New Policies for Safe Schools Despite of SB 50, by BC

Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM
Subject: New Policies for Safe Schools Despite of SB 50
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org
Cc: board@cusdk8.org, School_Board@fuhsd.org


Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Policies to consider school impact before a development project is approved were simply removed due to SB 50 in the new General Plan. There was no attempt to rephrase the policies to comply with the law, but still consider other aspects of school impacts.

SB 50 still allows traffic, air quality, noise and other environment factors to be considered around schools as a condition of approval on projects. New policies should be put in place to ensure a minimum level of standards for these environmental factors when a development project is considered and especially when GPA is considered to increase the building density and intensity.

New policies should be put in place to ensure that development projects provide more than sufficient traffic mitigation measures to improve traffic condition not only around school, but also all routes leading to schools for either biking, walking, driving or shuttling. It is not sufficient to leave it up to the Environment Impact Report to protect the environment around schools.

SB 50 should not be used as an excuse to ignore impacts on schools. The City should be proactive and introduce new policies that both comply with SB 50 and protect schools from negative impacts created by new development projects.

Perhaps, a special School Traffic Fee could be created to cover the expenses to provide safe routes for schools for all modes of transportation. Such fee could cover:

- bike paths around schools and paths from various parts of the attendance area to schools.

- pedestrian sidewalk enhancement for safer routes.

- speed limit meters to show drivers their current driving speed to promote safer speed around schools and routes to schools.

- signaled side walk to raise awareness of pedestrian sidewalks.

- traffic lights around schools that are activated only during school rush hours.

- funding for school buses for those who live further away from schools.

- bus pull off area so that school buses do not block the traffic.

- And fund a garbage pickup program modification so that garbage cans do not block bike paths. Either pay an extra driver or designate a special area on the sidewalk for cans.

Regards,

BetterCupertino

Development Impact Fee in Palo Alto, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Development Impact Fee in Palo Alto
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org, David Brandt davidb@cupertino.org

RE: Funding for Civic Center and other infrastructure support

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Palo Alto has been using charging "Development Impact Fee" (DIF) to enhance their infrastructure since 2002, as this staff report reveals:

A brief summary of Palo Alto’s current DIFs (detailed in Attachment B) follows, with enactment dates in parentheses:

1.      Housing Impact Fees for commercial and industrial projects (1984 and updated 2004)
2.      Traffic Impact fees in the Stanford Research Park and San Antonio/East Bayshore areas (1989)
3.      In-lieu parking fee for downtown development (1995)
4.      Parks (2002)
5.      Community Centers (2002)
6.      Libraries (2002)
7.      Transportation (2007)

Every year Palo Alto makes up a Facilities Needs list and adjust their DIF to pay for capitol projects. This year the DIF also includes "Public Safety Facilities" to pay for a police station and "General Government Facilicies", besides "Parks", "Community Centers" and "Libraries". In addition to DIF, they also have a separate Transportation Impact Fee. And also Parking Facitlies Fee for development which does not provide sufficient parking, since they will use the city streets and city garages.

Palo Also has a Finance Committee to help the Council look at various funding options. In 2012, Palo Alto also did a comparative survey of DIF used in various bay area cities.

Please do not use "community benefits" (or voluntary community amenities) as a proper funding source for city facility needs.

Please talk a citywide 25-year view of the facilities needs, instead of just one project at a time, like the Civic Center. Please adopt a proper procedure to assess various funding options, including Development Impact Fee, which is widely used by many cities.

Sincerely,

 

BetterCupertino

Summary Description of Public Comment Should Maintain the Same Detail as in 2014, by Liang

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:18 AM
Subject: Summary description of each speaker should maintain the same detail as in 2014
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

RE: Agenda Item 18: Consider continuing the policy of providing action minutes for City Council meetings.

Dear City Clerk, City Manager and Councilmembers,

  Thank you, the City Clerk, for providing a short description of each comment during Oral Communication and on each agenda item. For each speaker who took time to attend the Council meeting, this shows a respect for their opinions and good governance.

   Although the adoption of "action minutes" was done in 2002, the amount of details on summary description of each speaker who comment during either Oral Communication or on Agenda Item have deteriorated since December 2014. Recently, it is down to only a mention of names most of the time.

Here are some examples to show how the amount of details have reduced recently.

    July 30, 2015 Study Session on GPA procedure: speaker is only mentioned by name.

e.g. Cathy Thaler
Xiaowen Wang
Lisa Warren
Kevin McClelland speaking on behalf of Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Martin Woh

    March 3, 2015 Oral Comm. in Council Meeting: Still pretty good detail.

e.g. Jon Willey talked about the online survey on the draft Community Benefits Program and how it pertains to building planes. He noted some of the residential comments and distributed a hard copy of the document he was referring to.

Lisa Warren talked about the General Plan Amendment process and urged Council to not lose sight of the big picture. She mentioned a Los Altos City Council meeting which talked about a moratorium in that City and handed out information regarding that meeting.

    Oct. 7, 2014 Study Session on GPA EIR: very detailed summary for each speaker. (the same detail for the speaker on each agenda item.)

e.g. Albert Wang representing Marina Food and Marina Plaza said that they are planning to renovate their site and anticipates bringing the store back as a retail anchor and support for the community. He noted that the location along Stevens Creek Corridor is perfect for residential and retail activities and he hopes to be able to increase the height and density enough in the renovation project to make their site economically viable.

    We understand that the City Clerk might have more work load due to recent Public Records request. We are grateful for their efforts.

    However, please understand that the residents won't be requesting any Public Records regarding the GPA process or the community benefits process or Vallco if the City has provided meaningful community participation in the past two years or Council has taken the time to consider important items that affect our lives carefully.

    To foster good meaningful communication between the residents and the Council, please provide good detailed summary for each speaker for both Oral Communication and agenda items, as it has been done up until late 2014.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

 

Verbatim Minutes for Seniors and Immigrants for Fair Particitation in Democratic Process by BC

Verbatim or summary minutes are needed for seniors and immigrants to promote fair particitation in the democratic process by BC
-----------------------------------------
From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 18: Provide verbatim minutes as needed for important items
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Both Palo Alto and San Jose provides transcripts of their meetings, as a service, not as an official meeting record. This is an example that Cupertino can follow.

We would like to urge Cupertino City Council to also provide transcripts of meetings. This is especially helpful for a large part of our population whose first language is not English. Often, we hear a word and don't understand, but we cannot look it up since we don't know its spelling. A text transcript could go a long way to help us to participate in City Council meetings and further assimilate into the American culture and the wonderful democratic system.

A transcript would be very helpful also for an increasing population of seniors in Cupertino. They might become hard of hearing or they don't have the tenacity to sit for hours at a time to watch meeting videos.Yet, many of them are still very alert and care about the happendings at the City Hall. A transcript would enable them to search for sections that they are interested in easily.

Please consider the tremendous benefits of transcripts of Council meetings could serve for a large population of immigrants and an increasing population of senior citizens.

 

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

 

Agenda Item 18: Provide verbatim minutes as needed for important items, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:36 PM
Subject: Agenda Item 18: Provide verbatim minutes as needed for important items

To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt davidb@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Thank you very much for considering our request for summary minutes for City Council meetings. We understand that the cost would be too high to provide verbatim minutes, as the Planning Commission's minutes, for every Council meeting.

However, we respectful request you to provide verbatim minutes on important topics or development projects or other topics of high interest as needed. This provides. transparency and good governance that the Brown Act is meant to promote. Also, your constituents can read the minutes and see clearly how you reached your decision and how you've brought up their concerns in the deliberation process.
We hope that the Council would consider providing verbatim minutes for important development projects or topics. The cost of providing such verbatim minutes could even be included as a part of the project costs for these development projects or long-term capitol projects like Vallco project or Civic Center Project. Compared with the amount of dollars we are paying the consultants to write reports. The amount to provide verbatim minutes is negligible.
The staff report states "The City Clerk’s office has used a transcription firm in the past at $60 per hour. Each hour of meeting time takes three-six hours of transcription time. For an average five hour City Council meeting, the cost would run at least $900 per meeting for verbatim minutes."
For example, Mayor Rod said that the seismic engineer explained clearly during July 7, 2015 Council meeting that the new City Hall is the best option. If a summary minutes or verbatim minutes is available, Mayor Rod can easily justify the need of a new City Hall since it's readily available in text format. Had a summary minutes is available, one can do text search and easily locate it.
Take a look at the meeting minutes of July 7, 2015 Council meeting when Civic Center Master Plan was approved. Can you understand why the Council approved the new City Hall? What seismic problem is there? Can you even find out what's the cost of the project?

The meeting minutes of Planning Commission has always been pretty detailed. For example, in the minutes of Oct. 20, 014 Planning Commission meeting, you can read it easily to know what each Commissioner said to support or oppose office or residential allocation at Vallco. There is a short summary for each speaker who spoke during Oral Communication or on an agenda item. There is also a summary of staff report, consultant reports, questions to consultants or staff and their answers. Furthermore, one can easily do a word search of Vallco and get to the discussion on Vallco.

The Council made an unconditional commitment to "transparency, good governance and compliance with the Brown Act." The first step is to provide a summary or verbatim minutes for City Council meetings in the same amount of detail as the minutes of Planning Commission meetings.

If such verbatim minutes is provided only for important meetings, either at the request of Council or residents or Commissioners, the cost will
not be so high. Compared with the cost of non-transparent government process, the anxiety it creates among residents not knowing how a decision is derived or what a consultant said to justify the decision and the hours many concerned residents or even staff need to search through the videos, the cost of a few hundred dollars for important issues that have long term effect on the future of Cupertino is not so high.

The cost is negligible especially when it's compared with the large amount we are paying the consultants to write the reports and the amount we are paying them to appear in Council meetings to present and answer questions. What's the use of paying hundreds of thousands dollars to hire consultants to write reports when we cannot even pay $900 extra to get a verbatin minutes to provide residents a clear picture of what transpired in a Council meeting?

 

We hope that the Council would consider providing verbatim minutes for important development projects or long-term capitol projects or other projects of high interest. The cost of providing such verbatim minutes could even be included as a part of the project costs for these development projects or long-term capitol projects like Civic Center Project.

 

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

Impacts of High Density Living Brought by the Vallco Project, by Yan

Dear City council officers, Happy Monday!
 

I am very concerned about the Vallco project. I would like to ask this correspondence to be included in the public records
 

High density living brought by the Vallco project shall have direct and indirect impacts on health and wellbeing of residents living in and near the Cupertino Area. Direct impacts include air quality, climate, water quality, noise, insufficient capacity from existing Cupertino city and community service infrastructure. Indirect impacts affect more distal determinants of health, such as social connections, access to services and restricted physical activity imposed by high density living.

Among residents of all ages, children and older people are particularly impacted by and vulnerable to these detrimental effects. For example, seniors and children are particularly vulnerable to traffic accidents and increased crimes brought by high density living. I am wondering whether the Cupertino city or Vallcos developers have a concrete plan to address those issues satisfactorily before any Vallco rebuilt plan can be approved by the city? 

I heard that the vallco project includes 800+ residential units, which would imply a few thousands (up to five thousand) new residents to Cueprtino, which is up to significant 8% (5000/60000 based on 2013 data) of existing Cupertino population. 

 

I am interested to know more details about this project. For example, how many people of various types would it bring in? how much more rush hour traffic and non-rush hour traffic it would incur?  How many more school-aged kids it would incur to increase load on the already strained school system.  How much more demand it would put on the existing service infrastructure, e.g., fire/police department, library, community service, school system, transportation system, etc.

 

If we need to boost up existing city infrastructure to meet greatly increased demand, who is going to pay for the infrastructure and staff upgrade?  Is the developer going to pay for this?  Or it comes from existing property tax and sale tax? Cupertino residents and tax payers have rights to know all the developmental implications and details to make sure that Cupertino city is still a desirable livable city.   The reason that I bought a house in Cupertino is because I thought Cupertino is a nice place to live. However, I start to have serious doubts on this now with many recent high-density developmental plans.  The new Apple building already increased office space and local traffic dramatically, I hope the city could be cautious, responsible and hold accountable on any new future development plan.  At this point, as a very concerned and responsible Cupertino resident, I object to any vollco rezoning plan that involves increasing residential or office space.

 

If the city needs help in understanding and researching the issue, I am very happy to help.  I would love to be present in any such future planning meeting.  Please let me know how can I help.

Best,

 

yan 

PS. I hope city could hold regular town hall meetings at a convenient hour (e.g., evening or weekends as opposed to midnight) to educate and address the concerns from Cupertino residents on this issue, and make concerned residents part of the decision process since any decision would greatly impact their lives in many years to come. 

Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Subject: Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

I have changed the subject line to read "Infrastructure Impact Fee" for clarity, since in some cities "Development Impact Fee" refers to the mitigation fee for affordable housing.

Why do we need Infrastructure Impact Fee? Why is the EIR not sufficient to mitigate all development impact?

Take the example of the EIR for GPA. It tries to estimation the impact of a 30% population growth from 60,000 people to over 90,000.

In the section on "Public Services and Recreation". Every category is reported as "Less Than Significant," including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Library Facility Services, Park and Recreation. The reasons used are either there are already general plan policies or municipal code to ensure a proper level of service or that this growth will happen incrementally over a 25-year period of time. (See quotes from EIR at the bottom of this email.)

However, general plan policies or municipal code do not provide funding sources to ensure the level of services needed. The growth will happen incrementally, but the property tax from growth does not pay for all facilities needed for increased civil services.

Here is what the current EIR process does. It declares each project as "less than significant" on city services. After 10 projects, the accumulated impact will eventually become significant. And the next EIR will say this: "The impact is already 'significant' and it remains 'significant' with this new project. Thus, there is no need to mitigate the impact." So, as a result, none of the project would need to mitigate the impact on city services.

Then, who will eventually pay to build a new library when the current one is too crowded?

Who will pay to build community centers?

And who will pay for a new city hall? We the taxpayers.

The city needs to plan for the future and make a financial plan for the future.
Not one project at a time. And get a loan for each project.

If any of the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) you have in mind falls into the category of basic services, like fire, police, library, park, community center, bike path,... They should be take care of through Infrastructure Impact Fee.

Any project which does not need any GPA would also pay their share of Infrastructure Impact Fee.

 

If the developer is willing to offer more beyond the mandatory Infrastructure Impact Fee, that is then considered community benefits (or voluntary community amenities). Of course, you can always waive Infrastructure Impact Fee if the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) is beyond the mandatory amount.

Please make a long term investment for the city and a long term financial plan.

----------------------- from EIR Section 4.12 Public Services and Recreation ------------------

GPA EIR 4.12-8 Fire Protection Service => Less than significant
"The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate fire protection services are available for the residents of Cupertino.... Consequently, compliance with the State and local regulations, in conjunction with confirmation by the SCCFD that facilities, staff, and equipment would be adequate to accommodate anticipated future growth,..."

GPA EIR 4.12-12: Police Protection Service => Less than significant
"Further, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed Project would significantly increase the degree or incidence of need for mutual aid from neighboring agencies
because anticipated growth under the General Plan would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year buildout horizon."

GPA EIR 4.12-24: Library Facility and Services => Less than significant
"While an overall increase in residents is expected, service growth under the proposed Project would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon; therefore, potential impacts resulting from increased demand for library services would not occur in the immediate future."

GPA EIR 4.12-32: Parks and Recreation => Less than significant
"Overall, the proposed Project would result in development allocation increases throughout the city that would increase population, and subsequently the demand to parks and recreation facilities throughout the city. However, because buildout would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon, and future development would be subject to comply with the Municipal Code Chapters 14.05 and 18.24, and the General Plan policies listed above that would ensure that future development provide their fair-share of parks to help meet the City’s target of three acres per 1,000 residents, impacts would be less than significant."

Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc. by Liang

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Subject: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the growing number of residents. This can be achieved by charging Development Impact Fee, as many other cities have done.

These fees help mitigate the aggregated impact of new development projects on basic city services, like parks, library, community centers, public safety needs, city staff and facility needs, sewage and water systems. Every new development should contribute to the Development Impact Fee.

For example, Palo Alto has Development Impact Fee that covers Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities.

Palo Alto Development Impact fee (incl. Park, Comm Ctr, Public Safety) 8-17-15 .pdf

In addition to the Development Impact Fee, Palo Alto also charges a Transportation Impact Fee as Citywide Transportation Impact Fee $3,439 per net new PM peak hour trip. (Also specified in the document above)

Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the residents. Every new development, whether or not it requires GPA, should contribute to the Development Impact fee.

Eventually, such impact fee can help fund additional library branches, community centers, police and fire stations or a new city hall. Other cities have also assessed impact fees for emergency services, sewage and water systems, etc.

Cupertino should not reply on community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) derived from granting exception for the General Plan to pay for basic city services. If we do, there is some flaw with the city's financing structure and it should be fixed.

Note that these fees, if adopted, give the Council negotiation power. When necessary, the Council can always give developers a discount as an incentive to promote a certain type of development in certain areas, as San Jose has done. And when economy is slow, the Council can also suspend the collection of the fee for a short time at your discretion.

 

Please consider adopt the Development Impact Fee to truly mitigate the impact of new development projects on basic city services. With so many projects already built and so many new projects being proposed, Cupertino desperately need to adopt Development Impact Fee to provide basic city services.

 

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Enact Transportation Impact Fee Before Approving Any New Project

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Subject: Please Enact Transportation Impact Fee Before Approving Any New Project
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Please enact Transportation Impact Fee to help mitigate accumulated citywide impact created by new development projects, as specified in the new General Plan, as soon as possible. Please do not approve any new project until the Transportation Impact Fee is in place.

Policy M-10.1: Transportation Improvement Plan

Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to
meet the City’s needs.

Policy M-10.2: Transportation Impact Fee

Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation
Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee
for new development.

Such fee should be imposed on all new projects whether or not an EIR is required. The mitigation measures suggested in the project-specific EIR normally only mitigate project impacts in the immediate surrounding areas. But the citywide accumulated impacts are not mitigated.

 

The EIR of 2014 GPA concluded that the traffic condition of Cupertino is "Significant and Unavoidable." The consultants then presented a long list of mitigation measures to enhance the situation. However, the consultants did admit that even after all of the mitigation measures are implemented, the condition would still be "Significant and Unavoidable."

Given that situation, we cannot afford to sit and do nothing and just watch the condition to become worse with each project. The EIR already made it clear that it is not possible to even mitigate the current traffic congestion. However, having a long term transportation plan, paid for by Transportation Impact Fee, is better than not doing anything.

Please consider to start actions to enact the Transportation Impact Fee.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Incomplete Staff Report for Study Session on Civic Center by BetterCupertino

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Incomplete Staff Report for Study Session on Civic Center
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk CityClerk@cupertino.org

[Please put this as a written communication for Oct. 20 Council Meeting.]

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

    Thank you for hosting a study session for the questions of whether to put Civic Center or Vallco on the ballot to get voter's approval.

    However, there is insufficient background provided for Civic Center. The Staff Report should provide the estimated cost of Civic Center and what happened on Aug. 18 so that the voters get alerted of the importance of such study session. Especially the financial impact to the city.

   The Staff Report spells out the cost of different elections. But we still have no information on the funding strategy. As of right now, any information on the funding strategy is still buried inside the Civic Center Master Plan that's more than 600 pages long.

 

   The agenda description should also clearly specify the financial impact of the Civic Center Master Plan. Yet, once again, the agenda item failed to mention the estimated cost of the project, which is up to $70 million.

   Neither the agenda item nor the staff report mentioned the potential financial burden of a long term debt for the city. That's what motivated this study session in the first place. But it is not mentioned.

   Please provide further information on Civic Center Master Plan for the study session.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

Accountability: Communication with Consultants for Vallco Project Should be put on Record by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Subject: Follow up to Oral Comment on Agenda Item 4 Contract with M-Group
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava AartiS@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Thank you for addressing my concern in today's meeting, which requests that the City Staff is cc'd on all communications between the consultants and the project applicant.

And thank you, the City Manager for pointing out that the agreement with the consultant already covers that. I hope the agreement with PW&A for Vallco EIR also covers that.

However, the consultant selection process is not well documented in the staff report as in other project.

In the past, the staff report usually mentions when RFQ (Request for Qualification) was sent out and when was the deadline.

For example, on Aug. 18, regarding the Consultant for Citywide Park Master Plan, the staff report states:

"A consultant selection process was initiated to select a consultant team to provide the professional services needed to develop the master plan. A Request for Proposals was issued in June 2015. Proposals from interested firms were received in July and reviewed for qualifications. The most highly qualified firms were interviewed and evaluated based upon selection criteria in early August and then references were checked. Based upon this process, the firm of RHAA (Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey) based in Mill Valley, California was selected as the top choice for this project."

But the staff report for Agenda Item 4 today (Oct. 6, 2015) did not mention such selection process. And the City web page for "Open Request for RFP & RFQs" does not show any RFP or RFQ for this particular project management work for Vallco.

http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=659

Similarly, on June 16, 2015, when Vallco EIR consultant was selected. The staff report did not mention any RFQ/RFP or the selection process of the consultant. From City Records, we did not find any RFQ/RFP for Vallco EIR work either.

This calls into question the qualification, objectivity and independence of these two consultants for Vallco projects.

The agreement is signed between the consultants and the City of Cupertino. The EIR especially need to provide an impartial evaluation of the project.

 

The developer should not be allowed to communicate directly in private with any consultant who signed an agreement with the City. All communications should be cc'd to the City Staff. The City Staff should be present on all in-person meetings or phone calls (through conference call).

 

If this is not already covered in the consultant agreement, we would like to request that the agreement be amended to ensure the accountability and transparency of the process. The consultants should be accountable to the City of Cupertino, who signed the contract agreements.

Regards,

Liang

No Rezoning of Vallco and Many Questions by Carrie O.

From: Carrie O.
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM
Subject: City Council Meeting Questions re: No Rezoning of Vallco
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org
Cc: cityclerk@cupertino.org, info@thehillsatvallco.com

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing to express my antipathy for the plan to re-zone the Vallco Shopping Mall into a mixed use space in any way.  I'm hoping my email letter here will be entered into the record as a set of concerns pertaining to your City Council Meeting tonight regarding the ongoing possibilities of rezoning the Vallco space from it's current Retail Only status.  

As a resident of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, my family will be immediately impacted by any changes made to the zoning of Vallco.  

For your records, I would like to see the following at the Vallco site:

 - Instead of changing Vallco from the Retail-Only model it is currently zoned for, I would like the mall developed as it is - Shops and more shops, with upgraded aesthetics and favorable leasing to attract stores, and only stores.

In addition to my stated interest as a close resident to Vallco, I'd like answers to these questions regarding the process going forward:

 1. Are you aware that the proposed 2 million square foot of new, un-zoned for office space or the 800 new un-zoned for apartment homes are *out of sight* on the direct mail advertising of the Hills at Vallco?  

 - Do you think these mailers are accurate and useful to the public, without disclosing the proposed re-zoning and the amount of new office and housing added to our neighborhood, at the expense of retail and at the expense of quality of life for residents?

2. How will you address mine and other's concerns, when you have recently passed changes to your process that allow new projects to be proposed and permitted 'at your discretion'?

- What were the needs you were addressing in adopting such a business-friendly approach to city development?

- What cities have used this model before?  

- What challenges do you see for policing yourselves with this amount of 'discretionary' power?

3. How will you off-set the huge disparity to Cupertino High School if you allow the 800 apartment houses to be built?  

- As I understand it, Lynbrook has 1000 students currently, while Cupertino High has 1800 - already an inequitable number.  If this unwanted Hills at Vallco is built, I've seen projections for Cupertino High of up to 2800.  

- Are you prepared to bus students to other campuses or enact other measures to bring numbers for the high school densities inline across FUHSD?

4.  What part of the development and permitting process allowed for the adjustments, after the fact, to the Main Street project so that approved Senior Housing, the Park, and the Exercise Club were removed and replaced with Office Space?

- How can we avoid seeing changes like this in future developments?

5. Sandhill Developers have had significant difficulties working successfully to plan on the Sunnyvale Downtown development and on Cupertino's Main Street.  Why are you working with them after two notable and major failures?

6. Major traffic, sewage, water use, air pollution, and school overcrowding are the inevitable challenges caused by the proposed Hills at Vallco.  Why are you allowing Sandhill to continue stating in advertising mailers that they'll work with all involved to mitigate these concerns when they have a record that shows the opposite?

Sincerely,

Carrie O.

Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:38 PM
Subject: Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

   We would like to share this information based on the GPA Market Study. It is important to look at the data in each report and not just read the conclusion, which is very often misleading and without jusitified reasoning.

   We hope that you make decisions that affect the lives of 60,000 residents based on accurate data.

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

Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/09/market-study-does-not-support-office-at-vallco.html

The Market Study done in 2014 for the GPA in fact shows only a demand of 805,428 square feet of office by the year 2035. The estimated demand for office space in Cupertino is 43,300 square feet per year. The 2,000,000 square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino. Not only the proposed Hills at Vallco will devastate the traffic condition, it will kill any chance of another major corporation to settle down in Cupertino. The capacity of our traffic infrastructure is very limit since there is literally no mass transit.

During the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Process, the City of Cupertino hired the consulting firm BAE Urban Economics to conduct a Market Study. Like reading all such consultant reports, ordered by the City, wise readers look at the data collected in the report and derive informed conclusions on their own. The conclusion derived by these consultant reports are often quite biased, and one should read it with caution. The office demand analysis is one such example.


On Page 83 of the Market Study, it shows that the "estimated demand for office space in Cupertino averaging approximately 43,300 square feet per year. After accounting for projects currently entitled or under construction, this suggests that minimum net office demand will total approximately 156,000 square feet by 2020 and 805,400 square feet by 2035, as shown in Table 34."

ABAG projection is regarded as aggressive by many already. However, the Council directed the staff to add "2-3 million square feet of office" when the GPA process was initiated from Aug. 21, 2012 Council Meeting. Therefore, the consultants have to find a way to deliver the expected "office demand".

The Market Study argues:

Table 34 factor in the capacity to accommodate the proposed Apple Campus 2 along with another new corporate campus equivalent in scale to the recent projects shown in Table 33, in addition to the minimum demand estimates that were developed based on projected employment. As shown, this results in a net new demand of approximately 2.9 million square feet by 2020 and 3.6 million square feet by 2035. Given the recent shortage of office spaces in Cupertino containing more than 10,000 contiguous square feet, a new recommended office allocation could also allow for multi-tenant office developments, which could create the space needed for mid-size companies to grow in Cupertino as well as accommodate a new major technology company or future expansion of an existing firm.

Even if a new corporate campus is expected, Table 33 (below) shows the office square footage is mostly under 1.5 million. Even though there is only a shortage of 10,000 contiguous square feet of office, the consultants from BAE Urban Economics concluded that Cupertino has an additional office demand of 2 million square feet, which is quite a stretch. And Table 34 shows the ballooned total office demand of 3.5 million. Take away the 2 million for an non-existent corporate office. Take away the 750,000 square feet already allocated to Apple and under construction. The true office demand is only 805,428 square feet by 2035.

 

Besides Cupertino City Council can always initiate a new GPA process to grant an additional 1.5 million or 2 million square feet of office space if ever another company wants to settle down in Cupertino. There is no need to pre-allocate it in the General Plan.

 

And there is certainly no way to justify giving this 2,000,000 square feet of office to Vallco at all. A major corporation headquartered in Cupertino brings in sales tax plus property tax and a brand name recognition, like Apple brings to Cupertino. Yet, 2,000,000 square feet of office at Vallco merely brings in property tax.

 

Two million square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino. (2,000,000/43,300=46.2) All cramed in one location within one block from the 3.5 million square feet of office in Apple Campus 2, which include 750,000 extra square feet on top of the original allocation for HP. That's another 17.3 years of office growth. (750,000/43,300=17.3)

 

More than 60 years of office growth all squeezed into one block area to be built within the next 5 years. Will Cupertino ever have the capacity for another major corporation in the near future? Not likely.

 

The capacity of the traffic infrastructure is limited in Cupertino since there is no true mass transit. VTA doesn't have any plan in the next 25 years to introduce light rail or any other transit that can transport tens thousands of people. Therefore, the amount of office space that Cupertino can accommodate is also limited since Cupertino already has insufficient housing.
 

Allocating 2,000,000 square feet office to Vallco is essentially grabbing the space from other property owners in town, whose properties are already zoned for office. These other property owners won't even be able to build a small amount of office as a result since roads leading into Cupertino would be extremely congested. It is simply not fair to other property owners.