CC 09-06-2022 Oral_Written CommunicationsCC 09-06-2022
Written Communications
Oral
Communications
From:Grantis Peranda
To:City Clerk
Subject:We need a more ambitious housing element
Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:47:06 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.
Grantis Peranda
gperanda@scu.edu
1625 Scenic Dr #21
Modesto, California 95355