Liang - Civic Center should allow open bids

From: Liang C

Date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:41 AM
Subject: Five Internationally-Renowned Teams Compete for the $51 Million Project in San Francisco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, David Brandt davidb@cupertino.org

 

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Please put Civic Center project out for open bids. Perkins+Will should not be allowed to participate in bidding to avoid any implication that they might have somehow influenced the Council to choose the most expensive option for their own benefits.

Five Internationally-Renowned Teams Compete for a $51 Million Project in San Francisco.

Check out the beautiful designs submitted to Presidio Parklands project in San Francisco. The project first have RFQ for the "imagine" phase to solicit concept design with $25,000 stipend for 5 firms. Then, they will have another RFG for the "implementation" phase to select one firm among many.

The New Presidio Parklands Project in San Franciscocreates a singular opportunity to establish a magnificent 13-acre landscape that integrates the waterfront with the Presidio’s historic core. Once completed, visitors will enjoy an unparalleled experience of the Golden Gate.
The estimated total cost of the New Presidio Parklands Project is $51 million.

After responding to an Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in early 2014, five internationally-renowned teams were invited to participate the “imagine” phase of the project. The teams included:

1. CMG Landscape Architecture, San Francisco
2. James Corner Field Operations, New York
3. OLIN, Philadelphia/Los Angeles
4. SNØHETTA, Oslo/New York /San Francisco
5. West 8 Team, Rotterdam/Brussels/New York

Each of the teams is awarded a $25,000 stipend to develop its proposal over two months, and present its designs to the public in the fall of 2014. The teams developed creative concepts that have served to spark a robust public dialogue about the future of site.

Here is the RFQ of the "imagine" phase.

Here is the FAQ of the RFQ of the "imagine" phase.

Note that there will be another RFQ for the implementation phase, where one or more teams who participated in the "imagine" phase will be invited to join. And it states:
"The Presidio Trust reserves the right to expand distribution of the RFP to a broader list  of design teams should additional input be deemed necessary."

-----------------------

REFERENCE:

Presidio Trust Selects Five Internationally Acclaimed Firms and Invites Public to Create Vision for New Presidio Parkland Create Vision for New Presidio Parkland

Five Proposals Unveiled for Presidio Parklands in San Francisco, Sep. 9, 2014, Arch Daily

Presidio, Take 2 - finalists reveal plans for Parklands project, Sep. 2014, The Architects Newspaper

 

 

Liang on Vallco Specific Plan - ground-level parkland should be required at Vallco

From: Liang C

Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco Specific Plan - ground-level parkland should be required at Vallco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

With 800 housing units at Vallco, there would be in average 2,288 residents (for 2.86 persons/household from 2010 census). Vallco should provide 6.9 acres of parkland or 11.44 ares of parkland under the 5-acre standard. This parkland should not be substituted by the sky park, which may or may not be realized or maintained. The following policies are in both the previous 2000-2020 General Plan and the 2040 General Plan:

Policy RPC-1.2: Parkland Standards. Continue to implement a parkland acquisition and implementation program that provides a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.

Strategy RPC-1.2.2: Amend Parkland Standard. Explore increasing the parkland standard to five acres per 1,000 residents as part of the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Please enforce the General Plan policies on Vallco.

In the so-called 30-acre sky park, visitors have to stay on trail and now allowed to walk on the 'grass'. So, it is really just some rooftop walkways, but not parkland. In a park, kids can run around, play soccer, Frisbee, roll on the grass. But the 30-acre sky park wouldn't allow that. Ground level parkland should be required at Vallco.

The parkland required in the Quimby Act does not include school site or rooftop as parks.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Julie on Civic Center - Can my son afford a BMW with his salary?

From: Julie Chu

Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Civic Center - Affordability Analysis
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org, citymanager@cupertino.org

Dear City Council:

My friend told me that Cupertino is going to spend 70 million dollars to build a new city hall. I thought. Nice. Cupertino must be rich.

Then, I found that you will borrow 60 million dollars and put the city in debt.

I looked at your report and I don't think you have enough information to decide the "affordability" of such a large sum.

If my son wanted to buy a BMW that's going to cost one year of his income, I would ask him the following questions:

1. How much is your income now and for the past 5 years?
2. How much is your income for the next 5 years?
3. What would you do in case you lose your job and lost income or have to find a lower-paid job?
4. How much are your fixed expenses each month? Like rental for apartment, food and clothes, electricity, internet, other necessary expenses to sustain his life standards, like taking a vacation.
5. How much is your disposable income every month?
6. Any future necessary expenses during the loan period, like getting engaged, taking a trip to Europe, buying a house, starting a family.
7. What's the percentage of loan payment in comparison to the amount of disposable income?

Then, he can decide whether he can afford that BMW. Or, maybe he wants to save the money to go to Europe or buy an engagement ring.

Here is the missing information that you should consider before deciding whether Cupertino can afford to spend 70 million dollars to build a brand new city hall.

1. How much is the current revenue of Cupertino? How much is the revenue for the past 10 years?
2. How much is the revenue for the next 10 years?
3. What's the contingency plan? In case of another recession and a big one, when the revenue is significantly reduced, what do you plan to do?
4. How much are the expenses each year? Like staffing and retirement fund, police, fire, and other civic services, expenses for infrastructure, like bike path enhancement or crossing guards.
5. How much is our disposable income each year for the past 5-10 years? How much surplus?
6. Any potential future big expenditure? For the next 10 or 20 years, are there no more projects in sight? If there is any, you should make a plan and decide whether you could still afford the other future projects while paying a debt for the 70 million dollars. Maybe expanding the senior center or provide a community shuttle bus?
7. What's the percentage of loan payment in comparison to the amount of disposable income? (Not the percentage loan payment in relation to the total revenue.)

Then, you can decide whether Cupertino can afford that shiny new City Hall. Or, maybe Cupertino should save the money for something else more important in the future that actually enhance the lives around the city.

My son said: "I have money now."

I said: "Even if you can pay for that BMW with all cash, you should look at your future expenses and think whether that money is better saved for something you might need even more later."

There you have it.

I hope you do a better job managing the city than my son in managing his finance.

Regards,

Julie Chu

Liang on Civic Center - bank will own City Hall? recurring expenses? any future projects?

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:04 PM
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center master Plan - Affordability Analysis
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, TimmB@cupertino.org
Cc: Grace Schmidt cityclerk@cupertino.org

Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,

 

This email is being sent on behalf of Liang-Fang Chao.

 

In regard to the Lease-Financing plan mentioned in the Study Session material:

1.      In the event that the City cannot afford to pay the annual fee anymore, what happens?

a.      Does the bank then own City Hall?

b.      What would the City do to make up the difference to make the payment?

2.      We have been told that our City relies on Apple and its success for our city’s financing.  If for some unknown reason, Apple is no longer successful, how would this impact the City’s ability to make these payments?

a.      What would the City do to make up the difference to make the payment?

b.      What would happen if they don’t make the payment?

3.      The analysis discusses revenue and the expenses are mentioned in terms of the surplus amounts (more than $11million/year of the next 5 years).

a.      What are the actual recurring expenses – the amounts?

b.      How much are they projected to increase over the next 30 years?

c.      What about other projects other than City Hall?  Are they factored into this projection?  If not, what are the upcoming projects over the next 30 years that our City needs to address?  Will we have money for them?  If so, where will that money come from?

4.      Surplus of $90 million – I believe this includes the $30 million from the sale of Pruneridge Avenue, which is a one-time income.

a.      Can you provide a 10-year chart of our revenue and expenses and the net surplus?

 

Sincerely,

Liang-Fang Chao

Peggy on Civic Center - worst case scenario, ownwership of city hall,

From: Peggy Griffin <Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center Master Plan - Affordability Analysis
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org>, TimmB@cupertino.org
Cc: Grace Schmidt <cityclerk@cupertino.org>

Dear City Council, David Brandt and Timm Borden,

 

I realize this is just a few hours from the study session but I have read through the material for tonight’s study session and have a few concerns that I hope you can address or clarify to the public before any decision is made:

 

1.     The material is supposed to address “affordability”.  It does a thorough job of showing the City’s finances now which is a “best case scenario”.  It does not cover how the City would be able to afford this debt during a “worst case scenario” such as during 2008/2009 time frame.

a.     REQUEST:  Please provide a worst case scenario showing how the debt would be covered if the economy takes a significant dip.  30 years is a long time and dips happen!

2.     LEASE FINANCING / ASSET TRANSFER – can you please, during the study session, explain what this is – slowly and clearly.

a.     “Lease” to me, means the City will not own the buildings anymore!  Right now, land and property are very valuable.  It is a way for businesses and residents to control their costs by avoiding rents.

                                                    i.     Q:  Is the City selling the buildings? 

                                                  ii.     Q:  Are they selling the land?

                                                 iii.     Q:  Who will end up owning the land?

                                                 iv.     Q:  Who will end up owning the buildings?

b.     “Asset transfer” to me, means transferring ownership of property.

                                                    i.     Q:  What is being sold/transferred?

3.     COP vs BONDS – I understand COP doesn’t require a 2/3rds vote and BONDS do but…

a.     Q:  what about financing differences?  Is one cheaper?  What about ownership?

4.     NEXT STEPS –  It seems to be to be a BIG conflict of interest to have the same company that does this overall plan, also do the job!

a.     BIDS  Q:  Why not go out to bid for other architects? 

                                                    i.     At home, we get at least 3 bids before doing ANY big job!  Each time we get a bid, we learn a lot and get very different perspectives.

                                                  ii.     It also forces us to decide exactly what we need and what frills we can do away with.

                                                 iii.     It also helps with costs.  If the planner does the job and knows there’s no competition, why bother giving a competitive bid?

b.     I do not think resurrecting the old August 18, 2015 CC request should occur.  I believe there should be a bidding process. 
The original request that triggered this study session was the failed approval of a request for $5,500,000 for design consultant services and the ability for the City Manager to approve up to an additional $2M.  This “design consultant services” was REALLY VAGUE!  Nobody could tell what exactly was being done for $5.5M.  If it is brought up again, (which I do not think it should) it needs to be detailed. 

                                                    i.     Q:  What in the world are we getting for $5.5M? 

                                                  ii.     Q:  What are the deliverables and the timelines?

                                                 iii.     Q:  Where and how does this fit into the overall project and costs?

Sincerely,

Peggy Griffin

 

 

Thank you,

Peggy Griffin

Liang on Civic Center - put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact fees as funding

From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015
Subject: Civic Center - put it on ballot, open bid for architecture firms, development impact fees as funding
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sink, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

The agenda description of the Study Session of Civic Center once again did not mention the estimated cost of the project $70 million, even when funding analysis is being discussed.

Thank you for considering the Civic Center on the ballot.
Please do put the Civic Center project on ballot for the residents to decide. However it is financed, all the tax payers and our children will be paying for the project for the next 30 years. We should get to decide. You are spending our money. Please be open about the price tag of the project and mention it clearly in meeting agenda and any news report from the city or in the Courier. And please give the residents a clear written explanation on why the $70 million dollar is necessary.

If the Civic Center project will be implemented, please put the $70 million project out for other architecture firms to bid with their best designs. Many other cities have done this for their projects. With $20,000 stipend each for 5 firms, we can get innovative designs for City Hall and the library expansion. Some top architecture firms are even willing to submit their designs for free just to get a chance of bidding on the project. If we have to build a new City Hall, that's do it right and open it out for bids.

Architecture firm Perkins+Will should not be permitted to work on the Civic Center project due to conflict of interest. They have been instrumental in presenting options to the Council and they provided testimonies that led the Council towards the decision of tearing down the City Hall to re-build. It is in their best interest to make the project as big as possible, whether they did it intentionally or not. Perkins+Will should not participate in Civic Center project anymore just to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Hamptons donated $7 million dollar for Civic Center project. Sand Hill might want to pay for the underground garage. Maybe other developers might donate more. However, $7 million spent on the Civic Center project, if not necessary, is still $7 million dollars that could have been spent elsewhere on improving civic services that directly impact residents' quality of life and even save lives.

Also, any donation from a developer earmarked for a controversial project, like Civic Center, that many residents oppose to should be avoided. This can be seen as a way to please any one of the Councilmembers who approve of the Civic Center project and trying to gain approval from the opposing residents. The Council should ask Hamptons and other developers to not earmark their donation to Civic Center to avoid any such undesirable implication.

The Funding Analysis report only explored one type of financing options, getting funding from the bank, which always involves added interest. No other funding sources have been looked at.
The Council should look into other financing options like Development Impact Fee for Infrastructure, like city hall, libraries, police stations, etc. that many other cities have implemented for years already. Of course, Development Impact Fee can only cover a small amount that's justifiable for the new projects. But that will reduce the amount we need to borrow from the bank.

Palo Alto has a Finance Committee, appointed by their City Council, to look at various funding options, like sales tax increase, hotel transient tax increase or bond measures to enhance their infrastructure. These options, like an increase in sales tax, may not be preferable, but they should at least be explored. Palo Alto has just raised their hotel transient tax again in order to cover the cost of facilities for infrastructure. And they have twice our annual revenue, but the same amount of population.

Palo Also also charges Transportation Impact Fee for development projects to cover aggregated impact on traffic citywide. Any mitigation from EIR usually covers only impact close to a project. But the impact of traffic congestion usually spread to other parts of the city. Transportation Impact Fee could recover that cost from new developments.

On the one hand, the City says we need more money for infrastructure and you approved the new GPA procedure to allow developers to pay "community benefits" in exchange for more height and more office and more density. On the other hand, you are going to spend $70 million dollar on a project without fulling exploring the different options. And you also are unwilling to look at other financing options for the City.

Please be consistent in your decision making. Be open and clear in your intention and consequence of the decisions you make. Your decisions will impact all of our lives for years to come.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Liang - Vallco impact - safety and security in udnerground garage

From: Liang C

Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Comment on Vallco EIR - pedestrian safety in the parking garages and overall security
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

RE: Comment on Vallco EIR

The Parking Drawing shows very tight parking stalls with zero space for pedestrian walk ways.

Please study the pedestrian safety when walking inside a mega parking lot with 5,000 parking spaces.

Please study the overall safety of keeping shoppers and workers safe in such a large underground space.

Are there security measures for people who need emergency medical help or police help?

Are there going to be sufficient security cameras in case of car jacking or even other more scary crimes?

Liang Chao