Friday, August 31, 2018

Liang - Unlawful "action" taken on June 4. 2018 during a study session

From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 8:18 PM
Subject: Unlawful "action" taken on June 4. 2018 during a study session
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>


Dear Mayor Paul, Councilmembers, and City Attorney,

The Vallco EIR refers to a "Revised Project", which is inconsistent with the "Proposed Project" described in the NOP of the EIR, dated Feb. 8, 2018:
"Consistent with the adopted General Plan, the Specific Plan would facilitate the development of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, 2.0 million square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, and 800 residential dwelling units onsite."

The many public comments submitted during the commenting area, which ends on March 12, 2018, were based on the "Proposed Project", described in the NOP.

Yet, the FEIR states
"Based on input from City Council at its June 4, 2018 Study Session on the Vallco Specific Plan, the City has identified another alternative to the proposed project that would achieve all the goals expressed by the different councilmembers at that meeting, including the desire to have a more balanced jobs and housing community. This alternative is the “revised project,” which consists of revisions to the project analyzed in the Draft EIR (referred to, below, as the “previous project”).

The revised project includes 460,000 square feet of commercial uses (including a 60,000 square foot performing arts theater), 1,750,000 square feet of office uses, 339 hotel rooms, 2,923 residential units, 35,000 square feet of civic uses (including 10,000 square foot of governmental use and 35,000 square feet of education space), and a 30-acre green roof."

On June 4, 2018, the agenda item description is
"Conduct study session regarding Vallco Specific Plan and provide direction to staff"

No where does it mention that the "Proposed Project" will be revised to be beyond what the General Plan would allow.
No where does it mention that any direction might involve an amendment to the General Plan beyond the original stated bound for the Vallco Specific Plan and the EIR.

Any member of the public would interpret the agenda item to mean the direction to staff would be among options ALL comply with the current General Plan.
There is no way any member of the public, just reading the agenda description, could be alerted that the General Plan will be amended or that the number of housing units could be tripled or more.

Apparently the Council took "action" on a study session item beyond the description of the item.
That violates the Brown Act.
Thus, any "action" taken on June 4, 2018 should be voided since there is no proper notice to the public who might wish to comment on the item.

Please cease and desist any future action on GPA or EIR, which might result from the unlawful "action" taken on June 4, 2018 during the study session limited to Vallco Specific Plan, which is supposed to comply with the current General Plan.

I do expect a written response from the City Attorney on the action taken by the City to address this cease-and-desist request.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao
Cupertino resident

Liang - "Vallco Shopping District", not "Vallco Town Center".

From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 7:31 PM
Subject: "Vallco Shopping District", not "Vallco Town Center".
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org


Dear Mayor Paul, Councilmembers, and City Attorney, 

As I've pointed out previously in public comments for the Opticos process and the EIR and this morning at the Environmental Review committee and here again, the retail space allocation for Vallco Shopping District is maximum 1.2 million square feet, not maximum 600,000 square feet. Since the maximum allocated amount is listed for other allocations, like office and residential, for transparency and consistency, please list the maximum allowed amount for retail space also.

Otherwise, the public might be misled to believe that the Council has somehow changed the General Plan to reduce the retail space from max 1.2 million sqft to max 600,000 sqft. Please do not mislead the public.

Why are we so afraid to clearly state that the allowed retail space in the current General Plan is 1.2 million sqft? That's the fact. Why not just state it plainly?

I've pointed this out earlier too. The formal name for the Vallco area in the General Plan is "Vallco Shopping District" in the General Plan. Not "Vallco Town Center". There are also Vallco North Park and Vallco South Park. A member of the public might be confused if the formal name is not used to address the area in the General Plan to be considered.
Until the General Plan is amended, the Vallco area is called "Vallco Shopping District."

Again. Why are we so afraid to clearly state that the area under consideration is called " Vallco Shopping District"?
That's the fact. Why not just state it plainly?

Unless there was any GPA to change the name of the area, please call it as it is currently stated in the General Plan for transparency and consistency.

Thanks.

Liang Chao
Cupertino resident


------------------------------------------
---         Follow-up Letter           ---
------------------------------------------
From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: "Vallco Shopping District", not "Vallco Town Center".
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org


The agenda item for the Sep. 4 Planning Commission is
"Consider adoption of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and
associated amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Map, Municipal Code, to
modify development standards, including heights, density, and residential,
commercial, office, and hotel development allocations within the Vallco Town
Center Special Area
and related actions for environmental review to consider the
effects of the project; and consideration of a Development Agreement with Vallco
Property Owner, LLC for..."

In the General Plan, there is no such thing called "Vallco Town Center" or "Vallco Town Center Special Area".
There are "Vallco Shopping District", "North Vallco Park", "South Vallco Park".
The agenda item should use the exact term used in the current General Plan. Otherwise, people might confuse those with

You are welcome to verify the term used here:


Liang


Liang - When did the Council give approval or instruction to consider a GPA at Vallco site?


From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:59 PM
Subject: When did the Council gave approval or instruction to consider a GPA at Vallco site?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org



Dear Mayor Paul and City Councilmembers,

The City adopted the GPA Authorization Procedure on May 19, 2015.
Any project requesting a GPA should follow that procedure, which has a 6-month application cycle.

Now it appears the Vallco Specific Plan being proposed will require a GPA. However, I cannot find any application for GPA Authorization for the Vallco site.

All developers should be treated fairly and should follow the same city procedures. Could you please explain why the Vallco project can be considered for a GPA without following the GPA Authorization procedure, which all other developers have to follow?

Did the City Council ever give any instruction to allow Vallco project to be considered for a GPA at any time? I certainly did not find any item on any city council agenda this year to that effect.

In case such a GPA is initiated by the City Council out of the ordinary procedure, please identify the date of the City Council meeting when the Council gave the staff direction to prepare a GPA for Vallco site and the parameters (land use allocations to consider) and justification the Council gave the staff.

I do expect a response from the Mayor or the City Attorney on the legality of the GPA under consideration for the Vallco project. Please do not ignore my inquiry.

Please add this email to written public comments to all subsequent meetings on the Vallco project to be held this year.

---------------
For your information:
The following page shows the current application process:

The next application cycle is Nov. 12, 2018. The only project which has been approved to be considered for a GPA is the hotel at the Goodyear Tire site. No other project has submitted any request for a GPA.
Certainly not the Vallco project.

This application form outlines every step of the process.

1. Prepare Plans  and Application  materials (Refer to Submittal Requirements)
2. Pre -application Conference. Please  discuss  proposal  with  planning  staff  members  prior  to  submittal.   
3. Submit Application Materials Refer to the  website (    www.cupertino.org/gpaauthorization ) for the filing deadline of your application.
4. Staff Review Upon receipt of the application, staff will review and evaluate each complete and timely application  based on the criteria identified in the City Council policy. 
5. Noticing for Public Meeting - ... This meeting will be  noticed    as follows....
6. City Council Meeting The applicant will have an opportunity to present their application l imited to 10 minutes , or less if  directed by the Council .
-------------------------------


Sincerely,

Liang Chao
Cupertino resident


------------------------------------------
---         Follow-up Letter           ---
------------------------------------------
From: Liang-Fang Chao
Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: When did the Council gave approval or instruction to consider a GPA at Vallco site?
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org


Someone mentioned that Piu mentioned that the direction to staff was given on June 4, 2018 during the study session.

Here is the agenda item for the June 4 study session:
"Conduct study session regarding Vallco Specific Plan and provide direction to staff"

There is no indication for any inclination to consider any GPA beyond the existing General Plan allocation.
Any member of the public who might be interested in or want to comment on a GPA at Vallco site won't even know the study session will consider any amendment to the General Plan.

Even if the study session were properly noticed to include a consideration of GPA, which it wasn't, the Council cannot legally take an action to initiate a GPA authorization process. When was the action item scheduled where the Council votes to consider GPA at Vallco? Who votes Yes?

The Council cannot initiate a consideration for GPA as a part of the Vallco Specific Plan, which is supposed to comply with the existing General Plan.

Let's take a look at the last GPA process which was initiated on Aug. 21, 2012.
Here is the agenda item:
"Subject: Consideration of authorization to proceed with a General Plan Amendment"

Here is the language in the staff report:
"Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment to increase citywide development allocations, review key opportunity sites, and provide direction on funding the remaining budget needed to process the General Plan amendment."

Then, the staff report went on to specify specifically the parameters the staff recommends the GPA to consider.The minutes of the Aug. 21, 2012 meeting shows many public comments on the GPA item. Then, a Council action with voting record:

"Chang moved and Mahoney seconded, and the motion carried unanimously, to authorize the initiation of a General Plan Amendment process that will begin with staff returning back to the City Council in four to six weeks with the following:
1. Scope of work for the General Plan Amendment process including the timing of a Master Plan for the Vallco Shopping Center in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment process.
2. Proposal to fund the General Plan Amendment including the City share and payment of fair share by property owners (to include apportionment based on payments made in advance and those that are deferred).
3. Projects that do not require a General Plan Amendment or any deviations would not be deferred during the General Plan Amendment process, however, projects in the Vallco Shopping Center would have to update the approved Vallco Master Development plan and the South Vallco Master plan as related to their project.
4. Provide a list of the BQ (Quasi-Public Building) properties where the CG (General Commercial) zoning is proposed to be added."

Where and when is the Council action item to authorize the consideration of a General Plan Amendment?

Please clarify.

Thank you.



Liang