv. lncorporntion of language rcla led lo Rooftop Mcchilnical Equipmen t from Fig ure
2-D of 2005 GP.
b. Figure M-2 -Orrulation Netv~mr k: Update the legend to indude "Expressway"
c. Figu re JNF-1 -Waste Water Service: Clarif}' the area where properties may not
co nnect to the C upertin o Sanit a ry Dis trict serv ice and must de\'elop on septic
systems.
Conclusion
• Assertion in EC9212 for the CCSGI stated
the ''N eighborhoods" is NOT designated as
Special Area (untruthful statement)
• Led to conclusion that two-third of city
building height might be increased to 45 feet
• Council therefore inserted "CCSGI
increases building height to 45 feet " in
Ballot Label -leading to an unnecessary
Writ of Mandate lawsuit