CC 04-07-20 SS #1 Housing Study Session_Written Communications1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 3, 2020 2:24 PM
To:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council
Subject:Joint CC and PC Meeting on State Density Laws Should Be Postponed
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 City Clerk:
It has come to my attention that there is a Joint City Council and Planning
Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 2020 that is on the State
Density Bonus for Housing and the New Housing Laws. This is
an extremely controversial topic and the public cannot comfortably
participate if this meeting is teleconferenced. Please postpone
this meeting until such time that it can be held in a location where
the public can attend.
I sent an e-mail last week to the City Council asking that any items that
were extremely controversial and were to be heard at teleconferenced
meetings be postponed for the time being because of the virus.
Please pass this letter asking for postponement of the Housing Density Bonus
meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 202 along to the City Clerk so that it can be included
in the Public Record for this meeting.
The new state housing bills that have been introduced so far, SB 902 and SB 899,
are highly controversial and smack of SB 50 and SB 330 and HB 2001 from
Oregon. The new proposed housing density laws are just as inflammatory.
The presence of the pandemic makes it impossible for the public to participate
fully in any meetings the city has that is teleconferenced. I think that items
such as the Housing Bills and Density Bonus Laws can be safely postponed
until the city can hold public meetings again. No one is even supposed to be
building anything construction wise during the Pandemic in California.
I do think that we can safely postpone the State Density Bonus discussion until
a future time when meetings can be held more openly or other accomadations
can be made.
Please postpone this item from the Joint City Council and Planning Commission
meeting from Tuesday, April 7, 2020 until a later date. The public's input on this
item is of the most importance.
Please postpone any other highly controversial topics until later dates also.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
I
CC 4/7/2020
Study Session #1
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 3, 2020 2:36 PM
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:State Housing Bills Getting Enacted During Pandemic
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 hope that the proposed Housing Bills are not taking advantage of the
pandemic to try to quietly pass legislation through when the public is focused
on other items of concern. It seems like the proposed Housing Bills
and the State Density Bonus are trying to enact bills during the pandemic
when the public cannot fully participate in their local government.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: Westport Meetings
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 7:00 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>
Subject: Westport Meetings
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 think it would be a good idea to postpone the Westport meetings as this is a super large project and the public needs to
be able to discuss the ramifications of the proposal adequately.
It involves height issues, Heart of the City, parking problems, retention of heritage oak trees, too much density on the
project, and I am assuming some sort of density bonus that was from one of the Housing Bills.
I am so glad the city sent the card out with the project information. It is a pretty looking building, but it is way too tall for the
site and it looks like the 35 foot setback for Heart of the City is missing. I am worried that they will take down the oaks
trees on the site and the replacement oak trees that were planted.
This site is a western gateway to the city and needs to be treated sensitively. Having remembered the stand of ancient
oaks that were on the site as a child, I am worried about the too dense and too tall structures on the site.
I am also worried about this density bonus concept which seems to try to take add too much more to the density of any
project. The housing bills are highly controversial. The public has had no way to say how bad the Housing bills are until
now. The new Housing bills being proposed, SB 902 and SB 899, are equally bad and the public must be allowed the right
to have their say about the bills.
I would recommend therefore that the ERC meeting for the Westport Project aka The Oaks be postponed as well as the
Planning Commission meeting for the project be postponed as well as the City Council meeting be postponed. The virus
has made it impossible for the public to comfortably express their views about the project since there are no in-person city
meetings.
A project of this magnitude deserves to be studied completely and thoroughly, and since this is not possible now with the
pandemic, the meetings on Westport should be postponed until a future date that is comfortable for the public, old and
young, to attend.
Please kindly postpone these meetings on Westport. There is too much to study and no way to do it now. Studying it in
the middle of a pandemic is not a good course to take.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
(Please kindly include this letter in the public record for the Westport meetings and the Joint City Council-Planning
Commission meeting on Hosuing Density on April 7, 2020).
State density bonus law overviewState density bonus law overviewKearstin Dischinger, Planning DepartmentOctober 12, 2016 / Inclusionary Housing TACFocus: onsite affordable units
•Density Bonus•Waivers•IncentivesSTATE LAW OVERVIEWOUTLINESTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 2LOCAL CONTEXT: REVIEW PROCESS AND RESEARCHDISCUSSION AND QUESTIONSGOAL: Gather input on how to complete next phase of study
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY1979State adopted the “State Density Bonus Law”which offers density bonuses and other concessions to projects that have on-site affordable housing.20132016“Napa Case” The California Court of Appeals ruled that affordable units provided to meet local “inclusionary housing” requirements can trigger the State density bonus law.AB 2501 which revise and recast requirement for local ordinance, restrict addition of other requirements including studies, and puts the burden municipalities to prove concessions are not financially warranted. STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 3
STATE DENSITY BONUS: in san franciscoSINCE197915 SUDs for 100% affordable housing projects20132014TO PRESENT“Napa Case” “inclusionary housing” requirements can trigger the State density bonus law.•Analysis – Architecture and Financial•Legislative proposal•Proposed AHBP State Analyzed/Individually Requested•Proposed AHBP Local 30% Affordable•Adopted : AHBP Local 100% AffordableSenior Housing Density Bonus – Double DensitySTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 4
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW: OVERVIEWProjects can receive a density bonuses for provision of:•On Site Affordable Housing (most relevant to this work)•Land Dedication•Childcare Facilities•Senior HousingSTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 5
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW:STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 6Project•Projects of 5 units or more•Residential or mixed useAffordability Requirements•Affordable Units on site•Rental affordable for 55 years•Ownership –Shared Equityproject requirements
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 7STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW: 3 componentsDENSITY BONUSWAIVERSINCENTIVES•Law specifies percentage bonus based on affordable units provided•Maximum 35% density bonusLOCAL DEV’T STANDARDS•Unlimited number if necessary to accommodate increased density•Can include height, bulk, or open space•City can DENY anything that would be a detriment to public health•1 to 3 that reduce the costs of development•Can include: exposure, open space, etcetera•City can DENY anything that would be a detriment to public health
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 8DENSITY BONUS: by percent of affordable units providedDENSITY BONUS* VERY LOW(50% AMI)LOW(80% AMI)MODERATE(120% AMI)7% bonus12% units15% bonus20% units20% bonus5% units 10% units 25% units23% bonus~7% units 12% units 28% units30% bonus9% units ~17% units 35% units35% bonus11% or more 20% units 40% unitsRental –Very low and lowOwnership –Low and Moderate*Per state law
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 9+1%+1.5%+2.5%Density BonusDensity BonusDensity BonusFor every 1% Affordable =VERY LOW INCOME 50% AMILOW INCOME 80% AMIMODERATE INCOME 120% AMIDENSITY BONUS: percent bonus for 1% affordable
INCENTIVES and ConcessionsIncentives or Concessions •1 to 3 that reduce the costs of development•Can include: exposure, open space, etc.•City can DENY anything that would be a detriment to public health
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 11Waivers•Waivers of Local Development Standards Necessary to accommodate increased densityCan include height, bulk, or open spaceCity can DENY anything that would be a detriment to public health
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 12Waivers, may require additional volumeHeight LimitAffordableUnitsZoning ParcelBuilding EnvelopeHeight LimitMAX DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALDENSITY BONUS - HEIGHT+ INCENTIVESBonus HeightAffordableUnitsDENSITY BONUS - WITHIN ENVELOPE+ INCENTIVES
inclusionary rate and effective rateExample -12% Inclusionary RequirementSTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 13
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 14SF affordable Housing Requirements and Density BonusRequirement Percent AffordableAMIDensity BONUSPrior Inclusionary12%12%55% (rental)90% (owner)23%7%Existing Ordinance(Rental)15%10%55%100%27.5%15%Existing Ordinance(Owner)15%10%80%120%27.5%15%TAC Recommendations14-18%17 -20%TBD TBD
Local Review Process for State Density Bonus projects similar to current practiceCOMMUNITY REVIEWCITY REVIEWPre Application Meeting2Neighborhood Notification4Preliminary Project Assessment1Planning Department ReviewCEQA Planning CodeDesign Review3Entitlement:May Include Planning Commission Hearing
16CEQA applies to projects using the State Density Bonus Law. Bonus projects remain eligible for:Community Plan Exemption (CPE)in Plan AreasClass 32 Infill Exemption outside Plan AreasLocal Review Process: CEQA
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 17Density Restricted Districts: Recent ResearchDavid Baker Architects analyzed 13 sites in density restricted districts.
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 18Waivers: Height Limit Constrained Sites need Height/VolumeGraphics: David Baker Architects. ALLOWEDENVELOPE8Units1,275 GSF Avg. Unit Size35%INCREASE11 UnitsExceeds Height LimitNC-340-X5,000 sf Lot AreaDensity: 1/600 sf8 units Allowed
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 19Waivers: Density Limit Constrained Sites Do NOT need heightNC-3130-E35,000 sf Lot AreaDensity: 1/600 sf60 units AllowedGraphics: David Baker Architects. BASE CASE60 Units1,000 GSF Avg. Unit Size35%INCREASE81 Units
Findings: half of tested sites require1 or 2 story increaseZONINGHT LIMITBULKDENSITY CONSTRAINTHEIGHTINCREASED DENSITY ALLOWED WITHIN ZONING ENVELOPENC-3 40 X 600 Y60%RM-4 65 A 125 Y46%RC-4 80 D 200Y47%Outer Excelsior NCD 65 A 600Y107%NC-2 Balboa 40 X 800Y109%C-3-G 120 X 125 Y117%RC-3 65 A 400 Y124%NC-1 40 X 800 N142%Haight NCD 40 X 600 N142%NC-2 45 X 800 N143%Taraval Street NCD 50 X 800 N213%NC-3 130 E 600 N297%20
Form Based Code Districts: Recent ResearchSTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 21Planning Department preliminaryanalysis in form based code areas.
35%INCREASEGraphics: David Baker Architects. FORM BASED CODE AREASEvery project would requirea height increaseto accommodate 35% bonus in area, if rear yard is kept constant. A 40-X parcel would require a full extra floor to fit 35% more volume. Parcels with greater height limits require a greater amount of bonus area/floors to achieve 35% bonus. Form Based Code areas: need waivers for heightSTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 22
•4, 5 and 6-story height districts would be able to accommodate 35% bonuses generally in 1 or 2 stories.•8-story height districts would need almost 2.5 additional floors to fit a 35% bonus.•Could accommodate roughly 13% GSF bonus with a 10% reduction in rear yard* and no height increase. *from 25% to 15% of lotForm Based Code areas: Changes in construction typeSTATE DENSITY BONUS LAW OVERVIEW | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TAC | OCTOBER 12, 2016 23
Sunk Costs and Timing•Projects have invested significantly in project development•Community work? Design Work? Etc?Costs/Benefits for a Project•Projects that would change construction types for additional bonus•Changes from 8 stories to 9 stories, or 10 stories? •Changes from 6 stories to 8 stories? •Towers and other projects that won’t choose onsite option?Other Factors?•Form Based Zoning versus Density Restricted Zoning•??????Discussion: What Determines IF a Project Requests A BonusAffordable Housing Bonus Program 24
•State Density Bonus Law •How it works?•SF Context?•Incorporating the State Density Bonus Law into analysis•Considerations?•Assumptions?Affordable Housing Bonus Program 25Discussion and Next Steps
Kearstin DischingerPolicy Planner, Citywide DivisionSan Francisco PlanningKearstin.Dischinger@sfgov.orgwww.sfplanning.orgTHANK YOU