CC 07-25-2023 Item No. 1 6th Cycle Housing Element Update_Written Communications (2)CC 07-25-2023
Written Communications
Item No. 1
6th Cycle Housing
Element Update
From:Tessa Parish
To:City Council; Luke Connolly; Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan
Cc:HousingCommission; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Subject:Housing Element Lack of tranparency Concern
Date:Monday, July 24, 2023 4:25:53 PM
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.
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor & Council,
I am a bit shocked! I am not sure what is happening or if you are aware? I am hoping
this is NOT your doing or if it is done you are unaware of what is being done.
1. It appears that a lot of changes have been proposed to the Housing Element
without public notice or public feedback. A lot has been added, a lot has been
removed from what took hours of public comment and commission work. Now is it
only the re-zoning that will allow public feedback? Unless I am wrong, the process
REQUIRES that you notify the public and obtain feedback. Otherwise, you alone
would be deciding the fate of the city.
2. I am writing to you as public, this being public knowledge, the last 2 Housing
commission meetings have been canceled when in fact they could have been doing
their described duty of "To recommend policies for implementation and monitoring
of affordable housing projects; C. To facilitate innovative approaches to affordable
housing development and to generate ideas and interest in pursuing a variety of
housing options"
3. Also, the City is missing the Jan 31st deadline? I feel that previous meeting
content was NOT more important than discussing and meeting this deadline.
This is a priority. From now until our 2023-2031 Housing Element has been certified, the
Council and Staff need to insure this is a priority - not just with words but with their actions.
Information needs to be quickly and readily available on the city's website, email notifications
need to be sent out promptly, agenda items need to get priority and be expedited. Planning
and Housing Commissions can help as is their duty. Additional support staff and resources
need to be shifted to help both the staff and the consultants. Actually make this a priority with
your actions!
As a reminder, these are just the first 2 items of the Duties-Powers-Responsibilities of
the Housing Commission.
2.86.100 Duties–Powers–Responsibilities
The powers and functions of the Housing Commission shall be as follows:
A. To assist the Planning Commission and the City Council in developing housing policies
and strategies for implementation of general plan housing element goals;
B. To recommend policies for implementation and monitoring of affordable housing
projects;
ref. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/commissions/housing-
commission#:~:text=To%20recommend%20policies%20for%20implementation,D.
Request you ensure this is a transparent process and ensure the public have the
opportunity to provide feedback and ensure the commissions as representatives of
the public are allowed to perform their duties/responsibilities.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Best Regards,
Tessa Parish
resident of Cupertino
From:R W
To:City Council; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Kitty Moore
Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; HousingCommission
Subject:ITEM1: Housing Element Update
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 10:39:20 AM
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.
Dear City Council, City Clerk,
Please place this in the public record and read if possible.
As your former two-time Chair of the Planning Commission, I am very concerned about the Housing
Element process to date and the competency of the staff involved in this process. Having been involved in
this process in the last cycle and earlier this year, the current approach by this majority council has been a
process unlike any other. Moreover, this is beyond any of the conventional norms in the past.
We have a serious issue with the Housing Element process that you have put into place. While this process
may not be illegal at this moment, what we have seen so far appears to be bordering the illegal. We are not
only late, but we also lack public input in policy, site selection, and comment. The overall lack of public
input and discourse is unacceptable.
Mayor Wei, why are you and the majority okay with circumventing the HCD outreach process?
We all know when the public is being muzzled and not able to comment. To date the following egregious
actions have been taken:
1. Bypassing the Planning Commission And Housing Commission
It is unbelievable that our City Attorney and this majority council led by Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan,
and JR Fruen find this process okay. There are some significant issues:
By passing the Housing Commission and Planning Commission is not the normal process and
reduces resident oversight and input.
These actions only perpetuate the believe that Mayor Wei and JR Fruen seek to bypass input from
residents and prioritize input from special interests such as developers and housing activists
Staff and the city have cancelled 9 out of 14 planning commission meetings that should have been
used for input
Study sessions have not been conducted with the new changes
2. Late Response To HCD Comments
The continued inability to produce a Housing Element on time and the lack of urgency by this majority city
council is unacceptable. Based on your timeline, this City Council will not be able to submit a final HE
until March/April 2024, way past the January 31, 2024 deadline.
The continued delays are not acceptable
The lack of oversight of staff on this process continues to be problematic
Residents are at risk for fines from HCD due to the lack of leadership by this majority council.
3. Lack of Public Comment and Input
HCD requires extensive outreach and public comment. We can’t even speak at this meeting and we are
limited in time on input. This continued history of obfuscation and failure to seek input is troublesome
because:
The public can not review and comment on the next draft of the Housing Element
There is no draft to review as of this letter
The draft is not available until end of August or early September at best.
There appears to be little or no interest in receiving public comments on the sites that were selected.
The public can only comment on rezoned sites.
The city council appears to not want public comment nor debate.
4. Disregard for Previous Work
A lot of work from many people was put into the previous plan to identify sites, review locations, and
thoroughly reach out to property owners.
It appears that much valuable work has been “thrown away” and not reused.
Even worse, the input from the public has been ignored.
A decision to place all the bulk on the East side once again exacerbates the concentration of housing
on the East side versus the West side.
5. Lack of Strategic Selection Could Jeopardize Future RHNA Cycles
We have a responsibility to provide realistic options, instead:
The proposed plan identifies more sites than necessary, which decreases the pool of candidate sites
for future housing cycles.
The plan risks making every identified site an SB 35 project, which reduces the City's ability to
provide input for appropriate development.
The plan suggests sites that are not appropriate for up zoning or do not have property owner
approval, which makes these unrealistic options.
The plan fails to consider the Tier1 and Tier 2 sites? We threw away all that hard, tax-payer funded
work.
We await your replies to the public with abated breath.
With gravest of concerns,
R "Ray” Wang
Former 2X Chair of the Planning Commission
Long-Time Cupertino Resident
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:HousingCommission; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Matt Morley
Subject:Comments for Tuesday July 25 City Council Special Meeting Item 1 Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:41:18 PM
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.
Comments for Tuesday July 25 City Council Special Meeting Item 1
Housing Element
City Council, Staff and others
I am writing to voice just a few of my concerns regarding the subject of
tonight's Study Session.
When considering what Staff presents tonight, there are important things
to aim for, and not loose site of.
Four of the big ones are,
Honestly and diligently calculate and identify sites that are equivalent
and balanced throughout the city - West and East consider: unit
type/ affordability / density / height / open space / neighborhood
schools
Identifying housing for developmentally disabled population,
Do not exasperate the already existing/created lack of retail -
'essential retail' specifically
Quality of life for all residents
Important Point:
Reducing Pipeline units challenge -
I have not seen anything in what is publicly available, that would indicate
that HCD rejected the originally designated 'pipeline unit count' for any
reason. Indeed City Staff and Consultant(1) were adamant that all such
units were perfectly acceptable, each time that group/individuals claimed
that they were not.
I question whether there is an valid reason to now change that stance. I
also wonder if a majority council is considering removing those valid
units/projects, whether, for example, the Hamptons site should then be
identified as HE sites. And if not, why not?
Background and losing ground:
In several ways, this cycle of Housing Element outreach and discussions,
has seemed very weak as compared to past cycles.
I recognize that there were new wrinkles added to the task, and an
inarguably unrealistic unit count demand coming from HCD. The
challenges of getting a 'passing grade' were many.
Many of your constituents are unhappy that neither the Housing
Commission nor Planning Commission was presented an update, and given
the opportunity to discuss and give recommendations on the Housing
Element Update prior to the Study Session portion of tonight's CC
meeting. There is also concern that publicly provided information has not
been disseminated equally, as just one possible problem.
Both commissions, particularly Planning Commission, spent a great
number of hours engaging with the Staff and the Public over many
months. Public dialogue during the multiple PC mtgs allowed for several
opportunities for input and actual 'conversation' with Commissioners. Legal
owners of potential HE sites seemed to have their best shot at
communicating with 'the city' by attending and participating in the PC
meetings. These public discussions resulted in a big plus for the City
Council meetings that followed. I know, because I attended all but 1 1/2
of the HE meetings that the city held, beginning with the intro by EMC to
Housing Commission.
At the very least, tonight's City Council meeting could have been a Joint
Session with our Planning Commission.
From the beginning, staff and consultant emphasized the importance of
HCD's expectations/requirements that the public be given many
opportunities to weigh in on all things Housing Element. Many people
commented on the value of the joint session and expressed that more of
those type of meetings should be held in the future. I see an extra value in
that when there have been so many changes in Staff, and in the
composition of CC, PC, etc.
Hopefully this was read and understood. I kept it brief.
Lisa Warren
Resident
From:Debbie Timmers
To:City Council
Subject:Item 1: Study Session: 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:26:47 PM
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.
Dear Mayor Wei and Members of the City Council,
My name is Debbie Timmers, and I am a resident of Cupertino. I care deeply about issues of
affordable housing and the quality of our housing element because I am tired of seeing my
grandsons’ friends move away because their families cannot afford housing here.
Additionally, I am increasingly tired of the traffic on our highways as workers have to live
further and further away due to housing costs.
I hope you all will support a compliant, ambitious housing element. We need to build enough
housing at all income levels. We need to address regional fair housing disparities. We need to
leverage new state housing laws to maximize affordability in Cupertino
Having a strong housing element will bring in large sums in new revenue for our schools, our
parks, and our neighborhoods. We want a better Cupertino for our families! (not just better for
the privileged few) Additionally, we can make major progress toward addressing emissions by
approving housing projects that will make it easier for residents to walk/bike/transit to where
they need to go. With that, let’s create a sustainable corridor along Stevens creek, ripe with
transit-oriented developments, walkable streets, retail options, and a beautiful anchoring vision
for Cupertino’s future. We want nice, sustainable, public spaces where we can live in a
vibrant community.
Let’s restart our Housing Element process and do it the right way this time. Please note this is
not a cost to Cupertino—this is an opportunity for us! By pursuing an ambitious housing
element that produces, protects, and preserves, we can greatly bolster our resources here in
Cupertino, bring in new neighbors of all backgrounds, and create affordable, inclusive
neighborhoods that also bring in retail, new public space, and promote active transportation. I
support this council in pushing us toward a new, much stronger housing element.
Thank you for your work on this.
Debra Timmers
From:Erik Poicon
To:City Council
Cc:Luke Connolly; Housing; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject:Cupertino Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:34:44 PM
Attachments:SVYD Letter - Cupertino.pdf
Policy+Program Summary Table.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.
Hello Mayor Wei and Honorable Councilmembers,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Erik Poicon, President of the Silicon Valley
Young Democrats.
Attached you will find a letter in support of an ambitious plan in the housing element for
affordable housing and a policy and program table.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best,
Erik Poicon
President, Silicon Valley Young Democrats
July 25,2023
Dear Mayor and honorable Councilmembers,
The Silicon Valley Young Democrats (SVYD)have consistently committed to hold the principles
for liberty,justice,and freedom.We aim to inspire youth to actively engage in government affairs
and to maintain the viability of our free institutions no matter the person's race,religion,sexual
orientation,or gender.This includes the pursuit of accessible and sufficient housing
opportunities.
The city of Cupertino finds itself in a critical moment of being a city that creates a Housing
Element that is inclusive and affordable to its denizens or one that does the opposite.The
community itself faces an affordability crisis that even households earning over $100,000
annually struggle to afford apartments with rents over $3,000 a month and home prices over $2
million.
Now is the time for this council to boldly seize this moment in creating a Housing Element that
not only complies with the State of California,but also saves declining school enrollments,
improves current demographics,and provides adequate housing for diverse groups,young
families and elderly individuals.
Cupertino needs to take decisive action by creating housing opportunities that specifically
address the housing needs of the De Anza College community,arguably the largest community
of young adults in the city.This initiative would be in line with AB 686 -California's Commitment
to Fair Housing,which mandates every city in the state to update their General Plan's housing
element to promote fair housing opportunities.Students at De Anza currently experience the
highest level of insecurity,as evidenced by a 2020 basic needs survey that revealed 40%of
students were facing housing insecurity and 12%were experiencing homelessness.
Consequently,these students have been deprived of suitable living conditions,a disservice that
continues to affect many students in 2023.In light of this,as Cupertino proceeds with
developing a new housing element,we strongly urge the implementation of subsequent
programs,policies,and housing site inventory locations that are aligned to the specific needs of
De Anza College students.
Additionally,we implore the council to work closely with Cupertino for All who has outlined broad
and expansive goals that the city should take on.Though these goals seem ambitious,we at
SVYD believe they are attainable,such as,but not limited to,establishing reasonable renter
protections to prevent displacement,creating opportunities for transitional housing,shelters,and
resources for unhoused populations,and to restructure impact fees which have impeded the
construction of below-market priced units due to increase project cost.
This is a unique opportunity for the council to develop a housing element that caters to the
diverse needs of the community,encompassing teachers,first responders,retirees,low-wage
workers,students,and families,regardless of documentation status.We appreciate your prompt
attention to this matter and look towards an ambitious,equitable,inclusive housing element.
Silicon Valley Young Democrats Executive Board
Summary Table
Program Goals Example Metrics
Produce More Very Low
and Extremely
Low-Income Housing
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Permits (annually)
-Units Constructed
(annually)
Restructure Impact Fees Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Reform Multi-Family
Height Limits
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Remove Parking
Minimums
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Rezoning for SRO Units Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Partnerships with Local
School Districts &Using
Underutilized Land on
School Sites
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Meetings held with
local school
districts
-“x”number of sites
assessed
-“y”amount of
dollars secured
Pre-Approved SB-9 Housing Opportunities,-Change to
Designs and A Stronger
SB-9 Ordinance
RHNA,AFFH Municipal Code or
policy completed
within Planning
Period,or an earlier,
specific deadline
Reduce Setback
Requirements
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Expand Lot Coverage
Standards
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Expand Single-Family
Home Floor Area Ratio
Requirements
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Revise Heart of the City
and other Special Area
Development Standards
in Response to AB 2011
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
-Number of permits,
project applications
-VMT reductions
associated with
development
-Units in proximity
to employment or
educational centers
Examine and Implement
Adaptive Reuse Program
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,Preservation
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Family Friendly Housing Housing Opportunities,
AFFH,Preservation
-Number of 4+Unit
Homes Built
-Number of Sites
with usable
outdoor space(s)
Policy Review &Action for
Live/Work Units
Housing Opportunities,
AFFH
-Deadline for Policy
Review
-Deadline for Policy
Change or Action
-Production of
Live/Work Units
(annually)
Community Land Trusts Preservation,AFFH -Number of
Meetings Held /
Organizations Met
With
Community Opportunity
to Purchase Ordinance
Preservation,AFFH -Ordinance passed
on specific deadline
within Planning
Period
Establish a Rental
Registry
Protection,AFFH -Timelines for
Creation
-Percent of Units
Registered
Create and Support an
Eviction and Housing
Center
Protection,AFFH -Materials Provided
-Cases Resolved
(Monthly,Annually)
-Number of Events
Held
Legal Counsel Beyond
Mediation
Protection,AFFH -Meetings with
Organizations for
Partnership
Create or join an
Affordable Rental “Portal”
Protection,AFFH -Meeting with
BAFHA
-Audit presence of
units on their portal
(quarterly)
Rental Tenant Relocation
and Assistance
Protection,AFFH -Implementation of
Program
-Funds provided
(annually)
-Households or
Applicants Assisted
Eviction Reduction and
Anti-Rent Gouging
Ordinance
Protection,AFFH -Ordinance Passed
Affirmative Marketing AFFH -Campaigns Run
-Individuals
Reached
-Response Rates
Implement Visitability
Standards
Protection,AFFH -Design Standard or
Policy
Implemented
Develop an Universal
Design Standard
Protection,AFFH -Meetings Held
-Design Standard or
Policy
Implemented
Safe Home Sharing Protection,AFFH -Number of Units or
Homes
Participating
-Number
Participants
Ongoing Community
Engagement and
Committee Assignments
Preservation,Protection,
AFFH
-Code Changes
-Ongoing Meetings
/Engagements
Held
From:Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To:Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Kitty Moore; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc:City Clerk; Connie Cunningham; Neil Park-McClintick; Kalisha Webster; Housing Choices
Subject:Housing Element Housing for People with Developmental Disabilities
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:24:13 PM
Attachments:Housing Element Comments for 7-23 City Council JVZ 6.docx
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.
Dear Mayor Wei and City Council Members,
This is a copy of the presentation I plan to give at tonight's City Council Meeting. I am
sending you a copy just in case I am unable to present tonight for technical or other reasons. I
am still in New Hampshire.
If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to contact me.
Most Sincerely,
Janet Van Zoeren
408-482-5763
1
Hello Mayor WEI and councilmembers,
My name is Janet Van Zoeren and I am a 47-year resident of Cuper�no
California’s Developmental Disabili�es Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision
• En�tle people with developmental disabili�es to receive community-based services that allow them
to live in the least restric�ve community se�ng.
• Require local jurisdic�ons to assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with
developmental disabili�es in their Housing Elements.
However, the proposed Cuper�no Housing Element Dra� has
• No goals and
• No policies regarding the specific inclusion of housing for persons with developmental disabili�es,
• Two strategies
By not specifically assessing or planning for the
housing needs of people with developmental disabili�es
this Housing Element dra� is not only unacceptable,
but it is illegal as well!
Let’s take a closer look at the two strategies.
The two strategies men�oned above offer wonderful monetary or other incen�ves to developers
who build affordable housing for people with developmental disabili�es. The problem is that one
of the strategies is con�ngent on needs not yet determined in a nexus document, which is not even
part of the housing Element, and the other is con�ngent that the housing development neither
overburdens nor “hurts” the character of the neighborhood. Such “wording” is problema�c
because it could promote bias!
Page 335/492 of this dra� includes a sec�on that poorly atempts to define “developmental disability”,
misrepresents the housing needs of those affected, and fails to set specific housing goals to address their
specific needs. The Housing Coali�on did provide more appropriate informa�on to those dra�ing this
Housing Element along with suggested wording for possible inclusion in the Housing Element dra�.
Cuper�no needs to decide specifically, how many units of low and extremely low-income housing it shall
strive to atain over the next 8 years to sa�sfy the housing needs of this vulnerable popula�on, and the
law too!
Also, Cuper�no’s BMR priority points policy needs to be adjusted so that priority eligibility points that
favor others no longer create a barrier to BMR housing eligibility for those with developmental
disabili�es!
2
No mater what their poli�cal posi�ons are, I have always found the ci�zens of this community to be
suppor�ve of people who have developmental disabili�es. Let's appropriately define their needs and set
specific goals for this small, underserved, vulnerable popula�on.
Thank You!
Janet G. Van Zoeren, 46 year resident of Cuper�no
From:Peggy Griffin
To:Luke Connolly; City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-07-25 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM1-HE Update- PRESERVE OUR RETAIL CENTERS!
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:02:32 PM
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.
Please include this email as part of Written Communications for the above City Council meeting
agenda item.
Dear Luke Connolly and City Council,
I am asking you to please preserve our existing retail centers by:
NOT adding any more of the retail centers listed below as part of our Housing Element
EXCLUDE the retail centers below from AB2011 by doing what is required to do so
(paperwork).
As our density increases, we do not want to create food deserts. Cupertino has had a tremendous
retail leakage and continues to do so. Cupertino also needs to preserve what little diversified tax
revenue we have in light of the CDTFA audit.
RETAIL CENTERS TO PRESERVE
1. Shopping Center at Stevens Creek & De Anza Blvd (Starbucks, Home Goods, TJ
Max, Party City, etc)
2. Target Shopping Center on Stevens Creek
3. Whole Foods on Stevens Creek
4. Safeway Shopping Center on Homestead (Safeway, Ross, Michael's, Fed Ex,
Chipotle, Rite Aid, Star One, etc)
5. Main Street on Stevens Creek
6. Neighborhood Center (N. Blaney and Homestead)
7. Marketplace on Stevens Creek (Daiso, Marukai Market and many
restaurants/stores)
8. Loree Center on Stevens Creek
9. Shopping Center at Homestead Rd & Foothill Expressway (parts in Cupertino)
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Housing Element Do Over
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:41:40 PM
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.
Dear City Council and Planning Commission and Mr. Luke Connolly,
It has become apparent that tonight's Housing Element meeting had become a complete
Disaster. It is not the staff's fault. They are trying to plod through the demands of HCD,
Which does not seem to be very happy with the city for having any of the public involved
And voicing their opinions about what does or doesn't get rezoned in the city.
Evidently, we are up against a lot more ton of bureaucracy than we had realized
in HCD. Apparently, there are places in our city they want. Why they want them, who
Knows? Will they just take them?
I fear that HCD disconnected from the state of democracy a long time ago.
Okay, well, with this complete unworkable scenario, I suggest we take a step back and
Regroup and begin the Housing Element examination again, in light of the new evidence
HCD is not happy with our choices.
Okay, now that we know we are dealing with some sort of megladon of bureaucratic
Infra structure that no one knows who is guiding, we will begin again and ask it
Questions Why? Why are you unhappy with our choices? Why are you picking these new
Sites? Who told you to do this? That is how democracy works. The slow painful
Process that takes time.
If HCD is on a time agenda to rezone these lands they are volunteering for the Housing
Elements then that is a clue this is no Democratic process.
They may be unhappy, but hey, guys and gals, that is how democracy works.
No one is guaranteed a free, quick ride. Democracy is messy and HCD
Does not seem to be on-board with the Democratic process.
Let's do this Housing Element again and ask HCD why they are unhappy with our choices
And let them explain their Democratic process to us and may be we will see their overall
Agenda. It doesn't look like a very Democratic process so far and their logic of lacking.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Cupertino ForAll
To:Luke Connolly; Housing; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City
Council
Cc:CFA Steering Googlegroups
Subject:150 signature Petition for an Ambitious Housing Element + Policy Package of ideas
Date:Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:46:47 PM
Attachments:Attachment2.pdf
Attachment1.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.
Hello,
We would like to submit the following, as named community contributors in HCD's
recommended organizations for which to collaborate.
1. Attachment #1 CFA Menu of recommendations: Commentary on the draft Housing
Element and HCD’s feedback, with suggestions for policies and programs the City should
consider in its revisions to the draft Element.
2. Attachment #2 Table Summary of recommendations: visual summary of menu of
recommendations for draft #2 of the housing element.
3. Attachment #3 Ambitious Housing Element petition: community outreach petition for an
ambitious housing element, coupled with more than 150
signatures. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/housing-element-petition/
Please forward it on to any concerned or relevant parties as appropriate. We hope the Staff
finds these recommendations helpful and are available for follow-up for further discussion if
needed.
Thank you,
Steering Committee
Cupertino For All
July 24,2023
Commentary RE:Revised Housing Element in Response to HCD Draft Feedback
Letter
Cupertino City Council &City Staff
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
Hello,
Cupertino for All is a forward-minded coalition made up of longtime residents,
displaced residents,students,parents,homeowners,renters,and our allies with the
commonly shared belief that we can and should create a more sustainable
Cupertino now and for future generations.
We would like to submit the document below as commentary on the draft Housing
Element and HCD’s feedback,with suggestions for policies and programs the City
should consider in its revisions to the draft Element.
Thank you,
Steering Committee
Cupertino For All
CFA Policy &Program Recommendations
Cupertino for All (CFA),in partnership with our membership and community
partners,has developed various recommendations to directly address the gaps
identified in the HCD Letter to the City of Cupertino on May 4,2023,in response to
the City of Cupertino’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element.When making revisions to
the Housing Element,CFA hopes the City of Cupertino considers the inclusion of the
suggested policies,not only as a means to achieve HCD certification,but to create a
more ambitious and progressive Housing Element.
Our policy and program recommendations are organized by the three P’s framework
for housing policy (Production,Preservation,Protection)1.There may be references to
sections in HCD's feedback letter,and other element goals a program or policy may
address or connect to.
Overall Themes
●Compliant and Detailed Analysis throughout the Element’s policies and
programs.
○The need for (1)regional analysis,(2)comparative analysis across both
local and regional levels,and (3)the incorporation of local data was
brought forth in earlier communications with the City and within HCD’s
feedback letter in Section B1,under the topics of “Regional Level
Patterns and Trends”,“Income and Racial Concentration of Affluence
(RCAA)”,“Disparities in Access to Opportunity”,and “Disproportionate
Housing Needs,Including Displacement Risk”
○Notable HCD feedback (emphasis our own):
■“[The Element]must evaluate the data and especially at a
regional level,comparing the City to the broader region.This is
particularly important since the City appears far different from
the rest of the region.”(Our note:Only 3-4%of Cupertino is
Latino/a compared to ⅓of the populations of Santa Clara,San
Jose,and other neighboring cities)
■“[The]entire City is a RCAA and the element should incorporate
this information…specific analysis of income and RCAA at a
regional level (City compared to the broader region)...The
element must add or modify meaningful programs based on the
outcomes of this analysis,including actions to improve housing
mobility within and beyond City boundaries.”
1 Adopted by many organizations,but notably for Cupertino:Housing Protection,Preservation
&Production.Metropolitan Transportation Commission.Accessed July 20,2023.Link.
●Establish specific metrics,outcomes and details in the element’s policies and
programs.
○Adopt policies or programs that set measurable goals and use specific
language to actually achieve or provide greater certainty in achieving
the stated outcomes.We provide more details in our suggestions
below,and have outlined crucial policies absent from the previous draft,
many of which directly relate to gaps identified in HCD Feedback.
○For example,the previous draft Element had a few programs around
rezoning or Municipal Code amendments that were either very limited
(like a 0.5 parking space requirement reduction only for SRO and senior
units),or were very general commitments.This problem was
highlighted in HCD’s feedback that “[programs]must have…specific
commitment to housing outcomes (e.g.,refrain from language such as
“explore”,“develop”,“consider”)”.Without strong commitments to
addressing some of Cupertino’s restrictive policies,it will be difficult to
support building housing that meets the needs of our community.
●Focus on underserved communities and populations,like senior residents,
unhoused people,and De Anza Community College staff and students.
●Encourage denser and transit-oriented development,to mitigate and curb
Cupertino’s highest source of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions (which is
on-road passenger vehicles)2.
○CFA does not have additional policy recommendations for the previous
Element’s goals around energy and other resource use,but maintains
that newer multifamily housing has more efficient electricity usage,can
reduce fossil fuel reliance,and is more water efficient than other
residential,commercial or agricultural uses.We support full
electrification goals,including retroactivity and the application of
efficiency standards and electrification efforts to all housing,including
single-family homes.
●Institute policies to protect and assist renters,who make up nearly half of
Cupertino’s population.
●Support a variety of affordable homes that suit different community needs
(like SROs,ADUs,SB 9 style projects,and LBNCs).
2 Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0.Published August 16,2022.Accessed on July 12,2023.
Link.
●Ongoing and more inclusive community engagement,to ensure policies and
programs are meeting the needs of the community first,and parts of the
community who are underserved or have special housing needs.
Policy and Program Recommendations
Production
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Very Low,and Extremely
Low-Income Housing:Given Santa Clara County’s high Area Median Income (AMI),
the presence of housing units for these income levels (less than 50%and 30%of the
AMI respectively)is integral to addressing equal access to housing opportunities,
preventing displacement,and ensuring individuals or families of all socioeconomic
backgrounds can access housing opportunities in Cupertino.
In particular,a commitment to policies and programs that result in production of
more extremely low-income units will be beneficial for people with developmental
disabilities,individuals experiencing homelessness or on the precipice of becoming
unhoused,and preventing housing instability.Work done by the Housing Choices
organization highlights that disability is the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing
complaints in Santa Clara County,and a growing body of Santa Clara County data
indicates that Black,Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC)with disabilities
experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities
or whites with disabilities.For homelessness and housing instability,the influence of
housing affordability and availability has been well documented and recognized as
one of (if not the most)important factors in addressing homelessness.3 In areas of
high opportunity or high housing costs,units at these income levels are especially
important for helping provide individuals and families with opportunities to stay in
Cupertino,reducing the risk of displacement,housing instability,and homelessness.
Restructure Impact Fees:Cupertino has some of the highest impact fees in the
region.As discussed in the draft Element,impact fees raise the costs of projects,
usually resulting in less below-market priced units,or trade-offs made by developers
that result in a smaller or less affordable project.The City should revise its impact
fees,and look to other jurisdictions for comparison or inspiration.For example,
Mountain View’s program on Park Land Ordinance (1.8)examines in lieu fees,and
cites specific alternatives for consideration,such as privately-owned,publicly
accessible areas (POPA),or allowing parkland credit for pedestrian connections and
trails.A new fee regime could incorporate priority processing,granting fee waivers or
3 Colburn,Gregg;Aldern,Clayton Page.Homelessness is a Housing Problem,Link.
Demsas,Jerusalem,The Obvious Answer to Homelessness,The Atlantic.Accessed July 20,
2023.Link.
Cho,Richard.Department of Housing and Urban Development.Blog,12/06/22.Accessed July
20,2023.Link.
deferrals,modifying development standards,granting concessions and incentives,
modeled on the Density Bonus Law.
Revise Heart of the City and other Special Area Development Standards in
Response to AB 2011:AB 2011 (2022)came into effect on July 1,2023.In summary,
this law creates an alternative land use regime allowing residential uses by right at
specified densities on sites zoned for commercial use along wider streets in urban
areas.As highlighted in the City’s staff presentation for the July 25,2023 City Council
Special Meeting,almost all of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard are
eligible for AB 2011 projects.In light of this,we recommend the City amend the
development standards for these areas (most of which are in the Heart of the City or
other special planning areas)to make housing a permitted,instead of conditional
use,and to rezone and upzone in order to have more intention and thought put into
preferred development outcomes.Absent this change,development applications in
the affected area are likely to use AB 2011 on a stand-alone basis,rather than
producing projects that reflect a cohesive planning strategy.The additional capacity
should also help off-set proposed reductions in expected capacity at Vallco and The
Hamptons sites (as noted and anticipated in any response to HCD’s feedback letter).
Remove or Reform Mul ti-Family Height Limits to Scalable Standards:When
combined with other zoning code requirements -setbacks,maximum lot coverage
and parking requirements -the multi-family R-3 zone and height limits in many
planned areas arbitrarily constrict the amount of homes we can produce in the City.4
With such limited land area,the City should recognize the enormous cost of having a
two-story height limit on multi-family developments5,and reform the requirement.
We recommend the City study a range of actions -from removing the height limit
altogether to changing to a different metric,like a percent that would scale over
time or based on housing needs,rather than an arbitrary limit.
Remove Parking Minimums:As alluded to in HCD feedback,parking minimums’
potential impact on housing cost,supply,choice and other aspects need to be
adequately considered as potential constraints on housing.CFA supports a revised
draft that conducts a more thorough constraints analysis,but advocates for a broad
reduction or removal of parking minimums entirely.This program would be
consistent with San Jose’s removal of parking requirements,and actions in
neighboring jurisdictions (Campbell,Program H-3a;Mountain View,Precise Plans
and ongoing Council action)of lowering parking requirements or even introducing
parking maximums.As outlined in Mountain View’s constraints analysis,“[parking
5 How the US made affordable homes illegal,Vox.Published August 16,2021.Accessed July
20,2023.Link.
4 How America’s racist housing rules really can be fixed,Vox.Published February 17,2021.
Accessed July 20,2023.Link.
requirements may serve as a constraint on housing development by increasing
development costs and reducing the amount of land available…[the impact in
additional costs]range from $30,000 to up to $90,000 per parking space”6.Our
space and resources can be much better utilized,and shouldering these costs into
housing projects is antithetical to our Element’s goals.
Moreover,as researched by the Housing Choices organization,reduced parking
requirements are especially beneficial for affordable housing projects that include
people with developmental and other disabilities.Most adults with developmental
disabilities do not drive or own a car,so reducing parking requirements for units set
aside for people with disabilities can incentivize more inclusive housing by increasing
feasibility of these projects.An example of this can be found in Sunnyvale’s parking
requirements for Special Housing Developments.7
Finally,the City should also consider the effects parking minimums have for renters
and people purchasing homes:in both cases,individuals are forced into paying for
parking even if they do not need or want it.It seems only reasonable to create a
carve-out or add language to zoning codes to exempt renters and purchases
Rezoning for Single Room Occupancy (SRO)Units:Allow for SRO units within the
Heart of the City planning area and in commercial,office,and residential zones
within walking distance to transit stops,with particular attention to areas along De
Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard.Similar rezoning is seen in Campbell
(for several zones)and Mountain View (for specific planning areas).SRO facilities are
one of the only realistic options for many community college students,who are
currently overcrowded in existing ill-fitted homes.
In addition we recommend Cupertino adopt similar strategies to both Campbell and
Mountain View,where SROs are counted differently for density calculation purposes,
in order to maximize production of these types of units:Campbell counts SROs up to
400 sq.feet as half a unit in density calculations (Program H-1m),and Mountain
View’s “Precise Plans”use floor area instead of units to “[create]opportunity for many
more efficiency studios”.8
Partnerships with Local School Districts &Using Vacant School Sites:Through
collaboration with local school districts,joint powers authority,or another
mechanism,the City should utilize existing public lands,including school district
sites,to facilitate the production of affordable homes.The City should explore the
8 Mountain View Housing Element |Appendix D:Constraints Analysis.Page 276.
7 Sunnyvale,California Municipal Code.19.46.080.Parking for special housing developments.
Accessed on July 13,2023.Link.
6 Mountain View Housing Element |Appendix D:Constraints Analysis.Page 252.
possibility of building onsite housing options for teachers and families rather than
restricting land uses at underutilized or shut-down education facilities or schools.
Districts like Santa Clara Unified and Jefferson Union High School District9 have built
affordable housing projects for teachers,and Alum Rock is currently working on their
own project as well.The City should partner with local districts to identify their needs
and learn from these projects to replicate similar projects where possible in
Cupertino.
Pre-Approved SB-9 Designs and A Stronger SB-9 Ordinance:Similar to work done
in Campbell10 and underway in San Jose,Cupertino can look into providing clearer
design standards,expanding the types of zones in which SB-9 projects could be built
,and bringing the current code into compliance with the anticipated passage of SB
450 (Atkins).For metrics,Cupertino could adopt a similar program to Mountain
View’s program to monitor and promote accessory dwelling units,junior accessory
dwelling units,and SB 9 projects (1.7).Such a program would gather information like
rent at time of rental,tenancy,demographics of project owners,and more through a
survey.These data could be used to inform further programs,outreach,and
educational efforts.The metrics associated with such a program could be the time or
deadline for survey,educational material update milestones,and construction of “x”
type of units per year or another time-period.
Reduce Setback Requirements:On more heavily-trafficked streets and /or
commercial corridors,Cupertino should review and reduce or waive setback
requirements.Requiring this open space unnecessarily constraints development and
the types of housing possible,and forces non-ideal uses (such as a long driveway,or
unusable front yards)in areas that could benefit from greater buildable land area.
Such areas could be defined by density level (Residential Medium,10-20 DU/ac),
proximity to corridors or applicable streets using a similar definition to AB 2011 (e.g.
“at least 70 feet but not greater than 150 feet”),and /or “planned areas”,like the
Heart of the City.
For example,consider residential lots along sections of Miller Avenue and Bollinger
Road,where the minimum front yard setback is 20 feet.11 Or residential zones on
Stevens Creek Boulevard,west of Hwy 85,where many lot setbacks are a minimum
of 20-35,whereas in contrast,other nearby lots have setbacks of 5 feet12.These
requirements seem inconsistent and could be reduced to more reasonable
distances,like 5 feet,for greater flexibility in development.Reasonable and
12 Comparing residential lots like 10010 Phar Lap Dr (20 ft)versus 10036 Peninsula Ave (5 ft).
11 R-1 Residential,Overlay:Land Use Residential Medium (10-20 DU/ac.)Link.
10 Campbell SB-9 Ordinance Summary Sheet.Provides visual components as well.Accessed
July 13,2023.Link.
9 Educational Staff Housing.Jefferson Union High School District.Link.
Teacher Housing Foundation.Santa Clara Unified School District.Link.
consistent adjustments to setback requirements will stop forcing specific,
unproductive land-use choices,and could open up limited spaces to different types
of housing.Moreover,the reduction in setbacks in specific residential neighborhoods
could increase the connectivity of neighborhoods and create a greater sense of
vibrancy in our communities.
There are similar problems with second-story setbacks as well.The city’s arbitrary 15
foot side yard setback ignores basic architectural precepts (like the Golden Ratio)and
often dramatically reduces potential second story configurations,especially on
narrow lots.
Revise Lot Coverage Standards:Standards that dictate how much of the lot can be
“covered”with buildings or structures can constrain the types and amount of
housing built.For example,both Residential Duplex (R-2)and Multiple-Family
Residential (R-3)zones have a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent of net lot area.
Single-Family (R1)zones inexplicably have a slightly larger cap at 45 percent,and get
an extra 5 percent for “roof overhangs,patios,porches,and other similar features not
enclosed by walls on at least three (3)sides”13,with no clear reason why other zones
don’t get this treatment as well.Moreover,concrete or other impervious surfaces
don’t get included in this coverage,meaning that our regulations currently favor the
use of impervious surfaces (environmentally unfriendly for water conservation)over a
patio or porch (at least serves a benefit for the residents,and is not always an
impervious surface).
Putting aside the arbitrary nature of the current standards and the bizarre incentives
they create,these maximum lot coverage standards limit the types of layouts and
buildings that can be built.At a 40 percent cap,it is hard to envision plans for
duplexes or a small multi-family building that has a shared park or community space
in the middle of it,or other similar “villa”-style designs.Taken together with the city’s
arbitrary 15-foot second story side yard setback requirement,and the problem
becomes more pronounced.With the current set of regulations,we are constraining
the types of houses,and therefore the number of homes and types of families who
want to live in Cupertino,which frustrates our ability to achieve Element goals.
Adjust Single-Family Home Floor Area Ratio Requirements:Due to the interaction
between state law (SB 9 and anticipated passage of SB 450),Cupertino’s Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)for Single-Family Homes (SFHs)poses another constraint to the
development of adequate supply and the different types of housing opportunities
available for development.Currently the single-family zoning code sets our FAR at
0.45,or 45 percent of the lot area.Given SB 9’s effect (enabling lot-splits and two
13 Cupertino Municipal Code.19.28.070 Building Development Regulations.Accessed on July
12,2023.Link.
units per lot in single-family zones),the interaction between this requirement acts
similarly to the lot coverage standards:it restricts what layouts and types of housing
are possible to build.This restriction reduces the possibility for “starter homes”,which
are crucial for younger couples looking to start a family,or families moving to higher
opportunity areas,like Cupertino.Expanding FAR requirements and permissible lot
coverage,in combination with SB-9 and other incentives like parking minimum
reductions,could enable the creation of more “starter homes”.Building on these
actions,the City could also look into zoning for more single-family residential
“clusters”on standard-sized lots,allowing for less dramatic increases in density.
Another approach that could provide further flexibility is “carving out”or excluding
certain uses from counting against the FAR.For example,a part of Campbell’s
Objective Multi-Family Design Standards (program H-1f)“will allow the residential
component of mixed-use projects to not count against the allowable FAR.”
Making a slight adjustment to the FAR (up to 55 or 60%)or creating carve-outs for
what counts toward FAR or lot coverage,can open up more opportunities to bring
more homes to the same land area,which is crucial given Cupertino’s limited sites
and spaces.
Examine and Implement an Adaptive Reuse Program(s):The City should allow for
the adaptive reuse,conversion,or replacement of vacant or underperforming
commercial spaces and parking structures to residential units.A program to consider
would be an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that would target the conversion of select
types of existing structures and spaces that may include ground-floor retail in an
existing mixed-use structure,part or all of an office building,parking structure,or
historic building targeted for preservation.Reuse programs are necessary in cities
like Cupertino,where remaining buildable land is limited in scope.
Family Friendly Housing:Cupertino’s diverse communities often house several
generations of family within one home,in some cases leading to overcrowding.
Promote housing designs and unit mix attractive to multigenerational households
by encouraging developers to include housing features and more bedrooms
(including four-bedroom units),as well as other on-site amenities,such as usable
outdoor open space for multigenerational use,and multipurpose rooms that can be
used for after-school homework clubs,computer,art,or other resident activities.
Many of the programs recommended above (revise lot coverage standards,FAR
adjustment,SB-9 designs)also feed into this policy’s intent.Metrics for this policy or
program could include figures like the number of 4 bedroom units produced,or
number of sites with usable outdoor space(s).
Policy Review &Action for Live/Work Units:Assess existing Live/Work regulations
to see if any modification needs to be made to encourage development of Live/Work
units in an effort to diversify the City's housing types.Encourage the development or
conversion of affordable live/workspace units,and ensure owners of existing
Live/Work units are aware of the Homebuyer Assistance Program available for their
unit when marketing their unit for resale,in an effort to expand affordable
homeownership options.
Preservation
Analysis of the previous draft Element,and HCD feedback sections B1 and C5 of their
letter highlight gaps in the Element’s programs and policies to address
displacement,and preserve neighborhood stability.Many of the recommendations
under “Production”,have beneficial effects for the goals of “Preservation”as well as
“Protection”,as the increased supply of housing across all income levels allows for a
diversity of households to find housing affordable to them in Cupertino.
Furthermore,while we expect that the City will undertake more detailed analysis
with local data that will imbue “[the City’s actions with]specific commitments,
milestones,geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets”14,CFA
recommends the following programs to address displacement and preserve housing
opportunity in our neighborhoods:
Community Land Trusts:To improve and conserve the existing housing stock,
Cupertino should develop strategies to assist affordable housing developers,existing
(like the South Bay Community Land Trust)and future community land trusts with
property acquisition.Coordinate with non-profit developers and community land
trusts to take advantage of off-site acquisition options.
Community Opportunity to Purchase Ordinance:TOPA/COPA policies give tenants
and/or qualified organizations (QOs)advance notice that the landlord intends to sell
the building,along with specified timelines to exercise the “right of first offer”and
“right of first refusal.”Through the right of first offer,tenants and/or QOs have the
right to submit an offer before the building goes on the market,which the landlord
can accept or reject.If the landlord rejects the initial offer and subsequently receives
a third-party offer on the market,a standard TOPA /COPA policy would allow tenants
and/or QOs time to match that third-party offer,invoking the right of first refusal.If
the tenants and/or QOs can match the third-party offer,the landlord must sell the
property to them.Under TOPA ,tenants are empowered to exercise these rights or
assign their rights to another entity,while under COPA ,these rights are given to a
pre-established list of QOs.Properties purchased through TOPA/COPA may be
14 Department of Housing and Community Development,“RE:City of Cupertino’s 6th Cycle
(2023-2031)Draft Housing Element”,05/04 /23,Page 12.
subject to permanent affordability restrictions,increasing the jurisdiction’s affordable
housing stock and permanently removing property from the speculative market.
Protection
Establish a Rental Registry:A database of rental housing units,including
information on unit characteristics,rental rates,and changes in rent,is a crucial first
step in providing and protecting housing opportunities for a diversity of people (draft
Element goals HE-1,HE-2,HE-3)and better understanding market trends.This
database would provide benefits to renters,landlords,and the city.These data are
valuable information for the public,necessary for compliance and enforcement of
other tenant protection policies,and integral to the evaluation of city policies or
programs,especially those focused on affordability and displacement.
Neighboring jurisdictions like San Jose,already have a rental registry and use specific
metrics (percent of City’s rental units registered)to measure the program’s
effectiveness.15 While there has been discussion of a county-wide registry,we believe
it would be valuable for Cupertino to move forward with the implementation of a
local program regardless of any county-wide discussions.The new data provided
both for the City and for the public will be beneficial and directly relates to Goals
HE-1,HE-6.
In addition to the aforementioned benefits,this program helps satisfy Element
compliance,and the existence of a local program may facilitate the formation of a
larger,county-wide program in the future.
Create and Support an Eviction and Housing Center:Establish a space for the
public to seek support and resources on topics related to eviction and housing.
Ensure these resources and services are multilingual,particularly in Mandarin
Chinese,Spanish,or any other languages identified as often spoken by populations
with special housing needs.Other jurisdictions have similar programs in their
elements too,like San Jose’s Tenant Resource Center (S-1)and Tenant/Landlord
Education Centers (S-27);similarly,Campbell (Program H-5c)and Mountain View
(Policy 2.2)have similar policies or programs.A help center could be facilitated
without high costs by using existing public spaces,such as the newly expanded
Cupertino library,De Anza College,Quinlan,public private partnerships,or K-12
educational facilities.
15 City of San José Draft Housing Element,rev.June 2023.Chapter 3,S-2,Page 3-31
Legal Aid Beyond Mediation:Cupertino should either support a county-level
program,or fund and create its own right to counsel program for tenants facing
eviction or abuses of the landlord-tenant relationship.Many tenants do not even
realize they can seek legal help and may not have the funds available.In the event of
budgetary complications,the city should at least signal its support for a countywide
right to counsel program using county funds.Already,the City of San Francisco is
funding several non-profit organizations to work together in providing those services
as the Tenant Right to Counsel program (TRC).A similar regime should be
constructed with West Valley Community Services or in partnership with an
organization like the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley so that it can scale up and
expand existing programs.
Create or join an Affordable Rental “Portal”:Similar to San Jose’s existing
“Doorway”portal,their policy S-1316,the commitment made in Campbell’s program
H-317,and the milestone18 in Mountain View’s policy 2.4 (Inclusive and Equitable
Affordable Housing Application Processes),this tool would enable easier access to
affordable or below-market rate housing opportunities.Given the launch of the Bay
Area Housing Finance Authority (BAFHA)’s “Doorway”portal,we would hope to see
coordination between the City and BAFHA to ensure affordable rental units in and
near Cupertino are listed and updated regularly.
Rental Tenant Relocation and Assistance:Create a Tenant Relocation Assistance
Ordinance (TRAO).We recommend offering assistance that is equal to 3 months of
Fair Market Rent19,for eligible renters.Other TRAO policies provide a range from one
to three months of rent,due to the common requirement for tenants to pay the
equivalent of three months’of rent just to secure the rental unit.Furthermore,we
recommend strengthening assistance for special housing needs populations,such
as seniors and people with disabilities.
The City can look to jurisdictions like San Jose or Mountain View as models for
Cupertino’s ordinance.
Eviction Reduction and Anti-Rent Gouging Ordinance:Local jurisdictions can
protect more renters by expanding the types of properties subject to existing state
law,specifically AB 1482 (The Tenant Protection Act of 2019).
For Cupertino specifically,CFA recommends extending the AB 1482 protections to
single-family homes and to rental properties built in the past 15 years,including
19 “Fair Market Rent”.HUD.Accessed July 21,2023.Link.
18 Mountain View Housing Element |Housing Plan.Page 48
17 4th Submittal Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element,March 24,2023.Page H.IV-82
16 City of San José Draft Housing Element,rev.June 2023.Chapter 3,S-13,Page 3-35
ADUs.These types of properties are particularly important given the high proportion
of single-family homes in Cupertino,the volume of new affordable housing and
ADUs to be added in the planning period.Additionally,with Cupertino’s exceptionally
high cost of living,the City should consider a stronger ordinance than state law,
which limits to a flat increase,regardless of inflation.
Finally,the City should also consider an ordinance to address extrajudicial evictions,
whether through harassment or retaliation,and if possible,aligning these
protections with neighboring jurisdictions to create an efficient regulatory
environment while maintaining important protections for renters.
Affirmative Marketing:Affirmative Marketing of the Types of Housing Ideal for
Populations with Special Housing Needs:Income-Restricted,Single-Resident,
Physically Accessible Units and other types of housing can be ideal for potential
residents with special housing needs.Affordable housing developers are allowed to
affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in Santa Clara
County but rarely take this step.Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by
people with co-occurring physical and developmental disabilities who,because of
cognitive,communication and social impairment,depend on housing navigation
services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to learn about and apply for
affordable housing.
Implement Visitability Standards:The Housing Choices organization has identified
that people with mobility impairments are unable to visit friends and family
members in many Cupertino homes because of their inaccessible design including
inaccessible entryways,common areas and/or restrooms.In order to increase
accessibility of homes developed in our city,we agree with Housing Choices’
recommendation that the city should commit to adopting Visitability Standards for
new construction (including single family homes).These standards should
encourage the adoption of features like at least one “no-step”entry point,interior
and exterior doors with 32 inches of clear passage,and one bathroom on the main
floor that is able to be maneuvered in a wheelchair.
To mitigate the constraining effects of these standards on new housing
development,the City should work collaboratively at a regional or county scale.
Develop an Universal Design Standard:The Housing Choices organization defines
the goal of a Universal Design Standard to be the creation of living environments
that are usable by all people regardless of abilities,to the greatest extent possible,
without the need for adaptation or specialized design.They highlight that universal
design not only increases housing accessibility for people with disabilities but allows
people of all ages to age in place in homes that meet their needs throughout
different stages of life and physical changes.
While there is a cost to adding universal design features to new construction and
retrofitting accessible design features into existing homes,the cost is minimal when
compared to the benefits;not only for people with disabilities,but also for the
general population when considering the health and safety benefits from basic
design choices20.Moreover,the modification costs can often be a major barrier for
people with disabilities living in housing that is not covered by Section 50421,as
landlords are not responsible for bearing the costs of such modification and can even
require that the tenant return the unit back to its original state.Cupertino should
work with organizations,like Housing Choices,to incorporate universal design
aspects to all new buildings in a way that is minimally constrictive upon the types or
number of housing projects being proposed.This effort should include the study of
alternative policies to address existing homes as well,to address those living in
housing not covered by Section 504.
Safe Home Sharing:Partner with De Anza Community College to facilitate a home
sharing program to account for the high number of empty rooms across Cupertino’s
single family home supply.Such a program would provide low cost market rate
options for students who are underhoused,housing insecure,or simply wish to live
closer to campus.The program should implement a screening process to ensure the
safety and wellbeing of both parties.
Ongoing Community Engagement and Committee Assignments:Cupertino
should improve its community engagement efforts over the course of the planning
period and implementation of its housing policies.To do so,the City could expand
the types of stakeholders participating in council or staff strategy and planning
meetings,especially for groups or individuals representative of populations with
special housing needs (like students,teachers /educational staff,service workers,
seniors,renters,individuals with disabilities).
This engagement could help build understanding for the Element and City’s goals.
For example,Campell’s Program H-5v accomplishes this goal by calling for
“[coordination with local businesses,housing advocacy groups,neighborhood
groups and others]”for the purpose of “building public understanding for workforce,
special needs housing and other [housing]issues…[like]the community benefits of
affordable housing,mixed-use,and pedestrian-oriented development.”This broad,
21 A federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in federally-assisted
programs or activities.Section 504:FAQ,HUD.Accessed on July 24,2023.Link.
20 For more,contact the Housing Choices organization.An overview can be reviewed here:
Quick Guide:Low Costs of Visitability,Accessed July 20,2023.Link
consistent engagement combined with education around policy benefits ensure the
Element is effective in meeting community needs,while also publicizing the positive
benefits of the City’s programs.
Community representation can be enhanced by other actions as well.Campbell and
San Jose’s housing elements feature examples of policies for greater community
representation in city commissions.Campbell’s includes the “[modification of ]city
rules to allow non-city residents who work in Campbell”to be on the housing
commission.San Jose’s policies I-9 and I-10 call for a focus on “getting equitable
representation of historically underrepresented individuals,and individuals with lived
experience with homelessness,on City commision(s).”We would be supportive of
Cupertino adopting similar policies,and in addition,would welcome City efforts to
appoint more renters on either the Planning or Housing Commission given a current
lack of representation today,both in past commissions and in the previous draft
Element’s programs.Such actions would align with the City’s most recent Internal
Audit,which suggests additional qualification criteria for appointments to City
commissions.22
22 See City of Cupertino Enterprise Leadership Assessment Final Report,Moss Adams LLP,
Recommendation No.9,at p.3,July 14,2023.
Summary Table
Program Goals Example Metrics
Produce More Very Low
and Extremely
Low-Income Housing
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Permits (annually)
-Units Constructed
(annually)
Restructure Impact Fees Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Reform Multi-Family
Height Limits
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Remove Parking
Minimums
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Rezoning for SRO Units Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Partnerships with Local
School Districts &Using
Underutilized Land on
School Sites
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Meetings held with
local school
districts
-“x”number of sites
assessed
-“y”amount of
dollars secured
Pre-Approved SB-9
Designs and A Stronger
SB-9 Ordinance
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code or
policy completed
within Planning
Period,or an earlier,
specific deadline
Reduce Setback
Requirements
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Expand Lot Coverage
Standards
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Expand Single-Family
Home Floor Area Ratio
Requirements
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Revise Heart of the City
and other Special Area
Development Standards
in Response to AB 2011
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
-Number of permits,
project applications
-VMT reductions
associated with
development
-Units in proximity
to employment or
educational centers
Examine and Implement
Adaptive Reuse Program
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,Preservation
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Family Friendly Housing Housing Opportunities,
AFFH,Preservation
-Number of 4+Unit
Homes Built
-Number of Sites
with usable
outdoor space(s)
Policy Review &Action for
Live/Work Units
Housing Opportunities,
AFFH
-Deadline for Policy
Review
-Deadline for Policy
Change or Action
-Production of
Live/Work Units
(annually)
Community Land Trusts Preservation,AFFH -Number of
Meetings Held /
Organizations Met
With
Community Opportunity
to Purchase Ordinance
Preservation,AFFH -Ordinance passed
on specific deadline
within Planning
Period
Establish a Rental
Registry
Protection,AFFH -Timelines for
Creation
-Percent of Units
Registered
Create and Support an
Eviction and Housing
Center
Protection,AFFH -Materials Provided
-Cases Resolved
(Monthly,Annually)
-Number of Events
Held
Legal Counsel Beyond
Mediation
Protection,AFFH -Meetings with
Organizations for
Partnership
Create or join an
Affordable Rental “Portal”
Protection,AFFH -Meeting with
BAFHA
-Audit presence of
units on their portal
(quarterly)
Rental Tenant Relocation
and Assistance
Protection,AFFH -Implementation of
Program
-Funds provided
(annually)
-Households or
Applicants Assisted
Eviction Reduction and
Anti-Rent Gouging
Ordinance
Protection,AFFH -Ordinance Passed
Affirmative Marketing AFFH -Campaigns Run
-Individuals
Reached
-Response Rates
Implement Visitability
Standards
Protection,AFFH -Design Standard or
Policy
Implemented
Develop an Universal
Design Standard
Protection,AFFH -Meetings Held
-Design Standard or
Policy
Implemented
Safe Home Sharing Protection,AFFH -Number of Units or
Homes
Participating
-Number
Participants
Ongoing Community
Engagement and
Committee Assignments
Preservation,Protection,
AFFH
-Code Changes
-Ongoing Meetings
/Engagements
Held
Summary Table
Program Goals Example Metrics
Produce More Very Low
and Extremely
Low-Income Housing
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Permits (annually)
-Units Constructed
(annually)
Restructure Impact Fees Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Reform Multi-Family
Height Limits
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Remove Parking
Minimums
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Rezoning for SRO Units Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Partnerships with Local
School Districts &Using
Underutilized Land on
School Sites
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,AFFH
-Meetings held with
local school
districts
-“x”number of sites
assessed
-“y”amount of
dollars secured
Pre-Approved SB-9 Housing Opportunities,-Change to
Designs and A Stronger
SB-9 Ordinance
RHNA,AFFH Municipal Code or
policy completed
within Planning
Period,or an earlier,
specific deadline
Reduce Setback
Requirements
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Expand Lot Coverage
Standards
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Expand Single-Family
Home Floor Area Ratio
Requirements
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Revise Heart of the City
and other Special Area
Development Standards
in Response to AB 2011
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
-Number of permits,
project applications
-VMT reductions
associated with
development
-Units in proximity
to employment or
educational centers
Examine and Implement
Adaptive Reuse Program
Housing Opportunities,
RHNA,Preservation
-Change to
Municipal Code
completed within
Planning Period,or
an earlier,specific
deadline
Family Friendly Housing Housing Opportunities,
AFFH,Preservation
-Number of 4+Unit
Homes Built
-Number of Sites
with usable
outdoor space(s)
Policy Review &Action for
Live/Work Units
Housing Opportunities,
AFFH
-Deadline for Policy
Review
-Deadline for Policy
Change or Action
-Production of
Live/Work Units
(annually)
Community Land Trusts Preservation,AFFH -Number of
Meetings Held /
Organizations Met
With
Community Opportunity
to Purchase Ordinance
Preservation,AFFH -Ordinance passed
on specific deadline
within Planning
Period
Establish a Rental
Registry
Protection,AFFH -Timelines for
Creation
-Percent of Units
Registered
Create and Support an
Eviction and Housing
Center
Protection,AFFH -Materials Provided
-Cases Resolved
(Monthly,Annually)
-Number of Events
Held
Legal Counsel Beyond
Mediation
Protection,AFFH -Meetings with
Organizations for
Partnership
Create or join an
Affordable Rental “Portal”
Protection,AFFH -Meeting with
BAFHA
-Audit presence of
units on their portal
(quarterly)
Rental Tenant Relocation
and Assistance
Protection,AFFH -Implementation of
Program
-Funds provided
(annually)
-Households or
Applicants Assisted
Eviction Reduction and
Anti-Rent Gouging
Ordinance
Protection,AFFH -Ordinance Passed
Affirmative Marketing AFFH -Campaigns Run
-Individuals
Reached
-Response Rates
Implement Visitability
Standards
Protection,AFFH -Design Standard or
Policy
Implemented
Develop an Universal
Design Standard
Protection,AFFH -Meetings Held
-Design Standard or
Policy
Implemented
Safe Home Sharing Protection,AFFH -Number of Units or
Homes
Participating
-Number
Participants
Ongoing Community
Engagement and
Committee Assignments
Preservation,Protection,
AFFH
-Code Changes
-Ongoing Meetings
/Engagements
Held