The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 09-07-2021 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsCC 09-07-21 #11 Westport Vesting Tentative Map Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:20 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Public comment , Sept. 7, 2021 Agenda Item #11 Westport Tentative Vesting Map 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 include in written communications ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Good evening, Mayor Paul and council members, My name is Jean Bedord, and I am a long time Cupertino resident. I am here tonight to urge you to approve this application by KT Urban to create a separate parcel for the senior below market rate housing at Westport. This project was approved by the city council over a year ago. The project itself is unchanged, but the financing is dependent on creating a separate parcel, a legal requirement unrelated to land use. Like so many aspects of managing a large project, the paperwork and details need to be satisfied so I urge you to do your job as a council to approve this modification to ensure financing goes ahead. The bike lane on the south side of Stevens Creek Blvd. is a minor issue, so should not stand in the way of approval. Who knows when or even if Caltran will approve plans? There is a tremendous need for senior housing in Cupertino, so the sooner the better, for this project. Isn’t it time to stop dilly‐dallying around and get projects under construction? This is a city which produced only 20 units of housing in 2020, of which 19 were ADUs. It’s actual production of housing that counts, not entitlement. Why present roadblocks to builders who are actually ready to break ground? I urge you to unanimously approve this application tonight so residents can finally see construction underway, not a dead shopping center. Thank you. CC 09-07-21 #12 Vallco Town Center SB 35 Development Report Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Michael Mar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:07 PM To:Kitty Moore Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please support Vallco 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. Councilmember Kitty Moore, I live right next to the Vallco site, and I want to state that I support the SB35 project. The Tier 2 project was preferable, but the SB35 project is still something I want the city to support. I hope we as a city can finally unite and move forward to support the Vallco project. Please stop fighting the state interpretation of the SB35 extension. HCD has already let the city know that Cupertino's interpretation is incorrect. HCD has significant powers to set very large fines for the city. Please do not waste tax payer money by incorrectly interpreting the law and opening us up to large fines or yet another lawsuit. Michael Mar megamar88@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 2 Cyrah Caburian From:Michael Mar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:07 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please support Vallco 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. Mayor Darcy Paul, I live right next to the Vallco site, and I want to state that I support the SB35 project. The Tier 2 project was preferable, but the SB35 project is still something I want the city to support. I hope we as a city can finally unite and move forward to support the Vallco project. Please stop fighting the state interpretation of the SB35 extension. HCD has already let the city know that Cupertino's interpretation is incorrect. HCD has significant powers to set very large fines for the city. Please do not waste tax payer money by incorrectly interpreting the law and opening us up to large fines or yet another lawsuit. Michael Mar megamar88@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 3 Cyrah Caburian From:Michael Mar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:07 PM To:Hung Wei Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please support Vallco 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. Councilmember Hung Wei, I live right next to the Vallco site, and I want to state that I support the SB35 project. The Tier 2 project was preferable, but the SB35 project is still something I want the city to support. I hope we as a city can finally unite and move forward to support the Vallco project. Please stop fighting the state interpretation of the SB35 extension. HCD has already let the city know that Cupertino's interpretation is incorrect. HCD has significant powers to set very large fines for the city. Please do not waste tax payer money by incorrectly interpreting the law and opening us up to large fines or yet another lawsuit. Michael Mar megamar88@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 4 Cyrah Caburian From:Michael Mar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:07 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please support Vallco 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. Councilmember Jon Wiley, I live right next to the Vallco site, and I want to state that I support the SB35 project. The Tier 2 project was preferable, but the SB35 project is still something I want the city to support. I hope we as a city can finally unite and move forward to support the Vallco project. Please stop fighting the state interpretation of the SB35 extension. HCD has already let the city know that Cupertino's interpretation is incorrect. HCD has significant powers to set very large fines for the city. Please do not waste tax payer money by incorrectly interpreting the law and opening us up to large fines or yet another lawsuit. Michael Mar megamar88@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 5 Cyrah Caburian From:Michael Mar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:07 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Agenda Item 12 -- Please support Vallco 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. Councilmember Liang Chao, I live right next to the Vallco site, and I want to state that I support the SB35 project. The Tier 2 project was preferable, but the SB35 project is still something I want the city to support. I hope we as a city can finally unite and move forward to support the Vallco project. Please stop fighting the state interpretation of the SB35 extension. HCD has already let the city know that Cupertino's interpretation is incorrect. HCD has significant powers to set very large fines for the city. Please do not waste tax payer money by incorrectly interpreting the law and opening us up to large fines or yet another lawsuit. Michael Mar megamar88@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 1 Cyrah Caburian From:United Cupertino <unitedcupertino@pb05.ascendbywix.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:15 PM To:City Council Subject:Cupertino Council Continues to Block Affordable Housing 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. Can't see this message? View in a browser Cupertino Council Continues to Block Affordable Housing Cupertino Council, You continue to employ (potentially illegal) delay tactics to block affordable housing in Cupertino. We hope that you will disavow these tactics at tonight's Council meeting and instruct staff to process building permits in a professional and legal manner with no delay. You've tried to run out the clock on the three-year condition in the State law, but you've neglected to understand that Councilmember Moore's litigation forestalled that strategy. The lack of acknowledgment that there is a letter from the State in the staff report is further evidence of your obstruction and tampering with staff. 2 Mayor Paul, you will be forever labeled as anti-housing mayor and this label will follow you in any future political aspirations you may have. Stop the discriminatory tactics against this developer, stop blocking permits, and stop the obstruction of State mandated affordable housing that is so desperately needed. /United Cupertino Residents Share on social To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Share on Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet.Share on Twitter To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Share on Pinterest Read More at UnitedCupertino.org To help protect your privacy, Micro soft Office You've received this email because you are a subscriber of this site. If you feel you received it by mistake or wish to unsubscribe, please click here. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Wendell Kerr <whkerr@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:57 PM To:City Clerk Subject:item 12 on City Council 9-7-21 agenda 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. Council Members I support the SB 35 Vallco development which is the subject of tonight’s item 12. The Council needs to get moving on allowing the development to proceed. Don’t let the approved plan expire with yet more delaying tactics. Stop spending Cupertino resident’s money in further delay. Let the project proceed. Wendell Kerr 408‐421‐5380 whkerr@comcast.net 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Neil Park-McClintick <neil@cupertinoforall.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:40 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; City Council Subject:Analysis of AB 1174 RE Vallco Attachments:Vallco analysis via AB 1174.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 Cupertino City Council, I wanted to alert you all to this Bill Analysis done by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. It specifically indicates the Vallco project as a target of these amendments, due to the perceived stalling tactics. Here is an excerpt. Let's look for solutions, not problems. It should not take 3 years to process permits for a project that already has been approved. It doesn't matter if you hate it; if you think there's a better project possible. I think that a better project was certainly possible. Any attempts to delay the process, will likely put us in court—this includes any decision to issue an extension, when one is not necessary. AB 831 makes it clear that this extension is not necessary, and that the project's timeline has been delayed due to the exposed litigation by FOBC. Finally, I want to say that I'm glad to finally have some more transparency and clarity on what's going on RE: Vallco, though I disagree with the City's conclusions about the need to diddle endlessly. If you would like to discuss this further, I am open to that dialogue. I ultimately just want this thing to move forward, and get this saga over with. Vallco has been subject to date for pretty much my entire life; myself and community members are eager to see this project come to life, especially with its 1,200 BMR units. Best, Neil Park‐McClintick Chair, Cupertino for All SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE Senator Mike McGuire , Chair 2021 - 2022 Regular Bill No: AB 1174 Hearing Date: 7/8/21 Author: Grayson Tax Levy: No Version: 6/23/21 Fiscal: Yes Consultant: Favorini-Csorba PLANNING AND ZONING: HOUSING: DEVELOPMEN T APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS, APPRO VALS, AND SUBSEQUENT PERMITS Makes numerous changes to the streamlined housing development approval process established by SB 35 (Wiener, 2017). Background Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows a city or county to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority. Planning and Zoning Law. State law provides additional powers and duties for cities and counties regarding land use. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself. Cities and counties must provide a path to appeal a decision to the planning commission and/or the city council or county board of supervisors. Zoning and approval processes. Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking space s, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site -specific considerations. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use AB 1174 (Grayson) 6/23/21 Page 2 of 6 permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local planning commission and public notice and may require additional approvals. SB 35 (Wiener, 2017). In 2017, the Legislature enacted a substantial package of legislation aimed at addressing the state’s housing crisis. Among other legislation, the Legislature enacted SB 35 (Wiener) to provide for a streamlined, ministerial process for approving housing developments that are in compliance with the applicable objective local planning standards — including the general plan, zoning ordinances, and objective design review standards. SB 35 was intended to enable developments that face local opposition, but are consistent with local objective development standards, to be constructed. To be eligible for streamlining under SB 35, a specified percentage of the total housing units in the development must be affordable to lower - income households (those under 80 percent of area median income), as follows:  10 percent, if the locality has not issued building permits for enough above moderate - income—greater than 120 percent of area median income (AMI)—units to meet their RHNA requirement. If a project is located within the nine -county Bay Area, the project may instead include 20 percent of the units affordable to moderate income households (up to 120 percent AMI).  50 percent, if the locality has not issued building permits for enough lower-income units to meet their RHNA requirement; or  The percentage in a local inclusionary zoning ordinance if it is higher than the requirements above. All but 30 cities and counties in California are subject to some streamlining under SB 35 because they have not issued building permits to housing units sufficient to meet their RHNA at one or more income levels. SB 35 also included certain requirements for labor standards, such as the use of a skilled and trained workforce on an eligible project. However, SB 35 exempts projects of 10 housing units or less from the affordability requirements and labor standards. Last year, the Legislature added a process to SB 35 for determining if a project would affect tribal cultural resources (AB 168, Aguiar-Curry). This process includes a consultation between the California Native American Tribes traditionally affiliated with the project area and the relevant local government to identify tribal cultural resources and agree upon mitigation measures needed to preserve them. SB 35 sunsets on January 1, 2026. Vallco Town Center. The Vallco Town Center development (Vallco) will involve the demolition of a defunct mall in Cupertino and the construction of: 2,402 residential units, half of which will be affordable to low and very low-income levels as required by SB 35; 400,000 square feet of retail and entertainment uses; and 1.8 million square feet of office space. Vallco received approval from the City of Cupertino under SB 35 in October 2018, and demolition has begun. As one of the first, and the largest, development to go through the SB 35 process, Vallco has attracted significant attention. The project has faced opposition from local groups as well as some members of the Cupertino City Council. As a result, Vallco’s experience AB 1174 (Grayson) 6/23/21 Page 3 of 6 may illuminate challenges that future developments seeking to employ SB 35’s process may also encounter. The Legislature has enacted numerous measures in recent years to address challenges that Vallco has encountered following receipt of its SB 35 approval, including:  AB 831 (Grayson, 2020), which was referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, but that referral was rescinded due to the COVID-19 pandemic. AB 831 prohibited unreasonable delay by local governments in issuing subsequent permits for SB 35 projects, among other changes.  AB 1485 (Wicks, 2019), which the Senate Governance and Finance Committee approved at its July 10th, 2019, hearing on a vote of 7-0. AB 1485 allowed housing projects in the Bay Area to qualify for SB 35 by including 20% moderate -income units, among other changes.  SB 765 (Wiener, 2018), which was not referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. SB 765 changed the treatment of proposed subdivisions under SB 35, among other changes. Nearly three years after the initial approval by the City of Cupertino, Vallco has not yet commenced building structures on the site, although significant demolition and grading work has been completed. The Bay Area Council and the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Research Association (SPUR) want the Legislature to enact further changes to SB 35 to assist the Vallco project. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 1174 makes numerous changes to specific provisions of SB 35, as outlined below. Current law provides that an SB 35 approval remains valid for three years following approval of the project, and allows a city or county to extend that approval for an additional year, at its discretion. Approvals never expire for projects that include public investment in housing affordability outside of tax credits and that designate at least 50 percent of the units for affordable housing. SB 35 also extends the approval for other projects indefinitely until after litigation is resolved or if vertical construction on the site has begun and is in progress, meaning that the applicant has begun construction and has not ceased for more than 180 days, or specified actions on building permits have been taken. AB 1174 changes “vertical construction” to “construction activity” and makes clarifying changes to the tolling of the approval for litigation. Current law allows a developer to request a modification to an approved SB 35 project prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The local government must approve the modification if it determines that the modification is consistent with the objective planning standards that were in place when the original development application was first submitted , unless the modification would increase the square footage or number of residential units by 15 percent or more, or 5 percent if new standards are needed to mitigate a specific, adverse impact from the modification. AB 1174 extends the validity of an SB 35 approval for the time from submittal of a modification request to the date of the request’s final approval, plus an additional 180 days. AB 1174 (Grayson) 6/23/21 Page 4 of 6 Current law allows building standards code changes to be applied to all modifications. AB 1174 allows building code standards to only be applied to modification applications that are submitted prior to the first building permit application, unless agreed to by the developer. Current law requires local governments to issue subsequent permits needed for an approved SB 35 project if the application substantially complies with the development as it was approved, and requires the local government to process the permit without unreasonable delay. AB 1174 requires a local government to consider applicatio ns for such permits based on the objective standards that were in effect when the original development application was submitted, unless the development proponent agrees to a change in objective standards. AB 1174 applies these changes retroactively to developments approved prior to January 1, 2022, and makes other clarifying and technical changes and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes. State Revenue Impact No estimate. Comments 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “The Legislature has made enormous efforts to dramatically increase our housing supply. However, ambiguities in the law have been exploited by anti-growth community groups to delay and derail desperately needed housing projects. For example, SB 35 streamlining approvals are currently valid three years after the project is approved. Some jurisdictions have used lawsuits to extend the project timeline beyond this window, and then revoke the streamlining provisions. Another issue arises when jurisdictions require a project to comply with objective standards that were not in place at the time of project approval. This can compel a project proponent to seek a modification, which can further delay or derail the project. To address these challenges, AB 1174 specifies that the “shot clock” for a development or modifications is paused when a project is sued, and clarifies that subsequent permit applications must only meet the objective standards that were in place when the project was initially approved. This measure will also clarify that construction activity must have begun on the site to maintain its permit, and that underground space does not count towards square footage when calculating development changes. These fixes are essential to ensure to facilitate the timely construction of housing at all income levels to meet California’s critical housing needs.” 2. Just sue already. The City of Cupertino has consistently identified what it considers to be loopholes in SB 35 to slow down or attempt to halt the project. For example, they have imposed new conditions, balked at minor modifications, and attempted to withhold permits for excavation and encroachment after the project’s approval. So far, they have been successful in delaying the project for almost three years, to the point where Vallco’s SB 35 approval is about to expire prior to the commencement of construction. The Vallco developer, Sand Hill Properties, and other advocates have returned to the Legislature in every year following the passage of SB 35 to revise its provisions in an attempt to head off the City’s efforts, spending significant time and resources. Sand Hill explains that their intent with AB 1174 is to avoid litigation. But local governments are a crafty bunch, and Cupertino will likely find additional ways to hold up Vallco even with the changes in AB 1174. Furthermore, SB 35 already prohibits a local government’s review and issuance of subsequent permits from “inhibiting, chilling, or in any way precluding AB 1174 (Grayson) 6/23/21 Page 5 of 6 the development.” Cupertino’s actions seem clearly intended to delay this project. Litigation may be the only way to ensure that Vallco is successfully constructed. 3. The exception that swallows the rule. SB 35 intentionally limited the length of time that approvals would remain valid for most projects to three years, so that the legislation would result in the rapid construction of much needed new housing units. Existing law allows developers to submit modifications to the project, but currently the clock ticks down on their approval while they are working on those modifications, consistent with that intent. AB 1174 tolls the clock on the approval while a local government is reviewing the modifications, but also goes further to automatically grant an additional 180 days with each modific ation request. Since local governments are limited in their ability to deny modifications or impose new conditions on them, this provision would potentially allow a project developer to extend approvals indefinitely. The Committee may wish to consider limiting the number of modifications a developer can submit. 4. Let’s be clear. SB 35 currently requires “vertical” construction to have commenced for a project to qualify for the extension of an SB 35 approval. The City of Cupertino argues that because no structures have been erected on the site, vertical construction has not commenced and Vallco’s SB 35 approval will expire at the end of September. AB 1174 changes “vertical construction” to “construction activity,” but leaves it up to the Department of Housing and Community Development to define what construction activity means in its guidelines for SB 35 projects. Absent some clarification, relatively minor activity such as erecting a fence around a site might qualify as construction. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 1174 to include a definition of construction activity. 5. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. AB 1174 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities but does not include the Legislature’s reasoning supporting that conclusion. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 1174 to include findings explaining that the production of affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern. 6. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 1174 adds to the duties of local officials, Legislative Counsel says that the bill imposes a new state mandate. AB 1174 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions. 7. Incoming! The Senate Housing Committee approved AB 1174 at its July 1st hearing on a vote of 8-0. The Senate Governance and Finance Committee is hearing it as the committee of second reference. Assembly Actions Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 8-0 Assembly Local Government Committee: 7-0 Assembly Appropriations Committee: 16-0 Assembly Floor: 71-0 Support and Opposition (7/5/21) AB 1174 (Grayson) 6/23/21 Page 6 of 6 Support: Bay Area Council (co-sponsor); SPUR (co-sponsor); California Apartment Association; California Association of Realtors; California Building Industry Association; California YIMBY; Casita Coalition; Council of Infill Builders; Fieldstead and Company, INC.; Greenbelt Alliance ; Habitat for Humanity California ; Hello Housing; Housing Action Coalition; Lisc San Diego; Midpen Housing; Sand Hill Property Company; Silicon Valley @ Home; The Two Hundred; TMG Partners Opposition: None submitted. -- END -- 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Munisekar <msekar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:40 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Willey; Kitty Moore Cc:Munisekaran Madhdhipatla Subject:My Comments on Item 12 today. 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. Here are my public comments today on the Agenda Item 12 today for your records. ========================================== Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council & Manager, My name is Muni Madhdhipatla, and I am a Cupertino resident. I serve on Planning Commission but here speaking as a Cupertino resident. I would like to take this moment to thank you all, staff and vigilant Cupertino community members for doing the right thing with respect to Vallco project. The community, all along pointed out that Vallco site is a contaminated site and needed to be handled carefully and is not eligible for SB35 approval. Even though there was lot of legal wrangling around this, I am glad that our city did the right thing by hiring experts and establishing the fact it is a contaminated site needing special handling. I will read the last paragraph from staff report on Page 2. Soil Investigation: Due to additional review and requirements by the City, contaminated soils and soil vapor have been identified on the project site. The Project developer has entered into a voluntary clean‐up agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). SCCDEH now has regulatory jurisdiction over continuing site investigation and remediation, and is prohibiting soil disturbance until it can validate that it is safe to do so. The Vallco Project anticipates that SCCDEH’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. I am also pleased that our city is engaging all the right agencies such as environmental health, fire, traffic, and water agencies to assess the impact before issuing permits. Thanks for digging into staffing details for the fire outpost that will be established at this site. As a resident, I couldn’t ask for more. I would highly encourage you to collect the impact assessment fees of $125 mil assessed by the staff instead of waiving it. As a taxpayer, I don’t want that cost transferring to ordinary residents like me as someone has to pay for those expenses. When the city doesn’t waive any fees for ordinary residents, why should you waive such large fees for a wealthy developer? Please apply the rules uniformly. Great to hear people like Mr.Paul Soto from neighboring cities complimenting you for community friendliness. Thank you and keep up the good work. My humble request, just learn to ignore the smear bloggers and fake news reporters. 2 Thank you. Muni Madhdhipatla Cupertino Resident. =========================== 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Genevieve Kolar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:04 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! Genevieve Kolar genevieve.kolar@gmail.com Los Altos, California 94024 2 Cyrah Caburian From:Genevieve Kolar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:04 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! Genevieve Kolar genevieve.kolar@gmail.com Los Altos, California 94024 3 Cyrah Caburian From:Genevieve Kolar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:04 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! Genevieve Kolar genevieve.kolar@gmail.com Los Altos, California 94024 4 Cyrah Caburian From:Genevieve Kolar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:04 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! Genevieve Kolar genevieve.kolar@gmail.com Los Altos, California 94024 5 Cyrah Caburian From:Genevieve Kolar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:04 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! Genevieve Kolar genevieve.kolar@gmail.com Los Altos, California 94024 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:24 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! Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz g.szymanska@gmail.com 19479 Rosemarie Pl, Apt. 2 Cupertino, California 95014-3452 2 Cyrah Caburian From:Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:24 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! Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz g.szymanska@gmail.com 19479 Rosemarie Pl, Apt. 2 Cupertino, California 95014-3452 3 Cyrah Caburian From:Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:24 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! Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz g.szymanska@gmail.com 19479 Rosemarie Pl, Apt. 2 Cupertino, California 95014-3452 4 Cyrah Caburian From:Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:24 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! Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz g.szymanska@gmail.com 19479 Rosemarie Pl, Apt. 2 Cupertino, California 95014-3452 5 Cyrah Caburian From:Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:24 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! Grazyna Szymanska-Matusiewicz g.szymanska@gmail.com 19479 Rosemarie Pl, Apt. 2 Cupertino, California 95014-3452 1 Cyrah Caburian From:John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:14 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! John Zhao jzhao098@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 2 Cyrah Caburian From:John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:14 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! John Zhao jzhao098@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 3 Cyrah Caburian From:John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:13 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! John Zhao jzhao098@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 4 Cyrah Caburian From:John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:13 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! John Zhao jzhao098@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 5 Cyrah Caburian From:John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:14 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! John Zhao jzhao098@gmail.com Cupertino, California 95014 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:17 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Public comment Sept. 7, 2021 Agenda Item #12 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. Please include in written communications - Thanks. ----------------------- Good evening, Mayor Paul and council members My name is Jean Bedord. I am here tonight to commend the city manager and staff for this report. For too long, we as members of the public have only heard bits-and-pieces of supposed progress on the SB35 project. We can all see the big gaping hole as we go out to eat at bustling Cupertino Main Street and wonder how long it will take for this city to get its act together and make Vallco a reality. Thank you for identifying the challenges that remain…this is a big step forward in getting them resolved. I urge you to move as quickly as possible on the Vallco Project all hands meeting so the city and the property owner can work together instead accusing each other of non- cooperation. Even more importantly, the city work plan needs significant revision. Too much staff time is being wasted on low priority projects. At this point, the city has two, and only two, major priorities: The first priority is the RHNA Housing Element due by the end of 2022. The city has to plan for a minimum of 4,588 housing units. This means after-the-fact revision of the General Plan and zoning will be necessary to accommodate those units, as well as comply with new state housing laws in 2022. The second priority, which is a major component of the RHNA allocation, is major progress on Vallco. The majority city council rejected the Vallco Specific Plan which involved project negotiations. Instead, this majority council opted for the no-negotiation SB35 plan under state law, not local control. It’s time for this city take ownership of that decision and move ahead. The SB35 plan is not perfect, but majority council made the choice, so let’s move ahead and get construction underway. 2 I am also very concerned about the potential for expensive litigation. The Friends of Better Cupertino lawsuit consumed two years. This council is already under threat of a lawsuit for passing an illegal Density Bonus ordinance. Is this inviting yet more litigation to exceed the $2 million that’s already budgeted for legal expenses? I urge you to stop fighting state law and start building for our community. Thank you. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Vera Cai <vera_cai@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:55 AM To:City Council Subject:Please help to say NO to 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, Please help cupertino citizens to say NO to SB35 plan extension. Cupertino is a small city and SB35 goes too far. Thanks & Regards, Vera