Desk Items 2-25-20 DESK ITEMS
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
2 - 25 - 2020
February 24,2020
Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Ave,Cupertino
Cupertino,CA 95014
Cuoertina
Subject: Cupertino must confront its housing needs for All
Hon. Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council:
We would like to thank the city manager and the rest of city staff for producing an updated city work program that
is better representative of the needs of our city. 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.
Cupertino—as a jobs-rich,well-educated,affluent community—has actively participated in Silicon Valley's
tremendous economic expansion to the point of becoming a victim of its own success.
Amid the potential closure of three top-performing Cupertino Union School District elementary schools due to
declining district enrollment,the ongoing flight of our college graduates to more lively and affordable areas,the
difficulty of seniors aging in place in large homes ill-suited to their needs,and mass displacement in San Jose
caused,in part,by daytime Cupertino tech workers depending on limited housing stock in more sensitive
communities,we remain concerned that our city's leadership refuses to confront the central issue—that we need
more housing types for all income levels in Cupertino.While improved,this work plan does little to proactively
address this reality.Both the work program,and this council must be more intentional and aggressive about
building more affordable,transit-oriented housing.
Per the draft 2019 Cupertino Annual Housing Element Progress Report set for the Planning Commission's review
tomorrow,Cupertino has issued only 308 permits(29%)of its total 1064-unit RHNA target,and 0%of its
low-income target,despite being more than halfway through the current allocation cycle.The only very-low
income housing permits issued occurred under the auspices of the previous city council.The accompanying staff
report indicates that all 74 of the moderate income homes permitted appear to be accessory dwelling units
(ADUs),yet the council's Legislative Review Committee opposed all of last year's ADU bills,which would foster
the development of such homes.The staff report further notes that the city"did not receive any housing
development applications in 2019."That fact should alarm everyone.As neighboring jurisdictions continue to
receive applications,it is difficult to ascribe this paucity of housing development activity to anything other than a
perception among would-be applicants that Cupertino is hostile to housing.
Based on Governor Newsom's statewide housing goals,the draft RHNA figures for Southern California,and the
application of SB 828(2018),we should realistically expect a RHNA target three to five times our current
numbers.In the work program,however,there are currently zero meaningful mentions of zoning—either in the
context of upzoning or rezoning.The Housing Element Progress Report is proof that our current strategy doesn't
Email: Cupertinoforall@gmail.com -Website: Cupertinoforall.org-Twitter: @Cupertino4All
9164,,
work,so we cannot continue to do more of the same. Given the limited land in Cupertino,there is simply no way
to meet our current or future housing needs without legalizing more housing through strategic zoning reform and
reevaluation of select unnecessary fees.
Cupertino has a real chance to get ahead of the curve and maintain a greater say in its own housing and
development policies by planning for this reality now.We can start identifying potential Housing Element sites
now.We can re-examine our zoning policies now.We can envision the future Cupertino now. Cupertino can
change its reputation now.The alternative is that the state continues its intervention in local housing policy.The
lesson that SB 35 should teach is that if we fail to plan for the development we want(or,at least,can tolerate),
then we may get development we don't.
If we want our children to have a Cupertino to move back into,we must start seeing housing as an opportunity to
better our quality of life,and establishing a durable,sustainable community,rather than as an infeasible
punishment.A new United Nations report recommends removing multifamily housing bans as a means of
mitigating climate change(yes,that includes Cupertino).Allowing how and where people live to change is the
best way to mitigate climate change on a local level.We can and must proactively work toward turning Stevens
Creek Boulevard into a vibrant,housing-and transit-oriented corridor with Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)and
thoughtful planning.We ask that you be proactive about housing,so that city we all cherish does not spiral into
decay.
Sincerely,
Steering Committee,Cupertino for All
Cupertino High School Students for Housing
Richard Lowenthal,Mayor(Fmr.),Cupertino
Savita Vaidhyanathan,Mayor(Fmr.),Cupertino
Dolly Sandoval,Mayor(Fmr.),Cupertino
Connie Cunningham,Housing Commissioner(on her own behalf only),Cupertino
Vignesh Swaminathan, Sustainability Commissioner(on his own behalf only),Cupertino
Tara Sreekrishnan,Co-Founder/Mentor of Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team
Patrick Ahrens,Cupertino Resident
Hung Wei,Cupertino Resident
Genevieve Kolar,Trustee,De Anza College
Shelly Michael,President,De Anza Associated Student Body
Tiffany Nguyen,Trustee,Foothill College
Alysa Cisneros(MPP)Commissioner,De Anza College
Sue Serrone,Chair,Livable Sunnyvale
Kelsey Banes,Executive Director,Peninsula for Everyone
Bhuvaneshwari Natarajan-Co-President Our Revolution-De Anza/Cupertino
Silicon Valley Transit Users(https://www.svtransitusers.org/)
Email: Cupertinoforall@gmail.com-Website: Cupertinoforall.org-Twitter: @Cupertino4All
Department of Housing & Community
Development Annual Housing Element
Progress Report
CUPERTINO
Kerri Hensler, Housing Manager
February 25, 2020
Background
In accordance with State law, CA cities must
have an adopted General Plan with a Housing
Element
• Cities must adequately plan to meet existing
and projected housing needs of people at
all income levels
• Cupertino Housing Element 2014-2022
Certified by HCD on February 5, 2015
Adopted by City Council on May 19, 2015
Background
• The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is
the state-mandated process to identify the total
number of housing units (by affordability level)
that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its
Housing Element
• Each jurisdiction must prepare an annual
progress report on the status and progress in
implementing its Housing Element
RHNA Entitlements By City
Extremely Above
Low Moderate
Low/Very Low Moderate
(0-50% of (51-80% of (81 -120% of (over 120% Total Units
AMI) AMI) AMI) AMI)
Projected Need (RHNA) 356 207 231 270 1,064
Total RHNA Entitled & 19 - 74 215 308
Produced* (2014 - 2019)
Projects Hamptons - 7 30 563 600
Entitled by
City Marina 16 - 2 170 188
(Not Yet
Produced) Vallco (SB35) 361 840 - 1,201 2402
Total Projects Entitled by 377 847 32 1934 3190
City (Not Yet Produced)
Balance - - 125 - 125
*Produced means building permits issued
RHNA Generation by Developers
Extremely Above
Low Moderate
Low/Very Low Moderate
(0-50% of Total Units
(51 -80% of (81-120% of (over 120%
AMI) AMI) AMI) AMI)
Projected Need (RHNA) 356 207 231 270 1,064
Total Projects Entitled by City 377 847 32 1934 3190
(Not Yet Produced)
Building 2015 APR* - - 14 164 178
Permits 2016 APR - - 18 9 27
Applied for By 2017 APR - - 12 16 28
Developers 2018 APR 19 - 15 2 36
and Issued 2019 APR - - 15 24 39
Total RHNA Production 19 - 74 215 308
(2014 - 2019)
Balance 337 207 157 jelk 55 756
*Includes 2014 production ` - - ,,-1111LiglatlA
201 9 Report
• Reporting Year: January 1 - December 31 ,
2019
• Must report building permits issued towards
RHNA
• Due April 1 , 2020
Table A-
Housing Development Applications Submitted
• Includes data on housing units and developments
for applications submitted and deemed complete
• An "application " is a formal submittal of a project for
approval, either for a discretionary entitlement, or
where only a ministerial process is required (e.g .,
zoned by right) , the application for a building permit
• The Westport Cupertino application was submitted in
2018 and deemed complete in 2019.
Applications in Review
• Canyon Crossing : 18 units
• 13 townhomes (for-sale)
• 5 apartments (rental)
Table A2- Annual Building Activity Report Summary
- New Construction, Entitled, Permits and
Completed Units
• Requires information for very-low, low, moderate
and above moderate income housing and for
mixed-income projects
• Data on net new housing units and developments
that have received an entitlement, a building permit
or a certificate of occupancy or other form of
readiness
Table B-
RHNA Progress - Permitted Units by Affordability
• Summary of prior permitting activity in current
planning cycle, including permitting activity for 2019
• Auto-populated
Table C- Sites Identified or Rezoned to
Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need
• Required when a city or county identified an
unaccommodated need of sites from the previous
planning period
• N/A. Cupertino has more than sufficient sites zoned
to accommodate RHNA numbers.
Table D- Program Implementation Status
• Status/Progress of housing element program and
policy implementation for all programs described in
the housing element
• Cupertino is currently implementing all 26 programs
and policies in the Housing Element
Table E- Commercial Development Bonus
Approved
• Required if jurisdiction has approved any
commercial development bonuses during the
reporting year
• N/A
Table F- Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and
Acquired for Alternate Adequate Sites
• Report units that have been substantially
rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to
affordable by acquisition, and preserved
• Projects must be mentioned in Housing Element as a
program specific site to be listed
• N/A. But City has gone beyond Housing Element
and provided $ 1 ,250,000 in loans/grants for
rehabilitation projects from 2014 - 2019
Table G - Locally Owned Lands included in Housing
Element Sites Inventory
• Report sites that are owned by the reporting
jurisdiction and have been sold, leased, or otherwise
disposed of during the reporting year
• Sites must be included in the Housing Element Sites
Inventory
• N/A
AIRPORT-DIRIDON-STEVENS CREEK CONNECTOR
https://www.sa njoseca.gov/your-govern ment/depa rtments-offices/transportation/transit/airport-di ridon-stevens-
creek-connector?fbclid=lwAR-IcIbpXjC7gIiP61A544iGYydmoMjLSugZyzojycbkvri 7LKoBjKABz0A Accessed
February 25,2020
EXPLORING A FASTER WAY TO CONNECT SILICON VALLEY'S TRANSPORTATION AND
EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
Can a new transit connection between Mineta San Jose International Airport
(SJC), Diridon Station, and west Santa Clara Valley cities come to life faster and
cheaper than conventional approaches?That's the question several South Bay
transportation agencies asked tech, construction, and transit companies through
a request for information (RFI) published in July 2019.
The RFI, a collaboration by San Jose's departments of transportation and airport,
the cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, and the Valley Transportation Authority,
asked firms to discuss potential solutions that could provide "grade-separated
mass transit infrastructure and operations at significantly lower cost than
traditional transit projects."
We received 23 responses, discussing a broad range of innovative approaches,
including personal rapid transit, mixed-flow autonomous vehicles, Hyperloop,
monorails, and magnetic levitation vehicles (known as maglevs). Submissions are
listed by respondent name(s) and can be downloaded below:
• 2getthere
• Bombardier
• BYD
• Citytram
• CRSC
• CyberTran
• General Transportation Fund
• Hot Spur
• Hyperloop
• JPods
• ModuTram
• Plenary Glydways
• Southern Illinois University
• Spartan Superway
• Supraways
• Swift
• The Boring Company
• TriTrack
• Ultra-MTS and Strada
• Virgin Hyperloop
The responses will be analyzed by an interdisciplinary panel representing all of
the involved agencies, with assistance from technical experts.The group will use
the information gleaned from the submissions to develop a funding strategy and
potentially issue a future request for proposals.
AIRPORT-DIRIDON-STEVENS CREEK CONNECTOR:
DRAFT SUMMARY OF RFI RESPONSES—KITTY MOORE,REPRESENTING SELF,2/25/20
RFI Proposal Company High level description Passengers Infrastructure Cost Projection,SCB/Airport
per vehicle Connector/annual cost
i 2getthere In service,Pod car on guideway track, 16-22 Elevated s23oM-5328M/sg8M-53.33M/528M
Utrecht,the elevated/underground/or combo guideway track, annual(est.)
Netherlands "" tunnel,or
combination
•
2 Bombardier In service,Monorail,APM Varies by Monorail track, N/A
Pittsburgh PA,USA number of Elevated non-
cars electrified track
3 BYD In service,Monorail.lus S shuttle(smaller) Varies by Monorail track, N/A
HQ: Xi'an,Shaanxi, e _ : '1 number of Elevated non-
China cars electrified track
BYD North America
BYD Motors LLC a•
Los Angeles,CA USA r
`{ y
•
1 1
RFI Proposal Company High level description Passengers Infrastructure Cost Projection,SCB/Airport
per vehicle Connector/annual cost
5 CRSC In service,Light rail Light rail track N/A
Jacksonville,FL USA Charging Ration
Ww/o/wa
�Gp[ve Emig
6 CvberTran Conceptual,pod car on guideway track,aerial or Elevated N/A
Richmond,CA USA under.round guideway track,
- � tunnel or
combination
7 General Transportation Conceptual,sus.ended.od cars Elevated N/A
Fund • guideway
Santa Cruz,CA USA •r J r
1 '
1 1 Passengers Cost Projection,SCB/Airport
RFI Proposal High level description per vehicle Infrastructure Connector/annual cost
g Hvoerloop Conceptual, Bi-directional or loop tubes, autonomous, 28-5o Tubes N/A
Los Angeles,CA USA may be grade-separated or under-ground, 28-5o underground or
.assengers,125 mph elevated
;gym.
I
P. ti I
io JPods Conceptual,suspended pod cars Elevated N/A
Tulsa,OK USA guideway
ii ModuTram Conceptual pod cars on guideway,above or below Elevated N/A
Zapopan,Jalisco Mexico gqrrade,vehicles may be connected to form a train guideway track,
^tea tunnel or
�*. combo.
i Passengers Cost Projection,SCB/Airport
RFI Proposal High level description Infrastructure
per vehicle Connector/annual cost
3.3 Southern Illinois Conce.tual,See San Jose State Elevated N/A
University guideway
Carbondale,IL USA
,.scau�4�yus.,
s
3 d •
_ a r
I
14 Spartan Super:-av Conceptual,pod cars on guideway Elevated N/A I
San Jose,CA USA —_�. guideway
al
:fit-. - .
i5 Supraways Conce.tual,hanging pod from guideway Elevated N/A
Marcilly-D'Azergues, guideway
France \„
a >
r aaj..I .�;.--_yam-,:.
RFI Proposal High level description Passengers Infrastructure Cost Projection, SCB/Airport
per vehicle Connector/annual cost
3.7 The Boring Company Autonomous underground highway with Teslas. Moving tunnels N/A
Hawthrone,USA from concept to contracts•
i8 TriTrack Conceptual hanging pod car capable of street drivin. Elevated N/A
Georgetown,TX USA --. guideway with
• __ on street
" 1 capability
II r
f•
19 Ultra-MTS and Strada In service pod cars on guideway Elevated a. Cost per Mile for
Birmingham,AL USA guideway Infrastructure,Excluding Land
Acquisition and Stations
The guideway costs at grade are
typically s3.om per mile
I f`� The guideway costs at elevation
are typically s7.6m per mile
b. Incremental Cost of
Stations I Access Points
A typical 4 berth station cost is
$o.45m
c. Vehicle Fleet Costs
The cost of a vehicle is si5ok for
small quantities reducing to sizok
for larger quantities.
d. Capital Costs(6 Stations
Stevens Creek Line,3 Stations SJC
Connector and Diridon)
Budgetary estimate of the total
capital cost of the Airport
Connector is s72m
Budgetary estimate of the total
capital cost of the Stevens Creek
Line is si26m
Please note that these estimates
are influenced by alignment
details,guideway proportions at
grade and elevation.These
estimates do not include
acquisition of rights-of-way that
might be required.
e. O&M Costs
The Airport Connector total
operating costs,including
maintenance,equipment
replacement,and energy is
estimated to be sz.zm per year.
The Stevens Creek Line total
operating costs,including
maintenance,equipment
replacement,and energy is
estimated to be$3.7m per year.
Passengers Cost Projection,SCB/Airport
RFI Proposal High level description per vehicle Infrastructure Connector/annual cost
20 Virgin Hvoerloop Conceptual,low-pressure hyperloop with exits similar to Tubes N/A
Los Angeles,CA USA highway,5-7 years away underground or
elevated
;putt r om.canon Mvugtiw,y.,rreem ewewr wrasum.,introsmrture