CC 08-29-22 Item No. 2 Written CommunicationsCC 08-29-2022
Item No. 2
6th Cycle
Housing Element
Update
Written Communications
From:Aditi Shakkarwar
To:City Clerk
Subject:We need a more ambitious housing element
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 4:11:06 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 Kirsten Squarcia,
This is for the Cupertino City Council, staff, and consultants:
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider. I am overall concerned that Cupertino will receive similar criticism from
California HCD because we are similarly overcounting pipeline projects as in the case of San
Francisco https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-California-construction-17368517.php
San Francisco is depending on a number of pipeline projects that they have been unable to
substantiate as being likely to get developed.
To ensure we do not end up repeating the mistakes of San Francisco and subsequently getting
our city into further legal trouble, we should commit to the following:
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an alternate
set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified, and that our
housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without up-
zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help maintain
a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would not
even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Aditi Shakkarwar
ashakkarwar@ucdavis.edu
10369 Normandy Court
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Ayushi S
To:City Clerk
Subject:We need a more ambitious housing element
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 11:07:53 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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
This is for the Cupertino City Council, staff, and consultants:
My name is Ayushi and I'm a long time Cupertino resident (went to Garden Gate, Kennedy and
Monta Vista) and am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key
changes that I urge you to consider. I am overall concerned that Cupertino will receive similar
criticism from California HCD because we are similarly overcounting pipeline projects as in the
case of San Francisco https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-California-construction-
17368517.php San Francisco is depending on a number of pipeline projects that they have
been unable to substantiate as being likely to get developed.
To ensure we do not end up repeating the mistakes of San Francisco and subsequently getting
our city into further legal trouble, we should commit to the following:
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an alternate
set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified, and that our
housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without up-
zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help maintain
a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would not
even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Ayushi S
ayushi_sen@yahoo.com
10341 Tonita Way,
Cupertino, California 95014
From:barris evulich
To:City Council; City Clerk; plug@cupertino.org; Luke Connolly
Cc:roy evulich; barris evulich
Subject:Attachment
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 3:49:39 PM
Attachments:A - August 29 Memorandum from EMC Planning.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 Mr. Mayor, City Council and City Staff
Please add the document attached below to my previous email. It was inadvertently left off.
Thank you,
Barris Evulich
Sent from my iPhone
EMC Planning Group
To: City Council
From: Ande Flower, Principal Planner; Kylie Pope, Associate Planner, EMC Planning Group
Date: August 29, 2022
Re: Sites Inventory Analysis Review- Public Comments
SUMMARY
This memorandum describes public comments submitted to the website survey tool for individual
recommended sites and comments submitted to the Housing Simulator (Balancing Act).
ACTION REQUEST
Consider using this memo and attachment as a guide for reviewing sites to include with the Sites
Inventory for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update.
BACKGROUND
The sites inventory analysis is the first step in the Housing Element update process because it will help
us understand what kind of environmental review may be necessary. The numbering system is now
alphabetized to comply with the Planning Commission’s request to review sites from east to west across
the city.
DISCUSSION
The attached list of comments is summarized with a two-page cover sheet in the order that the sites will
be discussed during the Monday, August 31 Council meeting. A support quotient was used to analyze the
more than 1,000 unique comments shared by the public. The conservative formula for the support
quotient was found by dividing the number of comments that were self-proclaimed as positive support
(“Happy” that this site is included) by the total number of comments received. The total number of
comments includes neutral proclamations and undetermined additional comments that were submitted
through the Balancing Act mapping housing simulator. There was not an option to declare a preferential
response to site inclusion within the mapping tool. Three priorities for Council consideration were
discovered through the process of tabulating public comments:
Priority 1: Sites that received less than 40% favorable response.
Priority 2: Sites that received between 40% and 50% favorability.
Priority 3: Tier 2 sites with favorability levels between 46% and 86%.
EMC Planning Group
Table 1: Priority 1 List of Sites with Lower Favorability Scores
Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Additional Total
Support
Quotient
A-
26a 1 Yes
North Vallco
Park 323 6 1 9 3 19 32%
D-
11a 1 Yes
South
Blaney 65 29 5 47 6 87 33%
K-6c 1 Yes Jollyman 0 7 1 7 3 18 39%
K-6d 1 Yes 21 6 0 7 3 16 38%
M-7a 1 Yes
Monta Vista
North 73 22 5 89 3 119 18%
N-
13a 1 Yes Bubb Road 23 11 4 12 4 31 35%
Total: 505 290 33% Average
The lower favorability coincided with volume of submitted comments. This was particularly true for sites
D11a (10787 & 10891 S Blaney Ave) and M7a (multiple sites at Linda Vista Dr, AKA the Evulich site).
Planning for a deeper discussion about these potential housing sites, the number of units and density
possible, and potential trade-offs that would be necessary if these sites were to be removed from the list
would likely benefit the public interest.
Table 2: Priority 1 List of Sites with Less than 50% Favorability Scores
Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Additional Total
Support
Quotient
B-
24a 1 Yes
Vallco Shopping
District 257 19 3 19 1 42 45%
E-
18c 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(East) 134 6 1 4 2 13 46%
I-
14a 1 Yes
Heart of the City
(West) (was 3a) 22 11 4 8 3 26 42%
L-8a 2
Monta Vista
South 8 10 3 10 2 25 40%
Total: 421 106
43% Average
EMC Planning Group
It is important to consider including Tier 2 sites with the CEQA analysis to continue to enable flexibility of
site selection through the drafting of the final Housing Element update. There are also opportunities to
add these units if some of the Tier 1 sites are subtracted or diminished from the total housing unit number.
Table 3: Priority 3 List of Tier 2 Sites
Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Additional Total
Support
Quotient
E-
18c 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(East)
Total = 194
possible
134 6 1 4 2 13 46%
E-
18d 2 Yes 60 6 0 3 2 11 55%
F-
16a 2 Heart of the City
(Central)
Total = 79 units
possible
23 5 1 3 1 10 50%
F-
16b 2 Yes 24 8 0 2 1 11 73%
F-
16c 2 Yes 32 8 1 1 1 11 73%
G-
15a 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(Crossroads)
Total = 474 units
possible
55 14 2 1 3 20 70%
G-
15b 2 Yes 16 13 0 1 3 17 76%
G-
15c 2 25 9 1 0 4 14 64%
G-
15d 2 314 8 0 2 3 13 62%
G-
15e 2 24 7 1 0 3 11 64%
G-
15f 2 28 6 0 1 7 86%
G-
15g 2 14 7 0 1 3 11 64%
J-
23c 2 Yes South De Anza
Total = 86 units
possible
8 8 2 0 3 13 62%
J-
23e 2 9 7 2 0 4 13 54%
J-23f 2 69 8 1 0 4 13 62%
L-8d 2
Monta Vista
South 1 8 1 1 2 12 67%
M-
7b 2
Monta Vista
North 1 15 3 10 2 30 50%
834 230 58% Average
EMC Planning Group
PROPERTY OWNER INTEREST
Property owner interest is a new consideration for HCD’s analysis of the final site selection.
Understanding this new aspect of the process, we invited property owners of sites that are not located
in geohazard zones that also meet HCD’s generalized property size qualification, between 0.5 acre – 10
acres, to consider whether they have an interest in becoming a potential Housing Element site. Letters
were sent out to all such property owners. This form as also been available to the public, announced at
Public Meetings and on the Engage Cupertino Housing website: https://forms.gle/F7td3SE9bXLjyAPW9.
Opportunities exist for those with properties that are smaller than the generalized size, particularly if
there is a willingness for consolidation among neighboring properties. To date, we have received 59
owner-interest forms, and this information has been integrated with the revised Sites Inventory List.
More than one-third of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites include property owner interest. Of these, we’ve
received Property Owner Interest submittals for 22% of Tier 1 sites, and for 40% of all Tier 2 sites. This
information has been included with the tables provided in the attached Cover Sheet for the public
comments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Cover Sheet and Full List of All Public Comments Received for this Sites Inventory Review
From:Barris Evulich
To:City Council; City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly
Cc:royangie@sbcglobal.net; "Barris Evulich"
Subject:Recommended Sites Inventory Linda Vista Dr. Parcels/Site
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 2:10:24 PM
Attachments:List of recommended Site Inventory (third version for review).pdf
C - Summary of Sites Inventory Changes (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 Members & Planning Staff,
We own the four parcels (2.54 acres of underutilized land) on Linda Vista Drive. Our property
is “Site 7a” on the Recommended Sites Inventory list. We have thoroughly reviewed the
Agenda for the upcoming August 29 & 30, 2022 Council meetings, including all of the Agenda
Item #2 (Housing Element) attachments.
Attachment “A” (the “Memorandum from EMC Planning") dated August 29, 2022, includes
information we believe needs to be corrected or clarified. On page #2 of this Memo
(attached), “Table 1” (site “M-7a") includes an “Owner” column that indicates, “YES”, for our
Parcels. We believe the intent of a “YES” in this column, is to indicate the property owners
support for having their property included on the Recommended Sites Inventory.
Our concern with this “YES”, is that it could be interpreted from this Table 1, that we (the
property owner) are in agreement with the proposed density of 30 du/ac that is currently
shown in the Recommended Sites Inventory list (Attachment “D” in the agenda). We
respectfully communicated our desire that our property not have a 30 du/ac density to the
Council during the public comment period at the August 16, 2022 Council meeting and via an
email to the Council prior to the meeting.
Attachment C, undated “Summary of Sites Inventory Changes” is incomplete because it does
not reflect the change from 15 du/ac for our property on the third Site Inventory revision for
review, Key Map ID #9 (attached).
The Summary of Sites Inventory Changes do not include the 15 du/ac for our property or
explain why and when it was changed. The changes from 15 du/ac, to 20 du/ac to now 30
du/ac were done without any substantive discussions about feasibility by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council during prior meetings that we know of. Respectfully, at the
last Council meeting we shared information after speaking to several developers. While the
30 du/ac density is neither feasible or practical for the neighborhood, taxpayers expect and
HCD requires (Government Code section 64483.2(c)(1) and (2)) that Cupertino and its
consultant architect and EMC will calculate realistic capacity of sites and “must describe the
methodology used to determine the number of units calculated…” when determining
minimum densities.
We cannot support our property on the Recommended Sites Inventory list at 30 du/ac. Our
willingness and desire to have our property included in Cupertino’s Housing Element included
our assumption that a realistic density would be applied to our Linda Vista property. We feel
the density that is most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, while also addressing
the need for more housing in Cupertino is between 15 -20 du/ac.
With respect to our request for a more appropriate density, in the July 5th Joint Planning
Commission & City Council meeting on the Housing Element, a property owner of a site on the
Inventory List expressed concern about the 30 du/ac proposed density on his property. He
made mention that this density was not appropriate and asked for the density to be reduced
to 20 du/ac. The Joint session discussed it and lowered the density to 20 du/ac where it stands
today. We feel our property deserves a similar consideration and outcome.
We look forward to a productive meeting tonight and we appreciate all of your hard work and
diligence throughout this process.
Respectfully,
Barris J. Evulich
Roy Evulich
From:Fares Alharazy
To:City Clerk
Subject:We need a more ambitious housing element
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 2:59:51 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 Kirsten Squarcia,
This is for the Cupertino City Council, staff, and consultants:
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider. I am overall concerned that Cupertino will receive similar criticism from
California HCD because we are similarly overcounting pipeline projects as in the case of San
Francisco https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-California-construction-17368517.php
San Francisco is depending on a number of pipeline projects that they have been unable to
substantiate as being likely to get developed.
To ensure we do not end up repeating the mistakes of San Francisco and subsequently getting
our city into further legal trouble, we should commit to the following:
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an alternate
set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified, and that our
housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without up-
zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help maintain
a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would not
even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Fares Alharazy
faresalharazy@gmail.com
1390 17th St
San Francisco , California 94122
From:Michael Northrop
To:City Clerk
Subject:We need a more ambitious housing element
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 1:40:36 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 Kirsten Squarcia,
This is for the Cupertino City Council, staff, and consultants:
I have been living in Cupertino and Sunnyvale since 2017, and working in Cupertino since
2011. Housing here costs too much because we aren't building enough inventory to keep up
with increasing demand. My daughters are starting college and won't come back because it's
too expensive. We need to start building much higher density multi-unit homes (at least 5-12
stories or more) in specific areas (De Anza College, Apple Park, etc.) to handle all the workers,
students, & retirees who make up this place. I would like the council to push for this, so we can
be an all-inclusive community for all income levels, without adding more cars.
All commercial areas (e.g. De Anza & Stevens Creek), should be designated for residential
AND commercial, so that housing can be built on top of the retail level.
I am also writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that
I urge you to consider. I am overall concerned that Cupertino will receive similar criticism from
California HCD because we are similarly overcounting pipeline projects as in the case of San
Francisco https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-California-construction-17368517.php
San Francisco is depending on a number of pipeline projects that they have been unable to
substantiate as being likely to get developed.
To ensure we do not end up repeating the mistakes of San Francisco and subsequently getting
our city into further legal trouble, we should commit to the following:
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an alternate
set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified, and that our
housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without up-
zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help maintain
a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would not
even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices. Thank you!
Michael Northrop
mikenorthrop@me.com
858 Groton Ct
Sunnyvale, California 94087
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Clerk
Subject:Former De Anza student for an ambitious housing element
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 4:33:58 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 Kirsten Squarcia,
I am a former De Anza College student—I transferred in 2017 to UC Berkeley. I strongly
support an ambitious housing element, so that we can (1) meet the housing needs of De Anza
students, faculty, and workers, and (2) meaningfully address racism and segregation in the
South Bay. The current status of the draft housing element is not sufficiently ambitious to
accomplish this.
As a former De Anza student, I have seen my fellow peers deal with housing insecurity and
homelessness. We should plan for more homes at all incoming levels near the College to meet
our needs. Home and rental prices in Cupertino have risen dramatically over the past several
years, making it impossible for most young people to move back here after college.
The median home price has more than doubled in the past decade, at nearly $2.5 million
dollars. Rents are typically above 3,000 a month, meaning that even a household making over
$100,000 annually would be cost-burdened to rent a typical apartment in Cupertino.
These numbers make it clear—students and our housing needs must be part of the housing
element conversation. The programs, policies, and zoning that Cupertino advances should
therefore be tailored to our needs.
77% of the homes planned to account for Cupertino's 6th Cycle RHNA come from pipeline
projects. Two pipeline projects in particular account for the bulk of that figure: 2402 homes at
Vallco/The Rise, and 600 net new homes at The Hamptons. Combined, these two projects
constitute some 84% of all pipeline project homes. Both have been approved for a number of
years (2018 and 2016, respectively), but, to date, neither has built a single new home.
In effect, this is allowing Cupertino to avoid having to plan for affordable housing on several
sites near De Anza College, by falling back on thousands of pipeline units—many of which the
city is unable to demonstrate are likely to be built during the planning period.
The City must do all three of the following to realistically meet the housing needs of our
cherished community college:
Optimize Planning for the Community
Plan our city around people. Reduce burdensome costs, fees, and unnecessary requirements
that make it difficult to build and scale affordable housing projects.
Promote Sustainable Housing
Incentivize mixed-use, efficient, walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented housing options by
strengthening our Heart of the City Plan—which dictates what can be built on Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Protect our Communities
Center the housing needs of those who already work, play, and teach in Cupertino, but cannot
afford to live here. Protect our vulnerable renters and homeowners.
Upzoning: As a young person, I am OK with taller buildings being part of Cupertino’s future,
and I also do not believe Cupertino is “full”. If we allow developers to build up and out, we can
make much better use of limited land and allow for more families of all backgrounds and
incomes to be here.
Neil Park-McClintick
cupertinoforall@gmail.com
801 Miller Avenue
CUPERTINO, California 95014
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; HousingCommission
Subject:2022-08-29 CC Mtg Item 2-HE sites REMOVE sites 15x shopping center from HE list!
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 10:15:39 AM
Attachments:image0.pngimage1.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,
PLEASE remove one of our few remaining successful shopping centers from the HE site inventory completely! It’s the shopping center at the intersection of Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd.
The public only wanted Fontana’s and Pizza Hut on the list as a Tier 1, not the entire area! They just “popped on the list” after all the PC/HC meetings.
Site 15c is Fontana’sSite 15d = TJ MaxSite 15e = Staples - the only office supply store in miles!Site 15f = Dish n’ DashSite 15g = ??? Same address as 15c. How can that be?
This is a MAJOR SHOPPING area with Home Goods, Party City, Sprouts, etc.. Don’t even put it on Tier 2! PLEASE REMOVE IT!
Attached are screen shots of the map and the explanation of them suddenly appearing. Everybody wanted the Pizza Hut site and Fontana’s sites on Tier 1 but not our thriving shopping area!
IMPORTANT NOTE: If Pizza Hut can’t be put on the list by itself without the entire center then don’t put it on at all. (Piu said it’s part of the entire shopping center.)
Sincerely,Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission
Subject:2022-08-29 CC Mtg Item 2 - HE Site Selection PLEASE READ AS PUBLIC COMMENT
Date:Sunday, August 28, 2022 11:17:01 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the following into Written Communication AND read the following during public
comment during the 8-29-2022 Monday City Council meeting, Agenda Item #2 Housing Element Site
Selection.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
Dear City Council and Staff,
I will be unable to attend Monday and Tuesday night’s meeting but strongly request that you do the
following:
Distribute the sites equitably across the city.
Preserve our Neighborhood Commercial Centers. Find old office buildings instead! When our
density increases the need for these retail centers will increase substantially. We need them
to enable our city to thrive and make it walkable from homes nearby. Do not put our
neighborhood commercial centers on the chopping block! If you pick these sites, REQUIRE
that the 1st floor be 80% of total existing square footage retail and that at a minimum, there is
at least as much retail square footage as exists today! Right now
the center at S. Blaney and Prospect is on the list
the center at Homestead Rd and Stelling is on the list
Recently we’ve lost
The center at Foothill Expressway and Stevens Creek due to staff.
The center at Foothill and McClellan has been reduced significantly.
Remember, any HE site is then eligible to be an SB35 site. Make sure the sites you pick can
reasonably handle an SB35 project.
Remember, the 30 du/acre is the minimum density the HCD considers possible for sites that might
have affordable housing. That’s why the push for 30 du/acre BUT not every site is capable of
handling that density. Please be reasonable!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:scemail777@gmail.com
To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Cc:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:8/29 Housing Element Council Meeting - "Suggestions" (for Public Record)
Date:Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:57:13 AM
Attachments:Ordina_HCD Comment Letter.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.
Hi Luke & Piu…first and foremost…for whatever it’s worth, I think you are both working really hard
on this process. It’s a ton to handle and I know you have questions coming from you at every angle
and always need to be on your toes with the correct response/guidance. Thankfully, this period only
comes around once every 8 years!
Below are just some simple suggestions that could have some merit for the upcoming meeting on
8/29. I feel like I need to proactively put these thoughts in writing because all of the suggestions
below have been made publicly in the past and the consultant has never responded publicly and has
never implemented any of these. I think they are simple, factual and fair requests to be made, to
help insure a programmatic & transparent public process.
I hope that you find some value in the email below. There is still time to get this right for the 8/29
meeting and I would urge you to challenge Andy and his team to be better, more responsive and
more coordinated. These are not new criticisms. Chair Scharff publicly expressed (at PC) some of his
frustration at the process on a number of occasions, months ago, as did Ray Wang (PC), but to no
avail.
Below are just a couple of thoughts on really easy updates the consultant could do, in advance of the
8/29 Housing Element discussion. As you know, for this meeting on 8/29, it’s critical to get off to the
right start so that Council & the Public know and are in support of how the process & dialogue will
play out that night.
I’d like this email to also be included, and the attachment on the Public Comments or Record for the
August 29th Council meeting on the Housing Element. I’ve cc’d the city clerk..
Consultant Presentation (at the beginning of the meeting)
1. Walk Council through how the process of looking at sites will go tonight
a. It’s important to let the public know when they’ll be able to comment, how often and
for how many minutes.
b. It would also be good to get a detailed list of what additional specific public outreach
has been done since the early July Joint PC/CC meeting.
i. In the past, when the consultant is asked about this, they give “generic
answers” and often point to the online Housing Simulator.
1. I’ve tried to use tool this in the past, and I have had a really hard time
understanding how to use it and its purpose.
1. Summarize the items of most importance for Council to consider when weighing in on sites
a. Unit shortage (in the current Staff Report from 8/16) of 833 Very Low units & 655
Moderate units
i. Consultant should talk about things to consider in order to make up this
shortfall
1. What’s unclear to me is how the current Non-Pipeline projects effect the
Very Low & Moderate unit shortages, that were noted in the Staff Report
from 8/16.
a. Is the intent that if all the Tier 1 sites on the current Recommended
Sites Inventory were approved by Council, there would NOT be a
shortage of Very Low & Moderate units?
i. If that is the case, I think you need to show
how many VL, L, M, AM units each site on the list is
going to have…that’s the only way to prove out that
the current list is meeting that shortage of Very Low
& Moderate units. Right now, with the information
that is provided, it’s impossible to tell how the Non-
Pipeline sites are impacting this shortage of VL & M
units.
Small things the Consultant could do in the next 5 days in order to better prepare for an efficient
meeting
1. Add a “Height” column (in feet, not stories) on the Recommended Sites Inventory
(Attachment A from the Staff Report)
a. When these projects go through Planning & Building, I would imagine these two
departments will evaluate projects in height and not stories
2. Add a “Owner Interest” column on the Recommended Sites Inventory
a. There should be 3 possible answers
i. “YES”: Means that an owner has expressed an interest in having their
property included
ii. “NO”: Means that an owner has expressed that they do not want their
property on the list
iii. “TBD”: No contact (in favor of OR against inclusion on the list) with
property owner
Adding Height & Owner Interest would take one person probably no more than 1 hour to update on
the Recommended Sites Inventory.
3. Neighborhood Map Series (Attachment “D” from the Staff Report)
a. This map should have call-out boxes (see my attached example of a call out box for
one property) for every property, on each sheet.
i. The call out boxes should contain the following information
*Note: Items 1-4 & 6 (below) are all currently known and shown on the Recommended Sites Inventory
Sheet. Items 5 & 7 (below) are known as well, and are listed on the Consultants “Cupertino Sites
Overview” document (Attachment “B” in the Staff Report).
1. Address:
2. Land Area:
3. Current Max du/ac:
4. Proposed Min du/ac:
5. Proposed Height (in feet):
6. Total Proposed Units:
7. Owner Interest:
If you had a call out box for each property, on each page of this Map Series, you could literally use
the Map Series sheets as the basis of Council/Public discussion for each area and you would not have
to toggle back and forth between, maps, excel sheets and Attachment B. This would probably take
one person, one day to complete (if that).
Even if these updates could not be completed for a few days, staff can always just go back online and
update the Staff Report with the updated Attachments, right? That happens all the time (w/last
minute updates) especially with recently received Public Comments.
Lastly, I’ve included the HCD response letter to the City of Orinda’s draft housing element that was
submitted to HCD in early May 2022. To my knowledge, it’s the only city in the Bay Area that has
actually received an HCD comment letter to date. I think the letter will give you a sense of “how”
HCD might respond and the overall general content/detail they are responding with.
Just my two cents…looking forward to a productive meeting on 8/29.
Thank you.
Scott
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 12, 2022
Drummond Buckley, Director
Planning Department
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way, 1st Floor
Orinda, CA 94563
Dear Drummond Buckley:
RE: City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Orinda’s (City) draft housing element received for
review on May 16, 2022 along with revisions received on August 2, 2022. Pursuant to
Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review
was facilitated by a conversation on July 26, 2022 with Winnie Mui of your staff and
consultants Lucy Rollins and Jennifer Gastelum. In addition, HCD considered
comments from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance pursuant to Government Code
section 65585, subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be
necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing
Element Law.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if
a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the
statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be
completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local
government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law,
and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government
Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a
compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element
cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of
sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c),paragraph (1),
subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are
completed.
Drummond Buckley, Planning Director
Page 2
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly
available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be
aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website
and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested
notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before
submitting to HCD.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing
element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding
sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing
element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes
the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical
Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State
Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical
assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at
Jamillah.Williams@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1
August 12, 2022
APPENDIX
CITY OF ORINDA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance
tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the
Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with
Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in
the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A))
Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: While the element does include
data on overcrowded households, substandard housing conditions, and cost burdened
households, it must also include an analysis including demographic data for persons
experiencing homelessness. The element should analyze the data including looking at
trends, patterns, and other local knowledge, and conclude with a summary of issues.
Site Inventory and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must
include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the regional housing
need allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in an AFFH manner.
Currently all lower-income sites and higher density multifamily opportunities are
concentrated in the Downtown Precise Plan. The element should discuss the impact of
concentrating all the lower income units in one area. The element should also discuss
whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate
conditions, the element should identify further program mitigation actions that will be taken
(e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in other higher opportunity areas).
Contributing Factors: While the element lists contributing factors that create, contribute to,
perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues and are fundamental to
adequate goals and actions, the identified factors must be prioritized.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the
planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an
analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2
August 12, 2022
Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The element
indicates (p. 128) that 8 units affordable to very low-income households, 30 units
affordable to low-income households, and 13 units affordable to moderate income
households have been built or are under construction or approved but provides no
information demonstrating affordability of the units. As you know, the City’s RHNA may be
reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must
describe the City’s methodology for assigning these units to the various income groups
based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g.,
deed-restrictions) and demonstrate their availability in the planning period.
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included
in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the
element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence, especially
for development with units affordable to lower-income households, to support mixed-use
development in the Downtown Precise Plan area where the majority of sites are identified
to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. The estimate of the number of units for each
site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site
improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a
similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and
accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element also needs to analyze
the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones
that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). This analysis should consider the
likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends
supporting residential development.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element identifies nonvacant sites to
accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households in the Downtown
Precise Plan, it provides little description of the potential for redevelopment. Additionally,
while the element states the City has been in contact with property owners, it does not
specify if the owners are interested in redevelopment. The element must describe the
methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning
period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses
may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions,
any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent
redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and regulatory or other
incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.
(Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also
describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the
redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the
inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and
the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment.
For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory-
analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#analysis.
In addition, for the identified church sites, the element briefly describes the Vista Verde
project. The element should describe any history of developing housing on church sites in
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3
August 12, 2022
addition to this project. To strengthen this analysis, the element should tie Vista Verde’s
development experience to the characteristics of the 2-3 proposed sites, noting similarities
in conditions and describing those churches’ degree of interest in residential development.
If the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent
of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that
the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning
period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution)
based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional
residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to
accommodate the RHNA.
Caltrans Sites: As noted in the element, sites currently owned by Caltrans are not currently
listed as surplus or excess property. In addition, while the element includes Action 1.B to
work with Caltrans to decertify the site, it is unclear whether the site will be declared
excess or surplus and be available for housing within the planning period. Absent further
evidence that Caltrans will dispose of this site within the planning period, this site should
not be utilized to accommodate the RHNA.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element must demonstrate permit processing,
development, and management standards are objective and encourage and
facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. In particular, the
element must analyze the occupancy limit of seven clients per night. In addition,
emergency shelter spacing requirements appear to require siting beyond the
development standards allowed under housing element law. Emergency shelters
must only be subject to the same development and management standards that
apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except for
those standards prescribed by statute. The element must also clarify the existing
uses of the four sites identified for potential shelter sites and whether they have the
potential capacity for adaptive reuse.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element indicates the City modified its zoning
code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review
of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent
with State ADU law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance
issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to
update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law. For more
information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020,
which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU
development.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as
identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4
August 12, 2022
developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The analysis must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use
controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum
densities and cost and supply of housing. The analysis should also describe past or
current efforts to remove identified governmental constraints and include programs to
address or remove any identified constraints. The element should analyze the minimum lot
width and depth in the Residential Medium Density (RM) zone and the Senior Housing
(SH) overlay as well as the height limit of 27 feet in most zoning districts as constraints
and add or revise programs as needed. Further, the element states that ten dwelling units
per acre may be a barrier to mixed-use development in the Downtown Zone but did not
include a plan or program to address this potential constraint.
In addition, the element must clarify how the High-Density Overlay Zone interacts with the
General Plan maximum density of ten dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to conversations
with City staff, their appears that the City will initiate a general plan amendment along with
the rezone to match densities proposed in the new overlay zones. The element should
include this information either in the analysis or part of Program X and describe and
analyze all zoning standards for the overlay
Growth Management Requirements: The element states “The Growth Management
section meets the Contra Costa County mandate established by voter-approved Measures
C and J,” but provides no explanation of the mandate or Measures C and J. The element
must identify and analyze these regulations as potential constraints on a variety of housing
types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobile homes, transitional housing.
Planned Development: The element indicates that multifamily development may occur
through Planned Development (PD) but should clarify if this process is optional. If it is not,
the element must describe and analyze the permit processing procedures impacts as
potential constraints on housing supply and affordability, particularly for residential
development affordable to lower-income households. The analysis must describe approval
procedures and decision-making criteria, and whether they are discretionary approvals.
Local Processing Procedures: While the element describes the approval process for
residential development, it must clarify if the process applies to both single family and
multifamily developments. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building
Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-
blocks/constraints/processing-permitting-procedures.shtml.
Fees and Exactions: The element must describe all required fees for single family and
multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as
potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. The element should also describe
annexation, development agreement, and environmental fees as well as provide estimates
for typical total costs in relation to the listed hourly staff charges. In addition, while the
element lists the proportion of fees for multifamily and single-family developments, the fees
for multifamily development are much higher and should be analyzed as a constraint.
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5
August 12, 2022
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element describes the process
for a reasonable accommodation where the accommodation seems to be only for a limited
term. The element must clarify whether the reasonable accommodation expires and if so,
whether that complies with state law and federal fair housing guidance.
4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, the cost of construction... (Gov. Code, §65583, sub (a)(6).)
Land Costs: While the element identifies land costs from 2014. The element must update
land costs to reflect current conditions.
Construction Costs: While the element provides typical construction costs for single family
homes, it should also include the typical cost for multifamily construction.
B. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each
with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are
ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning
period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the
policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code,
§ 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1-6),
and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s
specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives,
quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials.
Programs to be revised include the following:
• Action 3.B (Extremely Low-Income Housing) should describe which regulatory
incentives will be expanded and include a timeline for implementation.
• Action 3.E (Objective Design Standards) should revise the implementation
timeframe to reflect the expenditure deadline of the funding source (SB 2).
• Action 4.B (Development Review and Processing Procedures) should include
implementing actions associated with the review.
• Action 4.E (Revised Parking Standards) currently states that “possible approval”
would occur in 2025. The action should commit to specific parking revisions by a
specific date.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with
appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for
each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6
August 12, 2022
completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply
with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as
needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all
income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes,
housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units,
emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore,
the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete
sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a
shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition,
the element should be revised as follows:
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: The element must include a program for vacant
sites identified in two of more consecutive planning periods’ housing elements or
nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are currently identified to
accommodate housing for lower-income households. The program must be implemented
within the first year or three years of the planning period, whichever is applicable, and
commit to zoning that will meet the density requirements for housing for lower-income
households and allow by-right approval for housing developments that include 20 percent
or more of its units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd.
(c).)
Nonvacant Sites Reliance to Accommodate RHNA: As the element relies upon nonvacant
sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should
include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program
could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to
encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites.
Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and
reducing appropriate development standards. For additional information, see the Building
Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program-
requirements/identify-adequate-sites.shtml.
Program 4.A (Amend Development Standards to Remove Constraints): While the program
includes a specific commit to allow supportive housing as a permitted use without
discretionary review in zones where multifamily and mixed-use developments are
permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, it should reference
the correct Statutory Citation for AB 2162 (Gov. Code, § 65650).
3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for
housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons
with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7
August 12, 2022
As noted in Findings A3 and A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or
mitigate any identified constraints.
4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon
the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs to sufficiently
respond to contributing factors to fair housing issues. In addition, Action 5.A (Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing) must include specific metrics to demonstrate how actions will
result in quantifiable outcomes.
C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic
segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element
shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)
While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (pp. 6-10), it
must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the
community in the development of the housing element. The element could describe the efforts
to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and
organizations that represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element
throughout the process. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments
and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element.
From:Sean Hughes
To:City Clerk
Subject:Commentary on Housing Element Progress & Site Inventory
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 3:53:44 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 Kirsten Squarcia,
This is for the Cupertino City Council, staff, and consultants.
As a former resident, and one who was actively discourage from moving back to Cupertino in
the past due to high rental costs, I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, and
general progress in the Housing Element update.
As you will likely see in other public commentary, there are several critical changes that I urge
all involved to consider. In light of HCD's critique on SF's HE draft, we should reconsider our
reliance on - or strengthen the evidence of feasibility within the HE time period of - our many
pipeline projects.
In general, as previously expressed through both written and oral communications, there
seems to be a fundamental lack of ambition in, and misunderstanding on the goals of, the
Housing Element process. While any given city doesn't directly build housing, we should still
consider the number of actual units built over the past cycle as hard evidence that clearly,
something is wrong with the development environment the City has created though municipal
codes and political actions.
To build for a more inclusive Cupertino, we need more housing, particularly denser and larger
projects in order to get economies of scale and drive down or even just stabalize rental rates.
Furthermore, to avoid further legal risk, we should commit to the following:
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects, and Strengthen Feasibility Evidence for those Already
Included
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an alternate
set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified, and that our
housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and “the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the
extent feasible” are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites
zoned for multi-family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the
city without up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building
affordable housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through
other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help maintain
a balance of sites. Please strive to add more sites inside the Heart of the City, and consider
what factors might be hindering more applications from coming in.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would not
even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please strive to work for a more sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, while also furthering fair housing practices.
Sean Hughes
jxseanhughes@gmail.com
5621 22nd Ave NW
Seattle, Washington 98107