From: Liana Crabtree
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; City Manager <manager@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:24 AM
Subject: Discussions from 2/26/2017 Special Council Meeting Did Not Authorize the Formation of a Vallco CAC
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; City Manager <manager@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:24 AM
Subject: Discussions from 2/26/2017 Special Council Meeting Did Not Authorize the Formation of a Vallco CAC
Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members Chang, Scharf, and Sinks:
Please add my letter to the public record regarding the formation of a possible Vallco citizens’ advisory committee (VCAC).
The purpose of this letter is to identify that the City Council did not approve the formation of a VCAC during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, despite numerous public claims to the contrary.
Refer to the end of this message for a link to the recording of the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, and to the transcript of the meeting segment when Mayor Vaidhyanathan conducted a straw vote related to “a process to address Vallco”. To view the video recording, either download the recording to your own device, or log in to DropBox using a paid DropBox account and view online.
Many thanks to Better Cupertino for sponsoring the live stream broadcast and video archive of the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting.
It is unclear why the City would choose not to record such an important meeting, especially given the many public references City officials have made about the “goal setting meeting” since 2/26/2017.
The start times in this letter are relative to the beginning of the cited video recording (start time 0:00:00).
Discussion of Council Member Sinks’s priority item number 3, “Process to Address Vallco” begins at 2:15:25 with this statement from Mayor Vaidhyanathan:
“And the other one. The process to address Vallco. I’ll wait for Council Member Sinks to talk about that one.”
Discussion of Council Member Sinks’s priority item number 3, “Process to Address Vallco” concludes at 2:52:30 with this statement from Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan:
“So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens.”
One Council Member’s priority item number 3, which was not recognized as a shared goal by even one other Council Member, consumed approximately 37 minutes of a 240 minute meeting. How can it be that 15% of the Special City Council meeting on 2/26/2017 was dedicated to this fringe topic?
Regarding the concluding statement above from Mayor Vaidhyanathan concerning Council Member Sinks’s priority item number 3:
- The “vote” captured above was recorded under the agenda item “Goal Setting”. Where
is the notice to the public that a vote related to the establishment of
a “process to address Vallco” would be voted on during the 2/26/2017
Special City Council meeting?
- Where
is the motion, the second, the definition of what the “process to
address Vallco” would or would not include, and the discussion of cost,
(except beyond the opinions of a few Council Members asserting that the
City should pay for the process)?
- How
did the statement above from Mayor Vaidhyanathan transform to the
following item in the minutes for the 2/26/2017 Special City Council
Meeting:
“Council agreed on the following items to be added to the Work Program:
…
“4. City‐sponsored Vallco Citizens’ Advisory Task Force to conduct televised public workshops with experts’ participation and researching other cities that have successfully transformed failing malls?"
References to a VCAC have become common in the last month, especially from Mayor Vaidhyanathan, as she has referenced or implied, in multiple forums since the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, that the VCAC has been approved and will move forward. Public references to an “approved” VCAC include comments made at the 3/1/2017 State of the City Address event, the 3/7/2017 City Council meeting, and the 3/31/2017 coffee with State Assembly Member Evan Low.
And yet, where is the over-and-done City Council decision to spend tax payer money ($1 Million?) on an undefined VCAC? Despite assertions to the contrary, a decision to approve a Vallco citizens' advisory committee does not appear to be found in the activities that occurred during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting.
Sidebar: I notice that there is a poll originating from a neighborhood west of De Anza Blvd that asks residents if they support the creation of a Vallco citizens’ advisory committee. While western Cupertino can be an area where views tolerant of high density development in eastern Cupertino neighborhoods are common, remarkably, of the 219 people who have responded to the poll so far, 89% oppose the formation of a VCAC. Only 8% favor the formation of a VCAC and 3% have no opinion.
City Council, should you decide to move forward with a VCAC that will be funded with public tax dollars, whom are you representing? Evidence is scant that you would be acting in accordance with the needs and interests of a majority of Cupertino residents. If not residents, then whom would be the recipient of this $1 Million VCAC gift?
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
(START Partial Transcript with Footnotes: Special Meeting (Goal Setting), Cupertino City Council, 2/26/2017)
LINK to video recording of the Special City Council Meeting, 2/26/2017: https://www.dropbox.com/s/
Times are approximate.
Discussion of item “Process to Address Vallco” begins at 2:15:25.
Time for the resolution of the discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco":
Start: 2:46:40
End: 2:52:30
Transcript for the resolution of the discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco":
Steven Scharf (SS): “ And we can move on to something besides Vallco.”
Savita Vaidhyanathan (SV): “Since there were no checkmarks(1), it was brought up(2), so we are discussing it. So, I am hearing that we would like to have workshops, we would like to have the public present. We do not want the developer to pay for it. And, we would like to have someone who can oversee it who has technical expertise and can facilitate something so that you can call these into a decision that can be then forwarded to the developer.”
Barry Chang (BC): “Right. And, I want all the meetings to be televised. So, just no mis—”
SV: “No misunderstanding and communication.”
SS: “And I would like research into all these other cities that transformed their failing malls into successful malls.
BC: “Yeah, that’s good.”
SV, gesturing to Darcy Paul: “I still haven’t heard in the discussion whether you want or do not want the developer present at these meetings.”
Darcy Paul (DP): “Well, you can’t prevent them from going to these meetings.”
SS: “Right, it’s a public meeting—“
SV: “And speaking. And speaking. Because—“
DP: “They’re a stakeholder. They’re obviously a major stakeholder, So, yeah, of course, they would be a participant. I mean, it’s one of these things where, ah, if they refused to engage then let’s just not even sign for your process (unintelligible)—“
SV: “So this is building information from people of all walks of life.”
DP: “Right.”
SV: “And the second. We talked about the funding.”
DP: “Right.”
SV: “Not to come from the developers. I agree with that. Televised, sure. Um, let’s say we are talking Vallco. That was my original question. Would you like to have a combined workshop where we talk general? Or, do you want to be specific to one development at a time, or do it holistically and say, ‘this is what our community wants to see whether you have it in this location or that location—‘“
SS: “I think it has to be holistically because you are talking about moving office and housing—“
SV: “Okay. It’s puzzle pieces. It is puzzle pieces. So, it’s just (unintelligible) we are extending the scope. Um, but it’s always good to have the big picture rather than focus on one and then revise it—“
Rod Sinks (RS): “I would be specific. I think it’s gonna, this is so broad that you’re just back to another General Plan—”
SV: “You can be specific to the project that you’re discussing, but I think the goal should be to cover all of them. In one given meeting, I’m not saying you take all the projects, but overall you should—“
RS: “Could somebody tell me how this is different from the process we ran?”
SV: “I think what I’m hearing is the previous process did not have enough public input.”
DP: “And I agree if it’s city-wide it’s a massive undertaking. And, you know, personally, I prefer to focus on this because this is 80 acres of space. It is the biggest issue facing our community in this last election cycle, um, and it’s not going to go away in terms of, you know, the import to our city of this central space. And, I agree with what Barry is saying it is much better for us to fund this as a city. Now, I will only add that that opens up the possibility for us to really think about things like open space and civic space and how much that would cost. I mean just doing my back-of-the-napkin kind of math, with 20,000 households in Cupertino, um, every $200 Million represents $10,000 from a household. You know, the developer spent $300 Million and we’re talking about putting out a Billion dollars as a City. That is the equivalent of $50,000 per household. I mean that is possibly completely illegitimate analysis, but I would like to know, you know, if we are going to engage in this type of process, what are our options.”
SV: “I am hearing Vallco specific. Council Member Scharf is saying more holistic.”
SS: “I mean what I see is that other, let’s take KT Urban, they saw ‘oh my God, Vallco got 2 Million square feet. We are entitled to a comparable amount of square feet of office for, based on the size of our land’. And then someone else is going to come by and say, ‘yeah, office is the most profitable—‘“
RS: “I wonder how they feel about being shot down on a 4-1 vote, and then getting told in court that they didn’t do it right. So what are they going to—”
SS: “Yeah, I don’t know if they’re going to come back with another—“
RS: “Maybe they do, but on a 4-1 vote, we were pretty clear with them about their prior proposal. I think Vallco is the big elephant in the room.”
(Someone): “I agree with you.”
RS: “Unfocus it too much, we’re just back to (unintelligible)—“
SV: “So, we have 3-to-2 on that. Vallco and two of us wanted it holistically. I am okay with that. We do Vallco first. It is 3-to-2, so there isn’t really too much discussion.”
(Several people speaking at once): “Barry—“
SV: “I’m so sorry….From your earlier comments, that’s what I—please, please—“
BC: “That’s okay. I think both sides, you know, has a reason, makes sense. But my concern—“
SV: “I would love to—“
BC: “My concern is if you go to the whole city, then too many targets to hit at, so I’m afraid you may not be able to accomplish anything. So, and as Council Member Darcy Paul says and also Council Member Sinks says this is the biggest issue that we are facing and the biggest problem that we are dealing with and the initiative and the recall. I’m the one that got it, right? So, I don’t want, I want to solve this one. Focus on it and see if we can find a solution and solve it. If we can, we can. So be it. I’ll be here less than two years, so—“
SS: “My number 2 was to distribute housing and office space—”
SV: “So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens.”
RS: “It’s 11:20 (am)”
SV: “And, since it’s 11:20, I have (unintelligible) that we finish the actual goals that we’ve actually checked. So we are going to go ahead with some of the goals, and Minh if you could summarize that for the goals that we, the Council, has already checked.”
Footnotes
(1) Earlier goal setting activity had each Council Member identify his or her top 3 priorities for the City in 2017. Council Member Sinks identified “Process to Address Vallco" as his priority item number 3 for 2017. The reference “since there were no check marks” from Mayor Vaidhyanathan indicates that no other Council Members checked the item as an additional or supported priority for them. (Meeting minutes identify each Council Member’s top 3 priority items for 2017.)
(2) See how the “process to address Vallco” topic began with Mayor Vaidhyanathan’s comment at 2:15:25.
Savita Vaidhyanathan (SV): “Since there were no checkmarks(1), it was brought up(2), so we are discussing it. So, I am hearing that we would like to have workshops, we would like to have the public present. We do not want the developer to pay for it. And, we would like to have someone who can oversee it who has technical expertise and can facilitate something so that you can call these into a decision that can be then forwarded to the developer.”
Barry Chang (BC): “Right. And, I want all the meetings to be televised. So, just no mis—”
SV: “No misunderstanding and communication.”
SS: “And I would like research into all these other cities that transformed their failing malls into successful malls.
BC: “Yeah, that’s good.”
SV, gesturing to Darcy Paul: “I still haven’t heard in the discussion whether you want or do not want the developer present at these meetings.”
Darcy Paul (DP): “Well, you can’t prevent them from going to these meetings.”
SS: “Right, it’s a public meeting—“
SV: “And speaking. And speaking. Because—“
DP: “They’re a stakeholder. They’re obviously a major stakeholder, So, yeah, of course, they would be a participant. I mean, it’s one of these things where, ah, if they refused to engage then let’s just not even sign for your process (unintelligible)—“
SV: “So this is building information from people of all walks of life.”
DP: “Right.”
SV: “And the second. We talked about the funding.”
DP: “Right.”
SV: “Not to come from the developers. I agree with that. Televised, sure. Um, let’s say we are talking Vallco. That was my original question. Would you like to have a combined workshop where we talk general? Or, do you want to be specific to one development at a time, or do it holistically and say, ‘this is what our community wants to see whether you have it in this location or that location—‘“
SS: “I think it has to be holistically because you are talking about moving office and housing—“
SV: “Okay. It’s puzzle pieces. It is puzzle pieces. So, it’s just (unintelligible) we are extending the scope. Um, but it’s always good to have the big picture rather than focus on one and then revise it—“
Rod Sinks (RS): “I would be specific. I think it’s gonna, this is so broad that you’re just back to another General Plan—”
SV: “You can be specific to the project that you’re discussing, but I think the goal should be to cover all of them. In one given meeting, I’m not saying you take all the projects, but overall you should—“
RS: “Could somebody tell me how this is different from the process we ran?”
SV: “I think what I’m hearing is the previous process did not have enough public input.”
DP: “And I agree if it’s city-wide it’s a massive undertaking. And, you know, personally, I prefer to focus on this because this is 80 acres of space. It is the biggest issue facing our community in this last election cycle, um, and it’s not going to go away in terms of, you know, the import to our city of this central space. And, I agree with what Barry is saying it is much better for us to fund this as a city. Now, I will only add that that opens up the possibility for us to really think about things like open space and civic space and how much that would cost. I mean just doing my back-of-the-napkin kind of math, with 20,000 households in Cupertino, um, every $200 Million represents $10,000 from a household. You know, the developer spent $300 Million and we’re talking about putting out a Billion dollars as a City. That is the equivalent of $50,000 per household. I mean that is possibly completely illegitimate analysis, but I would like to know, you know, if we are going to engage in this type of process, what are our options.”
SV: “I am hearing Vallco specific. Council Member Scharf is saying more holistic.”
SS: “I mean what I see is that other, let’s take KT Urban, they saw ‘oh my God, Vallco got 2 Million square feet. We are entitled to a comparable amount of square feet of office for, based on the size of our land’. And then someone else is going to come by and say, ‘yeah, office is the most profitable—‘“
RS: “I wonder how they feel about being shot down on a 4-1 vote, and then getting told in court that they didn’t do it right. So what are they going to—”
SS: “Yeah, I don’t know if they’re going to come back with another—“
RS: “Maybe they do, but on a 4-1 vote, we were pretty clear with them about their prior proposal. I think Vallco is the big elephant in the room.”
(Someone): “I agree with you.”
RS: “Unfocus it too much, we’re just back to (unintelligible)—“
SV: “So, we have 3-to-2 on that. Vallco and two of us wanted it holistically. I am okay with that. We do Vallco first. It is 3-to-2, so there isn’t really too much discussion.”
(Several people speaking at once): “Barry—“
SV: “I’m so sorry….From your earlier comments, that’s what I—please, please—“
BC: “That’s okay. I think both sides, you know, has a reason, makes sense. But my concern—“
SV: “I would love to—“
BC: “My concern is if you go to the whole city, then too many targets to hit at, so I’m afraid you may not be able to accomplish anything. So, and as Council Member Darcy Paul says and also Council Member Sinks says this is the biggest issue that we are facing and the biggest problem that we are dealing with and the initiative and the recall. I’m the one that got it, right? So, I don’t want, I want to solve this one. Focus on it and see if we can find a solution and solve it. If we can, we can. So be it. I’ll be here less than two years, so—“
SS: “My number 2 was to distribute housing and office space—”
SV: “So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens.”
RS: “It’s 11:20 (am)”
SV: “And, since it’s 11:20, I have (unintelligible) that we finish the actual goals that we’ve actually checked. So we are going to go ahead with some of the goals, and Minh if you could summarize that for the goals that we, the Council, has already checked.”
Footnotes
(1) Earlier goal setting activity had each Council Member identify his or her top 3 priorities for the City in 2017. Council Member Sinks identified “Process to Address Vallco" as his priority item number 3 for 2017. The reference “since there were no check marks” from Mayor Vaidhyanathan indicates that no other Council Members checked the item as an additional or supported priority for them. (Meeting minutes identify each Council Member’s top 3 priority items for 2017.)
(2) See how the “process to address Vallco” topic began with Mayor Vaidhyanathan’s comment at 2:15:25.
(END Partial Transcript with Footnotes: Special Meeting (Goal Setting), Cupertino City Council, 2/26/2017)
No comments:
Post a Comment