Exhibit CC 12-20-2016 Oral Communications t a��� ���
� �� ca n�w� .
Grace Schmidt
From: Gary E.Jones <
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:30 AM
To: council@cupertino.org; David Brandt; Grace Schmidt
Subject: Letter for Oral Communication tonight at city council meeting
With respect I submit the foilowing,
Because my health does not permit me to give public oral communication at this time I'm submitting the following in-
lieu-of the same for the December 20, 2016 council meeting.
A shopping center like Stanford, Valley Fair or Santa Row (as it was) in-lieu-of The Hills at Valico will simply not get
financing without a balance of mixed use. Why? It boils down to risk management. As you can see at Santa Row they
have added commercial (Cupertino's Splunk) and have plans to add another 1.25 million square feet over the next few
years to balance out the risk of what is in place.
Without a reasonable allocation for mixed use it is my opinion that a lesser Vallco vision without a sizable portion for
housing and commerce is not financially feasible.
What a community wishes for is not of concern in a financial model for a reasonable return on investment (ROI).
Capitalism is driven by ROI through market forces and not shopper sympathy.
The Vallco property is driven by Silicon Valley's market and not Cupertino citizens'vision for a 1.2 million square foot
shopping mall.
The push against Vallco's mixed use formula for success is only wasting everyone's money and time. No amount of
citizen push back can force a property owner to make a serious financial mistake.
This includes The Oaks,the Goodyear hotel site, and any other zone in our city available for mixed use.
It is undeniable there will be traffic. The question is begged; do we shut down economic prosperity for the common
good when it is the VTA/CalTrans/USDOT that has failed us when it comes to dealing with the traffic in The Valley of
Hearts Delight and other metro areas such as the Bay Area?
By shutting down Measure D the things accomplished were to lose community benefits and city revenues that could
have been used for the common good for our community while creating an even wider unhealthy divide among our
citizens, and finally a strong message to the city through the defeat of Measure C that the voters favor good governance
over the initiative process.
The current dynamics of the issue of The Hills at Vallco is crying out for the city council to pass a resolution encouraging
the property owner to proceed with their application and the normal process under the guidelines and laws of good
governance.
In the interest of full disclosure I personally have no financial or other interest in or with the owner of the Vallco
property. I am a citizen just like all the others who live in Cupertino and am only expressing my personal viewpoint as to
the future of the property and our amazing city moving forward.
Respectfully,
1
i� lzo �i�
� f2-�L Cb�rvt.
Oral Communications for the Cupertino City Council Meeting, December 20, 2016
To the honorable Mayor,Vice Mayor,City Council members, City Manager,and City Attorney, please accept this
letter delivered during oral communications for the City Council meeting on December 20, 2016.
My name is Pete Heller. I'm a 26 year resident of Cupertino. Tonight I come before you representing a group of
residents concerned that Vallco is now on a path to closure. We are coming to you this evening to suggest a path
forward for Vallco's redevelopment. For the record, I have zero connection or financial ties to Sandhill.
Let me begin by making three points:
❖ When the last tenants of the dead Vallco mall close their doors,we will have an abandoned 50-acre
property in the center of our community—potentially for years to come.A vacant property of this size will
be a liability to the City. I.e., it requires a sense of urgency by the Council.
❖ The residents of Cupertino desire a suitable solution at Vallco and are aware and engaged.
•:� The City Council will (and indeed must) play a key leadership role to resolve the difficult issues impacting
the attractiveness and prosperity of Cupertino,especially given the unsettled political climate.
So how do we move forward? First let's analyze the election results. The resounding defeat of Measure C,
together with the defeat of Measure D, provides clear guidance to the Council and to Sandhill that the citizens
prefer city planning decisions be made through the traditional public City process. The election's outcome also
reinforces that the majority opinion is Vallco needs to be redeveloped. This is consistent with recent opinion
polling,such as the Godbe study.
With that backdrop,the City Council now has the citizens' backing to make progress on Vallco. Recalling that the
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)foundered prior to the election,the most effective next step is to now
complete the EIR. The council,the citizens and Sandhill all need this information to factually identify the impacts
and mitigations required. Furthermore,to ensure the EIR fairly addresses the issues and concerns of all
stakeholders,we recommend that an Advisory Committee, reflecting the spectrum of citizen viewpoints,
simultaneously be empanelled. Its goal would be to critically evaluate the objectives, methods, and findings of the
EIR consultant,and to ensure citizen viewpoints are incorporated into the EIR itself. Once the EIR data set is in
hand,the Council will then be in a position to make an informed decision regarding Vallco's future.
Therefore,we respectfully request that the City Council instruct the City Manager to proceed with
completion of the EIR. Of course the study needs to examine the full range of office space alternatives, as it is
designed. If this process requires Owner approval and/or funding,we request the City Manager immediately
secure such agreement.
Thank you for your attention and for honoring the will of the majority of citizens.
Sincerely,
[Signatories shown on reverse side]
i
��- l�-� l�� ��co►�,� .
.�_NeRAL PLAN A.MENDM�NT, HOU�I��v ELE�y1tNT UPDAT� Atip ASjOCiATED REZOtiiNG DRAFi EIR
_. _. __ __ ___.
___ __ _
CiTY OF CUPrRTiNO
_ _
_ __ ._ _ _
_ PROJECT DESCRIPTIO�V
,� ,� _ ,.,.�...�
'� � 9
TABLE 3�-2 SUMMARY—ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS DEVELOPMEYf ALLOC.�TIONS
Remaining Pr000sed
Allocation Project Difference
Totai Built/Approved
Officz 8.929.774 sf 540,231 s� 4.040.23' �� +3,500.000 si
Commzraal 3,729,509 sf 701,413 sf 1;34'3:''_�� +042.26o sf�
Ho�e� 1,090 rooms 339 rooms 1 3��rooms +1.000 rooms
Residential 21,399 units 1,895 units 4.421 units +2.526 units
r��_�.�--sa: �r=�-
y.Includes Ho•r=_s;�=_a.�.rc Va!ico°arx.!-ea . �,_�.y hcr�,D=4^�a ar„�„;_�:�=Arza'v'� ,r Yli
- . . , x2d-.. ��p=c���.a'��.Ar���
o.In�:,;d�s�ubb�cad�L�1:�„�,.,�Sce_a'.-.-<a:�cn:a V �,e i,_,e;i;t-ie�C�rnm_ dal/lvix�d Ls�Sc_c zi 4r=a�,C;cer N��h�crh,o m V,a;o� ^ipioy=r
Cat=�er/ and'r,cu>;ng�!emznt S r=s
c.N=:n=_ev�emm=-c a�•s not crcocsed Tnis r�rre�r=„�m =that�ne_x sr:�g Val,�o Sh„cc•ng b+.=';q,.a ��oe,-_�!';2o7;`oGi s�j w li�_�=mci sred a�d
w;�!�;c�c<�n,o h�Ci+y_ti d=�cr.m_ _.� a!c_a±on ec� ..�ia o`6%�33�s=would'ce,.,_ � , „ „
. ,-,i=d: -i�r2 .,�_ : �.tn=V3 b�o a'oir'C-
Sourc= G:y o��uoer�,no,ZC_4_
Under Section 1�064(d) oFthe CEQA Guidelines,"In e�aluating the signiFicance of the en�-ironmental efFect
of a project, the Lead��encti�shall consider direct phvsical changes in the en�-ironment ti�-hich ma�•be caused
b�-the Project and reasonabl�-foreseeable indirect ph�-sical chan�e�in the environment e�-hich ma��be cat�sed
by the project"The buiidout projections repre�ent the Git�•'s projection ot"reasonablv Foreseeable"
deaelopment that could occur over the next 7_6 vears under the General Plan and are used as the ba�i� for
the EIR's envirormiental assessment.As described above in Section 3.1, Background, the City�allocates
develo�ment potential to project applicants on a project-by-project basis.As part oF the proposed Project,
additional building height and residential densit�-increases��-ould be contin�ent upon future de�elopment
projects in Cupertino providing communit� beneFits.�`'hile the proposed Project is a General Plan and no
specific projects are currently proposed, it is important to analvze the impacts of the propo�ed buildin�
height and d«-elling unit's densitv increases that could occur during the 26-vear buildout horizon.ThereFore,
unlike a project EIR this document is a Pro�ram-EIR Consistent�i-ith CEQA,all Future project�proposed
under the nervl�-adopted General Plan, other than those that qualif� for an e�emption, ��ould ha�-e to
undergo project-le�el em-ironmeutal re��ie�i-to ensure that an�-project-le�-el impacts of the futtu-e project
proposed on specific sites are disdosed and miti�ated, iF Feasible.
General Plan Polic� 2-23.A, Commtuutv Benefits Program, states that at the discretion oFthe Cit�- Council
and as indicated in certain land use policies,the Citv Council ma��approve heibhts different from the
maximum base height standard in Gate��-a��and�;odes identified in the Special Areas i�Iap, if a project
ineludes a retail component and provides communitv benefits.
i
- 3-13
I
�:� ,� � � U V � ! r -�
� '
December 14`", 2016 -� DEC 1 4 2016
To: Cupertino City Staff, Mr. Brandt, Mr. Hom, , ' '
��UP�:�YI�in CiTY CLERK
This is an Official Public Records Request for all of the fo�lowing:'�������'
� i. �ll Documents generated for the GP� 2020-2040 EIR as outlined in Section 13 of the
Detailed Work Plan, Exhibit A of the City contract with Placeworks (AKA The
Planning Center/DC&E).
�. "The trip distribution and roadway assignment reviewed and approved by the City
prior to proceeding with the traffic analsyis" as stated in Section 13 of the Detailed
Work Plan in Exhibit A, page 9. Note, in the contract it is stated that "Consultant
shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit A.
�. All Documents generated for the GPA 2020-2040 EIR as outlined in Section 13 of the
Detailed Work Plan, Exhibit A-1"South Vallco Specific Plan EIR" of the City
contract with Placeworks (AKA The Planning Center/DC&E).
a. "The trip distribution and roadway assignment reviewed and approved by the City
prior to proceeding with the traffic analsyis" as stated in Section 13 of the Detailed
Work Plan in Exhibit A-1, pa�e 9. Note, in the contract it is stated that "Consultant
shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit A-1.
�. All Documents that were created, sent, received, used, and existed for the GPA 2040
EIR traffic analysis, by either city staff and/or Placeworks. "
6. Documents refer to ALL material; communication, meeting minutes, meetina
materials, preliminary/partial/and final, tables, computer data, charts, reports,
presentation materials, notes, and videos.
7. This Public Records Request is very clear and very detailed to avoid any further delay
and confusion, I request ALL Documents that exist and pertain to all work on the
GPA 2040 EIR traffic analysis.
Note 1. Contract Section Labeled 2. (Contract pa�es in Attachment A)
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall rform each and evcry service set forth in E�chibit"A"and,if
.___ . ._ ---_ ____. .
_ -------�
authorized,Exhibit"A- ,"accarding to the project schedule set forth in Exhibit B,which
exhib'its are attac�icd hereto and incorporated herein by this referencc,in accordanez with
the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement.
Note 2. Contract Section Labeled 14. (Contract pages in Attachment A)
l4. R�:I�OIi'1'S:
A. L,ach an�i�vcry i�purt_dr��f1 �4urk�roduc,t mup r«c�rd aiici otl�er
�3ueun�6nf �h�re�riat3cr tc>lleetivct�r�ferrtci�°ci a�"Itepc>rt" reprc>duc:ed, rep�red c�r
__ _._ _._.__ ...-� ----: _._ .______.__..__._r_�':_ .�__._.
caustd t�be.��rc.parcd by C'ansult<�nt�ursuant tQ pr�n ci�[trteCtipn wit1�this Agr�emcnt,
___..�..�_r.__ _—...� ___._ ..._._�_a
yhall bc ihc ex�lusivc c�ronert�of'City, Consu tant s 1u 1 nc�t co�yr'�i`�iiiy'Report
requireci by this A�reement t�n�i sl�all executc appr�priate dcicurne��ts to��ssign to("ity the
c��pyrifiht to Iti;ports created pursuant ko thi�Agre�ment. Any Report, infonnatic>n ancl
d�ta acquired or required by tt�is A�reement shall h�cnmc tlje}�rn�erty of'City,and a11
puhlicntion rigl�ts arc resc;rvc�to CiCy. C'onsultant rttiay relain a copy uf'any report
fi�ri�ish�d ta the Ci[y pursuant to this A�*rcem�nt.
Page 1 of 2
Note 3. Contract "Detailed Work Plan Section Labeled 13. (Contr�ct pages in Attachment A)
13. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFF►C
h4�agon w�lf prepare tra�f�c analysis dacurrsentati�n for use in thc Gener�i Plan Amcndment FIR
that analyzes exssEing conditions, ex�sting Genesal Plan cond�tio�s (Year 2020) arc►tn�ee iuture
land u�e�`transporta�ion alternatives. The rr.�or will ir�dude a c',escriptior nf he sca�e af w�rk,
e
n�ethvdologies, transpc�rta�ion n�tr�nrk (rezc'way�, bike, pe�estr�an, transd), �adway traffi�vo!-
umes,levef of service analysis,c�nc�a description o`any impacls jnci mitigat�o�ns t�the rt�ad��ray,
biryde,ped�strian,and transit facilities.
IUL1 an�Pnri peak hour turn r��o�Jements a�al!�tudy intersedions ard roadway segments wil� be
forecasted by the modei. Fu'.ure intersedior turr�ing movement vofumes wi':!be adjusted based
on the(1)the existing traf�ic counts, (2)6ase yea�n�adel volumes and(3)ycar 20�0 modei vol-
umes. 1he tri� distribution and road�nay assignmen[tiv�(I be revie�ti�d a€�d approved by the City
prior ta proceeding w�h the traf�ic analys;s
��"�`��-�s�"
{y� GFNE�aI PlA4 Ad/:NM1'.i'T i�'i::M1t�
^.;_.(:T/Df�U�Rfltr� �;�
Note 4. Ammended contract that includes "Vallco Specific Plan EIR" Section 13. (Contract
pa�es in Attachment A)
tj. TRANSPORTA710N ANO TRAFFIC
HPxagon ��ill prepare traffic analys�s dc�c�me�taticn tor usp in t.h.e Valltc, S�etif;c Plan EIR that
analyzes existing condihons, existing Genera3 Pi�n �onditians (Year 2Q20j and three future land
use,rtransportation alternatives The rep�rt w�l indude a description a#the scope o!work, rneth-
odologies, transportation nehr�ork (rr.�dway5, b�ke, pedestriar�, lrarisfi}, rcad�vay tra(fie vc�lumes,
level of s�Nice analysis,and a descript�an af any impacts and mitigations to the roadway,b'icyde,
pedestrian, an�transit fatilitie�. This scope assumes that the Specific Pian an�lysis��;ili dra�v pn
the arafysis thar vrill be separately perfcrmed(�r the Gene�al Pian Amendment EIR.
A�VI and PN1 peak hour turn movements at ali siudy interseciions�l.'I(�f(?ddW/c7y SC:�,R'Cf1t5 LYill be
- forecastt:d by the n�odel. Future intersedion turning movement volum�s wii!be adjusted based
on the(1}Ihe existing tra(ii�cqunts, (2)base year mode)volumes ar�d(3}year 2020 m��del vol•
umes The tnp distribuCion and roadw�y d4signn�ent yviN be revie�rr�d anei apG>roved by thc City
� �_,____ ._�._.� __— �--r._��,�. _-_— _»-�-,:
pnor to proteeding with ti�e traHic analysis.
l����---��— ,u�,co SvKiRt Pun pR
Cirr C��u�Pnn�
Note 5. I have previously requested this information on multiple occasions and the city staff
including City Attorney, Mr Hom have consistently failed to supply the documents. Two of my
requests are included in Attachment B for reference.
Jon Willey
California Professional En�ineer
408 896-7590
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A, Pages 3 to 16
Attachment B, Pages 17 to 18
...
��zo ���
Subject: Important info regarding need for General Plan Advisory Committee D fj�-L C� ,
From: Lisa Warren(
To: savitav@cupertino.org; dpaul@cupertino.org; bchang@cupertino.org; rsinks@cupertino.org;
sscharf@cupertino.org;
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 6:22 PM
SUBJECT: Proposal for the Formation of an Advisory Committee to
Support the Vallco Specific Plan
RECIPIENTS: svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org, dpaul@cupertino.org,
bchang@cupertino.org, sscharF@cupertino.org, rsinks@cupertino.org
CC: manager@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org
Dear Mayor Viadhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, and Council Members Chang, Sinks and
Scharf:
Please include this letter as part of the public record for the Vallco Specific Plan.
Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee Proposal
The November 2016 election included contentious local measures in Cupertino. In an
effort to redevelop the Uallco Shopping District site, a developer behind Measure D spent
over $7 Million dollars in a campaign that was an attempt to approve a plan that would
bypass the regular city processes and avoid the Environmental Impact Review, a
California Environmental Quality Act requirement. The developer attempted to push
through a project with a deceptive marketing campaign that avoided all mention that the
project would transform the last retail-only site in Cupertino from a shopping mall to an
office park, including an office allocation of 2 Million square feet.
Supporters behind this committee proposal believe deceptive developer campaigns like
the one we saw for Measure D should be discouraged. We propose forming a committee
of residents to determine an acceptable plan for the Vallco Shopping District site (the
"Plan"). While the property owner would be under no obligation to accept the Plan, the
Plan would be representative of what a cross-section of residents would support at the
Uallco Shopping District site (the "Site"). We hope that a plan with broad resident support
will smooth the path for future improvements at the Site and reduce the likelihood of
lawsuits and referendums.
1 of 4 12/20/2016 6:24 PM
Efforts to gather community inputs must not repeat the wasteful processes of the past.
We all remember these processes. We had surveys with leading questions generating
and worthless results. We had community outreach exercises that were contrived and
designed to squelch dissenting views, leaving many residents who participated feeling
insulted and marginalized.
As a foundation of the Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee, we recommend
the adherence to the following criteria:
1. The committee can be formed in 2017, but would begin most of the actual work once
Apple Campus 2 is fully occupied for 12 months (where "occupied" refers to the entire
campus, including the "Spaceship" structures and buildings on the east and west sides
of Tantau), so a realistic evaluation of the traffic congestion is possible. Acceptable uses
for the Site are dependent on traffic, among other criteria.
2. Perform an unbiased resident survey, prepared by the committee, not a third party
(the previous surveys were biased and a waste of time).
3. Accept the results of Measure D, which confirmed that a majority of residents do not
want an office park at the Site.
4. Consider the developer's reputation when drafting the proposed development
agreement, including: their failure at Main Street to deliver the project as it was approved,
their failure to build the less profitable retail, housing, and entertainment elements at the
Sunnyvale with Town Center, and their current efforts to renege on the inconvenient
aspects of the development agreement for Edgewood Plaza in Palo Alto.
5. The proposed development agreement (the "Agreement") must be reviewed by an
independent attorney who is not aware who is paying for his or her services.
6. Prior to submission to the City Council for final approval, the agreement must be
approved by the Vallco Specific Plan Advisory Committee (the "Committee") must approve
the Agreement before the Agreement is submitted to the City Council for approval. If the
City Council makes changes to the Agreement, then the Committee must approve the
changed Agreement before the Agreement can be enacted.
7. The Agreement must address the long-term impact of the project on traffic, schools,
housing, and the environment.
8. The Agreement must include an enforcement mechanism, "hell or high water"
clauses, and an escrow account to prevent a repeat of failed commitments at Main Street,
Sunnyvale Town Center, or Palo Alto's Edgewood Plaza. The escrow funds will be used
to finish the housing, or the entire project, in the event the developer declares bankruptcy
or attempts to renege on some or all aspects of the project.
9. The City Council must remove the office allocation from the Site. The Committee will
recommend the acceptable amount of office space, if any, and the type of office space.
10. The City Council must remove the housing allocation from the Site. The Committee
2 of 4 12/20/2016 6:24 PM
r- a' v . -
will recommend the acceptable amount of housing, if any, and the type of hbusing
(market-rate, levels of below market-rate, for-sale, for-rent), and minimum and maximum
allocations for each type of housing.
11. The City Council must restore the 45-foot height limit at the Site. The Committee will
recommend acceptable height limit changes, if any, from the 45-foot maximum building
height limit.
12. The Committee will specify the minimum parking requirements for housing, office,
and retail.
13. Funding. We expect the development of the Plan will incur expenses from surveys,
traffic studies, and/or legal expenses. We estimate that the costs for the development
and approval of the Plan would not exceed $125,000
14. Committee members would be unpaid volunteers. Neither the City nor any other
entity will pay Committee members for their participation on the Committee.
To ensure credibility, the Committee must be comprised of responsible individuals who
are not associated or affiliated with the property owner or political organizations that have
lobbied on behalf of the property owner, its investors, business partners, or trade unions.
So far, we have developed the following guidelines for Committee member
participation:
a) Exclusion of any person who lobbied for, or endorsed, Measure D, whether
paid or unpaid.
b) Exclusion of any current or past members of the Cupertino Chamber of
Commerce.
c) Exclusion of any current or past members of Cupertino Rotary.
d) Exclusion of any current or past members of the Cupertino-Sunnyvale
League of Women Voters.
e) Exclusion of any person who would benefit financially from the project,
including contractors, employees of contractors, and members of trade unions
that could potentially gain from the project.
fl Exclusion any employee or contractor of the property owner.
g) Exclusion non-Cupertino residents.
h) Exclusion any employee, consultant, or principal, past or present, of a
developer seeking a General Plan Amendment or rezoning for another project in
Cupertino (for example, De Anza Properties or KT Urban).
i) Exclusion of inembers of Cupertino City Commissions.
j) Exclusion of any employee of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Ideally, the City of Cupertino will support an advisory committee with similar selection
criteria as those described above for the proposed advisory committee for the �/allco
Specific Plan for each General Plan revision as well. Seems we could have avoided
significant expenses and lost time had the City listened to residents regarding what
development criteria they will and will not accept at vallco before committing to land use
and building height changes at Vallco in December 2014.
3 of 4 12/20/2016 6:24 PM
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
Cupertino Resident
�
4 of 4 12/20/2016 6:24 PM
l� �� l��
�I�-��- �'-v-rv�-h,�.,
. .
• Reset the land use designation of Vallco , start from
a clean slate .
• Follow Planning Commission 's resolution , keep
Vallco to retail zoning , with no office allocation .
• Data driven top down approach with the planning
• Form an General Plan Advisory Board for the whole
city which not limited to Vallco
■
Cupertino Village:
Stocklmeir Elementary -',a�.,, 98,000 sf retail +
''�'s • " 24,455 sf
Apple II: 3.4 million sf. office
o`�f - 14, 200 workers
, •
,
_ ; .�
' .:� : ._ ... . . . ._,. . �'
Collins Elementary (764 by 2023 vs. capacity 598) / �
L8WS0ll Mlddl2 (1160 by 2023 vs. capacity 1105� 314 hotel room �!��
Hyatt House Hotel:
Hampton: 148 hotel rooms
942 residential units
_ �% Vallco I&II: 400,000 sf. office
� _ , -:� 1,670 workers
Without counting Valico _ �
Total high density housing:1423 • � `
Total office: 4.177 million sf � Nineteen 800:
Total retail: 0.433 million sf
Housing Retail 204 residential units
Total hotel: 462 ` � �,._.,�' 120,000 sf retail
_ ,., -�
� � ,,,
� �.• . • �� Main Street: 274,000 sf. office,1,100 workers
For a successful �^���,,, _ _ ' '` 120 residential units
urbanization, the area has Portal Plaza: � �� � � .��"�
enough employments, needs 60, 000 sf retail 135,500 retail, 180 hotel rooms
. .,�;
housing, retail and services, �.� �� Metropolitan: 157 residential units
however, school system
cannot support more '" Marketplace: ,, - � Cupertino Financial Center:
housing
115,656 sf retail 103,000 sf. office, 430 workers
Cupertino High (2790 in 2020 vs. capacity 1794) / Sedgwick Elementary (871 by 2023 vs. capacity 495)