CC 05-14-2024 Item No. 1 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendments_Written Communications (2)Written Communications
CC 05-14-2024
Item No. 1
6th Cycle Housing Element
and Associated General Plan
Amendments
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:FW: 2024-05-14 City Council Meeting-ITEM1 Housing Element - MOBILITY BANKING FEE and PARKING -
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 3:17:55 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
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 COMMUNICATION FOR
THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council and Staff,
FYI...A few points regarding the Mobility Chapter of the Housing Element:
1-"Unbundling parking" means projects can charge their residents extra for parking.
For example, an apartment can have a base fee then if you want a parking space
you'd pay extra each month. In SF, this means the apartment residents try to park
elsewhere so they don't have to pay the fee. This means it impacts the nearby
neighborhoods.
IMPORTANT...Now, couple this "unbundling" with the city's decision to charge for
parking permits, it means that the cost of parking for these new apartments is moved
from the developer to the nearby residents! Enforcement becomes a bigger issue
and additional cost to the city which trickles down to home owners.
2-VMT Mitigation Banking Fee
Means the money goes into a big pot that does not have to fix or mitigate the problem
at the project but could be used clear across town!
WOW! How is this better?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:56 PM
To: 'City Council' <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; 'Luke Connolly' <LukeC@cupertino.org>; 'Piu Ghosh
(she/her)' <PiuG@cupertino.gov>
Subject: 2024-05-14 City Council Meeting-ITEM1 Housing Element - MOBILITY BANKING FEE and
PARKING
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE
MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council, Asst. Community Development Director Luke Connolly and Planning
Manager Piu Ghosh,
NOTE: At the 4-29-2024 Planning Commission Meeting, at video point 1:02:07, Commissioner
Lindskog asked Assistant Director Connolly…
PC QUESTION: We can’t make changes to the Housing Element but does it apply to the
Mobility and Land Use Element?
STAFF ANSWER (Luke Connolly): It would not apply to those to the same degree.
With that in mind, PLEASE consider making changes to aspects of the Mobility and Land Use
Elements!
EXAMPLE - VMT MITIGATION BANKING
NOTE: M-1.2.4 means that if one project will have significant transportation impacts and is
required to pay into a “VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program”, that money does not need to be
spent to mitigate the issues caused by that specific project!!! It could be used clear across
town and not fix or mitigate anything related to traffic for the project!!!
EXAMPLE – PARKING METERS
NOTE: Charging for parking has multiple issues:
1-You will kill what little retail we have left! I once dropped off shoes at a local Cupertino store
to be fixed and when I returned there were no parking spaces and there was no street parking
allowed so I had to do multiple trips to finally pick up my shoes. I NEVER returned to that store
again.
2-If you have parking meters or paid parking, you MUST enforce it by hiring people to ticket
violators. You MUST get more vehicles for those meter people to cruise our streets. You MUST
have a way to catch multiple offenders that just pile up their parking tickets.
EXAMPLE – UNBUNDLED PARKING
NOTE: “Unbundled Parking” is when apartments and offices charge extra for parking. For an
apartment, nickel-and-diming the apartment residents by charging additional monthly fees for
parking, pets, breathing, etc. increases the cost of living in Cupertino!
IMPORTANT: It also means residents of those apartments will park on neighboring streets,
impacting the local residents! So, now with fees for permit parking, you are moving the cost of
apartment parking onto the neighboring residents!!!
In San Francisco, where some apartments have unbundled parking, the local residents are
forced to pay for a PERMIT PARKING STICKER so they can park in front of their house! Then the
city is forced to enforce this parking permit. Who pays for the decision to unbundle? Why of
course the nearby neighbors, not the development that caused the problem!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Subject:2024-05-14 City Council Meeting-ITEM1 Housing Element - MOBILITY BANKING FEE and PARKING
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:55:52 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
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 COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE
MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council, Asst. Community Development Director Luke Connolly and Planning
Manager Piu Ghosh,
NOTE: At the 4-29-2024 Planning Commission Meeting, at video point 1:02:07, Commissioner
Lindskog asked Assistant Director Connolly…
PC QUESTION: We can’t make changes to the Housing Element but does it apply to the
Mobility and Land Use Element?
STAFF ANSWER (Luke Connolly): It would not apply to those to the same degree.
With that in mind, PLEASE consider making changes to aspects of the Mobility and Land Use
Elements!
EXAMPLE - VMT MITIGATION BANKING
NOTE: M-1.2.4 means that if one project will have significant transportation impacts and is
required to pay into a “VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program”, that money does not need to be
spent to mitigate the issues caused by that specific project!!! It could be used clear across
town and not fix or mitigate anything related to traffic for the project!!!
EXAMPLE – PARKING METERS
NOTE: Charging for parking has multiple issues:
1-You will kill what little retail we have left! I once dropped off shoes at a local Cupertino store
to be fixed and when I returned there were no parking spaces and there was no street parking
allowed so I had to do multiple trips to finally pick up my shoes. I NEVER returned to that store
again.
2-If you have parking meters or paid parking, you MUST enforce it by hiring people to ticket
violators. You MUST get more vehicles for those meter people to cruise our streets. You MUST
have a way to catch multiple offenders that just pile up their parking tickets.
EXAMPLE – UNBUNDLED PARKING
NOTE: “Unbundled Parking” is when apartments and offices charge extra for parking. For an
apartment, nickel-and-diming the apartment residents by charging additional monthly fees for
parking, pets, breathing, etc. increases the cost of living in Cupertino!
IMPORTANT: It also means residents of those apartments will park on neighboring streets,
impacting the local residents! So, now with fees for permit parking, you are moving the cost of
apartment parking onto the neighboring residents!!!
In San Francisco, where some apartments have unbundled parking, the local residents are
forced to pay for a PERMIT PARKING STICKER so they can park in front of their house! Then the
city is forced to enforce this parking permit. Who pays for the decision to unbundle? Why of
course the nearby neighbors, not the development that caused the problem!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:City Council Agenda Item #1 - more housing element comments
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:04:05 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 find below my comments to the planning commission from April 29.
They are also applicable to today’s agenda.
Thanks, Rhoda
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 5:34 PM
To: 'planningcommission@cupertino.org' <planningcommission@cupertino.org>
Subject: Agenda Item #2 - housing element comments
Dear Planning Commission,
Regarding the housing element, I was shocked by the number of changes that have been made recently without public participation. One of these is the policies. With so many high-density sites
already defined, we do not need to be adding more. I would have liked to see these late additions removed.
Regarding the Evulich Court site. All of a sudden the site could grow by 0.4 acres because the public road into the site could be purchased by the property owner.
Unfortunately the GPA-2022-001 (see below snip) is very hard to read because it only lists APNs – so many other documents also listed addresses and it would have been better to list them here.
Originally, the combination of four properties was expected to generate a maximum of 89 homes.
With the addition of the road into the property, it is now expected to generate a maximum of 104 homes.
And who knows how many more could be added after throwing in a few density bonuses.
While I do think that it is a good idea to include the public road into the project to improve the distribution of new homes, I do not think that it should increase the effective housing density by 20%.
Can you please modify the density of this “Transportation lot” for adding no density to the project?
Also, I am concerned about the Housing Element not having CEQA. When a developer needs to do CEQA, they have nothing to tier off of. How do you decide which projects are infill and which are
not? While I am not personally affected by traffic on Linda Vista, I am keenly aware of traffic in the tri-school (Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista) area and cannot imagine what adding 104 homes
(plus density bonus plus other projects in the area in turning corner lots into multi-family) would do to traffic. Where is the study on that? And with all of that traffic, can an emergency-vehicle get in
or out of the area timely? And I’m just using this site as an example – I am confident that there are other issues within the housing element as well that should get ironed out.
Finally we need to do what we can to retain our park space. I was dismayed to see that the park mitigation fees could go down. By allowing higher density on so many properties, the property values
of those properties have increased and should have an appropriate fee to provide additional park space. I would also like to see the calculations that were derived in the document for the decline of
park space as specified in our General Plan and the use of that new lower number as a benchmark.
Sincerely, Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Cupertino City Council 5/14/2024 Agenda Item #1 Housing Element - - - comment #2
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:23:07 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.
I see that Dish Dash has been removed from the count for RHNA numbers.
Why isn’t that property also removed from the list?
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:EIR Concerns with Rezoning Etc.
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:17:01 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.
(Please add this to the public comments about the Housing Element Rezonings and General
Plan Amendments at the Cupertino City Council Meeting on 5/14/24).
Dear City Council:
I am greatly concerned that there are going to be CEQA and Environmental Impact Issues
With the amount of massive rezoning HCD is forcing us to do to get their certification. There
Is also the Yimby Law Lawsuit mess which has jeopardized our city CEQA and Environmental
Impact Reports for projects.
I think there are massive amounts of CEQA and Environmental issues that have not been addressed
And these will harm Cupertino. We don't have enough parks now and these forced rezonings
With bad RHNA numbers will make it so the builders will not have to provide any new
Parks. Our roads will be taken away as well as our parking. Our beautiful Heart of the
City which we have worked so hard on to maintain will be destroyed and cut down just
Because the people pushing the rezonings don't care about our city and what makes
Cupertino Cupertino.
HCD doesn't care anymore than Yimby Law does or some other groups do about our city.
Our city is there just to make them a fast buck or maybe some builders a fast buck.
HCD has so little respect for Cupertino that they use bad RHNA numbers , when they
Know the numbers are bad, to insist that Cupertino has to needlessly rezone everything
To high density and no building setbacks just so Builders can make a fast buck from
Throwing up highrises that no one needs because the RHNA numbers are bad.
HCD is no one's friend, especially not Cupertino's, in this current scheme of rezone with bad
Numbers. Everything Cupertino has done to make a wonderful environmental statement is
Being thrown by the wayside.
I have grave CEQA and Environmental concerns for the city as HCD is forcing us to go down
HCD's CEQA and Environmentally deficient road toward their demands for certification.
This path demanded by HCD of rezoning and General Plan Amendments is a dangerous road
For Cupertino to go down. I do hope this audit goes through by the state.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Cupertino City Council 5/14/2024 Agenda Item #1 Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:15:11 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,
I am concerned about some items in the Housing Element, particularly the letter from Valley
Church which states that the church had never been contacted regarding rezoning its property
for housing on the Housing Element. We have been told that we cannot make changes to the
Housing Element – yet this is a significant change. Is it possible that other property owners
were not notified?
Furthermore, to my knowledge, there has been no public engagement on the City’s new
housing policies. I am very concerned about disclosure.
Similarly, the residents near Evulich at Linda Vista do not know the true impacts because a 0.4
acre lot (the former driveway to the properties which is now public land) can accommodate
another 9 to 15 homes. This is a significant change to the original number of homes in that
area. I certainly hope that if the City decides to sell that land, that it will keep in mind that the
land can accommodate 9 to 15 homes and receives appropriate compensation. If it could
accommodate just one home, then it would cost much less.
Most importantly, I hope that the State does an audit of HCD because I think that the amount
of housing (RHNA) that Cupertino is expected to generate (along with other cities) is
ridiculous. I sincerely hope that the City will reserve the right to modify the Housing Element
if it turns out that the RHNA numbers are too high.
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Parking in the Cup. Housing Element and General Plan Amendments for City Council Meeting (5/14)
Date:Monday, May 13, 2024 8:17:47 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.
(Please include these comments in the Cupertino City Council Meeting on ((5/14/24)
As public input on the Housing Element and Proposed General Plan Amendments )
Dear City Council:
I am assuming the city will try to rezone the city of Cupertino tomorrow at the city council
Meeting to try to get HCD to certify the city's Housing Element as promised by HCD.
Also, there will be General Plan Amendments to the City General Plan that is being
Required by HCD to try to change our Transportation Code and our Parking Code
To make there be no parking in the city and try to take away car driving in the city.
As you know, I have grave concerns about HCD's ability to carry out a competent Housing
Element now that it has come to light that HCD has been using bad RHNA numbers from
The start of this Sixth Cycle Housing Element. Maybe HCD did not know the RHNA
Numbers were bad at the beginning, but it has been pointed out to the agency by
Learned authorities the RHNA numbers are indeed wrong and therefore bad data.
To this date, HCD has not addressed the issue of the bad RHNA numbers and they have
Continued the Housing Elements using bad data and propagating error with this bad data as they go
Along. They have not behaved as a responsible state agency who has found their program
Contains bad data. They have continued to use the bad data and are breaking the first law
Of science and statistics: if you find you have bad data, you stop the program or experiment.
HCD is breaking STEM teaching.
There has been a request by Senator Glazer to have the State audit HCD again and its methods
Used in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The decision on whether to have an audit of HCD
Will be made tomorrow by The California State Audit Committee at the Joint Audit Committee
Meeting on May 14.
I am hopeful an audit of HCD and it's Housing Element Methods will be voted on tomorrow
And will be implemented by the state.
I am very concerned that because of the bad RHNA numbers given to Cupertino by HCD
That our city is being forced to give up important amenities in Cupertino like parking and
Roads to drive vehicles on and is jeopardizing important infrastructures in our city.
Why are we having to do General Plan Amendments in the city? General Plan Amendments
Are important and we can only do four a year. Why are we being forced to do all these
General Plan Amendments? Why are we having to give up control of our city
To an entity that can't even do math?
I'm very concerned whether the things the city is being asked to do tomorrow are even correct.
My experience is that HCD makes up rules on the fly and does not
Treat each city the same or even fairly.
I don't think it is wise to proceed with eliminating parking or giving up road
Travel space or do all these General Plan Amendments when the HCD entity
Is using bad data in the first place. We don't know how that bad data has
Affected our Housing Element. I think that bad data has had a tremendous adverse
Affect on our Housing Element, on it's adoption and will have an adverse aftermath on the city if
The Housing Element is actually adopted tomorrow night.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly
Subject:2024-05-14 City Council Meeting - ITEM1 - Housing Element - NEXT STEPS-REZONING STUDY SESSION!
Date:Monday, May 13, 2024 4:26:58 PM
Attachments:image001.png
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 COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE MEETING
AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan and Councilmembers,
Timeline presented during the 4/29/2024 Planning Commission meeting:
5/14/2024 – CC adopts Housing Element
5/28/2024 – PC rezoning
6/18/2024 – CC rezoning 1st reading
Fall 2024 – adopt objective standards
March 2025 – APR submitted
Based on the above, there will be NO OPPORTUNITY to make changes to the proposed zoning. It will
be ramrodded through without the Planning Commission, City Council or public to make any
changes! AGAIN!
REQUEST: Insert/provide a Study Session, attended by PC and CC members and public, BEFORE the
rezoning is presented to the Planning Commission with the INTENT that changes can be made!
There are 5 weeks from 5/14/2024 to 6/18/2024. Set the Study Session for 5/28/2024 since that’s
when the staff will be ready to present the rezoning then pick a date for a “Special Meeting” for the
Planning Commission to review the “updated zoning”.
Mayor Mohan:
Stop this ramrodding of material through without any ability to make changes or corrections.
Step forward and improve this process by allowing feedback/input.
The Council is oversight but it is not happening. Please correct this.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin