Balaji - Your vote on the VSP today would decide your political legacy with residents of Cupertino

From: Balaji

To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 7:06:53 AM PDT

Subject: Your vote on the VSP today would decide your political legacy with residents of Cupertino

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am a resident of Cupertino for 2 decades , I have spoken to many Cupertino Citizens in East Cupertino- Rancho Area

they are in complete anguish with the monstrosity you are planning to approve.

We are not against re-vitalizing vallco, sensible housing is needed, not buying into false promises from Sandhill properties

who has never kept promises look at Sunnyvale where they went and made a mess of the town center.

As a resident, if I come to planning,  ask for 4 story building approval with the green roof on the top will you approve it,

why then the City is changing the planning code just for Sandhill properties.

Please listen to Cupertino residents who voted for you not to developers lobby/ threats.

Balaji

Cupertino Resident

Ignatius - Your vote on the VSP today would be your legacy as a member of the Cupertino City Council

From: Ignatius Y. Ding

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:18 AM
Subject: Your vote on the VSP today would be your legacy as a member of the Cupertino City Council
To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor and Council members,

For the last time, I would have to write you again before the vote on the Vallco Special Plan and the certification of the associated FEIR taking place.

As Joan Lawler Chin has mentioned during the Oral Communications at the Council meeting Tuesday night, please keep in mind: The Principle of "Thou Shalt Not Harm"

The City residents will remember how you cast your votes here today.  What would be your legacy if you would vote against the majority of your constituency despite of the obvious violation of trust, ethics and your fiduciary duty to serve the public good.

Here is the deal. If you seek for re-election, another office in November or in the future, our votes at the ballot box will depend on whether you choose to change the future of our city for better or worse.  Your first test might be in about three weeks.

This is not a threat like what Reed Moulds of Sand Hill has made against Cupertino if we do not comply to the wish of his boss, Peter Pau.  This is just a promise of what would happen in real life after one betrays the trust of the public.

Ignatius Y. Ding

Cupertino Resident

--

Ignatius - Request Council to deny certification of FEIR

From: Ignatius Y. Ding

Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:24 AM
Subject: Request Council to deny certification of FEIR
To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: "Amy Chan (Acting)" <manager@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, "Grace Schmidt CMC (City Clerk)" <graces@cupertino.org>, Cupertino City Planning Division <planning@cupertino.org>

** To City Clerk:  Please place a copy of this letter in the city archive as a public record.  Thank you.

Dear City Council,

I strongly urge you to not certify the Vallco Final EIR for the following reasons:

EIR is Inadequate because:

• failure to have a community based project, the "revised project" is a concoction of and recommendation of a portion of City Council and City Planning Commission instead:

"As discussed in the Draft EIR, the City is undertaking a community-based planning process to develop a Specific Plan for the project site, the Vallco Special Area. 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 council members at that meeting,..."

• The Vallco Specific Plan (VSP) were developed with no substantial participation of community members since most of the meetings were conducted in the middle of workday while residents were at work and unable to attend any of the meetings, except the "kick-off meeting" in one evening.
• the FEIR is biased and clearly states that while it's a "community-based" Plan what we ended up with came out of some people on city council:
• a substantial number of components in the VSP were taken from the failed proposal known as "Measure D" in 2016.  Many of the drawings in the plan do not match with the numbers in the spreadsheets which makes the calculation of space, cost and reserved areas impossible to determine the environmental impact throughout the VSP, including, but not limited to, the following pitfalls:

-       failure to provide a stable project, creating a moving target EIR, bait and switch Proposed Project with completely different objective Revised Project

-       failure to properly notice schools within 1/4 mile of the project

-       City of Cupertino undermines and disregards FUHSD as Lead Agency to determine efficacy of the project site, which is contaminated, for students' use (See attached)

-       failure to study General Plan Recognized Scenario B as an Alternative to Project

-       failure to study Performing Arts Center and Outdoor Concerts for noise impacts

-       failure to study impacts from expanded Recycled Water production construction and Sewage Treatment

-       failure to study impacts from relocating students to other schools

-       failure to study cafeteria workers' traffic and housing demand in office amenity space 

-       failure to study air quality modeling under the green roof for safety of stagnant air impacted by freeway exhaust

-       failure to study city anticipated freeway cap at Wolfe Road and I-280.

-       failure to fully indicate direct and indirect growth inducing impacts.

-       failure to write an unbiased EIR, statements include that Measure C was to increase house allowable height to 45'.  Or that City Council recommended the Revised Project are biased and not allowed in an EIR.

-       failure to notice FUHSD and CUSD 30 days prior to certification which are within 1/4 mile of Vallco

-       failure to clearly state that the site is listed as a hazardous waste site multiple times pursuant to 65962.5 and subject to corrective action (See SCC-DA Memo attached)

-       failure to inform the public by having soils testing of a contaminated site before certification.

For these above reasons, and the others unlisted here, I urge you to deny certification of the Vallco FEIR.

Ignatius Y. Ding

41-Year Resident of Cupertino

Liang - Adopt strong policies to ensure promises are kept

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:07 AM
Subject: Adopt strong policies to ensure promises are kept
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Please put this in the city record for Sept. 18 Council Meeting.

========

Dear Mayor and Counculmembers,

The current plan is conceived behind closed doors since May. Those who participated in the Opticos process city did not even get informed the details of Vallco plan until last week. Please do a citywide survey first before moving forward.

The theaters, ice rink, bowling alleys, gyms would all be gone from Vallco. In their place, there will be 10,000 more workers who commute in and 8000 residents with almost no real parkland.

I oppose all very dense options with mega office, since they all worsen housing shortage. Please stand up if you agree.

We want a vibrant community friendly Vallco. Please don't let various outside forces hijack our city.

In case you do go forward, It's important to adopt strong policies to ensure that promises are kept.

1. Please set an expiration date for all allocation granted so that there is an incentive to build sufficuent housing units before 2023, the end is Housing Element.

2. Please set a condition so that the office allocation would be taken away or not issue occupancy permits if the BMR is not built.

3. I support quality affordable housing for families and people with disabilities. But there is no quarantee that the BMR units will ever get built since Sand Hill will NOT fund them. They will seek public funding, which they may or may not get.

The Specific Plan is NOT a solution for BMR housing.

Please require a completion bond for th BMR units.

4. If you want market-rate units that are actually affordable for mixed population, you need to specify unit sizes in the Specific Plan.

5. Please don't be blinded by token benefits, which will in fact cost more for taxpayers like the empty-shell PAC. Your approval of the Specific Plan will give the developer an instant boost in property value. You have no quarantee that any housing will be built before more profitable portions might be sold off or the entire site might be sold off for double and triple the price.

6. The Tier 2 Plan has double the amount of office of Tier 1 with a similar amount of housing units. 

It will worsen housing shortage, worsen traffic and worsen Greenhouse emission.

Tier 2 is NOT a solution for the housing crisis we face.

7. Both Tiers will add about 900 students to CUSD, which is about one elementary school and half a middle school. If you do care about CUSD, you would demand contribution to CUSD for Tier 1 also.

Vallco could have been such a great opportunity for a community-friendly center for many residents to enjoy. But you have allowed it to morph into something that's much bigger than anyone could have even imagined for Cupertino. Who do you represent? Cupertino residents or some outside forces?

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident 

Liang - Completion Bond on BMR housing, BMR units for families, not on separate parcel

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:08 AM
Subject: Completion Bond on BMR housing, BMR units for families, not on separate parcel
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,

Please insist that at least 60% of BMR units should be 2-bedrooms or bigger so that they could accommodate families in need, or people with disabilities or seniors who need caretakers. Singles have more options for affordable housing by sharing apartments. The Municipal Code requires BMR units to be comparable in size with market-rate units, but the Development Agreement appears to not comply with our Affordable Housing Manual.

Please insist that the Low and Very Low Income units follow the City's Affordable Housing Manual so that they are constructed with materials of comparable quality and they are scattered throughout the development (inclusionary). The Development Agreement appears to not comply with our Affordable Housing Manual. It is highly likely that the Low and Very Low Income units will be placed in a separate parcel and gets constructed last.

Please insist that the BMR units are constructed as early as possible so that these units could help with housing shortage. The Development Agreement now only requires the occupancy permits of BMR to be issued before the LAST occupancy permit of the market-rate units. In case any of the market-rate unit gets delayed for any reason, the BMR units might not get built.

Please insist on a completion bond for the BMR housing portion. If the BMR units are not built within a designated time frame (perhaps by the end of the current Housing Element cycle). the completion bond will then be used to fund the construction of the BMR units.

The Development Agreement for the draft Vallco Specific Plan suggests that the Project Developer will seek public funding, which might take several years or may never materialize, instead of funding for the construction of the BMR units from the profit of the office and market-rate housing portion. That seems to defeat the purpose of the plan. If the Vallco Specific Plan is approved, the City would have given the developer an instance boost in land value just from the upzoning from retail only to add a significant amount of office and residential allocation. Once the project is developed, there will be more profit to be made. Yet. the developer won't fund the construction of the BMR?

Under the "Timing of Delivery of BMR Units" in the Development Agreement,

"Developer will endeavor to build separate BMR Unit residential buildings at approximately the same time and that BMR units must be developed roughly in proportion with the delivery of market rate units, provided that City recognizes that delivery of BMR units may be affected by and delayed due to market conditions, logistics, and financing considerations.

....

If Developer is unable to secure LIHTC financing after three rounds of applications to TCAC, Developer shall provide the City with security in a form acceptable to the City in an amount to cover the otherwise applicable City Affordable Housing Fee, and Developer shall be responsible for securing feasible financing for the BMR Units to complete construction within a reasonable timeframe mutually agreed upon by the parties."

The above section seems to suggest that the Developer will simply pay in lieu fee if they can't find public funding for the BMR units. So, in the end, the City might still have no BMR units needed to fulfill the RHNA requirements. If meeting RHNA requirement is being used to push through the massive allocation for Vallco Specific Plan, shouldn't the City ensure that the BMR is built on site, no matter what happens?

Your job is not to rubber stamp everything the developer asks. Your job is to keep the developers accountable to deliver their promises.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

Liang - Limit the Unit Size so that market-rate units are more affordable

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:00 AM
Subject: Limit the Unit Size so that market-rate units are more affordable
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,

Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 have no limit at all on the size of each unit.

This would allow developers to create more luxury units, which are not affordable by most people, as we've seen in Main Street with one-bedrooms of 1200 sq. ft. and even up to 1700 sq. ft.

In order to produce "affordable" housing, the size of each unit needs to be small enough.

Palo Alto City Council puts a limit on the square footage of each unit in order to ensure affordable market-rate units are produced.

Please put a limit in the total square footage for the living space in residential units to ensure or specify a minimum percentage of small units.

Please set clear objective standards. Please do not leave anything to "assumptions".

Your assumption that Sand Hill won't submit SB 35 puts the City under the threat of a massive (likely non-compliant) SB 35 application.

The office and residential allocation in Dec. 2014 General Plan should depend on the approval of Vallco Specific Plan with agreed upon community benefits. Unfortunately, Sand Hill took advantage of "your assumption" and simply claimed that they are entitled to the office and residential allocation in SB 35 even without any approved Vallco Specific Plan.

Please do not leave anything to "assumptions".

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident

---------- Follow-up Message ----------
From: Liang-Fang Chao <
Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Limit the Unit Size so that market-rate units are more affordable
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

The Development Agreement refers to an average unit size of 1250 sq. ft. in the Specific Plan in the following clause:

"City shall not limit square footages of permitted uses or the number of permitted residential units (based upon the presumed general Project average unit size of 1,250 gross square feet assumed in the Specific Plan), or modify parking requirements or access in a manner that is inconsistent with the Project Approvals;"

However, the draft Specific Plan did not mention any reference to "unit size" at all.

The School Impact Analysis assumes the site will have small units mostly for singles and reduced the Student Generation Rate from 0.32 to 0.17 for CUSD, based on such assumption.

Therefore, the Vallco Specific Plan MUST have a limit on unit size for at least 50% of units in order to be consistent with the assumption made in the EIR. Otherwise, the School Impact Analysis for the EIR would have to be adjusted to reflect the Student Generation Rate based on the actual unit size in Vallco Specific Plan.

Liang Chao

Liang - Set an Expiration Date for any Allocation or Approval

From: Liang-Fang Chao

Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:49 AM
Subject: Set an Expiration Date for any Allocation or Approval
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, manager@cupertino.org, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,

I hope that we learn from past failures, intentional or not, so that don't hand out free giveaways (upzoning or massive allocation) without keeping the developers accountable.

Caution 1: The Developer A could get the increased allocation (both in Tier 1 and Tier 2) and sell Vallco for a higher price since it is already upzoned. Developer B might pay double or even triple the price to purchase Vallco. Then, Developer B will come back to the City and cry out that he cannot make any profit and demand the City to give him more concessions. At the same time, Developer A already walked away with hundreds and millions of profits, if not more, which he made all in one night from your approval of massive allocation for Vallco. You can see an example from Mountain View already. Developers want Mountain View to waive Development Impact Fees because the land value is too high.

Please never "assume" something won't happen. Anything that could happen to make more profits for someone will happen. Like SB 35 application.

Caution 2: The State gives us a deadline to produce housing units in the 8-year cycle. You must also give the Developer a deadline to produce housing units; otherwise, their allocation should be taken away so that we could give it to other developers. The Council has approved 600 housing units at Hamptons with a 10 year or more expiration date. They might not get anything built before Housing Element cycle is up. We should provide incentives to ensure the production of housing units. If the housing units are not produced within the specified deadline, both the office allocation and the housing allocation would be taken away, for example.

Since there are thousands of units involved, perhaps 25% of the office allocation would "vest" only after 25% of housing units have started construction, for example. This way we ensure that the developers won't make profit, while not delivering the housing units.

Your job is not to rubber stamp whatever that's put in front of you. Your job is to make sure that the General Plan and the Development Agreement has clear and objective standards to keep the developers accountable, even when the property changes hand.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Cupertino Resident