The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 04-04-2017 Item No. 8 City Work Program - Staff Report Addendum and Written Communications OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE:(408)777-3354 www.cupertino.org CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM MEETING: APRIL 4, 2017 Subject Amendment to the Civic Center Improvements item within the City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018 Recommended Action The Civic Center Item in the Work Program was discussed on March 21, and the staff report for the approval of the Work Program on April 4 included a revised scope for that effort. Staff is now recommending that no work occur on the Civic Center Master Plan for 2017-18 due to the dedicated funding from the Hamptons Development Agreement being delayed, likely for at least one year. In 2018-19, we would anticipate bringing forward a 2018 Implementation Plan for the Civic Center Master Plan for City Council approval, revisiting with stakeholders the preferred options and phasing for all elements of the plan; library, parking, and city hall. i i I From: Rose Grymes To: Rod Sin Subject: Library matters,City Council agenda 4/4/17 Date: Monday,April 03,2017 11:41:15 AM Dear Rod, The City's Work Plan,to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting,includes an item which specifically articulates a decisional position distinctly different from previous votes taken by the City Council.Since 2015,four options have been considered during civic engagement regarding revision to the Civic Center site.Your Library Commission wrote to the City Council detailing the representative views of the community on all options,and recommended Option 4 as it related to the Library site. Contemporaneously,on July 7,2015,the City Council voted in support of Option 4.Quite plausibly the arrow of time has moved on,however the item cited below makes determinations of critical import to stakeholders without the opportunity for further dialogue and engagement from the community and the Library Commission.My service on the Library Commission has provided a substantial education about residents'views on library services,community needs and interests,and city management concerns.My fellow commissioners,also,are knowledgeable and deeply committed to productive,optimized solutions.As a resident and a commissioner,I urge you to reconsider the specific text cited below in favor of a broader,more flexible Work Plan direction,such as: Following consultation with relevant stakeholders and action by the City Council,design and construct improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies. Respectfully, Rose Grymes Existing text below: Design and Construct one of the following two alternatives,each with three improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies: A) 1)City Hall-Upgrade City Hall with Life Safety(CCMP Option A)plus interior remodel; 2)Library Story Room Expansion-West Wing Addition(Option 1)resulting in a 100-seat capacityprogram room, 3)Parking lot expansion-Option Additional Parking from the approved master plan,adding up to 68 spaces at the east end of Library Field,or B)A new City Hall with below grade parking,no Library Field parking,the Library Story Room Expansion,and community space such as a theatre. In either alternative,the Library Story Room Expansion should not get tied to City Hall remodel or reconstruction.Bode alternatives should include consideration of current solar the options. Total Control Panel Loain To:rsinks(abcuoertino.ora Message Score: 1 High(60): Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. i From: Rose Grymes To: Steven Scharf Subject: Library matters,City Council agenda 4/4/17 Date: Monday,April 03,2017 11:40:40 AM Dear Councilman Scharf, The City's Work Plan,to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting,includes an item which specifically articulates a decisional position distinctly different from previous votes taken by the City Council.Since 2015,four options have been considered during civic engagement regarding revision to the Civic Center site.Your Library Commission wrote to the City Council detailing the representative views of the community on all options,and recommended Option 4 as it related to the Library site. Contemporaneously,on July 7,2015,the City Council voted in support of Option 4.Quite plausibly the arrow of time has moved on,however the item cited below makes determinations of critical import to stakeholders without the opportunity for further dialogue and engagement from the community and the Library Commission.My service on the Library Commission has provided a substantial education about residents'views on library services,community needs and interests,and city management concerns.My fellow commissioners,also,are knowledgeable and deeply committed to productive,optimized solutions.As a resident and a commissioner,I urge you to reconsider the specific text cited below in favor of a broader,more flexible Work Plan direction,such as: Following consultation with relevant stakeholders and action by the City Council,design and construct improvements at lite civic center to address building and operational deficiencies. Respectfully, Rose Grymes Existing text below: Design and Construct one of the following two alternatives,each with three improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies: A) 1)City Hall-Upgrade City Hall with Life Safety(CCMP Option A)plus interior remodel; 2)Library Story Room Expansion-West Wing Addition(Option 1)resulting in a 100-seat capacityprogranh room, 3)Parking lot expansion-Option Additional Parking from the approved nmster plan,adding up to 68 spaces at the east end of Library Field,or B).4 new City Hall with below grade parking,no Library Field parking,the Library Story Room Expansion,and community space such as a theatre. In either alternative,the Library Story Room Expansion should not get tied to City Hall remodel or reconstruction.Bode alternatives should include consideration of current solar the options. Total Control Panel Loain To:sscharf(o)cuoertino.oro Message Score: 1 High(60): Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. i i From: Rose Grymes To: Barry Chana Cc: Jerry Liu Subject: Library matters,City Council agenda 4/4/17 Date: Monday,April 03,2017 11:39:48 AM Dear Councilman Chang, The City's Work Plan,to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting,includes an item which specifically articulates a decisional position distinctly different from previous votes taken by the City Council.Since 2015,four options have been considered during civic engagement regarding revision to the Civic Center site.Your Library Commission wrote to the City Council detailing the representative views of the community on all options,and recommended Option 4 as it related to the Library site. Contemporaneously,on July 7,2015,the City Council voted in support of Option 4.Quite plausibly the arrow of time has moved on,however the item cited below makes determinations of critical import to stakeholders without the opportunity for further dialogue and engagement from the community and the Library Commission.My service on the Library Commission has provided a substantial education about residents'views on library services,community needs and interests,and city management concerns.My fellow commissioners,also,are knowledgeable and deeply committed to productive,optimized solutions.As a resident and a commissioner,I urge you to reconsider the specific text cited below in favor of a broader,more flexible Work Plan direction,such as: Following consultation with relevant stakeholders and action by the City Council,design and construct improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies. Respectfully, Rose Grymes Existing text below: Design and Construct one of the following two alternatives,each with three improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies: A) 1)City Hall-Upgrade City Hall with Life Safety(CCMP Option A)phis interior remodel- 2)Library Story Room Expansion-West Wing Addition(Option 1)resulting in a 100-seat capacity program room, 3)Parking lot expansion-Option Additional Parking from the approved master plan,adding up to 68 spaces at the east end of Library Field,or B)A new City Hall with below grade parking,no Library Field parking,the Library Story Room Expansion,and community space such as a theatre. In either alternative,the Library Story Room Expansion should not get tied to City Hall remodel or reconstruction.Both alternatives should include consideration of current solar the options. Total Control Panel Login To: bchano(cDcuoertino.ora Message Score:1 High(60): Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. �I From: Rose Grymes I To: Savita Vaidhvanathan Subject: Library matters,City Council agenda 4/4/17 Date: Monday,April 03,2017 11:38:34 AM Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, The City's Work Plan,to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting,includes an item which specifically articulates a decisional position distinctly different from previous votes taken by the City Council.Since 2015,four options have been considered during civic engagement regarding revision to the Civic Center site.Your Library Commission wrote to the City Council detailing the representative views of the community on all options,and recommended Option 4 as it related to the Library site. Contemporaneously,on July 7,2015,the City Council voted in support of Option 4.Quite plausibly the arrow of time has moved on,however the item cited below makes determinations of critical import to stakeholders without the opportunity for further dialogue and engagement from the community and the Library Commission.My service on the Library Commission has provided a substantial education about residents'views on library services,community needs and interests,and city management concerns.My fellow commissioners,also,are knowledgeable and deeply committed to productive,optimized solutions.As a resident and a commissioner,I urge you to reconsider the specific text cited below in favor of a broader,more flexible Work Plan direction,such as: Following consultation with relevant stakeholders and action by the City Council,design and construct improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies. Respectfully, Rose Grymes Existing text below: Design and Construct one of the following two alternatives,each with three improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies: A) 1)City Hall-Upgrade City Hall with Life Safety(COMP Option A)phis interior remodel; 2)Library Story Room Expansion-West Wing Addition(Option 1)resulting in a 100-seat capacityprogram room, 3)Parking lot expansion-Option Additional Parking front the approved master plan,adding tip to 68 spaces at the east end of Library Field,or B)A new City Hall with below grade parking,no Library Field parking,the Library Story Room Expansion,and community space such as a theatre. In either alternative,the Library Story Room Expansion should not get tied to City Hall remodel or reconstruction.Both alternatives should include consideration of current solar the options. Total Control Panel Loain To: Message Score: 1 High(60): Pass svaidhvanathan(cDcuoertino.oro My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75): Pass From: Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. I From: Rose Grymes To: Darcy Paul Subject: Library matters,City Council agenda 4/4/17 Date: Monday,April 03,2017 11:36:59 AM Dear Darcy, The City's Work Plan, to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting, includes an item which specifically articulates a decisional position distinctly different from previous votes taken by the City Council. Since 2015, four options have been considered during civic engagement regarding revision to the Civic Center site. Your Library Commission wrote to the City Council detailing the representative views of the community on all options, and recommended Option 4 as it related to the Library site. Contemporaneously, on July 7, 2015, the City Council voted in support of Option 4. Quite plausibly the arrow of time has moved on, however the item cited below makes determinations of critical import to stakeholders without the opportunity for further dialogue and engagement from the community and the Library Commission. My service on the Library Commission has provided a substantial education about residents'views on library services, community needs and interests, and city management concerns. My fellow commissioners, also, are knowledgeable and deeply committed to productive, optimized solutions. As a resident and a commissioner, I urge you to reconsider the specific text cited below in favor of a broader,more flexible Work Plan direction, such as: Following consultation with relevant stakeholders and action by the City Council,design and construct improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies. Respectfully, Rose Grymes Existing text below: Design and Construct one of the following two alternatives,each with three improvements at the civic center to address building and operational deficiencies: A) 1)City Hall-Upgrade City Hall with Life Safety(CCMP Option A)plus interior remodel; 2)Library Story Room Expansion-West Wing Addition(Option 1)resulting in a 100-seat capacityprogram room, 3)Parking lot expansion-Option Additional Parking from the approved master plan,adding hip to 68 spaces at the east end of Library Field,or B)A new City Hall with below grade parking,no Library Field parking,the Library Story Room Expansion,and community space such as a theatre. In either alternative,the Library Story Room Expansion should not get tied to City Hall remodel or reconstruction.Both alternatives should include consideration of current solar the options. Total Control Panel Login- To:dDaulOcuoertino.ora Message Score: 1 High(60): Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level: Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. Lauren Sapudar From: Caryl Gorska < Sent: Tuesday,April 04, 2017 12:17 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Starting on the wrong foot Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Councilman Paul,Councilman Chang,Councilman Sinks,and Councilman Scharf, Please add my letter to the public record regarding a possible Vallco Citizens Advisory Committee. At the City Council's goal setting session on February 26,I spoke about the lack of trust the public has in our city government,and asked that you do some work to rebuild that trust. Well, you're not off to a good start.At that very same goal setting meeting you"voted"to consider a Citizen's Advisory Committee on Vallco,and added a$1 million price tag. I was there; I know what a City Council vote looks like;that did not resemble a CC vote.You may say you the vote was legal—but legal is a too low a bar.The way you did this was not upfront.Nobody I talked to who was there even realized that an official vote had occurred. Now the item has appeared on your work list with the$1 budget already attached to it,as if that figure were a given. I suggest you take a step back and start over with an upfront process. Introduce it as an agenda item for discussion first,with enough advance time for the public to arrange to be there.Please get some community input before making a plan,let alone allocating significant funds for it. After all,what's the harm in making sure you get it right? Is there a hurry? You can only gain good will and earn back a little bit of public trust by doing so.Nothing to lose,something to gain. So what will you do? Caryl Gorska Total Control Panel Lo in To:sscharfna,cunertino.om Remove this sender from my allow list From: You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. j Lauren Sapudar From: Cathy Gordon Harr < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:28 PM To: City Council Subject: $1,000,000 for an Advisory Committee I am a Cupertino resident and am stunned to see $1 million being considered for approval for more Vallco research. Is there a document which describes what we get from this committee (besides large consulting bills). I think more transparency on this topic should be provided to the taxpayers including: - what the goals of this committee are - what deliverables this study will provide - details on the $1 million budget Personally, I would rather the city repave our street which is crumbling than revisit Vallco! Sincerely, Cathy Gordon Cupertino Total Control Panel Login To: citvcounciK cunertino.ore Message Score: 65 High(60): Fail From: cathyghaT@gmail.com My Spam Blocking Level: Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message ryas delivered because the contentfilter score did not exceed your filter leve[. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: United Cupertino <unitedcupertino@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:07 PM To: City Council Subject: A Letter to the Cupertino City Council:Approve the Vallco Citizen's Advisory Committee Can't See This Message? View in a browser UNITEDI CUPEs Sustainable Ai td � rti n l City Council : Approve the Vallco itizen 'sCommittee .... . .... ......... . ............. . .... .... . .... .... . . ... . .... . .... .... . .... .... . .. Residents for a United Cupertino believe that the City Council's proposed Vallco Citizen's Advisory Committee (VCAC) can be a vehicle for providing valuable community input to both the Owner and the City as well as to HEAL our divided Community. If the VCAC follows the process similar to the very successful mediation of the Lynbrook School District dispute, a result that was universally deemed non-partisan, transparent, and community-driven, it will provide confidence to the Community that the outcome is legitimate. After the intense debate of the Initiatives C and D, both of which failed, a VCAC could provide the much-needed RECONCILIATION for the community. The residents for a United Cupertino acknowledge the difficult political environment the Council finds itself. As such, if the Council will seek to empanel a Vallco Citizen's Advisory Committee (VCAC), this Committee must provide an outcome that is acceptable to Citizenry, the Council, and the Owner. Anything less will be a failure and waste of taxpayer dollars. To ensure that it is successful, the residents for a United Cupertino propose the following principles for success: 1. For CREDIBILITY: Council must NOT POLITICIZE the process by participating in anyway such as overseeing selection of members, the rules, or the mediator—your body is by nature political - leave this to the professional City Staff. 2. FOR SUCCESS: Council MUST FULLY FUND the needs of this CAC. Each week Vallco is status quo, the City loses $100,000 per week in potential revenue. 3. FOR SUCCESS: The Process MUST BE THOROUGH AND EXPEDIENT to ensure it gets to the bottom of all these complicated topics without being seen as another process for delay or obstruction. 4. FOR THE BEST OUTCOME: Council must ensure that whatever the outcome, the recommended RESULTS ARE BINDING and without dispute. Surprisingly, "Better Cupertino" agrees with us! The proponents of Measure C and "Better Cupertino" promised their voters a Citizen's Advisory Committee. In a Courier Editorial,just before the election, Liang Chao promised voters that: "... we can form a Vallco Advisory Committee with residents, developers and the city staff to study various options for Vallco Specific Plan."Liang Chao Oct 16, 2016 We encourage the City Council to fully fund a real Citizen's Committee that can credibly speak for the Residents of Cupertino and ensures a successful outcome for what can be the Heart of Cupertino. Join us on Facebook Share Via: More at unitedcupertiors_org Created0 with Wix ShoutOutLove You've received this email because you are a subscriber of this site If you feel you received it by mistake or wish to unsubscribe, click here Total Control Panel Lo in To:citvcouncil(aDcunertino.om Message Score:30 High(60):Pass From:bounces+3348044-3c3c- My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75): Pass citycouncil=cupertino.org@sg.wixshoutout.com Low(90):Plus Block this sender Block sg.wixshoutout.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. i i 3 Lauren Sapudar From: Lisa Warren < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:58 PM To: City Clerk; Grace Schmidt Cc: Lisa Warren Subject: For April 4, 2017 Cupertino City Council Meeting Packet/Record - communications Attachments: October 13, 2014 Letter from Sand Hill Peter Pau BEFORE escrow closes on Vallco.pdf; 2013-12-23 Moulds - Vallco Height 160 ft - Fwd Height.pdf; 2014-02-04 Moulds - at least 800 market rate housing at Vallco - extracted from Vallco Emails GC.pdf; 2014-10-10 Pau - cannot change plan to appease anti-growth FW GPA HE_Vallco (51).pdf; 2014-10-25 Pau _Sinks - Vallco3.pdf, 2014-11-11 Good Job Last Night despite some scare - Re Next steps (108).pdf; 2014-11-12 Pau _ Barry - no one outside immediate Vallco area will fight - Fwd Referendum on GPA decision last night.pdf; 2013-12-21 Moulds - Vallco at 157' for 10 stories Cupertino Height Limits.pdf City Clerk's office - City of Cupertino I have attached eight (8) documents to this email message. I am requesting that all of documents be entered as written communication specifically for the April 4, 2017 City Council meeting. All documents have been obtained through either previous agenda attachments, or from previous public records requests. I am submitting them for this particular meeting so that they are again available to the public and the City of Cupertino in a more current set of documents. Given all of the recent 'chatter' on the subject of Vallco redevelopment and the Mayor's interest in forming a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) that may be specific to the Vallco site, the attached documents (and others) are of great interest to many of the city's residents. They should not be lost in the shuffle. Thank you. Lisa Warren Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To:citvclerk(.cur)ertino.org Message Score: I High(60): From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75): 1':i: Low(90): P,i;; Block this sender Block att.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed yourfilter level. 1 From: Aarti To: Grace Cc: Aarti Subject: Date: Monday, Attachments: Moffet Place Tvoical Moffet Place Pro Aarti mailto:rmoulds(dshlDco.com] To: Aarti Cc: Gary Chao Attached are pro elevation sheets from the Moffett Place pro This is sho an screen Adding a mailto:Aarti ] To: Reed Moulds Cc: Gary Chao Reed, The height is measured from the grade it calculated 1 Aarti Tenants demand i Page 1 j From: "Reed Moulds"<rmoulds(&shoco.com> To: "Aarti Shrivastava"<AartiSla_�cuoertino.oro_> Date: 12/23/2013 3:43:34 PM Subject: Fwd: Height This is one of our preferred office architects. He is doing our Netflix HQ expansion as well as our Stanford RP project. He is active in the valley and in the city.As you can see, he suggests 159.5'all in below. However,if I reduce the upper floors to 14'(as Jay Paul did)and use his shorter notion of a penthouse(13')1 am down to 155'.Of course,9.5'of that penthouse is mechanical and elevator overrun screening,so the 3.5'parapet really is what gives the appearance as the building's max height.So,if we don't have to include the rooftop elements in the height calc,we can live with 145.5'and up. Of course 159.5'gives us the greatest flexibility for interesting design and tenant desired qualities. Begin forwarded message: From: Bob Giannini<baiannini0form4inc.com> Date: December 23,2013 at 10:17:01 AM PST To: Reed Moulds<rmoulds0shoco.com> Subject: Re: Height Hi Reed: Floors in a building like that can go anywhere from 13'-6"floor to floor,to 14'-6". You can get about a 9'-6"floor in 13'- 6"which some developers are OK with(like Hines),but most like at least 10'. So for your estimate we assumes this: 16'first floor(to give the building a good base proportion,and to accommodate some higher uses on the ground floor),then 14'-6"upper floors,plus a 3.5 foot parapet,or 13'for a penthouse. So: 16+9x14.5+ 13= 159'-6" Thanks Bob Giannini,AIA President Form4 Architecture,Inc. 126 Post Street,3rd floor San Francisco,Ca 94106 4152547515 On Dec 20,2013,at 3:27 PM, Reed Moulds<rmoulds0t shDco.com>wrote: Bob, a seemingly random question for you for which I am hoping you can provide a quick answer. If we asked you to design a first class office building in 10 stories, how tall would it be (at parapet and then all-in with rooftop components)? Reed Moulds Managing Director Sand Hill PropertyCcmpany 203 Redwood Shores Parkway,Suite 200 - Redwood City,CA 94065 650-344-1500x110 I I 11 11 2015 From: Georoe To: Piu Ghosh Aarti Gary Chao Subject: Date: Tuesday, FYI From: Reed Moulds [mai Ito:rmoulds@shpco.com] Sent: Tuesday, To: George Subject: Cupertino George, this email serves to indicate Sand Hill Property Company's interest in participating in the City's Housing Element process. As you know we are in contract to acquire one or more of the Vallco Shopping Mall parcels and would like the ability to develop at least 800 market-rate residential units, without age restriction, at the property. Reed Moulds Managing Director Sand Hill Property Company 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 200 Redwood City,CA 94065 650-344-1500 x110 . i Page 1 From: "Aarti Shrivastava" To: "Public Records" <PRA@cupertino.org> Date: 3/24/2015 2:18:38 PM Subject: FW: GPA/HE & Vallco Aarti --Original Message-- From: Peter Pau[mailto:ooaukDshoco.com] Sent: Friday,October 10,2014 7:06 PM To:Aarti Shrivastava;'Reed Moulds' Cc: David Brandt;'Eric Morley' Subject: RE: GPA/HE&Vallco I am very disappointed. I thought we were on the same page as to what is a viable and balanced redevelopment scheme. This is a long term project that will span years,takes huge capital commitment, and is critical to the health of the City. We can't be arbitrarily changing site planning and rolling over to appease some anti-growth factions today. What is the point of studying 2 M sf? —Original Message-- From:Aarti Shrivastava fmailto:AartiS(a)cuoertino.orq] Sent: Friday, October 10,2014 6:39 PM To:Reed Moulds Cc: David Brandt; Peter Pau; Eric Morley Subject: Re: GPA/HE&Vallco Hi Reed, Let us know when you would like us to meet. I'm available anytime after 10:00am. Aarti On Oct 10,2014,at 6:17 PM, Reed Moulds<rmoulds@shpco.com<mailto:rmouldsashoco.com>>wrote: David,are you and Aarti available on Monday to meet with us to discuss staffs recommendation as it relates to Vallco? We are at a critical juncture in our acquisition phase of the 4 sites and view this staff report as a major blow to our redevelopment plans. Considering the many timelines in play,your Monday availability would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Reed Moulds Managing Director Sand Hill Property Company 650-344-1500 x110 Please note the new office address: 2882 Sand Hill Road,Suite 241, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I i 11 11 2015 GmRod Sinks < Re: FW: PC Rod Sinks < Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM To: Peter Pau <ppau@shpco.com> Cc: Eric Morley <eric@morleybros.com> Thanks, Peter, yes I did. Rod On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Peter Pau <ppau@shpco.com> wrote: Rod—we sent this to the City but I am not sure you got it even though you are on the cc list. Obviously, the PC ignored everything we said. We don't think their recommendation to the Council on Vallco make any sense, that is just not how it is done. Were you able to get your video done? From: Peter Pau [mailto:ppau@shpco.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 4:00 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava Cc: 'Reed Moulds'; Imwalle, Miles H. (Mlmwalle@mofo.com); Eric Morley (eric@modeybros.com) Subject: PC Please deliver this to the Planning Commission, thanks. Page 1 From: "David Brandt" To: "Reed Moulds" <rmouldseshpco.com> Date: 11/11/2014 7:13:38 PM Subject: Re: Next steps 9:30 should work. >On Nov 11, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Reed Moulds <rmoulds@shpco.com>wrote: >Should we make it 9 or 915? >> On Nov 11, 2014, at 12:21 PM, David Brandt<Davidb@cupertino.org>wrote: >>Sure. It will need to be quick because I have a 10:OOam upstairs. »-----Original Message----- » From: Reed Moulds[mailto:rmouldsashoco.comj »Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:52 AM >>To:Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt » Subject: Next steps » Great job last night. Despite some scares and challenges we are looking forward to meeting ASAP to discuss next steps and clarify the council's decision and remaining process. Does 930 Thursday morning work for you? » Reed 11_11_2015 Page 1 From: "Barry Chana 4 Cuoertino Citv Council" < . To: "Grace Schmidt" <araces ancuoertino.ora> Date: 4/1/2015 5:26:37 PM Subject: Fwd: Referendum on GPA decision last night? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peter Pau <DDaU(a)shDco.com> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Subject: Referendum on GPA decision last night? To: Barry Chang 4 Cupertino City Council < What is good for you, i am engaged between 12-3 tomorrow, but otherwise free. On Nov 12, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Barry Chang 4 Cupertino City Council < wrote: Hi Peter, Do you have time to meet? Thanks. Barry On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Peter Pau <DDau anshDco.com> wrote: Sound like Mark is being a sore loser. Anything you think we should do, or just leave them alone? Hope they are not serious because it will just be a waste of time. Mark and Andy ran on anti-housing platform and did not finish among the top three (they accuse you, and you finished on top). The Measure M in Menlo Park went down 2-1. The great majority of the people in Cupertino supports Vallco redevelopment, AND they do not live in that area. Once people realize the 1400 units are inevitable, nobody outside of the immediate area and school district will fight. From: Barry Chang 4 Cupertino City Council [ma iIto: Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:04 PM To: Peter Pau Subject: Referendum on GPA decision last night? 11_11_2015 Page 2 HI Peter, I just talk to one of my supporter in Vallco area. He told me that he heard of that CCC, CARE and Mark are talking about putting up a Referendum to overturn city council decision last night. Just be aware. Barry Chang Cupertino City Councilmember www.barrvchana.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. Barry Chang Cupertino City Councilmember www.barrvchana.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. Barry Chang, Vice Mayor City of Cupertino www.barrvchana.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. 11_11_2015 Page 3 11_11_2015 SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY October 13, 2014 Via Overnight Delivery and E-Mail Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: General Plan Amendment: Office Allocation for Vallco Shopping District Dear Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of Sand Hill Property Company("Sand Hill")regarding the treatment of the Vallco Shopping District("Vallco') in the General Plan Amendment. Sand Hill is in the midst of acquiring the Vallco parcels for potential redevelopment, so we are keenly interested in working with the City of Cupertino ("City")to develop a feasible plan that can benefit all stakeholders. I am writing to request that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the General Plan include an office allocation for Vallco of 2,000,000 square feet and the height limits set out in"Alternative C," as analyzed in the draft General Plan's environmental review. Without this specific office allocation,as well as the necessary retail and housing components, there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible for Sand Hill, or any other prospective developer,to successfully redevelop Vallco. Vallco presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment and revitalization that is unmatched in the City of Cupertino. The site sits at a prime location in the City, yet for many reasons, it has long been neglected and numerous redevelopment efforts were either abandoned or have failed. Sand Hill has the financial capacity and proven track record with such projects and is poised to bring to the City what its citizens have long yearned for: a dynamic downtown where the community can live, work and play. Sand Hill plans to completely transform the current derelict site by redeveloping it with a vibrant, sustainable mixed-use neighborhood. Our plan envisions a balanced mix of 600-700 residential units, approximately 600,000 square feet of retail, a full service hotel,and 2,000,000 square feet of office space. The overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented"town center"consistent with the General Plan vision that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects, such as Main Street. sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241• MENLO PARK,CA 94025-(650)3441500-FAX(650)344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13,2014 Page Two The benefits to the City of such a project go well beyond creating a sense of place. With 600,000 square feet,the retail component of the project would be the same size as Santana Row and would generate millions in sales tax revenues way in excess of what is being collected today. Property taxes would also increase significantly,perhaps by 800°/x,given the billion-dollar plus investment Sand Hill is prepared to make in the City of Cupertino. In addition,we recognize that in order to obtain increased height limits for Vallco under Alternative C,projects must comply with the new General Plan's community benefits program. Although our specific project plans are still developing,the community benefits we anticipate providing include ground floor retail components and [transit improvements and amenities, space for public entities, senior housing,construction of a new,or expansion to, a community facility/community gathering place,creation or dedication of new or expanded park, cash in-lieu contribution for such community benefits]. We would also be amenable to exploring,with other property developers,the potential of providing a community shuttle program in order to provide transportation between employment and community centers. As required by the General Plan,these community benefits will be equivalent to at least 15 percent in value of the parcel attributed to the increase in height. The opportunity to transform the Vallco site is now. Sand Hill has a real plan, the capabilities to implement it, and the history of working closely with the City and the community. Prior attempts at Vallco redevelopment have all run into the same problem: full ownership of the site is needed for a successful project, and the current split and passive ownership structure has made parcel assemblage extremely difficult. After nearly three years of intensive negotiations with the various Vallco ownership entities, Sand Hill is now in the process of completing purchases for the entire mail. Single ownership will remove the key barrier to redevelopment that has hampered the site for decades. However,in order to close on the Vallco parcels, Sand Hill needs assurance now that it can build a project that is financially viable. At present,the development allocation recommended in the Staff Report precludes such a project, and thus, a feasible redevelopment of the property. In particular, the Staff Report's recommendations to limit office to 1,000,000 square feet and heights to 75 feet(west of Wolfe Road)and 90 feet(east of Wolfe Road)does not work for our plan,or any plan for that matter. Redevelopment of Vallco is a substantial undertaking. It entails demolition of approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing buildings and construction of an entire new downtown over 50 acres. The General Plan's vision for a redeveloped Vallco is ambitious: a`town center"layout, a newly configured street grid,an expanded Wolfe Road bridge of I-280 to accommodate a bikeable and walkable"boulevard,"a new town square and plazas interspersed throughout. The General Plan calls for high-quality architecture and materials befitting a gateway site. Sand Hill shares this vision,but such elements are all very costly. While retail uses are critical for completing the overall vision, such uses do not support the type of amenities we and the City want to provide. In order for complete redevelopment to sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241-MENLO PARK,CA 94025-(650)3441500-FAX(650)3440652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13, 2014 Page Three be financially feasible, the project must include 2,000,000 square feet of office already studied in the EIR. Further, in order to provide this office square footage, while also respecting the neighborhoods to the west, increased height must be allowed, including up to 160 feet on the east side of Wolfe Road. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the General Plan allocate to the Vallco Shopping District: • 2,000,000 square feet of office space; • Include the site in the Housing Element, including at least 600 units of housing; • 600,000 square feet of retail; and • Heights analyzed in "Alternative C"be permitted(i.e., up to 85 feet west of Wolfe Road and up to 160 feet east of Wolfe Road, with community benefits). Sand Hill is proud of what it has done in the City of Cupertino. We have partnered with the City and the community on a number of successful commercial, retail and residential projects since the 1990's. As with those prior projects,we view Vallco as a long-terns investment. We are a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the City. Main Street is now under construction and will open as a new gathering place in 2015-2016. We look forward to continued collaboration with the City and community in the redevelopment of Vallco. Sand Hill hopes it can build on its previous successes and realize a long-term community vision for a revitalized Vallco. The development team and funding is in place to move forward now. However,we want to be clear with the Planning Commission and City Council that without the necessary office, residential and retail allocations outlined above, we will not be in a position to redevelop Vallco and it will likely continue to languish for decades to come. Thank you for your consideration. pec l y submitted, Peter Pau Principal and Founder sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD,SUITE 241 •MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)344-1500•FAX(650)344-0652 Chair Brophy and Members of the Planning Commission October 13,2014 Page Four Sand Hill Property Company cc: Mayor Gilbert Wong Vice Mayor Rod Sinks Councilmember Barry Chang Councilmember Orrin Mahoney Councilmember Mark Santoro David Brandt, City Manager Aarti Shrivastava,Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director Reed Moulds, Sand Hill Property Company sf-3467260 2882 SAND HILL ROAD, SUITE 241•MENLO PARK,CA 94025•(650)3441500•FAX(650)344-0652 Lauren Sapudar i From: Matthew Miller < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 2:21 PM To: City Council Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) for Vallco I want to express my total opposition to my local tax funds of$1 Million dollars (a ridiculous amount)being spent to fund a CAC just for one developer's project consideration. If we need a CAC, it should be for considering all Cupertino Development projects, not solely for the benefit of one developer, especially this developer, Sandhill Properties, who tried to ram their"Pie in The Sky"project down our collective throats in last year's election. This current under the table activity to create this Sandhill specific CAC reeks of the same behind the scenes activities of the developer friendly organizations and individuals that tried to pass the disastrous D debacle in the last election. I would support a CAC if it cost no more than$250K and was for considering all Cupertino development projects. Also, this CAC should not be activated until after Apple's huge facility is totally on line,probable some time next year. What's the rush on Vallco? There should be no rush until we know what we are dealing with at Apple. Thank you for considering this input. Matthew R. Miller, Sr. Nuclear Physicist (Retired) 43 year resident of Cupertino Total Control Panel Login To:citvcouncilOcuuertino.or¢ Message Score: 1 High(60):Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75):Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block att.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. i Lauren Sapudar From: Alan Penn < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:42 AM To: City Council; David Brandt Subject: CAC for Vallco Dear City Council Members, Both Measure C & D got defeated in 2016, however, city council is trying to help the Vallco developer with so call Citizen Advisory Committee with 1 million tax payer's money. Should the city council ignore over 50% residents who voted down Measure D ? Is last November's vote a joke ? Is that fair ? If city council still decides with Vallco specific CAC, should City of Cupertino also spend 1 million on CAC for Measure C ? spend 1 million on CAC for Oak Shopping Mall ? etc. Besides, what is the rush ? even Vallco owner said he could wait. There will be some impact due to full operation of Apple campus 2. BTW, if this CAC is for Vallco only, city of Cupertino will face the possibility of lawsuit from other developers. For the good of Cupertino, wait until Apple campus 2 is fully operational, then it will be best to have a city wide general plan CAC. Cupertino Resident Alan Penn Total Control Panel Logia To: citvcounci1(a—.cuvertino.or2 Message Score:50 High(60): Pass From: My Spain Blocking Level Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block yahoo.com This message was delivered because the contentfclterscore did not exceed yourfilter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Liana Crabtree < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:24 AM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Discussions from 2/26/2017 Special Council Meeting Did Not Authorize the Formation of a Vallco CAC Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members Chang, Scharf, and Sinks: Please add my letter to the public record regarding the formation of a possible Vallco citizens' advisory committee (VCAC). The purpose of this letter is to identify that the City Council did not approve the formation of a VCAC during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, despite numerous public claims to the contrary. Refer to the end of this message for a link to the recording of the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, and to the transcript of the meeting segment when Mayor Vaidhyanathan conducted a straw vote related to "a process to address Vallco". To view the video recording, either download the recording to your own device, or log in to DropBox using a paid DropBox account and view online. Many thanks to Better Cupertino for sponsoring the live stream broadcast and video archive of the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting. It is unclear why the City would choose not to record such an important meeting, especially given the many public references City officials have made about the "goal setting meeting" since 2/26/2017. The start times in this letter are relative to the beginning of the cited video recording (start time 0:00:00). Discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco" begins at 2:15:25 with this statement from Mayor Vaidhyanathan: "And the other one. The process to address Vallco. I'll wait for Council Member Sinks to talk about that one." Discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco" concludes at 2:52:30 with this statement from Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan: "So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens." One Council Member's priority item number 3, which was not recognized as a shared goal by even one other Council Member, consumed approximately 37 minutes of a 240 minute meeting. How can it be that 15% of the Special City Council meeting on 2/26/2017 was dedicated to this fringe topic? Regarding the concluding statement above from Mayor Vaidhyanathan concerning Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3: i • The "vote" captured above was recorded under the agenda item "Goal Setting". Where is the notice ° to the public that a vote related to the establishment of a "process to address Vallco"would be voted on during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting? • Where is the motion, the second, the definition of what the "process to address Vallco"would or would not include, and the discussion of cost, (except beyond the opinions of a few Council Members asserting that the City should pay for the process)? • How did the statement above from Mayor Vaidhyanathan transform to the following item in the minutes for the 2/26/2017 Special City Council Meeting: "Council agreed on the following items to be added to the Work Program: "4. City-sponsored Vallco Citizens' Advisory Task Force to conduct televised public workshops with experts' participation and researching other cities that have successfully transformed failing malls?" References to a VCAC have become common in the last month, especially from Mayor Vaidhyanathan, as she has referenced or implied, in multiple forums since the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting, that the VCAC has been approved and will move forward. Public references to an "approved" VCAC include comments made at the 3/1/2017 State of the City Address event, the 3/7/2017 City Council meeting, and the 3/31/2017 coffee with State Assembly Member Evan Low. And yet, where is the over-and-done City Council decision to spend tax payer money($1 Million?) on an undefined VCAC? Despite assertions to the contrary, a decision to approve a Vallco citizens' advisory committee does not appear to be found in the activities that occurred during the 2/26/2017 Special City Council meeting. Sidebar: I notice that there is a poll originating from a neighborhood west of De Anza Blvd that asks residents if they support the creation of a Vallco citizens' advisory committee. While western Cupertino can be an area where views tolerant of high density development in eastern Cupertino neighborhoods are common, remarkably, of the 219 people who have responded to the poll so far, 89% oppose the formation of a VCAC. Only 8% favor the formation of a VCAC and 3% have no opinion. City Council, should you decide to move forward with a VCAC that will be funded with public tax dollars, whom are you representing? Evidence is scant that you would be acting in accordance with the needs and interests of a majority of Cupertino residents. If not residents, then whom would be the recipient of this $1 Million VCAC gift? Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident (START Partial Transcript with Footnotes: Special Meeting (Goal Setting), Cupertino City Council, 2/26/2017) LINK to video recording of the Special City Council Meeting, 2/26/2017: https://www.d ropbox.com/s/nvh07nt6uf9we38/Full%20Meeting%20022617.mp4?d l=0 2 Times are approximate. Discussion of item "Process to Address Vallco" begins at 2:15:25. Time for the resolution of the discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco": Start: 2:46:40 End: 2:52:30 Transcript for the resolution of the discussion of Council Member Sinks's priority item number 3, "Process to Address Vallco": Steven Scharf (SS): " And we can move on to something besides Vallco." Savita Vaidhyanathan (SV): "Since there were no checkmarks(1), it was brought up(2), so we are discussing it. So, I am hearing that we would like to have workshops, we would like to have the public present. We do not want the developer to pay for it. And, we would like to have someone who can oversee it who has technical expertise and can facilitate something so that you can call these into a decision that can be then forwarded to the developer." Barry Chang (BC): "Right. And, I want all the meetings to be televised. So, just no mis—" SV: "No misunderstanding and communication." SS: "And I would like research into all these other cities that transformed their failing malls into successful malls. BC: "Yeah, that's good." SV, gesturing to Darcy Paul: "I still haven't heard in the discussion whether you want or do not want the developer present at these meetings." Darcy Paul (DP): "Well, you can't prevent them from going to these meetings." SS: "Right, it's a public meeting—" SV: "And speaking. And speaking. Because—" DP: "They're a stakeholder. They're obviously a major stakeholder, So, yeah, of course, they would be a participant. I mean, it's one of these things where, ah, if they refused to engage then let's just not even sign for your process (unintelligible)—" SV: "So this is building information from people of all walks of life." DP: "Right." SV: "And the second. We talked about the funding." DP: "Right." SV: "Not to come from the developers. I agree with that. Televised, sure. Um, let's say we are talking Vallco. 3 That was my original question. Would you like to have a combined workshop where we talk general? Or, do you want to be specific to one development at a time, or do it holistically and say, `this is what our community wants to see whether you have it in this location or that location—"` SS: "I think it has to be holistically because you are talking about moving office and housing—" SV: "Okay. It's puzzle pieces. It is puzzle pieces. So, it's just (unintelligible) we are extending the scope. Um, but it's always good to have the big picture rather than focus on one and then revise it—" Rod Sinks (RS): "I would be specific. I think it's gonna, this is so broad that you're just back to another General Plan—" SV: "You can be specific to the project that you're discussing, but I think the goal should be to cover all of them. In one given meeting, I'm not saying you take all the projects, but overall you should—" RS: "Could somebody tell me how this is different from the process we ran?" SV: "I think what I'm hearing is the previous process did not have enough public input." DP: "And I agree if it's city-wide it's a massive undertaking. And, you know, personally, I prefer to focus on this because this is 80 acres of space. It is the biggest issue facing our community in this last election cycle, um, and it's not going to go away in terms of, you know, the import to our city of this central space. And, I agree with what Barry is saying it is much better for us to fund this as a city. Now, I will only add that that opens up the possibility for us to really think about things like open space and civic space and how much that would cost. I mean just doing my back-of-the-napkin kind of math, with 20,000 households in Cupertino, um, every $200 Million represents $10,000 from a household. You know, the developer spent $300 Million and we're talking about putting out a Billion dollars as a City. That is the equivalent of$50,000 per household. I mean that is possibly completely illegitimate analysis, but I would like to know, you know, if we are going to engage in this type of process, what are our options." SV: "I am hearing Vallco specific. Council Member Scharf is saying more holistic." SS: "I mean what I see is that other, let's take KT Urban, they saw 'oh my God, Vallco got 2 Million square feet. We are entitled to a comparable amount of square feet of office for, based on the size of our land'. And then someone else is going to come by and say, `yeah, office is the most profitable—"' RS: "I wonder how they feel about being shot down on a 4-1 vote, and then getting told in court that they didn't do it right. So what are they going to—" SS: "Yeah, I don't know if they're going to come back with another—" RS: "Maybe they do, but on a 4-1 vote, we were pretty clear with them about their prior proposal. I think Vallco is the big elephant in the room." (Someone): "I agree with you." RS: "Unfocus it too much, we're just back to (unintelligible)—" SV: "So, we have 3-to-2 on that. Vallco and.two of us wanted it holistically. I am okay with that. We do Vallco first. It is 3-to-2, so there isn't really too much discussion." (Several people speaking at once): "Barry—" 4 SV: "I'm so sorry....From your earlier comments, that's what I—please, please—" BC: "That's okay. I think both sides, you know, has a reason, makes sense. But my concern—" SV: "I would love to—" BC: "My concern is if you go to the whole city, then too many targets to hit at, so I'm afraid you may not be able to accomplish anything. So, and as Council Member Darcy Paul says and also Council Member Sinks says this is the biggest issue that we are facing and the biggest problem that we are dealing with and the initiative and the recall. I'm the one that got it, right? So, I don't want, I want to solve this one. Focus on it and see if we can find a solution and solve it. If we can, we can. So be it. I'll be here less than two years, so—" SS: "My number 2 was to distribute housing and office space—" SV: "So, before we go there, we agreed to do the process to address Vallco. On a 3-to-2 vote, we go to Vallco first. And then see city-wide what happens." RS: "It's 11:20 (am)" SV: "And, since it's 11:20, 1 have (unintelligible) that we finish the actual goals that we've actually checked. So we are going to go ahead with some of the goals, and Minh if you could summarize that for the goals that we, the Council, has already checked." Footnotes (1) Earlier goal setting activity had each Council Member identify his or her top 3 priorities for the City in 2017. Council Member Sinks identified "Process to Address Vallco" as his priority item number 3 for 2017. The reference "since there were no check marks" from Mayor Vaidhyanathan indicates that no other Council Members checked the item as an additional or supported priority for them. (Meeting minutes identify each Council Member's top 3 priority items for 2017.) (2) See how the "process to address Vallco" topic began with Mayor Vaidhyanathan's comment at 2:15:25. (END Partial Transcript with Footnotes: Special Meeting (Goal Setting), Cupertino City Council, 2/26/2017) Total Control Panel Login To: svaidhvanathan a,cuoertino.or2 Remove this sender from my allow list From: You received this niessage because the sender is on your allow list. 5 Lauren Sapudar From: Jerry Liu < Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 4:45 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf Cc: Nancy Howe; Gopal Kumar(Gops); christiel.wang@gmail.com; ragrymes@gmail.com; lianacrabtree@yahoo.com;woamanda@yahoo.com Subject: Library Program Room -April 4, 2017 Council Meeting Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Paul, Councilmember Chang, Councilmember Sinks, and Councilmember Scharf, I am writing about the Civic Center Improvements item listed on page 13 of the proposed 2017-2018 City Work Program, scheduled for an approval vote as Item 8 within the Consent Calendar for the April 4, 2017 City Council Meeting. In both of the design alternatives proposed by city staff, the library program room project is limited to Option 1 (West Wing Expansion). In July 2015, the Library Commission recommended Option 4 (Perch Addition) to the City Council as the best option. On July 7, 2015, the City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan Option D which also included Option 4 for a library program room. The change by city staff in moving from Option 4 (Perch Addition), as recommended by the Library Commission and approved by City Council, to Option 1 (West Wing Expansion) in the 2017-2018 City Work Program was made without consultation with the Santa Clara County Library District nor with the Cupertino Library Commission. I respectfully request the City Council take the following action with regards to the library program room project: 1. Publish the benefit/cost analysis which led to the change from Option 4 to Option 1 in the proposed Work Program. 2. Direct the City Manager to consult with the Santa Clara County Library District and the Cupertino Library Commission in future library program room project planning activities. 3. Revise the library program project description in the Work Program as not to restrict the design to a specific option prior to cormnunity input. The Cupertino Library is one of the most popular and beloved public institutions in our city, and I hope you will take Steps to protect this resource for our residents. i Zespectfully Yours, i Jerry Liu President Cupertino Library Foundation s Total Control Panel Lo in To:sscharf(acunertino.ore Message Score: 15 High(60): Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75):Pass Low(90): Pass I Block this sender Block cupertinolibraryfoundation.org This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Liang Chao < Sent: Tuesday,April 04, 2017 4:31 PM To: City Attorney's Office; City Clerk Subject: Fwd: Follow the Proper Process to Build Community Trust - Re:Vallco Dear City Clerk, Please enter this thread of email communication with the City Council and City Manager into the written communication for April 4 Council meeting agenda for the item on Work Program. Thanks. Liang ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Liang Chao < Date: Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Follow the Proper Process to Build Community Trust- Re: Vallco To: David Brandt<Davidb(cr�,cunertino.ora> Cc: City Council <CitvCouncilacut)ertino.ora> David, I'd like to apologize if my last email sounds too direct. I really appreciate all that you do for the city. I am just trying to ensure that the city council members make their decisions based on accurate information and in a transparent process so that we can build community trust and bridge different views. Thank you. Liang On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Liang Chao < wrote: David, Thank you very much for the prompt response. And thank you for being very responsive even when I was a no body. Really appreciate it. But I do disagree with you. >Both of those discussions complied with the Brown Act. Both of those meetings were open meeting. But Vallco CAC was not on the agenda. There should be no substantive discussion on Vallco CAC. But there were. And it was even announced afterwards as "votes" taken in the Goal Setting meeting. Some members of the public were not able to express their views on the issues not on the agenda. Thus, when the City Council made decisions on non-agenda items, what did they base their decisions on? Informal views from their social circle? I >The Council majority noted that the Vallco site is the only site in the City with a conditionally approved office allocation. i 0 There were other sites with office allocation too in earlier years, like Main Street. Did we have to spend $1 million of r the taxpayer dollars to study those projects? j What's the real reason for Vallco CAC? The city council allocated too much office to Vallco without sufficient public input and without much consideration of the negative impact on traffic in the first place. Now, we have to spend $1 million taxpayer dollars to correct a rash decision that shouldn't have been made in the first place? An easier way is to simply remove the office allocation at Vallco. What's the real reason for Vallco CAC? The developer bought a shopping mall. The developer wants to build as much as possible in order to maximize his profits. In order to figure out just how much Cupertino residents is willing to "put up with" for the profit of one developer, the City of Cupertino is going to spend $1 million of taxpayer dollars on Vallco CAC. That's justifiable? > If the City does not adopt a Specific Plan or other zoning that accommodates housing >by mid-2018 or amend the HE to identify alternate site(s) we will be out of compliance with State law. Sand Hill property can submit a proposal anytime containing 389 units of apartments or condos or they can choose not to. If they don't, the city does have an alternative, Plan B. The ABAG/HCD requirement for Cupertino is only 1002 housing units and the City Council allocated 1400 units. Even if the 389 units allocated to Vallco are all not built,we are compliant with Housing Element. Only about 200 units of the 1002-unit requirement are market-rate housing. In order to be fully compliant with ABAG/HCD requirement, we would have to build all affordable housing for all 600 units at Hamptons and other remaining Housing Element sites. Is that the city's plan? Was the city fully compliant with Housing Element in the last cycle? What happened? Be realistic. Nothing would happen even if the City Council doesn't rezone Vallco by May 2018. So,please be more accurate so that you don't confuse the citizens. Why are we spending$1 million of taxpayer dollars on Vallco CAC? What do we have to rush it through now? Just for a developer to build as much as can be tolerated by Cupertino residents? Just to see how much we can cram into the already congested roadways? That's justifiable? On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:20 PM, David Brandt<Davidb(_a,cupertino.orR> wrote: Hi Dr. Chao, The City Council initially discussed the concept of a CAC for the Vallco site at the annual City Council Goal Setting Retreat which was a publicly noticed meeting which was heavily attended by your citizens group and subsequently discussed and included in the City Work Program which was again a noticed public meeting attended by members of your group. Both of those discussions complied with the Brown Act The CAC project budget will be considered by Council at the April 4th City Council meeting and you can raise you concerns again at that meeting. This issues you have raised about the desirability of having a CAC for development Citywide were raised and discussed at both the previous meetings. The Council majority noted that the Vallco site is the only site in the City with a conditionally approved office allocation. None of the other sites you referenced have either an office or a hotel allocation. The only reason to include them in the CAC process would be to consider increasing the amount of office or hotel rooms at those locations. Given that Council has rejected GPA requests from those developers last year, I don't believe they were ready to reconsider that direction this year. Just my speculation. I think you don't understand the Community Development staffs position regarding the urgency to resolve the Vallco 2 Specific Plan. State law requires that Housing Element sites be rezoned to accommodate house at appropriate densities within three years of Housing Element adoption. Vallco is a Housing Element site for 389 units. If the City does not adopt a Specific Plan or other zoning that accommodates housing by mid-2018 or amend the HE to identify alternate site(s)we will be out of compliance with State law. It is not an internal General Plan requirement. There is no automatic "plan A/Plan B", that mechanism would be unlawful. The City Council will need to affirmatively take action to go from "Plan A" (Vallco) to "Plan B" (Alternate sites). The staff was clear about that mechanism in 2014 when the GPA was adopted. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2017, at 11:11 PM, Liang Chao < mailto: >wrote: Dear City Council Members, I have heard that the City Council "voted" on Vallco Citizens'Advisory Committee during the goal setting meeting. I have heard that the Mayor Savita announced to the audience during a Chamber of Commerce event that the city is going forward with Vallco Citizens'Advisory Committee. I have heard that the city council discussed the format and composition of Vallco Citizens'Advisory Committee in a couple of City Council meetings. I have heard of a budget of$1 million is expected for the Vallco Citizens'Advisory Committee. However, the Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee has not ever been placed on the City Council meeting agenda at all. All of the previous discussions on Vallco Citizens' Advisory Committee are potentially a violation of the Brown Act, the open meeting law, where the council should only discuss items on the agenda. How about Citizens Advisory Committee for Oaks Shopping Center? How about Citizens Advisory Committee for the hotel at Goodyear Tire site? The property owners of both sites and other Housing Element sites deserve the same attention from the City Council as the Vallco's property owner, don't they? The 2017-2018 City Work Program from March 7, 2017 City Council meeting agenda states "Since this is a Housing Element site, a Specific Plan required to be approved by May 2018 per Housing Element law." This is inaccurate! The Housing Element submitted and approved by HCD (Housing Community Development) in May 2015 has a Plan A (including housing units at Vallco) and a Plan B (not including housing units at Vallco). For either plan, HCD does not impose a deadline to require "a Specific Plan to be approved by May 2018". The Work Program and future staff report should not attempt to misinterpret the Housing Element law. The city should not spend$1 million just to develop Vallco Specific Plan, specially not at a time when the divided community needs time to mend and figure out together what's our vision for the entire city. What's more appropriate is a Citizens'Advisory Committee or a General Plan Commission to look at the direction of development in Cupertino. The current General Plan approved in Dec. 2014 was adopted in a rush, during a meeting focused solely on Housing Element. That General Plan was not developed with the assistance of a Citizens' Advisory Committee or a task force as done previously in 2005. This time. Please do it properly. Vallco or any other development site should be considered as a part of a citywide plan, not by itself. Whatever is developed at Vallco would impact other development projects in Cupertino due to the sheer size of the project, unless Vallco remained a shopping mall. i The community was divided after Dec. 2014 because the massive office and housing allocation for Vallco wasn't clearly described on the meeting agenda, which only mentioned "General Plan Amendment." 3 This time. Please do it properly. If Vallco CAC is going to be discussed, clearly describe it on the agenda. If the , agenda item is only on scheduling, do not make any substantive discussion on Vallco CAC. The city had lost some community trust because the deadline of Housing Element for Jan. 2015 was manipulated to push for the entire General Plan to be approved in Dec. 2014. Many Cupertino residents are now well versed in laws regarding Housing Element and General Plan. It would help built community trust if the city staff is more accurate on what's required or not required by law to avoid confusion. Sincerely, Liang Chao Cupertino resident I i Total Control Panel Login To:citvclerka.cunertino.org Message Score: 1 High(60):Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75):Pass Low(90):Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 4 Lauren Sapudar From: Liang Chao < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 4:28 PM To: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office Subject: Fwd: How many people want a Vallco CAC now? Please enter this into the meeting record of April 4 City Council meeting under Work Program, related to Vallco CAC. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Liang Chao < Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:09 PM Subject: How many people want a Vallco CAC now? To: City Council <citvcouncil(a,cupertino.orR>, David Brandt<davidK( cuvertino.or2> Dear City Council Members, Here is the chamee.om petition to re-open the discussion on Vallco. It has only 283 signatures. httvs://www.chanae.org/t)/plenty-of-support-exists-for-a-revised-development-proposal If the community wants to re-open the discussion on Vallco at this moment in time, there would be tremendous more support on such petition. Other change.org petitions easily collect thousands of signatures in a short time. Many supporters of this petition are probably former city council members, commissioners, Rotary club members and members of Chamber of commerce. These people should have a pretty good circle of connections in Cupertino. Yet, they can only get 283 signatures to support their petition. You can see how many citizens "want" to have the Vallco conversation now. If you hear a lot of voices want to "do something with Vallco" within your regular circle of reach, you might want to consider significantly widen your circle of reach since that circle might not reflect the diverse views of the citizens. Thank you for taking a reality check on "voices" in your circle. Sincerely, Liang Chao Cupertino resident Total Control Panel Login To: citvclerkacutnertino.or2 Message Score: I High(60):Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75):Pass Low(90): Pass i Block this sender Block gmail.com i This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From: Liang Chao < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 4:33 PM To: City Atto7ney's Office; City Clerk Subject: Fwd:Vallco CAC -started out as an under the table deal Please enter this as written communication for April 4 council meeting on the Work Program. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message--------- From: Liang Chao < Date: Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:10 PM Subject: Fwd: Vallco CAC - started out as an under the table deal To: Savita Vaidhyanathan<svaidhvanathan(4cupertino.or2> Dear Savita, Regarding your comment.... it's an under-the-table deal or not? It doesn't matter how many emails have been sent to you requesting CAC. The rest of the citizens do not know that the city is even discussing CAC. Not everyone is on Nextdoor. Not everyone is at the Goal Setting or has the privilege to learn what's discussed there. The city didn't even videotape it. Not everyone has attended any Chamber event either to hear your speech. The rest of Cupertino citizens might want to have a say on how to proceed with Vallco or other development in Cupertino. But they are left out of the conversation. I wouldn't even know about any talk of CAC at City Council meetings if I hadn't learned about it from fellow BC members or Minh Le who contacted me directly. There has been no agenda item to discuss CAC of any form and there has been no minute to record the direction from the city council as a result of that open discussion. The way things have been conducted is very non-transparent. Only a few people are pushing the idea of CAC and a few others are saying "Why rush?" But the rest of Cupertino is left out of the conversation. This is what went wrong back in 2014. Whatever is done at Vallco will impact the entire Cupertino. Starting a CAC now is not the only way. There should be a discussion on how to proceed first. Maybe a town hall meeting or a study session. But CAC definitely shouldn't start with a well-formed item on the council agenda with a price tag of$1 million dollars. Please take the time do things properly. If Vallco has been dead for 20 years as some people say, what's the rush? Please also be mindful of your source of information. If people around you are saying the same thing to you, you might want to consider reaching out to different segments of the community to hear more voices. Sincerely, Liang ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Liang Chao < i Date: Thu, Mar 30,2017 at 9:46 PM 1 Subject: Vallco CAC - started out as an under the table deal To: City Council<citvcouncilacupertino.org>, David Brandt<davidb(i�cupertino.org> i Dear City Council Members, The work plan on the April 4 agenda includes this item: Title: Citizens'Advisory Committee(CAC) Objective: Community-centered process on a plan for Vallco. i Progress to date: Pending Council Approval on April 4th to approve a budget amendment to allocate $1,000,000 (FYI6-17) from Capital Reserves to fund a community-centered process on a plan for Vallco and authorize the City Manager to hire consultants as necessary within the budgeted amount. Next Step: Awaiting council direction The objective is the "Community-centered process on a plan for Vallco." Yet, alarmingly, the next step is already "allocating$1 million dollars to the project". Where was the community-centered process that decided that we even need a Vallco CAC? How come we are already allocating and approving a budget to a project that the community hasn't weighed in yet. Isn't this how things went wrong in 2015? Has the question of"how to have a community-centered process" ever been discussed on any city council agenda? Has the question of"whether we need a Vallco CAC" ever been discussed on the city council agenda? What's CAC anyway? How did you allocate a budget before you even discussed what is it? Please don't allocate$1 million dollars to a project when there has been no discussion on whether such a project is even justified. Thank you. Liang Chao Cupertino resident Total Control Panel L29in To: citvclerk(a,cunertino.org Message Score:20 High(60):Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level:Medium Medium(75):Pass Low(90):Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Luke Lang < Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 4:54 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Please follow City Council's own established GPA process Dear Cupertino City Council: Please add this letter to the public record regarding the formation of a possible Vallco Citizen's Advisory Committee (VCAC). The purpose of this letter is to highlight potential legal issues related to the City Council's handling of the VCAC. Vallco is the biggest issue facing Cupertino today. The City Council has lost a lot of trust and credibility over the past couple of years. The November 2016 election result is clear evidence. At least 40% of the Cupertino residents did not approve of the City Council's handling of Vallco and voted for Measure C. Today, the City Council must handle Vallco fairly, impartially, and transparently for all Cupertino residents and developers. To do that, the City Council must follow a clear and consistent process. 1) Forwarded below is David Fung's description of the "gateway" GPA review process that the City Council adopted in 2015. Under this process, it is very clear that the developer has to submit a proposal. This process was followed by Oaks, Goodyear, and Scandinavian Designs. No where does this process say that the City should create and fund a CAC to define the parameters of an acceptable proposal or to help any developer come up with the proposal. If any developer needs help from the residents, they are more than welcome to gather the residents and solicit their opinions. In fact, Sand Hill did exactly that with their open houses, wine & cheese, movie nights, etc. It appears that they didn't listen very well the first time around. So, they should try again. With a Vallco-specific CAC, the City Council is violating its own established process. It also makes Cupertino vulnerable to legal challenges from other developers who were turned down by the City Council without a CAC option. I believe they have a good legal case for unfair treatment by the City Council. 2) In the video recording of the 2/26/17 Council Offsite meeting, I heard Mayor Vaidhyanathan say there is a 3-2 vote in favor of CAC. Mayor Vaidhyanathan also said that the developer shouldn't fund the CAC. Unfortunately, we are not able to find any agenda, motion, voting results, or minutes for such CAC voting. Also, who determined that the developer shouldn't fund the CAC? Such lack of transparency raises serious concern about violation of the Brown Act. 3) In today's (4/4/17) Council meeting agenda, item 8 calls for approval of the City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018. One of the items in the Work Program is the $1 Million funding for VCAC. I'm not sure about legality, but it certainly seems totally inappropriate to separate funding from the actual CAC discussion. Isn't it possible to have a VCAC without any funding? Why jump to such conclusion? Also, as David Fung pointed out, the existing process calls for the developer to pay $1 M for staff review. Why does that become the City (and residents) paying after Sand Hill failed in their initiative attempt? i 4) 1 keep hearing that the residents are demanding a VCAC. Can the City Council quantify how many residents have made such request through any official channel, such as Oral Communication, email, letters, etc. I respectfully request the City Council to examine these legal issues carefully. I also respectfully request the City Attorney to do the same. The City Council must stand on solid legal grounds and follow an undisputed process in addressing Vallco. In addition, any decision reached by VCAC is not legally binding. Sand Hill doesn't have to follow, and I'm not even sure if the City Council would follow. So, what's the point? VCAC is just a waste of time, effort, and money. Also, Cupertino faces major uncertainties regarding what Apple plans to do after the occupancy of Apple Park. Will they grow quickly to fill up the vacated offices? Or will they release the vacated offices? If the latter, who will move in? What is the impact on Cupertino traffic, housing, and school? The City Council cannot ignore these issues, and the CAC won't have the data to make any decision or recommendation. Respectfully, Luke Lang Cupertino resident ----- Forwarded Message----- From: Nextdoor Garden Gate <reply@rs.email.nextdoor.com> To: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Traffic Congestion: What Strategies Bring Relief? X David Fung, Monta Vista South @Kitty - part of the responsibility of serving on a Commission is that I can't talk about my opinions on policy in public forums. We are welcome to communicate facts about issues that might come before us, but opinons become an issue because of the Brown Act. With that in mind, I can tell you about two facts related to your question. First, I recommend that you study SB 50 which addresses how school impact fees can be levied. There are people who suggest that new development should be subject to mandatory taxes to address school impacts. That's actually illegal in Cailfornia. On your other point, you are confusing two different processes. In 2015, the Council adopted a "gateway" GPA review program for new developments that were seeking a general plan amendment. Prior to that time - and including The Hills at Vallco project- a developer was free to submit a proposal to the city's Planning staff for an independent review as part of the pathway to public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning staff either could do the review themselves or would hire an independent external consultant to conduct a specialized review. The applicant reimburses the city for the cost of this review, but can't select the consultants. The Hills at Vallco was going through this process -they never had a formal hearing before the City Council or Planning Commission, but were in the process of a $1 million staff review. The 2015 "gateway" procedure added another step BEFORE the application could submit their proposal to the city. Under this process, applicants asking for a GPA would be grouped together and would have a lightweight review before the Council BEFORE they would submit their proposal for regular review. The intent here was to potentially 2 "weed out" proposals that were unlikely to get serious consideration and reduce the workload on city staff. The gateway procedure doesn't involve studying the proposal in depth, it's just a quick review that discusses why a GPA is being asked for and the magnitude of voluntary benefits being offered in the proposal. If approved in the "gateway" hearing, the applicant can submit their proposal and do a full review. They still have to have the full set of hearings and negotiations, they just have one extra first step. This is the first step that has rejected all three of the projects that came in so far for review- The Goodyear Hotel, The Oaks, and Scandinavian Designs. Had they been approved at the hearings that were held, they would still have to go through the full process with no promise that they would be approved. The message that has been sent so far is that the scale of all three projects was not right for one reason or another so why waste time and money doing a full review? It's not easier for a project to get approved as a result of those changes. Original post by Liana Crabtree from City Center(166 replies): Interesting article in the March 10, 2017 NYT about what does/does not reduce traffic congestion. (START article snippet) "The two (economists featured in the article)went beyond road building to... Mar 10 in General to 18 neighborhoods View or replyThank Private message Not interested in following this discussion? You received this update because you thanked or replied to this post.Stop receiving immediate updates on this post You can also reply to this email or use Nextdoor for iPhone or Android This message is intended for lukelang@yahoo.com. Unsubscribe or adjust your email settings Nextdoor, 875 Stevenson Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, GA 94103 Total Control Panel Lo in To: citvclerk(a,cuvertino.or2 Message Score: 64 High(60): Fail From: My Spam Blocking Level: Medium Medium(75): Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block yahoo.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 3 Lauren Sapudar From: Pam Hershey < Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 8:12 AM To: City Council; David Brandt Subject: Vallco CAC-under table deal Dear City Council Members: On the agenda for the April 4th meeting, the council has listed that the Citizens' Advisory Committee for a plan for Vallco is for the city to approve a budget amendment to allocate $1,000,000. from Capital Reserves to fund a project for Vallco and authorize hiring consultants. How was the community involved in deciding that we need to pay a large sum for a consultant? Why are we allocating and approving a budget that the community hasn't even discussed? This is deja vu from 2015. How was this decided without a discussion at a city council meeting? There may not be a need to spend $1,000.000 for a project that has not had any discussion and maybe not even needed in my opinion. Best regards, Pamela Hershey Cupertino resident Total Control Panel Login To:citvcouncil(a,cuvertino.or2 Message Score:20 High(60): Pass From: My Spam Blocking Level: Medium Medium(75):Pass Low(90): Pass Block this sender Block aol.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1