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: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan/general-plan 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:

https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/general-plan-amendment-authorization

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.

https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=10804

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

Action taken on the status of City Attorney

From: L C

Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 12:11 AM
Subject: Action taken on the status of City Attorney
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and City Council members,

The public has been left in the dark as to the status of the City Attorney since May. You owe the public an explanation since the taxpayers are paying the expenses caused by your action.

Final or not, some action was taken to shelve or side-step the City Attorney. When did such "action" happen? How come you didn't report it in any meeting minutes?

Final or not, you have appointed the Acting City Attorney. When did such appointment happen? How come you didn't report it in any meeting minutes?

You have an obligation to report your action taken in the closed session and the votes taken for such action, final or not. Your action, final or not, does have significant financial burden on the city, such as the following:

1. The City Attorney is still employed by Cupertino with likely a full salary of $21,000 a month plus benefits.
2. The City has to employ outside legal counsel to handle the work load of the City Attorney. How much it has cost so far?
3. The City has to employ another outside legal counsel to advise on the employment situation of the City Attorney. How much this has cost us?
4. In case the city let go of the City Attorney eventually, the city has to pay a 9 month severance pay.

I hereby request the City Council to provide a summarized financial cost for the city to handle the shelving/side-stepping of the City Attorney since maybe May.

There has been a few closed sessions on "Performance Evaluation: City Attorney": May 11, May 23, June 5. Mayor Paul has reported "no reportable action at this time" for May 11 and "no action was taken" for May 23 and June 5. Well, some action was taken and it should be reported since the public deserves to know what happened to the City Attorney and when we had an Acting City Attorney.

The issue is NOT whether the May 15 minutes accurately reflect what Mayor Paul said when reporting out for the May 11 closed session. The issue is whether the "report from the closed session" on May 11, May 23 and June 5 accurately reflect the actions, preliminary or final, taken in the closed session. And the votes taken for such actions.

Gov. Code 54953(c)(2) states that "The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action."
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54953.
(c) (1) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
(2) The legislative body of a local agency shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.

No where does Gov. Code 54953 states that the City Council only needs to report "the final action". The code does states "any action taken", which refers to "any preliminary or final action".

Therefore, the reporting of the May 11 closed session is likely not accurate since it appears some preliminary action was taken. Please follow Gov. Code 54953(c)(2)  to "publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action".

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

Liana - Request for Reconsideration of Unconditional Support of Voting Activities Inside Libraries and Near Library Entrances,

From: Liana C

To: mike.wasserman@bos.sccgove.org <mike.wasserman@bos.sccgove.org>; cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov <cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; richw@cityofcampbell.com <richw@cityofcampbell.com>; sscharf@cupertino.org <sscharf@cupertino.org>; dion.bracco@ci.gilroy.ca.us <dion.bracco@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; jmordo@losaltosca.gov <jmordo@losaltosca.gov>; gbarbadillo@ci.milpitas.ca.gov <gbarbadillo@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>; bcraig@cityofmontesereno.org <bcraig@cityofmontesereno.org>; stevetate@charter.net <stevetate@charter.net>; elo@saratoga.ca.us <elo@saratoga.ca.us>; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org <dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org>; ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org <ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org>; lizg@cityofcampbell.com <lizg@cityofcampbell.com>; bchang@cupertino.org <bchang@cupertino.org>; fred.tovar@ci.gilroy.ca.us <fred.tovar@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; lleeeng@losaltosca.gov <lleeeng@losaltosca.gov>; mwu@losaltoshills.ca.gov <mwu@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; aphan@ci.milpitas.ca.gov <aphan@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>; ewolsheimer@cityofmontesereno.org <ewolsheimer@cityofmontesereno.org>; caitlin.jachimowicz@morganhill.ca.gov <caitlin.jachimowicz@morganhill.ca.gov>; rkumar@saratoga.ca.us <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us>

Cc: Tracy Ellenberger <tellenberger@sccl.org>; Nancy Howe <nhowe@sccl.org>; steve.chessin@cfer.org <steve.chessin@cfer.org>; Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com>; Jean Anton <jean.anton@cob.sccgov.org>

Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018, 9:51:26 AM PDT

Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Unconditional Support of Voting Activities Inside Libraries and Near Library Entrances, 6/7/2018

Dear Chair, Vice Chair, Members, and Alternate Members of the Joint Powers Authority Board for the Santa Clara County Library District:

NOTE: While I serve as a Library Commissioner for the City of Cupertino, I write to you today as a Cupertino resident only and not a spokesperson for the Library Commission. The views expressed here are entirely my own.

Following the JPA Board's 4/26/2018 decision to "cooperate with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) to increase voter participation. This cooperation may include libraries serving as a polling site and/or locating ballot return boxes inside County Library facilities if requested by the ROV." (JPA-9, Scharf dissenting), I urge the Library District to consider that the issue of voting inside libraries and near library entrances has real consequences for the communities where it operates. I also urge the Board to recognize that the 100-foot, necessary and legally required, "zone of silence" imposed by ballot boxes placed inside libraries and near library entrances interferes with two Core Values of the Library District:

"The library fosters life-long learning, promotes cultural enrichment, and supports education."
- Santa Clara County Library District, Core Values, Item 5

"The library ensures that physical spaces are welcoming, safe, clean, and accessible."
- Santa Clara County Library District, Core Values, Item 8

In Cupertino, for 29 days in May and June, community members were subjected to a ballot box that was placed near the library entrance such that the 100-foot zone of silence extended for dozens of feet inside the library.

Elections Code, Chapter 4, Definition 319.5, item (e) defines that prohibited activities within 100 feet of a ballot drop box include loitering near the ballot boxes:

“Electioneering” means the visible display or audible dissemination of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure on the ballot within 100 feet of a polling place, a vote center, an elections official’s office, or a satellite location under Section 3018. Prohibited electioneering information includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
...
(e) At vote by mail ballot drop boxes, loitering near or disseminating visible or audible electioneering information.

On Saturday, June 1, I was one of probably hundreds of people in my community who violated Elections Code 319.5 when, in full view of and less than 50 feet from the mail ballot drop box, I chatted with library staff who were signing up patrons for the library's summer reading program. Was my behavior "purposeful" or loitering as I chatted in the shadow of the ballot box? Who decides?

No where does the Elections Code state that loitering or "hanging out" is permitted within 100 feet of the mail ballot drop box as long as the 100 feet is contained within public building.

In fact, in all my travels to and from the Cupertino Library since the mail ballot drop box was located there on Monday, May 7, I have noticed many people "loitering" near the ballot box. "Loiterers" are community members enjoying refreshments from the nearby cafe, sitting on picnic blankets in the nearby grass, splashing in water from the nearby fountain, chatting with community members during breaks from community events happening in the library's main programming venue, Community Hall. All of these "loitering" behaviors are expected and encouraged in our public spaces, except when they are made illegal by the placement of a ballot box near the library entrance for the 29 days leading up to Election Day.

Folks who champion the placement of Free Speech-suppressing ballot boxes in our popular and well-trafficked public venues like to cite how mail ballot drop boxes boost voter turnout, but where is the evidence to support this assertion?

All the people who dropped their mail-in ballots in the boxes located inside libraries or near library entrances had to have already completed the following tasks:

+ retrieve their ballot and ballot pamphlet from their mailbox

+ research even a little bit at least one (and probably more than one) candidate or one ballot measure enough to form an opinion and cast at least one vote

+ tear off the ballot receipt stub and store it in a safe place so they can confirm later that their ballot was received by the ROV in time to be counted

+ sign the addressed, postage-paid return envelope that accompanied their ballot with their signature exactly as it was recorded with the ROV at the time they last registered to vote

It is difficult to accept with a straight face that anyone who has completed the necessary bare minimum steps described above to cast even one vote by mail would then toss up their hands in despair at the prospect of needing to find a location other than the ballot box located inside a library or near a library entrance where they can safely return their ballot.

Every USPS mailbox is a safe, secure, and accessible location where voters can return their ballots through Election Day. Every mail-in ballot in Santa Clara County includes an addressed and postage-paid envelope, so voters who return ballots by mail are not burdened by additional costs not borne by those who return their ballots to ballot drop boxes.

75% of registered voters from California voted in November 2016.

83% of registered voters from Santa Clara County voted in November 2016.

When compared to State returns, Santa Clara county residents returned ballots at a rate that is above average. But what about the 17% of registered voters in Santa Clara County who did not vote at all in the November 2016 General Election?

The 17% are the voters that nobody reached. These are the voters who could not find a candidate or ballot measure that moved them enough to cast even one vote.

If we are going to worry about voter behavior, it’s the 17% of registered voters who did not vote in 2016 who warrant our concern. For the 17% of registered non-voters from 2016, it made no difference at all that there was a drop-off ballot box located inside a library or near a library entrance. However, had those non-voters had the opportunity to chat with a neighbor about local issues in a public venue, that conversation might have been just enough to motivate one or more of them to learn more and vote.

I urge the Board to reconsider its position of unconditional support of multiple day voting activities located inside libraries and near library entrances, as support for voting activities silences Free Speech in our well-trafficked public spaces at the critical times leading up to elections when citizens are seeking information about ballot measures and candidates.

Sincerely,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident

Urs - The Responsible Thing to Do Would be to Cut Back Until Traffic Fits

Dear Cupertino Planning Department: 

I live on Tantau in the Loree Estates near Steven’s Creek. I’m hoping that the City is able to stay away from any “E” or “F” Traffic Ratings for whatever becomes approved for the Vallco Site. One thing that is clear from the DEIR on traffic is that roadways in Cupertino are already past their limits without any further development with a long list of intersections that just can’t be improved because of property boundaries. I am not against development, and can see the allure of the green roof and architecture, but certainly question the wisdom of planning decisions that would head significant parts of Cupertino into traffic situations common in cities with poor planning departments. 

 The top contributors of added traffic at Vallco are pretty much proportional to how densely developed that site becomes. It does not seem to matter very much if it is Housing, Office or Retail. It seems like the sensible thing to do would be to significantly shrink the size of the Vallco redevelopment project as currently being proposed. Nowhere in the DEIR is this really analyzed or discussed directly. 

 Only the Housing elements are subject to the limits of new state law if I understand the intent of that legislation. If something needs to be fast tracked for state laws, perhaps guiding re-development only to housing might be the right compromise to get the project quicker through the planning approval process. The current projects proposed are so heavy with office, that the housing being generated really does nothing positive for the regional housing imbalance problem. 

 Very dense cities eventually add subways to increase mobility once street level becomes unusable. Subways give an additional travel layer that isn’t constrained by existing property boundaries. In the digital chip business, it is what is done when you can’t connect all the logic gates: add more metal layers to the chip to handle the increased traffic. Its called “Rent’s Rule”. Until there are more ways to get around, the responsible thing to do would be to cut the project back until traffic fits, or delay the project until subways, or flying cars, are built. 

 Urs

Randy - Brown Act Regarding Report of Action Taken in Closed Session

From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:55 AM
Subject: Today's Closed Session, Approval of May 15, 2018 Minutes, and Government Code 54957.1
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>

Dear Council and City Attorney

I just wanted you to be mindful of portions of the Brown Act that relate to closed session reporting.

Government Code 54957.1

(a) The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention on that action of every member present, as follows:

(2) Approval given to its legal counsel to defend, or seek or refrain from seeking appellate review or relief, or to enter as an amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a consultation under Section 54956.9 shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. The report shall identify, if known, the adverse party or parties and the substance of the litigation. In the case of approval given to initiate or intervene in an action, the announcement need not identify the action, the defendants, or other particulars, but shall specify that the direction to initiate or intervene in an action has been given and that the action, the defendants, and the other particulars shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry, unless to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate service of process on one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.

(5) Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held. Any report required by this paragraph shall identify the title of the position. The general requirement of this paragraph notwithstanding, the report of a dismissal or of the nonrenewal of an employment contract shall be deferred until the first public meeting following the exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any.

(b) Reports that are required to be made pursuant to this section may be made orally or in writing. The legislative body shall provide to any person who has submitted a written request to the legislative body within 24 hours of the posting of the agenda, or to any person who has made a standing request for all documentation as part of a request for notice of meetings pursuant to Section 54954.1 or 54956, if the requester is present at the time the closed session ends, copies of any contracts, settlement agreements, or other documents that were finally approved or adopted in the closed session. If the action taken results in one or more substantive amendments to the related documents requiring retyping, the documents need not be released until the retyping is completed during normal business hours, provided that the presiding officer of the legislative body or his or her designee orally summarizes the substance of the amendments for the benefit of the document requester or any other person present and requesting the information.