Loading...
CC 08-21-2018 Item No. 12 Response to Santa Clara Grand Jury Report - Written CommunicationBoard of Directors Ron Gonzales, Cha ir Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Jani ce Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Voffey Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Hou sing Trust Silicon Volley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secre t ary KM Thibodeau x Consulting LLC Sh iloh Ba ll ard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Christine Carr Kat ie Ferrick Linkedln Arnie Fi sh ma n Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonza lez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jenn ifer Lovi ng Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Nea le Th e Core Companies And rea Osgood Eden Housing Ke lly Snide r Kelly Snider Consulting Jenn ife r Va n Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Cors igl ia Executive Director TRANSMITIED VIA EMAIL Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 CC 08-21-2018 Item NO . 12 sv [Q)home Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks, Councilmembers Vaidhyanathan, Chang, and Scharf, and City Manager Chan, The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released a report, "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is our Destiny," on June 21, 2018, which issued a clarion call that "affordable housing is the issue of the day in Santa Clara County" and that "drastic action is long overdue." The solutions it outlines are a path to more higher-density housing in general, and more affordable housing in particular. The report makes clear that, as this is a problem that affects people throughout the county, the response must come from all our cities, governmental entities, and the County's largest employers . Action needs to reflect a sense of urgency at the local level, with new policies and stepped-up commitments, but it also needs to come through better regional coordination and collaboration. This is a shared crisis, a shared challenge, and must engender a collective response. We appreciate the City's timely response to the Grand Jury's request to address specific findings and recommendations. As the staff response catalogues, many of the findings are well known to the City, and many of the recommendations have been integrated into policy. Most recently , of course, Cupertino has experienced the local challenge of community support for large scale high-density development, even as it moves towards approval of just the type of solution we believe is envisioned by the report. What the Grand Jury is clearly calling for, however, is a sustained commitment to long-term solutions . It would be a shame to allow the opportunity presented by this Report to pass us by without more forcefully committing to clear, impactful actions. Some of the most important recommendations of the Grand Jury Report are for cities to better coordinate in keeping affordable housing high on the agenda, and finding regional solutions where possible . We are pleased that the City is taking up the issue of the RHNA sub-region, and the regional discussion about barriers to meeting RHNA targets . We expect Cupertino to be an active and important partner in these regional discussions. On the city level, the Vallco Specific Plan process offers a significant chance for Cupertino to make progress on its housing goals. The Charities Housing senior housing project that broke ground earlier this year, cited by staff in the City's response, is also important in that it will provide 18 homes for vulnerable seniors. At the same time, it is emblematic of the challenges of community resistance, high costs, and slow processes that hamper the development of much-needed affordable housing projects in Cupertino. SV@Home looks forward to being part of overdue discussions on how to 350 W. Ju l ian Street, Bui ld in g 5, Sa n Jose, CA 95110 408 .780. 226 1 • www.svatho me.o r g • in fo@ sili co nva ll eya th ome .org Honorable Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council February 22, 2018 Re: Vallco Special Area Specific Plan -EIR Scoping Page 2 of 2 increase the funds the City collects for the production of affordable housing and more rapidly convert those funds into actual homes for those who are in the most need. We are all in this housing crisis together and all jurisdictions need to do their part. SV@Home stands ready to continue to work closely with Cupertino to meet our shared commitments. Sincerely, ilar Lorenzana Deputy Director 350 W . Julian Street, Building 5, San Jose, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome .org • info@si liconvalleyathome .org 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:57 PM To:Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf Subject:Move Item 12 off Consent Calendar, Oppose RHNA Subregion Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks and Council Members, Please move August 21, 2018 Item 12 off the consent calendar because it is a hot topic with name calling insults “NIMBY” in it. There is also some bullying by the Grand Jury in the wording. The documents presented seem highly irregular. 12. Subject: Response to Santa Clara Grand Jury Report on "Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is our Destiny." Recommended Action: That the City Council review and approve the City's response. Staff Report A - Response Letter B - Letter from Peter L. Hetman, Foreperson C - SCC Civil Grand Jury Report - Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is our Destiny As to the paired RHNA subregion topic, the Grand Jury Report must be read before the RHNA subregion discussion because it contains the necessary background information. The Housing Commission meeting last week was recorded by a resident and is available here: https://youtu.be/J1YVO0VPn78 What struck me was the attempt to use the RHNA subregion to fob off our BMR requirements to far flung places and have the residents take a bus in or drive which negates the whole purpose of having BMR units located in the cities where the need is. Then bringing up transportation improvements as a substitute for actually providing the housing is purposefully causing sprawl. Best regards, Kitty Moore Total Control Panel Login To: bchang@cupertino.org From: ckittymoore@gmail.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. CC 08-21-2018 Item No. 12 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Items Number 12 and 22 In Consent Calendar at 8/21 Date:Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:13:23 PM Dear City Clerk: Items Number 12 and Number 22 on the Consent Calendar of the 8/21 City Council meeting are controversial and have not had any public discussion. They should probably be under the Public Hearing of the meeting. I am going to ask that Items 12 and 22 be pulled for discussion from the Consent Calendar at the August 21 City Council meeting. I am wondering if the City Council meeting with be very long with all the items to discuss? Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Total Control Panel Login To: cityclerk@cupertino.org From: grenna5000@yahoo.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Items Number 12 and 22 On City Council Agenda:8/21 Date:Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:04:34 PM Dear City Council: Items Number 12 and 22 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for August 21 are currently under Consent Calendar and should be under Public Hearings since they are controversial and have not been discussed in front of the public at a City Council meeting yet. Item Number 12 is the highly controversial report of the Santa Clara Grand Jury about "Density is Our Destiny" and this item needs to be discussed before the public at City Council before any response by the city is determined. Item 22 involves projects being submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Board for the Horizon Initiative. This should be discussed before the public at the City Council as they have not been discussed before at the Cupertino CIty Council and there needs to be public discussion before anything is submitted. This involved highly controversial projects involving Stevens Creek Blvd. All five of the proposals are highly controversial and have not been discussed before the public and need to be discussed at the Cupertino City Council before any submissions. Neither Item 12 or 22 are appropriate at Consent Calendar level and should be placed at the Public Hearing level. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: grenna5000@yahoo.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.