The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 03-06-2018 Exhibit Item No. 18 SB827 Written Communications1 Lauren Sapudar From:Thomas Weissmiller <tarzantom@pobox.com> Sent:Monday, March 05, 2018 8:28 AM To:'Thomas Weissmiller' Subject:SB827 - San Mateo Daily Journal, Mar 05, 2018 Attachments:SB827, Flintstons to Jetsons.docx SB827 is stack and pack on steroids – or City/State Bay Area. See article, go on line and chime in and/or send a letter to the editor. They are putting this article out to see how the public is going to react. Share your thoughts directly to your representatives. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/housing‐bill‐raising‐local‐control‐ fight/article_17663d7e‐2021‐11e8‐bc69‐8be82dae07bc.html The following are quoted. They will all support it unless there is a public outrage. Senator Jerry Hill (D), SD13 (San Mateo and San Francisco Counties) Assembly Member Kevin Mullin (D), AD22 (San Mateo County) Assembly Member Marc Berman (D), AD24 (Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties) California ranks 50th in quality life – can we get any worse that it is? See https://www.usnews.com/news/best‐states/rankings Attached article explains, written by a supporter of SB827 explains it. Tom Thomas Weissmiller (Weiβmϋller) H: 650‐375‐8311 C: 650‐218‐6386 If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglas, social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. Total Control Panel Login To: sscharf@cupertino.org From: tarzantom@pobox.com Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block pobox.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. CC 03-06-2018 Item No. 18 Flintstone to the Jetsons Page 1 Flintstone to the Jetsons Page 2 Flintstone to the Jetsons Page 3 What does this all mean? So what do all these green and blue shapes over the map mean? To understand this, it's first important to understand what SB 827 proposes. Essentially SB 827 says that, for areas close to "major transit stops" and "high‐quality transit corridors", local governments cannot impose any of the following on residential development:  Parking minimums.  Density (or housing units per parcel) maximums.  Arbitrary design restrictions (e.g. of the form "this building isn't pretty enough"). In addition, SB 827 says that in areas very close to transit (a quarter mile from a high frequency bus line or one block from a major transit stop), local governments have to allow buildings of at least  55 feet height on narrow streets and  85 feet height on wider streets. In areas that are further away, but still fairly close to transit (at least half a mile from a "major transit stop"), local governments have to allow buildings of at least 45 feet height on narrow streets and 55 feet height on wide streets. On the map above, the green overlay represents areas that might have 55/85 foot heights under SB 827, and the blue overlay represents areas that might have 45/55 foot heights under SB 827. (Again, I stress the word may have; this is a work in progress, and there are certainly errors.) In both green and blue areas, the limits on parking minimums, density maximums, and design restrictions would be present. It' very important to first note that SB 827 does not require developers to do anything; it just stops local governments from prohibiting developers from doing things. So, developers do not have to build up to the 45/55/85 foot height limit in SB 827 impact areas, they are free to build developments with parking within the impact areas, and they are even free to develop single family homes. It's also important to note that, at least as I read the law as a non‐lawyer, local governments are still free to impose other zoning restrictions, such as eviction controls and inclusionary zoning. Three thoughts about SB 827 My first impression from this map is that SB 827 is indeed, as @MarketUrbanism has said, a very aggressive upzoning proposal. Nearly all of San Francisco would be set for upzoning to 85/55 foot heights, as would significant portions of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, Oakland, Berkeley, and, to a lesser extent, Sacramento. More surprising to me, though, is the impact on smaller cities like Bakersfield, Santa Cruz, and San Bernardino, which also have a large amount of 85/55 foot upzoning. (Update: I had two major bugs with reading transit data in the first version of the map, which caused a major over‐estimate of how much area was affected. I now believe these communities don't seem to see much impact from SB 827). No matter your position on the bill, it is clearly a proposal that is thinking big when it comes to the housing problem in our state. My second thought, which I came to as I implemented this map, is that there are still a lot of technical details that need to be ironed out in this law, any of which could radically change the law's effect on local zoning. I found myself needing to interpret vague language many times while making this map, and some of the choices the bill makes about which areas it affects are confusing. As an example, a project is affected by SB 827 if it is a quarter mile from a high‐frequency bus route, not a quarter mile from a bus stop. But obviously, living close to a bus route only helps if you are close to an actual stop that allows you to get on and off the bus, so some areas that are not close to stops may get upzoned just because they are near a bus route that zooms through their neighborhood. For a particularly egregious example of this, take the LA Metro Silver line, a Bus Rapid Transit line in Los Angeles: the El Monte stop and Cal State LA stop are about 8 miles apart from each other, with no stops in between. While it makes total sense to me to upzone around these two stops, it's very hard for me to see why the 8 miles in between should also be upzoned. I expect that if SB 827 goes forward, this sort of thing will need to be addressed. My third thought, which is really more of a worry, is that SB 827, if passed as currently written, would raise the stakes of transit planning tremendously. Relatively straightforward tweaks to bus routes in San Francisco like stop elimination have often generated intense backlash; with SB 827 I would expect Flintstone to the Jetsons Page 4 changes to be much more controversial. Just imagine if moving a bus line over two blocks or increasing the frequency from 20 minutes to 15 minutes not only changed transit but also precipitated neighborhood rezonings. It is also conceivable that, in a post‐SB 827 world, citizens who want lower height limits in their neighborhood might focus their energy on reducing the extent or frequency of bus service in order to pull areas out of SB 827's purview. I don't pretend to know what will actually happen here, but squashing together two of the most contentious urban issues, planning and transportation, will probably not make them any less heated. Conclusion SB 827 is the most aggressive bill proposed recently in California to address our statewide housing crisis, and if it does pass, my guess is that it will look at least somewhat different than it does right now. I hope this map contributes in some small way to the public discussion on the bill, and I look forward to discussing and debating it with y'all on Twitter. FAQ 1. Who are you, and who is paying you? a. My name is Sasha Aickin. I used to be the CTO of Redfin; I'm not currently employed, and I do not represent Redfin in any capacity currently. I made this as a fun weekend project to learn new tech and learn more about SB 827. 2. Is this an official map produced by Scott Wiener or advocates of the law? a. Oh, heavens no. I have given money in support of YIMBY Action's ballot proposition, I have known Scott Wiener socially for several years, and I consider myself a YIMBY advocate, but I have no official connection to the advocates of this bill, and there is absolutely nothing official about this site or map. 3. Are you in favor of SB 827? a. Absolutely. I do think it could be improved technically, but I think it's directionally right, and it's one of the first proposals I've seen that is actually on the right scale of ambition to address the state's housing crisis. 2. What assumptions did you make in this map? The text of the law is not totally clear on a lot of points, especially for a non‐lawyer like myself, so I had to make some assumptions in order to construct this map. Additionally, some of the questions raised by the law were not answerable with the data I had at hand, and I had to make simplifying assumptions to solve those. Obviously, any of these assumptions could be wrong; if you are an expert in the area and see a clear mistake, please let me know on Twitter. Here are some of the big questions that needed answers to generate the map: 3. What does 15 minute service during peak commute hours mean? a. The law relies heavily on the idea of "high‐quality transit corridors", which are defined to have fixed route buses at "intervals of no more than 15 minutes during peak commute hours". I decided that a line segment between two stops counted as a "high‐quality transit corridor" if, on a non‐holiday Monday, buses travelled between those stops at least 8 times between 6:30am and 8:30am and 8 times between 4:30pm and 6:30pm. Note that I did not care if there were two or more different routes that travelled between those two stops, as long as they added up to 8 trips in the morning and 8 trips in the evening. Further, I drew a straight line between the two bus stops, which may not represent the actual path of the bus between the two stops. 4. What is a "major transit stop"? a. The law that defines a major transit stop says it is "site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods". I decided that "rail transit station" would include all stops on a light rail, heavy rail, or subway line, even if those stops are at surface level in mixed traffic. I did not include cable cars. Further, I decided that if two different routes each Flintstone to the Jetsons Page 5 visit a stop 8 times between 6:30am and 8:30am and 8 times between 4:30pm and 6:30pm on a non‐holiday Monday, then that stop is a major transit stop, even if the two routes are sharing part of their path (i.e. they are going down the street in the same direction). It's probable that I may have over‐counted major transit stops as a result. Finally, I did not include ferry terminals in the map because I was not sure how to programmatically figure out if they were also served by bus or rail service. 5. How big is a "block"? a. According to SB 827, properties within "a block" of major transit stops get the higher height limits, and the section of existing law that defines a block seems to say that it means basically what we would think it does colloquially (an area of street frontage between intersections), with the caveat that a block is a maximum of 1000 feet long. Unfortunately, I do not have access to any data on the street grid around major transit stops, so I know neither which directions streets radiate from those stops nor where the next intersection is. As a simplifying assumption to make up for the missing information, I coded a "block" to always be a circle of 750 feet, although in reality, a block could be longer or shorter than that and is not a circle around the transit stop. 6. What transit services are missing from this map? a. It turns out that there are a lot of transit services in California, and I included data from the following: AC Transit Altamont Corridor Express BART Caltrain Capitol Corridor Fresno Area Express Golden Empire Transit District Golden Gate Transit Livermore Amador Transit Authority Long Beach Transit Los Angeles Department of Transportation Los Angeles Metro Marin Transit Metrolink Modesto Area Express Monterey Salinas Transit North County Transit District Orange Count Transportation Authority Riverside Transit Agency Sacramento Regional Transit SamTrans San Bernardino OmniTrans San Diego Metropolitan Transit System San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Joaquin Regional Transit District San Luis Obispo RTA San Luis Obispo Transit Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Cruz Metro Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Sonoma County Transit Stanford Marguerite Shuttle b. There are many smaller transit agencies whose schedules I skimmed online and decided that they would not be covered by SB 827 as currently written. There's a decent chance I got some of that wrong, though. Also, there are at least three transit agencies that definitely are subject to SB 827, but for which I couldn't find a dependable GTFS transit feed: Santa Rosa CityBus Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District Flintstone to the Jetsons Page 6 c. I would expect that SB 827 would affect zoning in the North Bay and Santa Barbara more than this map indicates because of these omissions. If you know of a good source for GTFS feeds for these agencies, let me know on Twitter! 7. Where can I find the text of SB 827? a. The State Legislature's website has the entire text of SB 827 as currently proposed. 8. What should I do if I've found a mistake in the map or if I want to request another feature? a. Go ahead and let me know on Twitter. I will do my best to acknowledge and correct mistakes that I can, with the caveat that this is a side project that I'm doing for fun in my spare time. I do not expect to add many more features to the map (because, again: unpaid side project for fun), but that could change if there's something that excites me, so go ahead and let me know what you would like to see! 9. What updates have you made to this site? a. Version 1.0.0 (Jan 8, 2018): First release. b. Version 1.0.1 (Jan 9, 2018):Fixed super embarrassing typo; I had spelled "Wiener" incorrectly. Sorry, Scott!Added this updates section to the FAQ. c. Version 1.0.2 (Jan 9, 2018): Added an update to the top of the document to tell readers about a bug which over‐counted buses, especially in smaller cities. d. Version 2.0.0 (Jan 9, 2018): Fixed two major bugs that overcounted bus routes, particularly in suburbs and smaller cities. Thanks to the many folks on Twitter (including @paulf917, @theGreaterMarin, and @evan_siroky) who pointed out that Bakersfield and Santa Cruz seemed wrong. e. Version 2.0.1 (Jan 9, 2018): Made the banner image smaller after I noticed it was 2MB. Yikes. f. Version 2.1 (Jan 11, 2018): Toned down the map and polygon colors after a friend told me they were too harsh ;). Credits  Website styling modified from the Theory template from templated.co and licensed under Creative Commons.  Transit data pulled from many different transit service websites and transitfeeds.com.  Polygon manipulation performed by the excellent turf.js library. Seriously, that library is awesome.  Banner image is a modified snap from the SF Muni bus map.  Google Maps remains a towering technical achievement.  The map styling is Subtle Grayscale by Paulo Avila licensed under CC0 from snazzymaps.com. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 05, 2018 11:09 AM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Jacqueline Guzman Subject:Request to Send Letter Opposing SB 827, Council Meeting 3/6/2018, Agenda Item 18; Support Letter of Opposition Against SB 828, Council Meeting 3/20/2018, future agenda item Attachments:Pages from CC 03-01-71.pdf; Pages from CC 03-15-71.pdf Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Council Members Chang, Scharf, and Viadhyanathan: As the authority of the Legislative Advocacy Committee (LAC) has been dis-proven for now via information revealed in a California Public Records Act request (relevant letter with documents included at the end of this message) and now an entire month has passed since community members and/or Council Members have started asking the City for action against predatory State Bills 827 and 828, I am forwarding the letter I sent previously to the then LAC for the full Council's consideration of now Agenda Item 18 "Transit-rich Housing Bonus" to be decided during 3/6/2018 City Council meeting (see letter immediately below). I support the recommended action stated in the 3/6/2018 meeting agenda: "Oppose SB 827 (Weiner, sic) and authorize the Mayor to send letters of opposition to state legislative leaders along with our state delegation." And, I request that Council consider drafting a letter opposing SB 828 (Wiener) "An act relating to land use" as an action to be deliberated during the 3/20/2018 regular Council meeting. Regarding a LAC, I'm not sure why the Council would abdicate its authority over important legislative issues to a committee. If I understand the intended charter of the now neutered LAC, 2 Council Members would have the authority kill the City's advocacy work on behalf of state or federal legislative issues based on only their votes. What if the majority Council not present in the LAC meeting hold a different view and would vote differently than the minority LAC, if given the opportunity? Is it expediency that drives interest in the formation of a LAC? But at what cost? And, for the benefit of whom? Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident <START, letter sent 2/20/2018 to Mayor Paul, Council Member Chang, and Assistant City Manager Guzmán expressing opposition to SBs 827 and 828> SUBJECT: 2 Dear Mayor Paul, Council Member Chang, and Assistant City Manager Guzmán: I understand the Cupertino City Council sub-committee Legislative Advocacy Committee (LAC) meets today, 2/20/2018 at 11:30 am. I request that during today's meeting the LAC consider adopting formal positions against SB 827 "An act to add Section 65917.7 to the Government Code, relating to land use" and SB 828 "An act relating to land use". The League of California Cities, Alliance for Community Transit-LA (ACT-LA), and the City of Palo Alto have all taken firm positions against SB 827 as these entities recognize that, if passed, SB 827 will further remove cities from the role of determining land use and density for the communities they serve. Furthermore, SB 827 offers no relief for residents struggling with housing insecurity, including displacement, as older, modest, and more affordable housing located near transit corridors will be pushed toward redevelopment either by market forces or eminent domain due to "underutilization" (land use and density). (For example, SB 827 smooths the way for single-story homes to be torn down to make way for multiple-story, market-rate units. In addition to promoting the replacement of older, owner-occupied homes with market-rate rentals, SB 827 offers no protection to prevent the "upzoned" replacement units from be used for hoteling or just left vacant because for some oligarch real estate investors prefer not to be troubled by the needs of tenants.) SB 828, while not as well publicized, is at least as hostile to residents as SB 827. By increasing RHNA requirements, SB 828 provides further motivation for built-out cities to enact eminent domain legislation against its single-family home owners in an effort to align actual density today (maybe 15- to 28-feet today, single-family units) with zoned density in neighborhoods near transit corridors under SB 827 (45- to 85-feet, multiple family units). While the region has created quite a mess by constructing offices at a pace that far exceeds the available housing supply, we need solutions to incentivize office development in communities outside the 10 Bay Area counties. Future job growth must be allocated in communities that need good paying jobs and that have ample affordable housing nearby or room to build affordable housing. False solutions, such as SBs 827 and 828 that aim to separate single family home owners and renters from their homes through change of neighborhood land use and density--essentially obsoleting single- family homes via upzoning--serve the interests of no one except the wealthiest of real estate investors. Please oppose Senate Bills 827 and 828. Thank you, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident REFERENCES + Text of SB 827: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 + Text of SB 828: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB828 + League of California Cities Sample Letter of Opposition Against SB 827: https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Action-Center/SB-827-(Wiener)-Planning-and-Zoning 3 + ACT-LA Letter to State Senator Scott Wiener "Re: SB (Wiener) Planning and Zoning - Transit-Rich Housing Bonus - OPPPOSE," 2/12/2018: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-HoGZWp3E4tNTc1dF9VY3NsTjg4TV9BeTRjSWxJQ0xUc0hN/view + "Palo Alto Takes a Stand Against Wiener's Housing Bill," 2/13/2018, Palo Alto Online: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/02/13/palo-alto-takes-stand-against-wieners-housing-bill <END, letter sent 2/20/2018 to Mayor Paul, Council Member Chang, and Assistant City Manager Guzmán expressing opposition to SBs 827 and 828> ... <START, 3/4/2018 letter from a community member to Council requesting Resolution 18-010 be rescinded in response to results from a PRA request identifying the assumed "Legislative Advocacy Committee" had never been formed and therefore has no authority (relevant documents attached, community member information redacted)> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: [Community Member] Date: Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:46 PM Subject: Request to rescind Resolution 18-010 To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org> Dear Mayor, Council and City Attorney, On February 6, 2018 the Cupertino City Council passed Resolution 18-010. http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/ edoc/640585/CC%20Resolution% 20No.%2018-010%20Establishing% 20a%20Policy%20for% 20Legislative%20Advocacy.pdf This Resolution incorrectly asserted that the Council had " established the Legislative Advocacy Committee to make recommendations on legislative advocacy issues that could impact the City." The response to a Public Records request submitted to the City demonstrates that the Council had never established a "Legislative Advocacy Committee." The City's response to my PRA request on March 2, 2018 indicates that the "the Mayor appointed a legislative review committee as requested by City Manager Quinlan" on March 15, 1971. This was in response to a March 1, 1971 request from City Manager Quinlan. See attached. 1. No Council action was documented, as it was Mayor Stokes that appointed a "legislative review committee." 2. "legislative review committee" was not capitalized, and is not the same as "Legislative Advocacy Committee." Since the Resolution requires that the "Legislative Action Committee" approve positions on legislative issues, and the "Legislative Action Committee" was never established by the Council, the Resolution should be rescinded. City departments may not take positions on legislative issues without City Manager's Office review and approval from the Legislative Action Committee 4 I request that resolution 18-010 be rescinded so that 46 years from now, a Cupertino City Council cannot refer to Resolution 18-010 as evidence that a "Legislative Advocacy Committee" was created by the Council. I also want to give thanks and a shout out to the staff members that serviced my Public Records request. I admire their diligence and tenacity. I was a high school senior in 1971! Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, [Community Member] Total Control Panel Login To: cityclerk@cupertino.org From: lianacrabtree@yahoo.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. ͍͋͌ͩ͜ ·pǅͩ ʕǡͩ ſͩ ùȜ̠ͩģ$'ͩ Àͩ ÁäàÂͩ ¼ͩ³ͩ½ͩ $aɬͩ Úļͩ ɩͩ ɷͩ Ǣʆͩ Ņ̳ͩƌǻͩĽì˺ͩɇŤͩ ǣʨˠͩ ŉͩ ͐Ŷ͇ ťɯͩ ͑ͩ ͩ̚ ˻ͩ ʖͩ ˼ͩ ĘͩŊˤUVáͩ ɮͩMǤȿ̝ͩŧVǞ͒ͩ ͓ Wŋͩņ» µͩŨɀğÐ̡ͩ ͩ ͎ | ͏ ͩ ɨ0ˡͩ Ĕ " ɰ ͩ ̙ ͩ ď ͩ ʱ ̺ ͩ ̸ ͩ ɦ ͩ ęͩ ĕͩİͩ ǥʴͩ Ʃͩ }Nͩ ŵǛWaͩ ǦͩŃDͩ Ɖqͩ ̗ͩ Ě̛ͩƪͩÖͩ˲Ȁ͔ǧ͕͖ͩŌˉɣwĴͩ ƀǨʵƫͩ )ͩ ºƨ Ǐūͩľȝͩ±ͩǿˌͩ Mɳƙǘͩ/ǩͩ )̞ͩŪͩ @3ǆͩ kͩ ũͩ Ǽͩ˨ʇͩ oƇͩͩōͩŲíâͩǽïǇ ͩ ě˽ͩ ňͩŽͩ ĀÕ ÑÃÄƗͩ #ʐͩ hǌʲǐͩ E9ͩ ĉZƍXɠͩ ȁ̜#-ƚͩȑͩ ű4ʗ̴Ɉͩ ƁͩȇŭLͩǪ4ͩ Ȕͩ ß^ȈͩǠǜXʰͩ ţͩ ˍŎÅŢh˾Ǒ;ͩ ćÆÒ ĵɉͅŬͩ Đ ȉͩđͩ AʌͩĪ̻ˎͩɱǁ͗ͩ ͩ͝ čȞɡͩ Ģ-ͩ ɟ˂1˿ͩ ͞ǫͩ ͟åvTƎˏͩ͠ ÛÞ¡ úȟæ̼ͩ Ŀrš% Ĝͩ ːIǬIˑ˒Ƞͩ͡ ̀ʘͩ(ǭ ͩ ǉ́ͩ dƬʻʙêͩûȡ̃̽ͩ ͢ɸŏȂƭ!ͩĸȢɊ<ͩ ɴƮ̄ȣƏ\Ưƛͩ şǃ˓ŐɋͩȤçǄ6ͩ ͩ (ͩ Ċðȥɔ¯ͩĖưͩ ˩őȦƜͩ üò̢ɹ¸ȧɫͩ Ē˔Ʊɺͩ O<Ɲͩ Ȩɻ͈ *HlǒͣͩͤƲ˪+1ͩ ͩƞǓȩƐŒ̅Ƴͩ >ͩ̆˕ƴͩ lʚͩĥ!¢ͩ =[Ɵͩ Ħ25£ͩ ÷̾!ʛͩ ó¤ͩ ē˖JJ\ͩ _Ǯͩ Š[ͩ Ġè˱ͩ ʜɼͩ Ȋ+ͩ Ýȋͩ ̰Ơȷ°Çȃͩ=ɽɾT̫Ƶ!˫>d̿ͩ ʝ%ͩ ī2ƑPͩÈÙ̇Ȍ¥ͩ ɤͩ Ɍ˷ͩ ÉéͥȪƒœͩ QC̈ͩ Fʳȫ6ͩ ͩ̉Oƶͩ ĤȄȬˬɍ?ȭ̬ͩ ɎȮ˭ͩ ̭ʞ̣ɏơͩ ŷƷͩ Ŕ̮ǚͩ ̊¹ êzͩċɿG.ͩ ˁ ȻʬȯGCɕɖ̀;ͩ ėͩ?Ƣƣͩͩ ˋ8 5ͩ ȍŕ̋ͩ Ŗͩ ʼ~ṳ̌eƸͩ ͦƹͩ iŸYȰ Țͩ ǯƓͧͩ Ɂ+ƺͩ15ʽʟʈͩ͘ ͩ Pˮͩ Ź̥ɐ-̌ȱ˯ͩ @Ďͩ ǰ̦˗mȕ˘ͩȒͩ #ͩ ā Ƃ̧ͩɗɅͩ ̱ʠͩ bƤͩ f ˃ʍͩ ͩ ̶ʶjͩ ȸ̒ɵj¦ͩ ʀͩ Hŗ˳ͩ ʡǱͩ Ň t:ͩ ̯Qʷͩ ʾsYͩ ʢͩ (ͩ ǈȽ Kͩ ČëɘƧɑ§ͩ ĝͩ ͆ɝͩ ʅÔ¿Ǖͩ žͩ Ĭu0˙ͩ ŀnʭ ͩ ʎͩ ʩǺʔͩ ź9ͩ ýtͩ ô`˥́ͩ ħ͙6ͩ ȓͩ Ȗͩ ʿ˚ʣñĮͩ ǎńĳͩɒƥͩSsͩ ͩƃͩ ̕¾7ͩ ʤ&ͩ ͂ͩ ̟ͩ ĈÊÓͩ ̍ʁͩ Ë 0 ƦŰŘͩ ̷Ȏͩoȗͩ øʺͩ õ¨ͩ ĭ̈́ͩ `Ɇ ͩ Rͩ ˛× ̎Ǎͩ {͚ͩþ̓ͩyųͩ Ĺ^.Ůͩ Ż˟ʒͩȏ,7ͩ ̨ ͩ ǲʥ˜ͩ Ȳ ͉ Ɩ,ʪͩ ̲mżͩ Ĩřͩ cˢ*gͩ Ƙͩ ̘ͩ ʑ̏ͩ ʓͩ ˸ͩ ̖ͩ Ȑͩ$bͩA ˈͩ Bͩ Ă̓̔Ǿͩ Fʫͨįͩ /ǳͩ ăəɚDͩ ʏͩ 7Ǵ&ͩ ͩ ǵ_ɓ²ͩ 8cͩ ]ͩ gǊ ɪ©ͩ ĺɄůͩ ɭǶˣͩ nȘͩƕÌÍͩ Sͩ 'ͩ ͩ Ƅͩ ˊ˴]Ƀͩ Śͩ ǀ / ͩ B̐ͩ ƅͩ ʊͩ ĩ,ʉͩ3Ŵ͛ɧͩ ˀ˦˄ Lͩ ˅. 9ͩ&3ͩ 8˶ͩ Ƿͩ ÿ*puͩ Ɗȹɛͩ ɲƻś˵ͩʦǸͩ 'Kͩ ȳʋ ¶ͩ ãͩÎ˝ͩʧǹͩ Ŧ̪ͩƆɂͩ NǙªͩ öͩ ̑ț"̩ͩͩ´«ͩ ı¬ͩ Ļɞͩ ˆxǂͩ ʸͩ șͩ 4ǝ˧ͩ˹ƈqǖͩƋͩĲͩ ɢ˞ͩąɥǟȴʂŜͩ ) ͩ ł̵ͩ Ć Ⱦ Ƽ ŝ ͩ ȵ ʃ ͩ ķ E ɜ Ⱥ Ɣ ͩ ġ U ʹ : ͩ Ł ǋ k ȼ ʯ ͩ Ü ® ͩ Ąͩ Ķƽȅƾͩ ØÏͩ Ğͩ ƿî͊ ɶRͩ ̹rZ"ȶʮͩ ȆfŞʄǗͩ ˰%ͩ ˇ2iͩ ɤ Ɍ˷ÉéͥȪƒœQC̈Fʳȫ6 ̉OƶͩĤȄȬˬɍ?ȭ̬ɎȮ˭̭ʞ̣ɏơͩŷƷͩɤͩɌ˷ͩÉéͥȪƒœͩQC̈ͩFʳȫ6ͩͩ̉O Ŕ̮ǚ ̊¹êz ċɿG.ˁ ȻʬȯGCɕɖ̀ ĤȄȬˬɍ?ȭ̬ͩɎȮ˭̭ͩʞ̣ɏ ė ?Ƣƣˋ85ȍŕ̋ŖŔ̮ǚͩ̊¹êzͩċɿG.ͩˁ ȻʬȯGCɕɖ̀;ͩėͩ?Ƣƣͩͩˋ85ͩȍŕ̋ͩŖͩ ʼ~ṳ̌eƸ ͦƹ iŸYȰ Ț ǯƓͧɁ+ƺ 15ʽʟʈ͘PˮŹ̥ɐ-̌ȱ˯ͩʼ~ṳ̌eƸͩͦƹͩiŸYȰ ȚͩǯƓͧͩɁ+ƺͩ15ʽʟʈͩͩ͘PˮͩŹ̥ɐ- @Ď ǰ̦˗mȕ˘Ȓ#āƂ ̧ɗɅ̱ʠ bƤ f ˃ʍ ͩ@Ďͩǰ̦˗mȕ˘ͩȒ#ͩāƂ̧ͩɗɅ̱ͩʠͩ bƤͩf ˃ʍͩ ̶ʶj ȸ̒ɵj ʀͩHŗ˳ͩʡǱͩŇ t:̯ͩQʷͩ ʾsYͩʢͩ(̶ͩʶjͩȸ̒ɵj¦ͩ ǈȽ KͩČëɘƧɑ§ͩ ĝ͆ɝ ʅÔ¿Ǖ ž Ĭu0˙ŀnʭ ʎ ʩǺʔ ź9 ýt ô`˥́ħ͙6ͩĝͩ͆ɝͩʅÔ¿ǕͩžͩĬu0˙ͩŀnʭ ͩʎͩ ʩǺʔͩź9ͩýtͩô`˥́ͩħ ȓȖ ʿ˚ʣñĮ ǎńĳ ɒƥ Ssƃ ̕¾7ʤ&̟͂ͩȓͩȖͩʿ˚ʣñĮͩǎńĳͩɒƥͩSsͩͩƃͩ̕¾7ͩʤ&̟ͩ͂ͩ ĈÊÓ ̍ʁ Ë 0 ƦŰŘ ̷Ȏ oȗ øʺõĭ̈́`Ɇ RĈÊÓͩ̍ʁͩË 0 ƦŰŘ̷ͩȎͩoȗͩøʺͩõ¨ͩĭ̈́ͩ`Ɇ ͩRͩ ˛× ̎Ǎ {͚þ̓yų Ĺ^.Ů Ż˟ʒ ȏ,7 ̨ ǲʥ˜Ȳ ͉˛× ̎Ǎͩ{͚ͩþ̓ͩyųͩĹ^.ŮͩŻ˟ʒͩȏ,7̨ͩ ͩǲʥ˜ͩȲ ͉ Ɩ,ʪ ̲mż Ĩř cˢ*g Ƙ̘ʑ̏ʓ ˸̖Ȑ$bA ˈƖ,ʪ̲ͩmżͩĨřͩcˢ*gͩƘ̘ͩͩʑ̏ͩʓͩ˸̖ͩͩȐͩ$bͩA ˈͩ Bͩ Ă̓̔ǾͩFʫͨįͩ/ǳͩăəɚDʏͩ7Ǵ&ͩͩǵ_ɓ²ͩ8cͩ]ͩgǊ 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Rich Altmaier <richalt2@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 05, 2018 12:54 AM To:City Council Cc:Rich Altmaier Subject:SB 827 - is helpful I think this bill is actually a good thing, as it frees city councils to think calmly about projects, and ignore extreme opinions. Making rational planning decisions, under an overall goal to create housing for our children and grandchildren in Cupertino, is what we need! Rich Altmaier Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: richalt2@yahoo.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Tara Sreekrishnan <tarasreekrishnan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:16 PM To:City Council Subject:Opposition of SB 827 Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers, I'm writing to urge the Cupertino City Council to affirm its opposition of SB 827. While we can all agree that it makes sense to build housing near transit, it should not be to the detriment of our communities. SB 827 is an extreme proposal that could intensify displacement – it is a sledgehammer approach that threatens existing communities. SB 827 strips local government officials and community members of their ability to appropriately plan for future development. Instead, SB 827 gives developers, who are unaccountable at the local level, the power to exempt themselves from locally developed and adopted building height limitations, densities, parking requirements, and design review standards. It is important to note that under existing law, cities are already required to zone for densities at levels necessary to meet their entire Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Cupertino’s General Plan promotes walk-able and bike-able communities as we move towards building transportation infrastructure that doesn’t require single-occupancy cars. Planned Development Areas (PDAs) account for 80% of our future housing needs and include properties within a quarter mile of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Highway 85 to its eastern border and a portion of North and South De Anza Boulevards which currently allow for 25-35 units per acre. Some in our community are worried that transit agencies risk influencing land use decisions by adding or changing bus routes either intentionally or unintentionally. SB 827 allows private for-profit housing developers to determine housing densities, parking requirements, and design review standards within one-half mile of a “major transit stop,” or along a “high-quality transit corridor” which could be miles away from an actual bus stop. Additionally, housing developments within these areas can range in height between 45 feet and 85 feet depending on the desire of the developer. 2 This bill threatens local land use plans that cities work so hard to encourage while also not addressing our affordability crisis. SB 827 would undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development), and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). -- Thank you, Tara Sreekrishnan Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: tarasreekrishnan@gmail.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:44 PM To:City Council; Darcy Paul Subject:Oppose SB 827 Attachments:SB 827 (Wiener) oppose 2-15-18.pdf; ATT00001.txt Dear City Council, Please join the numerous cities opposing SB 827. I have attached one of many such City letters imploring on the stoppage of the bill. California cities are not “one size fits all.” http://www.cityofencinitas.org/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/City%20Manager/Legislative/2018/S B%20827%20%28Wiener%29%20oppose%202-15-18.pdf Total Control Panel Login To: dpaul@cupertino.org From: ckittymoore@gmail.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 4:02 PM To:City Council Subject:Many Reasons to Oppose SB 827. No Amendments Acceptable. Dear Mayor Paul and City Council Members, I urge you to take the leadership to take a strong stand opposing SB 827. No amount of amendments to SB 827 would fix such a bill based on wrong assumptions and do not even increase any supply of below-market-rate housing. The 2017 pro-housing bills also include some aggressive measures to ensure that the cities would meet the RHNA allocation; otherwise, they will face severe consequences. The cities should treated like adults. Set a goal and then enable the cities to achieve that goal. The cities should not be treated like little children so that the state has to dictate how the city would zone its lands to achieve the RHNA goals. Each city has diverse needs and situations. What's suitable for San Francisco may not be suitable for the entire California. What's suitable for Cupertino should be determined by the City Council and its residents, not a one- size fits all policy. The impacts of wrong land use decisions are irrevocable for 50 or more years. Please strongly oppose SB 827 and similar bills that take away local control on land uses. Below are 12 reasons to oppose SB 827. Senate Bill 827, if passed, automatically upzones all neighborhoods within a ½ mile radius of a major transit stop or a ¼ mile radius of a bus stop with frequent service to unlimited density and floor area ratio with height limits of 55 feet high (5 stories) to 85 feet high (8 stories) for wider roads. (And 35% higher when density bonus applies) Any bus running every 15 minutes during any rush hour is considered “frequent” by SB 827. SB 827 eliminates setbacks, residential density, parking requirements, or any standard that limits density. 1. SB 827 is an environmental disaster. Loss of open space; loss of solar power generation; increased depletion of aquifers; greatly increased air pollution from increased traffic congestion; Increased impacts from global warming; increased risk of flooding. 2. SB 827 punishes responsible local governments and rewards irresponsible local governments. Irresponsible local governments have encouraged runaway office growth with inadequate housing for out-of-town workers. 3. SB 827 encourages the removal of existing affordable housing in order to build higher-cost housing. SB 827 does not require additional inclusionary below-market rate housing. Right-to-remain after eviction is of little use for most. 4. Real estate construction interests and big tech corporations back SB 827 for their financial benefit and at the expense of the quality of life for residents. The bill’s main author has taken large campaign contributions from these entities. SB 827 enriches for-profit real estate and construction interests. 5. SB 827 demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose of the general plan as a city’s guiding policy document for land use change and a blatant disregard for the role of community involvement in the democratic process. Zoning needs to be left to local planning experts with public engagement. 6. SB 827 deprives municipalities of the ability to provide sufficient subsidized below-market-rate (BMR) housing. It takes away the primary tool available to the city officials: the authority to upzone and regulate development standards. SB 827 is not only oblivious to the expenses the cities will incur to provide infrastructure, but also took away any ability for the cities to recover any infrastructure impact fees. 2 7. SB 827 will overload already extended infrastructure in overcrowded areas. The cities will face rising pension cost, rising infrastructure cost due to rapid increase in population and rising cost to provide subsidized BMR housing. SB 827 does not require additional percentage of BMR housing. 8. SB 827 absolves corporations of their responsibility to own the housing insecurity they cause when building offices in communities with insufficient housing. Corporations have recruited significant numbers of tech workers from out of the state into an area with an existing severe housing shortage. This disproportionate number of imported workers has driven up housing prices and displaced local residents. 9. SB 827 does not require cost savings for developers from higher density be passed on to tenants. It eliminates max unit counts, parking requirements, and other zoning regulations under the guise that density will lower housing costs. Property owners are given a pass to charge market-rate rents. 10. SB 827 will undermine effective transit with sufficient ridership in the long run. Large amount of attractive public places, retail, shopping, service-providing businesses do generate transit ridership, not housing. Years of market-rate housing with token retail near transit in LA has seen decreased transit ridership. 11. SB 827 will create dangerous traffic conditions near transit due to no parking requirement. The streets near transit will become parking lots while the commuters also seek parking in these streets. These streets become more dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists who take transit. 12. SB 827 will affect schools severely by adding large numbers of students with no space and little funding. There is no chance to negotiate additional fees or taxes to fund land acquisition for new schools, or new construction at existing school sites, which often cost $50+millions. 13. SB 827 will result in more luxury apartments in the most-expensive areas, but little housing in affordable areas. As many areas are upzoned at the same time by SB 827, developers get to choose where to build to make the most profit. Sincerely, Liang Chao Cupertino Resident Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: lfchao@gmail.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Ignatius Y. Ding <ignatius.ding@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 5:12 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office Subject:Agenda Item #18 -- Objection to SB 827 * * * Please enter this email letter into public records * * * Thank you!! Dear Mayor Paul and members of the City Council, I urge you to send a strongly worded letter of objection to the California Senate to reject the consideration and passage of SB 827 which would grossly deprive the rights of city governments throughout the state to plan, regulate and manage certain developments near those vaguely defined "transit centers" or "bus stops" with "frequent stops." This would not only violate the zoning rights of local governments, which is a part of the bedrock of our decentralized democracy dating back even before the U.S. Constitution was written, but also give the unlimited opportunities to unaccountable developers to define and develop housing units that might cause a humongous amount of environmental harm, especially traffic congestion and air/water pollution, than good without legally required CQEA evaluation and mitigation and proper check and balance enforced by the local authorities. Please send our collective objection to Sacramento and join the California League of Cities and other cities across the state to fight the unwarranted imposition from the Capitol by all means necessary. Thank you for your attention. Ignatius Y. Ding Cupertino Resident of 41 years Total Control Panel Login 2 To: cityclerk@cupertino.org From: ignatius.ding@gmail.com Message Score: 40 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 06, 2018 5:15 PM To:City Council Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:SB 827 In Suburban Neighborhoods Dear City Council: Does the wording of SB 827 mean that developers could build 60 foot high, high density housing units in suburban neighborhoods if they were 1/4 mile from a bus stop? What if the bus stop was changed or a new bus route was added. would this change all the zoning in the neighborhood? This is not a good bill as it changes all the city zoning in a very inconsistent, arbitrary way which seems to depend on where a bus stop is in the city or in the county. Please ask that this bill not be enacted at the state or local level. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: grenna5000@yahoo.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.