CC 04-19-2022 Item No. 22 PDA Grant Written CommunicationsCC 04-19-2022
Item No. 22
Master Funding
Agreement &
PDA Planning
Grant
Written
Communications
From:Joseph Fruen
To:Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Cc:Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Subject:[For public comment] Re: Item 22 - Resolution authorizing acceptance of Priority Development Area Planning
Grant Funds to update the Heart of the City Specific Plan
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:44:40 PM
Attachments:CFA - Letter re Item 22 4-19-22.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.
Madam City Clerk:
Please include the attached correspondence on behalf of Cupertino for All with respect to Item
22. Please note that this submission does not constitute a request to pull this item from the
consent calendar, but is included for the consideration of council with the specified item. If the
item is pulled for discussion, I kindly ask that you note the submission at the time that any
other public comments are made. I am not asking you to read the comments aloud.
Many thanks,
J.R. Fruen
Policy Director, Cupertino for All
Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council:
I write to you today on behalf of Cupertino for All to ask that you support the Draft
Resolution at Attachment A to tonight's Staff Report. Cupertino for All is a
neighborhood organization dedicated to making Cupertino a more equitable, vibrant,
sustainable, and inclusive place through education, advocacy, and volunteerism. Key to
our focus is the provision of housing in Cupertino sufficient to meet the needs of
members of our community at all income levels.
As you are aware, the city is presently in the process of revising its Housing Element to
accommodate its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This process
requires Cupertino to plan for the addition of at least 4,588 net new homes across the
gamut of housing affordability levels over the next eight-year production period. This
Cycle includes new requirements that previous Cycles have not. In particular, AB 686
(2018) requires that our revised Housing Element affirmatively further fair housing
principles, and AB 1397 (2017) requires that cities support the likelihood of new housing
development on non-vacant sites with substantial evidence.
Review of submitted Housing Elements from the Southern California Association of
Governments reveals that failure to address affirmatively furthering fair housing
standards, and a lack of evidence to support a likelihood of development during the
production period were the primary reasons the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) rejected the overwhelming majority of these Housing
Elements. Given the legal consequences of lacking a state-certified Housing Element, we
would like to help Cupertino avoid a similar HCD rejection.
Consistent with that concern, when this item came to the Planning Commission, a
number of commenters noted that the Housing Element should be the first priority for
planning, rather than other updates to parts of the General Plan. As a result, the
Planning Commission recommended acceptance of the grant before you, but that no
work should be done on a Heart of the City (HOC) Specific Plan update until after the
certification of a new Housing Element. We disagree--the monies from this planning
grant and the requirements MTC imposes for accessing them will help the city to
achieve an HCD-certified Housing Element.
Re: Item 22 (Consent): Resolution authorizing acceptance of Priority Development Area
Planning Grant Funds to update the Heart of the City Specific Plan
Many of the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission about the timing of a HOC
Specific Plan update, however, look to be based on the view that the HOC Specific Plan
update will either detract from the Housing Element update process, or occur instead of
it. This HOC Specific Plan update, however, need not represent a zero-sum game.
Indeed, the staff report specifically noted that the city applied for this grant in
anticipation of using it to help plan for the current Housing Element update process.See
Staff Report at p. 3 ("Furthermore, in 2019, in anticipation of the Sixth Cycle Housing
Element Update, the City issued a Letter of Confirmation for Priority Development Area
(PDA) Planning to ABAG/MTC confirming the City’s intent to complete an amendment
to the HOC Specific Plan as well as related rezoning and environmental studies by 2025,
in response to a call for Letters of Interest from ABAG/MTC"). The two efforts overlap,
particularly in their intent, namely to plan for new housing development.See Staff
Report at p. 4 (noting that the "purpose of the PDA Planning Grant Program is to
provide funding to local jurisdictions to amend specific plans within established PDAs to
encourage housing development in the PDA " with a specific emphasis on affordable
housing).
In recognition of the expressed concern about timely completing the 6th Cycle Housing
Element update, recall that the Housing Element must not only be timely submitted, but
must also pass muster with HCD. The planning process that the grant before you
prescribes increases the likelihood of HCD certification.Its community advisory council
requires input and inclusion from the very groups that HCD's guidance memo on AB
686 requires or encourages in order to satisfy affirmatively furthering fair housing
standards. Similarly, the technical advisory committee's feedback would assist the city
in ensuring the feasibility of projects ultimately submitted in the HOC Specific Plan
area, helping the city fulfill the requirement to demonstrate likelihood of development
during the production period pursuant to AB 1397. The planning grant before you would
help fulfill both requirements for sites within the HOC Specific Plan. Since the HOC
planning area contains a disproportionate number of sites deemed suitably sized for
affordable housing (between 0.5 and 10 acres in size (Gov't Code § 65583.2, subdiv. (c)),
focusing planning efforts here would go a long way toward ensuring a legally compliant
Housing Element. Since the HOC also stretches across a broad expanse of the city, new
housing within it would help satisfy calls that new housing development be distributed
across the city, and be consistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing principles.
The overlap between the existing Housing Element effort and an update to the HOC
Specific Plan also offers clear opportunities for synergy. The most obvious synergy lies
in plain resource allocation. By utilizing this grant, the city may reallocate existing
resources to those parts of the Housing Element planning process outside the HOC. In
addition, the grant provides additional funding for outreach associated with planning
for this key, city-defining piece of Cupertino. To date, the public's engagement level for
the Housing Element update falls well behind the city's prior Specific Plan process for
Vallco. The Housing Element update is a higher level process that involves many
vagaries and is therefore likely to engender less interest, especially early on. By contrast,
the Specific Plan process is a more concrete planning exercise and participants may
have a stronger sense of what input to provide and when that input is sought. As such, a
Specific Plan process for the HOC may help bolster public engagement for the overall
Housing Element update with which it overlaps. By definition, it would do so for those
Housing Element sites located within the HOC. Based on the prior public comments
from members of this Council, Cupertino would benefit from such improved
engagement.
As such, we believe accepting this planning grant and using it now to help our planning
effort for the Housing Element would be in the best interest of the city. Accordingly, we
urge you to approve the Draft Resolution at Attachment A to tonight's staff report. .
Respectfully submitted,
J.R. Fruen
Policy Director, Cupertino for All