Developer Should Not Write Vallco Specific Plan by Liang

Liang points out that
  - General Plan "Community Vision 2040" did not provide height limit for Vallco Area, istead it says "Per Specific Plan".
  - Yet, Sand Hill is now writing Vallco Specific Plan. This is wrong.
  - Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee should be formed to write Vallco Specific Plan.
  - North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee in Los Gatos is a great example to follow.

----------------------------------------
From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015
Subject: Developer should not be allowed to write Vallco Specific Plan
To: Gary Chao <garyc@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

In Figure LU-1 of Community Vision 2040, for Vallco Shopping District Special Area, it states
"West of Wolfe Rd: Maximum Residential Density: 35 units per acre
      Maximum Height: Per Specific Plan
East of Wolfe Rd: Maximum Residential Density: 35 units per acre
     Maximum Height: Per Specific Plan"

The Maximum Height for Vallco area is not defined in the General Plan at all.

The height is supposed to be specified in the Specific Plan and now the developer is writing the Vallco Specific Plan.

This is wrong. A developer should not write the Vallco Specific Plan even though the developer happens to own that property.

A Specific Plan should not become a wish list for a specific developer. A Specific Plan should still take into account of the best interest of the entire city, all the residents in the City and especially all the residents living in surrounding neighborhoods of a specific area.

The city and the residents should be writing the Specific Plan, not a developer.
And now the limit on height is even removed in Community Vision 2040 to be left to the Specific Plan. It is all the more important for the city to organize a Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee, with mostly community residents, to write the Specific Plan.

Liang-Fang Chao

Cupertino Resident

From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Developer should not be allowed to write Vallco Specific Plan
To: planning@cupertino.org, City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Please follow the example of North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee in Los Gatos.

In Los Gatos, North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee, consists of 6 city officials and 9 community representatives. This committee submits the Specific Plan for review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Therefore, the North 40 Specific Plan is prepared by the city and the community, NOT the developer, as it should be.

The North 40 project in Los Gatos is quite similar in size to Vallco Redevelopment Project.
The North 40 refers to approximately 40 acres located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highways 85 and 17. In the current General Plan, adopted in 2010, the guiding principals of North 40 include a mix of uses.

Liang

Don't Legalize Bribery using Development Management Program (a.k.a. Community Benefits program) by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015
Subject: Development Management Program is still Community Benefits Program
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org
Although the meeting description does not mention it, the focus of this proposed GPA process concerns different forms of "Community Benefits" program, now renamed "Development Management Program." As long as a development project follows all current zoning codes and the current General Plan, the project does not need any GPA at all. Why not encourage all developers to follow our General Plan and zoning code? An amendment should be granted only under very rare circumstances.
The proposed new GPA process would allow exceptions or variables to the General Plan as a common annual practice. However, General Plan Amendments or variances should not be an annual occurrence. Such exceptions to General Plan should be few and far between; otherwise, the 25-year General Plan would not be able to serve its long-range planning purpose.

The proposed new GPA process sends a message to developers: You are welcome to break the zoning code and violate our approved General Plan as long as you bribe us with attractive Community Benefits. And we open the door once a year to see who gives us the best bribe.

Please don't approve a process that legalizes breaking city codes and violating policies in General Plan with bribes, which are confusingly named Community Benefits or Community Amenities or whatever name used.

Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident

Zoning Exists to Regulate Land Use by Phyllis

From: Dicksteinp
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Subject: Development Management Program is still Community Benefits ...

I fully agree with Liang, who has gotten right to the point. Zoning exists for a purpose -- which is to regulate land use (what may be built where, with what heights, densities, setbacks) in accordance with the vision of the community at large. It is the blueprint, the norm, not a "base" from which variances are regularly granted. The variances are the exceptions, which should be few and far between, and only when the project in its essence (not a few amenities) is of overwhelming benefit to the community.

A "community benefits program" or formal list of amenities, is merely a pretext  to justify four or five major variances each year. At the end of ten years (45-50 projects), the developers achieve piecemeal what the community, even through last year's biased survey, clearly has rejected accomplishing globally -- namely, changing the skyline of our city from 45 or 60 ft to  perhaps 75 or 90 ft.

Phyllis Dickstein

Formal Complaint of Possible Violation of Municipal Code and Misleading City Council

Summary of Violations:

• Illegal Contract: Contract with the traffic consultant Fehr & Peers  for "Traffic Data Collection for Vallco Mall Redevelopment Project Services" was already signed on March 2014 without Council approval when the total amount of contract exceeds $175,000.
• Misleading Answers to City Council: During June 16, 2014 City Council Meeting, City Staff contended that "So the scope that's before you. They haven't started working yet." But a contract was signed back in March and the work on traffic data collection, which is a part of the scope of work listed in the EIR contract, has already started.
• Conflict of Interest: The City Attorney signed the contract with Fehr & Peers when the attorney should be the enforcement officer for City Municipal Code.

 

Entire Formal Complaint in PDF with all attachments.

Attachment A & B: (Page 3-6) Email exchange between Randy Shingai and Assistant Attorney Colleen Winchester, where Winchester indicated the contract with the traffic consultant Fehr & Peers for "Traffic Data Collection for Vallco Mall Redevelopment Project Services" was already signed on March 2014.

Attachment C (Page7-9): Transcript of June 16 Council Meeting, where staff insisted that no Vallco EIR work is done when pressed by Vice Mayor Barry Chang.

 

Attachment D (Page 10-): Relevant sections of Cupertino Municipal Code highlighted, which states that Council approval is required for any contract over $175,000.

 

 

------------------------------------------

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2015
Subject: Formal Complaint of Possible Violation of Cupertino Municipal Code and Misleading City Council
To: rsinks@cupertino.org, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>

 

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and City Council Members,

 

I am submitting this formal complaint letter with its attachments on behalf of Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee FPPC #1376003.  The letter and it’s attachments follow below and I have attached the .PDF version to this email. 

 

Sincerely,

Peggy Griffin, on behalf of Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, FPPC #1376003

 

 

CRSZaction Formal Complaint letter with Attachments 2015-06-24

                                                             June 24, 2015

 

Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee

FPPC #1376003

 

 

 

Mayor Rod Sinks

City of Cupertino

 

Dear Mayor Sinks:

 

One of our members, Randy Shingai, wrote an e-mail addressed to the City Council and City Attorney about a possible violation of Cupertino Municipal Code 3.22.060.  That is Attachment A to this letter.

 

Assistant City Attorney Colleen Winchester’s response to that e-mail is included as Attachment B.

 

The specific point raised in Mr. Shingai’s e-mail was not addressed in Ms. Winchester’s response.  Mr. Shingai did not contend that work was performed without a contract.  Mr. Shingai made no mention of a contract.  Mr. Shingai’s contention was that, “The work was billed before it was approved by the council.”  Mr. Shingai also pointed out that the work would only be exempt from the bidding requirements in Municipal Code 3.22, and would therefore still be subject to the dollar threshold that would require prior City Council approval.

 

In her e-mail response to Mr. Shingai, Ms. Winchester attached a copy of the contract with Fehr & Peers that the City signed without City Council approval In March 2015.  Mr. Shingai forwarded a copy of that contract to the City Council on June 20, 2015.  Notice that the City Attorney has also signed this document under the heading “APPROVED AS TO FORM.”

 

The “scope of  work” in that illegally signed March 2015 contract is a subset of the “Scope of Work” in the contract that was approved as Agenda Item #10 at the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.  Since Fehr & Peers’ estimate of the entire traffic portion of the scope of work was $256, 795; according to Municipal Code 3.22.060(B) the City should have forseeably known that the full scope of work would be over the $175,000 threshold in 22032(b) of the Public Contract Code.  Therefore the March 2015 was in violation of Municipal Code, as segmenting the full scope of work into portions that fall under the $175,000 threshold would violate the intent of the law.

 

This issue was brought up during the questioning of City Staff during the deliberation of Item #10 at June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.  Attachment C is a transcript of a portion of that exchange.

 

The answers provided by City Staff at the June 16 City Council Meeting are troubling.  We request the City have a hearing on this issue.  The issues we have are as follows:

 

• Did City Staff violate Municipal Code 3.22.060 in the awarding of the March 2015 contract with traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers.

 

• Did City Staff mislead the City Council during questioning at the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting?

 

 

It is worth noting that the City Attorney signed the March 2015 contract with the traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers, under the heading “APPROVED AS TO FORM.” A conflict may therefore exist with the City Attorney’s role of enforcement officer that is specified in Municipal Code 2.18.020(F).

 

Here is 2.18.020(F):

 

 F.   Prosecute all violations of City ordinance; provided, however, that the City Attorney is not required to prosecute any misdemeanor or infraction within the City arising out of a violation of State law. 

 

The City Council should therefore consider appointing an independent party to investigate and prosecute the March 2015 contract with the traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers.

 

 

Cupertino Municipal Code 3.22 is included as Appendix D.

 

Here is a link to the alleged illegal contract with Fehr & Peers that the City signed in March 2015

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-t-isgqFFeOdmktbUhKY1oxV00/view?usp=sharing

 

Here is a link to the full Scope of Work from the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda

 

http://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=11567850-587e-4bd1-bbb5-60d4c9889e4f.pdf

 

 

 

Thank You,

 

Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee

 

Entire Formal Complaint in PDF with all attachments.

 

Vallco EIR Work Violates Municipal Code 3.22.060 by Randy

From: Randy Shingai
Date: Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:58 PM
Subject:  Possible violation of Cupertino Municipal Code 3.22.060
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk cityclerk@cupertino.org

Dear Councilmembers and City Attorney,

I would like to bring a possible violation of Cupertino Municipal Code 3.22.060 to your attention.

Municipal Code 3.22.060 begins as follows:

B.   Purchases Approved by City Council–Application of Formal Competitive Bidding Procedures.  In instances where the acquisition of supplies, materials, equipment or services will foreseeably result in the issuance of a purchase order, check request, or the award of a contract with a dollar value in excess of the required dollar value for public works contracts described in section 22032(b) of the Public Contracts Code, such will be authorized only by action of the City Council.

While 3.22.070 of the Municipal Code contains an exemption from bidding requirements for professional services, it does not offer an exemption from the provisions of 3.22.060 that do not relate to the biding process.  Therefore I believe that any work that could forseeably result in a charge in excess of the $175,000 threshold in 22032(b) should have been authorized by the City Council.

 

D.   Professional Services.  Professional services including, but not limited to, services of lawyers, architects, engineers, land surveyors, artists and accountants are exempt from the bidding requirements of this chapter. 

A charge from FEHR & PEERS ASSOC INC was listed as Number 683006 in the Payment Register for 6/1/2015 to 6/5/2015 that was submitted for approval to the City Council under Consent Item #9 at the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.

The date for this item is: 05/08/2015.

The description for this item is: "Traffic Data Collection for Vallco Mall Redevelopment"

The amount is $25,198.25

I have included that page of the Payment Register as an attachment.  I am awaiting a Public Records Request for the invoice.  I should receive it by Thursday, June 25.

 

There appears to be a reference to this work on Page 30 under the heading "Task 2 Data Collection" in the Scope of Work for the Vallco Specific Plan Redevelopment Project that was presented for approval to the City Council on June 16,2015.  It is under The total cost of this work was over $754,000, and the traffic specific work subcontracted to Fehr & Peers was over $256,000.   The City Council did grant approval for this work.  However that was over a month after the work appears to have been competed. The work was also billed before it was approved by the council.  I have included a pdf of that page as an attachment.

Here is a link to the Scope of Work document:

https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=3818915&GUID=AD058C47-4BB7-4DCD-81BE-B9599D935090

Thank you,

Randy Shingai

Vallco EIR Contract is Illegal Without Competitive Bidding Process by Randy

From: Randy Shingai
Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM
Subject: ILLEGAL ACTION by the Cupertino City Council on June 16, 2015
To: rsinks@cupertino.org, bchang@cupertino.org, gwong@cupertino.org, svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt Davidb@cupertino.org

Dear City Council and staff,

At the June 16, 2015 Cupertino City Council meeting the City Council voted to authorize the City Manager to execute a consulting contract with David J. Powers and Associates. We believe this is illegal under Cupertino Municipal Code 2.30, because there was no competitive bidding for this contract. Cathy Helgerson brought this issue to our attention.

We believe the exemption from competitive bidding for professional services contracts in City Municipal Code 2.23.130 only applies to a "public works project." Here's the definition of "public works project" in Cupertino Municipal Code 3.23.020:

4. “Public works project” means:

a. The erection, improvement, painting or repair of public buildings and works;

b. Work to protect against overflow of streams, bays, waterfronts or embankments;

c. Street or sewer work except for maintenance or repair thereof;

d. Furnishing supplies or materials for any such project, including the maintenance or repair of streets or sewers.

(Ord. 1897, § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. 1583, § 1 (part), 1992)

While EIR work for private development is administered by the same City staff members that usually handle "public works projects", the Vallco Shopping District Planning Area development is a private undertaking by Sand Hill Property Company. Vallco is in no way, shape or form public.

The contract that the City Council authorized with David J. Powers and Associates to perform work in preparation for an EIR for the Vallco Shopping District Planning Area should have been handled under the general procurement rules in Municipal Code 3.22. Those are the rules that apply to the "purchase of supplies, materials, equipment and services." Therefore, the Formal Competitive Bidding Procedures" in 3.22.060 should have been followed, because the amount authorized was well above the dollar threshold specified in 22032(b) of the CA Public Contract Code.

The City Council's action to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with David J. Powers and Associates is an illegal action. You must rescind this action to comply with Cupertino Municipal Code 3.22.

The City may decide to argue that the Vallco EIR work should be handled under the "public works project" rules, but we believe that courts would want to know what the public interest is in doing so. Since more than a dozen people wrote e-mail and/or complained in person about the lack of transparency in the selection of David J. Powers and Associates by the City, we think a good case can be made that the public's interest was not served by circumventing the competitive bidding procedures. We can also point to prior instances where the competitive bidding process was used to select consultants for public works projects by the City even though the City was not legally required to do so.

RFP for General Plan Amendment and Rezoning

General-Plan-Amdmt-EIR-RFP-2012-11-05.pdf

RFP for Climate Action Plan: Community Engagement and CEQA Support

RFP Climate Action Plan 2013-11-15.pdf

We will file a formal appeal on Tuesday of next week if we do not receive an indication from the City of Cupertino that the City will rescind the action taken by the City Council to authorize the City Manager to execute a consulting contract with David J. Powers and Associates. Please save us all the time and expense of not having to go through that process.

The ball is in your court.

Thanks!

Randy Shingai for Better Cupertino

============================================================================

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Colleen Winchester <ColleenW@cupertino.org> wrote:

Mr. Shingai,

Allow this to respond to your email to City Council.   The contract with David Powers and Associates approved on June 16, 2015, is to prepare the environmental analysis for a private project.  Professional service contracts are exempt from the public bidding process, whether or not it is a public work.  See, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 3.22.070(D).

Thank you for your continued interest in Cupertino.

Colleen Winchester
Assistant City Attorney
City of Cupertino
(408) 777-3404

Vallo EIR Started Long Before Council Approval by Yu

From: Yu Ying
Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Subject: disappointed on the result for vallco item 10 in 06/16 council meeting
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk cityclerk@cupertino.org

Dear City Councils,

I am writing to you to express my deep disappointment regarding authorizing the start of Vallco EIR process. In particular, I am extremely disappointed about how the planning staff approach this process. 

The staff must have started the EIR work with the now hired consultant long time before the applicant filed the request. Although Arti claimed the consultant doesn't charge the city, so what? All services have to be paid in some way. If the consultant didn't have the signal from our staff, it wouldn't have started the "free" consultant service. Not to mention they are "the only" bidder for this report.

 

This so-called back-end processing is a potential corruption tumor in our city governance. It has no transparency to the residents for sure; it is now found to hide under-table operations from our council too. This reminds me how they told the council the Community 2040 only needs to be reviewed for "clean up", which instead is a complete re-written of GP2005. This reminds me the staff refused to provide red-line copy to the residents until hundreds residents showed up on 05/19 meeting, and council realized the severity and requested for it. I now wonder what else is still hidden from Council the city projects over all. Do you want to know too?

I appreciate City council's efforts in this GPA process, I respect your ideas on how to improve existing problems. But the planning staff is not running the process in favor of our residents. They hide problems. They are misleading the Council. If you don't take actions to correct them, you are put against the residents. 

 

Yu (Cupertino Residents)

Thank you Barry and Darcy for voting NO on Valco EIR! by Cathy

From: Cathy Wang
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Thank you Barry and Darcy for voting NO on Valco EIR!
To: "bchang@cupertino.org" <bchang@cupertino.org>, "dpaul@cupertino.org" dpaul@cupertino.org

Hi Barry and Darcy,

My family moved to Cupertino in 2003 for the known reason: small city and good schools.  Our kids grow up here.  This is our home and we want to continue to  live here after kids are gone.

I have never written any email to any publicly elected officials in my life, since i finally decided to become a citizen only last year after 2 decades.  It is time to have our voice heard.  Thank you for representing us, the Cupertino residents and making the right decision when voting no at the Valco project.  I want to let you know what you have done is noticed and appreciated.  You have our support now and in future.

I'm currently on business travel in Asia.  Your vote means a lot more to me now than ever: it would be the saddest thing to see Cupertino follows the steps of these overly congested cities such as shenzhen, Hong Kong and Taipei.  The more apartments built, the more people come in, the more expensive housing will be, then the faster appreciation of real estate attracts faster influx of population... vicious cycle.  It's hard to imagine now an average apartment in shenzhen is more expensive than our single family house in Cupertino.  However that's a city I will never consider living there.

Appreciation of real estate is good, but i prefer to qualify of life.  Most of residents want to continue to live in their current house vs taking profit selling them.  Our kids love Amc theater, the ice rink (used to be); we love  dim sum at the Denasty,  Gymboree, Victoria secret...Cupertino needs a place of its own that we can go to.  No,

valley fair can't replace valco, period.   800 more housing unit will make the already congested Stevens creek even worse...

Again those who vote for their conscience will be remembered. 

Thank you, Barry and Darcy!

Yue

Rod, Gilbert and Savita, Please Listen to a Cupertino Resident by Cathy

From: Cathy Wang
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:07 PM
Subject: Fw: Thank you Barry and Darcy for voting NO on Valco EIR!
To: "rsinks@cupertino.org" <rsinks@cupertino.org>, "gwong@cupertino.org" <gwong@cupertino.org>, "svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org" svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org

Hi Rod, Gilbert and Savita,

On a second thought, I decided to forward below email to you three who voted yes to Valco project.  You might have reasons behind the decision that are unfathomable to people like me who know nothing about politics.  I simply want you to hear how i feel as a Cupertino resident, who love this city as her second hometown. 

I hope you will listen and change your decision.  I always admire those who choose to work for the public, it requires more than passion, sacrifice,  integrity, persistence and perseverance.  Again thank you for your service and please do represent us when you cast your priceless vote.

Personally I have decided to get involved starting from Valco project.  I will make sure all my neighbors understand the impact,  commit my conner yard to educate the community and convince as many neighbors to do so as possible.  This is our city.  If we don't care, who would care for us?  This is your city too, at least i hope.

Cathy (yue) Wang

Level of Service (LOS) for Traffic condition - When Did the Council Decide to Remove It? by Liang

As pointed out in this blog
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/vision-2040-regardless-of-traffic.html
General Plan 2000-2020 has a policy that requires the traffic LOS (Level of Service) to be at least D or better. This policy and all policies related to Level of Service were removed.

This letter asks when the Council discussed that these policies and decided that they should be removed since it is not required by any State Law to remove them.
The planning staff is unwilling to answer these questions.
---------------------------------------------------
From: Liang C
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:51 AM
Subject: Level of Service (LOS) for Traffic condition - When did the Council decide to remove it?
To: Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Many policies related to Level of Service (LOS) for assessing traffic congestion are removed from 2000-2020 General Plan.

Specifically, "Policy 4-6: Maintain a minimum LOS D for major intersections for the morning and afternoon peak hours."

In the comparison table provided, the reason listed: "Removed LOS D for compliance with SB 743."

SB 743 does not require that LOS to be removed. SB 743 merely asks for an alternative measure to be added for "infill opportunity zone."
Could you please kindly identify in which meeting this issue was discussed during the City Council meeting?

When did the Council decide to remove LOS D? Where was such decision documented?
This is not required by SB 743 or any other state law.
I would appreciate an answer right now in writing, since it should be easy to tell whether such an issue is ever discussed by the Council.

Thanks.

Liang-Fang ChaoCupertino Resident

Please Form a Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015
Subject: Please Form a Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, and City Council Members,

I would like to request that a Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee be formed with a majority of members from the community. The Committee would be tasked with drafting specific plans and outreach to the wider community and stakeholders for additional input.

Vallco is such an important development project. If well designed, Vallco will bring prosperity to Cupertino and surrounding cities and improve our quality of life. However, if ill deigned, Vallco could cripple Cupertino and its neighbors, economically and physically due to congested traffic. The city should allow true community involvement early on in the process. A Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee is just what we need.

In Los Gatos, North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee, consists of 6 city officials and 9 community representatives. This committee submits the Specific Plan for review by the Planning Commission and the Council.

The North 40 project in Los Gatos is quite similar in size to Vallco Redevelopment Project.
The North 40 refers to approximately 40 acres located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highways 85 and 17. In their current General Plan, adopted in 2010, the guiding principals of North 40 include a mix of uses.

The City of Los Gatos first formed a North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee in 2011 when it started the process to re-draft the Specific Plan (after the first draft done in 1999). Three years later, a draft Specific Plan was forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for review in October 2013. The notice of the preparation of EIR was dated Feb. 2013. The final EIR is approved on July 18, 2014. The Specific Plan continues to be revised. The most recent draft is dated June 2, 2015.

Out of the 15 members of the Specific Plan Advisory Committee, there are 9 community members. "In October of 2013, a Draft Specific Plan was forwarded for consideration by the Advisory Committee to the Planning Commission and City Council." Therefore, the North 40 Specific Plan is prepared by the city and the community, NOT the developer, as it should be.

NORTH 40 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Barbara Spector North 40 Advisory Committee Chair, Vice Mayor
Marcia Jensen Town Council
Joe Pirzynski Town Council
Charles Erekson Planning Commission
Marico Sayoc Planning Commission
Barbara Cardillo Community Services Commission
Bob Beyer Community Representative
Jim Foley Community Representative
Mathew Hudes Community Representative
Todd Jarvis Community Representative

Tim Lundell Community Representative
Dan Ross Community Representative
Deborah Weinstein Community Representative
Gordon Yamate Community Representative
John Bourgeois Former Planning Commission

Cupertino residents are highly educated and bright. The dumbed down, sweetened and shallow Vallco Open House is not true community involvement. The residents deserve to get involved in Vallco redevelopment, since Vallco is zoned for retail use, which is supposed to provide service for the residents. Any option to take away that designated land use should have sufficient community involvement and buy-in.

I wish the Council is truly the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The voters who reside in Cupertino elected you. Not the developers, not the business owners. Please put the interests of the residents first in your decision making process.

 

Thank you.

Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident

Cupertino Over-development and Traffic Problem by Govind

From: Govind Tatachari
Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:55 PM
Subject: Cupertino City Traffic and Transport issues
To: citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, cityclerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava AartiS@cupertino.org

Dear Council members and Esteemed Mayor,

Cupertino has a major over-development-bursting-at-its-seams problem. One clear fallout is the current and future traffic surge which threatens to exceed the capacity of local roads to handle it.

The Community Vision 2040 (CV2040) plan has not covered this issue adequately and CV2040 EIR is somewhat misleading because
i) it is not comprehensive enough and
ii) it does not clearly define and differentiate grades of "significant and unavoidable" rating.

Vallco redevelopment plan will totally devastate city's ability to recover from local transport and traffic nightware. It will also exacerbate and over burden Cupertino's infrastructure such as sewer disposal and crowding in the schools amongst others. With reduction in retail space, the residents will suffer since they will need to commute long distance to shop and the City will suffer from loss of tax revenue. 

Many of the residents think that City council's main responsibility is to address intrinsically local issues. Let us first get a City-wide EIR right before City takes on EIR's for specific plans and clears them.

While today's meeting is specific to Vallco, I would like to cover efforts being made by the City towards traffic and transport issues.

VTA's PDA based approach is inappropriate for certain cities such as Cupertino wherein we have very few local transport arteries which itself have limited capacity.

Also many of us disagree with the premise that if Cupertino does not resort to large-scale office and residential development it will anyway suffer from over-development in other parts of the Santa Clara county.

On June 2nd, the council was engaged in discussing the regional transport issues. While regional transport planning is important, it is only going to aggravate land-use issues. Shifting focus to Regional traffic issue will not resolve the Cupertino city specific (local) issue.

We request that City council to dedicate a couple of meetings to focus on city specific issues stemming from over-development, namely, local transport and mobility, overcrowding in schools and local land-use issues which are the real local issues that merit your attention.

 

I will not be able to present this to City council during the meeting today
but I would like that this email be made a part of the public record.

Thank you.

Govind Tatachari

Cupertino Resident

GPA is Not Simple Edits and Vallco EIR is Too Early, by Peggy

Peggy's letter raised some important questions that Vice Mayor tried ask the staff to clarify on June 16, 2015:
2. Oversight and open bidding – This is a huge and very important development project in Cupertino. We all want it to succeed. Selecting the right company is critical.

a. P. 16, Task 5, says they will bill for meetings starting March 2015. How can they bill for work done before they have been approved by the City Council?

b. Transportation Impact Analysis – data collection before May 31, 2015 (p. 30, Task 2-Data Collection) – was this done before the consultant and the scope was approved by the City Council?

c. In the rush to get this “done”, are steps being skipped?
 

The staff promised to discuss the matter and provide answers to Peggy after the meeting. But the staff has not been able to answer these questions directly to Peggy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM
Subject: EIR for Specific Plan and Vallco
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, City Council Members and City Clerk,

 

I am writing this to express my deep concern over starting the EIR process for Vallco for several reasons:

 

1.      The issues revolving around the December adoption of Resolution 14-211 need to be resolved first.  The residents of Cupertino and the City Council expressed concern over what exactly is our general plan!  As far as the residents are concerned, we do not have a valid general plan.  The City Council directed the Staff to produce a red-lined version between the 2005 General Plan and the 2040 Community Vision document because the Council wanted to know exactly what they adopted . 

The documents produced were not red-lined versions.  Even so, the comparison tables created by the Staff show clearly that Community Vision 2040 was way more than “clean-up” and changes required by state law

a.      There are 2 new chapters that have not even been reviewed!

b.      Another new chapter (Chapter 2 Specific Plan Areas) that was not even mentioned in the staff comparison tables.

c.      The Introductions in both versions have not been compared.  They list the “guiding principles” for the rest of the document.  All 12 have been “edited”. 

d.      The word “edited” is used throughout the comparison tables to justify changes that were not as a result of state law or “clean-up”. 

e.      Massive numbers of new goals, policies, strategies, etc.

2.      Oversight and open bidding – This is a huge and very important development project in Cupertino.  We all want it to succeed.  Selecting the right company is critical.  Having the same consultants appear multiple times for various projects in Cupertino leads people to start to question just how open and competitive the bidding process is on this type of contract.  How many bids were there?  Are they the best qualified company?

a.      P. 16, Task 5, says they will bill for meetings starting March 2015.  How can they bill for work done before they have been approved by the City Council?

b.      Transportation Impact Analysis – data collection before May 31, 2015 (p. 30, Task 2-Data Collection)– was this done before the consultant and the scope was approved by the City Council?

c.      In the rush to get this “done”, are steps being skipped?

3.      Scope of the EIR:

a.      Vallco specific plan – Why is the EIR consultant creating this?  Shouldn’t this be community lead?  Shouldn’t Cupertino come up with the specific plan, not a consultant or a developer?  There’s no community input!  They’re going to create the specific plan then do an EIR on it?  When does the community have input-when it’s done?  Shouldn’t the specific plan exist BEFORE an EIR is done?  This process is backwards!

b.      Traffic – school is out!  The traffic pattern has significantly changed.  People are on vacation.  There’s no school traffic in the AM or PM.  This needs to be done when school is in session.

c.      Utilities and Service Systems (p10) – sewer capacity assumptions assume everything is adequate from ‘Cupertino Square’ so no modeling will be done!  They are adding housing and office and we know we’re at the limit already.  Shouldn’t there be modeling done?

d.      Transportation Impact Analysis – data already collected

                                                    i.     When was the data collected?  During what periods (summer, winter, etc)?

                                                   ii.     Collecting data before May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day) - Was data collected prior to this work being approved by the City Council?

e.      Parking – p. 35, Task 11-Evaluate Parking Supply – using…”shared parking”…In a previous City Council meeting, (can’t recall specifics) I recall one of the city council members stating that “shared parking” does not work.  The Panera area is an example of it’s failure.  Please do not use shared-parking to analyze the availability of adequate parking.

 

ASKING:  I am asking the City Council to instruct the staff to

1.      Scope of the EIR – take more time and solicit input from the community on the scope of the EIR.  This is a very important project for Cupertino.  Let’s do it right!
2.      Selection of the EIR consultant – solicit bids and vet out the respondents

 

ASKING:  I am asking the City Council to:

1.      Look at the GPA Comparison Tables to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes that you approved in December.  It was not just “clean-up” and due to “state laws”.

 

I respect and admire your dedication to our city.  It is not easy to do your jobs.  These decisions and actions impact our city for years to come.  You, our City Council, are our oversight committee.  Please make sure the right decisions are being made. 

 

Thank you,

Peggy Griffin

Authorizing EIR for Vallco Seems Premature by Eric

From: Eric Schaefer
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM
Subject: Public comment: City Council meeting 6/16/2015: Agenda item #10 "Approval of consultant services for environmental review for ... Vallco"
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org

Council members,

Authorizing EIR for Vallco seems premature.  
- There has been little or no public feedback re: Sand Hill's specific plan.
- There is currently confusion among the public (and the City?) regarding GP amendments that were passed in Dec. 2014.
- Spending money on a plan that has not been vetted gives the plan unwarranted legitimacy.
- Spending money on a plan that has not been vetted is a waste of money if the plan turns out to be a plan that is not to the liking of Cupertino.
 
Thank you for your consideration.

Eric Schaefer

Vallco Requires Open Discussion with Community and Neutral EIR by Phyllis

From: Dicksteinp
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Vallco EIR process
To: cityclerk@cupertino.org, citycouncil@cupertino.org, davidb@cupertino.org, CityAttorney@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org

Dear City Council members,

I would like to add something to the excellent presentations of my colleagues. The agenda item on the EIR should be deferred. It is premature.

1) To embark on an EIR is to assume that the Sand Hill "vision" is acceptable in its broad outlines and therefore all that needs to be worked out are the details. But that vision is precisely what is not acceptable to a large part of the community. Many members of the community would like Vallco to remain a retail/entertainment center, and almost no one wants to see a 2 million sq ft office park added to Wolfe Road. We have yet to see any city-sponsored working groups nor has there been an open discussion with community input on the vision itself, as recommended by the staff before actual work is undertaken on major projects. 

Furthermore, since we now have in effect an "opposition", they should be given an allotment of time similar to the developer's, in order to make a well-organized presentation on such an important matter. Condemning the opposition to disjointed three minute interventions is unfair.

Finally, an EIR should be done by a strictly neutral company not afraid to speak truth to power, not someone who promises to work hand-in-glove with the developer.

Phyllis Dickstein

Travigne Villas

Sample Letter to Postpone Vallco EIR, shortened by Fred

=================================================================

1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan to the 2005 General Plan.   Councils agreed this is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan.  Right now, the redline copy is still open for public comments until the deadline of July 31.   We shall not decide any plan until after July 31.  Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to start the VALLCO PROJECT.  We are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept in the new General Plan, it is impossible to have an EIR done correctly before this review period by July 31. 

2. The scope of the current EIR is not aligned with visions of most residents and does not have sufficient community inputs.   In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as

● 2 million square feet of office,

● 800 housing units,

● 600,000 square feet of retail,

which is purely based on the developer’s request.  It is not the vision of Cupertino residents!  There is no community outreach done in forming this current scope.   In fact, a lot residents urged Councils to keep Vallco as only a retail center, reported in the May 19 meeting .  Moreover, city’s own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer’s request is appropriate to keep the project financially viable.  Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope.

3. Furthermore, the above EIR scope is almost the same as the new EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is ● 2 million square feet of office, ● 600 housing units,● 600,000 square feet of retail.  But In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and have unavoidable impacts.   Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure.  With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on this or earlier EIR?  We must review the whole project concept of both EIRs.  We must have a solution of above problems for such a huge project at Vallco. 

4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected.  For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find.  I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process.  City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose.  

5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included in the EIR.  Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino, not only serving Cupertino but also the huge area in South San Jose valley. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges.   Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have more options for comparison.   Above all, we should further analyze the option of keeping Vallco mainly as a retail center.  With all the developments around Vallco, there may be opportunity to increase the existing retail square footage at Vallco.  All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate.  

 

In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet.   For the healthy growth of the city, we must first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco.   Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR.

We Should Not Start Vallco EIR, by Yu

Vallco should not be put on the agenda until there is a General Plan acceptable by the resudents and all Council members.
--------------------------------------------
From: Yu Ying
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Subject: We should not start Vallco EIR
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk cityclerk@cupertino.org

Dear Council members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to start EIR on Vallco with the current project scope.

Since the council meeting of 12/04, cupertino residents have been confused about what was city's strategy on Vallco development. The "specific plan" is actually a very vague term, and has been used for the past council meetings to bypass any discussions, and community inputs. 

Around May 19's council meeting, we, the residents, suddenly knew that there are indeed confusions on the GPA guidelines. In other words, current GPA is a re-write of the 2005 GP, and it has no community input at all yet it was PASSED on Dec 04!! There is a strong request from our residents that this GPA should be rescinded. And we know Councilman Barry and Councilman Darcy are supporting the rescind from the 05/19 council meeting. We also know the staff is preparing a redline copy that waits for community input by 07/31. 

Given the above status, our GPA is not yet acceptable by the residents and some council members. Then, Vallco, as covered by current legal 2005 GP, is a land for retail, NOT a land for housing and offices. Vallco, as being planed in the GPA, should not be put onto the agenda before this GPA is acceptable by residents and all council members. Vallco is in no position to be studied whether to be able to have 800 housing+2 million sqft office. We should not start Vallco EIR study. 

 

Please put this correspondence to the public record of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.

 

Thanks,

 

Yu (Cupertino Residents)

Scope of Vallco EIR Should Have Community Input, by Xiaowen

---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Xiaowen Wang
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Vallco EIR process
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear City Council members,

I am writing to express my concerns on the Vallco EIR process.

The agenda item 10 on 6/16, 2015 council meeting is about start negotiation and budget of an Vallco EIR. From what I read and the city planning process I followed so far, I have the following concerns.

 

1. The consultant selection process is not open. According to the staff report, SHP submit the request for EIR on June 4. Then within two weeks, a consultant is nailed down. It does not seem to have an open bidding process for this consultant. With the possible largest mixed use development in city's history, how can there is only one consultant firm be considered? Has the city send invite for other companies to bid? I strongly urge the council to direct the staff to have an open bidding process when we are ready to proceed with the Vallco Specific Plan. Cupertino citizens deserve a quality work.

 

2. The scope of EIR need to be defined carefully with enough community inputs. It seems the scope of this EIR is purely based on developer's request. This is not what community wants. The EIR's scope should be studied and defined more carefully. Most importantly, for a project with this much complexities, more options should be included and studied. It will not be a proper study with only one option in the EIR. I would urge councils to direct staff have a study session on the scope of EIR and invite public inputs in this study. 

 

Finally thank council members and city staff for your hard work and dedication.

 

Please add this correspondence to the public record of the City Council Meeting on June 16, 2015.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Xiaowen Wang

Sample Letter to postpone Vallco EIR, by Xiaowen

Please email the letter to citycouncil@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org, cityattorney@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org, davidb@cupertino.org

Please make sure to include the bold part of the sample letter below. It would be better that you could rephrase it as your own word. For the rest of the letter, you could choose to whatever you deem appropriate for your letter.

====================================================================

Dear City Council members,

I am writing to express my concern regarding agenda item 10 of the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting. This agenda item asks to approve the budget EIR of Vallco plan and starting negotiation with the consultant. I think that it is premature to start the EIR process and hence urge you all to delay approval of this item. The following are the reasons of my request.

1. On May 19th City Council Meeting, the council members requested a redline copy comparing the new General Plan, Community Vision 2040 to the 2005 General Plan. Councils agreed that such a copy is necessary for both the councils and residents to review the changes in the new general plan so that we can have a better plan for Cupertino’s future. I applaud this decision of the councils and appreciate the hard work of the staffs for releasing the red line copy on June 10th. Right now, the redline copy is open for public comments and public comments period ends on July 31. Only afterwards, we can have an effective discussion on the general plan and hopefully it can lead to a more clear vision for the future development. Without this clear vision, it is irresponsible to plan a big project like Vallco.

        

Moreover, a proper EIR relies on city’s planning policies and strategies in order to evaluate the project impacts and mitigation strategies. Since we are still in discussion of which policy and strategy should be kept, deleted or modified to the new General Plan, it is impossible to have a EIR done correctly.

2. The scope of the EIR is not align with visions from most of residents and does not have sufficient community inputs. In the current agenda item, the scope of EIR is defined as

• 2 million square feet of office
• 800 housing units
• 600,000 square feet of retail

Such a vision of Vallco is purely based on developer’s request. It is not the vision of Cupertino residents. There is no community outreach done as forming this scope. In fact, there are quite some letters from residents in the Staff Report of May 19 Council Meeting urging councils to keep Vallco as a retail center. Moreover, city’s own retail consultant also suggested to have a proforma review done to verify if developer’s request is necessary to keep the project financially viable. Without proper investigation, without proper community outreach, it is premature to start the EIR process with the above scope.

3. Furthermore, the above scope is not far from the recent EIR for the General Plan, Community Vision 2040, which is

• 2 million square feet of office
• 600 housing units
• 600,000 square feet of retail

In this EIR, it is already identified that traffic, air pollution and noise are significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, according to this EIR, public infrastructure such as sewer system is already at the maximal capacity around Vallco, it is not possible to sustain such drastic development with the current infrastructure. With the latest enrollment projection from school district, it is also very obvious that such development will bring tremendous enrollment pressure on neighborhood schools. Then, what is the purpose of spending such money on the EIR?  Do we expect to see different conclusions than the existing EIR? More importantly, do we have a solution for all the problem of such a project will bring?

.

4. The bidding process of the contract is not open. There is no information regarding how this particular contractor is selected. For such a crucial project, we should take more caution and select the best consultant we can find. I would urge councils to direct city staff to have an open bidding process for the consultant when we are ready to start the EIR process. City of San Jose was sued by state agency due to underestimating  greenhouse gas emission in its general plan and this particular consultant happens to be the one who prepare the EIR for San Jose.

5. The complexity of the project asks for more options to be included EIR. Vallco is the last piece of big land in Cupertino. The potential and possibilities are as huge as the challenges. Even when we are ready to start the EIR, we should have options for comparison. Above all, we should analyze the option of keeping Vallco as a retail center. With all the developments around Vallco, there could be opportunity to increase the retail square footage at Vallco. All potential options should be thoroughly studied and evaluate.

In summary, the city and the residents are not ready to start Vallco planning yet. It would be better for the healthy growth of the city to first have a clear vision on the General Plan before any discussion on Vallco. Please hold off the approval of any negotiation and budget on a Vallco EIR, especially with the current project scope.

Finally, I would like to put this correspondence into the public records of June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting.

Sincerely yours,

 

XXX

Concerns on EIR Agreement for Vallco by Randy

Randy raised many concerns regarding various aspsects of the EIR agreement for Vallco.

----------------------------
Public Comments for Agenda Item 10m June 16, 2015 Cupertino Council Meeting, by Randy Shingai

Agenda Item 10 is a request for the Council to approve an agreement with David J.
Powers and Associates, Inc. for the preparation of an EIR for a "proposed Vallco
Specific Plan Redevelopment Project." There are some disconcerting issues with the
timeline for this item.

Dates of Estimates and “Approval” by Sand Hill Properties
Attachment A of the Staff Report is a "Scope of Work and Cost Estimate" from David J.
Powers is dated June 9, 2015.
Attachment B of its Staff Report is a letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated
June 5, 2015. The following was taken from this letter:
"We have received the contract amount and staff reimbursement amount from you
and will be submitting the necessary funds to the City to fully cover the cost of
the contract being approved, including commencing this initial administrative and
preparatory work."

The letter from Sand Hill Property Company is dated 4 days before the proposal from
David J. Powers. It seems unusual that an entity supposedly being overseen was
advised of contract particulars in advance of the actual proposal from the consultant. A
reasonable person would infer that Sand Hill Properties had decision making power
over the contract with David J. Powers. One could characterize the letter from Sand Hill
Property Company as its formal and explicit approval of the consulting contract that the
City Council is now being asked to approve.

I would like City Staff to explain what the common practice is with respect to the
interactions between City Staff, an entity being overseen and the producer of EIRs and
other supposedly impartial reviews.

Work Completed Prior to Approval by Council
David J. Powers will enlist the services of another consultant, Fehr & Peers, to conduct
the traffic evaluation. Appendix B in the David J. Powers proposal was prepared Fehr &
Peers, the traffic subcontractor. Under "Task 2 - Data Collection" in the Fehr & Peers
report is the following:

"We have already collected most necessary intersection count data under a separate
contract directly with the City, with the exception of the following five locations:
22. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Torre Avenue-Vista Drive
24. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Portal Avenue
25. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Perimeter Road
32. Miller Avenue/Calle De Barcelona
33. Miller Avenue/Phil Lane
  

As part of this task, we will collect existing AM (7:00 to 10:00 AM) and PM (4:00 to 7:00
PM) peak period intersection counts (including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular turning
movement volumes) prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015) when many area schools
begin to have irregular schedules due to upcoming summer breaks.."

Fehr and Peers performed data collection work prior to Memorial Day (May 25th, 2015).
I assume there was some sort of agreement, tacit or otherwise, between the City and
David J. Powers / Fehr & Peers to pay for work performed in advance of an actual
agreement between the City and David J. Powers.

If it is considered normal and proper practice for a contractor to perform work for the
City in advance of approval by the City Council, then the Council City Council should
affirm the practice in its deliberation of this consent item.

'However, I would suggest that any work performed by a contractor prior to the approval
of an agreement by the City Council should not be billable nor should the City accept
that work. To do otherwise invites abuse by City employees, because as the saying
goes, “It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.”

Work Already Paid for by the City

The Fehr & Peers estimate references work that the City has already paid for. Since the
City has paid for work that can be reused to complete the Sand Hill Property EIR,
shouldn’t Sand Hill Property be required to share the cost of that work with the City?

Thank you,

Randy Shingai