From: Liana C
To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: cityclerk@cupertino.org <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; cityattorney@cupertino.org <cityattorney@cupertino.org>; jacquelineg@cupertino.org <jacquelineg@cupertino.org>
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018, 11:09:07 AM PST
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
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
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.
+ Text of SB 828:
https://leginfo.legislature.
+ League of California Cities Sample Letter of Opposition Against SB 827:
https://www.cacities.org/
+ 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/
+ "Palo Alto Takes a Stand Against Wiener's Housing Bill," 2/13/2018, Palo Alto Online:
https://paloaltoonline.com/
<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)>
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: Action Item Request, Legislative Advocacy Committee, 2/20/2018: Oppose SBs 827 and 828
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.
+ Text of SB 828:
https://leginfo.legislature.
+ League of California Cities Sample Letter of Opposition Against SB 827:
https://www.cacities.org/
+ 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/
+ "Palo Alto Takes a Stand Against Wiener's Housing Bill," 2/13/2018, Palo Alto Online:
https://paloaltoonline.com/
<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)>
No comments:
Post a Comment