Ignatius - Barry Chang Should Recuse Himself Due to Campaign Contributions from Developers

From: Ignatius Ding
Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:44 PM
Subject: [CCSGI-Core] Letter to Cupertino City Council -- Please include this letter as part of the public record
To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: David Brandt <manager@cupertino.org>, "Grace Schmidt CMC (City Clerk)" <CityClerk@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Wong:

Please include this letter as part of the public record for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative (a.k.a. “Vallco office park initiative” or “Initiative”).

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016, the City Council will consider issues of great importance to our community related to the Vallco office park initiative, including but not necessarily limited to:

• adopting the Initiative or adding the Initiative to the ballot for the November 8. 2016 General Election
• considering whether to direct the City elections official to transmit the Initiative to the city attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis per the draft resolution
•  considering whether to authorize City Council members, or the Council as a whole, to submit ballot arguments against the Initiative per the draft resolution
• considering the ballot label (ballot question) for the Initiative.

Through a sustained and thorough investigative effort attributed to a team of dedicated community members, we have an annotated body of evidence linking substantial campaign contributions to Mayor Barry Chang from employees or business associates of three (3) major developers with active or pending development projects in the City of Cupertino, including the developer behind the Vallco office park initiative, Sand Hill Property. In short, through May 2016, Mayor Barry Chang (Barry Chang for Assembly 2016) received approximately $75,600 from Sand Hill Property business partners, likely financial beneficiaries if the Vallco office park initiative is approved.

I have three (3) specific requests associated with the City Council’s actions related to the Vallco Office Park Initiative: 

As a result of the financial disclosures that associate Mayor Barry Chang with significant donations from business partners closely linked to the intended Vallco office park developer and pursuant to Government Code 84308, Section 6b, I hereby respectfully request that Mayor Barry Chang recuses himself from all deliberations and voting related to the Vallco office park initiative due to a real or 

1. perceived financial conflict of interest.
2. Because the outcome of the Vallco office park initiative has the potential to transform the quality and character of suburban, family-friendly Cupertino to an urban, corporate-centric Cupertino, I respectfully request that supporters of the grass roots citizen-sponsored Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative be granted 15 minutes of continuous presentation time during the public comment window for Agenda item 11, discussion associated with decisions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative.  Request that the 15-minute speaking block shall be reflected in the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5, 2016 City Council meeting.
3. I respectfully request that City Council members reject any efforts from supporters of the Vallco office park initiative to adopt the Initiative “as is” or with concessions and instead add the initiative as a measure on the November 8, 2016 General Election.  Right or wrong, many, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative with an understanding that they would have an opportunity to vote on what will be built at Vallco; to approve the Initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations of many petition signers.

Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative.

Sincerely,

Ignatius Y. Ding

39-year Cupertino resident

REFERENCES 

•   Barry Chang’s Campaign Donations for Assembly in 2016 (Recall Barry Chang Web site).  http://recallbarrychang.blogspot.com/2016/06/barry-changs-campaign-donations-for.html

•   Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, Searchable Database for Campaign Donations.  http://powersearch.sos.ca.gov/advanced.php

•  California Government Code 84308, Section 6b. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=84001-85000&file=84300-84310

Randy - Vallco Initiative and Community Facilities Districts

From: Randy Shingai
Date: Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:32 AM
Subject: Vallco Initiative and Community Facilities Districts.
To: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council.

Section 9.7 of the Vallco Initiative (on page C-207)  states that the developer will make use of one or more "Community Facilities Districts", or CFDs, to secure financing.  CFDs are made possible by the Mello-Roos Act, that was created to finance public works.  My understanding of the Initiative text is that the developer plans to use provisions of Mello-Roos to obtain tax-exempt financing for the "green roof" and more.  This seems to be a gross perversion of the intent of Mello-Roos, but I will leave that for another time.

I asking that the following be covered in the 9212 Report for the Vallco Initiative.

1. Is the City required to create one or more CFDs as specified by the Vallco Initiative if the initiative passes?

2. Who pays for the formation of these CFDs?

3, Once created, how much control will the City be able to exert over these CFDs?

4. How much control will the City be able to exert over the terms of financing that these CFDs utilize?

• What about recourse in the event of default.  What is the exposure to the City?
• A quick scan of the assessed values for parcels in the Vallco Plan Area have parcels with an assessed value of anywhere from $80 to $78 million.  Since special taxes levied by CFDs cannot be "ad valorem", there could easily be situations where the taxes levied on a parcel could exceed its market value.  I have read estimates that the "green roof" will cost as much as $300 million, so the special taxes levied will be significant.  How can this be mitigated?
• What about future parcelization that the Initiative says is likely (See C-199)?  How will affect the distribution of special taxes assigned to individual parcels.  If parcels are dedicated to the City, will that affect the distribution of special taxes levied to remaining privately owned parcels?

Thanks for your consideration,

Randy Shingai

From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 30, 2016 at 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Vallco Initiative and Community Facilities Districts.
To: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>

The State Treasurer keeps a list of troubled Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts.  These include districts that have either defaulted or are nearing default.

http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/default-draw/issuename.asp

I would like the 9212 Report to have an analysis on on the default risks and the alternatives for structuring debt and debt service to minimize that risk for the Vallco Initiative's plan for the use of Community Facilities District.

I would also like a characterization of the exposure to the City of Cupertino  for a default of the Community Facilities District(s) that the Vallco Initiative plans to use to finance Vallco.

Thank you,

Randy Shingai