Liang - Holes in the General Plan on Vallco Shopping Mall Site Should Be Fixed

What happened:

Nov. 7 Darcy requested to discuss possible removal of office space at Vallco due to implications of new housing bills. The requested was supported by Steven and Rod. Barry was the only person opposing it.

Nov. 21 during city council report, they allowed Rod and Barry to vote down the item to remove it from the agenda.

This action is illegal: 

1. Two council members can propose an agenda item. Two other council member have no right to remove it.

2. The council discussed and rejected the item without putting it on the agenda as requested by Darcy.

3. The council made a decision on the item without giving the public a chance to comment.

Please write to the city council to reques them to conduct city council meetings legally.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Liang C
Date: Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Procedure to put an item on the agenda
To: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council Members and City Attorney,

On Nov. 7, Darcy proposed to look at the the office allocation at Vallco since after Jan. 1, with the new housing bills, such as AB 1515, the "provisional" allocation will become entitlement. The city might have to approve any project at Vallco with 2 million square feet. Under certain conditions, 2400 units of housing units might become entitlement too. 

It is prudent for the city to examine the consequences of these new housing bills. With AB 1515, the city might have to approve whatever project Sand Hill propose, as long as they claim it complies with the General Plan. And Sand Hill did claim that Measure D complies with the General Plan too.

Darcy proposed to consider the removal or reduction of office space allocation at Vallco. Steven seconded. The issue should be put on the city council agenda for discussion. But the issue hasn't been put on the city council agenda for discussion.

The office allocation issue at Vallco was not on the city council agenda last night (11/21).

Last night, two of the city council members illegally started the discussion on this item and blocked the item from being put on the future agenda.

These two city council members basically rejected the item proposed by Darcy, with only two votes, without giving the public a chance to comment.

I would like an explanation from the City Attorney on the legality of such action.

If a mistake was made accidentally, please correct it right away.

We might not be able to fix holes in the General Plan before Jan. 1, 2018. But the council could decide to fix the holes before then and fix the GP as soon as possible. 

At the very least, the council should at least discuss the consequence of these holes under the housing bills, as proposed by Darcy:

- 2 million square feet allocation that might become entitlement under AB 1515.

- 389 residential allocation might be interpreted as 2400 units under SB 35 and AB 1515, given the 35 units/acre marker.

- no height limit at Vallco. Sand Hill is entitled to any building height under AB 1515?

With AB 1515, Sand Hill might decide to quit the public engagement process anytime and just submit a project proposal anytime and claim that it complies with the General Plan. Under AB 678 and AB 1515, the  city might not easily reject a project that claimed to comply with the General Plan. Even EIR is not required at Vallco site.

Please honor the request of Darcy to discuss the impact of housing bills on Vallco entitlement to give the public a chance to comment before making a decision on the issue.

Note that whatever is decided from this item, it doesn't need to hold up other plans for Vallco.

Fixing the holes in the General Plan only gives the city more negotiation power later. 

Assume that the office allocation is removed or reduced. The EIR can still evaluate options with office allocation just as any other EIR for GPA.

Eventually, the final project approval would include a GPA.

Thanks.

Liang

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:44 PM Liang C wrote:

Dear City Council Members and City Manager,

It has been a long standing rule, say Rule A, that two city council members can put something on the agenda.

If you now allow 2 or even 3 other council members to remove an agenda item, you have basically nullified Rule A.

On contentious issues, it is when only two council members would agree to put the item on the agenda. The purpose is to at least allow the council to deliberate on the item.

If you allow the other 2 or 3 council members to remove the item put on by the first two council members, you are basically saying that Rule A doesn't exist.

What you have done today to cancel the Planning Commission meeting basically negate the right of Steven and Darcy for proposing an agenda item.

I hope that it is corrected in the next meeting.

However, the content of the item on the Planning Commission needs to be modified.

On Nov. 7, Darcy never said to touch Housing Element, I think. He just wishes to look at the removal of office space so that it does not become an entitlement by Jan. 1, 2018 since that was not the intention of the Council when they approved the "provisional" office space at Vallco.

I hope that the request of Darcy, seconded by Steven and Rod (who changed his mind today), would still be honored as it should be.

But this time please put a correct agenda item content so that it does not create a confusion that housing units will be removed.

Liang