Liang - Compliance of SB 35 and the Removal of City Attorney

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Compliance of SB 35 and the Removal of City Attorney
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org

Below is my speech last night regarding the compliance issue of SB 35 and the City Attorney.

The City Manager is responsible on determining the ministerial approval of a SB 35 application. But you, the City Council, is ultimately responsible for the conduct of your employee, the City Manager. If the City Manager approved the Vallco SB 35 application without following the General Plan, it is your responsibility to look into the conduct of the City Manager.

===================

Subject: Vallco SB 35 plan does NOT comply with the General Plan since they have NO entitlement without an approved Specific Plan

Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers.

I'd like to comment on the compliance issue of the SB 35. I have confirmed with the City Attorney that this topic should fall under Oral Communication for non-agenda items.

Any SB 35 project must comply with the General Plan and the Municipal Code. The existing General Plan, which you approved in December 2014, clearly states that the office and residential allocations do not apply until a Vallco Specific Plan is approved with a list of agreed upon community benefits. It is not your intention to give away the office and residential allocation without any benefits. For that very reason, the Housing Element even includes Scenario B where there is zero housing at Vallco. However, in the SB 35 application, Sand Hill has claimed the entitlement of 2 million sqft office space and 2400 housing units, when the Vallco Specific Plan doesn't exist yet. It clearly does not comply with the General Plan.

The former City Manager David Brandt has somehow allowed a noncompliant SB 35 project to pass, which in fact gives away billion-dollar-worth of entitlement for free to the Developer, when it should be contingent on an approved Specific Plan. David Brandt retired soon after this action.

At the same time, the City Attorney Randy Hom was silently removed from office in May 2018 when the City Attorney is the only other person who could oversee the compliance of SB 35 application. Why has Randy Hom been removed without any explanation? Why has the City not even started to recruit new City Attorney when we are facing the largest development project in the history of Cupertino?

I urge the Council to take immediate action to look into the former City Manager, who is responsible for an action that likely gave away billions-dollar-worth of development rights. I urge the City Council to give Cupertino residents a sufficient explanation on why City Attorney Randy Hom was removed in the first place and why we continue to pay his salary 4 months later today.

By not taking any action on the compliance issue of SB 35, the City Council is in fact admitting that the General Plan was poorly written so that you would willingly allow Sand Hill to claim a billion-dollar-worth provisional allocation as entitlement without providing any community benefits. Do you admit that YOU are the ones who give away billions-dollar-worth of development rights for free, not the former City Manager?

Vallco SB 35 has other issues. It does not comply with the Housing Affordability Act, which require 2 / 3 residential use in the entire square footage. Vallco site is still in the hazardous material site list, specifically excluded from qualifying for SB 35. The list goes on.

So, the Vallco SB 35 plan is a bluff. It's a result of potential misconduct of the former City Manager.

Although SB 35 project only needs ministerial approval by the City Staff, it is the responsibility of the City Council to ensure that the City Staff is following the law. It is the responsibility of the City Council to take action to investigate any misconduct immediately.

ya