Liana - Cupertino Voters Rejected Office Allocation and Urban Density When They Voted Down Measure D

From: Liana Crabtree
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; goldmancouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Subject: Cupertino Voters Rejected Office Allocation and Urban Density When They Voted Down Measure D

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

Please include this letter as part of the public record related to the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District site.

In the October 6, 2017 edition of the Cupertino Courier, Reed Moulds, a managing director with Sand Hill Property Company (SHP), was quoted as saying, “Through Measure D we also learned, despite many benefits and a well-received design, that not everyone has become comfortable with 2 million square feet of office space.”

Reed Moulds offers a curious conclusion given that not one of the 23 mailers that came to my home (and I assume to the homes of my neighbors) promoting Measure D included any references to the 2 MILLION square feet of office or the 144-foot maximum structure height that were silent but significant parts of the Vallco Plan under Measure D.

Why flag 2 MILLION square feet of office as the villain that sank Measure D and ignore its urbanization twin--the 144-foot maximum structure height--that was every bit a part of failed Measure D as the office allocation? Consider that Measure D failed because by land use AND density it was an urban development proposal not suited to a suburban community with limited infrastructure and a strong family-friendly culture.

Consider that under Measure D, approximately 4.4 MILLION square feet of new structures on the Vallco Shopping District site would have been divvied up as follows:
Office/Office Support, 56%
Residential, 22%
Retail/Recreation, 16%
Hotel, 6%

All for the benefit of whom?

Related, Sunnyvale City Council Member Michael Goldman, who was elected in 2016 on a Sensible Growth platform, posted the following message on Nextdoor on 10/12/2017 in the thread called “Sand Hill Returns: Restarts Vallco Approval Process”:

NOTE: In accordance with Nextdoor use guidelines, Michael Goldman has given his permission to share his message outside of the Nextdoor social media environment.

“1. Can we assume that developers have thoroughly researched and planned things out and know what they are doing?

No, we can't. The most recent Nobel Prize in Economics has gone to a researcher who demonstrated the irrational behavior of people contrary to their own best interest. "People often make poor choices—and look back at them with bafflement!" (https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Thaler)

As evidence, I submit Sunnyvale's downtown. It was a very nice little downtown which, if allowed to grow organically, would have thrived and become a pleasant gathering place and shopping place for residents like Mountain View's. Instead much of it, including a charming city hall that would have made a nice art museum or visitors center, was torn down for a mall which failed miserably after the newness wore off. Then developer after developer tried to either revive it or replace it only to go into bankruptcy leaving Sunnyvale with uncompleted shells of apartments for many years. The last of these developers was Sand Hill Properties whose lawsuits with Wells Fargo dragged on for years delaying the completion of the empty shells.

I make no judgement about Sand Hill Properties, but to assume developers or city planners have any great insight into the wisdom of developing a site or into future economic trends is clearly contrary to the evidence of all those bankruptcy filings.

Numerous economic studies have shown that whether it is investments in rail-lines in the 19th century or startups in the 20th, much of it is random. A lot of the investments make no economic sense and ultimately fail. The ones that succeed are the ones we know about.

The business model for venture capitalists is that 5 of 10 investments will fail utterly, 4 will get by (sort of), and the 10th will do well enough to make up for the other 9. Companies make money betting on a 10% success rate of people knowing what they are doing. In most cases it doesn't matter, but if it is your home town it matters.

2. Why would a developer put up buildings when there is insufficient transit?

Because developers don't care. That is not part of their business plan. They can reasonably assume that if the city council allows it, the residents must be okay with a city council that allows it. Some cities (e.g., Los Gatos, Los Altos) elect city councils that simply say no to development.

Sand Hill Properties evidently underestimated local opposition to a development on El Camino and decided not to pursue it. They sold the property to De Anza Properties who is putting up a lower density development. De Anza Properties themselves initially floated a proposal for a 10 story apt. complex at Butcher's Corner. Public opposition (including from me) whittled it down considerably though many object to the development that did proceed. Developers will pursue their maximum profit, but they ultimately need the cooperation of city governments who to some degree respond to voters.

3. Why would developers put up apartments if there is no possibility of renting them because people won't move there because of inadequate transit?

The average apartment dweller stays 2 years. 70% move within 3 years. People will put up with a lot if they know it is only for a few years. (Also, they may not know how bad the transit is until they move there.) Those who expect to live in the city longer may have different views on transit and development and will vote accordingly.
When I referred to cities reaching a natural limit I left the impression that it was all self-regulating. I apologize for that. It is self-regulating in that people vote with their feet but they also vote at elections and when enough people can't stand it any more they vote for candidates that represent that view. Money from interested parties can tip the scales but at some point even that isn't enough.

In CA, people have been voting with their feet for decades. Except for a brief time during the dot-com bubble there has been a net migration of US residents out of CA since the the 1970s. Only foreign immigration has kept CA's population increasing. Even with that, the point where the period of endless growth of population may be coming to an end.

Limits to growth examined here: http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2017/04/limits-to-growth.html

Nothing lasts forever.”

Thank you for your consideration of my letter and of Michael Goldman’s observations as you weigh the content of the next proposal for the Vallco Shopping District against the needs and interests of your electorate, the resident community.

Sincerely,

Liana Crabtree

Cupertino resident

REFERENCE

"Vallco Mall: Sandhill Wants to Work with the City Again on Potential Site Plans" by Matt Wilson, Cupertino Courier, 10/6/2017:
mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=0ba4fa74c