Loading...
CC 07-16-2024 Item No. 7 Second reading and zoning map amendments for Ordinance No. 24-2261_Late Written CommunicationsCC 7-16-2024 #7 Second reading and zoning map amendments for Ordinance No. 24-2261 Written Comments From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Written Communication for the 7/16 Council meeting - Final comment for agenda item on waiving BMR fees Date:Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:25:22 PM Please enter the statements I read below into the record for the 7/16 Council meeting. This is the reason that voted no for that item. ============= We must learn from history so we don’t make the same mistake. Back in 2013, Council promised a revitalized shopping mall. But the Dec. 2014 Council allocated 2 million sqft of office space to an existing shopping mall, with a building height of 167 feet, when the maximum building heights in Cupertino were 45 feet in most of the city. The Dec. 2014 Council handed out office entitlements without any restriction in 2014, which resulted in the SB 35 project that does not require even the city council approval. The community had no say in the project. In 2013, we had a shopping mall, a theater, and many beloved small businesses that have been in the community for 20-30 years. Those business owners saw Cupertino residents grew up going to their shops. Those long-time small retailers in Cupertino were forced out when Sand Hill Property forced the Mall to close for no reason in 2014. At the same time, other cities have actually seen revitalized shopping malls. We all know that below market rate projects cannot be created without subsidies. Make no mistake. This SB 35 project already received many subsidies through state laws, density bonus, concessions and other waiver of planning standards. Plus the allocation of 2 million sq. ft. of office space. This office-heavy project stands to make a lot more profits than many other true housing projects. If the city waives the $67M fees for this office-heavy project which is much needed to build more BMR housing, we are $67M short in our BMR fund. Period. We are subsidizing an already very affluent developer at the expenses of the most vulnerable in our society. I cannot in good conscience support that. I was forced to support the settlement agreement since the city was threatened with a lawsuit. This powerful developer has a large team of attorneys, so they can get their way to maximize their profits again, and again, in addition to getting state laws changed to take advantage of a mistake of the 2014 council to allocate 2M sqft office space without any standards, such as height limit. To protect the city from legal challenges, I supported the settlement agreement. But, I would not support the waiving of almost $77M of BMR or planning fees to subsidize an affluent developer at the cost of the most vulnerable in our community. Post-Note: 99% of developers do respect the community, work with the community and propose projects that fit the character of the community. These projects do come to the Council for approval and they are mostly approved by the Council with public inputs with improvements to make it a better project. I truly appreciate these developers who follow the rules and respect the community where they build the project. Liang Chao​​​​ Councilmember City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From:Peggy Griffin To:Kirsten Squarcia Cc:City Clerk Subject:2024-07-16 CC Meeting ITEM7 - Peggys Slides Date:Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:25:27 PM Attachments:2024-07-16 CC Mtg ITEM7 - Peggys Slides.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. Hi Kirsten, I plan to speak on this item 7 on zoom tonight. If you could display my slides when I speak on this item I would appreciate it. Thank you, Peggy Griffin 7-2-2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA #7 WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WAS OVER! NO PUBLIC COMMENT ALLOWED ON ALL THESE CHANGES BELOW! SPECIFICALLY, LAST PARAGRAPH! - NO DISCUSSION ON WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS! - NOT IN AGENDA DESCRIPTION – NOTHING REGARDING CHANGING “ObjecƟve Standards”