CUPERTINO — And now there’s only one plan for transforming the almost vacant Vallco Shopping Mall property into a massive mixed-use project — that of the developer.

The Cupertino City Council on Tuesday night scrapped an alternative proposal, dubbed the Vallco Specific Plan, which had been forged by a previous city council with the help of some community residents whose vision for the site differed somewhat from the developer’s.

The council’s action essentially fulfilled the wishes of residents who opposed both the developer’s proposal and the alternative, specific plan. They had filed three ballot petitions seeking a repeal of the specific plan. The council’s choices were to adopt the specific plan outright, reject it or put it on a ballot measure for residents to decide.

“I think we’re wasting our time if we put this on the ballot. I think every single one of these referenda will cut the way we’ve seen the last few elections,” Councilman Darcy Paul said.

By tossing the specific plan, the council effectively gave developer Sand Hill Property Co. a clear path to proceed with its proposal under the auspices of Senate Bill 35, which forces cities to fast-track and approve housing developments that include affordable housing as long as they meet zoning and planning requirements.

Sand Hill has already indicated it would abandon the specific plan and move forward with its own proposal as allowed by the state legislation.

The specific plan called for more overall housing units than what Sand Hill has so far proposed. It also would have required the developer to pay school impact fees and contribute to traffic-alleviation projects, a new city hall and a performing arts center.

Councilman Rod Sinks, the only no vote, said the council was doing away with the only option it has control over.

“That leaves one option — with no community benefits, no housing for the missing middle, none of those 40 units for the developmentally disabled,” said Sinks, who was part of the previous council majority that approved the specific plan. “We passed the specific plan because we believed it was a better total package.”

Some residents who called for the petitions to be placed on the ballot reminded council members Jon Willey and Liang Chao of a flier featuring their faces that advocated for “a city council decision up for a public vote so that every voter has a say.”

“Let me remind the new council members that they ran on the platform of letting the residents vote on Vallco,” resident Jean Bedord told council members.

Chao replied that residents gave a clear indication of their desire last year when they voted in a council majority that now opposes both Vallco redevelopment plans.

“The specific plan is the result of a hijacked process,” Chao said. “This plan doesn’t represent or resemble anything the community can live with.”

Meanwhile, Sand Hill is proceeding with its plan and has started demolishing buildings at the former shopping center. It intends to build 2,402 apartment units — half of them affordable — 1.8 million square feet of office space, 400,000 square feet of retail and a 30-acre rooftop park covering much of the development.

“Last night’s City Council action has no bearing on our Vallco Town Center project approved pursuant to SB 35 last fall,” Reed Moulds, Sand Hill’s managing director, said in a written statement. “We are on the verge of obtaining additional demolition permits, with construction to follow soon thereafter, and look forward to a new Vallco finally beginning to emerge to the delight of the residents of Cupertino and beyond.”

A citizens group opposing the project, Better Cupertino, has filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s approval of Sand Hill’s plan.

Willey said he would support an entirely new plan for Vallco after a robust public outreach process that’s more responsive to residents’ complaints.

“It would have been really nice if the developer had come back with a different plan, shown the residents something else…with more retail and less office,” said Willey.

Sinks told council members they need to find a way to work with the developer rather than against.

“At the end of the day, nothing happens unless the city is in agreement with a party that owns property and has the resources to do this,” Sinks said. “It takes two parties to tango.”

Willey said the developer has damaged that relationship by repeatedly accusing him and other council members of conflicts of interest. Immediately after Willey and Chao were elected, Sand Hill sent letters accusing them of conflicts because of their affiliation with Better Cupertino and the group’s ongoing lawsuits against its project.

“We would have had those discussions…[but] some developer decided to attack us with conflicts of interest that prevented us from even uttering the word Vallco,” Willey said.

Contact Thy Vo at 408-200-1055 or tvo@bayareanewsgroup.com.