Loading...
CC 10-23-2024 Item 1 Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects_Written Communications_2CC 10-23-2024 Item No. 1 Statewide Housing Laws that Apply to Applications for Housing Development Projects Written Communications From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Questions on Housing Laws for Oct. 23 Special Meeting Date:Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:46:41 PM Please enter this into the written communication for tonight's agenda item. Thanks. Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 3:33 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Questions on Housing Laws for Oct. 23 Special Meeting I haven't checked whether any agenda material is posted yet. There are questions that are commonly asked by residents. I thought it's a good idea to get it clarified. For some of them, I might know the answers, but it's always good to get answers directly from the attorneys. If some of these questions could be answered in a supplemental report, that would be helpful since I am usually limited to only 5 minutes for both questions and answers. If some of them could not be answered by the Oct. 23 Special Meeting, I would appreciate an info memo later. I know that there is limited time until the Oct. 23 meeting, feel free to select a subset of the questions to answer for the supplemental report. I am just taking this chance to write down questions I have heard from the various residents, since there was not any chance to ask them earlier. Thank you for this opportunity to bring some clarity into this complex issue. Q1: Cupertino self-certified the 2015-23 Housing Element shortly before the January 31, 2015 deadline. The HCD certified version was later adopted on May 19, 2015 (as I remember). Many cities self-certify for the last Housing Element. Why the Builders' Remedy was not an issue in 2015? Q2: A resident sent in this quote from ABAG: "HCD approval is not required for a housingelement to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or countymay adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant withstate law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agenciesto the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section65585(j).)" (https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Builders-Remedy-and-Housing-Elements.pdf)As of January 2024, has the state law changed on the requirement for "a housing element to befound substantially compliant with state law"?If the state law has changed in the requirement for "substantially compliant with state law", pleaseindicate which bill/which year has changed it and please quote the new state law requirement. Q3: For the last 2015-2023 Housing Element, it seems the city did not have to submit any version to HCD and then receive comments until HCB is satisfied with the Housing Element. What changes in the state law have made this process necessary? (Bill number/which year and a quote would be helpful.) Q4: Some cities have self-certified their current 2023-30 Housing Element. What cities have done that in Bay Area? Have they been subjected to any Builders' Remedy projects? Have lawsuits been filed to challenge their serlf-certification? Q5: The City submitted a few versions of the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element. As I remember, (please correct me if I mis-remembered them) the first version was submitted on Feb. 2, 2023 (a couple of days late) the second version in Oct. 2023 a revised second version in November 2023 then a third version in Feb. 2024 a revised third version in April 2024, and The final version in May 2024. Q5-1: Why did it take almost 8 months to submit the second version? (The new consultant company was retained by November 2022, as I remember) Q5-2: Why Cupertino did not self-certify the second or second revised version in Oct./Nov. 2023, since the changes later do not seem to be affecting the "substantially compliant" requirements? Q5-3: Any changes in the third version or later version would make a difference on whether the housing element is "substantially compliant" or not? If so, did HCD point out such deficiency in their earlier comment letters so Cupertino can address the issues earlier? Q5-4: If Cupertino has adopted a self-certified housing element in Oct/Nov 2023 and then continue to revise it until it is also certified by HCD, would that have provided the City more protection from Builders' Remedy project? (These are the questions on the mind of many Cupertino residents. I hope the City provides an answer for these inquiring minds.) Q6: Cupertino had only 5 identified 5 HE sites for the 2015-2023 Housing Element to mee the RHNA requirement of 1064 sites. These sites are all viable sites and 5 projects have been approved on them, although construction has not started on some of them for factors beyond the city's control. Cupertino has done its job as a city for the 2015- 2023 Housing Element. Has the HCD given the city any credit for the good performance? If not, why not? Q7: In the adopted Cupertino 2023-2031 Housing Element, how many pipeline units were not included, towards meeting the RHNA requirement of 4588 units? What are these units and why are they not counted? Q7-1: Is there any state law that forbit these units to be counted? If not, who defines the criteria on whether or not pipeline units could be counted? Where are such criteria written? Q7-2: Have the same criteria for counting pipeline units been applied to all cities universally? Why and why not? Q8: It seems the two Builders' Remedy projects proposed on R1 sites are proposed in Feb. 2024, after the settlement with YMIBY Law. Has the settlement agreement with the YIMBY Law have any impact on the Builders' Remedy projects? Q9: There seems to be different opinions on whether Builders' Remedy projects need to comply with all other existing city standards, except the zoning. Please provide the opinions on both sides of the issue. Q10: For a Housing Element site, a site zoned for housing, but not an HE site and a Builders' Remedy site, what are the different requirements in terms of CEQA requirements? Q10-1: What's the impact of Cupertino's settlement with YIMBY Law on the CEQA requirements these projects have to follow? Q11: The Heart of the City Specific Plan requires a 75% frontage in order to maintain a continuous commercial strip along Stevens Creek, as that is vital to create viable shopping environments, so they are connected with other commercial sites. But there are three proposals (the United Furniture site, the Pizza-Hut/Staple site and the Panera site seem to be all 100% residential sites. Why are they allowed to not comply with the Heart of the City Specific Plan? Does this have to do with AB 2011 or other state laws? Note: Sorry, I am probably not referring to them with the right term. These are the commercial stores these residential-only projects will replace so it's easier for me and other residents to understand the location of these projects. Feel free to inform us the property name for these projects. Q12: The state is not supposed to pass down unfunded mandates to the City's. (I heard that it is a requirement in California Constitution. If so, please point me to the exact passage.) But the City has spent a lot on adopting the Housing Element and the City has lost retail sites due to mandates like AB 2011 or the like, how can the City request for compensation from the state for the expenses for implementing state laws and the loss in revenue due to state law mandates? Q13: The Housing Element used to be a planning document and the cities report the progress with the number of permits pulled. The cities can only plan with zoning and approve projects. The cities are not property owners of any development sites and are not builders or their investors. But the state law has changed since the last housing element cycle to add sticks. Which bills have passed to add "sticks" to measure the cities' performance? Are the performance measured on the number of units approved? Or the number of units permitted? Why one or the other is used by the state as a performance measure? Q14: In the 2023-2030 Housing Element cycle, what state laws define how the city's performance will be measured? At what point? What's the expected outcome for each point? (For Cupertino, how many units by what date specifically?) What's the consequences for not meeting the expected outcome at specific time? Q15: Cupertino has identified almost 60 HE sites for the 2023-2030 Housing Element. But the interest rate is high and the construction and raw material costs are high and labor costs are high too. In case some of these HE sites are approved , but not built at the end of the HE cycle in 2023, what rights will be given to these sites? In case some of these HE sites do not even propose any project, what rights will be given to these sites? Will Cupertino be able to count these HE sites in the next HE? Thanks, Liang Liang Chao​ Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192