The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 07-05-2016 Item No. 11 Vallco Initiative Written CommunicationsGrace Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: YZ Hu <> Thursday, June 30, 2016 11 :40 PM City Council citymanager@cupertino .org; City Clerk C ~ 1 j Sh LP ·:ti: l I On Agenda Item 11, Vallco Initiative, July 5 City Council Meeting 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 ("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. Thank you and I urge you to do the right thing for the city and our community. 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. 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 strongly request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Val/co office park initiative due to a real or perceived financial conflict of interest. Sincerely, YongZhong (YZ) Hu Cupertino resident REFERENCES +Barry Chang's Campaign Donations for Assembly in 2016 (Recall Barry Chang Web site). (LINK: http://recallbarrychang.blogspot.com/2016/06/barrv-changs-cam paign-donations-for. html) + Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, Searchable Database for Campaign Donations. (LINK: http://powersearch.sos.ca.gov/advanced.php) + California Government Code 84308, Section 6b. (LINK: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=84001-85000&file=84300- 84310) 1 Grace Schmidt From: Lisa Warren <> Thursday, June 30 , 2016 11 :05 PM City Council Sent: To: Cc: City Clerk; David Brandt Subject: Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiatie discussion July 5, 2016 -Cupertino City Council meeting agenda item 11 --Please include this letter as part of the public record Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Sinks, Wong and Paul: I am requesting that this correspondence be made part of the public record for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative ("Vallco office park initiative" or "Initiative") and that it be included in the written correspondence specifically related to City Council Agenda Item # 11 of the City of Cupertino City Council meeting date of July 5, 2016 (as assigned at the time this email was sent on June 30, 2016). On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 , the City Council will consider issues of major importance to our community and surrounding region 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 , there is 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. Much of this evidence has been publicly presented to you recently. You should be familiar with it. 1 In this email message, I am making three (3) specific requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Val/co 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 Valko office park developer and pursuant to Government Code 84308, Section 6b, Request #1 -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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Vallco office park initiative due to a real or perceived financial conflict of interest. and that Council Members encourage him to do so. Request #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 request that supporters of the grass roots citizen-sponsored Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative be granted 15 minutes of continuous presentation timeduring the public comment window for Agenda item 11, discussion associated with decisions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative. I request that the 15- minute speaking block shall be reflected in the the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting. Request #3 -I 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 to be included the November 8, 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative because they understood they would have an opportunity to vote on what will or will not be built at Vallco ; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations these many petition signers.Public records show that one of the two Proponents of the Initiative publicly stated during testimony in a previous City Council meeting, that she expects the Initiative to be included as a measure on the Nov 8, 2016 ballot. I will have a 4th Request related to the ballot label (ballot question) for the Initiative. That request will be sent in a separate email Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative. Signed, Lisa Warren -29+ year -Full Time Resident of Cupertino 2 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 3 Grace Schmidt From: on behalf of Ignatius Ding Thursday, June 30, 2016 7:44 PM Sent: To: City Council Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject: Letter to Cupertino City Council --Please include this letter as part of the public record 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 Valko 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: 1. 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 perceived financial conflict of interest. 1 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 Valko 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 Vall co office park initiative. Sincerely, Ignatius Y. Ding 39-year Cupertino resident Email: 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=8400 l-85000&file=84300-843 l 0 2 Grace Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Aravind Balakr ishnan Friday, July 01 , 2016 11:36 AM City Council citymanager@cupertino.org ; City Clerk Requests on Agenda Item 11, Vallee Initiative, July 5 City Council Meeting 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 Vallee Town Center Specific Plan Initiative ** I am a Cupertino resident of 19 years, and have been watching the Vallee Initiative with great concern on the irreversible impact it will have on the nearby communities. I request that the City Council Members REJECT any efforts from supports of the Vallee office park initiative to adopt the initiative "as is" or with concessions. Instead, I request that the initiative be added as a measure in the Nov 8 2016 General Election. Knowingly or unknowingly, many of the constituents signed the petition for the Vallee Office Park initiative because they thought that they would have an opportunity to vote on the initiative. I believe that, to approve the initiative would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations of those people that signed. Thank you for your consideration on this initiative that is going to significantly affect the Cupertino lifestyle as we know it. Sincerely, Aravind Balakrishnan Grace Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: mkasof Friday, July 01, 2016 2:10 PM City Council citymanager@cupertino.org Letter to cupertino city council members Please include this letter as part of the Public record of the valco town center specific plan initative Please scroll down Sent from Samsung tablet. "In view of the magnitude of this mega-project, the Council must seek every legal means, including a court order, to obtain a full-scale EIR, with an emphasis on traffic, air quality, water 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 Vall co Town Center Specific Plan Initiative ("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 1 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) requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative: (1) 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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Vallco office park initiative due to a real or 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 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 the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting. (3) I 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 to be included the November 8, 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative because they understood they would have an opportunity to vote on what will or will not be built at Vallco; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations these many petition signers. Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiativ e. Sincerely, Madeleine Kasof Cupertino resident REFERENCES +Barry Chang's Campaign Donations for Assembly in 2016 (Recall Barry Chang Web site). (LINK: http ://recallbarrychang. b lo gs pot. corn/2016 /06/barry-changs-cam paign-donations-for.html) +Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, Searchable Database for Campaign Donations. (LINK: http://powersearch.sos.ca.gov/advanced.php) + California Government Code 84308, Section 6b. (LINK: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=84001- 85000&file=84300-84310) 2 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCSGI-Volunteer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccsgi- vo lunteer+unsubscribe@ goo gl egroups . com . To post to this group, send email to ccsgi-volunteer@ googlegroups.com . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups .google.com/d/msgid/ccsgi- volunteer/917266530 . l 69048.1467348587201.JavaMail.yahoo %40mail.yahoo.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCSGI-Volunteer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccsgi- vo 1 unteer+unsubscribe@ goo gl egroups . com. To post to this group, send email to ccsgi-volunteer@ googlegroups .com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups .google.com/d/msgid/ccsgi- volunteer/c9837.1 fd3f3a0.44a7ceefl/o 40aol.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCSGI-Volunteer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it , send an email to ccsgi- volunteer+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com. To post to this group , send email to ccsgi-volunteer@ googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ccsgi- volunteer/80028626.1943371.14673 832 l 7302.Jav aMail.yahoo %40mail.yahoo .com. For more options, visit https://groups .google.com/d/optout. 3 Grace Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Liana Crabtree <> Friday, July 01, 2016 2:22 PM City Council Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Requests Affecting Agenda Item 11, Vallco Initiative, July 5 City Council 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 ("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 Val/co office park initiative is approved. I have three (3) requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative: (1) 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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Val/co office park initiative due to a real or 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 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 the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting. 1 (3) I 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 to be included the November 8, 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative because they understood they would have an opportunity to vote on what will or will not be built at Vallco; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations these many petition signers . Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative. Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident REFERENCES +Barry Chang's Campaign Donations for Assembly in 2016 (Recall Barry Chang Web site). (LINK: http ://recal lbarrychang. blo gs pot. com/2 016 /06/ba!Ty-changs-campaign-donations-for .html) + Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, Searchable Database for Campaign Donations. (LINK: http://powersearch.sos.ca.gov/advanced.php) +California Government Code 84308 , Section 6b . (LINK: http://www.leginfo .ca .gov/ cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov &group=84001-85000&file=843 00-84310) 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joan Chin Friday, July 01, 2016 3:47 PM City Council David Brandt; City Clerk Requests Affecting July 5 Agenda Item 11, Vallco Initiative Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul , Sinks , and Wong: · I ask that you please include this letter as part of the public record for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative ("Vallco office park initiative" or "initiative"). On the matter of 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 Because this matter is of great import and impact to our c01rununity, there is an amazing group of dedicated volunteers who have very thoroughly investigated and studied the relevant documents (both the initiative text and 9212 report, among many others). We have also 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) requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative: (1) 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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Vallco office park initiative due to a real or 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 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 the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting . (3) I 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 to be included the November 8 , 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco 1 office park initiative because they understood they would have an oppo1tunity to vote on what will or will not be built at Vallco; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations these many petition signers. Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative . Sincerely, Joan and Wayne Chin Cupertino property owners and residents of 30+ years 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Shuyi Tang <> Friday, July 01, 2016 10 :11 PM City Council Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Requests Affecting Agenda Item 11, Vallee Initiative, July 5 City Council Meeting 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 ("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 authori z e 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 I have three (3) requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative: (1) 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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Vallco office park initiative due to a real or 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 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 the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting. (3) I 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 to be included the November 8 , 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative because they understood they would h ave an opportunity to vote on what will or will not be built at Vallco ; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations these many petition signers. Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative. Sincerely, 1 Shuyi Cupertino resident 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Pravin <> Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:28 AM City Council City Clerk; citymanager@cupertino.org Vallco office park initiative Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul , Sinks , and Wong: Please include this letter as pati of the public record for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative ("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) requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative: (1) 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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Vallco office park initiative due to a real or 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 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 the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting. (3) I 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 to be included the November 8, 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative because they understood they would have an opportunity to vote on what will or will not b e built 1 at Vallco; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectations these many petition signers . Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative. Sincerely, Pravin Fulay Cupertino Resident 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc : Subject: Lisa Warren Tuesday , July 05, 2016 12 :09 AM City Clerk; Darcy Paul ; Savita Vaidhyanathan ; Gilbert Wong ; Rod Sinks Lisa Warren Vallco Initiative Ballot Question Importance -this email to be included in public comments/public records July 5, 2016 City Council members, Please read prior to July 5, 2016 CC meeting. this email to be included in public comments/public records July 5, 2016 Well informed residents have been discussing what is appropriate for the Vallco initiative ballot question/language. There is a consensus that the ballot question should absolutely include the maximum possible height of the project referred to as "The Hills at Vallco" and "Vallco Town Center Specific Plan" and the related initiative. Regardless of the location and number of buildings/structures that would rise to the maximum height, the maximum height must be included in the question to voters. The initiative is vague and a clearly defined 'total' height must be identified. There are actually two interpretations of what this total height could be. That needs to be clarified and the actual height in feet needs to be included in the ballot question. Referring to the 9212 report of this initiative, footnote #105 on page 64 of the report states the following: "The Specific Plan identifies a maximum building height of 95 feet (four to six stories tall) on the east side of North Wolfe Road. The maximum building height on the west side of North Wolfe would be 80 feet with a maximum building height of 65 feet for buildings along the western edge of the site. The top of the roofs, which would include mechanical equipment, would be up to 25 feet above the maximum building height. Rooftop pavilions would be no greater than 24 feet in height." Some read this and conclude that the maximum height of the project would be 120 feet. Another, perhaps more accurate, calculation is that the maximum height would be 144 feet. PLEASE request clarification from the authors of 9212 report and the city attorney. And please also try to find the answer from the documents on your own. This is obviously very important. The 'green roof' is elevated from the actual bu i ldings so maximum building height is NOT the answer. The actual height of the GRADE of an elevated green roof AND then anything built upon that grade MUST be part of the total calculation. Footnote #105 indicates these numbers : 95 ft max building height, then the 25 ft max above that for roofs and mechanical equipment. AND the Rooftop pavilions no greater than 24 ft in height. I have obvious concerns when a descriptive footnote shows that what is referred to as a 'building' does not include a 'roof' So is the actual maximum project height 95 + 25 +24 = 144 feet ?!?!? Meaning that building alone with it's actual self contained attached building roof would be max 95 .... THEN the 'gap' between the building roofs and the elevated Green Roof (including the top layer, I guess) could be up to 25 ft above that AND THEN the rooftop pavilions could be as high as 24 ft. In the ballot question, the "total building height" could be used instead of "building height" as defined in the Vallco Initiative, since the voters will interpret "total building height" as the common sense meaning of including both elevated roof and all stacked buildings. The ballot question should NOT mention "the number of stories" since the Vallco Initiative said "typically 4 to 6 stories", but it varies and does not at all define actual height. The total building height would give voters "true and impartial" description of the project. You have probably received other communications regarding the need to add maximum (total) building height to the VSPI ballot question. I believe that the portion of the ballot question as it relates to actual maximum allowable project height should be as follows - "Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan for the 5 8-acre Vall co Shopping District S ecial Area ............................................. establishing the maximum total building height of 144 feet and ................................................. ?" ----OR--- 2 "Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan for the 58-acre Vallco Shopping District Special Area ............................................. l!~tCl/Jli~liifl[f till! ltlCl~iltlllltl projl!ct lil!i[flit of 144 fl!l!t and ?" .................................................. --unless proven without a doubt (prior to adoption of the VSPI ballot question language) that the total maximum is 120 feet in which case that number should substitute the 144 figure. Again, I request that this email message and all that it contains, be made part of the packet for the July 5, 2016 Cupertino City Council meeting and a permanent part of public record on the subject of Vallco Specific Plan Initiative and Hills at Vallco. Thank you. Lisa Warren Cupertino Resident 3 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: on behalf of Ignatius Ding Friday, July 01 , 2016 4 :49 PM City Council Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Requesting to place the enclosed in public record and allocate a block oflS-18 minutes of time to proponents of CCSGI to present at the 7 /5 Council meeting (Item# 11) 07 -05-16_Regarding Vallco Initiative Ballot Question .pdf; 07-05-16_Regarding the EC9212 for Vallco Initative.pdf Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul , Sinks , and Wong: This is to request the city to place the enclosed in public record and allocate a block of 15-18 minutes of time to proponents of CC:SGI to present at the C.Ouncil meeting on July 5, 2016. Thank you. Respectfully yours, Ignatius Y. Ding Cupertino Resident 1 ~ Suggested ballot question from City Attorney: Shall an initiative be adopted enacting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan for the 58-acre Valko Shopping Di strict Special Area requiring residential (approximately 389 -800 units , including approximately 20 % senior housing), office (2 ,000 ,000 sf), commercial (640 ,000 sf), hotel , park, civic/educational uses; requiring funding/community benefits for transportation (approximately $30 ,000 ,000), schools (approximately $40,000 ,000), green roof (approximately 30 acres), recycled water; granting initial entitlements; establishing development standards and limited future approval process; and making related Cupertino General Plan and Municipal Code amendments ? * Total number of words: 80 > 75 words allowed by Election Code 9051(b) => 9051 (b) The ballot label shall not contain more than 75 words and shall be a condensed version of the ballot title and summary including the financial imP.a ct summar repared pursuant to Section 9087 of this code and Section 88003 of the Government Code. ~ Suggested modification to ballot question: • Remove "benefits for transportation (approximately $30,000,000)" => $30 million fair share contribution is what normally would require for any project to mitigate its impact on freeway exits and segments . $30 million is hardly enough to mitigate the traffic congestion on I-280 to be created by 2,000 ,000 sf office. => $30 million fair share contribution is not any benefit to the city. It 's like paying development fee. • Remove "recycled water". =>The initiative merely specified that the project will use recycled water if available . Any project could make such statement without any financial commitment. The project applicant didn't promise to fund or even provide fair share contribution to recycled water lines. • Add "creating Vallco Specific Plan Zoning" • Remove "park" or ch a nge to "rooftop park." =>The initiative didn 't provide any "park " at the ground-level since that 's what the voters will expect from "park." The ball ot question already mentioned "green roof (approximately 30 acres)". • Remo ve "civic/educational uses " or change it to "potential civic/education uses". =>The question now reads "requiring .... civic/educational uses", but the initiative didn 't require those civic/educational uses mentioned as benefits since they are merely suggestions that MAY be included. ~ Features that should NOT appear in the ballot question: •Do not include "shuttles" or "free shuttles". =>The project applicant would only spearhead an effort for community shuttles with other agencies and the city. Any other project applicant coul d do in order to mitigate the traffic problem created by the said project. So, this is NOT a benefit. =>The project applicant doesn 't fully fund the shuttles so this shouldn 't be listed as one of the community benefits . ~ Suggestion for the ballot question of Valko Initiative: •Add "establish the maximum total building height up to 120 feet" or "establish the maximum total building height up to 105 feet for the west of N. Wolfe and up to 120 feet for the east of N. Wolfe." ¢ The total building heights, including both roof and building heights, are derived from the following footnote in Page 67 of Valko 9212 report: "The Specific Plan identifies a ma x imum building height of 95 feet (four to six stories tall) on the east side of North Wolfe Road. The maximum building height on the west side of North Wolfe would be 80feet with a maximum building height of 65 feet for buildings along the western edge of the site. The top of the roofs, which would include niechanical equipment, wou ld be up to 25 feet above the maximum building height. Rooftop pavilions would be no greater than 24 fe et in height." In the ballot question, the "total building height" should be used instead of "building height" as defined i n the Valko Initiative, since the voters will interpret "total building height" as the common se nse meaning of including both roof and buildings. The ballot question shouldn't mention "the number of stories" si nce the Vallco Initiative said "typically 4 to 6 stories ," but it varies. The total building height would give voters "true and impaitial" desc ription of the project. );;::-Missin g from the EC9212 report -"Council must demand an EIR from developer due to the magnitude of project size" In view of the m agnitude of this mega-project, the Council must seek every legal means, including a court order if necessary , to obtain a full -scale EIR, prepared by a reputable , impartial firm that has not previously done bu siness with the City or with Sand Hill. Perhaps in the interests of time and budget, the paleontological resources , etc. can be given short shrift , but there needs to be a thorough review of traffic , air quality , water supply and seismological impacts . );;::-Under-reporting the proposed Initiative barely meeting typical mitigation required during standard approval process Table 4 in Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis) li s ts whether V alko Initiative pro v ides mitigation meas ure s (so -call ed benefits) beyond typic a ll y required mitigation meas ures during s ta ndard appro va l process. Table 4 : S ummary of VTCSP EDF Con sistency with City's Tn>iral l\fi tigation or C onditions of Approval C ompared to the City 's ty pical mitiga tion or conditions Em·ir onmeutal Resource of a pproYnl , the YT C SP EDF(s) a r e : In Excess Con sistent I nco n si sten t Infrastruc t u r e . Transportation -Intersection Level of Service x -Frel'way L evel of Service x -Transit Facilities x -Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities x -Parking* x -Neighborhood Intrusion x -Sa fety H azar ds an d Accessibility x -Constmction-Related x . Sch ool Services x . P arks/Onen Space x Other Public Senires . Police Sen~ce s x • Fire Services x . Library Services x t:tilities a n d SeJTic e Sys tems • Wastewater Treatment/ Sanitary Sewer x System . Water x . Energy x Other ED\ironmental I ssues . Aesthetics/Community F orm x . Air Quality x . Biological Resournes -B irds and Trees x -Nitrogen Deposition x . Cul tural Re.sourc-es x . Geology and Soils x . Greenhouse Gas Emissions x . Hazards and Hazardous Materials x • Noise x Notes: • Tue cons isten cy of the parking for the Specific Plan is based on the number of parking spaces identified in the Specific Pbn_ rather th.tn an EDF. No EDF W3S identified for parking. Rtfer to the body of the report for the complete discussion of the VTCSP EDF s consistency with the City 's tyJ>ical mitigation or condition s of approval . "In Excess" for School Services is due to $40 million donation to school districts. "In Excess" for Police , Fire, Library services is due to that they might share a portion of the 5 ,000 sf civic space, already shared with non-profit s, like Cupertino Historic Society . Most items are under "Consistent," which means Valko Initiative just provided bare minimum mitigation measures . So , any contribution, like fair share contribution of $3 0 million, is not "benefit" since it is simply a requirement for project approval. Notice that Intersection s Level of Service and Parking are listed as "Inconsistent," which means the mitigation measures identified are far from the typical requirements during standard approval process . Even when the table says "Consistent" with typically required of standard approval process, often the provisions in Valko Initiative is far from sufficient. Freeway Level of Service is one example. $3 0 million fair share contribution includes $26 million that covers 25% fair share of the construction cost of expanding I-280/Wolfe exit. Only $4 million covers the expansion of other segments of 1-280. With so many freeway segments affected, include highways 85 and 10 l , $4 million is token change. So , the mitigation for Freeway Lev el of Service should be "insufficient". It is jus t ridiculous th a t Sand Hill is now claiming $30 million donation for freeway expansion as a "benefit." Neighborhood Intrusion is one example. It 's used to mitigation potential traffic impact for s urrounding neighborhoods. The report quote s: 'There is a potential for vehicles traveling to and from the VTCSP to divert to Blaney Avenue, Portal Avenue, Finch Avenue, and Tantau Avenue to avoid potential congestion on Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and Wo lfe Road . The VTCSP includes the following EDF to reduce neighborhood intrusion:" "the Town Center/Community Park applicant and other project applicants for future development shall pro vi de up to $300,000 for the City of Cupertino for potential neighborhood traffic improvements." There -$300,000 sounds good? But Apple Campus 2 provided $750,000 for neighborhood intrusion . So, $300,000 is not even 50% of what Apple has provided . Totally inadequate! );;:-Insufficient Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure, compared with typical requirements during standard project approval The issue was unfortunately buried in an appendix: A-5 -Appendix 5 (9212 Environmental Analysis). The 9212 report itself li sts every provisions of the initiative as "benefits ." The truth is hidden in the appendix . The Environmental Analysis in Appendix 5 compares each wi th what a project of this side would typically be required to provide and co nclude whether it simpl y meets the normal standard or exceed s it. For a project boasting about walk-ability and bike-ability , it doesn't even provide sufficient biking infrastructure to be normally required by the standard project approval process. The 9212 report itself minimizes such insufficiencies. Fortunately, one of the consultants who prepared the "Environmental Analysis" did his homework. For bike and pedestrian infrastructure, only 50 % of the require bicycle parking spaces are provided. During the standard project approval , the City would typically require much more than the provisions offered by the Valko Initiative: the potential donation of $6 million for the construction of 1-280 trail and other improvements. Furthermore, the impact analysis and require improvements typically done during standard project approval are likely skipped since the Valko Initiative waives such requirements during project approval and delays them to "the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy." As a result, a project in the Valko Specific Plan area would likely start construction without any analysis of bike and pedestrian infrastructure or any plan for improvement. _);;;> NO CHECK for infrastructure capacity prior to project approval Valko Town Center Specific Plan Initiative is NOT a project proposal. The Specific Plan is a part of the General Plan that provides guidelines for future development in a specific area. Any project proposed for the Valko Specific Plan area still has to follow Municipal Code and other ordinances unless WAIVED or CHANGED by Valko Initiative . Valko Initiative waives the standard requirements for project approval in two ways: • • • • • • Declare the area as a special zoning "Valko Town Center Zone ." Then , any existing municipal code for mixed use zoning doesn't apply to Valko site . All projects in Valko site only need to comply with Valko Specific Plan . Delay required checks for infrastructure capacity "prior to issuance of occupancy permit" (or other permit), instead of "prior to development approval", as typically required for standard project approval. Appendix 5 of Valko 9212 Rep011 has details on these exceptions: evaluate queue lengths at i ntersections and identify improvements (page 14 ) determine sewer system capacity and identify necessary improvements prior (page 26) - Since the sewer capacity is already exceeded under wet weath er condition, there is a need to "require the construction of a parallel pipe to the existing 15-inch sewer main in North Wolfe Road," but this is not addressed in the initiative . determine water s upply a vailability and identify necessary impl'o vements (page 29) require environmental analysis of utility improvements (such as the extension of the recycled water line) proposed to serve a development (page 29) More items are delayed to "prior to issuance of permits (or certificate of occupancy)" instead of "during standard project approval process." • review a project's impact on bicyc le and pedestrian qmtlity of serv ice during the standard approval process and identify addit ional improvements. (page 18 of Appendix 5) • analyze impacts on intersections level of service and identify mitigation measures. (page 14 of Appendix 5) • analyze impacts on freeway level of service and identify mitigation measures. (page 16 of Appendi x 5) ~ Enforceability of the community benefits Page 44 of the Valko 9212 Report di sc usses the enforceability of the community benefits, even the donation agreements with the sc hool di s trict s: A -9212 Repott, Take away from this section: The 50,000 sf space for civic services is merely a goal, not a requirement of Valko Initiative. Even one of the requirements, like the donation agreement for $40 million for school districts , it could be challenged in court. "A court would likely find this requirement legally invalid ... despite the existence of separate, voluntary donation agreements." The Initiative does not require a development agreeme nt for Vallco. But even with a development agreement it is only enforceable if the City i s willing to s ue the developer for non- compliance. "As discussed in more detail above in Section III .A. most of these community benefits, including the green roof, education, and transportation benefits, are required by the Initiative. (footnote 75) As a result, the City could not approve an application for MDSP or ASR if the proposed project did not provide these benefits." Footnote 75: The main exceptions were for the community benefits that are specifically framed as "goals" (such as the LEED certification) or as something that could be provided as an option if the developer and the City agreed (such as the option for up to an additional 50,000 square feet civic building). See Chapter IILA.2(c) of this Report. =>So, the 50,000 square feet for civic services is merely an optional "goal,'' not a requirement of Valko Initiative. Note that this is in addition to the 5,000 SF space for non- profits, which is a 34-year charitable lease. 'The Initiative provides that these benefits can be required either as conditions of approval or by entering a ''development agreement.'' "However, the Initiative does not require a developer of the Valko area to enter into such a development agreement, and neither does State law. If, for any reason, the City and the developer(s) of the V<Llko area do not enter into such a development agreement, the City may need or wis h to require the developer(s) to provide at least some of the community benefits specified in the Initiative through what are common ly referred to as "conditions of approval." 77 "Under these standards, there is a question as to whether the City could legally compel the developer to provide at least one of the Initiative's primary community benefits, if imposed as a condition of approval. Specifically. the Initiative states the community benefits for lo cal schools "shall be va lued in the aggregate at no less than 10 times the legall y req uired amount, which would repres en t a total financial contribution of approximately $4 0 mi ll ion.''78 "In sho1t, the Initiative's requirement for the owner/developer of the Valko area to provide "10 times the legally required amount" of funding for education benefits raises serious and potentially complex legal issues. As a practical matter, those legal issues ultimately may not affect the City's ability to enforce these provisions . However, if a legal challenge was brought to these provisions, and a court determined that the challenger had standing to raise the issue (despite the existence of separate, voluntary donation agreements), a court would likely find this requirement legally invalid . ~ Extremely Insufficient Mitigation for Intersections Level of Service The Executive Summary, written by Seifel Consulting, Inc .. tries to cover up the woefully insufficient provisions by Valko Initiative . Under Benefits and Design Features: • Transportation-Provide $6 million to the City for a bike/pedestrian trail along 1-280; construct or fund additional improvements to pedestrian and bike trails throughout the Plan Area; and make a fair-share financial contribution of $30 million for freeway infrastructure, along with other significant transit and circulation improvements. Potential effects and impacts: • Potentially create some significant environmental impacts (such as traffic impacts), although the City would likely be able to address these impacts when processing subsequent approvals through required mitigation , application of a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (TMFP), or conditions of approvals. However, the EIR consultants and traffic con s ultants do include details and it shows insufficient mitigation for traffic and inconsistent with the City's code. And usually the mitigations of impacts should be identified and improvements determined prior to project approval. Valko Initiative would only require these mitigation measures done prior to issuance of occupancy permit. In most intersections with significant impact, NO mitigation measures are identified . It is "likely" that the City might require mitigation when processing project approval; however, it is also "likely" that the city couldn't require these mitigations that are typically identified and implemented during standard approval process. Table III.2 (Page 59 and 60 in 9212 report) below shows that for almost every item, Valko Initiative either didn't provide any mitigation or the mitigation provided insufficient or inconsistent with what the City typically requires during standard approval process. Tab le 111.2 Summary of Intersect ion Impa ct s and Imp rovements Identified by the City and in the EA Compared to the City's mitigation or conditions of Identified by approval under the standard approval process , Significan tl y App licab le the Specific Plan EOF(s) are :' Impacted Spe cific Plan Partially Co mments" Intersec tion EOFs' Consistent Consistent Consistent lnronsisten t City EA and but but or Insufficient &Jfficient Insufficient Insufficient Stevens Creek 9 Boulevard/Lawrence • • Expressway Ramps (west) Lawrence Expressway/ to 1-280 Southbound • • Ramps Intersection s 9-t3: No EDFs adaessing these intersections were mduded beca use no impacts 11 Lawrence • • were identified in lhe EA . The City woo ld require payment ol faif·share contributions to planned Ev~sswav/Mittv Wav improveme nts at these intersections. Refer to Appendjx 5 fOf" additiona l discussion . Lawrence 12 Expressway/Bollinger • • Road Lawrence 13 Expressway/Ooyle • • Road L<n.,·reoce Intersections 14 and 15: VT CSP EDF 56 is consistent wrth what the City would typically require t4 Expressway/Prospect • 56 • as a result ot Iha standa rd approval process . but insuff1Cient because fair share co ntributions would be based on a trip gene ration estimate approved by lhe City and for au ~gnificanUy Road impacted intersections identified by lhe City on L a~•ence Expressway. Lawrence EDF 55 is consistent with what lhe City would typically require . Refer to Appendi• 5 for additiona l 15 Expre sswayiSaratoga • 55 • disrussion . Avenue SR 85 (nortti Y Intersection 16: No EDFs addressing these intersections were included beca use no impacts 16 • • 1vere identified in the EA . The City would require a fair-share COfltribution towards an Saratoga Avenue improvement at this intersection . Refer to Aooendix 5 for additional discussion. a Specific Plan EDF 52, the preparation and implementatioo of a Transportation Demand Management Plan that would reduce peak.hour office trips, is applicable to all of the above intersections and is consistent with what the City would typically require to red uce intersection and freeway impacts under the standard approval process Specific Plan EDF 52 alooe would not fully mitigate impacts at any of the above intersections, however. b. As discussed in Section lllA4.d, the City would likely have the ability and authority to unde rtake environmental review with respect to the required subsequent approvals and requ ire mitigation as appropriate. In addition . subsequent approvals would be subject to the Transportation ~fltigation Fee Program discussed in Section 111 .E.1 when adopted . Appendix 5 (Environmental Analysis) also identified potential problem with the Transportation Demand Management Plan used in Valko Initiative since there is not way to monitor whether the TDM reached the "target" of 30 percent reduction in vehicle trips. There is no penalty at all if the target is not achieved. All that Valko Initiative requires is one TDM manager is hired. No supervision nor performance requirement for the TDM. Overall, Sand Hill's Valko project will create huge negative impact in many intersections and the initiative didn't provide any or sufficient mitigation and the initiative removed the requirement to identify mitigation measures prior to project approval. Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Yan Yu <> Tuesday, July 05, 2016 4:00 PM City Council citymanager@cupertino.org; City Clerk Requests Affecting Agenda Item 11, Vallco Initiative, July 5 City Council Meeting 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 ("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) requests associated with the City Council's actions related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Initiative: (1) 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 request that Mayor Barry Chang recuse himself from all voting related to the Val/co office park initiative due to a real or 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 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 the agenda and meeting minutes for the July 5 City Council meeting. (3) I request that City Council members REJECT any efforts from supporters of the Val/co office park initiative to adopt the initiative "as is" or with concessions and instead add the initiative as a measure 1 to be included the November 8, 2016 General Election. Right or wrong, many of your constituents signed the petition for the Vallco office park initiative because they understood they would have an opportunity to vote on what will or will not be built at Vallco; to approve the initiative outright would be to misunderstand the intent and expectat ions these many petition signers . Thank you for your consideration of these important matters related to the Vallco office park initiative . Sincerely, Yan Yu Cupertino resident REFERENCES + Barry Chang's Campaign Donations for Assembly in 2016 (Recall Barry Chang Web site). (LINK: http://recallbarrvchang.blogspot.com/2016/06/barry-changs-campaign -donations-for.html ) 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, July OS, 2016 2:49 PM City Clerk Subject: FW: Town Center Initiative -----Original Message----- From: John Tang [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org> Subject: Town Center Initiative Dear Mayor Chang, I write to express my support of the Town Center Initiative that is on your agenda tonight. The initiative is the only proposal that will create a successful and sustainable future for Valko. Without it, Valko will largely remain an underutilized asset for the City and its residents. The Town Center Initiative will also revitalize Valko into a true downtown for Cupertino -something we don't have but have wanted for many years. I'm excited that in addition to redeveloping Valko, the Town Center Initiative also includes many community benefits. These benefits will make Cupertino a better place to live and work and include improvements to things important to me and many residents like schools, traffic, sustainability and the availability of open space and community parks. Some of the improvements include: • An enormous, positive economic impact on Cupertino through the generation of approximately $6.6 million in new ongoing tax revenues for the City (according to an independent study) and an additional $14.7 million in one-time tax revenues; • Additional funding that totals $549.6 million in community benefits like parks, school enhancements, recycled water, transit benefits and community uses within the new Town Center, such as a community center, banquet hall, outdoor performance venue and children's park, among many others; • At least 389 residential units to alleviate our community's housing shortage and a minimum of 20 percent of these housing units will be specifically designated for seniors, which is important as it will allow these residents to stay in their community and close to family and friends; • Transportation improvements totaling a guaranteed $30 million toward I-280 improvements, plus tens of millions more in local roadway improvements; and • Extraordinary commitment to sustainability by incorporating environmental design features, like the requirement for a 30-acre rooftop park irrigated by recycled water that provides unparalleled environmental design and go beyond what would be required by CEQA, and a LEED Platinum Certification target for the project. By supporting the Town Center Initiative, you can also take a step towards revitalizing Valko and bring a wide range of unique community benefits to Cupertino that will make our city even better than it already is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 John B. Tang 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, July OS, 2016 2:49 PM City Clerk Subject: FW: Town Center Initiative -----Original Message----- F rom: John Tang [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:15 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org> Subject: Town Center Initiative Dear Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, I write to express my support of the Town Center Initiative that is on your agenda tonight. The initiative is the only proposal that will create a successful and sustainable future for Valko. Without it, Valko will largely remain an underutilized asset for the City and its residents. The Town Center Initiative will also revitalize Valko into a true downtown for Cupertino -something we don't have but have wanted for many years. I'm excited that in addition to redeveloping Valko, the Town Center Initiative also includes many community benefits. These benefits will make Cupertino a better place to live and work and include improvements to things important to me and many residents like schools, traffic, sustainability and the availability of open space and community parks. Some of the improvements include: • An enormous, positive economic impact on Cupertino through the generation of approximately $6.6 million in new ongoing tax revenues for the Cit)r (according to an independent study) and an additional $14 .7 million in one-time tax revenues; • Additional funding that totals $549.6 million in community benefits like parks, school enhancements, recycled water, transit benefits and community uses within the new Town Center, such as a community center, banquet hall, outdoor performance venue and children's park, among many others; • At least 389 residential units to alleviate our community's housing shortage and a minimum of 20 percent of these housing units will be specifically designated for seniors, which is important as it will allow these residents to stay in their community and close to family and friends; • Transportation improvements totaling a guaranteed $30 million toward I-280 improvements, plus tens of millions more in local roadway improvements; and • Extraordinary commitment to sustainability by incorporating environmental design features, like the requirement for a 30-acre rooftop park irrigated by recycled water that provides unparalleled environmental design and go beyond what would be required by CEQA, and a LEED Platinum Certification target for the project. By supporting the Town Center Initiative, you can also take a step towards revitalizing Valko and bring a wide range of unique community benefits to Cupertino that will make our city even better than it already is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 John B. Tang 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, July OS, 2016 2:48 PM City Clerk Subject: FW : Town Center Initiative -----Original Message----- From: John Tang [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:13 PM To: Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org> Subject: Town Center Initiative Dear Councilmember Sinks, I write to express my support of the Town Center Initiative that is on your agenda tonight. The initiative is the only proposal that will create a successful and sustainable future for Valko. Without it, Valko will largely remain an underutilized asset for the City and its residents. The Town Center Initiative will also revitalize Valko into a true downtown for Cupertino-something we don't have but have wanted for many years. I'm excited that in addition to redeveloping Valko, the Town Center Initiative also includes many community benefits. These benefits will make Cupertino a better place to live and work and include improvements to things important to me and many residents like schools, traffic, sustainability and the availability of open space and community parks . Some of the improvements include: • An enormous, positive economic impact on Cupertino through the generation of approximately $6.6 million in new ongoing tax revenues for the City (according to an independent study) and an additional $14.7 million in one-time tax revenues; • Additional funding that totals $549.6 million in community benefits like parks, school enhancements, recycled water, transit benefits and community uses within the new Town Center, such as a community center, banquet hall, outdoor performance venue and children's park, among many others; • At least 389 residential units to alleviate our community's housing shortage and a minimum of 20 percent of these housing units will be specifically designated for seniors, which is important as it will allow these residents to stay in their community and close to family and friends; • Transportation improvements totaling a guaranteed $30 million toward I-280 improvements, plus tens of millions more in local roadway improvements; and • Extraordinary commitment to sustainability by incorporating environmental design features, like the requirement for a 30-acre rooftop park irrigated by recycled water that prov ides unparalleled environmental design and go b eyond what would be required by CEQA, and a LEED Platinum Certification target for the project. By supporting the Town Center Initiative, you can also take a step towards revitalizing Valko and bring a wide range of unique community benefits to Cupertino that will make our city even better than it already is . Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 John B. Tang 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:44 PM City Clerk Subject: FW: Town Center Initiative -----Original Message----- From: John Tang [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:12 PM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Town Center Initiative Dear Councilmember Paul, I write to express my support of the Town Center Initiative that is on your agenda tonight. The initiative is the only proposal that will create a successful and sustainable future for Valko. Without it, Valko will largely remain an underutilized asset for the City and its residents. The Town Center Initiative will also revitalize Valko into a true downtown for Cupertino -something we don't have but have wanted for many years. I'm excited that in addition to redeveloping Valko, the Town Center Initiative also includes many community benefits. These benefits will make Cupertino a better place to live and work and include improvements to things important to me and many residents like schools, traffic, sustainability and the availability of open space and community parks. Some of the improvements include: • An enormous, positive economic impact on Cupertino through the generation of approximately $6.6 million in new ongoing tax revenues for the City (according to an independent study) and an additional $14.7 million in one-time tax revenues; • Additional funding that totals $549.6 million in community benefits like parks, school enhancements, recycled water, transit benefits and community uses within the new Town Center, such as a community center, banquet hall, outdoor performance venue and children's park, among many others; • At least 389 residential units to alleviate our community's housing shortage and a minimum of 20 percent of these housing units will be specifically designated for seniors, which is important as it will allow these residents to stay in their community and close to family and friends; • Transportation improvements totaling a guaranteed $30 million toward I-280 improvements, plus tens of millions more in local roadway improvements; and • Extraordinary commitment to sustainability by incorporating environmental design features, like the requirement for a 30-acre rooftop park irrigated by recycled water that provides unparalleled environmental design and go beyond what would be required by CEQA, and a LEED Platinum Certification target for the project. By supporting the Town Center Initiative, you can also take a step towards revitalizing Valko and bring a wide range of unique community benefits to Cupertino that will make our city even better than it already is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 John B. Tang Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay-Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:44 PM City Clerk Subject: FW: Town Center Initiative -----Original Message----- From: John Tang [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:11 PM To: Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupertino.org> Subject: Town Center Initiative Dear Councilmember Wong, I write to express my support of the Town Center Initiative that is on your agenda tonight. The initiative is the only proposal that will create a successful and sustainable future for Valko. Without it, Valko will largely remain an underutilized asset for the City and its residents. The Town Center Initiative will also revitalize Valko into a true downtown for Cupertino -something we don't have but have wanted for many years. I'm excited that in addition to redeveloping Valko, the Town Center Initiative also includes many community benefits. These benefits will make Cupertino a better place to live and work and include improvements to things important to me and many residents like schools, traffic, sustainability and the availability of open space and community parks. Some of the improvements include: • An enormous, positive economic impact on Cupertino through the generation of approximately $6 .6 million in new ongoing tax revenues for the City (according to an independent study) and an additional $14.7 million in one-time tax revenues; • Additional funding that totals $549.6 million in community benefits like parks, school enhancements, recycled water, transit benefits and community uses within the new Town Center, such as a community center, banquet hall, outdoor performance venue and children's park, among many others; • At least 389 residential units to alleviate our community's housing shortage and a minimum of 20 percent of these housing units will be specifically designated for seniors, which is important as it will allow these residents to stay in their community and close to family and friends; • Transportation improvements totaling a guaranteed $30 million toward I-280 improvements, plus tens of millions more in local roadway improvements; and • Extraordinary commitment to sustainability by incorporating environmental design features, like the requirement for a 30-acre rooftop park irrigated by recycled water that provides unparalleled environmental design and go beyond what would be required by CEQA, and a LEED Platinum Certification target for the project. By supporting the Town Center Initiative, you can also take a step towards revitalizing Valko and bring a wide range of unique community benefits to Cupertino that will make our city even better than it already is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 John B. Tang 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Toni Oasay -Anderson Sent: To: Tuesday , July 05 , 2016 1:25 PM City Clerk Subject: FW : I Support the Town Center Initiative From: Nancy Osaki [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 12:12 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: I Support the Town Center Initiative I have and continue to support the Town Center Initiative. The Hills at Vallco dev elopment is outstanding. It will connect Cupertino's neighborhoods that has been lacking in past. Bravo Town Center & the Hills. Nancy Osaki 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Toni Oasay-Anderson Tuesday, July 05, 2016 9:00 AM City Clerk FW : I DO NOT Support the Town Center Initiative From: Susan Wuthrich [mailto Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 7:01 AM To: City Council Subject: I DO NOT Support the Town Center Initiative Please contact me regarding this message and the misinformation that makes it appear that the city is trying to ensure residents to approve this project! It is clear that the residents of Cupertino are being mislead! Susan 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Caryl Gorska <> Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:35 PM City Council Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Vallee redevelopment Members of the Cupertino City Council and Mayor Chang; My name is Caryl Gorska, and I am a new face in the Better Cupertino movement. I'm here to say we're not going away. In fact, every time you disrespect us citizens by encouraging developers who submit proposals that tromp all over our General Plan, our numbers grow. Every time you try procedural and other deceptive shenanigans, the word spreads. It's a fact that too many of our citizens are unaware of what's going on (they're hard at work at their jobs, they're raising kids) -and you abuse that lack of awareness to try to get away with things. Well, the word is spreading. I'm spreading the word. And people I've talked to don't like buildings that are too tall, too close to the street; developments that are too dense, that don't do a proper Environmental Impact Report, and that make our schools and streets even more overcrowded . They get mad when I tell them we have a city growth plan in place that says those things aren't okay, that in fact they directly violate our General Plan, and yet they are being pushed on us. They get madder when I tell them their representatives favor developers who gave those representatives campaign money -favor those developers over the citizens they are supposed to represent, and the General Plan for development they should honor. And they shake their heads in disgust when I tell them that our representatives added deceptive wording to the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth initiative to make it sound like we are as bad as the developers and want to raise building height limits in neighborhoods to 45 feet! It's ironic, isn't it? They're trying to subvert our initiative by adding language that sounds like the bad development ideas they support! I'll give you a minute to let that sink in. Especially you, council members and mayor, who apparently haven't seen that irony. No, people don't like their trust being violated. But it's not too late: Just do the right thing, and we'll spread that word even faster. With great pleasure. Honor our General Plan and honor the citizens you represent -not developers who don't respect our carefully constructed plan. One last request: You who are silent up there, speak up! We want to know what you think! Thank you for listening. Caryl Gorska 1