Loading...
CC 09-07-2021 Item 12 Vallco SB 35 Development Report_Written CommunicationsCC 9-7-2021 #12 Vallco Town Center SB 35 Project – Status Update Supplemental Staff Report Response to Council Inquires   CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  September 7, 2021    Subject  Status Report on the Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Project  RESPONSE TO COUNCIL INQUIRIES    Recommended Action  No City Council action required, although the Council may “accept,” “acknowledge,” or  “receive” the report.    Discussion   This is a supplemental report provided in response to Council inquiries. Much of this  information will also be included in this evening’s presentation.  Inquiries have been  consolidated and simplified for clarity.    1. Why is this update being provided at this time?  City Councilmembers requested a sharing of public information regarding the  Vallco project given the well‐known upcoming September 21, 2021 extension  deadline.  City staff tried to find an alternative special meeting date prior to  September 21, but none were available, so the Mayor approved the City  Manager’s recommendation to place this item on the September 7, 2021 agenda  and to delay as many of the other scheduled agenda items as possible.      2. Who reviewed and drafted the staff report?  A draft of the attachment was requested by the City Manager from outside  consultants and counsel, which was prepared with assistance from City staff. The  attachment was subsequently edited by City staff from Community  Development and Public Works as well as the City Attorney and City Manager;  while factual information was corrected and grammatical changes made, there  were no substantive modifications to the attachment through the review and  approval process.      The summary staff report was then drafted by the City Manager and reviewed  and edited by staff from Community Development, Public Works and the City  Attorney.  The City Manager assumes full responsibility for the content of both  the staff report and the attachment.     Any legal opinions expressed in the report or attachment were provided or  approved by the City Attorney.    3. Why was information on the September 21, 2021 extension included?  While the extension request from the Vallco developer has not yet been received,  it is anticipated by September 14. In the interest of full public disclosure, since  there was no other Council meeting date available prior to September 21, the  report and attachment include information on what is expected to result from  that anticipated extension request.    4. When will more information on any extension request be provided?  The City will post any extension request on its website within one business day,  as well as any determination on that extension request by the City Manager.    5. Can the City Council direct the City Manager to approve or not approve an  extension of the project approval?  It would be premature to do so, as the applicant has not yet submitted their  request for an extension and the basis for their request.  Further, legal counsel  has determined that under State law, the approval rests at the City Manager  level. However, as indicated in the staff report and attachment, City staff and the  City Attorney believe that the project developer will likely be able to submit  documentation indicating “substantial progress” on the project in keeping with  the language and intent of SB 35.    6. What is the status of environmental investigation and remediation on the site?  The environmental investigation and remediation onsite is now the critical path  item for continuation of the Vallco project.  If Vallco had begun full investigation  and remediation of the site earlier, that would not be the case.  However, the site  investigation is now being overseen by the Santa Clara County Department of  Environmental Health (SCCDEH), which has assumed regulatory authority over  any investigation and remediation required for development of the project.     The contamination issues related to this development have grown significantly  over the years as evidenced by the most recent information posted on the State’s  GeoTracker website, which shows more areas and substances of concern. One  page of results is attached and the full site can be reached at:  https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T1000001716 7. A link to the Geptracker site is also available on the City’s website at  Cupertino.org/vallcosb35.    7. Do the ongoing toxics investigations and remediation requirements allow the  City to rescind the prior approval or to reject the extension of the project?  No, based on the advice of both the City Attorney and outside legal counsel.    8. Why is outdated or incorrect information included on the City’s website for  this project?  Staff has been reluctant to remove prior documentation for the project, even if it  was outdated or later determined to be incorrect.  However, with Council  direction and foreknowledge, staff would be willing to undertake that cleanup of  the website at this time.    9. The County Assessor’s website includes maps which are incorrect and do not  show existing public easements.  It is correct that these easements are not shown on the County Assessor’s Parcel  Number (APN) Maps.  The APN maps are solely used for taxation purposes and  do not include easements recorded on a property. Easements are typically  disclosed through the title report process.  No existing public easements have  been vacated on the Vallco properties at this time.    10. Can the City Council reverse the prior approval of the Vallco SB 35 Project for  any reason, including inaccurate or incomplete project information at that time  or inadequate or inaccurate staff reviews and approval then?  No, based on the advice of both the City Attorney and outside legal counsel.    11. Why is there a recommendation to “accept the report?”  No Council action is required at this time.  “Accept the report seemed to be more  neutral than “approve the report,” although both “acknowledge the report” and  “receive the report” would be fine as well, as would a recommendation of “no  action required”.    12. What if permit requests show that the Vallco project is not complying or  fulfilling the prior project approval, such as not meeting the 2/3rds residential  property requirement?  City staff, as well as the City Manager and the City Attorney, will review every  permit to ensure conformance with the approved SB 35 Project.  While minor  modifications occur in almost every project, the City Manager and City Attorney  have informed the Vallco project representatives that any major or substantive  modifications will need to be approved through a process as specified by State  law.     Recommended Action  No City Council action required, although the Council may “accept,” “acknowledge,” or  “receive” the report.    Sustainability Impact  The acceptance of this report will have no sustainability impact. The City is actively  seeking measures such as transit improvements that will improve the sustainability of  the Vallco Project, but as previously indicated, the City was prohibited from conducting  a full environmental review of that project under SB 35.    Fiscal Impact  Direct City costs for plan review and inspections will be covered by fees collected from  the Project. City required impact fees will be collected related to parkland, traffic, and  housing, although the developer contends that it should not pay those impact fees.  General municipal revenues and expenditures likely to result from the Project are  unknown given the limited scope of the City’s review of the Project under SB 35, but  there is a significant risk of a negative fiscal impact of the Project because no  environmental review or mitigation was permitted under State law.  _____________________________________    Prepared by:  Greg Larson, Interim City Manager  Reviewed by:  Staff from Community Development and Public works           City Attorney Christopher Jensen  Approved by:  Greg Larson, Interim City Manager      Attachment  CC 09-07-21 #12 Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Report Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Eric Schaefer <sericar7@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 2:04 PM To:City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:City Council meeting, Sept. 07 2021, item 12: Vallco SB35 extension report Attachments:CCC_2021Sept07_Item12_SB35extension_CommentByEric.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Thank you to City Manager and staff who contributed to the report.   My comment is attached as a PDF document.          ‐‐   Eric Schaefer    “Diversity jolts us into cognitive action in ways that homogeneity simply does not.”  ― Katherine Phillips    Re: Status Report on the Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Project My thanks to the City Manager and staff who contributed to the report. The report confirms issues that concerned residents identified in 2018 with several large projects that were being considered for the Vallco site: - office/housing ratio - water resources in a drought-prone region - the engineering viability and safety issues of a “green roof”—park on top of the buildings - public transit and roads infrastructure - remediation of toxic soil - the developer’s unwillingness to pay standard impact fees The developer’s documented poor planning and execution of the SB35 project isn’t surprising because-- when seen in a broader historical context--the developer’s incompetence is a predictable delay tactic. In 2018, the devloper and his supporters used the SB35 project as an undesireable alternative to other ugly but perhaps somewhat more desireable projects. The larger Vallco Specific Plan project had many of the same issues that the Staff report details in the SB35 project. But the VSP project was a more lucrative project for the developer because it contained relatively more market-rate housing units and more office space than the SB35 project. Nevertheless, a 3-person majority of the City Council ignored residents’ concerns and approved the VSP project. The VSP project was overturned by a popular referendum, residents who were critical of the VSP and SB35 projects were elected to council, and Mayor Vaidyanathan was not returned to the Council. The developer might still use the SB35 project to make other ugly projects look more desireable in comparison. But the effect can not be as great for sober-minded persons who pay attention to the current Staff report. On one hand I would like to see the SB35 project terminated so that we can move on to a better project, and so that the developer can no longer use the SB35 project to make an ugly project look less ugnly in comparison. On the other hand, I understand Staff’s prudence to extend the deadline. I believe it is likely that many issues will remain unresolved after another year and perhaps even more issues will come to light. Again, thank you for the report. Eric Schaefer, Cupertino resident 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 4:52 PM To:Greg Larson; Christopher Jensen; Chad Mosley Cc:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council Subject:Vallco Town Center parcel map WRONG-missing public easements! Attachments:2016-03-09 Parcel Map-Vallco and Main Street.pdf; 2021-09-05 Parcel Map Vallco Town Center - SCC Assessors Parcel Map 316-20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Mr. Larson, Mr. Jensen and Chad,    The parcel map that is currently recorded at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office AND that is displayed on the SCC  Assessor’s Office website is incorrect!  It is missing public easements that were never given up.  These missing  easements are  1. the road around what used to be TGI Friday’s Restaurant   2. Perimeter Road on the west side (APN 316‐20‐120)    Attached are 2 PDFs:  1. Parcel Map‐Vallco and Main Street obtained on 3/9/2016  2. Parcel Map‐Vallco Town Center obtained today, 9/5/2021    These are important and valuable public resources that should not “just disappear”!    REQUEST:  Please correct and update the parcel map ASAP so that people don’t use this invalid information to base  future actions.     Sincerely,  Peggy Griffin  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 10:33 PM To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building Cc:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council; Greg Larson; Christopher Jensen Subject:FW: SB-35 West Side cannot proceed without the East Side CONCURRENTLY! Attachments:Page 58 of Vallco SB-35 Attachment A Approved Plans.pdf; Page 20 of HCD sb-35-guidelines.pdf; HCD sb-35-guidelines-update-final dated 03-30-2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    I forgot to include the following City Staff  +Planning Dept and Building Dept.    Peggy Griffin    From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>   Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 10:26 PM  To: GregL@cupertino.org; ChrisJ@cupertino.org; 'City of Cupertino Planning Dept.' <planning@cupertino.org>  Cc: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; 'City Council' <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>;  PlanningCommission@cupertino.org  Subject: SB‐35 West Side cannot proceed without the East Side CONCURRENTLY!    Dear Mr. Larson, Mr. Jensen, and City Staff,    The Vallco SB‐35 Project MUST move forward using BOTH the EAST and WEST parcels.  It cannot leave residential  behind on the East Side!  (Reference HCD SB 35 Guidelines dated 3‐30‐2021 Government Code Section 65913.4)    It would be in violation of the HCD Guidelines to allow the West Parcel to proceed ahead of the East Parcel because   ‐ There are residential buildings on the East Side that were required to qualify for SB‐35.  ‐ The bridge across Wolfe Rd was counted as “residential amenities” to qualify for SB‐35.    This SB‐35 requirement to have all residential be built “prior to or concurrent with the commercial component” is to  ensure that the promised affordable housing is built in exchange for all the concessions the developer receives.   Allowing a portion of the promised housing to not be built but giving the concessions defeats the purpose of SB‐35.   Also, it opens the door to allow the possible sale of the East Parcel before the project is completed.    Below are the facts that support what I’m saying.  Please take the time to review them.  It’s the law!    Sincerely,  Peggy Griffin    P.S. Attached is the PDF of   ‐ Page 58 of the approved SB‐35 plans showing the cross section of housing (YELLOW), office (BlUE), retail (PINK).  ‐ Page 20 of the approved Vallco SB‐35 plans  ‐ HCD’s Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process dated 3‐30‐2021.       2   LINK to HCD’s Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process   Government Code Section 65913.4  i.e. SB 35 Guidelines dated 03‐30‐2021  Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (ca.gov)      PDF PAGE 20 of 32 of the above government code reads    NOTE:  This above requirement was also in previous SB‐35 Guidelines.  It’s not new!      LINK TO APPROVED VALLCO TOWN CENTER’S SB‐35 PLANS:  Attachment A Approved Plans (cupertino.org)    PAGE 58 of 260 of Approved Plans  The plans on Page 58 show a cross section of the SB‐35 Project.    There are 4 lines on the main page, each showing a cross section of the project, starting from the NORTH and moving  SOUTH.  In the far lower righthand corner of Page 58, is the following diagram showing you this cross section.  The  highlighted lines show where these cross sections are taken.  Starting with line 1 being the North‐most or top line and  line 4 being the South‐most or bottom line.  3   DARK YELLOW = Residential  LIGHT YELLOW = Residential amenities  BLUE = Office  PINK = Retail    NOTE:  In order for the Vallco SB‐35 Project to qualify it needed to meet the 2/3rds residential square footage.  This  required   ‐ the inclusion of the bridge across Wolfe Road and  ‐ residential on BOTH SIDES of Wolfe Road      4       Department of Housing and Community Development Page 17 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (c) At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development shall be designated for residential use: (1) For purposes of these Guidelines, the two-thirds calculation is based upon the proportion of gross square footage of residential space and related facilities, as defined in Section 102(w), to gross development building square footage for an unrelated use such as commercial. Structures utilized by both residential and non- residential uses shall be credited proportionally to intended use. (A) Additional density, floor area, and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law shall be included in the square footage calculation. (B) The square footage of the development shall not include non-habitable underground space, such as basements or underground parking garages. (2) Both residential and non-residential components of a qualified mixed-use development are eligible for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. Additional permitting requirements pertaining to the individual business located in the commercial component (e.g., alcohol use permit or adult business permit) are subject to local government processes. (3) When the commercial component is not part of a vertical mixed-use structure, construction of the residential component of a mixed-use development shall be completed prior to, or concurrent with, the commercial component. (d) The development is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time of the development application submittal per Section 300 of these Guidelines, provided that any modifications to density or other concessions, incentives, or waivers granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law shall be considered consistent with such objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a) and (b). Section 401. Site Requirements The development proponent shall demonstrate in the application that, as of the date the application is submitted, the proposed development is located on a site that meets the following criteria: (1) The site is a legal parcel, or parcels, located in either: (A) A city where the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or (B) An unincorporated area where the area boundaries are wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (2) The site meets the definition of infill as defined by Section 102(j) of these Guidelines. DP-2018-02 09/21/18 Piu Ghosh Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Government Code Section 65913.4 Guidelines State of California Governor Gavin Newsom Lourdes M. Castro Ramírez, Secretary Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency Gustavo Velasquez, Director California Department of Housing and Community Development Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development Division of Housing Policy Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 Originally issued November 29, 2018 March 30, 2021 The matters set forth herein are regulatory mandates, and are adopted in accordance with the authorities set forth below: Quasi-legislative regulations … have the dignity of statutes … [and]… delegation of legislative authority includes the power to elaborate the meaning of key statutory terms… Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal. 4th 785, 800 (1999) The Department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (j) Government Code section 65913.4 relates to the resolution of a statewide concern and is narrowly tailored to limit any incursion into any legitimate municipal interests, and therefore the provisions of Government Code section 65913.4, as supplemented and clarified by these Guidelines, are constitutional in all respects and preempt any and all inconsistent laws, ordinances, regulations, policies or other legal requirements imposed by any locality. Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Program Guidelines Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................... 2 Section 100. Purpose and Scope ................................................................................. 2 Section 101. Applicability .............................................................................................. 2 Section 102. Definitions ................................................................................................ 2 ARTICLE II. STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROCESS DETERMINATION............................................................................................................. 5 Section 200. Methodology ............................................................................................ 5 Section 201. Timing and Publication Requirements ...................................................... 7 ARTICLE III. APPROVAL PROCESS ............................................................................... 7 Section 300. Local Government Responsibility ............................................................ 7 Section 301. Development Review and Approval ....................................................... 11 ARTICLE IV. DEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY ................................................................... 16 Section 400. Housing Type Requirements ................................................................. 16 Section 401. Site Requirements ................................................................................. 17 Section 402. Affordability Provisions ........................................................................... 22 Section 403. Labor Provisions .................................................................................... 24 Section 404. Additional Provisions.............................................................................. 28 ARTICLE V. REPORTING .............................................................................................. 28 Section 500. Reporting Requirements ........................................................................ 28 Department of Housing and Community Development Page 1 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines INTRODUCTION Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017 (SB 35, Wiener) was part of a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it requires the availability of a Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for developments in localities that have not yet made sufficient progress towards their allocation of the regional housing need. Eligible developments must include a specified level of affordability, be on an infill site, comply with existing residential and mixed-use general plan or zoning provisions, and comply with other requirements such as locational and demolition restrictions. The intent of the legislation is to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing. In addition, as part of the legislation, the Legislature found ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and declared that the provisions of SB 35 would apply to all cities and counties, including a charter city, a charter county, or a charter city and county. Please note, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) may take action in cases where these Guidelines are not adhered to under its existing accountability and enforcement authority. In addition, please also be aware that these Guidelines do not fully incorporate statutory changes to the law made by Chapter 166, Statutes of 2020 (AB 168) and Chapter 194, Statutes of 2020 (AB 831) at this time, which require, among other things, pre-application tribal scoping consultation. Changes required by AB 168 and AB 831 will be more fully incorporated in a subsequent version of these Guidelines, which are expected to be prepared and circulated in 2021. Developers and local governments using these Guidelines should refer to Government Code section 65913.4 to comply with these new mandates. Guidelines for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process are organized into five Articles, as follows: Article I. General Provisions: This article includes information on the purpose of the Guidelines, applicability, and definitions used throughout the document. Article II. Determination Methodology: This article describes the methodology for which the Department shall determine which localities are subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. Article III. Approval Process: This article describes the parameters of the approval process, including local government responsibilities, approval processes, and general provisions. 1) Local Government Responsibility – This section specifies the types of requirements localities may require a development to adhere to in order to determine consistency with general plan and zoning standards, including objective standards, controlling planning documents, and parking. 2) Development Review and Approval – This section details the types of hearings and review allowed under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, timing provisions for processing and approving an application, denial requirements, and timeframes related to the longevity of the approval. Article IV. Development Eligibility: This article describes the requirements for developments in order to apply for streamlining, including type of housing, site requirements, affordability provisions, and labor provisions. Article V. Reporting: This article describes reporting requirements specific to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process in the locality’s Annual Progress Report on the general plan. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 2 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 100. Purpose and Scope These Guidelines (hereinafter “Guidelines”) implement, interpret, and make specific the Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017 (SB 35, Wiener), and subsequent amendments (hereinafter “Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process”) as authorized by Government Code section 65913.4. These Guidelines establish terms, conditions, and procedures for a development proponent to submit an application for a development to a locality that is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process provided by Government Code section 65913.4. Nothing in these Guidelines relieves a local government from the obligation to follow state law relating to the availability of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. It is the intent of the Legislature to provide reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Therefore, these Guidelines shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of increasing housing supply. These Guidelines shall remain in effect until January 1, 2026, and as of that date are repealed. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65582.1 and 65913.4(n) and (o). Section 101. Applicability The provisions of Government Code section 65913.4 are effective as of January 1, 2018. These Guidelines are applicable to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2019, including applications submitted for modification to a development per Section 301(c). Subsequent updates to the Guidelines are applicable to applications submitted on or after the date adopted as shown on the cover page. Nothing in these Guidelines may be used to invalidate or require a modification to a development approved through the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process prior to the effective date. These Guidelines are applicable to counties and cities, including both general law and charter cities, including a charter city and county. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(k)(6). Section 102. Definitions All terms not defined below shall, unless their context suggests otherwise, be interpreted in accordance with the meaning of terms described in Government Code section 65913.4 (a) “Annual Progress Report (APR)” means the housing element Annual Progress Report required by Government Code section 65400, and due to the Department April 1 of each year, reporting on the prior calendar year’s permitting activities and implementation of the programs in a local government’s housing element. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 3 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (b) “Application” means a submission requesting Streamlined Ministerial Approval pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 and these Guidelines, which contains information pursuant to Section 300(b) describing the development’s compliance with the criteria outlined in Article IV of these Guidelines. (c) “Area Median Income (AMI)” means the median family income of a geographic area of the state, as determined annually by the Department within the state income limits: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/index.shtml. (d) “Car share vehicle” is an automobile rental model where people rent cars from a car- sharing network, or an exclusive car provided by the project, to be located in a designated area within the project, for roundtrip or one-way, where vehicles are returned to a dedicated or reserved parking location. An example of such a service is Zipcar or car(s) provided by the project. If the project provides an exclusive car, it shall do so at a ratio of at least one car per every 50 units. (e) “Density Bonus” has the same meaning as set forth in Government Code section 65915. (f) “Department” means the California Department of Housing and Community Development. (g) “Determination” means the published identification, periodically updated, by the Department of those local governments that are required to make the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process available per these Guidelines. (h) “Development proponent” or “applicant” means the owner of the property, or person or entity with the written authority of the owner, that submits an application for streamlined approval. (i) “Fifth housing element planning period” means the five or eight-year time period between the due date for the fifth revision of the housing element and the due date for the sixth revision of the housing element pursuant to Government Code section 65588(f). (j) “Infill” means at least 75 percent of the linear measurement of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this definition, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (k) “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including a charter city and county. (l) “Low-income” means households earning 50 to 80 percent of AMI. (m) “Lower-income” means households earning 80 percent or less of AMI pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50079.5. (n) “Ministerial processing” or “ministerial approval” means a process for development approval involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the "objective zoning standards," "objective subdivision standards," and "objective design review standards" in effect at the time that the application is submitted to the local government, but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 4 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (o)“Moderate-income housing units” means housing units with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for persons and families of moderate income pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50093. (p)“Multifamily” means a housing development with two or more attached residential units. This includes mixed-use projects as stated in Section 400(a). The definition does not include accessory dwelling units unless the project is for new construction of a single- family home with attached accessory dwelling units. Please note, accessory dwelling units have a separate permitting process pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2. (q)“Objective standards” or “objective planning standards” means an objective zoning, objective subdivision and objective design review standard as those terms are defined in Section 102(r). (r)“Objective zoning standard”, “objective subdivision standard”, and “objective design review standard” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the applicant or development proponent and the public official prior to submittal, and includes only such standards as are published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission of a development application. (s)“Project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. (t)“Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge a set fare, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (u)“Public works project” means developments which meet the criteria of Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code. (v)“Regional housing need” means the local government’s share of the regional housing need allocation as determined by Article 10.6 of the Government Code. (w)"Related facilities" means any manager's units and any and all common area spaces that are included within the physical boundaries of the housing development, including, but not limited to, common area space, walkways, balconies, patios, clubhouse space, meeting rooms, laundry facilities, and parking areas that are exclusively available to residential users, except any portions of the overall development that are specifically commercial space. (x)“Reporting period” means the timeframe for which APRs are utilized to create the determination for which a locality is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. The timeframes are calculated in relationship to the planning period of the housing element pursuant to Government Code section 65588 and are cumulative through the most recent calendar year. (y)“San Francisco Bay Area” means the entire area within the territorial boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San Francisco. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 5 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (z) “Skilled and trained workforce” has the same meaning as provided in Chapter 2.9 (commencing with section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. (aa) “Subsequent permit” means any permit required subsequent to receiving approval under Section 301, and includes, but is not limited to, demolition, grading, encroachment permits, approval of sign programs, and tree removal permits, building permits, and final maps, as necessary. (bb) “Subsidized” means units that are price or rent restricted such that the units are affordable to households meeting the definitions of very low and lower income, as defined in Sections 50079.5 and 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. A local agency shall not reduce maximum rent below that specified in Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5 and 50105. (cc) “Tenant” means a person who occupies land or property rented or leased for use as a residence. (dd) “Urban uses” means any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses. (ee) “Very low-income” means households earning less than 50 percent or less of AMI pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50105. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4. ARTICLE II. STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PROCESS DETERMINATION Section 200. Methodology (a) The Department will calculate the determination, as defined in Section 102(g), based on permit data received through the most recent APRs provided to the Department for the mid-point of the housing element planning period pursuant to Government Code section 65488 and at the end point of the planning period. (1) APRs, as defined in Section 102(a), report on calendar years, while housing element planning periods may begin and end at various times throughout the year. When a planning period begins after July, the APR for that year is attributed to the prior housing element planning period. When the planning period ends before July 1, the APR for that year will be attributed to the following housing element planning period. (b) The determination is based on permitting progress toward a pro-rata share of the regional housing need for the reporting period. (1) Determinations calculated at the mid-point of the planning period are based upon permitting progress toward a pro-rata share of half (50 percent) of the regional housing need, while determinations calculated at the end of the planning period are based upon permitting progress towards the entirety (100 percent) of the regional housing need. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 6 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (2) For localities, as defined in Section 102(k), on a 5-year planning period, the mid- point determination is based upon a pro-rata share of the regional housing need for the first three years in the planning period, and 60 percent of the regional housing need. (3) The determination applies to all localities beginning January 1, 2018, regardless of whether a locality has reached the mid-point of the fifth housing element planning period. For those local governments that have achieved the mid-point of the fifth housing element planning period, the reporting period includes the start of the planning period until the mid-point, and the next determination reporting period includes the start of the planning period until the end point of the planning period. In the interim period between the effective date of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, until a locality reaches the mid-point in the fifth housing element planning period, the Department will calculate the determination yearly. This formula is based upon the permitting progress towards a pro-rata share of the regional housing need, dependent on how far the locality is in the planning period, until the mid-point of the fifth housing element planning period is reached. See example below. Example Calculation For a locality two years into the reporting period, the determination is calculated at two out of eight years of the planning period and will be based upon a pro-rata share of two-eighths, or 25 percent, of the regional housing need, and the following year, for the same locality, the determination will be calculated at three out of eight years of the planning period based upon a pro-rata share of three-eighths, or 37.5 percent, of the regional housing need, and the following year for the same locality the determination will be calculated at four out of eight years of the planning period based upon a pro-rata share of four-eighths, or 50 percent, of the regional housing need. At that point, the locality will reach its mid-point of the planning period and the determination, the pro-rata share, and the permitting progress toward the pro-rata share will hold until the locality reaches the end-point of the planning period. (c) To determine if a locality is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for developments with 10 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, or the 20 percent moderate income option if the site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area as defined in Section 102(y), the Department shall compare the permit data received through the APR to the pro-rata share of their above-moderate income regional housing need for the current housing element planning period. If a local government has permitted less than the pro-rata share of their above-moderate income regional housing need, then the jurisdiction will be subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for developments with 10 percent affordability or the 20 percent moderate income option if the site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area. (d) Local governments that do not submit their latest required APR prior to the Department’s determination are subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for developments with 10 percent of units affordable to lower-income households or the 20 percent moderate income option if the site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area. (e) To determine if a locality is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for developments with 50 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, the Department shall compare the permit data received through the APR to the pro-rata share of their independent very low- and low-income regional housing need for the Department of Housing and Community Development Page 7 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines current housing element planning period. If a local government has permitted the pro-rata share of their above-moderate income regional housing need, and submitted their latest required APR, but has permitted less than the pro-rata share of their very low- and lower- income regional housing need, they will be subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for developments with 50 percent affordability. For purposes of these Guidelines, as the definition of lower-income is inclusive of very low-income units, very low-income units permitted in excess of the very low-income need may be applied to demonstrate progress towards the lower-income need. However, as the definition of very low-income units does not include low-income units, low-income units permitted in excess of the low- income need shall not be applied to demonstrate progress towards the very low-income need. (f) To determine if a locality is not subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, the permit data from the APR shall demonstrate that the locality has permitted the entirety of the pro-rata share of units for the above moderate-, low-, and very low-income categories of the regional housing need for the relevant reporting period, and has submitted the latest APR. (g) The Department’s determination will be in effect until the Department calculates the determination for the next reporting period, unless updated pursuant to Section 201. A locality’s status on the date the application is submitted determines whether an application is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, and also determines which level of affordability (10 or 50 percent) an applicant must provide to be eligible for streamlined ministerial permitting. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a)(4). Section 201. Timing and Publication Requirements The Department shall publish the determination by June 30 of each year, accounting for the APR due April 1 of each year, though this determination may be updated more frequently based on the availability of data, data corrections, or the receipt of new information. The Department shall publish the determination on the Department’s website. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a)(4). ARTICLE III. APPROVAL PROCESS Section 300. Local Government Responsibility After receiving a notice of intent to submit an application for a Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, and prior to accepting an application for a Streamlined Ministerial Approval process, the local government must complete the tribal consultation process outlined in Government Code section 65913.4(b). The notice of intent shall be in the form of a preliminary application that includes all of the information described in Government Code section 65941.1. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 8 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines A local government that has been designated as subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process by the Department shall provide information, in a manner readily accessible to the general public, about the locality’s process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, materials required for an application as defined in Section 102(b), and relevant objective standards to be used to evaluate the application. In no case shall a local government impose application requirements that are more stringent than required for a final multifamily entitlement or standard design review in its jurisdiction. The information provided may include reference documents and lists of other information needed to enable the local government to determine if the application is consistent with objective standards as defined by Section 102(q). A local government may only require information that is relevant to and required to determine compliance with objective standards and criteria outlined in Article IV of these Guidelines. This may be achieved through the use of checklists, maps, diagrams, flow charts, or other formats. The locality’s process and application requirements shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, which must be strictly focused on assessing compliance with the criteria required for streamlined projects in Article IV of these Guidelines. (1) Where a local government has failed to provide information pursuant to subsection (a) about the locality’s process for applying and receiving ministerial approval, the local government shall accept any application that meets the requirements for a standard multifamily entitlement submittal and that contains information showing how the development complies with the requirements of Article IV. The application may include use of a list of the standards, maps, diagrams, flow charts, or other formats to meet these requirements. Determination of consistency (1) When determining consistency with objective zoning, subdivision, or design review standards, the local government shall only use those standards that meet the definition referenced in Section 102(q). For example, design review standards that require subjective decision-making, such as consistency with “neighborhood character,” shall not be applied as an objective standard unless “neighborhood character” is defined in such a manner that is non-discretionary. Example Objective Design Review Objective design review could include use of specific materials or styles, such as Spanish-style tile roofs or roof pitches with a slope of 1:5. Architectural design requirements such as “craftsman style architecture” could be used so long as the elements of “craftsman style architecture” are clearly defined (e.g., “porches with thick round or square columns and low-pitched roofs with wide eaves”), ideally with illustrations. (2) A standard that requires a general plan amendment, the adoption of a specific plan, planned development zoning, or another discretionary permit or approval does not constitute an objective standard. A locality shall not require a development proponent to meet any standard for which the locality typically exercises subjective discretion, on a case-by-case basis. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 9 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (3) Modifications to objective standards granted as part of a density bonus, concession, incentive, parking reduction, or waiver of development standards pursuant to Density Bonus Law Government Code section 65915, or a local density bonus ordinance, shall be considered consistent with objective standards. (4) Project eligibility for a density bonus concession, incentive, parking reduction, or waiver of development standards shall be determined consistent with Density Bonus Law. (5) Objective standards may include objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, including, but not limited to, the general plan, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (6) In the event that objective zoning, general plan, subdivision, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the objective standards pursuant to Section 400(c) of these Guidelines if the development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general plan. (A) In no way should this paragraph be used to deem an application ineligible for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process when the project’s use is consistent with Section 401(a)(3). (7) Developments are only subject to objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards enacted and in effect at the time that the application is submitted to the local government. (8) Determination of consistency with objective standards shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing supply. For example, design review standards or other objective standards that serve to inhibit, chill, or preclude the development of housing under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process are inconsistent with the application of state law. Density calculation (1) When determining consistency with density requirements, a development that is compliant with up to the maximum density allowed within the land use element designation of the parcel in the general plan is considered consistent with objective standards. For example, a development on a parcel that has a multifamily land use designation allowing up to 45 units per acre is allowed up to 45 units per acre regardless of the density allowed pursuant to the zoning code. In addition, the development may request a density of greater than 45 units per acre if eligible for a density bonus under Density Bonus Law. (2) Growth, unit, or other caps that restrict the number of units allowed in the proposed development or that expressly restricts the timing of development may be applied only to the extent that those caps do not inhibit the development’s ability to achieve the maximum density allowed by the land use designation, and any density bonus the project is eligible for, and do not restrict the issuance of building permits for the project. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 10 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (3) Additional density, floor area, or units granted as a density bonus shall be considered consistent with maximum allowable densities. (4) Development applications are only subject to the density standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government. Parking requirements (1) Automobile parking standards shall not be imposed on a development that meets any of the following criteria: (A) The development is located where any part of the parcel or parcels on which the development is located is within one-half mile of any part of the parcel or parcels of public transit, as defined by Section 102(t) of these Guidelines. (B) The development is located within a district designated as architecturally or historically significant under local, state, or federal standards. (C) When on-street parking permits are required, but not made available to the occupants of the development. (D) When there is a car share vehicle, (i.e., a designated location to pick up or drop off a car share vehicle as defined by Section 102(d),) within one block of the development. A block can be up to 1,000 linear feet of pedestrian travel along a public street from the development. (2) For all other developments, the local government shall not impose automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space per unit. A local government shall not adopt or impose any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, or rent levels other than what is defined for very-low income, lower-income, and moderate-income in Section 102, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive streamlined processing. (1) A local government shall not deny a project access to local housing funds, including housing trust funds, or state housing funds solely on the basis that the project is eligible to receive streamlined processing. (2) This section should not be construed to preclude a jurisdiction from waving, reducing, or otherwise reducing fees and other costs for the project in an effort to facilitate lower project costs. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a), (e), and (n). Department of Housing and Community Development Page 11 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines Section 301. Development Review and Approval Ministerial processing (1) Ministerial approval, as defined in Section 102(n), of a project that complies with Article IV of these Guidelines shall be non-discretionary and cannot require a conditional use permit or other discretionary local government review or approval. (2) Ministerial design review or public oversight of the application, if any is conducted, may be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as appropriate. (A) Design review or public oversight shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution by a local government before submission of the development application, and shall be broadly applicable to development within the locality. (B) If a local government determines that a development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, it shall provide the development proponent, as defined in Section 102(h), written documentation in support of its denial identifying with specificity the standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, within the timeframe specified in Section 301(b)(2) below. If the application can be brought into compliance with minor changes to the proposal, the local government may, in lieu of making the detailed findings referenced above, allow the development proponent to correct any deficiencies within the timeframes for determining project consistency specified in Section 301(b)(4) below. (C) When determining consistency, a local government shall find that a development is consistent with the objective planning standards if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective standards. The local government may only find that a development is inconsistent with one or more objective planning standards, if the local government finds no substantial evidence in favor of consistency and that, based on the entire record, no reasonable person could conclude that the development is consistent with the objective standards. (3) A determination of inconsistency with objective planning standards in Section 301(b)(3)(A) does not preclude the development proponent from correcting any deficiencies and resubmitting an application for streamlined review, or from applying for the project under other local government processes. If the development proponent elects to resubmit its application for streamlined review under that Section, the timeframes specified in Section 301(b) below shall commence on the date of resubmittal. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 12 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (4) Approval of ministerial processing does not preclude imposing standard conditions of approval as long as those conditions are objective and broadly applicable to development within the locality, regardless of streamlined approval, and such conditions implement objective standards that had been adopted prior to submission of a development application. This includes any objective process requirements related to the issuance of a building permit. However, any further approvals, such as demolition, grading and building permits or, if required, final map, shall be issued on a ministerial basis subject to the objective standards. (A) Notwithstanding Paragraph (5), standard conditions that specifically implement the provisions of these Guidelines, such as commitment for recording covenant and restrictions and provision of prevailing wage, may be included in the conditions of approval. (5) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to the following in connection with projects qualifying for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: (A) Actions taken by a state agency, local government, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to lease, convey, or encumber land or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by the local government, or for the lease of land owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in association with an eligible transit oriented development project, as defined pursuant to section 29010.1 of the Public Utilities Code, nor to any decisions associated with that lease. (B) Actions taken by a state agency or local government to provide financial assistance to a development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income. (C) Approval of improvements located on land owned by the local government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District that are necessary to implement a development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this section where such development is to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (D) The determination of whether an application for a development is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. Upon a receipt of an application, the local government shall adhere to the following: (1) An application submitted hereunder shall be reviewed by the agency within the timeframes required under paragraph (2) below whether or not it contains all materials required by the agency for the proposed project, and it is not a basis to deny the project if either: (A) The application contains sufficient information for a reasonable person to determine whether the development is consistent, compliant, or in conformity with the requisite objective standards (outlined in Article IV of these Guidelines); or Department of Housing and Community Development Page 13 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (B) The application contains all documents and other information required by the local government as referenced in Section 300(a) of these Guidelines. (2) Local governments shall make a determination of consistency, as described in Section 301(a)(3), as follows: (A) Within 60 calendar days of submittal of the application to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units. (B) Within 90 calendar days of submittal of the application to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units. (C) Documentation of inconsistency(ies) with objective standards must be provided to the development proponent within these timeframes. If the local government fails to provide the required documentation determining consistency within these timeframes, the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards and shall be deemed consistent. (3) Notwithstanding Section 301(b)(2), design review or public oversight may be conducted by the local government’s city council, board of supervisors, planning commission, or any equivalent board or commission, as described in Section 301(a)(2), and shall be completed as follows: (A) Within 90 calendar days of submittal of the application to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units. (B) Within 180 calendar days of submittal of the application to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units. (C) Although design review may occur in parallel with or as part of the consistency determination set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, failure to meet subjective design review standards or obtain design review approval from the oversight board shall not in any way inhibit, chill, stall, delay, or preclude a project from being approved for development pursuant to these Guidelines if objective design review standards are met. This means that discussion or consideration of the application shall only relate to design standards that meet the definition of objective pursuant to Section 102(r). If the local government fails to complete design review within the timeframes provided above, the project is deemed consistent with objective design review standards. (4) Approval timelines: Local government must determine if an application for a Streamlined Ministerial Approval complies with requirements and approve or deny the application pursuant to these Guidelines as follows: (A) Within 90 calendar days of submittal of the application to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains 150 or fewer housing units. (B) Within 180 calendar days of submittal of the application to the local government pursuant to this section if the development contains more than 150 housing units. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 14 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (5) Timeframes for determining project eligibility for a density bonus concession, incentive, parking reduction, or waiver of development standards or protections of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) shall be subject to the timeframes outlined in paragraph (2) and (3) above. Modifications to the development subsequent to the approval of the ministerial review, but prior to issuance of a final building permit, shall be granted in the following circumstances: (1) For modification initiated by the development proponent. (A) Following approval of an application under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Review Process, but prior to issuance of the final building permit required for construction of the development, an applicant may submit a written request to modify the development. The modification must conform with the following: i. The change is consistent with the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines. ii. The change is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) that were in effect when the original development application was first submitted. iii. The change will not conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing community health and safety. iv. If the change results in modifications to the concessions, incentives or waivers to development standards approved pursuant to Density Bonus Law, then the modified concession, incentive, or waiver must continue to meet the standards of the Density Bonus Law. v. The local government may apply objective planning standards adopted after the development application was first submitted to the requested modification in any of the following instances: I. The development is revised such that the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 15 percent or more. II. The development is revised such that the total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 5 percent or more, and it is necessary to subject the development to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the development application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact, as that term is defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. III. Objective building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing, electrical, fire, and grading codes, may be applied to all modifications. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 15 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (B) Upon receipt of the request, the local agency shall determine if the requested modification is consistent with the local agency’s objective standards in effect when the original application for the development was submitted. The local agency shall not reconsider consistency with objective planning standards that are not affected by the proposed modification. Approval of the modification request must be completed within 60 days of submittal of the modification or 90 days if design review is required. A proposed modification shall not cause the original approval to terminate. (C) The local government’s review of a modification request pursuant to this subdivision shall be strictly limited to determining whether the modification, including any modification to previously approved density bonus concessions or waivers, modify the development’s consistency with the objective planning standards and shall not reconsider prior determinations that are not affected by the modification. (2) For modification initiated by the local agency. (A) Following approval of an application under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, but prior to issuance of a building permit for the development, a local agency may require one-time changes to the development that are necessary to comply with the objective building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing, electrical, fire, and grading codes, or to mitigate a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without modifying the development. A “specific, adverse impact” has the meaning defined in Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2). Any local standard adopted after submission of a development application, including locally adopted construction codes, shall not be considered an "objective zoning standard," “objective subdivision standard," or "objective design review standard" that is applicable to a development application. (B) A determination that a change is required is a ministerial action. If a revised application is required to address these modifications, the application shall be reviewed as a ministerial approval within 60 days of re-submittal of the application. If a local government approves a development under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, notwithstanding any other law, the following expiration of approval timeframes apply: (1) If the project includes public investment in housing affordability, beyond tax credits, where 50 percent of the units are affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI, then that approval shall not expire. (2) If the project does not include public investment in housing affordability (including local, state, or federal government assistance) beyond tax credits, and at least 50 percent of the units are not affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI, that approval shall remain valid for three years from the date of the final action establishing that approval, or if litigation is filed challenging that approval, Department of Housing and Community Development Page 16 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines from the date of the final judgment upholding that approval. Approval shall remain valid for a project provided that vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress. “In progress” means one of the following: (A)The construction has begun and has not ceased for more than 180 days. (B)If the development requires multiple building permits, an initial phase has been completed, and the project proponent has applied for and is diligently pursuing a building permit for a subsequent phase, provided that once it has been issued, the building permit for the subsequent phase does not lapse. (3) The development may receive a one-time, one-year extension if the project proponent provides documentation that there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction ready, such as filing a building permit application. The local government’s action and discretion in determining whether to grant the foregoing extension shall be limited to considerations and processes set forth in this section. A local government shall issue subsequent permits as defined in Section 102(aa) required for a development approved under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process if the application for those permits substantially complies with the development as it was approved. Upon receipt of an application for a subsequent permit, the local government shall process the permit without unreasonable delay and shall not impose any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on projects that are not approved using the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. Issuance of subsequent permits shall implement the approved development, and review of the permit application shall not inhibit, chill, or preclude the development. For purposes of this subsection “unreasonable delay” means permit processing times that are longer than other similar permit requests for projects not approved using the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(-l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (j), and (m). ARTICLE IV. DEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY Section 400. Housing Type Requirements To qualify to apply for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, the development proponent shall demonstrate the development meets the following criteria: (a)Prior to submitting an application for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, the development proponent must submit to the local government a notice of intent to submit an application and the local government must have completed the tribal consultation process outlined in Government Code section 65913.4(b). The notice of intent shall be in the form of a preliminary application that includes all of the information described in Government Code section 65941.1. (b)Is a multifamily housing development. This includes mixed-use projects when the project satisfied the requirement under subsection (b). The development offers units for rental or for- sale. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 17 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (c) At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development shall be designated for residential use: (1) For purposes of these Guidelines, the two-thirds calculation is based upon the proportion of gross square footage of residential space and related facilities, as defined in Section 102(w), to gross development building square footage for an unrelated use such as commercial. Structures utilized by both residential and non- residential uses shall be credited proportionally to intended use. (A) Additional density, floor area, and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law shall be included in the square footage calculation. (B) The square footage of the development shall not include non-habitable underground space, such as basements or underground parking garages. (2) Both residential and non-residential components of a qualified mixed-use development are eligible for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. Additional permitting requirements pertaining to the individual business located in the commercial component (e.g., alcohol use permit or adult business permit) are subject to local government processes. (3) When the commercial component is not part of a vertical mixed-use structure, construction of the residential component of a mixed-use development shall be completed prior to, or concurrent with, the commercial component. (d) The development is consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time of the development application submittal per Section 300 of these Guidelines, provided that any modifications to density or other concessions, incentives, or waivers granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law shall be considered consistent with such objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a) and (b). Section 401. Site Requirements The development proponent shall demonstrate in the application that, as of the date the application is submitted, the proposed development is located on a site that meets the following criteria: (1) The site is a legal parcel, or parcels, located in either: (A) A city where the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or (B) An unincorporated area where the area boundaries are wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (2) The site meets the definition of infill as defined by Section 102(j) of these Guidelines. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 18 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (3) The site must be zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development or have a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. (A) To qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, the site’s zoning designation, applicable specific plan or master plan designation, or general plan designation must permit residential or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses by right or with a use permit. The development proponent shall demonstrate that, as of the date the application is submitted, the development is not located on a legal parcel(s) that is any of the following: (1) Within a coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. (2) Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that locality. (3) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21,1993). (4) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code section 4202. (A) This restriction does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to Government Code section 51179(b), or sites that are subject to adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (B) This restriction does not apply to sites that have been locally identified as fire hazard areas, but are not identified by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code section 51178 or Public Resources Code section 4202. (5) A hazardous waste site that is currently listed pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5, or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25356. (A) This restriction does not apply to sites the California Department of Public Health, California State Water Resources Control Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared for residential use or residential mixed uses. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 19 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (6) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist. (A) This restriction does not apply if the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2. (7) Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (A) This restriction does not apply if the site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local government. (B) This restriction does not apply if the development proponent can demonstrate that they will be able to meet the minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. i. If the development proponent demonstrates that the development satisfies either subsection (A) or (B) above, and that the development is otherwise eligible for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, the local government shall not deny the application for the development on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site related to special flood hazard areas. ii. If the development proponent is seeking a floodplain development permit from the local government, the development proponent must describe in detail in the application for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process how the development will satisfy the applicable federal qualifying criteria necessary to obtain the floodplain development permit. Construction plans demonstrating these details shall be provided to the locality before the time of building permit issuance, however construction plans shall not be required for the local jurisdiction to take action on the application under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. (8) Within a regulatory floodway, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (A) This restriction does not apply if the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 20 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (B) If the development proponent demonstrates that the development satisfies subsection (A) above and that the development is otherwise eligible for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, the local government shall not deny the application for development on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site related to regulatory floodways. (9) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), a habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or another adopted natural resource protection plan. (10) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). (A) The identification of habitat for protected species discussed above may be based upon information identified in underlying environmental review documents for the general plan, zoning ordinance, specific plan, or other planning documents associated with that parcel that require environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (11) Lands under conservation easement. (12) An existing parcel of land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), or the Special Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code). The development proponent shall demonstrate that, as of the date the application is submitted, the development is not located on a site where any of the following apply: (1) The development would require the demolition of the following types of housing: (A) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. (B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a locality’s valid exercise of its police power. (C) Housing that has been occupied by tenants, as defined by Section 102(cc), within the past 10 years. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 21 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (2) The site was previously used for housing that was occupied by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the development proponent submits an application under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. (A) When property with a building that was demolished in the past 10 years has been zoned for exclusively residential use, there is a presumption that it was occupied by tenants, unless the development proponent provides verifiable documentary evidence from a government or independent third party source to rebut the presumption for each of the 10 years prior to the application date. (B) When property with a building that was demolished in the past 10 years has been zoned to allow residential use in addition to other uses, the developer proponent shall include in its application a description of the previous use and verification it was not occupied by residential tenants. (3) The development would require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register prior to the submission of an application. (4) The property contains housing units that are occupied by tenants and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner of the property. A development that involves a subdivision of a parcel that is, or, notwithstanding the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land is not eligible for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. (1) Subdivision (d) does not apply if the development is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance, and either of the following apply: (A) The development has received, or will receive, financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid pursuant to Section 403 of these Guidelines. (B) The development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid, and a skilled and trained workforce used. (2) An application for a subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) for a development that meets the provisions in (1) shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). Such an application shall be subject to a ministerial process as part of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a), (c), (d). Department of Housing and Community Development Page 22 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines Section 402. Affordability Provisions (a) A development shall be subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of units be affordable to households making at or below 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI), based on one of the following categories: (1) In a locality that the Department has determined is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process pursuant to Section 200(c), the development shall dedicate either: (A) A minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units prior to calculating any density bonus to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI. If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI, that local affordable housing requirement applies. (B) Or, if located in the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Section 200 (x), the project may elect to dedicate 20 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 120 percent of the AMI. However, to satisfy this requirement and be eligible to proceed under these provisions, the average income of the tenant income restrictions for those units must equal at or below 100 percent of the AMI. A local ordinance adopted by the locality applies if it requires greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 120 percent of the AMI, or requires that any of the units be dedicated at a level less than 120 percent. (i) In order to comply with subparagraph (A), the rent or sale price charged for units that are dedicated to housing affordable to households between 80 percent and 120 percent of the AMI shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross income of the household. (C) Developments of 10 units or less are not subject to either affordability provision outlined in subparagraphs (A) and (B), above. (D) A development proponent may satisfy the affordability requirements of this subsection with a unit that is restricted to households with incomes lower than those prescribed under subparagraph (A) and (B). (2) In a locality that the Department has determined is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process pursuant to Section 200, subparagraph (e), the development shall dedicate a minimum of 50 percent of the total number of units prior to calculating any density bonus to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI. (A) If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires greater than 50 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI, that local affordable housing requirement applies. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 23 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (3) In a locality that the Department has determined is subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process pursuant to Section 200, subparagraph (d), the development shall dedicate a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI. (A) If the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires greater than 10 percent of the units be dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the AMI, that local affordable housing requirement applies. (B) A development proponent may satisfy the affordability requirements of this subsection with a unit that is restricted to households with incomes lower than 80 percent of AMI. (b) A covenant or restriction shall be recorded against the development dedicating the minimum percentage of units to housing affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI pursuant to Section 402 (a)(1-3). (1) The recorded covenant or restriction shall remain an encumbrance on the development for a minimum of either: (A) 55 years for rental developments or (B) 45 years for owner-occupied properties. (2) The development proponent shall commit to record a covenant or restriction dedicating the required minimum percentage of units to below market housing prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (3) The percentage of units affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI per this section is calculated based on the total number of units in the development exclusive of additional units provided by a density bonus. (4) The percentage of units affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI per this section shall be built on-site as part of the development. (c) The percentage of units affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI per this section is calculated based on the total number of units in the development exclusive of additional units provided by a density bonus. (d) The percentage of units affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the AMI per this section shall be built on-site as part of the development. (e) If the locality has adopted an inclusionary ordinance, the objective standards contained in that ordinance apply to the development under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. For example, if the locality’s adopted ordinance requires a certain percentage of the units in the development to be affordable to very low-income units, the development would need to provide that percentage of very low-income units to be eligible to use the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. (f) All affordability calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Affordable units shall be distributed throughout the development, unless otherwise necessary for state or local funding programs, and have access to the same Department of Housing and Community Development Page 24 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines common areas and amenities as the market rate units. Identification in the development application of the location of the individual affordable units is not required for ministerial approval but distribution of units per this subsection can be included as a condition of approval per Section 301(a)(5), and the methods to achieve distribution is recorded through an affordable housing agreement or as part of a recorded covenant or restriction, unless providing location of affordable units at time of application is required by ordinance or as an adopted objective standard. (g) Affordability of units to households at or below 80 percent of the AMI per this Section is calculated based on the following: (1) For owner-occupied units, affordable housing cost is calculated pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5. (2) For rental units, affordable rent is calculated pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50053. (h) Units used to satisfy the affordability requirements pursuant to this Section may be used to satisfy the requirements of other local or state requirements for affordable housing, including local ordinances or the Density Bonus Law, provided that the development proponent complies with the applicable requirements in the other state or local laws. Similarly, units used to satisfy other local or state requirements for affordable housing may be used to satisfy the affordability requirements of this Section provided that the development proponent complies with all applicable requirements of this Section. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a). Section 403. Labor Provisions The Labor Provisions in the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, located in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Government Code section 65913.4, contain requirements regarding payment of prevailing wages and use of a skilled and trained workforce in the construction of the development. The development proponent shall certify both of the following to the locality to which the development application is submitted: (a) The entirety of the development is a public work project, as defined in Section 102(s) above, or if the development is not in its entirety a public work, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the development will be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area. (1) The Department of Industrial Relations posts on its website letters and decisions on administrative appeal issued by the Department in response to requests to determine whether a specific project or type of work is a “public work” covered under the state’s Prevailing Wage Laws. These coverage determinations, which are advisory only, are indexed by date and project and available at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/pwdecision.asp Department of Housing and Community Development Page 25 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (2) The general prevailing rate is determined by the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code. General prevailing wage rate determinations are posted on the Department of Industrial Relations’ website at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm. ). (3) Apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. To find out if an apprentice is registered in an approved program, please consult the Division of Apprenticeship Standards’ “Apprenticeship Status and Safety Training Certification” database at https://www.dir.ca.gov/das/appcertpw/appcertsearch.asp. (4) To find the apprentice prevailing wage rates, please visit the Department of Industrial Relations’ website at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWAppWage/PWAppWageStart.asp. If you are interested in requesting an apprentice, a list of approved programs is available at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/das/aigstart.asp. General information regarding the state’s Prevailing Wage Laws is available in the Department of Industrial Relations’ Public Works website (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Public- Works/PublicWorks.html) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Public Works Manual (https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/PWManualCombined.pdf (5) For those portions of the development that are not a public work, all of the following shall apply: (A) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work. (B) All contractors and subcontractors shall pay to all construction workers employed in the execution of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (C) All contractors and subcontractors shall maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for inspection and copying as provided therein. i. The obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages may be enforced by the Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the development, by an underpaid worker through an administrative complaint or civil action, or by a joint labor-management committee though a civil action under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code. If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 26 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines ii. The payroll record and Labor Commissioner enforcement provisions in (C) and (C)(i), above, shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement, as defined in Section 102(r) above, that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. (D) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages found to be prevailing shall not apply if otherwise provided in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker. The requirement to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Sections 511 or 514 of the Labor Code. (b) For developments for which any of the following conditions in the charts below apply, that a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Section 102(y) above, shall be used to complete the development if the application is approved. Developments Located in Coastal or Bay Counties Date Population of Locality to which Development Submitted pursuant to the last Centennial Census Number of Housing Units in Development January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2021 225,000 or more 75 or more January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025 225,000 or more 50 or more Developments Located in Non-Coastal or Non-Bay Counties Date Population of Locality to which Development Submitted pursuant to the last Centennial Census Number of Housing Units in Development January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2019 Fewer than 550,000 75 or more January 1, 2020, until December 31, 2021 Fewer than 550,000 More than 50 January 1, 2022, until December 31, 2025 Fewer than 550,000 More than 25 (1) Coastal and Bay Counties include: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma and Ventura. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 27 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (2) Non-Coastal and Non-Bay Counties include: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo and Yuba. (3) The skilled and trained workforce requirement in this subparagraph is not applicable to developments with a residential component that is 100 percent subsidized affordable housing. (4) If the development proponent has certified that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the development and the application is approved, the following shall apply: (A) The applicant shall require in all contracts for the performance of work that every contractor and subcontractor at every tier will individually use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the development. (B) Every contractor and subcontractor shall use a skilled and trained workforce to complete the development. (C) The applicant shall provide to the locality, on a monthly basis while the development or contract is being performed, a report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. i. A monthly report provided to the locality pursuant to this subclause shall be a public record under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) and shall be open to public inspection. An applicant that fails to provide a monthly report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month for each month for which the report has not been provided. ii. Any contractor or subcontractor that fails to use a skilled and trained workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of the skilled and trained workforce requirement. Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18 months of completion of the development using the same procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor Code and may be reviewed pursuant to the same procedures in Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works Enforcement Fund. iii. The requirements in (C), (C)(i), and (C)(ii), above, do not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement that requires compliance with the skilled and trained workforce requirement and provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 28 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), a development is exempt from any requirement to pay prevailing wages or use a skilled and trained workforce if it meets both of the following: (1) The project includes 10 or fewer housing units. (2) The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code. (d) Offsite fabrication is not subject to this Section if it takes place at a permanent, offsite manufacturing facility and the location and existence of that facility is determined wholly without regard to the particular development. However, offsite fabrication performed at a temporary facility that is dedicated to the development is subject to Section 403. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(a), Subdivision (d) of Section 2601 of the Public Contract Code, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 104, v. John C. Duncan (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 192 [176 Cal.Rptr.3d 634]. Section 404. Additional Provisions (a) A local government subject to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process shall allow for a development proponent’s use of this process. However, the ability for a development proponent to apply for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process shall not affect a development proponent’s ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing adopted by a local government, including, but not limited to, the use by right provisions of Housing Element Law Government Code section 65583.2(i), local overlays, or ministerial provisions associated with specific housing types. (b) A development qualifying for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Project does not prevent a development from also qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5). NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65913.4(l). Reference cited: Government Code section 65913.4(i). ARTICLE V. REPORTING Section 500. Reporting Requirements As part of the APR due April 1 of each year, local governments shall include the following information. This information shall be reported on the forms provided by the Department. For forms and more specific information on how to report the following, please refer to the Department’s Annual Progress Report Guidelines at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml (a) Number of applications submitted under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. (b) Location and number of developments approved using the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. Department of Housing and Community Development Page 29 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines (c) Total number of building permits issued using the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. (d) Total number of units constructed using the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process by tenure (renter and owner) and income category. NOTE: Authority cited: Government Code section 65400(a)(2)(B). Reference cited: Government Code section 65400(a)(2)(E). 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 11:47 PM To:Greg Larson; Christopher Jensen; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building Cc:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:2021-09-7 CC Agenda Item 12 - Vallco Town Center SB-35 NO substantial progress! Attachments:Vallco BEFORE and NOW.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Mr. Larson, Mr. Jensen, and City Staff,    From the City’s Attachment A, Status Report…”an extension should be granted if the proponent can demonstrate that  there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction‐ready.”       The entire east side of Wolfe is still standing!     They have made no attempt to demolish that side.  In fact, they are ignoring that side.     The East Side is STILL IN USE!   The HCD Guidelines REQUIRE that the “…construction of the residential component of a mixed‐use development  SHALL BE completed prior to, or concurrent with, the commercial component.”  This means BOTH SIDES of  Wolfe Rd. (Reference HCD’s Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process dated 3‐30‐2021 Updated  Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (ca.gov) Government Code Section 65913.4)    The attached PDF contains 3 pictures of:  ‐ Vallco Parcel Map showing West Side is 2/3rds the acreage and the East Side is 1/3rd the acreage (page 1)  ‐ Vallco BEFORE any demolition (page 2)  ‐ Vallco NOW (page 3)    Q1:  How can you say they have made “substantial progress” when 1/3 of the original structures still remain AND they  are STILL being used?    Q2:  How can you say they have made “substantial progress” when there has been almost NO soil testing on the East  Side where residential units are planned to be built, which is beside a known contaminated site?    It has been 3‐years.      Sincerely,  Peggy Griffin            2021-09-05 Santa Clara County Assessor’s Picture of the 2 VALLCO TOWN CENTER parcels BEFORE DEMOLITION 2021-09-05 Google Maps Satellite View of the 2 VALLCO TOWN CENTER parcels AFTER DEMOLITION 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 12:27 AM To:Greg Larson; Christopher Jensen; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh Cc:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Vallco SB-35 Contamination Extensive on West Side Attachments:2021-07-31 WSP Expanded Soil Gas Investigation-Fig 7 Summary Contaminants map.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Mr. Larson, Mr. Jensen, City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission,    Attached is Figure 7 from the 7‐30‐2021 WSP Expanded Soil Gas Investigation Report uploaded to the GeoTracker  website by VPO.     It shows extensive contamination over the entire West Side of the site.   Along Wolfe Rd, the contamination increases with depth and the depth is half that of the proposed excavation!   The summary map does not mention the contaminants found in the older 2016 Geosphere report.   The samples don’t cover the East Side at all.   This report and it’s findings do not appear on the  City’s Vallco SB‐35 site but should and the public should be  made aware.    NOTE:  Much of the public has heard there are no contaminants, the site is clear, or there’s just one tiny spot that needs  to be cleaned up.  All these statements are not true!  The public should be made aware of this mess.      REQUEST1:  Please inform the public that contaminants have been found across the entire West Side of Vallco.  REQUEST2:  Please post the 7‐30‐2021 WSP soil report on the City’s website.    HOW TO GET TO THE COMPLETE REPORT:  GeoTracker (ca.gov)  Click on “Site Maps/Documents”  Click on the 7/30/2021 document “EXTENDED SOIL GAS INVESTIGATION REPORT”    Sincerely,  Peggy Griffin          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Moore <cinco777@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 8:03 PM To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:City Clerk Subject:Please ensure that all construction agreements and contracts are in writing and enforceable for the extended Vallco Town Center SB35 Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, Council members Moore, Willey,  Wei, and Interim City Manager Larson  Please ensure that every Vallco Town Center SB35 Project construction  plan and promise provided to the City by the developer and by other  government agencies is in WRITING (and deemed legally enforceable by  the Cupertino City Attorney) before issuing any City Building Permits to  this Vallco Property Owner (VPO).  Sand Hill Property (SHP), VPO, and  their attorneys have misled elected Cupertino City Council members, and  deceived Cupertino residents for a decade.  Residents have learned that  SHP and VPO are untrustworthy and must be treated accordingly.    Additionally, Cupertino City Officials/Staff must require a bond of at least  $400M to ensure the Green Roof is  constructed.  The Green Roof  provides essential and legally required public‐usable green  space.  Without a meaningful bond amount, residents strongly believe  that this Green Roof, as shown in artistic drawings, will never be built.  To  alleviate this major resident concern,  please ensure that the Green Roof  construction plans are fully detailed and show all water, landscaping,  planting, fire, maintenance, family play structures, and public safety  improvements.   The operational public access & usage days/hours for  this Green Roof must be specified and enforceable by the City, and  include public access and usage of the bridge facility over N Wolfe Road.  2 With these legally enforceable agreements and contracts for all proposed  construction at Vallco by VPO and government agencies, residents want  to avoid all the outright lies and shenanigans they have experienced with  this Vallco Property Owner since 2014.    Sincerely,  James (Jim) Moore  Resident volunteer since 1976    ******* Please include this e-mail in Written Communications for the 9/7/21 CCC Meeting ******     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventeddownload of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 1:01 PM To:Jim Moore Cc:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject:Re: Please ensure that all construction agreements and contracts are in writing and enforceable for the extended Vallco Town Center SB35 Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Awesome, Jim!      After reading the detailed version of the report, I can see why Deb Feng quit. Talk about negotiating in bad faith!!     Caryl      On Sep 5, 2021, at 8:03 PM, Jim Moore <cinco777@icloud.com> wrote:    Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, Council members Moore,  Willey, Wei, and Interim City Manager Larson  Please ensure that every Vallco Town Center SB35 Project  construction plan and promise provided to the City by the  developer and by other government agencies is in WRITING  (and deemed legally enforceable by the Cupertino City  Attorney) before issuing any City Building Permits to this Vallco  Property Owner (VPO).  Sand Hill Property (SHP), VPO, and their  attorneys have misled elected Cupertino City Council members,  and deceived Cupertino residents for a decade.  Residents have  learned that SHP and VPO are untrustworthy and must be  treated accordingly.    Additionally, Cupertino City Officials/Staff must require a bond  of at least $400M to ensure the Green Roof  is  constructed.  The Green Roof provides essential and legally  2 required public‐usable green space.  Without a meaningful  bond amount, residents strongly believe that this Green Roof,  as shown in artistic drawings, will never be built.  To alleviate  this major resident concern,  please ensure that the Green Roof  construction plans are fully detailed and show all water,  landscaping, planting, fire, maintenance, family play structures,  and public safety improvements.   The operational public access  & usage days/hours for this Green Roof must be specified and  enforceable by the City, and include public access and usage of  the bridge facility over N Wolfe Road.  With these legally enforceable agreements and contracts for all  proposed construction at Vallco by VPO and government  agencies, residents want to avoid all the outright lies and  shenanigans they have experienced with this Vallco Property  Owner since 2014.    Sincerely,  James (Jim) Moore  Resident volunteer since 1976    ******* Please include this e-mail in Written Communications for the 9/7/21 CCC Meeting ******     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventeddownload of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Janice Ishii <ichibanmamasan@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 7:54 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Vallco Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.      We are strongly opposed to the developer request for a one year extension on this project. Sandhill has had three years  to begin building and has not. SANDHILL HAS FAILED.     Should the extension be granted Sandhill must be required to pay the $125 million impact fee IN FULL. NO EXCUSES.     Sincerely     John and Janice Ishii  Merritt Drive   Cupertino     Get Outlook for iOS  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 10:01 PM To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Santa Clara County as its Own Country CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    FYI. Please add to the public record. Thank you.      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Subject: Santa Clara County as its Own Country  From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>  Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021, 9:59 PM  To: "CityCouncil@Cupertino org" <CityCouncil@Cupertino.org>  CC: "grenna5000@yahoo com" <grenna5000@yahoo.com>      Dear City Council:    I guess Santa Clara County could always secede from California if we feel  The county is suffering under the political leadership in Sacramento. We  Could become o ur own country. We could take Google and Facebook with  Us and probably be one of the wealthiest nations in the area. Our GNP  Would outpace some other independent small countr ies.    We would have Stanford with us and could make Palo Alto or San Jose  The c apitol. We would have a nice big airport and ac ces s to San Francisco  Bay through Palo Alto or Milpitas.     We would have our own military installation, complete with an airfield in  Moffett Field.    We would have our own open space from Rancho San Antonio.     San Jose was even the capitol of the state in the early days. It could be again.    Long live Santa Clara Country. We may be creating you sooner than we think  If Sacramento goes down the road it is going. Let it go there by itself and  Santa Clara Country will be born to fulfill our needs for local control and a  Voice in our new country.    Thank you,    Jennifer Griffin  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:03 AM To:Greg Larson; Christopher Jensen; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Benjamin Fu Cc:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Attorney's Office; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Agenda item #12 Sept 7 2021 City Council Vallco SB 35 Expiration Attachments:demo map from 2018.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Re: Item 12 on CC Sept 7, 2021 Agenda City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission, I have concerns about the Recommended Action to ‘Accept’ the report. Accept does not seem to be a reasonable action. Council could ‘Receive’ the report, or ‘Acknowledge’ it, but should in no fashion ‘Accept’ it. There is no reference anywhere that the city attorney, or a city contracted law firm has ‘approved’ the content of either Attachment A “Detailed Status Report…” or the 5 page Staff Report. Historically ‘the city’ and ‘city council’ have proven that even the slightest hint of potential litigation causes them to reconsider planned action, I think the minimal legal input here is very problematic and a red flag. The second to last paragraph in a 20 page document offers a one sentence comment that feels weak in support of extension. While the community likely appreciates the effort to provide transparency to the community and the City Council, I am left wondering what other goals were intended by the creation of this report. I see only one goal identified in paragraph 2 on page 2. Missing in the information presented for Item 12 on the 9/7/21 City Council Agenda is an explanation as to WHY (as written on pg 2 of 20 Attachment A) “Staff has been working with the Developer on an implementation plan to be contained in an extension letter (the ‘Extension Letter’).” “City Staff” in key positions in Sept 2018 were wrong to deem this project compliant with the State’s SB35 requirements three years ago. Since that time, there is evidence that the Developer, et all, knowingly made false claims and essentially hid important information - hazardous materials status for one. And of course, within the last 3 years, there have been an abundance of emails, addresses to Council, links to professional and legal support documents, deep analysis and number crunching that have shown justification to call the 9/21/18 approval a mistake. Soil sample testing describes increasingly worse news and are not being take far enough down to expose what is at the depth of planned excavation. 2 Honestly, the bulk of Attachment A ‘detailed status report’ reads like a long list of reasons not to grant an extension. The lack of both cooperation and honesty from the Developer illustrates that no additional time to perform is deserved. · Without completion of the East of Wolfe Rd portion which is a large percentage of the project, this project does not qualify as an SB 35 project yet virtually nothing has been done on the East. This fact does not illustrate significant progress. See attached demo plan from 2018  Staff report bullet points include Project Modifications and an indication that some modifications are suspected already. This is not a good sign, nor a surprise.  The very important issues of an understandably controversial green roof not yet being designed is of great (grave) concern. How, at this juncture, can there be no useful plans for the proposed green roof? The architect who ‘designed’ the roof was given so much press over ‘designing’ the world’s largest green roof!!! But there is no actual design ! Unbelievable, ironic, or both?  Why is the city ‘negotiating’ Impact Fees ? It is absurd and should NOT be considered in a definition of ‘making significant progress’ as far as the project goes. The fees are the fees. Protecting our city and larger community, including our infrastructure and environment, wildlife, quality of life, is of great importance. Staff has every right NOT to grant an extension, especially if the Developer will not play by the already lopsided rules. The Applicant can come back with a new proposal, in good faith, that better meets the needs of the residents of Cupertino and addresses the housing affordability issues that SB 35 was pitched as being a solution for. Thank you, Lisa Warren Demo schedule on East side of project continues to be TBD. Significant portion of entire SB35 Vallco Town Center is intact and occupied two weeks prior to approval expiration date. HOW is this significant progress ? The soil on the East side has not yet been properly tested either. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 6:33 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; GregLarson@cupertino.org; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Building; Darcy Paul; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey Subject:Item #12 on the Agenda SB35 Extension for Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Messrs and Mesdames,     Is this a bad joke?  An extension for the ill conceived "SB35" project at Vallco?  This location has been known to be  contaminated since parts of it were an HP worksite.  Hence all the signs warning HP workers about the dangers to their  health.  It should have not been ministerially approved to begin with since it is a toxic site.    Secondly, the impact fees of this project should not be shifted to the residents. Taxes are typically not imposed on a  population ministerially. "No taxation without representation" sorta has a ring to it, doesn't it?    And finally, the city should be more even handed in granting exceptions. I have a neighbor that had a disabled child (now  deceased) and the family built a ramp to make it easier to get in and out of the house with his wheelchair.  The ramp  was 1/4 inch too high, and the city made them destroy the ramp. Why couldn't the city have made an exception for this  child because it would have improved the quality of his short life?    Thank you for your time.    Regards,    Brooke Ezzat    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Pam Hershey <pamelakhershey@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:29 AM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; <GregLarson@cupertino.org>; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Building; Darcy Paul; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao <liangchao@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <jwilley@cupertino.org> Subject:Item #12 on the Agenda SB35 Extension for Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Mr. Larson, Mr. Jensen, City Staff City Council , and Planning Commission, In my opinion, there should not be an extension for the SB35 project at Vallco. This location has been known to be contaminated and it should have not been approved to begin with since it is a toxic site. Please inform the public so they are aware that the site is contaminated as they have only heard there is no contaminants and the site is clear, which is not true. The Expanded Soil Gas Investigation Report shows that the entire West Side is contaminated which is not posted on the City's Vallco SB-35 site and needs to be soon. Regards, Pamela Hershey Close proximity neighbor of Vallco 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 2:52 AM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; GregLarson@cupertino.org; City Attorney's Office; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building Cc:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:2021-09-7 CC Agenda Item 12 - Vallco Town Center SB-35 Status and Extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Mr. Larson, Mr. Jensen, and City Staff,    Thank you for the detailed “Status Report on the Vallco SB 25 Development Project”, Attachment A for Agenda Item  #12.    1.  From the City’s Attachment A, Status Report…”an extension should be granted if the proponent can demonstrate that  there has been significant progress toward getting the development construction‐ready.”  Well, the entire east side of  Wolfe is still standing!  They have made no attempt to demolish that side.  In fact, they are ignoring that side.  The SB‐35  project includes the east side, too.  The green roof requires the east side!  How can you determine if plans will work if  you only have half?    2.  Just because SCCDEH is looking at the east and west side separately for soil remediation does not prevent Sandhill  from demoing above ground on the east side.  They just chose not to.  They have split the SB‐35 project into two  separate parts yet the City approved ONE project, not 2 halves!  They have done NOTHING on the east side!  That is not  showing “significant progress”!    3.  It’s been their negligence that has caused delays.  The exposure of the soil contamination has trickled in because  consistent, grid‐pattern soil samples at depths going down as far as they plan to excavate has not been done!  It hasn’t  been done on either side!  The July 31, 2021 WSP report shows all along Wolfe Rd that the deeper samples, the more  contaminants yet they only did 5 ft and 15 ft.  Excavation is planned for over double that depth!    4.  Submitting a building application does not mean the application is complete or accurate!  You can just submit  anything and let the City come back one by one and ask for the missing, incomplete or invalid parts to be corrected.  This  is what happened at Main Street.  In December 2015, the developer needed a Temporary Occupancy Permit but that  was contingent on a covenant being recorded at the County for the retail space in the 2 office buildings.  So, a covenant  was recorded in December ‐ it was wrong.  In fact it was WAY WRONG.  It took 6 months for Mr. Holm, our City  Attorney, to correct that covenant and get it re‐recorded correctly.  Meanwhile, rent was being paid.  The only loss was  to the City (hours of labor) and the public.  This is that same developer!    REQUEST:  Do not allow a 1‐year extension to this SB‐35 project because significant progress has NOT been made to the  ENTIRE project!  The entire east side remains as‐is!  No effort has been made to prepare that side for this SB‐35 project.    Sincerely,  Peggy Griffin  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 9:22 PM To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Fw: Redevelopment Agencies and SB 35 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    FYI. Please add to the Public Record. Thank you. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> To: citycouncil@cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021, 09:17:43 PM PDT Subject: Redevelopment Agencies and SB 35 Dear City Council: It is perhaps important to remember that former governor Jerry Brown eliminated Redevelopment Agencies in California in 2011, with some help from some other politicians. Vallco was in the only Redevelopment Agency in Cupertino. SB 35 was introduced by Senator Wiener and some other co-authors on December 15, 2016 in the California Assembly and was signed by Jerry Brown on September 29, 2017. By this time, Vallco was not in a redevelopment agency any more. Perhaps, it would have been much better if Jerry Brown had never got rid of redevelopment agencies in the first place, judging by the bedlam SB 35 has unleashed on the state. SB 9 and SB 10 are coming out of the same political machine as created SB 35 and some other bills. I would imagine that SB 9 and SB 10 will unleash similar bedlam on the state if Gavin Newsom signs them. This leaves one to wonder if Jerry Brown and some others started all of this when they got rid of the redevelopment agencies in 2011. Was there was an agenda' there in these 2011 folks minds to set up for these housing bills? Was Sacramento going Socialist Dictatorship as far back as 2011 to get us to where we are now into some sort of Ultra Left Soviet style take over of the California government as seems to be happening now? Wow. Now, I wish Jerry was never governor for the 3rd time. And now some of these Sacramento types sees to have their designs on Washington D.C. also. Why, Jerry, why? Did someone tell you to do it? California is going into turbulent times indeed from deeds that were done in 2011 and 2017. Someone else is trying to be the Dictator of California and maybe, of the 2 United States. From hence forth the public needs to look carefully at political actions to see what is really happening. Thank you, Jennifer Griffin 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Eric Crouch <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 7:54 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose and we would be right to lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Eric Crouch crouch.eric@gmail.com 10221 Phar Lap Drive Cupertino, California 95014          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Yvonne Thorstenson <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 8:58 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Yvonne Thorstenson yrthor@gmail.com 7744 Robindell Way Cupertino, California 95014          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Alex Strange <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 9:41 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Alex Strange astrang@gmail.com 966 Ponderosa Ave Apt 55 Sunnyvale, California 94086          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Zoe Vulpe <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 10:01 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, Hello, my name is Zoe Vulpe, I am a college student and a former Cupertino resident. I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! This story is getting old. My classmates at De Anza were homeless while working and going to school. People I grew up with and went to high school with in Cupertino can’t afford to go to school or live here. We are being pushed out and abandoned. Please allow this project to move forward. Vallco contributed a huge part of my childhood memories, please now let it become affordable housing for our community. The need is dire and growing greater every minute! Zoe Vulpe zoe.fox.105@gmail.com San jose, California 95126          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Cristian Vulpe <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:01 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Cristian Vulpe cris_vulpe@yahoo.com 1935 W Hedding St San Jose, California 95126          6 Cyrah Caburian From:Calley Wang <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:38 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. I grew up here and it is a shame to see the city let the Vallco property rot while CUSD schools are closing from low enrollment. There is a severe lack of housing, and we no longer even have a movie theater in our community. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Calley Wang calleywang@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Donna Austin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:56 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Donna Austin primadona1@comcast.net 22283 N DeAnza Circle Cupertino CA, California 95014          1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:11 AM To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Vallco Project       Piu Ghosh Planning Manager Community Development PiuG@cupertino.org (408) 777-3277          From: Janice Ishii <ichibanmamasan@hotmail.com>   Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 7:41 PM  To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>  Subject: Vallco Project    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    We strongly oppose the developer request for a one year extension on this project. Sandhill has had three years to start  building and haven’t. Sandhill has failed.     Should a one year extension be granted Sandhill MUST BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE $125Milion Impact fee IN FULL. NO  EXCUSES.     Sincerely     John and Janice Ishii  Merritt Drive  Cupertino     Get Outlook for iOS  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Tai Cheng <taicheng19722@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:11 PM To:City Council Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Please say no I don't like building 20 floor. Wolf road will be too crowd.  Sent from my iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Max K. Agoston <mkagoston@msn.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 11:18 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Interim City Manager Greg Larson,     I am writing you with regard to the Vallco Town Center Status Report.    I am a 40+ year resident of Cupertino and home owner and have always  opposed the Vallco project because I do not want Cupertino to turn into  a high density metropolis with lots more traffic. Please hold the developer  to their promises and contract. Do not give in to their request for changes  to the original proposal. It is bad enough as it is. All the developer wants  to do is make a lot of money. Let him spend a money on lawyers. I would  support the city to defend itself in court.    Sincerely,    Max K Agoston  19787 La Mar Drive  Cupertino  1 Cyrah Caburian From:dicksteinp@aol.com Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 3:59 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Mr. Larson, I am writing again, this time to you alone, because the fate of Vallco is in the hands of the City staff. There is enough evidence to warrant denying the extension of the SB35 project, which many residents are bound to present during the Council meeting, and which you probably know. I would strongly urge the staff to deny the extension. If the extension is granted, SB35 is in force, giving the developer the upper hand, a club over the head of the City Council, in negotiations with the City. If the extension is denied (again, there is no reason legally not to deny it), SB35 is cancelled for this project and the City will have its authority restored. The developer will have to negotiate fairly with the City Council for a project that serves the needs of Cupertino, not just his own. Sincerely, Phyllis Dickstein Cupertino Resident 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Vickie Chin <vickie_chin@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 6:28 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:NO on SB-35 Extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Cupertino City Manager, SB-35 project approvals expire after three years. While the SB-35 law permits cities to grant a one-year extension, the extension is discretionary. Please do not grant an extension. Put this awful SB-35 project out of its misery.            Best Regards,           30+ years Cupertino Residence Vickie Chin    Sent from Outlook  1 Cyrah Caburian From:greg1wong@yahoo.com Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 9:11 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco project failure do not give in to them CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Hi city leader,     I'm writing to let you know my displeasure of this Vallco project - it is a total failure. My concerns are   1. It is being delayed another year? This is unacceptable they haven't even broken ground to start the vertical construction. 2. The infrastructure costs are not negotiated yet this is a large sum that has a taxpayer do not want to pay. This should be the responsibility of the project owner. 3. We still have not heard on how the garden rooftop is to be structured. It looks like the apartments underneath will be without sunlight is that something we want? They should scrap the overhead Park and designate some land for a park for Cupertino residence. 4. The project owner is playing hardball with the city and I don't like that. We need to be firm and have them conform to all of the requirements regarding environmental issues. Sb35 requires the land not have any contamination so this project should not even be considered. Thank you for your consideration and I think you're doing a great job. Sincerely, Greg Wong Cupertino residence since 1985   Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Kuehnis <jimkuehnis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 9:04 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear City Manager Larson,    I am a Cupertino homeowner and have read the latest status reports on Vallco. I have been opposed to this project ever  since it was approved via SB35, for these reasons:    1) This green roof/park is absurd, I never liked the idea. My understanding is a certain amount of acreage must be set  aside for open space in a parcel this size, and the only reason they are putting this on the roof is to save space. That's  unacceptable. I want a green space/park at ground level and not on the roof just so the developer can make more  money by saving precious land for more buildings. I am an engineer and it doesn't make structural sense to have this on  roofs. The fire department will have issues servicing it ‐ it's not going to be user‐friendly, there's not enough dirt for any  sizeable trees, and I can only imagine it will be a maintenance nightmare keeping it intact over the decades to come.    2) I don't trust Sand Hill Property Company. They hired people to harass and mislead voters at the library a few years  ago, I was witness to it. They also built Main Street, which I feel is a colossal flop. I remember Main Street was  advertised as Cupertino's version of Santana Row, well it's nothing like Santa Row. People all over the valley visit Santa  Row, the same cannot be said for Main Street. My family rarely goes there, there's just nothing of interest, and parking  is problematic. How can we trust Sand Hill Property to build a successful Vallco when they couldn't even do the much  smaller Main Street?    3) Before COVID hit, I know Cupertino traffic was steadily getting worse. I was shocked one time I drove to the library  and there was no place to park. I don't think there's a solid understanding of what Vallco is going to do to traffic on  Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Blvd, and to our schools and other public services. The planned number of employees,  residents, and office workers being planned for Vallco is too high.    We need to stop the current plan, which has never made sense and start over. I presume we can't make Sand Hill  Property sell their investment to another builder, if so, then you MUST put strict controls and quality measures in place  to assure they build what is best for Cupertino, not what is best for them.    Jim Kuehnis  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Alan Penn <alanp_usa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 8:44 PM To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:I am strongly against the Vallco SB35 plan extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear councilmen & councilwoman, Please reject the extension to the ridiculous Vallco SB35 plan : the lacking of infrastructure to support the traffic, the not viable 30 acres green roof, just name a few. Thanks. Alan Penn 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Dan Yasukawa <dyasukaw1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 10:49 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco SB 35 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Interim City Manager Greg Larson We are writing to you to express our concerns re: Vallco SB35. The Developer has had adequate time to address the issues/concerns expressed by the Cupertino City Council/Staff on behalf of its citizens. As a resident of Cupertino, we request denial of 1-year extension ending 9/21/2022. We require the Developer to address and demonstrate compliance of such items: toxic soil contamination/remediation, impact on City’s resources (fire, safety, traffic, utilities) environmental impact, structural design, etc. We strongly agree with the City that the Developer is not entitled to a reduction or elimination of impact fees. These current impact fees in excess of $125M owed to the City should be provided before commencement of project. We urge you, as our representative, to deny the 1 -year extension to Developer, until our concerns have been met satisfactorily by the Developer. Thus far, it is not clear the Developer is negotiating/working in good faith, as seen thru their actions. We need to hold the Developer accountable, because the impact of Vallco SB35 will be felt by our City for generations to come. Thank you. With regards, Dan & Linda Yasukawa 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ying Shih <yinghwashih@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 6:54 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:No on SB-35 extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.      Cupertino City Council member, SB-35 project approvals expire after three years. While the SB-35 law permits cities to grant a one-year extension, the extension is discretionary. Please do not grant an extension. Put this awful SB-35 project out of its misery. Best Regards, Ying shih Sent from my iPad  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Edward A. Jajko <eajajko@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:53 AM To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore Cc:Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Fwd: Vallco Status Report, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    September 7, 2021    I write to register my objections to the Vallco report and certainly to Sand Hill’s whole project. I am unable to attend and  speak at today’s Council meeting, as I am confined to the Forum for physical rehabilitation.     Just a couple of points:    First, Sand Hill Properties ruined the Vallco mall. True, it was in decline, thanks to willful actions or neglect by previous  owners. But a hard‐working, imaginative owner could have refreshed the place and maintained it as Cupertino’s gem.  For the longest time, Vallco was described as “dying.” No, it was killed, murdered, done in, by its owners.    Second:  Six towers of 22 stories? In Cupertino? Six buildings as tall as those in downtown San Jose, looming over adjacent  neighborhoods like the Fairgrove in which my family and I have lived since Fathers’ Day 1983? SIX 22 story towers  forever destroying the visuals of our little city? This is insane.     Third:  As for the office space proposed for the project, it is more than is found in Salesforce Tower in  San Francisco. It doesn’t  belong in Cupertino. Or… does the developer have something secret going on with, say, Apple? Let the developer be  upfront about how 1.9+ million square feet of office space will be used, at a time when millions in square footage are  being planned and built in San Jose and neighboring cities, and when the Coronavirus pandemic has seen a revolution in  working remotely and from home.      Fourth:  A 30 acre “green roof.” We are all short of water and will suffer mandatory reductions. What exemptions will the  developer get to allow watering of 30 acres? Those trees, planted in a mere 20” of soil, all needing extensive, deep  watering: how will they be anchored? Is the developer planning Cupertino’s own wildfire zone?    Summary:  The developer ruined and destroyed Vallco. Why should anyone believe any promises the developer makes, other than  to create further ruin and destruction?    I am firmly, totally, and unceasingly opposed to the insane, obscene, greedy, Vallco plans of the developer. And likewise  to the totally undemocratic, downright evil SB‐35 that subverts government by duly elected representatives of the  citizens.    Edward A. Jajko  6235 Shadygrove Drive  Cupertino CA 95014‐4669  2 408‐691‐2248    Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Better Cupertino <info@bettercupertino.org>  Date: September 6, 2021 at 8:17:41 PM PDT  To: eajajko@gmail.com  Subject: Vallco Status Report  Reply‐To: Better Cupertino <info@bettercupertino.org>       view this email in your browser      To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.        September 6, 2021 R E F R E S H E R C O U R S E WHAT IS THE VALLCO SB 35 TOWN CENTER PLAN, AGAIN? T A K E A C T I O N WRITE A LETTER / SPEAK AT TUESDAY’S COUNCIL MEETING What is this pretty picture hiding? 3 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.  Six 22-story towers, 1/3 to 1/2 of which is under green roof (no sun)  2,402 residential units (square footage unknown)  6,005 residents projected (adding an additional 10% to current population)  1,201 of which are below market rate (BMR) units (one good thing!)  But all BMR units are under the 30-acre green roof (and often facing multilevel parking garage)  486,000 sq. ft. retail  1.99 million sq. ft. office  11,000 office workers projected (almost double of residents housed, creating need for more housing than project provides)  Green roof is 30 acres on top of 50-acre project footprint  Green roof soil has 20 inches of soil, so trees shown in pretty picture probably aren't viable 4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Talking Points 1. As some alert citizens have known all along, the Vallco site is contaminated with toxic chemicals and will require cleanup under the supervision of the Santa Clara County Dept. of Environmental Health. As a result, the project was never eligible for approval under the SB 35 law. 2. The soil contamination is much broader than expected, and in areas not anticipated. It was only "discovered" when the City did its own review with a third-party consultant. Both the Developer and staff had to know at least something about this, as they possessed studies that showed at least some of the contamination. 3. Cupertino asks the developer to pay $125 million in impact fees (which are estimated real costs of the impact of the project on the City). The developer refuses. If the developer doesn’t pay, taxpayers will bear the cost. So far, the developer isn’t budging. 4. The Developer hasn’t even submitted plans for the "green roof," and discussion so far reveals major emergency access and structural issues. 5 5. Yet the Developer is asking for a one-year extension beyond the Sept 21, 2021 deadline to begin vertical construction. They are nowhere near ready, and it is unlikely given their history that they'll be ready by Sept 21, 2022. 6. No demolition work has been done, nor soil even tested for known contaminants, on the east side of Wolfe Road. As the SB 35 statute calls for housing to be built before or concurrently with other uses, the Developer cannot begin construction of any of the project until that parcel is ready. For some reason, this issue isn't even addressed in the report(s). Quotes from the Status Report “The initial three-year period has proven insufficient to begin vertical construction.” (detailed status report, pg. 1) “Specifically, Vallco’s own estimates predict that the Project would bring over 8,700 new jobs to the City of Cupertino, thereby creating a need for nearly 6,000 more housing units, while only providing 2,402 of those new housing units. As a result, the Project results in the need for 3,410 more housing units than it provides, further exacerbating the Bay Area housing crisis, and seemingly in opposition to the goals of SB 35.” (summary status report, pg. 2) “The Vallco Project anticipates that Santa Clara County Dept. of Environmental Health’s oversight will continue until Spring 2022, although recent testing has revealed even greater contamination issues than previously identified, including some measures beyond permissible residential thresholds.” (summary status report, pg. 2) “Relatively little is known about the 30-acre “green roof” proposed on top of 6 most of the buildings…” (summary status report, pg. 3) “… the applicant for the Vallco Project believes most of these (Impact) fees should be waived or significantly reduced. Payment of the fees in full or City Council approval of any reduction or waiver of these fees will be required before certain permitting and other approvals are possible, prior to the commencement of construction.” (summary status report, pg. 4) “The three-year project approval expires on September 21, 2021, and a one- year extension of the approval would expire September 21, 2022. However, the Vallco Project applicant and the California Housing and Community Development Department have argued that the three-year deadline has been “tolled,” or extended, due to prior litigation. This argument is based on a misreading of the statutory provisions governing the term of SB 35 project approvals and is incorrect.“ (summary status report, pg. 4) “The plan review has resulted in the identification of issues related to soil remediation, fire and life safety, structural design, traffic, transit, the provision of water to the development, affordable housing, development impact fees, parcel map processing and other issues which are discussed in this report.” (detailed status report, pg. 4) “The District views the Vallco Project as “a city within a city” in terms of its fire and emergency medical services demand.” (detailed status report, pg. 7) “… much of the green roof is inaccessible to people and is primarily unusable open space.” (detailed status report, pg. 8) 7 “A large portion of the green roof is elevated approximately 100 feet above the ground. This height is beyond the reach of the Fire District’s equipment (ladder and snorkel trucks) in an emergency.” (detailed status report, pg. 9) “The Development has not submitted any plans for the green roof at this time.” (detailed status report, pg. 10) “The developer has indicated that they have designed their foundations, structural supports and super structure to support a 10,000 lb. weight limit for the emergency vehicles, which is inconsistent with the Fire Department specification provided above.” (detailed status report, pg. 11) “This review revealed that twenty-one intersections could be impacted, both locally and in the region. Ten of the impacted intersections are in Cupertino.” (detailed status report, pg. 11) “In March 2021, the City Transportation Manager requested additional analysis of the impacts of the proposed design on traffic and emergency response times. City staff repeated that request in July 2021 and again in August 2021 and are awaiting a response from the Developer.” (detailed status report, pg. 13) “As discussed above, the Project includes a cistern system to harvest rainwater; however, it is anticipated this supply will be inadequate for the annual irrigation and cooling tower needs.” (detailed status report, pg. 16) “The Developer is also required to prepare an affordability covenant for review by the City Attorney. The affordability covenant must be recorded prior to the issuance of the first building permit …” (detailed status report, pg. 17) 8 “The Developer has raised numerous arguments that it should be entitled to a reduction in or elimination of the amount of parkland, transportation, and affordable housing impact fees to be paid to the City. The City disagrees with these arguments and had calculated that the Project owes impact fees in excess of $125 million to the City alone” (detailed status report, pg. 18) “Despite this determination, the outstanding issues are substantial. Prior to issuing an extension, the City plans to seek written commitments from the developer on a timeline for addressing outstanding issues…” (detailed status report, pg. 120) NOW is an excellent time to remind City Council and city staff that we still oppose this development and this developer. We urge you to write a letter and send to each City Council member and the City Manager (email addresses below). If you can do it by Tuesday, even better. And we urge you to tune in to Tuesday’s meeting and speak up during the public comment period, which immediately follows the Vallco Town Center Status Report item (no. 12 on the agenda). Email addresses: Mayor Darcy Paul dpaul@cupertino.org Vice Mayor Liang Chao liangchao@cupertino.org Kitty Moore kmoore@cupertino.org Jon Willey jwilley@cupertino.org Hung Wei hwei@cupertino.org Interim City Manager Greg Larson manager@cupertino.org 9   Cupertino City Council meeting Tuesday, Sept. 7, 6:45 pm Teleconference and commenting instructions here Register in advance here      GET TO KNOW US Visit Better Cupertino's website Email us at contact@bettercupertino.org Sign up for the BC newsletter bt emailing info@cupertino.org Make a contribution Thank you for your support!                 This email was sent to eajajko@gmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Better Cupertino ꞏ 21701 Stevens Creek Blvd #1132 ꞏ Cupertino, CALIFORNIA (CA) 95015 ꞏ USA To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp     1 Cyrah Caburian From:stacy wilson <777swilson@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:36 AM To:Liang Chao; Hung Wei; Darcy Paul; Kitty Moore; Cupertino City Manager's Office; jwilli@cupertino.org Subject:In re the proposed development of the Vallco site CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Hello, I am a homeowner in Rancho Rinconada in Cupertino. I’m a faithful voter, a parent, and a scientist. I have been  opposed to the development plan under consideration for the Vallco site since I heard about it several years ago. In  almost no respects does this seem like a good plan for the city I’ve lived in for the last 32 years. It will bring in too much  traffic, too much need for new housing, too much of an increase in pollution (local air quality and trash, which you  *know* gets tossed out car windows and just from people walking around), too much pressure on an aging  infrastructure (inbound water supply and outbound sewage). This developer will move on to another project once it’s  done and we, the citizens who live in Cupertino, will be left with a very high bill as we are forced to increase and  improve our infrastructure to accommodate the new pressures on each system involved. We will be forced to increase  payment for city cleanup as trash will pile up in the gutters, on sidewalks, in streets and bushes.        I have a neighbor who converted his garage into a rental living space and he routinely has 6 cars occupying street  space. *I’ve* been scolded by the garbage pickup people for having my garbage cans too close to cars, but what am I  supposed to do? This situation will be more and more frequently repeated in our neighborhoods as people see a way to  make money by renting to the thousands of people who will be coming to work at the new development. I have NO faith  that the green rooftop park will come to fruition, and think if it does, it will likely not survive the next big earthquake (I  grew up in Los Angeles and I know there is always a “next big earthquake”.)       When I moved from LA with a gifted small child, I specifically chose Cupertino because of the reputation of the  schools. How do you really think this proposed development is going to improve the schools? There will be so many  more children without the needed increase in school footprint and educators because there won’t be a commensurate  increase in the tax base. Our community schools, already struggling in some respects, will eventually lose their  reputations for excellence.       I love Cupertino! I raised my children here, and though they try to convince me to move to their respective areas out  of the Bay Area, I don’t want to leave. This city has changed pretty dramatically from when I moved here, but it’s still a  pretty nice place to live. It’s quiet, clean, and safe. How do you think all of that will change with an increase of 20% more  people either coming and going or trying to find places to live here?       I’m very opposed to the Sandhill development plan. They will make a lot of money from this and move on, while  people here will be left picking up the trash and paying for this poor decision till we die or move away. Please do not  grant them an extension.  They’re just trying to wear us down, like teenagers who just want what they want and keep  pestering till we don’t have the energy anymore to fight them. They’ve had years to come up with ways to make this  more palatable, to guarantee their interest in the welfare of OUR city, and they haven’t done it. They don’t deserve  more time and they shouldn’t be allowed to ruin our community for their own profit. Your jobs are to safeguard the  community’s interests. Please do just that by rejecting the request for more time.                  Stacy Wilson                   18630 Crabtree Avenue, Cupertino      Sent from my iPad    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Rattehalli Sudesh <apple95014@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 7:36 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Project    I strongly oppose to this development by the present developer.     Thank you,  Rattehalli Sudesh  7827 Creekline Drive  Cupertino, CA 95014    1 Cyrah Caburian From:dicksteinp@aol.com Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 7:33 AM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Fwd: [BC-StrDisc] Fw: City Council Meeting - Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) Fate of Vallco... for now CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  -----Original Message----- From: dicksteinp@aol.com <dicksteinp@aol.com> To: bc-strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com <bc-strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com>; la-warren@att.net <la- warren@att.net>; citycouncil@cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: peggy.griffin@gmail.com <peggy.griffin@gmail.com>; lukelang@yahoo.com <lukelang@yahoo.com> Sent: Fri, Sep 3, 2021 9:20 am Subject: Re: [BC-StrDisc] Fw: City Council Meeting - Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) Fate of Vallco... for now -----Original Message----- From: 'dicksteinp@aol.com' via BC-StrategyDiscuss <bc-strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com> To: la-warren@att.net <la-warren@att.net>; bc-strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com <bc- strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com>; citycouncil@cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: peggy.griffin@gmail.com <peggy.griffin@gmail.com>; lukelang@yahoo.com <lukelang@yahoo.com> Sent: Fri, Sep 3, 2021 8:55 am Subject: Re: [BC-StrDisc] Fw: City Council Meeting - Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) Fate of Vallco... for now To all: An extension should not be granted on the basis of trivial, legalistic factors such as application for permits. Given the facts: resolution of a number of very serious health issues such as contamination and fire safety is very much up in the air it is now crystal clear that CA faces very serious water supply issues the project as designed would contradict the state goal of ameliorating traffic the project as designed would greatly exacerbate the state goal of improving the housing to jobs ratio nothing has been built anyway the City should be well within its rights to deny the extension. As a result, SHP would have to negotiate a new plan with the city which would reflect our needs rather than be based solely on theirs. Phyllis Dickstein -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> To: BC-StrategyDiscuss Liana Crabtree via <bc-strategydiscuss@googlegroups.com> 2 Cc: Peggy Griffin <peggy.griffin@gmail.com>; Luke Lang <lukelang@yahoo.com> Sent: Thu, Sep 2, 2021 9:03 pm Subject: [BC-StrDisc] Fw: City Council Meeting - Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) Fate of Vallco... for now ITEM 12 !!! It would be prudent to read the report and the attached details. 5 page plus 20 pages. Both attached here. Send comments, if any, prior to Tuesday's meeting. Please forward to any individual(s) or additional group if you wish. Thanks, Lisa ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> To: "la-warren@att.net" <la-warren@att.net> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021, 06:34:34 PM PDT Subject: City Council Meeting - Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of Cupertino City Council Meeting September 7, 2021 at 6:45pm City Council Meeting     To view the current  agenda and live webcast visit:     Agenda  Live Webcast   To view the minutes and webcast archives visit:     Agenda, Minutes & Webcast Archives    Contact Phone: 408.777.3223  TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION TO HELP STOP THE  SPREAD OF COVID‐19  In accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No‐29‐20, this will be a teleconference  meeting without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID‐19.  Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:   1) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U‐Verse Channel 99 on your TV.  3 2) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and  www.Cupertino.org/webcast  Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following  ways:   1) E‐mail comments by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 7 to the Council at  citycouncil@cupertino.org. These e‐mail comments will also be forwarded to Councilmembers  by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting.  2) E‐mail comments during the times for public comment during the meeting to the City Clerk at  cityclerk@cupertino.org. The City Clerk will read the emails into the record, and display any  attachments on the screen, for up to 3 minutes (subject to the Mayor’s discretion to shorten time  for public comments). Members of the public that wish to share a document must email  cityclerk@cupertino.org prior to speaking.  3) Teleconferencing Instructions  Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the teleconference meeting as  follows:  Oral public comments will be accepted during the teleconference meeting. Comments may be  made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public  comment period for each agenda item.  To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the  meeting:  Online  Register in advance for this webinar:  https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_CFzjR‐TfShWh2t‐lNQ7FRA  Phone  Dial: 669‐900‐6833 and enter Webinar ID: 953 8500 7073 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to  unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their  phone number.  Or an H.323/SIP room system:  H.323:   162.255.37.11 (US West)  Meeting ID: 953 8500 7073  SIP: 95385007073@zoomcrc.com  After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the  webinar.  Please read the following instructions carefully:  1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your  internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up‐to‐ date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may  be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.  2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with  instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the  4 public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you  may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation.  3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or, if  you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.  4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.  In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to  attend this teleconference City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any  disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerkʹs Office at 408‐777‐3223, at least  48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request,  in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed  for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative  format.  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.website To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.facebo ok To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.twitter To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.youtube To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.nextdoor To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.instagram To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.linkedin Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to la-warren@att.net using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, CA ꞏ 10300 Torre Avenue ꞏ Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the GovDelivery logo -- DISCLAIMER: BC email lists include elected officials and are subject to California Public Records Act requests. Please note that current BC email lists include a School Board Member. THANK YOU. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BC-StrategyDiscuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bc- strategydiscuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bc- strategydiscuss/910246317.1259731.1630641818147%40mail.yahoo.com. -- DISCLAIMER: BC email lists include elected officials and are subject to California Public Records Act requests. Please note that current BC email lists include a School Board Member. THANK YOU. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BC-StrategyDiscuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bc- strategydiscuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bc- strategydiscuss/1634337558.1356254.1630684535637%40mail.yahoo.com. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Joan Owyang-Lee <joanowyang@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 11:16 PM To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Oppose Vallco Developer and Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear City Council Members and City Manager, As a longtime Cupertino resident living near Stevens Creek and Wolfe, I vehemently oppose this development under SB 35. This Vallco developer was irresponsible with prior Sunnyvale development and against the interests of Cupertino residents, seeking to build 2400 units when residents voted against even 800. This location does not need another 2 Million sq ft of office space, traffic already is horrendous. This Vallco developer is concerned only with their own profit and not our city's interests. I urge you to support our city residents who oppose this development. This location at Wolfe and Stevens Creek does not need what this developer is proposing. Sincerely, Joan Owyang-Lee Cupertino resident 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Eric Schaefer <sericar7@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 2:04 PM To:City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:City Council meeting, Sept. 07 2021, item 12: Vallco SB35 extension report Attachments:CCC_2021Sept07_Item12_SB35extension_CommentByEric.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Thank you to City Manager and staff who contributed to the report.   My comment is attached as a PDF document.          ‐‐   Eric Schaefer    “Diversity jolts us into cognitive action in ways that homogeneity simply does not.”  ― Katherine Phillips    Re: Status Report on the Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Project My thanks to the City Manager and staff who contributed to the report. The report confirms issues that concerned residents identified in 2018 with several large projects that were being considered for the Vallco site: - office/housing ratio - water resources in a drought-prone region - the engineering viability and safety issues of a “green roof”—park on top of the buildings - public transit and roads infrastructure - remediation of toxic soil - the developer’s unwillingness to pay standard impact fees The developer’s documented poor planning and execution of the SB35 project isn’t surprising because-- when seen in a broader historical context--the developer’s incompetence is a predictable delay tactic. In 2018, the devloper and his supporters used the SB35 project as an undesireable alternative to other ugly but perhaps somewhat more desireable projects. The larger Vallco Specific Plan project had many of the same issues that the Staff report details in the SB35 project. But the VSP project was a more lucrative project for the developer because it contained relatively more market-rate housing units and more office space than the SB35 project. Nevertheless, a 3-person majority of the City Council ignored residents’ concerns and approved the VSP project. The VSP project was overturned by a popular referendum, residents who were critical of the VSP and SB35 projects were elected to council, and Mayor Vaidyanathan was not returned to the Council. The developer might still use the SB35 project to make other ugly projects look more desireable in comparison. But the effect can not be as great for sober-minded persons who pay attention to the current Staff report. On one hand I would like to see the SB35 project terminated so that we can move on to a better project, and so that the developer can no longer use the SB35 project to make an ugly project look less ugnly in comparison. On the other hand, I understand Staff’s prudence to extend the deadline. I believe it is likely that many issues will remain unresolved after another year and perhaps even more issues will come to light. Again, thank you for the report. Eric Schaefer, Cupertino resident 1 Cyrah Caburian From:AP_senate@columnist.com Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 8:07 PM To:Darcy Paul Cc:Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey; Liang Chao; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Vallco construction site Attachments:IMG_4368.jpeg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Hello to all,    I am a journalist & also a chemical engineer by profession. I saw an article highlighting that the Vallco project is  encountering some difficulties. Pls see the image below.    I would like to request full transparency in this matter, as I have small kids & we live very close to the site. The health &  safety of my family is my top most priority & I will do everything under my power to protect that. This developer is  known to have a past with problematic behavior (Palo Alto projects).    I will be attending the zoom meet tomorrow.    Hoping the City of Cupertino will look out for the health & safety of its residents, at all times.    Warmly,    J. Walsh    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:06 PM To:City Council Subject:Agenda Item: Vallco. Sept 7 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Mayor Paul, Vice‐ Mayor Chao, and  Councilmembers :    I am writing as a resident of Cupertino , self only, to urge you to move forward expeditiously to build housing for all  incomes at the SB 35 Vallco site. This project has been approved under SB 35 law, and will provide more sustainable  housing stock in our city. This project includes market rate as well as below market rate housing , which are all needed.  Housing is a regional problem. Cupertino must provide its share of the answer to the problem.  This housing will contribute to solving the growing homelessness problem in Santa Clara County.  Cupertino has  unhoused residents. Care for all our residents includes care for all incomes.  Sincerely,  Connie Cunningham    From Connie's iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Yan Yu <yanyu2005@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:42 PM To:City Council Subject:please say NO to Vallco SB35 plan extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Cupertino city council members,    I hear that there is going to be discussion on Vallco SB35 plan extension, I am very concerned, please say no for the  following reasons:   1. As some alert citizens have known all along, the Vallco site is contaminated with toxic chemicals and will require cleanup under the supervision of the Santa Clara County Dept. of Environmental Health. As a result, the project was never eligible for approval under the SB 35 law. 2. The soil contamination is much broader than expected, and in areas not anticipated. It was only "discovered" when the City did its own review with a third- party consultant. Both the Developer and staff had to know at least something about this, as they possessed studies that showed at least some of the contamination. 3. Cupertino asks the developer to pay $125 million in impact fees (which are estimated real costs of the impact of the project on the City). The developer refuses. If the developer doesn’t pay, taxpayers will bear the cost. So far, the developer isn’t budging. 4. The Developer hasn’t even submitted plans for the "green roof," and discussion so far reveals major emergency access and structural issues. 5. Yet the Developer is asking for a one-year extension beyond the Sept 21, 2021 deadline to begin vertical construction. They are nowhere near ready, and it is unlikely given their history that they'll be ready by Sept 21, 2022. 6. No demolition work has been done, nor soil even tested for known contaminants, on the east side of Wolfe Road. As the SB 35 statute calls for housing to be built before or concurrently with other uses, the Developer cannot begin construction of any of the project until that parcel is ready. For some reason, this issue isn't even addressed in the report(s). Thanks for your consideration and dedication!  Yan  Yan  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:48 PM To:City Clerk; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey Subject:Vallco Attachments:Vallco 2021 City of Cupertino.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Hello,     Please see that the City Council and Staff get my comments on Vallco for the City Council Meeting Tonight.     Thanks,   Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcement Advocate  CAP‐Citizens Against Pollution  408‐253‐0490   To: Cupertino City Council and Staff  From: Cathy Helgerson – 408‐253‐0490   Subject: Vallco Town Center – SB 35 Development Project   I am commenting on item on the agenda item 12 as follows:  Sand Hill Company has had over three years to work on the issues that pertain to the Vallco Town  Center and there have been many problems and now they are asking for another year the question is  will another year really be enough? It is stated in the Attachment A of the staff information summary  that the three‐year period has proven to be insufficient  my question what makes anyone think that  there is a solution to this continued prolonged ongoing lack of sufficiency to lead to final decision  making?  The major issue at this time is that this project should be subject to an environmental review process  when it could have been conducted but was not. The one size fits all inherent in legislating solutions  from Sacramento lacks the considerations that should be made to ensure the safety to the public from  serious pollution issues at this site.   Major Issues – 1. Soil Remediation ‐ the City Required the Developer to submit a Soil Characterization  Report (SCR) and an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) and PCB exceeded the screening  levels the city further required that a soil vapor investigation report be submitted along with a PCB  investitive report. The soil vapor issues are very serious the Developer entered into a Voluntary Clean‐up  Program to implement a soil remediation plan.   The issue of contamination to workers on the site during excavation and construction as well as the  concerns to prevent long‐term health hazards to the eventual residents and users of the properties is a  very serious matter. Allowing the Developer to “self‐monitor” with further testing and to remediate the  contaminated soils, if necessary, in accordance with applicable environmental laws is not acceptable.   The vapor intrusion at the Vallco sites both West side and East side must be investigated and to leave  the East side of Wolf Road as a separate plan with a separate permit is wrong. The question we should  ask ourselves here is why is Sand Hill the Developer putting off the development of the east side? I am  very convinced that the clean up at on the East side may be a more serious and more costly cleanup but  both sites should be handled together to make sure that one site is not contaminating the other.   The even more serious issue that I would like the City Council and Staff to concern themselves with is  the surrounding neighborhoods because once the land was excavated it released vapor into the  community and continues to do so. I would like the City or the Bay Area Air Quality Control Division to  conduct an investigation into the neighborhoods that are being exposed to this vapor Intrusion or  hazardous vapors which could cause all kinds of health and safety issues. These vapor‐causing issues  which are forming could be a great problem later as well when the buildings are built if this problem is  not resolved now. The fact that there are vapor‐forming chemicals many that are not listed should be a  very serious concern to all please see that these chemicals are addressed.   There are issues that also pertain to the size of the building 30 story building are not acceptable in the  eyes of the public and that has totally been over looked my question is why? The City of Cupertino is  turning into a mega city without the proper precautions is this what the public really wants? I see  revenue as the main issue here and that is not acceptable.   The Garden Roof not a safe situation for any one especially if your apartment is below there are also  water issues and fire issues that seem to be real concerns what is the City doing about them? The traffic  issue is extremely important and no report on that has been supplied why not?   There is the building of a new Fire Station at the site I am not so sure that is a good idea especially  because of the noise and the possibility of accidents happening with the residence owners and  shoppers.  Will Sand Hill the Developer continue to ask for extension because they can not or do not have the  finances to process the complete development project with the West and East end of Vallco has anyone  even found out if they can afford to take on both sites together? I think that may also be part of the  problem with what is happening now. Developing one side and later years down the road developing  the other is not acceptable and all kinds of health and safety issues should be considered.   We are in a drought and no one really know how long that will last seems that there is a very serious  water problem recycled or not does not matter we need to consider this overall and especially with the  Garden Roof which will take a great deal of water to maintain. My question here is will this be a realistic  endeavor with so many problems that could evolve in the construction and also later I think this should  be avoided at all costs. This is especially a problem with the Fire Department it did not meet the  California Fire Code emergency access requirements it does not provide fire vehicle access. I have to  wonder what this massive building project will take from the City of Cupertino’s water supply how will it  effect the water we in our neighborhoods are using and will we be put on water rationing it seems no  one really knows or has considered this aspect.    I would like to add that the that the public needs to be more involved and that the City of Cupertino’s  City Council should make the decision regarding this project based on the health and safety issues that  are very serious and will affect the pubic.   Thank you,   1 Cyrah Caburian From:ying.yuehsu@yahoo.com Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:53 PM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office Cc:City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 12, September 7th, 2021. Discretionary One Year Extension for Vallco SB-35 Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Please add this letter to the written communications for Agenda Item 12 for the September 7th, 2021 Cupertino City Council Meeting. Dear Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and City Attorney: According to the SB-35 law, approval of SB-35 projects is ministerial and is non-discretionary. A compliant project cannot be rejected. Cupertino ministerially approved the Vallco SB-35 project in September 2018. Nearly three years later, the buildings on the east side of Wolfe Road are still there and all we have is a contaminated empty lot on the west side of Wolfe Road. While the approval of SB-35 projects is non-discretionary, SB-35 explicitly permits cities to discretionarily grant a one year extension to a project if progress is being made to obtaining building permits. However nothing in the SB-35 law requires that a city grant an extension for a project that has not yet “gone vertical,” an extension is purely discretionary. Nothing that has occurred with the Vallco SB-35 project warrants the City of Cupertino discretionarily granting the property owner a one year extension. No lawsuit prevented the property owner from working on the project during the past three years. While there was a Friends of Better Cupertino lawsuit that challenged the basis for the ministerial approval, that lawsuit did not prevent the property owner from demolishing part of the mall, taking down the bridge over Wolfe Road, or from proceeding with the removal of toxic contaminants. Nothing prevented the property owner from cleaning up the site and obtaining building permits, other than it would have required admitting that the contamination actually existed. The poorly written SB-35 law doesn't specify whether the discretionary granting of a one year extension is ministerial or if it is a decision of elected officials. Whether it’s the decision of the City Manager, or of the City Council, an extension should not be granted. By now, the property owner has almost certainly pressured HCD, and the author of SB-35, to try to force the City of Cupertino to grant a one-year extension, despite the fact that the SB-35 law does not require that the City do this. The City should deny the extension and vigorously 2 defend itself against any lawsuit brought by the developer, HCD, or anti-affordable housing organizations, like California YIMBY. This project worsens Cupertino’s jobs/housing ratio because the retail and office space will generate a housing deficit of over 3,400 units. This project provides no affordable housing units at all for families with children. It completely violates the spirit of the SB-35 law. This project is opposed by most residents, Cupertino’s major employers, and affordable housing advocacy organizations. Even the property owner themselves wanted to build something else and never desired to build an SB-35 project. This project has generated negative publicity for Cupertino because of the lack of affordable housing for families, the excessive amount of office space, the lack of parkland, the soil contamination, and the poor reputation of the property owner related to projects in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, San Jose, Newark, and Saratoga. A trail of broken promises follows this property owner wherever they go. When residents mobilized to collect signatures to overturn the City Council's approval of the "Tier 2" project, the developer hired thugs to intimidate residents against signing the petitions. An independent investigation as to how this SB-35 project was ministerially approved, given the site contamination should be launched. While the former City Manager and Community Development Director are no longer employed by Cupertino, other staff members were also complacent and should be held accountable. As you are aware, the property owner also succeeded in getting the former City Attorney, Randall Hom, removed from his position, costing the City of Cupertino hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs and settlement costs. This property owner also complained to HCD about Cupertino's recent effort to increase the amount of affordable housing necessary to gain the maximum density bonus. This is the time to come together and for the property owner to propose a better project. One that provides affordable housing for families as specified in Cupertino’s affordable housing policies. One that does not obstruct views and does not endanger occupants. One that is environmentally sound and energy self-sufficient. One that enhances, instead of damages, Cupertino’s reputation. To summarize, while SB-35 permits cities to grant a one year extension, it does not require it. Please deny the extension. The property owner can complete the cleanup of the site and then apply for a new SB-35 project with a new three year approval window. Alternatively, the property owner can propose a non-SB-35 project for the site and apply for a General Plan Amendment. Yue "Jessie" Ying Hsu Cupertino Resident ying.yuehsu@yahoo.com 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Michelle Jenny <michellekatyajenny@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:13 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Councilman Willey,    I am a Cupertino resident and have lived here for 16 years.    I am writing to ask you to put your finger on the scale in order to move the Vallco project forward.    Our family has no stake in the project itself, but rather in the vision of a City with an open and progressive attitude. I  would like us to be at the forefront of creating housing for people in all walks of life and with a variety of means. I would  also like to avoid the endless lawsuits associated with this project so that we might see this portion of the Cupertino  budget used for more productive ends.    Sincerely,    Michelle Jenny  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Michelle Jenny <michellekatyajenny@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:14 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Councilmember Hung Wei,    I am a Cupertino resident and have lived here for 16 years.    I am writing to ask you to put your finger on the scale in order to move the Vallco project forward.    Our family has no stake in the project itself, but rather in the vision of a City with an open and progressive attitude. I  would like us to be at the forefront of creating housing for people in all walks of life and with a variety of means. I would  also like to avoid the endless lawsuits associated with this project so that we might see this portion of the Cupertino  budget used for more productive ends.    Sincerely,    Michelle Jenny  2 Cyrah Caburian From:Michelle Jenny <michellekatyajenny@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:15 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Councilmember Moore,    I am a Cupertino resident and have lived here for 16 years.    I am writing to ask you to put your finger on the scale in order to move the Vallco project forward.    Our family has no stake in the project itself, but rather in the vision of a City with an open and progressive attitude. I  would like us to be at the forefront of creating housing for people in all walks of life and with a variety of means. I would  also like to avoid the endless lawsuits associated with this project so that we might see this portion of the Cupertino  budget used for more productive ends.    Sincerely,    Michelle Jenny  3 Cyrah Caburian From:Michelle Jenny <michellekatyajenny@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:16 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Councilmember Chao,    I am a Cupertino resident and have lived here for 16 years.    I am writing to ask you to put your finger on the scale in order to move the Vallco project forward.    Our family has no stake in the project itself, but rather in the vision of a City with an open and progressive attitude. I  would like us to be at the forefront of creating housing for people in all walks of life and with a variety of means. I would  also like to avoid the endless lawsuits associated with this project so that we might see this portion of the Cupertino  budget used for more productive ends.    Sincerely,    Michelle Jenny  4 Cyrah Caburian From:Michelle Jenny <michellekatyajenny@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:17 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Vallco CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Councilmember Paul,    I am a Cupertino resident and have lived here for 16 years.    I am writing to ask you to put your finger on the scale in order to move the Vallco project forward.    Our family has no stake in the project itself, but rather in the vision of a City with an open and progressive attitude. I  would like us to be at the forefront of creating housing for people in all walks of life and with a variety of means. I would  also like to avoid the endless lawsuits associated with this project so that we might see this portion of the Cupertino  budget used for more productive ends.    Sincerely,    Michelle Jenny  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Sue Moore <suemmo@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:17 PM To:citymanager@cupertino.org; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Please deny Valco SB 35 extension. Written Communication Item 12, 9/7 CCC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear Cupertino Planning Staff and Interim City Manage, Larson,     I respectfully request the one year extension of the Valco SB 35 Project be denied.     I have read the the Status Report for The Project and have 2 rationale for the is request:     #1. The many hurdles documented in the report are too high to overcome in just a year. The toxic  cleanup, the lack of concrete plans for traffic/transit, a fire station, a nebulous  Green Roofwith possible safety issues, water storage, etc.     #2. The Project as envisioned is not practical and makes the challenges facing California and  Cupertino worse. A Pie in the Sky Green Roof is irresponsible with the State’s water crisis. Office  buildings which are not mitigated with enough equitable housing in all categories just adds to our  housing crisis.     I request that City Staff be forward thinking and encourage a reset of The Project by denying the  extension.     I request that the Developer take this opportunity to update and redefine The Project  to make  it relevant  to current needs.     Thank you Staff and City Manager for enlightening report.     Sincerely,  Susan Moore  40+ year Cupertino resident       Sent from my iPad  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:27 PM To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Concerns About Vallco Green Roof, Item No 12, 9/7/21 City Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    FYI. Please add to the Public Record. Thank you.      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Subject: Concerns About Vallco Green Roof, Item No 12, 9/7/21 City Council Meeting  From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>  Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021, 1:24 PM  To: "CityCouncil@Cupertino org" <CityCouncil@Cupertino.org>  CC: "grenna5000@yahoo com" <grenna5000@yahoo.com>      Dear City Council:    I have a great deal of concern about SB 35 in the state of California. I have a great deal  Of concern about the very big green roof being built in the Vallco project. It will be  One hundred feet up in the air and the housing units shouldn't be under it. Look  What happened in Miami with that tall condo building collapse. That building pancaked  On itself.     What will happen if that green roof fell down with the housing units under it?  An earthquake could also cause it to call down. This is not a good plan.    Also, if the green roof fell down it could fall into Stevens Creek Blvd. or Wolfe Road  Or into 280. Or onto Perimiter Road. In fact the 22 story buildings could fall  Onto the adjacent roads.    This is not a good plan to build a structure like this over housing units and so high  Up in the air.    SB 35 has made a lot of issues in the state. This canopy situation does not sound like  A good idea at all.    Thank you.    Jennifer Griffin  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ping Gao <gaoping@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:47 PM To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Opposing SB-35 Plan Extension on Vallco Site for Another Year CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear City Council and City Staff,     This is Ping, a 14‐year Cupertino resident.     I'm writing you today to raise my concern regarding Vallco SB‐35 plan extension. I'm strongly against it. As we've  witnessed in the past years, not much progress has been made by the developer, and I seriously doubt if the developer  is diligently working toward SB‐35 plan. Not to mention the track record of this developer made it hard for me to believe  it will follow SB‐35 requirements.     As I read through the Status Report, there are so much evidence that speaks for itself how much progress the  developer has made in the last three years and it didn't justify another year of extension in my opinion. Just to cite a few  from the report:    “The Vallco Project anticipates that Santa Clara County Dept. of Environmental Health’s oversight will continue until Spring 2022, although recent testing has revealed even greater contamination issues than previously identified, including some measures beyond permissible residential thresholds.” (summary status report, pg. 2) “Relatively little is known about the 30-acre “green roof” proposed on top of most of the buildings…” (summary status report, pg. 3)    “The plan review has resulted in the identification of issues related to soil remediation, fire and life safety, structural design, traffic, transit, the provision of water to the development, affordable housing, development impact fees, parcel map processing and other issues which are discussed in this report.” (detailed status report, pg. 4)    “A large portion of the green roof is elevated approximately 100 feet above the ground. This height is beyond the reach of the Fire District’s equipment (ladder and snorkel trucks) in an emergency.” (detailed status report, pg. 9)    “In March 2021, the City Transportation Manager requested additional analysis of the impacts of the proposed design on traffic and emergency response times. City staff repeated that request in July 2021 and again in August 2021 and are awaiting a response from the Developer.” (detailed status report, pg. 13)     2 Besides, there are also many other places questioning the feasibility of the developer's SB‐35 plan in the Status  Report.  These are my two impressions from reading the Status Report: 1) Little progress has been made on the Vallco  site, or, it is far from enough; 2) Its feasibility is questionable: it's far away from being implemented.      Based on the current status, please consider NOT to extent the developer's SB‐35 plan for another year. It's simply a  waste of time and effort. The construction of Vallco site will have a huge impact of our beloved city, and I hope the city  council and city staff would think thoroughly of the impacts of the current plan. Please think about what we would like  to leave to the future of Cupertino: a concrete monster or something memorable?        Thank you for your time and patience reading my email.     Sincerely,  Ping  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Goldberg <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:53 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. The city has already fought one expensive lawsuit. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. As a former resident of Cupertino who is now priced out of my own hometown, I am extremely distressed by the lack of progress on this front. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Jennifer Goldberg jennagold1326@gmail.com 202 Saint Paul St., Apartment 32 Brookline, Massachusetts 02446          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Goldberg <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:53 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. The city has already fought one expensive lawsuit. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. As a former resident of Cupertino who is now priced out of my own hometown, I am extremely distressed by the lack of progress on this front. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Jennifer Goldberg jennagold1326@gmail.com 202 Saint Paul St., Apartment 32 Brookline, Massachusetts 02446          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Goldberg <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:53 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. The city has already fought one expensive lawsuit. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. As a former resident of Cupertino who is now priced out of my own hometown, I am extremely distressed by the lack of progress on this front. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Jennifer Goldberg jennagold1326@gmail.com 202 Saint Paul St., Apartment 32 Brookline, Massachusetts 02446          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Goldberg <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:53 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. The city has already fought one expensive lawsuit. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. As a former resident of Cupertino who is now priced out of my own hometown, I am extremely distressed by the lack of progress on this front. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Jennifer Goldberg jennagold1326@gmail.com 202 Saint Paul St., Apartment 32 Brookline, Massachusetts 02446          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Goldberg <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:53 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. The city has already fought one expensive lawsuit. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. As a former resident of Cupertino who is now priced out of my own hometown, I am extremely distressed by the lack of progress on this front. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Jennifer Goldberg jennagold1326@gmail.com 202 Saint Paul St., Apartment 32 Brookline, Massachusetts 02446          1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: FW: Vallco Please include my letter in the public record for tonight’s meeting.     Thank you, Michelle Jenny    Greg Larson  City Manager ‐ Interim  City Manager's Office  GregL@cupertino.org  ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Michelle Jenny <michellekatyajenny@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:12 PM  To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>  Subject: Vallco    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Mr. Larson,    I am a Cupertino resident and have lived here for 16 years.    I am writing to ask you to put your finger on the scale in order to move the Vallco project forward.    Our family has no stake in the project itself, but rather in the vision of a City with an open and progressive attitude. I  would like us to be at the forefront of creating housing for people in all walks of life and with a variety of means. I  would also like to avoid the endless lawsuits associated with this project so that we might see this portion of the  Cupertino budget used for more productive ends.    Sincerely,    Michelle Jenny  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Kinjal Buch <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:35 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits ASAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am very pained to see no movement on the Vallco site even though the project was approved nearly 3 years ago. We lost millions of dollars for schools and community when we rejected the Hill at Vallco project and even now, the city is losing millions of dollars in potential sales and property income and depriving the residents of Cupertino of much needed vibrant place for them to shop, live, work and entertain themselves. Is the opposition to the project above the need of the residents? There is dire need for housing of all kinds in Cupertino to sustain its school system. Enrollment is going down each year as young families do not have houses available for them to buy. Many residents who do not have school going kids at home would like to downsize and move to smaller units within Cupertino, but they also don't have many options. At this rate, the absence of churn in housing will make Cupertino a city of Senior citizens only. Is that the vision for Cupertino that the counc il sees in next 10 years? Please let this project move forward without any further road blocks. I want to see a thriving and vibrant Vallco project completed soon. Kinjal Buch kinjalbuch@yahoo.com 10307 Bret Avenue Cupertino, California 95014          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Kinjal Buch <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:35 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits ASAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am very pained to see no movement on the Vallco site even though the project was approved nearly 3 years ago. We lost millions of dollars for schools and community when we rejected the Hill at Vallco project and even now, the city is losing millions of dollars in potential sales and property income and depriving the residents of Cupertino of much needed vibrant place for them to shop, live, work and entertain themselves. Is the opposition to the project above the need of the residents? There is dire need for housing of all kinds in Cupertino to sustain its school system. Enrollment is going down each year as young families do not have houses available for them to buy. Many residents who do not have school going kids at home would like to downsize and move to smaller units within Cupertino, but they also don't have many options. At this rate, the absence of churn in housing will make Cupertino a city of Senior citizens only. Is that the vision for Cupertino that the counc il sees in next 10 years? Please let this project move forward without any further road blocks. I want to see a thriving and vibrant Vallco project completed soon. Kinjal Buch kinjalbuch@yahoo.com 10307 Bret Avenue Cupertino, California 95014          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Kinjal Buch <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:35 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits ASAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am very pained to see no movement on the Vallco site even though the project was approved nearly 3 years ago. We lost millions of dollars for schools and community when we rejected the Hill at Vallco project and even now, the city is losing millions of dollars in potential sales and property income and depriving the residents of Cupertino of much needed vibrant place for them to shop, live, work and entertain themselves. Is the opposition to the project above the need of the residents? There is dire need for housing of all kinds in Cupertino to sustain its school system. Enrollment is going down each year as young families do not have houses available for them to buy. Many residents who do not have school going kids at home would like to downsize and move to smaller units within Cupertino, but they also don't have many options. At this rate, the absence of churn in housing will make Cupertino a city of Senior citizens only. Is that the vision for Cupertino that the counc il sees in next 10 years? Please let this project move forward without any further road blocks. I want to see a thriving and vibrant Vallco project completed soon. Kinjal Buch kinjalbuch@yahoo.com 10307 Bret Avenue Cupertino, California 95014          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Kinjal Buch <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:35 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits ASAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am very pained to see no movement on the Vallco site even though the project was approved nearly 3 years ago. We lost millions of dollars for schools and community when we rejected the Hill at Vallco project and even now, the city is losing millions of dollars in potential sales and property income and depriving the residents of Cupertino of much needed vibrant place for them to shop, live, work and entertain themselves. Is the opposition to the project above the need of the residents? There is dire need for housing of all kinds in Cupertino to sustain its school system. Enrollment is going down each year as young families do not have houses available for them to buy. Many residents who do not have school going kids at home would like to downsize and move to smaller units within Cupertino, but they also don't have many options. At this rate, the absence of churn in housing will make Cupertino a city of Senior citizens only. Is that the vision for Cupertino that the counc il sees in next 10 years? Please let this project move forward without any further road blocks. I want to see a thriving and vibrant Vallco project completed soon. Kinjal Buch kinjalbuch@yahoo.com 10307 Bret Avenue Cupertino, California 95014          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Kinjal Buch <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:35 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits ASAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am very pained to see no movement on the Vallco site even though the project was approved nearly 3 years ago. We lost millions of dollars for schools and community when we rejected the Hill at Vallco project and even now, the city is losing millions of dollars in potential sales and property income and depriving the residents of Cupertino of much needed vibrant place for them to shop, live, work and entertain themselves. Is the opposition to the project above the need of the residents? There is dire need for housing of all kinds in Cupertino to sustain its school system. Enrollment is going down each year as young families do not have houses available for them to buy. Many residents who do not have school going kids at home would like to downsize and move to smaller units within Cupertino, but they also don't have many options. At this rate, the absence of churn in housing will make Cupertino a city of Senior citizens only. Is that the vision for Cupertino that the counc il sees in next 10 years? Please let this project move forward without any further road blocks. I want to see a thriving and vibrant Vallco project completed soon. Kinjal Buch kinjalbuch@yahoo.com 10307 Bret Avenue Cupertino, California 95014          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Xiangying Yang <yangxy@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:38 PM To:City Council Subject:Please say NO to Vallco SB35 extension plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear city councils,   As a Cupertino resident, I would respectfully request you to vote NO on the Vallco SB35 plan's extension. I have my  detailed comments below. Please feel free to share it during the council meeting.  Thank you  Best regards,  Xiangying    The plan was flawed from the beginning:  ‐ Powerpoint based green roof, does not really serve the true purpose of a community park. Not to mention uncertain  cost. We have not seen a green roof project that has been practically successful/useful. What's developer's experience  on that and who would pay the maintenance bill?  ‐ The building height in the plan was exploiting ambiguity in the previous general zoning guideline. It is now in direct  conflict with the latest zoning mandates.  ‐ The traffic analysis was deeply flawed with false assumptions on how people will live and commute. An example, large  companies have office move from one building to another almost yearly, and these buildings are widely spreaded in bay  area. Living close and biking/working to office building is a wishful thinking for MOST in silicon valley. The high density  nature of the project will cause a bottleneck on an already very crowded crossroad.  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Yulissa L <yl2t66@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:51 PM To:City Council Subject:Vallco SB35 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      To whom it may concern,    I am a Cupertino resident.  please vote NO on Vallco SB35 plan extension.    Thanks!    Sent from my iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:04 PM To:City Council Subject:Agenda Item, Vallco, Sept 7 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Mayor Paul, Vice‐mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:    Having thought about this item further, I would like to add the following.    The commercial elements of the Project, especially the office, pay for the Below‐Market‐Rate housing‐‐BMR housing  that would otherwise be impossible to build without a massive public subsidy.    The 1201 BMR homes would cut our worst‐in‐the‐Bay‐Area jobs‐housing‐fit in half, making Cupertino available to those  who can least afford it and can least afford to commute.    It has been mentioned that the Project units are small and not conducive to families. However, my thought is that this  one Project cannot solve all our housing issues. Single people and couples need housing as much as people with  children. Cupertino needs to plan for all types of housing. RHNA planning needs to consider all these ideas as we look for  sites for the upcoming Housing Element.    Sincerely,  Connie Cunningham, self only  Chair, Housing Commission        From Connie's iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Chi Yeh <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:15 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Chi Yeh ckyeh@sbcglobal.net 21607 Villa Maria Ct. Cupertino, California 95014          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Chi Yeh <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:15 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Chi Yeh ckyeh@sbcglobal.net 21607 Villa Maria Ct. Cupertino, California 95014          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Chi Yeh <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:15 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Chi Yeh ckyeh@sbcglobal.net 21607 Villa Maria Ct. Cupertino, California 95014          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Chi Yeh <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:15 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Chi Yeh ckyeh@sbcglobal.net 21607 Villa Maria Ct. Cupertino, California 95014          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Chi Yeh <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:15 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Chi Yeh ckyeh@sbcglobal.net 21607 Villa Maria Ct. Cupertino, California 95014          6 Cyrah Caburian From:Jun-Xiong Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:16 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please, No More Unnecessary Delays and Fighting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, As a resident who is deeply concerned about the future of our City and making it a less exclusive place, I urge you to reflect on why we continue to install delays in the development process of the Vallco project. Regardless of the merits of the project- which are not terrible and are crucial to meeting our RHNA obligations- the continual slow-walking and fighting throughout the administrative approval and permitting process is a waste of time and resources. We need move forward as a city and stop trying to sabotage the one project contributing a significant portion of our affordable housing obligations. Moreover, the very premise that we know the intent of the state law better than the state agency tasked to implement it is ridiculous and feels like a petty, unnecessary fight. If we truly we concerned about expiration, I would imagine we would work with HCD to provide clarification- which they have- rather than flexing our imaginations to come up with alternate legal interpretations. So please stop fighting this project, and just generally, the state / HCD. So much more can get done collaboratively, and with good-faith, even if you don't support the state's intentions. With regard to the states' intentions: as you are all well aware, we legally obligated to contribute our fair share of affordable housing, but outside of our legal obligations, I would argue that we have moral obligations to current and future generations to improve our housing options, which really begs the question of why we don't share the same goals with the state in the first place. 7 Finally, we all know the Vallco project has been one of the most politically-charged topics in recent times, so can you please stop putting these significant topics at the end of city meeting agendas? At the end of the day I really hope you all can just think about why, and who you think you are fighting for - because I look around to many voices and individuals in this community (even those opposed to the project) and I am at loss for who it is you represent. Jun-Xiong Hughes jxseanhughes@gmail.com 7752 Huntridge Lane Cupertino, California 95014          8 Cyrah Caburian From:Jun-Xiong Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:16 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please, No More Unnecessary Delays and Fighting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, As a resident who is deeply concerned about the future of our City and making it a less exclusive place, I urge you to reflect on why we continue to install delays in the development process of the Vallco project. Regardless of the merits of the project- which are not terrible and are crucial to meeting our RHNA obligations- the continual slow-walking and fighting throughout the administrative approval and permitting process is a waste of time and resources. We need move forward as a city and stop trying to sabotage the one project contributing a significant portion of our affordable housing obligations. Moreover, the very premise that we know the intent of the state law better than the state agency tasked to implement it is ridiculous and feels like a petty, unnecessary fight. If we truly we concerned about expiration, I would imagine we would work with HCD to provide clarification- which they have- rather than flexing our imaginations to come up with alternate legal interpretations. So please stop fighting this project, and just generally, the state / HCD. So much more can get done collaboratively, and with good-faith, even if you don't support the state's intentions. With regard to the states' intentions: as you are all well aware, we legally obligated to contribute our fair share of affordable housing, but outside of our legal obligations, I would argue that we have moral obligations to current and future generations to improve our housing options, which really begs the question of why we don't share the same goals with the state in the first place. 9 Finally, we all know the Vallco project has been one of the most politically-charged topics in recent times, so can you please stop putting these significant topics at the end of city meeting agendas? At the end of the day I really hope you all can just think about why, and who you think you are fighting for - because I look around to many voices and individuals in this community (even those opposed to the project) and I am at loss for who it is you represent. Jun-Xiong Hughes jxseanhughes@gmail.com 7752 Huntridge Lane Cupertino, California 95014          10 Cyrah Caburian From:Jun-Xiong Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:16 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please, No More Unnecessary Delays and Fighting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, As a resident who is deeply concerned about the future of our City and making it a less exclusive place, I urge you to reflect on why we continue to install delays in the development process of the Vallco project. Regardless of the merits of the project- which are not terrible and are crucial to meeting our RHNA obligations- the continual slow-walking and fighting throughout the administrative approval and permitting process is a waste of time and resources. We need move forward as a city and stop trying to sabotage the one project contributing a significant portion of our affordable housing obligations. Moreover, the very premise that we know the intent of the state law better than the state agency tasked to implement it is ridiculous and feels like a petty, unnecessary fight. If we truly we concerned about expiration, I would imagine we would work with HCD to provide clarification- which they have- rather than flexing our imaginations to come up with alternate legal interpretations. So please stop fighting this project, and just generally, the state / HCD. So much more can get done collaboratively, and with good-faith, even if you don't support the state's intentions. With regard to the states' intentions: as you are all well aware, we legally obligated to contribute our fair share of affordable housing, but outside of our legal obligations, I would argue that we have moral obligations to current and future generations to improve our housing options, which really begs the question of why we don't share the same goals with the state in the first place. 11 Finally, we all know the Vallco project has been one of the most politically-charged topics in recent times, so can you please stop putting these significant topics at the end of city meeting agendas? At the end of the day I really hope you all can just think about why, and who you think you are fighting for - because I look around to many voices and individuals in this community (even those opposed to the project) and I am at loss for who it is you represent. Jun-Xiong Hughes jxseanhughes@gmail.com 7752 Huntridge Lane Cupertino, California 95014          12 Cyrah Caburian From:Jun-Xiong Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:16 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please, No More Unnecessary Delays and Fighting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, As a resident who is deeply concerned about the future of our City and making it a less exclusive place, I urge you to reflect on why we continue to install delays in the development process of the Vallco project. Regardless of the merits of the project- which are not terrible and are crucial to meeting our RHNA obligations- the continual slow-walking and fighting throughout the administrative approval and permitting process is a waste of time and resources. We need move forward as a city and stop trying to sabotage the one project contributing a significant portion of our affordable housing obligations. Moreover, the very premise that we know the intent of the state law better than the state agency tasked to implement it is ridiculous and feels like a petty, unnecessary fight. If we truly we concerned about expiration, I would imagine we would work with HCD to provide clarification- which they have- rather than flexing our imaginations to come up with alternate legal interpretations. So please stop fighting this project, and just generally, the state / HCD. So much more can get done collaboratively, and with good-faith, even if you don't support the state's intentions. With regard to the states' intentions: as you are all well aware, we legally obligated to contribute our fair share of affordable housing, but outside of our legal obligations, I would argue that we have moral obligations to current and future generations to improve our housing options, which really begs the question of why we don't share the same goals with the state in the first place. 13 Finally, we all know the Vallco project has been one of the most politically-charged topics in recent times, so can you please stop putting these significant topics at the end of city meeting agendas? At the end of the day I really hope you all can just think about why, and who you think you are fighting for - because I look around to many voices and individuals in this community (even those opposed to the project) and I am at loss for who it is you represent. Jun-Xiong Hughes jxseanhughes@gmail.com 7752 Huntridge Lane Cupertino, California 95014          14 Cyrah Caburian From:Jun-Xiong Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:16 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please, No More Unnecessary Delays and Fighting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, As a resident who is deeply concerned about the future of our City and making it a less exclusive place, I urge you to reflect on why we continue to install delays in the development process of the Vallco project. Regardless of the merits of the project- which are not terrible and are crucial to meeting our RHNA obligations- the continual slow-walking and fighting throughout the administrative approval and permitting process is a waste of time and resources. We need move forward as a city and stop trying to sabotage the one project contributing a significant portion of our affordable housing obligations. Moreover, the very premise that we know the intent of the state law better than the state agency tasked to implement it is ridiculous and feels like a petty, unnecessary fight. If we truly we concerned about expiration, I would imagine we would work with HCD to provide clarification- which they have- rather than flexing our imaginations to come up with alternate legal interpretations. So please stop fighting this project, and just generally, the state / HCD. So much more can get done collaboratively, and with good-faith, even if you don't support the state's intentions. With regard to the states' intentions: as you are all well aware, we legally obligated to contribute our fair share of affordable housing, but outside of our legal obligations, I would argue that we have moral obligations to current and future generations to improve our housing options, which really begs the question of why we don't share the same goals with the state in the first place. 15 Finally, we all know the Vallco project has been one of the most politically-charged topics in recent times, so can you please stop putting these significant topics at the end of city meeting agendas? At the end of the day I really hope you all can just think about why, and who you think you are fighting for - because I look around to many voices and individuals in this community (even those opposed to the project) and I am at loss for who it is you represent. Jun-Xiong Hughes jxseanhughes@gmail.com 7752 Huntridge Lane Cupertino, California 95014          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Leigh Anne Gillis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:34 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Leigh Anne Gillis leighagillis@gmail.com 21847 Shattuck Drive Cupertino , California 95014          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Leigh Anne Gillis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:34 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Leigh Anne Gillis leighagillis@gmail.com 21847 Shattuck Drive Cupertino , California 95014          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Leigh Anne Gillis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:34 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Leigh Anne Gillis leighagillis@gmail.com 21847 Shattuck Drive Cupertino , California 95014          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Leigh Anne Gillis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:34 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Leigh Anne Gillis leighagillis@gmail.com 21847 Shattuck Drive Cupertino , California 95014          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Leigh Anne Gillis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:34 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Leigh Anne Gillis leighagillis@gmail.com 21847 Shattuck Drive Cupertino , California 95014          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:09 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Ryan McManus ryantomorrow@me.com 82 Lewis rd. Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:09 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Ryan McManus ryantomorrow@me.com 82 Lewis rd. Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:09 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Ryan McManus ryantomorrow@me.com 82 Lewis rd. Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:09 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Ryan McManus ryantomorrow@me.com 82 Lewis rd. Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:09 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Ryan McManus ryantomorrow@me.com 82 Lewis rd. Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Fariba Nejat <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:11 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Fariba Nejat farnejat@yahoo.com 1582 south Stelling rd. Cupertino, California 95014          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Fariba Nejat <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:11 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Fariba Nejat farnejat@yahoo.com 1582 south Stelling rd. Cupertino, California 95014          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Fariba Nejat <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:11 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Fariba Nejat farnejat@yahoo.com 1582 south Stelling rd. Cupertino, California 95014          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Fariba Nejat <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:11 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Fariba Nejat farnejat@yahoo.com 1582 south Stelling rd. Cupertino, California 95014          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Fariba Nejat <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:11 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Fariba Nejat farnejat@yahoo.com 1582 south Stelling rd. Cupertino, California 95014          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:20 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, As a former resident of Cupertino, I I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. My family, like many other families, was recently priced out of Cupertino as a direct effect of this councils’ refusal to address the housing needs of the community. Although I am no longer a resident, I am writing this I’m on behalf of our friends and former colleagues that remain in Cupertino. By stalling on the Vallco project; appointing an openly anti-housing planning commission and advocating only for the interests of those residents that are fortunate enough to own homes, you are directly causing harm to families such as mine. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Dinelle Rudd dinelle.rudd@gmail.com 82 Lewis Road Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:20 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, As a former resident of Cupertino, I I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. My family, like many other families, was recently priced out of Cupertino as a direct effect of this councils’ refusal to address the housing needs of the community. Although I am no longer a resident, I am writing this I’m on behalf of our friends and former colleagues that remain in Cupertino. By stalling on the Vallco project; appointing an openly anti-housing planning commission and advocating only for the interests of those residents that are fortunate enough to own homes, you are directly causing harm to families such as mine. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Dinelle Rudd dinelle.rudd@gmail.com 82 Lewis Road Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:20 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, As a former resident of Cupertino, I I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. My family, like many other families, was recently priced out of Cupertino as a direct effect of this councils’ refusal to address the housing needs of the community. Although I am no longer a resident, I am writing this I’m on behalf of our friends and former colleagues that remain in Cupertino. By stalling on the Vallco project; appointing an openly anti-housing planning commission and advocating only for the interests of those residents that are fortunate enough to own homes, you are directly causing harm to families such as mine. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Dinelle Rudd dinelle.rudd@gmail.com 82 Lewis Road Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:20 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, As a former resident of Cupertino, I I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. My family, like many other families, was recently priced out of Cupertino as a direct effect of this councils’ refusal to address the housing needs of the community. Although I am no longer a resident, I am writing this I’m on behalf of our friends and former colleagues that remain in Cupertino. By stalling on the Vallco project; appointing an openly anti-housing planning commission and advocating only for the interests of those residents that are fortunate enough to own homes, you are directly causing harm to families such as mine. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Dinelle Rudd dinelle.rudd@gmail.com 82 Lewis Road Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:20 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, As a former resident of Cupertino, I I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. My family, like many other families, was recently priced out of Cupertino as a direct effect of this councils’ refusal to address the housing needs of the community. Although I am no longer a resident, I am writing this I’m on behalf of our friends and former colleagues that remain in Cupertino. By stalling on the Vallco project; appointing an openly anti-housing planning commission and advocating only for the interests of those residents that are fortunate enough to own homes, you are directly causing harm to families such as mine. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Dinelle Rudd dinelle.rudd@gmail.com 82 Lewis Road Belmont, Massachusetts 02478          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:21 PM To:City Council Subject:More on Agenda Item Vallco Sep 7, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      Dear Mayor Paul, Vice‐ mayor Chao and Councilmembers,  >  > if this project moves forward before the new Housing Element is due, Cupertino will have a lot less work to do to  support its position that individual sites can support housing in the next Housing Element. HCD's guidance on AB 1397  allows cities to rely on the percentage of housing element sites that ultimately saw housing production and how much  production they saw. Vallco fulfills so much of the current requirement that it will make the 6th Cycle HE much easier to  certify.    I urge you to expedite the Vallco project.  Connie Cunningham self only  Chair, Housing Commission      From Connie's iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Stephanie Heinsohn <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:49 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Liang Chao, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Stephanie Heinsohn sjheinsohn@gmail.com 368 Montclair Drive, Santa Clara, CA, USA Santa Clara, California 95051          2 Cyrah Caburian From:Stephanie Heinsohn <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:49 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Stephanie Heinsohn sjheinsohn@gmail.com 368 Montclair Drive, Santa Clara, CA, USA Santa Clara, California 95051          3 Cyrah Caburian From:Stephanie Heinsohn <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:49 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Hung Wei, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Stephanie Heinsohn sjheinsohn@gmail.com 368 Montclair Drive, Santa Clara, CA, USA Santa Clara, California 95051          4 Cyrah Caburian From:Stephanie Heinsohn <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:49 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Councilmember Jon Wiley, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Stephanie Heinsohn sjheinsohn@gmail.com 368 Montclair Drive, Santa Clara, CA, USA Santa Clara, California 95051          5 Cyrah Caburian From:Stephanie Heinsohn <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:49 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12--don't put us in legal jeopardy; issue all the remaining permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Mayor Darcy Paul, I am greatly concerned by the status of Vallco, which was approved nearly 3 years ago. The City is incorrect that the project will expire—the state knows its own laws better than us. We must move forward as a city and issue any remaining permits. At this rate, we are unnecessarily stalling 1,200 affordable homes, while also putting our city in legal jeopardy. Please stop putting up a fight against the State; we will lose. We must contribute our fair share of affordable housing, and we already have an approved project to do that! Let the Vallco project move forward Now! Stephanie Heinsohn sjheinsohn@gmail.com 368 Montclair Drive, Santa Clara, CA, USA Santa Clara, California 95051