Liang - Vallco CAC - started out as an under the table deal

From: Liang Chao
Date: Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:46 PM
Subject: Vallco CAC - started out as an under the table deal
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council Members,

The work plan on the April 4 agenda includes this item:

Title: Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC)

Objective: Community-centered process on a plan for Vallco.

Progress to date:
Pending Council Approval on April 4th to approve a budget amendment to allocate
$1,000,000 (FY16-17) from Capital Reserves to fund a community-centered process on a plan for Vallco and authorize the City Manager to hire consultants as necessary within the budgeted amount.

Next Step: Awaiting council direction

The objective is the "Community-centered process on a plan for Vallco."

Yet, alarmingly, the next step is already "allocating $1 million dollars to the project".

Where was the community-centered process that decided that we even need a Vallco CAC?

How come we are already allocating and approving a budget to a project that the community hasn't weighed in yet. Isn't this how things went wrong in 2015?

Has the question of "how to have a community-centered process" ever been discussed on any city council agenda? Has the question of "whether we need a Vallco CAC" ever been discussed on the city council agenda? What's CAC anyway? How did you allocate a budget before you even discussed what is it?

Please don't allocate $1 million dollars to a project when there has been no discussion on whether such a project is even justified.

Thank you.

Liang Chao

Cupertino resident

Liang - How Many People Want a Vallco CAC Now?

From: Liang Chao
Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:09 PM
Subject: How many people want a Vallco CAC now?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council Members,

Here is the change.org petition to re-open the discussion on Vallco. It has only 283 signatures.
https://www.change.org/p/plenty-of-support-exists-for-a-revised-development-proposal

If the community wants to re-open the discussion on Vallco at this moment in time, there would be tremendous more support on such petition. Other change.org petitions easily collect thousands of signatures in a short time. Many supporters of this petition are probably former city council members, commissioners, Rotary club members and members of Chamber of commerce. These people should have a pretty good circle of connections in Cupertino.

Yet, they can only get 283 signatures to support their petition.

You can see how many citizens "want" to have the Vallco conversation now.
If you hear a lot of voices want to "do something with Vallco" within your regular circle of reach, you might want to consider significantly widen your circle of reach since that circle might not reflect the diverse views of the citizens.

Thank you for taking a reality check on "voices" in your circle.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino resident

Liang - How many people want a Vallco CAC now?

From: Liang Chao
Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:09 PM
Subject: How many people want a Vallco CAC now?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council Members,

Here is the change.org petition to re-open the discussion on Vallco. It has only 283 signatures.
https://www.change.org/p/plenty-of-support-exists-for-a-revised-development-proposal

If the community wants to re-open the discussion on Vallco at this moment in time, there would be tremendous more support on such petition. Other change.org petitions easily collect thousands of signatures in a short time. Many supporters of this petition are probably former city council members, commissioners, Rotary club members and members of Chamber of commerce. These people should have a pretty good circle of connections in Cupertino.

Yet, they can only get 283 signatures to support their petition.

You can see how many citizens "want" to have the Vallco conversation now.
If you hear a lot of voices want to "do something with Vallco" within your regular circle of reach, you might want to consider significantly widen your circle of reach since that circle might not reflect the diverse views of the citizens.

Thank you for taking a reality check on "voices" in your circle.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino resident

Muni - Citizens' Advisory Committee for a private property on tax payer dime - Why?

From: Munisekar
Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:29 AM
Subject: Citizens' Advisory Committee for a private property on tax payer dime - Why?
To: sscharf@cupertino.org, svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org, dpaul@cupertino.org, bchang@cupertino.org, rsinks@cupertino.org
Cc: cityclerk@cupertino.org, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, Munisekaran Madhdhipatla <msekar@hotmail.com>

Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, and Council Members Scharf, Chang and Sinks,

Please record my email as part of the public record on the topic of formation of Citizens Advisory Committee for VallCo project.

I have been hearing though various channels and in city council meetings that there is a desire to form Citizens Advisory Committee to come up with the most optimal build out plan for VallCo property; And, it is going to cost our city tax payer dollars to the tune of $1 million. If this were to happen, I would be very disappointed in all of you as an elected body as we want you to focus on Cupertino as whole to look at matters more holistically than worrying about a private property owner.

We all know that this developer took their proposal directly to the voters recently by-passing all established processes and spent $7 mil on propaganda to mislead our citizens. The citizens wisely voted down their proposal considering the massive negative impact of their project on our residents quality of life, impact to schools and traffic. Now, the ball in the property owner court to come back with an alternate plan conforming to General Plan guidelines for city approval or pitch an alternate proposal to citizens in next election.

Why is the city rushing to spend our tax payer $$s to the tune of $1 million to help come up with a plan to maximize profitability of a private enterprise? I don't think this is appropriate and ethical. I hope you all make the right decision of not wasting our tax payer money to benefit a private enterprise by killing this CAC idea being advanced by few associated with construction lobby.

If we set this precedence, then what is next? Should we expect 

CAC for Oaks Development? 

CAC for Scandinavian Design?

Please put an end to this ill-fated idea of CAC for VallCo; don't spend my tax $$s to benefit a private enterprise.

Sincerely,

Muni Madhdhipatla

Cupertino Resident

Liana - Citizens' Advisory Committees Are Unnecessary for Projects that Conform to the General Plan

From: Liana Crabtree
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <rsinks@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:31 PM
Subject: Citizens' Advisory Committees Are Unnecessary for Projects that Conform to the General Plan

Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, and Council Members Chang, Scharf, and Sinks:

Please include my comments as part of the public record related to the development of the Vallco Shopping District site and related to the formation of a possible citizens’ advisory committee.

Not sure why we are supposed to support the use of our tax dollars to help a developer, who bought a shopping mall, figure out how to build something other than a shopping mall at the Vallco Shopping District site.

I see no justification to spend $1 Million of public funds to help a developer profiteer from gifted land use and density allocations at Vallco that are sure to compromise the suburban life experience Cupertino residents sought when they moved here.

Those of us who supported Measure C for Citizens and denounced all developer-sponsored measures in 2016 are accused by Developer and Big Business sympathizers of not having a vision for the Vallco Shopping District site.

Not true.

I speak for myself and my “vision” for Vallco starts with you, the Cupertino City Council:

(1) Return the land use at Vallco back to where it was when the current owner purchased it in 2014: retail only.

(2) Return the maximum building height back to where it was when the current owner purchased in 2014: 45-feet.

For the Vallco Shopping District site, I would like to see a fully operational, publicly accessible shopping/entertainment/recreation/dining venue that conforms to the General Plan that was in effect on December 3, 2014. I welcome the opportunity to spend my money close to home and keep my sales tax dollars in the city where I live.

Developers who propose projects that conform to the General Plan have no use for citizens’ advisory committees.

If the City Council were to approve a citizens’ advisory committee for Vallco because the developer convinced a majority of City Council members to break the General Plan on December 4, 2014 in a bold grab of most-profitable land use, what prevents other developers from pushing for their own self-enriching breaks in the General Plan and for the formation of still more citizens’ advisory committees?

And the purpose of the citizens’ advisory committees? Would that be an attempt to diffuse the anger, frustration, and dissension expressed by residents who see their local elected officials approving projects that will benefit Developers, Big Business, and mega-wealthy investors at the expense of the quality of life for residents, your electorate?

There is a clear path out of the Vallco imbroglio. No citizens’ advisory committee required. I am confident that you can all find your way to the path, but will you summon the courage necessary to walk it?

Sincerely,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident

Liang - Follow the Proper Process to Build Community Trust - Re: Vallco

From: Liang Chao
Date: Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:11 PM
Subject: Follow the Proper Process to Build Community Trust - Re: Vallco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council Members,

I have heard that the City Council "voted" on Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee during the goal setting meeting. I have heard that the Mayor Savita announced to the audience during a Chamber of Commerce event that the city is going forward with Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee. I have heard that the city council discussed the format and composition of Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee in a couple of City Council meetings. I have heard of a budget of $1 million is expected for the Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee.

However, the Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee has not ever been placed on the City Council meeting agenda at all. All of the previous discussions on Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee are potentially a violation of the Brown Act, the open meeting law, where the council should only discuss items on the agenda.

How about Citizens Advisory Committee for Oaks Shopping Center? How about Citizens Advisory Committee for the hotel at Goodyear Tire site? The property owners of both sites and other Housing Element sites deserve the same attention from the City Council as the Vallco's property owner, don't they?

The 2017-2018 City Work Program from March 7, 2017 City Council meeting agenda states "Since this is a Housing Element site, a Specific Plan required to be approved by May 2018 per Housing Element law." This is inaccurate!

The Housing Element submitted and approved by HCD (Housing Community Development) in May 2015 has a Plan A (including housing units at Vallco) and a Plan B (not including housing units at Vallco). For either plan, HCD does not impose a deadline to require "a Specific Plan to be approved by May 2018". The Work Program and future staff report should not attempt to misinterpret the Housing Element law.

The city should not spend $1 million just to develop Vallco Specific Plan, specially not at a time when the divided community needs time to mend and figure out together what's our vision for the entire city. What's more appropriate is a Citizens' Advisory Committee or a General Plan Commission to look at the direction of development in Cupertino. The current General Plan approved in Dec. 2014 was adopted in a rush, during a meeting focused solely on Housing Element. That General Plan was not developed with the assistance of a Citizens' Advisory Committee or a task force as done previously in 2005.

This time. Please do it properly. Vallco or any other development site should be considered as a part of a citywide plan, not by itself. Whatever is developed at Vallco would impact other development projects in Cupertino due to the sheer size of the project, unless Vallco remained a shopping mall.

The community was divided after Dec. 2014 because the massive office and housing allocation for Vallco wasn't clearly described on the meeting agenda, which only mentioned "General Plan Amendment."

This time. Please do it properly. If Vallco CAC is going to be discussed, clearly describe it on the agenda. If the agenda item is only on scheduling, do not make any substantive discussion on Vallco CAC.

The city had lost some community trust because the deadline of Housing Element for Jan. 2015 was manipulated to push for the entire General Plan to be approved in Dec. 2014.

Many Cupertino residents are now well versed in laws regarding Housing Element and General Plan. It would help built community trust if the city staff is more accurate on what's required or not required by law to avoid confusion.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino resident

Danessa - Citizen’s Advisory Committee

Oral Communication for Cupertino City Council Meeting on March 7, 2017 by Danessa Techmanski
-----------------------

Citizen’s Advisory Committee--City Council Meeting 3/7/2017

At the Cupertino Goal Setting Retreat two weeks ago the idea of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee was suggested to research and generate potential ideas for the future development and overall character of Cupertino. It is not something that should be done in a hurry, and I would hope that the duration of the committee would allow enough time to incorporate the completion of the traffic study, the full occupation of the Apple 2 Campus, and to digest new development in our immediate neighboring cities. 

There is, unfortunately, a good dose of suspicion about the formation and execution of such a committee so it needs to be handled with the utmost democracy, transparency, and objectiveness. Previous pseudo developer studies, disingenuous workshops, and deceptive campaign efforts have soured many residents. 

Since the Goal Meeting, I have taken several opportunities to talk to residents and would like to share some of their suggestions and concerns about the formation and conduct of such a committee.

1)Committee participants should not have a historic relationship with developers or their associates, and should be chosen by a completely neutral third party as we are attempting to start from a completely clean slate. The point is to get the most reliable and factual information possible to support the long-term success and fit of the many puzzle pieces that make up our city. Anything less objective will come back to have negative financial and quality of life impacts in the future. It pays to be forthright, and unbiased. 

2) The chosen mediator for such a process should be voted on by the committee itself with a minimum of two applicants, and preferably three, who should have no known history or current communications with potential developers or their associates.   Any mediator that has been shown to violate such may be removed by committee vote. Likewise, for any committee member.

3) The size of the group should be at least 30-35 people in order to get the best sampling and representation of Cupertino’s residents, and so as to avoid any one faction from monopolizing the process. Within the group, specialty divisions could be made to advise on housing, traffic, school impact, and surrounding development, which could be summarized and shared with the rest of the group to increase productivity, accuracy, and save time. 

4) There should be bi-monthly updates at City Council Meetings on the group’s progress and findings. Additionally, there should be a once monthly city cost accounting on the group provided at committee meetings. 

5) Quality of life, traffic, more affordable housing and the impact on our schools are of the greatest concern to residents and should be at the forefront of project constraints.

If done fairly, democratically, and honestly a Citizen’s Advisory Committee could be an excellent opportunity for our city officials to buy back some sadly lost public trust. It could provide developers with priceless guidance and planning information, and result in the most sustainable, successful, and utilitarian plan for our city, its residents, and developers as well.