The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 08-16-2022 Item No. 24 Housing Element Update_Written CommunicationsCC 08-16-2022 Item No. 24 Attachment C -Pipeline Tier 1 Tier 2 Projects Written Communications i - '..."-.a.'-',,J'-.JL_,-2'Th,"-...,;-':'-<-_____-'J=-a':r.,'3.\':'::,_,?. ?,, :..:.4'-_1==" -"-..I"-=-:-:}"" -"a-"- N U ' , } . _ " 71 . '- } l'; ,, -" . :- , ,, Ik , r " 1,., :t .. . . , , . {, . a;i" )!ffi#f, .,,a*avi- }##s-%% 0(s i:+ - r "' a # ,l 0 - ,in I -,-,,,, ,. ._ . , _ _ ., .. _..'!! :.lt,i :,,t i,a}_0 _. -. . ,, . , oi:-X,%%,,_-. ___,v+":::0__)'t4omveiisiatea_d. ,'Jff)'l.s,l""':HOmRedSi:affl,.Ni;}-====;-'_ - =I'=-=------ - i=___ - - ["-= 77 } - l- i -A '-= " -. '-" ,:..'L_ - I It""-"t '.:::":J__-I ffl _ 'o -' m * i;v . - _ _J ' t ,. -a' i '-'-= -----=.Ir,,qnpx'f-.",-"-q,,,,,,hpe -==- ,:Y"'-'a",-' a -,i ... _ __ _ ii li. , l: i,-i - ' -- -. 'p _- " "5 - ,:,. ..-' " ;t '=' !-' -" - i,-:o.'c'-'1: --'..NorthuBlffiney-."-,, "" p""_'....."'(,'.'.,'=l B§ %/BllBy CrestqnJPhadap -_- " _ ':--- _ '_z - - - - ', ' - Z.i ,- .-Z ;' - ,'Za" i l- i l(& 1 _' a - I- 'l - S& _ , i ," i - I "'; '_ _ ' - '- --" - ' - a ' ._2--S 1. '- -i al: ' , _ i i ._. . -.-ll_ "'-.i. '1 q-'L-r:-'J.k.ia p '=-:-- = !,'a-l'f'J,E !9-!l $-'i -'.. - ' a -i- EHeartofthe' _:.:" - ' a";' "' "!!!t' t -., .A - I,-_=,_,.,._7_'m;'.'_'i==-,J_..L,. :-%_t;=.;".-., -l:,_-__,,,a J4, _ :' . _ _ _ .11,,l,,, . . ., . 1. . . r _ , , l: . . rl' N s n-ii,i (z. ().al., z n:eN l:, :l.__J ' t Hi'art.of i _4___!!@., ;-_) :).- .:J1:-jt!,7'_J: -.d_',q:_,44 ';'-;ta" . =),. ' a7 q a - i _ ..,_ _. _ - = - _ _ '11' _ ... -. -i City - Wesf.i j ', i;l:"'f a '=' - _ -- -- : . -M6m:aVista:,a, _ , ,,,, J-' 4 _ 5 . ' _ - - - - ' L ___Th ------ - - - - , . . .1 - : . , _ _ . . ' " ' s. 1 j ' ______ - - -- - .: ' - -MrrlrllJn TT'rl : a -- -: u ; - ' - -_ - _ the Cit9- " - -: _ _ . . .#: -: _ _ _ . _ _ii i/ . i.. , . _ .-Central l' _ " ".. ' . '. . - ' .. i ,__--- ,_ ____ i ;" - -- - - -- - " o" o) " - - ' _ _: - " " a - '-' - l' - - - ."a"" " Il-_ _l I i _ i ' i- l I -!l' i ' I' ___ :_?' "- _ - ' ; ' -- " l ,_, _ i --- _ . i. , <.. i . ., . _i , . . , . N . " i . :___ l, i 01 ' - -.i " "a - ." -_ _ - f- _ 'RanCFIO- -' . - -' i-- "N - - a- '3 .' l_ e -' ' x.. . l' Inspi nation. _ _ p..;7:. .1" - Q/l,oEi,s:'t-taha-. ,,._J5:.,f, :f'f.'.t:. - 'L:-. ___f_'_:-",If fJJ,""J'ii XT':J:. i- - - ' ml-. . 5- 'kh - Heights ; " . .8/ c'7o'a'.J'' a _.t7 I -- - t!=: ' _ ' - - S S a ' - ' _ _ - [. "si " _ ' - :, "-..'Rb ' _ - " - . _ _ _ '# y- M'._"""a r ! :.a - --- :.- - ' R' - ____ . _ _ , , _ - - - .,' i + r ]__ ' >,J , _ --, " " - i'a__ " , _ -% ) '_ - - __ 4 0 () .- , 4 _a ti ) _ p , 5 - " ' - --- ---'--- ---" -i- - - - - -l ' - - - o- - - . _ _ _ _ . _, - I - . . _ b-_ ' le .- la. '- _ _ ___ __ : ( _ , _ % . - , , , ( 4 _- - - -_ - I W, f _ l _ %t -a -t- - I i --l_ [ - 0 l" " t}-if s='l, >i ;Aao'z --"l' A -a a i _ * 7, _ 1_ i , z -_ a , + _- _ , _ -.=i + - - - - 'a , I . _ - - i 2a)a*- -if .l'ag l: a -' a } . ,,' 4'! ; l ' ' t _ 5.. __ _ - . , , [ _ a - + , _'- - -- - -- - alj _ _ I ' I < I _ _ . _ ., . . :, . _ ,. _ . _ _ ,l_%l, :_a< _ . - l':__- . .l_ : . . ., - q-. . _ _ - a+ _ - - :--- - ' $ I 11 _ _ , (= I , I __ , + l( ; . _4 } _ _ _ a _ __ I l _ l - 'i ,o ' "_ . ...,6-.J' ___' - -i" .xorita' . ....)',.;.i.. 1., - .. _ . -=, """ D" VISta _ - -RamboQ Dr- ' i S ' : a a "" "a - " - ' a % - - g ' / I - € - - a) "a a' - I a' #' a I i= - a a (i .l'a ' - " Sou'h-'' -- "i " 'au';,.,"a"r ,"I"a:_,"a-'ai"i,'fh"Eaoa"'+i ",t,,,"-")a-,"' 's'a - <- - .- % 11 A - % -- : , . i ( a _ y , la-, =a I '- . l _ aaia , =,, , _,-) , , ., I - , , : a + ' t- i a a!' a €a' < x "a _ M , , _ } _ - . , , - 0 = +_-,. . -, - ,. ,, 4 , %_ : gi s s , ;a , i,ia, . ,, v ,(, *_ ., . ,.. , ,' a - " ; ,. ,. ; _, . 1, - ; - "'==-= ["a:"==-':zA - "-l- ._-'i._n:=,_=-=:"-=-=='=+'=-q - ' Xa I % s % a t " r ', y a- I :,'a ' l ' _i ' I '!;:,"a;";r= - -b ,tF aJ + _ -4 # 1 lyl' i 'h+**&i t:::11.1"1ll':Ill,al,l,:.lal%l:01l'll;l,aZ,Rlll0%.lll>aal,l"'W..l:a%,";.:fl"hl,'a':'* ffl= a-, :f_ :a -,,,'a" s -Z ol -Ja" ; 0 ' yo '- ," :,%"-'i 'a'T "' "J,,%o"'aa:""'T":"a - " " a', _ ,'i ,' !l,%%'a;"i, ,' a a " - i s - i - ' a S '- - - - a s- vTh - " - - aimimttiinumxaii:imttvxiiabimmsttmmtm Pipeline, Tier 1, and Tier 2 Projects §ner 1 Pmjects §Tier 2 Pmjects §pipeline Projects € Ce"eAgteh"or,rhuoodnda/ffspaial o 0.25 0.5 1 Miles CC 08-16-2022 Item No. 24 Housing Element Update Written Communications From:Barris Evulich To:City Council; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Cc:"Barris Evulich"; royangie@sbcglobal.net; evulich@sbcglobal.net Subject:Recommended Sites Inventory Linda Vista Dr. Parcels/Site "7a" Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:36:25 PM Attachments:A - Sites Inventory Table (1).pdf 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 We own the four parcels (2.54 acres of underutilized land) in the Recommended Sites Inventory, “Site 7a” on Linda Vista Dr. The current Recommended Site inventory now shows our property at thirty (30) “minimum” dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Recommended Sites Inventory showed our site at 20 du/ac at the June 28, 2022 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. We are very concerned about this new increase in density for our property. We are long time owners in Cupertino and support our site being included on the Recommended Site Inventory, but not at 30 du/ac. We are supportive of 20 du/ac and would request the density be adjusted back to what it was previously in the 6/28/22 Joint meeting. It is our understanding that the 20 du/ac density was recommended by the Planning Commission staff and Consultants hired for the Housing Element project by the city. We have done our homework and spoken to several developers and come to find that 30 du/ac with a three (3) story height limit will not produce a feasible product type and will not meet the city parking standards. A height limit above 3 stories is not appropriate for the neighborhood. Our desire to include our property in the housing element included our expectation that a realistic density would be applied to our property. We feel the appropriate highest/best use of our site and the one that is most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is Attached Townhomes. Our understanding is that Attached Townhomes are generally built between 18 -24 du/ac and as you get into upper the upper part of the range, you end up with tandem garages, narrow and ultimately, an inferior product type. We would like to formally request that the City Council address this request tonight concerning the density for our property and return it to the 20 du/ac that was shown on “Attachment A – Sites Inventory Table” from the June 28th Joint Meeting agenda package. Sincerely, Barris J. Evulich Roy Evulich Recommended Sites Inventory 6/24/2022 1 Key Map ID Tier 2/ Total Units for each Area Assessor Parcel Number Site Address/Intersection General Plan Designation (Current) General Plan Designation (New) Zoning Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (New) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Current Maximum Density (du/ac) New Minimum Density (du/ac) Existing Units Total New Units P (3,536) Pipeline Projects Pipeline Project Names P1 31620120 10101 N Wolfe Rd 10330 N Wolfe Rd Vallco 0 (2,402) 31620121 P2 32627043 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd Westport 0 (259) P3 34216087 10625 S. Foothill Blvd Canyon Crossing 0 (18) P4 36610126 36610061 7357 Prospect Rd Carriage House (1655 S. De Anza)0 (34) P5 32634066 32634043 10118-10122 Bandley Dr 10145 N. De Anza Blvd Marina Food 0 (206) P6 34214066 34214104 34214105 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Bateh Brothers 0 (8) P7 35907021 10040 Bianchi Way 1 (6) P8 35913019 20865 Mcclellan Rd 1 (3) P9 316-06-058 316-06-059 316-06-060 19500 Pruneridge Ave The Hamptons Apartment Homes 342 (600) PIPELINE SUB-TOTAL 344 3,536 1 (29) Creston-Pharlap 1a Tier 2 32616014 10033 Hillcrest Rd Res Low 1-5 na R1-10 na 0.64 4 4 1 (- ) 1b Tier 2 32616064 10190 Hillcrest Rd Res Low 1-5 na R1-10 na 0.53 4 4 1 (- ) 1c 32620034 10231 Adriana Ave Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-10 R1-7.5 1.42 4 8.7 1 (11) 1d 32616075 22273 Cupertino Rd Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-10 R1-5 1.35 4 8.7 1 (10) 1e 32650062 10050 N Foothill Blvd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P(OA)R3 0.62 15 15 1 (8) 2 0 Fairgrove: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 3 (22) Garden Gate 3a Tier 2 31624016 10193 Randy Ln Res MH 5-10 Res Medium 10-20 R1-7.5 R-1C 0.45 10 12 1 (- ) 3b ROW Mary Ave site P/Res Res H 30>T P(Res)0.75 0 30 0 (22) Recommended Sites Inventory 6/24/2022 2 Key Map ID Tier 2/ Total Units for each Area Assessor Parcel Number Site Address/Intersection General Plan Designation (Current) General Plan Designation (New) Zoning Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (New) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Current Maximum Density (du/ac) New Minimum Density (du/ac) Existing Units Total New Units 4 (5) Homestead Villa 4a 32602063 10860 Maxine Ave Res ML 5-10 na R2-4.25i na 0.71 10 10 2 (5) 5 0 Inspiration Heights: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 6 (44) Jollyman 6a Tier 2 35920030 20860 Mcclellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-20 R1-10 R1-7.5 1.27 4.35 5 0 (- ) 6b 35905133 21050 Mcclellan Rd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P P(R-3)0.78 15 30 0 (23) 6c Tier 2 35919043 7540 McClellan Rd Low Den (1-5 DU/Ac.)Res Medium 10-20 R1-6 R1-C 0.33 5 10 1 (- ) 6d 35920028 20920 Mcclellan Rd Quasi-Public Res H 30>BQ P(Res)0.71 0 30 0 (21) 7 (45) Monta Vista North 7a 35606001 10857 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.73 5 20 1 (13) 35606002 10867 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.69 5 20 1 (12) 35606003 10877 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.25 5 20 1 (4) 35606004 10887 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.87 5 20 1 (16) 7b Tier 2 35705010 22381 McClellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-21 R1-10 R-1C 0.44 5 5 1 (- ) 8 (22) Monta Vista South 8a 36231001 20666 Cleo Ave Res Medium 10-20 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(R3)P(Res)0.25 20 30 1 (6) 8b 36231030 [no address]Res Medium 10-20 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(R3)P(Res)0.23 20 30 0 (6) 8c 35623057 21710 Regnart Rd Res Very Low S/D Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 1.46 5 1 (7) 35623001 21710 Regnart Rd None Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 0.15 5 0 (1) 8d 36638021 21530 Rainbow Dr Res Very Low S/D RHS R1-7.5 0.43 3.4 1 (2) 9 (61) North Blaney 9a 31643009 10730 N Blaney Ave Ind Res H 30>P(R2, Mini- Stor) P(Res)1.76 0 30 1 (51) 31643008 10710 N Blaney Ave Res Low Med 5-10 Res H 30>R-2 P(Res)0.37 10 30 1 (10) Recommended Sites Inventory 6/24/2022 3 Key Map ID Tier 2/ Total Units for each Area Assessor Parcel Number Site Address/Intersection General Plan Designation (Current) General Plan Designation (New) Zoning Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (New) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Current Maximum Density (du/ac) New Minimum Density (du/ac) Existing Units Total New Units 9b Tier 2 31643003 19986 Olivewood St Res Medium 10-20 Res H 30>R3 P(Res)2.93 20 30 36 (- ) 31643004 10716 Rosewood Rd Res Medium 10-20 Res H 30>R3 P(Res)2.59 20 30 40 (- ) 31643005 N Portal Ave Res Medium 10-20 Res H 30>R3 P(Res)1.64 20 30 32 (- ) 10 0 Rancho Rincondada: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 11 (129) South Blaney 11a 36934053 10787 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.54 15 30 0 (15) 36934052 10891 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)2.70 15 30 0 (80) 11b Tier 2 36939016 20455 Silverado Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P[CG]P(Res)0.23 25 30 0 (- ) 11c 36937028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>R2 P(CG/Res)0.56 25 30 0 (16) 36937022 20421 Bollinger Rd Medium (10- 20 DU/Ac)Res H 30>R3 P(Res)0.39 20 30 0 (11) 36937023 20411 Bollinger Rd Medium (10- 20 DU/Ac)Res H 30>R3 P(Res)0.22 20 30 2 (3) 36937024 20431 Bollinger Rd Medium (10- 20 DU/Ac)Res H 30>R3 P(Res)0.17 20 30 1 (4) 12 0 Oak Valley Neighborhood: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 13 (13) Bubb Road 13a 35720044 21431 Mcclellan Rd Ind/Res/Com Res H 30>ML-rc P(Res)0.47 20 30 1 (13) 14 0 Heart of the City - West: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 15 (- ) Heart of the City - Crossroads 15a Tier 2 32634047 10125 Bandley Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.09 25 50 0 (- ) 15b Tier 2 35907006 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.32 25 50 0 (- ) 16 (- ) Heart of the City - Central 16a Tier 2 36905007 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.46 25 50 0 (- ) 16b Tier 2 36903005 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.47 25 50 0 (- ) Recommended Sites Inventory 6/24/2022 4 Key Map ID Tier 2/ Total Units for each Area Assessor Parcel Number Site Address/Intersection General Plan Designation (Current) General Plan Designation (New) Zoning Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (New) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Current Maximum Density (du/ac) New Minimum Density (du/ac) Existing Units Total New Units 16c Tier 2 31623027 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.64 25 50 0 (- ) 17 0 City Center Node: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 18 (133) Heart of the City - East 18a 36906002 10065 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.90 25 50 0 (45) 36906003 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.53 25 50 0 (25) 36906004 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.29 25 50 0 (63) 18b Tier 2 36906007 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.64 25 50 0 (- ) Recommended Sites Inventory 6/24/2022 5 Key Map ID Tier 2/ Total Units for each Area Assessor Parcel Number Site Address/Intersection General Plan Designation (Current) General Plan Designation (New) Zoning Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (New) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Current Maximum Density (du/ac) New Minimum Density (du/ac) Existing Units Total New Units 18c Tier 2 37506007 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.96 25 50 0 (- ) Tier 2 37506006 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.71 25 50 0 (- ) 18d Tier 2 37501023 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.20 25 50 0 (- ) 19 (27) Homestead 19a 31604064 19820 Homestead Rd Res Low 1-5 Res M 10-20 A1-43 P(Res)0.44 5 15 1 (6) 19b 32336018 11025 N De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.42 35 50 0 (21) 20 (440) Stelling Gateway 20a 32607030 [no address]Com Res H 30>BQ P(Res)0.92 15 50 0 (45) 20b 32609052 20916 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.74 35 50 0 (36) 32609061 20956 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)1.12 35 50 0 (55) 32609060 20990 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30>P(Rec/Enter)P(CG/Res)2.75 50 0 (137) 20c 32607036 [no address]Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(Res)1.74 15 50 0 (86) 32607022 [no address]Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(Res)1.64 15 50 0 (81) 21 (8) Monta Vista Village 21a 35719037 21730 Olive Ave Res 10-15 na P(Res)na 0.58 15 15 3 (5) 21b Tier 2 35717139 21685 Granada Ave Neigh Com/Res Res 10-15 P[CN,ML, Res 4-12]P(Res)0.14 12 12 1 (- ) 21c 35717046 10141 Pasadena Ave Res 10-15 na P(Res)na 0.30 15 15 2 (3) 22 0 North De Anza: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 23 (268) South De Anza 23a 35909017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.00 25 30 0 (30) 23b 35917001 10291 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)1.32 25 30 0 (38) 23c Tier 2 35918044 10619 South De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P[CG]P(CG/Res)0.26 25 30 0 (- ) 23d Tier 2 36619078 [no address]Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15)P(CG/ Res)0.08 15 30 0 (- ) 36619047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15)P(CG/Res)2.33 15 30 0 (- ) 23e Tier 2 36619081 1375 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.30 15 30 0 (- ) Recommended Sites Inventory 6/24/2022 6 Key Map ID Tier 2/ Total Units for each Area Assessor Parcel Number Site Address/Intersection General Plan Designation (Current) General Plan Designation (New) Zoning Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (New) Parcel Size (Gross Acres) Current Maximum Density (du/ac) New Minimum Density (du/ac) Existing Units Total New Units 23f 36619053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.56 15 30 0 (16) 36619054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)1.75 15 30 0 (52) 23g 36619044 1451 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.44 15 30 0 (13) 36619045 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.07 15 30 0 (2) 23h 36619055 1471 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.40 15 30 0 (12) 23i 36610121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)1.34 15 30 0 (40) 23j 36610127 1515 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.86 15 30 0 (25) 23k 36610137 [no address]Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res)0.92 15 30 0 (27) 23l 36610054 20555 Prospect Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(Res)0.48 15 30 0 (13) 24 (257) Vallco Shopping District 24a 31620088 [no address]Reg Shopping Res H 30>CG P(Res)5.16 50 0 (257) 25 0 South Vallco Park: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 26 (368) North Vallco Park 26a 31605050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.02 25 30 0 (30) 31645017 10801 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.68 25 30 0 (50) 31605056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)6.94 25 30 0 (207) 31605052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.73 25 30 0 (21) 31605053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.92 25 30 0 (27) 31605051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.62 25 30 0 (18) 31605072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.54 25 30 0 (15) Subtotal (1,871) 138 1,871 ADUs (144) TOTAL 482 5,407 RHNA 4,588 Difference 819 Percent of RHNA 118% From:scemail777@gmail.com To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:8/16/22 - Housing Element (For Public Record) Public Comment Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:16:15 PM Importance:High 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. Hello Councilmembers & Staff, I have participated in all of the Housing Element meetings over the past year. I’m looking forward to a robust conversation tonight, although I feel like tonight’s agenda is so full, that it will be very late in the evening before this item comes up. From what I can tell, I think there will need to be several Council meetings on the Housing Element for the City to get this right. I know staff has been doing a great job. I continue to be disappointed by the lack of clarity & leadership from the consultant (and will go into specifics below). I have tried to break my comments below into “sections” so that they are easier to follow. Agenda Items There are essentially 3 main attachments provided for tonight’s meeting. Attachment A: The Recommended Sites Inventory (Excel Spreadsheet) I have asked during public comment over the past 3 meetings, for the consultant to add “Max Height” & “Owner Interest” columns to this spreadsheet. I do not know why this hasn’t been done. Without “height”, it’s impossible for the public to have real feedback. The consult provides “height” information in their 11 page write up in Attachment B…why can’t that simply be listed on this spreadsheet? Is there ultimately going to be a Density “Range” on this spreadsheet? I know HCD only needs the Minimum Density, but Maximum Density is important to residents. This should be discussed at the meeting. Attachment B: The Consultant drafted “Cupertino Sites Overview” (written description of each property on Attachment A) Height specifics are noted for most property’s (but not all). I think it’s unfair to “hide” the height description here, but not show it in Attachment A. At the end of each property description, the consultant lists a “Rationale” for the particular sites density, units & height. All of these Rationales are “canned answers” and not specific to each sites surrounding uses. For instance “Site 8a” on Cleo Ave, is buried in the middle of a single family neighborhood and listed at 4 Stories. The Rationale for this site is noted as “Rationale for density change is that it would be compatible with adjacent density”. This just isn’t correct…the adjacent uses are single family homes and 2 story townhomes. The site is also only 0.25 acres. Attachment D: the “Neighborhood Map Series” This is a helpful map to view sites on a more granular level. *Note: Attachment C for tonight’s meeting was a “blank page” and not able to be seen Public Outreach I have mentioned the lack of coordinated public outreach to date, over the past 4 meetings. The only outreach that I’ve seen are one-off emails (I think only 2 emails since the July 3rd last meeting). The last 3 meetings have had an average of only 25 residents. Saratoga, by comparison, had over 500 residents during their 4 Council meetings that ultimately led to the adoption of their Housing Element draft. For a city that has such a history of opinions about housing/growth from the residents, I’d think hundreds of residents would be at these meetings. I think creative & abundant Public Outreach has failed here. Saratoga posted signs at all of their major intersections that read “1700 new units coming to Saratoga – Get Involved”. And they did. City’s Main Objective (Very Low & Moderate Units) Right now, the City should really have one main focus…discussing sites on the list that have the ability to provide “Very Low & Moderate” units. The City’s is currently short on VL by 833 units and on Moderate by 655 units. The only way the City will be able to solve this shortages is by looking for individual sites to be at a high density level and high height level, so that an affordable developer can build a 100% affordable housing project of significant units. The City will not be able to solve for these shortages where they limit density/height. The current Site List is filled with small sites and lower density’s that ultimately end up in a total unit count for the property that is well below the threshold for an affordable developer to build. The entire city of Cupertino resides in a “Highest Priority” area on the TCAC map (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2022-tcac-opportunity-map). This is the highest rated area of the map. It allows affordable developers more access to certain pools of monies and provides huge advantages in the competition for those monies. Cupertino is an affordable housing developers dream for big affordable projects. As you are aware, HCD has established a threshold for a property to be considered eligible as “affordable housing” and that bar is 30 du/ac. You have to remember, HCD manages the entire state. So this 30 du/ac for affordable is realistic in a lot of scenarios & cities…for large parcels in central California, Sacramento, etc…land is so cheap in these places that a developer could by 8 acres and build garden style walk-up apartments and get to 30 du/ac. But on smaller sites (generally in all the urban areas of the State), there aren’t 5-10 acre sites where you’d build this type of product where the land is so expensive. In the urban areas of California, on smaller sites, you need to go vertical in order to make up for the high cost of land. If you ask any developer, a density range between 30-60 du/ac is a “No Mans Land” density range. If a developer is going to build 40 du/ac, they’ll need structured parking. The only way to make up for those increased costs, are to go vertical. If they are limited by height, they won’t build the project. Affordable developers need a total unit yield of at least 75 units in order to build a project. For example, an affordable developer would need a 1 acre site with a density of at last 75 du/ac and a height of 75 feet, in order to have a 100% affordable project pencil. It’s critical for Council to understand that with respect to affordable units, a developer needs to meet these thresholds or they will not have an interest in developing the site. The City should be looking at sites on De Anza & Stevens Creek for sites that can be developed as dense 100% affordable projects. The height need to be at least 5 stories (preferably 75 feet). The parcels need to be at least 1 acre. The density needs to be 70+ du/ac. I know there’s been a lot of talk about East side vs. West side in terms of unit allocations. The East side is more urban and flat…it’s just a simple fact. Los Altos has a similar layout…the El Camino Real area of Los Altos is the only place where true density can really happen. I think you have tremendous 100% affordable locations on your Site List that are currently in Tier 2. Sites 15a, 18c, 18d, 23f…these should all be Tier 1 sites with height & density being maxed out. Affordability Levels for Each Property HCD requires that for every property on a City’s Site List, that affordability levels be shown (VL, L, M, AM). To date, Attachment A has not shown these levels. So in theory, right now a property owner might be very excited their property is on the Site List, only to come to find down the road, that the City is going to require a high percentage of very low & low income units. This is a critical factor for a property owner, especially for sites along De Anza Blvd & Stevens Creek. When is this detail going to be provided? I asked this specific question at the 6/28 Joint Meeting and nothing has been updated. Sites that will be challenged to be developed/accepted by HCD Sites 15c-g are Tier 2 sites in the old Mervyns shopping center on Stevens Creek Rd (west of De Anza). There are two owners…Byer Property’s & the Mardesich family. There are likely CCR’s on these property’s that likely prevent a development w/out both owners amending the CCR’s. “Attachment B” notes that there is NO developer interest. If a developer owns a property in Cupertino and the City wants housing on it, and the developer does not express an interest, it means they have no intent of redeveloping at this time. HCD will reject these sites b/c of the long term leases on the property. Has anyone in planning tried to call Byer or Mardesich to inquire? Site 23k is owned by Dollinger Property’s, but again no owner interest. Sites yielding less than 25 Total New Units: There are 25 property’s on the Site List that have a “Total New Units” (on Attachment A) of less than 25 units. I’m not sure why these property’s are even on this list. Even if these property’s we to be built out, they will be mostly “market rate” units. No developer is going to build a site that is over 30 du/ac to only end up with 25 or less units. And if a developer was willing to do this, they would most certainly not develop the property if the City required an onerous amount of affordable units in excess of the City’s current inclusionary housing policy (15%). The City already has oversubscribed on their Above Moderate Units. I just don’t think these properties with a Total New Unit count of less than 25 units are going to make a substantial difference in the City meeting their Very Low & Moderate income level deficiencies. Sites that have inefficient parcel sizes that will make getting to the required Minimum density extremely difficult: Sites 1a, 3b, 4a, 9a Sites with major topography challenges: 1b Sites with CCR Issues: Site 20b is a shopping center with multiple owners. There are existing CCR’s that prevent the redevelopment of a parcel, unless all owners are on board. Has there been any outreach to all of the property owners in this center? HCD will not accept this site without the proof that all owners are on board and that there are no leases in place that go out longer than 2021. Church Property: Sites 20a & 20c are Valley Church properties consisting of active & busy tennis courts and raw land. Attachment B shows that there is no owner interest. Why are these sites on the list if Valley Church has no interest? Sites that should have more density & height Everywhere on the Site List where the City is showing 50 du/ac on property’s that are over 1 acre, should be 8 stories in height and 75 du/ac. For the sole reason of laying the ground work for an affordable developer to be able to achieve enough units to make a project pencil. The only reason this would not be appropriate is if a particular site was next to existing single family homes and in that event (for sites on De Anza or Stevens Creek, the City could use the 45-degree rule to step-back from existing residential). All sites that are under 0.75 acres and do not have at least a 75 foot height limit will have intense challenges financially to be viable projects. Test Fit Challenge With respect to buildability, I would ask the City (as I have before) to have David Masten (an architect on the consultant team) to take 3 sites on the Site List and do a rough conceptual plan that complies with the suggested density/height of a site AND to make sure the plan is able to park the site to City standards. I think this is a major flaw that the City has not taken seriously. For example, I would suggest a “Test Fit” on these sites: Site 1a: There is just no way that you can stay at 2 stories and build 10 units on this oddly shaped site. Site 7a: 3 stories on 2.54 acres at 30 du/ac…this is the best site on your list, but at 30 du/ac & 3 stories it will never work in this deeply buried existing neighborhood. This needs to be a site at 20 du/ac and attached townhome product. You can’t build 30 du/ac without structured parking and stay under 3 stories & adequately park the site to City standards. Site 19b: 8 stories on 0.42 acres and two sides back up to SFH’s. A developer is not going to build 8 stories to net 21 units. Thank you for taking the time to read through this email. I look forward to the meeting this evening. Scott 408-640-0383 From:char marshall To:City Clerk Subject:Comments on Monta Vista North housing proposal Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:17:22 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. I have lived at 10827 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino for over 30 years. The proposed zoning of Monta Vista North - Evulich Court to allow for multi-family dwellings numbering up to 72 units would be very dangerous to the safety of the neighborhood. I am very aware of the traffic patterns on Linda Vista. Without any additional cars, it is already somewhat unsafe, given the fact that cars frequently exceed the speed limit traveling in both directions on the street. If there were 72 housing units built and approximately 150 cars added to the neighborhood the traffic would be triple what it is today. This is based on counting the number of dwellings between Hyannisport and Linda Vista Park and assuming most households generally have 2 cars. Linda Vista Drive cannot safely absorb that much more traffic. Parking could also become a safety issue. More cars in the community means more parking on the street. It is already difficult to see oncoming traffic when backing out of a driveway if there are cars parked along the sidewalks next to the driveway. I am not opposed to multi-family dwellings on the Monta Vista North – Evulich site. However, for the safety of the neighborhood, a more reasonable number of units should be proposed. It would seem much more reasonable to have something like 12 housing units within a two-story format. The density currently proposed would overwhelm the capacity of the neighborhood. The impact would obviously not be limited to Evulich Court alone. Char Marshall forCharean B and Joseph D Marshall char.marshall23@gmail.com From:Jenny Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Affordable Housing Overlay Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:56:36 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. FYI. Please add this to the Public Record for the City Council Meeting on August 16, 2022, Item 24. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 10:53 AM To: "CityCouncil@Cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: I do not think the city of Cupertino should have an Affordable Housing Overlay as part of this Housing Element Cycle. This type of zoning has caused problems for other cities going Through their Housing Elements this year. I think HCD is making this option available to allow sites to be upzoned easier and have greater densities Than cities had originally anticipated. It seems to be a mechanism to allow developers greater Ability to build high density than cities or residents want or ever wanted. I believe Cupertino needs to proceed cautiously in the types of zoning allowed by HCD. This zoning May not be what is seems. I do not think an Affordable Housing Overlay is a good option for Cupertino at this time. It comes With too many strings attached. Thank you. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2022-08-16 CC Mtg Item #24 HE Site Selection - distribution of sites Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:23:09 AM Attachments:HE Site counts - east-central-west using Bubb Rd.pdf 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 Staff, In an effort to understand the distribution of the sites selected and their numbers, I split the city into 3 areas West, Central and East and made a spreadsheet with the numbers for each area. The attached file are my results: 1. HE Site counts – east-central-west using Bubb Rd.pdf I also wanted to see how many units have been allocated in each area, not including the pipeline projects. That’s the “TOTALS w/o Pipeline Projects”. In the process of doing this, I realized that there is an enormous reliance on the South De Anza area and the Stelling Gateway for housing units. These 2 areas each have been assigned 440+ units. Q: Are these reasonable numbers for these 2 areas? I’m not complaining. I’m just questioning - asking and would like our staff (not the consultant), to respond based on their experience/knowledge, particularly in the Stelling Gateway. Also, in looking at the map and the numbers, there appears to still be a need to better distribute sites more evenly across the city, if possible. A lot has been done towards meeting the city’s RHNA requirements and our city will benefit from your work. Thank you, Peggy Griffin Site Counts by West-Central-East USING Bubb Rd 8/15/2022 Site # West (west of Bubb Rd) Central (Bubb Rd-DeAnza) East (east of DeAnza) P1 Vallco 2,402 P2 Westport 259 P3 Canyon Crossing 18 P4 Carriage House 34 P5 Marina Food 206 P6 Bateh Brothers 8 P7 10040 Bianchi Way 6 P8 20860 McClellan Rd 12 P9 The Hamptons 600 1 Creston-Pharlap 31 2 Fairgrove 0 3 Garden Gate 22 4 Homestead Villa 12 5 Inspiration Heights 0 6 Jollyman 64 7 Monta Vista North 73 8 Monta Vista South 29 9 North Blaney 61 10 Rancho Rinconada 0 11 South Blaney 103 12 Oak Valley 0 13 Bubb Road 23 14 Heart of the City West 0 15 Heart of the City Crossroads 0 16 Heart of the City - Central 0 17 City Center Node 0 18 Heart of the City East 165 MISSING Monta Vista Village 0 19 Homestead 20 Stelling Gateway 440 21 Monta Vista Village 0 22 North De Anza 0 23 South De Anza 463 24 Vallco Shopping District 257 25 South Vallco Park 0 26 North Vallco Park 324 TOTALS 171 1,529 3,912 TOTALS w/o Pipeline Projects 145 1,012 910 TOTAL across all 3 areas 5,612 TOTAL across all 3 areas w/o Pipeline 2,067 TOTAL across all 3 areas-just Pipeline 3,545 Used #s from 8/9/2022 "Att. A-Recommended Sites Inventory" From:Peggy Griffin To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Cc:City Clerk; City Council Subject:Housing Element Survey - Balancing Act - comments so far? Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 11:09:35 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. Hi Luke and Piu, I know y’all are probably very busy with the Housing Element work. Many of us thought that all the comments from the Balancing Act Survey on individual sites would be part of the material for the 8- 16-2022 CC meeting. I, and hopefully many others spent hours commenting on each site. When we submitted our comments, we didn’t get a copy of what we’d submitted (I did give my email). Q: Is there any way to see the comments so far? It might impact future comments submitted before the survey is closed. Q: If it doesn’t make sense to publish the comments so far, when will these comments be made available for Council and the public to view? Making a decision without having this input doesn’t make sense to me. Thank you, Peggy Griffin From:Housing To:City Clerk Cc:Luke Connolly; Ande Flower; Kerri Heusler Subject:FW: Plan for the Housing that Our Schools Desperately Need Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:31:08 AM Good morning, Written Comms received in the Housing inbox, intended for City Council. Thank you, Cyrah Caburian Administrative Assistant Community Development cyrahc@cupertino.org (408) 777-1374 From: Gauri Chawla <gchawla327@student.fuhsd.org> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 9:13 PM To: Housing <Housing@cupertino.org> Cc: ComplianceReview@hcd.ca.gov; HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov; housing@doj.ca.gov Subject: Plan for the Housing that Our Schools Desperately Need 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 have been a Cupertino resident for more than a decade. I am currently a rising junior at Cupertino High School, and I am writing to encourage you to capitalize on the Housing Element as an opportunity to plan for more housing in a way that will strengthen our schools and benefit our community as a whole. I first want to bring to your attention the fact that creating affordable housing will lead to the prospering of our community in Cupertino. It is important to have a fair reflection of this community in the analysis of housing needs. We must endeavor to include as many people in our city as possible in order to better inform the policies and programs the council will need to come up with to remedy housing needs. Moreover, we must establish a thorough criteria for the designation and development of these new houses, and aspire to set aside five to ten percent of new housing units for lower income families. We can reserve such housing in multi-unit apartment buildings. When we create widespread housing opportunities, we encourage families to come to Cupertino for their children’s educational needs. Our schools are losing enrollment. This means less programs for our students no matter how well the district is funded. When we lose students, it translates into worse educational outcomes because our schools aren’t able to support as many beneficial programs without kids to fill classrooms. Our student diversity also declines, which saps the richness from our educational experiences. I was a part of the Cupertino Union School District only three years ago and my brother is still a part of it today. When we create equitable, affordable living spaces for all, we boost enrollment for our schools and encourage our youth to gain the knowledge and opportunities they need to better flourish in our world. Additionally, I encourage the City Council to take advantage of this opportunity to include spaces for youth and members of the community to meet and create connections with each other. Providing vibrant, multi-use spaces will embolden our youth to look to Cupertino for safe spaces to meet and grow. Our council should allow for the height, density, and flexibility for developers to create safe, lively spaces for our community. We must also acknowledge and rectify the difficulties those who are trying to attend universities in the Bay Area are faced with, not the least of which is housing insecurity. Many students look to rent homes in order to further their education, only to be met with high housing costs that are near-impossible to meet. Students should not have to worry about juggling two to three jobs while trying to achieve an education to better their future. We should encourage students in their endeavors in higher education, not only with affordable housing for students, but also with better rental protections as a whole. Teachers are another population segment that would greatly benefit from substantial increases in housing production. When teachers show up to work drained from a crushing commute our students suffer. The same is true for staff and administrators. We should be doing everything we can to plan for significant housing construction including market rate, affordable, and teacher housing close to our schools. Especially the ones that are most rapidly losing the student population. More homes will mean a richer educational experience for our families and a much healthier community overall. I am also the president of the Cupertino High School Anti-Racism Task Force. The historic racism of redlining and discrimination in housing policy is well documented, and Cupertino is no exception. This housing element is our opportunity to enact antiracist policy that gives minority populations the housing opportunities they have historically been denied. This time around, it is indeed the law for us to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. This means planning for, and facilitating, the production of substantially more homes of all types, including ones we have traditionally shunned: the six, eight, and ten story apartment buildings for low income renters and homeowners. We must also build this housing throughout the city, not just concentrated in two or three parts of town. Equitable and affordable housing should be prioritized around resources that are very much needed for members of our community (schools, workplaces, parks, libraries, etc.) Most importantly, I want to strongly encourage the council to reach out to youth when thinking about the Housing Element. We are the ones who are going to be living with your decisions, and alongside many members of our community, we hope you will value our voices and work to create safe, equitable, and affordable housing for ALL. This is our students, our elderly population, our young adults, our working class population, and more. Your decisions regarding the Housing Element shape so many futures, and I implore you to use this power to make housing an exciting prospect for our community, rather than a daunting, arduous task. Thank you for your consideration, Gauri Chawla Cupertino City Center student email provided for educational purposes by Fremont Union HSD From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission Cc:City Clerk Subject:Housing Element Survey - Missing Monta Vista Village completely! Date:Tuesday, August 2, 2022 8:20:43 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, Planning Commission and Housing Commission, In the Housing Element Survey where it lists all the different areas of the city, it is missing the “Monta Vista Village” area completely. All the other areas that have no housing allocated to them are listed with a zero and allow you to comment on whether you agree or not but there is no way to comment on this area because it’s not even listed! https://city-of-cupertino.abalancingact.com/cupertino-available-housing-sites Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission Cc:City Clerk Subject:Housing Element Recommended Sites Excel Spreadsheet Date:Tuesday, August 2, 2022 8:07:14 AM Attachments:image1.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. Dear City Council, Planning Commission and Housing Commission members, The “Final Excel for CC 7-21-22.pdf” which is listed on the Housing Element Survey website page as a “Resource” called “Recommended Sites List” does not have a color index telling the reader what all the different colors mean. Not knowing the color coding it’s confusing to look at the information not knowing whether RED means rejected or important or what? Is WHITE a definitely included site? What does YELLOW mean? What does ORANGE mean? Does one color mean owner interest? That’d be important to know, right? REQUEST: Please have the color index included in the document (not in another document) when it becomes part of the CC agenda material. It doesn’t have to be fancy - just a page with the color index inserted into this PDF would be tremendously helpful. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission Subject:CONFUSED...Housing Element Survey Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 10:03:32 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. City Clerk: Please include this email as part of Written Communications for the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting associated with the Housing Element agenda item. Thank you. Dear City Council, I know more than the average person about the Housing Element and I am thoroughly confused trying to take the survey! I spent all afternoon entering info in “The Balancing Act” but ended up very confused as to whether I’d done the right survey. Are there 2 surveys??? BALANCING ACT SURVEY: I clicked on the City email regarding the “survey” and saw the link to the “balancing act” so I clicked on it. I went area by area reviewing the sites and “submitting” my comments for each response. Luckily, I happened to scroll to the end of EVERYTHING and saw a final submit button that I clicked where it asked for my email address. If I had not done that, I would have assumed that my inputs for each individual site had been recorded BUT that’s not true! AVAILABLE HOUSING SITES: Clicking this looks like it takes you to something very similar to the “Balancing Act”. This is very confusing. Q: Which one is the real “survey”? Q: If I do either one, will it count? CONCERNS: 1. There’s no way to comment generally on each area. 2. There’s no way to input comments on areas that ARE NOT INCLUDED like the Monta Vista Village area or Bubb Rd! 3. The errors that people brought up and identified in April are still present in the material! 4. Some people say they had options to just indicate a smiley face or frown as input on sites. I never saw that. Are they taking the same survey? 5. With the multiple iterations of surveys, etc. Will the Council receive all the comments from all the surveys for each site? 6. What if there are multiple people in a home submitting their individual survey using the same computer – does the survey allow it? RECOMMENDATION: 1. If the “Balancing Act” and the “Available Housing Sites” are actually the same survey, please get rid of one of them! 2. Send a final reminder email with a link DIRECTLY TO THE SURVEY. Don’t take people to an overview page where there’s a lot of stuff on the page and they have to try and figure out where the survey link is. Take them to the survey! 3. Please post the material for the August 16, 2022 Council meeting as soon as it’s ready. It will probably be a lot of material so if you could post the material as soon as it becomes available people could start reviewing it. Make a note that it’s “preliminary” until it’s final. Just give us time to read it, please. I realize this is an enormous task and both the Council, staff and consultant are overworked trying to get to a final resolution. Make it easy for people to submit their comments. Make it clear. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:BAHN Org To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey Cc:City Clerk Subject:comments for housing Elements Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 9:08:11 PM Attachments:housing element comments BAHN 080122.pdf 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 Cupertino Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members, Attached please find our comments for the housing elements Cupertino city likes to discuss. Please feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions. Thanks for reading. Best! Dan Pan BAHN Representative website: BAHN.house Phone: 408-475-8498 BAHN is a non-profit, grassroots organization representing mom and pop housing providers in California. BAHN advocates for private property rights and housing friendly policies. It promotes education and professional development among members for their daily property management needs. It provides a platform for homeowners to connect and help each other. Its mission is to help members achieve greater success in their rental housing business.